3 ms·

It is interesting that many HNers describe this work as incredibly valuable, whereas they would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar, when they off

by pyrale 10y ago

It is interesting that many HNers describe this work as incredibly valuable, whereas they would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar, when they offer better vision on the same topics. In particular, Dalio's anthropocentrism towards nature, evolution and the convergence he establishes between such human concepts as good and evil and subjective perception of outcomes make his work look shallow and flawed. Overall, I think that his document works more towards justifying his situation than explaining it. If anything, I would suggest reading Spinoza as much as possible rather than this.

nine_k 10y ago
Humanities and social sciences are not subpar topics. But the actual execution is often, mmm, duboius and/or biased. This probably holds equally for natural sciences, but these latter have the fortune of rather easier checking against reality.
Terretta 10y ago
> HNers would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar Curious assertion -- is that true? I know I prefer to hire engineers with at least some humanities background.
- pyrale 10y ago
  I would not put all HNers in one basket, but I have noticed on topics about studies, and on several societal topics that there is a tendency in our community to put hard sciences to the pinnacle, and to overlook the benefits of humanities. The extreme manifestation of this phenomenon is, to me, the SV creed of engineers disrupting the society for the best. I was lucky enough to have someone show me this, and now I try to spend a fair amount of my time educating myself not only in my field but also in philosophy, sociology, etc. I am happy to discover these now, rather than after a life of making things I would regret.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    There are many good principles that come from social sciences and such. The problems are: 1. It's difficult to make a career in it unless you apply it in a non-traditional way. Many kids are often misled by that. 2. There is a lack of rigor, politics-under-the-color-of-science and experimental reproducibility problems in the humanities and social sciences, and it's the negative downside you have to look out for. 3. Postmodernism tends to be toxic and makes you ineffective. People repulsed by it go into more concrete things like STEM by instinct when they are young.
- rhizome 10y ago
  No, it is not true, there's just a fad going on to condescend about stereotypical HNers in a strawman fashion.
jrapdx3 10y ago
I definitely concur re: Spinoza whose work is still controversial and fundamental to what is regarded as "modern" thought. HN readers are likely to appreciate the logic of his work in its geometric proof form, though a number of translations are freely available on the web. Spinoza's Ethics was highly influential on philosophers and scientists of the subsequent centuries, Einstein among them as he openly acknowledged.
mbrock 10y ago
The opening paragraphs of Spinoza's Ethics: I. By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body. III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception. IV. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance. V. By mode, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself. ... I mean, this kind of book is very hard work to even get a cursory grasp of, which might explain why many readers prefer clearly-explained contemporary texts by experienced people from their field of work.

by pyrale 10y ago

nine_k 10y ago

Humanities and social sciences are not subpar topics. But the actual execution is often, mmm, duboius and/or biased. This probably holds equally for natural sciences, but these latter have the fortune of rather easier checking against reality.

Terretta 10y ago

> HNers would describe humanities and social sciences as subpar Curious assertion -- is that true? I know I prefer to hire engineers with at least some humanities background.

pyrale 10y ago
I would not put all HNers in one basket, but I have noticed on topics about studies, and on several societal topics that there is a tendency in our community to put hard sciences to the pinnacle, and to overlook the benefits of humanities. The extreme manifestation of this phenomenon is, to me, the SV creed of engineers disrupting the society for the best. I was lucky enough to have someone show me this, and now I try to spend a fair amount of my time educating myself not only in my field but also in philosophy, sociology, etc. I am happy to discover these now, rather than after a life of making things I would regret.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  There are many good principles that come from social sciences and such. The problems are: 1. It's difficult to make a career in it unless you apply it in a non-traditional way. Many kids are often misled by that. 2. There is a lack of rigor, politics-under-the-color-of-science and experimental reproducibility problems in the humanities and social sciences, and it's the negative downside you have to look out for. 3. Postmodernism tends to be toxic and makes you ineffective. People repulsed by it go into more concrete things like STEM by instinct when they are young.
rhizome 10y ago
No, it is not true, there's just a fad going on to condescend about stereotypical HNers in a strawman fashion.

jrapdx3 10y ago

I definitely concur re: Spinoza whose work is still controversial and fundamental to what is regarded as "modern" thought. HN readers are likely to appreciate the logic of his work in its geometric proof form, though a number of translations are freely available on the web. Spinoza's Ethics was highly influential on philosophers and scientists of the subsequent centuries, Einstein among them as he openly acknowledged.

mbrock 10y ago

The opening paragraphs of Spinoza's Ethics: I. By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body. III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception. IV. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance. V. By mode, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself. ... I mean, this kind of book is very hard work to even get a cursory grasp of, which might explain why many readers prefer clearly-explained contemporary texts by experienced people from their field of work.