4 ms·

>tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives Can someone here comment on the veracity of this statement? I was never smart or disciplin

>tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives Can someone here comment on the veracity of this statement? I was never smart or disciplined enough to attend college but I do have the good fortune of working with a large number of engineers. Many of them attended extremely highly ranked universities and it seems, from my talking with them on the subject of college education, that all of them took at least some introductory courses in the humanities/social sciences. Some of them are extremely well read and passionate about a number of non-science related topics. Even my coworker that attended Caltech, about as STEM focused a school as you'll find based on what I've heard, double majored in ME and History. I admit I could just be working in a unique place, but I find it hard to believe most people working in tech have no exposure to collegiate level soft science courses, or that they are singularly focused on tech related issues. Slightly off topic but regarding the whole tech bro term, this has never really sat well with me. For one, it seems to be used to disparage a particular demographic , which I generally find uncivil, but it also doesn't seem very accurate to me, particularly in this instance. For better or worse, when I think tech bro, I usually imagine the more frat-like college educated guys flocking to tech for the pay, but probably not working in the actual tech side of things. I usually imagine more finance and biz dev types. Maybe this is equally unkind on my part. Ironically, I image those people come from a more humanities/soft sciences background.

door 9y ago
that's cool that you know so many people with diverse education, but the absolute ignorance of and disdain towards the social sciences in this thread definitely does not challenge the tech bro stereotype
- pacala 9y ago
  For example, somebody detected (and published) a 53% extrasensory perception effect (ESP, predict the future), using "methodological sound" social sciences techniques, https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-prove.... The field is marred with systemic issues, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Replication_rates_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Replication... > A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[35] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below .05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies. > The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [JPSP], Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition [JEP:LMC], Psychological Science [PSCI]) and discipline (social psychology, cognitive psychology). Study replication rates were 23% for JPSP, 38% for JEP:LMC, and 38% for PSCI. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
  - adrienne 9y ago
    And yet half the people in here are citing Jordan Peterson as if he's an expert.

door 9y ago

that's cool that you know so many people with diverse education, but the absolute ignorance of and disdain towards the social sciences in this thread definitely does not challenge the tech bro stereotype

pacala 9y ago
For example, somebody detected (and published) a 53% extrasensory perception effect (ESP, predict the future), using "methodological sound" social sciences techniques, https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-prove.... The field is marred with systemic issues, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Replication_rates_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Replication... > A report by the Open Science Collaboration in August 2015 that was coordinated by Brian Nosek estimated the reproducibility of 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals.[35] Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below .05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies. > The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [JPSP], Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition [JEP:LMC], Psychological Science [PSCI]) and discipline (social psychology, cognitive psychology). Study replication rates were 23% for JPSP, 38% for JEP:LMC, and 38% for PSCI. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).
- adrienne 9y ago
  And yet half the people in here are citing Jordan Peterson as if he's an expert.