7 ms·

80% of humanities papers are never cited once. 80%. That. is. appalling. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates

80% of humanities papers are never cited once. 80%. That. is. appalling. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/aca... Social "science" is even more terrifying in my view. 25% of social sciencist identity as Marxist. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... I don't know how anyone can see these statistics and not think that there is a crisis. I nearly took history at undergraduate. My colleague has an English degree but now works in CS with me. What's shocking is that, at age 16, we're meant to make these huge decisions for our lives and we really have no clue about the ramifications.

orhmeh09 8y ago
Your link on Marxism does not say social scientists are 25% Marxist. Even if they were, what’s the problem?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  You're right, it doesn't say that. But it says that sociology has 25.5%.
thesagan 8y ago
A lot of them are Marxists because they’ve studied it. I’m not exactly Marxist but I’m more terrified by those who judge his works without having legitimately studied it critically and in depth under supervision. He’s a lightning rig for prejudice and too many people equate Marx with Stalin, or believe him to have caused Stalin.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  He's not the same as Stalin, but he certainly caused him. Marx was basically the founder of a secular religion and like the theistic kind, religions attract scoundrels because they see it as a way to power. Stalin himself studied to be a priest before he changed religions.
  - thesagan 8y ago
    Marx wasn't the first, and he wasn't the last to argue for a community/worker owned and operated economic system. He's just the best known. He might have co-written written a manifesto, but had he not another would very likely have. It was a long time coming. But that's really besides my point. Importantly, Marx did not advocate for a totalitarian political regime. That's a big deal, because that's a defining element of Stalinism. Marx didn't cause that aspect; the aspect that people actually detest. Stalin did. His military underlings did. I'll say it again, because it's very misunderstood, generally speaking: Marx did not advocate totalitarianism. Another underlying point is that violent men come from many places, and given the conditions of early 20th century Russia, I would argue the Russians would have had their violent revolution and totalitarian regime, Marxism or not. Like the French had happen to them. Violence begets violence, and Russia, under their monarchy, was an ugly place and had been for a very long time. So, Stalin was probably coming no matter what, I hate to say. And he was a totalitarian, unlike Marx. Interesting side note: Stalin was a darling in the U.S. before we demonized him after we were done with the War. Kind of like Saddam Hussein.
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      But what would Stalin be without Marx? A minor unpleasant priest in a small Georgian town? Yes, Marx wasn't the first or last promoter of socialism. And yet the followers of, for example, Charles Fourier, didn't create totalitarian systems.
    - vixen99 8y ago
      Karl Marx (Capital) “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property ..." Did a military underling write that? Try asking anyone at all what their views are on a suggested policy saying "we will make it impossible for you to own private property!" It's delusional to imagine that such a program could not be accomplished without a totalitarian revolution.
      - genericid 8y ago
        Do you understand the difference between private and personal property?
- trolleyhacker 8y ago
  Marx should be "studied ... under supervision?" Such study should be done "legitimately?" Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, but that sounds a lot like indoctrination and elitism.
UncleMeat 8y ago
Being a marxist social scientist does not mean that you support a communist political system. It means that you use class as a lens to analyze your data.
- Moodles 8y ago
  Hah, it's interesting to see my comment cause some controversy on HN :-) I'm not saying social scientists are pro-Stalian or other suggested nonsense in some comments. I'm merely saying that, compared to every other subject, it is shocking to me that such a high proportion identity as Marxist as it is a relatively extreme political belief. It seems analogous to a high proportion of biologists being creationist. In fact, almost every single social scientist is left wing. That and 80% of humanities papers being sent into a vacuum never to be cited again, suggests to me that there is a crisis.
  - silveroriole 8y ago
    Maybe the idea that a high proportion of social scientists end up describing themselves as Marxist should make you reconsider your view of Marx, rather than dismiss the social scientists as equivalent to creationists?
    - jobobgo 8y ago
      This is a fallacy of majority. Most people also believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. Marx got the labor theory of production wrong. He blames the capitalists for unjustly acquiring the "means of production" and uses that as an excuse for violently stealing and murdering those people. He would literally insist that you must have stolen for someone because you have a successful 1-man blog earning lots of money. His argument is that it is nit the capitalist (blog writer) that is responsible for profit.... but the ISP, computer manufacturing factory workers, etc. And from there would support stealing what you earn because you must have exploited somebody to gain wealth. Pure evil class hatred
      - genericid 8y ago

orhmeh09 8y ago

Your link on Marxism does not say social scientists are 25% Marxist. Even if they were, what’s the problem?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
You're right, it doesn't say that. But it says that sociology has 25.5%.

thesagan 8y ago

A lot of them are Marxists because they’ve studied it. I’m not exactly Marxist but I’m more terrified by those who judge his works without having legitimately studied it critically and in depth under supervision. He’s a lightning rig for prejudice and too many people equate Marx with Stalin, or believe him to have caused Stalin.

jhbadger 8y ago
He's not the same as Stalin, but he certainly caused him. Marx was basically the founder of a secular religion and like the theistic kind, religions attract scoundrels because they see it as a way to power. Stalin himself studied to be a priest before he changed religions.
- thesagan 8y ago
  Marx wasn't the first, and he wasn't the last to argue for a community/worker owned and operated economic system. He's just the best known. He might have co-written written a manifesto, but had he not another would very likely have. It was a long time coming. But that's really besides my point. Importantly, Marx did not advocate for a totalitarian political regime. That's a big deal, because that's a defining element of Stalinism. Marx didn't cause that aspect; the aspect that people actually detest. Stalin did. His military underlings did. I'll say it again, because it's very misunderstood, generally speaking: Marx did not advocate totalitarianism. Another underlying point is that violent men come from many places, and given the conditions of early 20th century Russia, I would argue the Russians would have had their violent revolution and totalitarian regime, Marxism or not. Like the French had happen to them. Violence begets violence, and Russia, under their monarchy, was an ugly place and had been for a very long time. So, Stalin was probably coming no matter what, I hate to say. And he was a totalitarian, unlike Marx. Interesting side note: Stalin was a darling in the U.S. before we demonized him after we were done with the War. Kind of like Saddam Hussein.
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    But what would Stalin be without Marx? A minor unpleasant priest in a small Georgian town? Yes, Marx wasn't the first or last promoter of socialism. And yet the followers of, for example, Charles Fourier, didn't create totalitarian systems.
  - vixen99 8y ago
    Karl Marx (Capital) “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property ..." Did a military underling write that? Try asking anyone at all what their views are on a suggested policy saying "we will make it impossible for you to own private property!" It's delusional to imagine that such a program could not be accomplished without a totalitarian revolution.
    - genericid 8y ago
      Do you understand the difference between private and personal property?
trolleyhacker 8y ago
Marx should be "studied ... under supervision?" Such study should be done "legitimately?" Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, but that sounds a lot like indoctrination and elitism.

UncleMeat 8y ago

Being a marxist social scientist does not mean that you support a communist political system. It means that you use class as a lens to analyze your data.

Moodles 8y ago
Hah, it's interesting to see my comment cause some controversy on HN :-) I'm not saying social scientists are pro-Stalian or other suggested nonsense in some comments. I'm merely saying that, compared to every other subject, it is shocking to me that such a high proportion identity as Marxist as it is a relatively extreme political belief. It seems analogous to a high proportion of biologists being creationist. In fact, almost every single social scientist is left wing. That and 80% of humanities papers being sent into a vacuum never to be cited again, suggests to me that there is a crisis.
- silveroriole 8y ago
  Maybe the idea that a high proportion of social scientists end up describing themselves as Marxist should make you reconsider your view of Marx, rather than dismiss the social scientists as equivalent to creationists?
  - jobobgo 8y ago
    This is a fallacy of majority. Most people also believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. Marx got the labor theory of production wrong. He blames the capitalists for unjustly acquiring the "means of production" and uses that as an excuse for violently stealing and murdering those people. He would literally insist that you must have stolen for someone because you have a successful 1-man blog earning lots of money. His argument is that it is nit the capitalist (blog writer) that is responsible for profit.... but the ISP, computer manufacturing factory workers, etc. And from there would support stealing what you earn because you must have exploited somebody to gain wealth. Pure evil class hatred
    - genericid 8y ago