You may have a point. And I did forget about things like social choice theory or game theory (although I'd assume that partially this is also due to e.g. social

You may have a point. And I did forget about things like social choice theory or game theory (although I'd assume that partially this is also due to e.g. social choice procedures or "games" often being very limited and artificial settings where by their very nature the relevant space of options/outcomes can be explored in some systematic way, which is generally less the case in more organic, complex settings, such as e.g. gradual societal changes). When it comes to economics, I know that a lot of people don't agree with the basis of many mathematical models that are used, but I'm not an economist, so I can't speak to that. So maybe I was overzealous in discounting mathematics for the social sciences altogether. Still, I would contend (albeit with much less evidence): - There's some measure of people trying to construe "nice models" of things in those subjects instead of trying to make sure they agree with reality. I have a degree in linguistics and I've seen this over and over. Most of these models haven't convinced me at all. - The amount of maths that you either need or at least benefit from in order to do good research in such areas is still substantially lower than in, say, physics. I think it's still to be noted how we can describe much of physics just with a small number of economic and elegant models. I haven't seen anything comparable in any of the social sciences.