4 ms·

You said the "humanities", but the examples of research you'd like were from the "social sciences". The humanities deals with fields like comparative literature

by smeeth 6y ago

You said the "humanities", but the examples of research you'd like were from the "social sciences". The humanities deals with fields like comparative literature, poetry, history, Russian language studies, etc. I am personally quite happy my tax dollars do not fund a lot of that, though I know not everyone feels this way. Psychology and sociology are the fields that study the human happiness or social dynamics issues you referenced, and both funded by the NSF[0], so is it just that you wish they had more funding? [0] https://www.nsf.gov/about/research_areas.jsp https://www.nsf.gov/about/research_areas.jsp

mistermann 6y ago
> You said the "humanities", but the examples of research you'd like were from the "social sciences". If we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out what I actually said: >> ~"the humanities" (culture, society, happiness, etc) It appears I've made an error in terminology, but I would have anticipated the additional words I included would have rectified my error. Apparently my heuristics failed in this case. > Psychology and sociology are the fields that study the human happiness or social dynamics issues you referenced, and both funded by the NSF[0], so is it just that you wish they had more funding? Generally, I would like us to fund anyone who has novel ideas that may offer useful insight into the state of affairs on the planet, which largely derives from human actions and interactions. The quirkiness of specific forum conversations (this one, for example) is one class of interactions where I believe we could learn something useful that may shed light on broader trends we see in society, if we put some serious effort into it. I'd have to review the specifics of what the NSF is studying and the results, but from an armchair commentator perspective (observing the general state of the world and the quality of public discourse) I wouldn't expect they are producing useful insights - although, it's completely possible they produce excellent results, and are completely being ignored (which should be noticed in a proper review).
- smeeth 6y ago
  I apologize if my comment came across as pedantic, I certainly wasn't trying to be. The way research in the humanities and social sciences are conducted are fundamentally different, which is why I think the lexical distinction is important in this case. Most social science research applies the scientific method (hypothesis testing etc.), most humanities research does not. >The quirkiness of specific forum conversations (this one, for example) is one class of interactions where I believe we could learn something useful that may shed light on broader trends we see in society, if we put some serious effort into it. I agree. >although, it's completely possible they produce excellent results, and are completely being ignored (which should be noticed in a proper review) If I had to bet on it I'd say this is the answer, though I'd add that in addition to being ignored the research is being used in ways you and I wouldn't like. I know for example that app/social media development 2005-today relied/rely heavily on psychological research pertaining to addiction, human computer interaction, etc. I'm positive some of that was NSF funded.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    What I'm getting at, in not a very effective way, is that I see low hanging fruit everywhere I look, and I don't think I'm the only one. Where I do think I may differ, is that I also sense a strong aversion to discussing this low hanging fruit in extreme detail and unconventional ways. For example, plenty of people think climate change is a legitimate threat, and that prudent societal responses are hampered by imperfections in democracy, and that beliefs such as racism play a role in voting choices. Nothing very controversial (from an HN perspective) so far I don't think. But an invisible line that I sense cannot be crossed here is the underlying reasons why people "are" "racist", or the degree to which mass heuristic-based theory of mind estimations (~mind reading) like this are even true, or even happening. Introduce this style of thinking and one will surely be rewarded with downvotes, if not stern "culture war guidelines violations" warnings. But one thing you'll never get is any substantial justification or reasoning behind why there are peer-enforced guard rails on things like: - what can be discussed - how (from what perspectives) certain things can be discussed - at what level of detail things can be discussed I think there is something very interesting going on here, and that there seems to be this strong, almost universal/multi-dimensional aversion to discussing it (the phenomenon) makes me even more curious.
    - smeeth 6y ago
      It sounds like you should pursue a PhD ;) Yeah, I agree with you - those are important questions I wish we had better answers to. I'm early into a research career though not in these fields and I'm starting to observe that knowing the problems that need solving/questions that need answering is often trivial when compared to actually solving the problems or answering the obvious question. That might be part of the issue here too, just my 2c.

by smeeth 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

> You said the "humanities", but the examples of research you'd like were from the "social sciences". If we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out what I actually said: >> ~"the humanities" (culture, society, happiness, etc) It appears I've made an error in terminology, but I would have anticipated the additional words I included would have rectified my error. Apparently my heuristics failed in this case. > Psychology and sociology are the fields that study the human happiness or social dynamics issues you referenced, and both funded by the NSF[0], so is it just that you wish they had more funding? Generally, I would like us to fund anyone who has novel ideas that may offer useful insight into the state of affairs on the planet, which largely derives from human actions and interactions. The quirkiness of specific forum conversations (this one, for example) is one class of interactions where I believe we could learn something useful that may shed light on broader trends we see in society, if we put some serious effort into it. I'd have to review the specifics of what the NSF is studying and the results, but from an armchair commentator perspective (observing the general state of the world and the quality of public discourse) I wouldn't expect they are producing useful insights - although, it's completely possible they produce excellent results, and are completely being ignored (which should be noticed in a proper review).

smeeth 6y ago
I apologize if my comment came across as pedantic, I certainly wasn't trying to be. The way research in the humanities and social sciences are conducted are fundamentally different, which is why I think the lexical distinction is important in this case. Most social science research applies the scientific method (hypothesis testing etc.), most humanities research does not. >The quirkiness of specific forum conversations (this one, for example) is one class of interactions where I believe we could learn something useful that may shed light on broader trends we see in society, if we put some serious effort into it. I agree. >although, it's completely possible they produce excellent results, and are completely being ignored (which should be noticed in a proper review) If I had to bet on it I'd say this is the answer, though I'd add that in addition to being ignored the research is being used in ways you and I wouldn't like. I know for example that app/social media development 2005-today relied/rely heavily on psychological research pertaining to addiction, human computer interaction, etc. I'm positive some of that was NSF funded.
- mistermann 6y ago
  What I'm getting at, in not a very effective way, is that I see low hanging fruit everywhere I look, and I don't think I'm the only one. Where I do think I may differ, is that I also sense a strong aversion to discussing this low hanging fruit in extreme detail and unconventional ways. For example, plenty of people think climate change is a legitimate threat, and that prudent societal responses are hampered by imperfections in democracy, and that beliefs such as racism play a role in voting choices. Nothing very controversial (from an HN perspective) so far I don't think. But an invisible line that I sense cannot be crossed here is the underlying reasons why people "are" "racist", or the degree to which mass heuristic-based theory of mind estimations (~mind reading) like this are even true, or even happening. Introduce this style of thinking and one will surely be rewarded with downvotes, if not stern "culture war guidelines violations" warnings. But one thing you'll never get is any substantial justification or reasoning behind why there are peer-enforced guard rails on things like: - what can be discussed - how (from what perspectives) certain things can be discussed - at what level of detail things can be discussed I think there is something very interesting going on here, and that there seems to be this strong, almost universal/multi-dimensional aversion to discussing it (the phenomenon) makes me even more curious.
  - smeeth 6y ago
    It sounds like you should pursue a PhD ;) Yeah, I agree with you - those are important questions I wish we had better answers to. I'm early into a research career though not in these fields and I'm starting to observe that knowing the problems that need solving/questions that need answering is often trivial when compared to actually solving the problems or answering the obvious question. That might be part of the issue here too, just my 2c.