4 ms·
Unfortunately I’m not sure that STEM in and of itself is the antidote. It’s very easy to just routinely apply methods without properly reasoning about the unde
by wbsss4412 5y ago
Unfortunately I’m not sure that STEM in and of itself is the antidote.
It’s very easy to just routinely apply methods without properly reasoning about the underlying assumptions.
- MetaWhirledPeas 5y agoThe less exposure one has to these concepts the more tempting it becomes to skip the reasoning part.
- wbsss4412 5y agoTrue, but there is an upper bound to the amount of exposure one can receive before they are simply a STEM major, rather than another major with more STEM exposure.
- klabb3 5y agoBe careful what you wish for. Increasing the competence of fraudsters will simply make fraud harder to detect. Had the original theory simply included a "measured" coefficient, the debunking would have been much weaker and never made it into a gotcha story for bystanders to enjoy. This was sloppy from the outset. What we need isn't stronger technical skills, but strong self-correction mechanisms and incentive structures. (Ironically, the management consultant who orchestrated this whole ploy is in the field of group psychology - so perhaps it was performance art all along)
- FredPret 5y agoBut you shouldn’t be able to get a degree in a soft “science” without demonstrating that you can apply disciplined thinking by passing some proper STEM courses.
- wbsss4412 5y agoNominally, that is already the case.