5 ms·

As is the lack of critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills from the other side. EDIT: In response to some of the questions below, please let

As is the lack of critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills from the other side. EDIT: In response to some of the questions below, please let me clarify. When I said "other side" I was meaning a lack of well-roundedness. I was NOT trying to pit STEM grads against liberal arts grads. I do not intend to state that STEM graduates don't know problem solving or critical thinking. Far from it. However in my experience, those skills are discarded too quickly - similar to how Liberal Arts grads tend to discard even the limited quantitative toolsets they've acquired. (I'll concede its probably not as prevalent among the HN crowd.) Ultimately, its a lack of well-roundedness that limits all camps (I'm sure it would be more accurate to consider more tightly-defined groups than just liberal arts vs engineers.) Ideas are cheap, that's why we laugh at the Wharton posts looking for "code monkeys" every few months. Just as problematic though, is the greatest product but no ability to bring it to market and sustain a viable business.

quanticle 15y ago
I am willing to posit that a lack of statistical knowledge does more harm to critical thinking than a lack of rhetorical knowledge.
- marklabedz 15y ago
  Likely so for critical thinking (Common sense not being so common and all that...). Additionally though, an inability to understand and thoroughly evaluate a problem or articulate its solution, is certainly a challenge as well.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite, that the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that actually supports its points. Statistics does fit into that, as one particular species of correctly using empirical evidence. But most freshmen students aren't even constructing coherent arguments in the broad sense; having a technical knowledge of statistical theorems isn't the main bottleneck. This is actually a common problem in my classes: technically-solid students who can't write a coherent essay-length or blog-post-length argument in favor of or against a point. The better students tended to have taken at least a Philosophy 101 course, which taught them how to write a basic "argument for or against a position" paper. Once you have that, there's a pretty good basis on which to expand the argumentation toolbox with statistical arguments.
  - dhume 15y ago
    I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite: the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are actually responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that correctly supports its points. This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
  - nobody31 15y ago
    So on one side you run a T-test to see if the correlation is significant. On the other side you have the ability to phrase it as a question in the same language as Aristotle.
    - achompas 15y ago
      So on one side you run a T-test to see if the correlation is significant. This is an incredibly gross simplification of applying statistical theory. I suggest you pick up some texts on inference, Bayesian stats, and probability theory to learn how stats != "running t-tests".
      - esrauch 15y ago
        He was clearly just picking one useful tool that stats provides, not stating that it was the entirety of statistics. I'm not making any statement about whether I agree with him, but if you disagree you will have to claim that he is cherry picking one useful and one useless skill, not just say that there is more to stats than t-tests.
- nekojima 15y ago
  I'd suggest that 9 times out of 8 many STEMs have contextual biases that fail to account for general knowledge that otherwise would strengthen their argumentative position.
  - llimllib 15y ago
    > 9 times out of 8 many STEMs <X> So, 112% of the time 60% of STEMS <X>? What a strange way of phrasing it.
    - nekojima 15y ago
      An attempt at statistical sarcasm/humour.
      - llimllib 15y ago
        Stupid lack of internet /sarcasm tags :/
fiesycal 15y ago
Are you suggesting an engineering degree or computer science degree etc. don't teach critical thinking and problem solving skills? I'd concede that better communication skills should be taught.
- jerf 15y ago
  I won't so concede. Schools have been making concerted efforts for a while now to teach engineers better communication skills, and now that I work in a heavy-duty engineering environment it is clearly not the case that every engineer comes out of school a drooling asocial moron. In fact recently some job reqs were going around the company through several of the "communication" oriented people, and it was the engineers correcting the grammar and improving the flow of the text. An unkind impulse suggests that when logic and traditional rhetoric become the domain of "dead prejudiced white guys" you're not looking at the ideal environment for teaching communication skills. The writing of some of my high school acquaintances with English or Journalism degrees blows my mind, and not in a good way.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Could you explain what you mean by the terms "critical thinking" and "other side"?
pandaman 15y ago
Many people seem to be confused by this statement but I am guessing your liberal arts school taught you that "critical thinking" is what critics do, am I correct?
- marklabedz 15y ago
  If by critic, you mean from the greek "kritikós" and not some creation of cable news or au courant op-ed pages.
anamax 15y ago
> However in my experience, [problem solving or critical thinking] are discarded too quickly - similar to how Liberal Arts grads tend to discard even the limited quantitative toolsets they've acquired. Are you really claiming that Liberal Arts grads don't discard their problem solving and critical thinking? I ask because I don't see them demonstrating either, at least compared to STEM folk. So, either they didn't learn them or they discard them quickly.

quanticle 15y ago

I am willing to posit that a lack of statistical knowledge does more harm to critical thinking than a lack of rhetorical knowledge.

marklabedz 15y ago
Likely so for critical thinking (Common sense not being so common and all that...). Additionally though, an inability to understand and thoroughly evaluate a problem or articulate its solution, is certainly a challenge as well.
_delirium 15y ago
I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite, that the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that actually supports its points. Statistics does fit into that, as one particular species of correctly using empirical evidence. But most freshmen students aren't even constructing coherent arguments in the broad sense; having a technical knowledge of statistical theorems isn't the main bottleneck. This is actually a common problem in my classes: technically-solid students who can't write a coherent essay-length or blog-post-length argument in favor of or against a point. The better students tended to have taken at least a Philosophy 101 course, which taught them how to write a basic "argument for or against a position" paper. Once you have that, there's a pretty good basis on which to expand the argumentation toolbox with statistical arguments.
- dhume 15y ago
  I'm a stats-heavy computer scientist, but I'd argue the opposite: the ability to construct and evaluate a rigorous argument is the first thing lacking: one that plausibly analyzes the domain, recounts opposing arguments reasonably fairly, constructs counterarguments that are actually responsive to the opponents' arguments, and uses logical argumentation along with empirical evidence in a way that correctly supports its points. This seems closer to "statistics versus logos" than "statistics versus rhetoric."
- nobody31 15y ago
  So on one side you run a T-test to see if the correlation is significant. On the other side you have the ability to phrase it as a question in the same language as Aristotle.
  - achompas 15y ago
    So on one side you run a T-test to see if the correlation is significant. This is an incredibly gross simplification of applying statistical theory. I suggest you pick up some texts on inference, Bayesian stats, and probability theory to learn how stats != "running t-tests".
    - esrauch 15y ago
      He was clearly just picking one useful tool that stats provides, not stating that it was the entirety of statistics. I'm not making any statement about whether I agree with him, but if you disagree you will have to claim that he is cherry picking one useful and one useless skill, not just say that there is more to stats than t-tests.
nekojima 15y ago
I'd suggest that 9 times out of 8 many STEMs have contextual biases that fail to account for general knowledge that otherwise would strengthen their argumentative position.
- llimllib 15y ago
  > 9 times out of 8 many STEMs <X> So, 112% of the time 60% of STEMS <X>? What a strange way of phrasing it.
  - nekojima 15y ago
    An attempt at statistical sarcasm/humour.
    - llimllib 15y ago
      Stupid lack of internet /sarcasm tags :/

fiesycal 15y ago

Are you suggesting an engineering degree or computer science degree etc. don't teach critical thinking and problem solving skills? I'd concede that better communication skills should be taught.

jerf 15y ago
I won't so concede. Schools have been making concerted efforts for a while now to teach engineers better communication skills, and now that I work in a heavy-duty engineering environment it is clearly not the case that every engineer comes out of school a drooling asocial moron. In fact recently some job reqs were going around the company through several of the "communication" oriented people, and it was the engineers correcting the grammar and improving the flow of the text. An unkind impulse suggests that when logic and traditional rhetoric become the domain of "dead prejudiced white guys" you're not looking at the ideal environment for teaching communication skills. The writing of some of my high school acquaintances with English or Journalism degrees blows my mind, and not in a good way.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Could you explain what you mean by the terms "critical thinking" and "other side"?

pandaman 15y ago

Many people seem to be confused by this statement but I am guessing your liberal arts school taught you that "critical thinking" is what critics do, am I correct?

marklabedz 15y ago
If by critic, you mean from the greek "kritikós" and not some creation of cable news or au courant op-ed pages.

anamax 15y ago

> However in my experience, [problem solving or critical thinking] are discarded too quickly - similar to how Liberal Arts grads tend to discard even the limited quantitative toolsets they've acquired. Are you really claiming that Liberal Arts grads don't discard their problem solving and critical thinking? I ask because I don't see them demonstrating either, at least compared to STEM folk. So, either they didn't learn them or they discard them quickly.