4 ms·

I think the aritcle is pretty good (I have a strong disiagreement with one of the 50 terms, but otherwise I think they did a good job). I'm relatively new here

by xmddmx 4y ago

I think the aritcle is pretty good (I have a strong disiagreement with one of the 50 terms, but otherwise I think they did a good job). I'm relatively new here at HN, but as a psychologist (who also dabbles in hacking) some of the reactions do support, sadly, the stereoytype that computer/engineer-types suffer anoagnosia (the lack of knowledge of what you do not know). Some engineers do not understand that the world of human behavior is far more complex than the world of atoms, molecules, components, chips, software, etc. Behavioral and social scientists are, you may be surprised to learn, aware of this fact, and actually lead in scientific investigation of the difficulty, specifically: dealing with constructs, and figure out how to define and measure them. "Soft sciences" actually are much harder than "hard sciences" in many ways.

andirk 4y ago
With no definitive right answer but still a clear outcome from choices made, yeah that's a moving target compared to the solid rock of most math and CS work.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
devwastaken 4y ago
Some are working at making soft science more of actual testable, isolateable, repeatable, predictable science. To be in psychology requires you to accept the ideas and culture of the "soft sciences". The system of universities and higher education, largely aligning with political and financial interests. One cannot be against it and be apart of it. That is the grand filter that removes dissent. In current day all any diagnosis requires is a few 30 minute meetings and the right words in accordance with the dsm5. They'll get a diagnosis that's wrong, and be on their way with medications not proven effective. Ask me how I know. That's not science, it's a paycheck.
rayiner 4y ago
> Soft sciences" actually are much harder than "hard sciences" in many ways Because of that complexity, the methodologies used in those fields can’t be called “science.”

by xmddmx 4y ago

andirk 4y ago

With no definitive right answer but still a clear outcome from choices made, yeah that's a moving target compared to the solid rock of most math and CS work.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

devwastaken 4y ago

Some are working at making soft science more of actual testable, isolateable, repeatable, predictable science. To be in psychology requires you to accept the ideas and culture of the "soft sciences". The system of universities and higher education, largely aligning with political and financial interests. One cannot be against it and be apart of it. That is the grand filter that removes dissent. In current day all any diagnosis requires is a few 30 minute meetings and the right words in accordance with the dsm5. They'll get a diagnosis that's wrong, and be on their way with medications not proven effective. Ask me how I know. That's not science, it's a paycheck.

rayiner 4y ago

> Soft sciences" actually are much harder than "hard sciences" in many ways Because of that complexity, the methodologies used in those fields can’t be called “science.”