5 ms·

There's a famous quote usually attributed to Churchill, which like all famous quotes is probably apocryphal. It's about somebody saying much the same regarding

by ggm 2y ago

There's a famous quote usually attributed to Churchill, which like all famous quotes is probably apocryphal. It's about somebody saying much the same regarding drafting poets and artists for the war effort. His response was "what's the point of fighting?" And even as apocrypha I think it gets to a point: if you stop doing social science (which isn't a science) then what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? Aren't we interested in having a balanced, happy society? Sure, NZ is financially fucked. I get it. Cut down all the forests, sell the water, sell the land, sell the bees. Sell the lifestyle to Peter Theil. I like New Zealand. It's not perfect. Cutting social science won't make it better any more than cutting te reo will. "The flogging will continue until morale improves" also comes to mind. Helping the economy by cutting wages and living conditions? Is that what they want people to study? NZ has been broke for decades. They survive on the smell of an oily rag. This is selling the oily rag. (An Ozzie btw)

dragonwriter 2y ago
> social science (which isn’t a science) This is literally true in the sense that social science isn’t a science because it encompasses numerous sciences, but it is not true if the intent to say “social science (which isn’t science)”. (Social sciences may often require hypothesis testing in statistically-controlled experiments or have other practical limitations on experimentations because they address phenomenon that cannot easily and/or ethically be experimented with as much freedom as one would want in a laboratory, but then those issues exist for some phyiscal and life sciences as well.
- ggm 2y ago
  It's just memetic in many ways. The bar for statistical relevance is low across all fields hard and soft, it used to be you could parade Cyril Burt out but we're well beyond a point where he's different to any discipline, social or not. I should have resisted the temptation to repeat the slur. Demographics couldn't be more important in a world dominated by millions of refugees. Or, for example, we'll be arguing about vaccines forever and having people who study why that is, is important. I think social sciences should be funded properly. I think NZ will regret this, just like the UK lived to regret Thatcher de-funding Russian studies, only to fail to seize advantages in the end of the cold war: insufficient people with skills facing Russia. I'm a computer scientist (which isn't a science)
  - drunkenmagician 2y ago
    I'm a Kiwi, but living abroad now. I have mixed views on this announcement, I do agree with the basic sentiment that NZ is broke and has been for a long time. That means 'decisions' on public spending need to be in the national interest, for the current govt, that translates into 'fiscal interest'. That said, cutting "all" govt funding to social sciences is not the right call. I would have though that a smaller budget and stricter set of criteria for funding would have been a better approach. NZ has always had a 'fringe element' looking for funding for dubious research of limited value, but de-funding everything that is not of economic value feels like the wrong approach.
  - sgt101 2y ago
    I just can't find any reference to Thatcher cutting Russia studies, it's quite a strange thing to imagine given that she presided over the peak of the cold war. Could you help? I know that Blair closed great chunks of the foreign office and that has seriously impacted the UK's ability to represent its interested abroad, but that's not just Russia. I find it hard to imagine what the UK could have done in terms of taking advantage at the end of the cold war. I mean maybe if we had all moved to Germany then we would have been well placed to get the benefits that those folks got. On the other hand we did, eventually, get to shut down the British Army of the Rhine which saved a lot of money, and a bunch of skilled labour from eastern europe migrated to the UK as well. What potential benefits from a Russian engagment could the UK have realised?
    - ggm 2y ago
      Possibly this was a slur against her made at the time but I was told this as a young student at uni in 79-82 window.havw a read of https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-rise-and-fall-of-soviet-studies-at-lancaster https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-rise-and-fall-of-sov... for context. During the initial rapprochement years British banking was nothing like as present in the Russian denationalisation and the emergence of the oligarch kleptocracy. The decision of the Russian elites to invest in London came much much later.
- naasking 2y ago
  > (Social sciences may often require hypothesis testing in statistically-controlled experiments or have other practical limitations on experimentations because they address phenomenon that cannot easily and/or ethically be experimented with as much freedom as one would want in a laboratory Social sciences have deeply problematic methodologies and the IRB is a cancer that's no longer about ethics but gatekeeping.
namdnay 2y ago
I guess this is itself a social science experiment, namely to see if there is a link between doing social science and having "a balanced, happy society" :)
- jl6 2y ago
  I wonder how much funding will be needed to observe the results?
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> if you stop doing social science (which isn't a science) then what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? Aren't we interested in having a balanced, happy society? The implicit claim that you're making is that state funded academic studies of social science are important for a balanced, happy society. But where's the evidence that this is the case? Someone could argue (and at times have) that the state should fund religious institutions because they're necessary for a happy society. But some would counter that religion isn't necessary for a happy society, while others might counter that religion is important for a happy society but that it's unnecessary for the state to support it. If we're making the claim that these things should be funded by the state, and that they're important for a happy society, then those claims should be backed up by some fairly strong evidence.
- demarq 2y ago
  So how do you get that evidence?
  - gonzobonzo 2y ago
    Shouldn't this be asked of someone making the claim, and not of someone who says that the claims should be backed up by evidence? If someone claims that Apple cider vinegar cures cancer, they should be the ones providing the evidence. You shouldn't be asking people who didn't make the claim how to find evidence for it. Though after decades of funding the social sciences I would have hoped that someone would have looked into whether or not they're actually accomplishing anything. If not, it would speak volumes.
    - ashwoods 2y ago
      I think you didn’t get the question. If we were to seek that evidence, who would turn to?
      - amarcheschi 2y ago
        Economist! /s
jl6 2y ago
> what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? I’m usually supportive of fundamental research where there are no specific benefits known ahead of time, because the track record of fundamental research is pretty good in terms of eventual payoff - but some of the social sciences are definitely on the soft end of this, and the examples given in the article don’t seem to make a strong case for being something NZ needs, when considered alongside all the other things NZ needs.
- CaptArmchair 2y ago
  I strongly disagree. One of the examples mentioned studies population changes during NZ's colonization. It's part of Maori-led research. Such research provides a better understanding of the history and culture of the indigenous population of NZ. In turn, this research contributes towards contextualizing and enriching relationships between communities within the larger modern NZ society with respect to the economic and political plight of these groups. The overarching theme here is identity. Both on an individual level, as well as a community level. Our shared past, heritage, traditions, stories, relationships with others,... are all what make us "us". And social sciences are paramount within that never-ending debate. In a way, defunding research which studies particular indigenous communities within society is tantamount to effacing those communities from a larger national historical identity. However, doing so will never end that drive communities have to remember and to assert their own history and identity. That's why studying how the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand has had an demographic, political, economical, cultural effect on the indigenous population definitely is fundamental research. And an important one at that.
  - jl6 2y ago
    Do you want to get social sciences defunded? Because this is how you get social sciences defunded. The academic obsession with identity is completely toxic.
seydor 2y ago
We are at the age of engineering human behavior and societal engineering is in the realm of STEM. social science is like alchemy in an age where chemistry already exists
- jyounker 2y ago
  Every time you interview a user or set up a survey to determine customer preferences, you're using techniques developed from social sciences.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    All the video games and online gambling trying to maximize micro transactions and revenue are too.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      Advertising ...
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    It is an interesting point. However, I can do these things without studying social science. Basically what you described is "talking to people" and "gathering information"
  - tomjen3 2y ago
    Mostly you are doing statistics, which is math. Social science (when it is the good thing) also uses statistics to get answers to questions.
- jampekka 2y ago
  > We are at the age of engineering human behavior and societal engineering is in the realm of STEM. We are definitely not. I'm saying that as someone researching how to use computational methods to model human behavior. We know very little about human behavior/mind/brain or society at that level.
- naijaboiler 2y ago
oldpersonintx 2y ago
> what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? avail yourself of the thousands still at work in other allied societies the world has more people at work pursuing pure academics than ever, and they are sharing their work
jajko 2y ago
I don't get why NZ is 'fucked'. One of the richest people on the planet, with amazing nature, very, I mean absolutely terrific strategical location. Democracy. Big friends with US. I could go on for a long time. Is it 'fucked' in same way some folks from say Staten island or New Jersey say its fucked since they are not central Manhattan so everything else is subpar or wrong? I don't think rich people want to have their SHTF backup location in shithole, you have prettier cheaper places all over the world, yet folks want to go there. If you meant there are issues, sure they are everywhere, even in nordics or Switzerland. Not an interesting nor helpful position.
- xyzzy123 2y ago
  "Senior" software engineer salary in NZ is maybe $120k NZD (about $70k USD), median house in Auckland or Wellington (which is where you need to be to earn even that much) is about a million NZD. Cost of living is very high. Maybe f*cked is hyperbole but if you don't already own property it is quite difficult to sustain a reasonable standard of living (let alone "get ahead") as a wage earner. I love NZ but it didn't make economic sense to stay.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Sounds about the same as the UK ... but that is a median 1 bed flat in London.
  - tjpnz 2y ago
    A million NZD plus however much you spend on fixing it up so it doesn't make you sick or kill you in an earthquake. And after that you're stuck working in a country which outside of a few very niche areas is a complete dead end where tech's concerned. I miss my family, but couldn't bear the thought of continuing my career there.
- pixelesque 2y ago
  What on earth do you mean by: "One of the richest people on the planet"? National have started an "austerity" programme, tens of thousands of civil servants have been laid off, housing is disgustingly expensive (and the quality of it is awful as well), the price of goods and food is pretty expensive (even dairy products that are produced here are often more expensive than in Europe). The location's only great strategically if you ignore the (huge) future earthquake potential. Cities like Wellington have also had a chronic lack of infrastructure investment, so there are HUGE issues with water / sewage leaks - pretty much every week there's a new water main leaking somewhere in the city. (Have lived here for 10 years, and am looking to return to Europe - things are going downhill pretty fast here IMO).
naasking 2y ago
> if you stop doing social science (which isn't a science) then what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? Aren't we interested in having a balanced, happy society? Do social scientists actually produce the knowledge required to create a balanced, happy society?
globalnode 2y ago
is that like saying: if we get rid of all the artists to fight a war is the country really worth saving?
- ggm 2y ago
  That's the apocryphal Churchill quote.
purple-leafy 2y ago
Get right-wingers in, this is what happens to a country. Right wing politics is bad socially, and economically, unless you are already stinkin-rich

by ggm 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> social science (which isn’t a science) This is literally true in the sense that social science isn’t a science because it encompasses numerous sciences, but it is not true if the intent to say “social science (which isn’t science)”. (Social sciences may often require hypothesis testing in statistically-controlled experiments or have other practical limitations on experimentations because they address phenomenon that cannot easily and/or ethically be experimented with as much freedom as one would want in a laboratory, but then those issues exist for some phyiscal and life sciences as well.

ggm 2y ago
It's just memetic in many ways. The bar for statistical relevance is low across all fields hard and soft, it used to be you could parade Cyril Burt out but we're well beyond a point where he's different to any discipline, social or not. I should have resisted the temptation to repeat the slur. Demographics couldn't be more important in a world dominated by millions of refugees. Or, for example, we'll be arguing about vaccines forever and having people who study why that is, is important. I think social sciences should be funded properly. I think NZ will regret this, just like the UK lived to regret Thatcher de-funding Russian studies, only to fail to seize advantages in the end of the cold war: insufficient people with skills facing Russia. I'm a computer scientist (which isn't a science)
- drunkenmagician 2y ago
  I'm a Kiwi, but living abroad now. I have mixed views on this announcement, I do agree with the basic sentiment that NZ is broke and has been for a long time. That means 'decisions' on public spending need to be in the national interest, for the current govt, that translates into 'fiscal interest'. That said, cutting "all" govt funding to social sciences is not the right call. I would have though that a smaller budget and stricter set of criteria for funding would have been a better approach. NZ has always had a 'fringe element' looking for funding for dubious research of limited value, but de-funding everything that is not of economic value feels like the wrong approach.
- sgt101 2y ago
  I just can't find any reference to Thatcher cutting Russia studies, it's quite a strange thing to imagine given that she presided over the peak of the cold war. Could you help? I know that Blair closed great chunks of the foreign office and that has seriously impacted the UK's ability to represent its interested abroad, but that's not just Russia. I find it hard to imagine what the UK could have done in terms of taking advantage at the end of the cold war. I mean maybe if we had all moved to Germany then we would have been well placed to get the benefits that those folks got. On the other hand we did, eventually, get to shut down the British Army of the Rhine which saved a lot of money, and a bunch of skilled labour from eastern europe migrated to the UK as well. What potential benefits from a Russian engagment could the UK have realised?
  - ggm 2y ago
    Possibly this was a slur against her made at the time but I was told this as a young student at uni in 79-82 window.havw a read of https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-rise-and-fall-of-soviet-studies-at-lancaster https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-rise-and-fall-of-sov... for context. During the initial rapprochement years British banking was nothing like as present in the Russian denationalisation and the emergence of the oligarch kleptocracy. The decision of the Russian elites to invest in London came much much later.
naasking 2y ago
> (Social sciences may often require hypothesis testing in statistically-controlled experiments or have other practical limitations on experimentations because they address phenomenon that cannot easily and/or ethically be experimented with as much freedom as one would want in a laboratory Social sciences have deeply problematic methodologies and the IRB is a cancer that's no longer about ethics but gatekeeping.

namdnay 2y ago

I guess this is itself a social science experiment, namely to see if there is a link between doing social science and having "a balanced, happy society" :)

jl6 2y ago
I wonder how much funding will be needed to observe the results?

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> if you stop doing social science (which isn't a science) then what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? Aren't we interested in having a balanced, happy society? The implicit claim that you're making is that state funded academic studies of social science are important for a balanced, happy society. But where's the evidence that this is the case? Someone could argue (and at times have) that the state should fund religious institutions because they're necessary for a happy society. But some would counter that religion isn't necessary for a happy society, while others might counter that religion is important for a happy society but that it's unnecessary for the state to support it. If we're making the claim that these things should be funded by the state, and that they're important for a happy society, then those claims should be backed up by some fairly strong evidence.

demarq 2y ago
So how do you get that evidence?
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  Shouldn't this be asked of someone making the claim, and not of someone who says that the claims should be backed up by evidence? If someone claims that Apple cider vinegar cures cancer, they should be the ones providing the evidence. You shouldn't be asking people who didn't make the claim how to find evidence for it. Though after decades of funding the social sciences I would have hoped that someone would have looked into whether or not they're actually accomplishing anything. If not, it would speak volumes.
  - ashwoods 2y ago
    I think you didn’t get the question. If we were to seek that evidence, who would turn to?
    - amarcheschi 2y ago
      Economist! /s

jl6 2y ago

> what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? I’m usually supportive of fundamental research where there are no specific benefits known ahead of time, because the track record of fundamental research is pretty good in terms of eventual payoff - but some of the social sciences are definitely on the soft end of this, and the examples given in the article don’t seem to make a strong case for being something NZ needs, when considered alongside all the other things NZ needs.

CaptArmchair 2y ago
I strongly disagree. One of the examples mentioned studies population changes during NZ's colonization. It's part of Maori-led research. Such research provides a better understanding of the history and culture of the indigenous population of NZ. In turn, this research contributes towards contextualizing and enriching relationships between communities within the larger modern NZ society with respect to the economic and political plight of these groups. The overarching theme here is identity. Both on an individual level, as well as a community level. Our shared past, heritage, traditions, stories, relationships with others,... are all what make us "us". And social sciences are paramount within that never-ending debate. In a way, defunding research which studies particular indigenous communities within society is tantamount to effacing those communities from a larger national historical identity. However, doing so will never end that drive communities have to remember and to assert their own history and identity. That's why studying how the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand has had an demographic, political, economical, cultural effect on the indigenous population definitely is fundamental research. And an important one at that.
- jl6 2y ago
  Do you want to get social sciences defunded? Because this is how you get social sciences defunded. The academic obsession with identity is completely toxic.

seydor 2y ago

We are at the age of engineering human behavior and societal engineering is in the realm of STEM. social science is like alchemy in an age where chemistry already exists

jyounker 2y ago
Every time you interview a user or set up a survey to determine customer preferences, you're using techniques developed from social sciences.
- morkalork 2y ago
  All the video games and online gambling trying to maximize micro transactions and revenue are too.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Advertising ...
- dgfitz 2y ago
  It is an interesting point. However, I can do these things without studying social science. Basically what you described is "talking to people" and "gathering information"
- tomjen3 2y ago
  Mostly you are doing statistics, which is math. Social science (when it is the good thing) also uses statistics to get answers to questions.
jampekka 2y ago
> We are at the age of engineering human behavior and societal engineering is in the realm of STEM. We are definitely not. I'm saying that as someone researching how to use computational methods to model human behavior. We know very little about human behavior/mind/brain or society at that level.
naijaboiler 2y ago

oldpersonintx 2y ago

> what do you do when people turn out to need social scientists? avail yourself of the thousands still at work in other allied societies the world has more people at work pursuing pure academics than ever, and they are sharing their work

jajko 2y ago

I don't get why NZ is 'fucked'. One of the richest people on the planet, with amazing nature, very, I mean absolutely terrific strategical location. Democracy. Big friends with US. I could go on for a long time. Is it 'fucked' in same way some folks from say Staten island or New Jersey say its fucked since they are not central Manhattan so everything else is subpar or wrong? I don't think rich people want to have their SHTF backup location in shithole, you have prettier cheaper places all over the world, yet folks want to go there. If you meant there are issues, sure they are everywhere, even in nordics or Switzerland. Not an interesting nor helpful position.

xyzzy123 2y ago
"Senior" software engineer salary in NZ is maybe $120k NZD (about $70k USD), median house in Auckland or Wellington (which is where you need to be to earn even that much) is about a million NZD. Cost of living is very high. Maybe f*cked is hyperbole but if you don't already own property it is quite difficult to sustain a reasonable standard of living (let alone "get ahead") as a wage earner. I love NZ but it didn't make economic sense to stay.
- blitzar 2y ago
  Sounds about the same as the UK ... but that is a median 1 bed flat in London.
- tjpnz 2y ago
  A million NZD plus however much you spend on fixing it up so it doesn't make you sick or kill you in an earthquake. And after that you're stuck working in a country which outside of a few very niche areas is a complete dead end where tech's concerned. I miss my family, but couldn't bear the thought of continuing my career there.
pixelesque 2y ago
What on earth do you mean by: "One of the richest people on the planet"? National have started an "austerity" programme, tens of thousands of civil servants have been laid off, housing is disgustingly expensive (and the quality of it is awful as well), the price of goods and food is pretty expensive (even dairy products that are produced here are often more expensive than in Europe). The location's only great strategically if you ignore the (huge) future earthquake potential. Cities like Wellington have also had a chronic lack of infrastructure investment, so there are HUGE issues with water / sewage leaks - pretty much every week there's a new water main leaking somewhere in the city. (Have lived here for 10 years, and am looking to return to Europe - things are going downhill pretty fast here IMO).

naasking 2y ago

globalnode 2y ago

is that like saying: if we get rid of all the artists to fight a war is the country really worth saving?

ggm 2y ago
That's the apocryphal Churchill quote.

purple-leafy 2y ago

Get right-wingers in, this is what happens to a country. Right wing politics is bad socially, and economically, unless you are already stinkin-rich