4 ms·
No physics werw involved in this article. But I guess it makes it appear more "sciency"
by steve1977 3mo ago
No physics werw involved in this article. But I guess it makes it appear more "sciency"
- m0llusk 3mo agoWrong. Energy, velocity, and flow characteristics are central to this analysis. The term Social Physics differentiates this context from Physics.
- ooterness 3mo agoEnergy and velocity are science terms because they have very specific meanings. If you use them in a completely different way, that's not science, that's just science-themed marketing vibes.
- steve1977 3mo agoBut the terms are not used properly. It's like "vibrations" in esoteric contexts. There is no such thing as "social physics"
- lioeters 3mo ago"Social physics" is pseudo-science abusing the name of physics and actual scientific terms to pretend it's even in the same ballpark.
- exe34 3mo agoSounds like cargo culting.
- cheesecakegood 3mo agoYou can to some extent model a flexible number of conversations in a room in terms of a kind of graph theory: duration, number of participants, correlations or overlap between participants, and so on. The assertion here is that those particulars change the fundamental nature of what is taking place. Though “kinetics” or “mechanics” are probably more apt terms for the framework of those interactions, I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 3mo agoYou know, strictly speaking, a guinea pig isn't really a pig either. If you were expecting real physics, you should have realized from the word “social” that it wouldn't be in there. Particle families aren't really families either. Quantum mechanical spin and flavor are just metaphors, too. Welcome to human language.