4 ms·

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;d

I'm going to deliberately try to be controversial, but in order to spur discussion. What the next generation needs is more soft/social sciences, not STEM. tl;dr of my point: we know dangerously more about technology than about people, their needs as individuals and their needs as a society. Somewhere along the line we should stop throwing technology at people just because we can, and start to focus on the right solutions - technological or not - to real problems.

fsiefken 11y ago
True, but also in the social sciences you need a firm grasp of statistics, science and a keen mind. Perhaps even more so as people, culture are often more complex then designing user interfaces, self-driving cars or facial, voice and gesture recognition apps. How to filter out factors, describe patterns? Statistical methodologies (and the psychological/sociological theories they test or are based on) are crucial tools in understanding dynamics of behavior. The need for social science experts will arrive when people need to solve these problems, like with SEO/SEA, VR, gaming and narrativity - in their multidisciplinary contexts in various companies and industries.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I think the need already exists. But companies are used to getting by (with huge profits) with engineer-driven products and decisions. The extent to which our technological products and services are engineer-oriented is mesmerizing. Steve Jobs once said something about Apple working at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. It was marketing, of course, but I can't even express how much I agree with this. Regarding the need for a good grasp of statistics in social scientists, I fully agree. But I think it's something that already exists, up to a point at least. I work in software development with many software engineers around, but I also did a PhD with a strong social sciences background. You would be amazed with how much the guys with psychology backgrounds know about stats and methodology (and how much the common STEM guy doesn't).
joeclark77 11y ago
If by "soft/social sciences" you mean real substantive disciplines like history, philosophy, civics, and the arts, I agree with you. Currently "social studies" in school is a bit of a trash bucket into which gets thrown every personal ideology and pet project that some teacher got her feminism or social work or grievance-studies BA in. It's the worst subject in most curricula, even worse than English. The problem is there's plenty of those nonsense degree holders and far too few college graduates who have studied the humanities.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I meant psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, communication, among others. Those are, despite the "social studies" stigma they might carry, real substantive disciplines which should not only contribute but predominantly shape the technological products and services we build.
- chiaro 11y ago
  What kind of degree are you talking about when you say "social studies"?
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    I'm referring to "soft sciences" like social work, psychology, sociology, [grievance] studies, poli sci, etc, as opposed to the humanities: history, mathematics, philosophy, classics, fine arts, etc.
    - chiaro 11y ago
      Not sure what you mean by grievance studies but most of those, besides being quite important, fit under the humanities label. Mathematics on the other hand, probably not.
      - joeclark77 11y ago
        Most of those would be classified as "social sciences", not humanities. It has to do with the methods and philosophies they use. Grievance studies is my nickname for "_____ studies" where the "_____" is the name of some census checkbox.
invisible_dust 11y ago
I honestly think the last thing anyone needs is more sociologists. I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  Social sciences don't exactly mean sociology. Economy is a social science, psychology too, anthropology might be considered humanities but it's also a social science...
- chiaro 11y ago
  >I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities. You don't consider sociologists to be the least bit concerned about human cultures and experiences?
Shorel 11y ago
We don't know about social sciences because it is a heavily politically charged subject. The most interesting and potentially enlightening experiments are also probably illegal. That's why it's hard. And you ALSO need a branch of mathematics, called statistics, and probably many more. You can't simply pour lots of money into it without any hard science and expect useful results. tl;dr: it's not about quantity, it's about quality and the political landmine of social sciences.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  > The most interesting and potentially enlightening experiments are also probably illegal. I fully agree with your points. However, regarding this one in particular, I would like to add that this shouldn't stop the harnessing of already existing knowledge in the social sciences to better shape the products we build. I mean, you're totally right; there's a lot of knowledge "locked" in the difficulties related to studying humans. However, we know some stuff about people and their behaviour. A relevant amount of stuff I would say. And that stuff isn't being applied when we create a technical solution to a human problem; the solution is almost solely defined by technical aspects. We don't know much, but we know enough to do better than what we do with technology today, human-wise. (At least, better than defining "UX work" as pixel-pushing in Photoshop or Illustrator)
- innguest 11y ago
  > We don't know about social sciences because it is a heavily politically charged subject. It did not used to be that way. It started to change after WW2 and even stronger after 1967. Social "sciences" were made political because a group of radical influential thinkers were interested in furthering studies that would disprove the role of genetics, biology and darwinism in social studies. Before this shift, social studies were not politicized.
chiaro 11y ago
Agreed. STEM has proved incalculably valuable in servicing the lowest (most essential) tiers of Maslow's pyramid, but the higher ones (love through to self-actualization) require more nuanced investigation. As society progresses, people worry less about these tiers, like hunger, and it's not unlikely that the primary concerns of future generations will be emotional/social.
sklogic 11y ago
An extreme of a society where everyone mastered the soft skills is a society of master manipulators. Not sure it's an utopia.
- chiaro 11y ago
  soft skills != the soft sciences.

fsiefken 11y ago

True, but also in the social sciences you need a firm grasp of statistics, science and a keen mind. Perhaps even more so as people, culture are often more complex then designing user interfaces, self-driving cars or facial, voice and gesture recognition apps. How to filter out factors, describe patterns? Statistical methodologies (and the psychological/sociological theories they test or are based on) are crucial tools in understanding dynamics of behavior. The need for social science experts will arrive when people need to solve these problems, like with SEO/SEA, VR, gaming and narrativity - in their multidisciplinary contexts in various companies and industries.

paulojreis 11y ago
I think the need already exists. But companies are used to getting by (with huge profits) with engineer-driven products and decisions. The extent to which our technological products and services are engineer-oriented is mesmerizing. Steve Jobs once said something about Apple working at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. It was marketing, of course, but I can't even express how much I agree with this. Regarding the need for a good grasp of statistics in social scientists, I fully agree. But I think it's something that already exists, up to a point at least. I work in software development with many software engineers around, but I also did a PhD with a strong social sciences background. You would be amazed with how much the guys with psychology backgrounds know about stats and methodology (and how much the common STEM guy doesn't).

joeclark77 11y ago

If by "soft/social sciences" you mean real substantive disciplines like history, philosophy, civics, and the arts, I agree with you. Currently "social studies" in school is a bit of a trash bucket into which gets thrown every personal ideology and pet project that some teacher got her feminism or social work or grievance-studies BA in. It's the worst subject in most curricula, even worse than English. The problem is there's plenty of those nonsense degree holders and far too few college graduates who have studied the humanities.

paulojreis 11y ago
I meant psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, communication, among others. Those are, despite the "social studies" stigma they might carry, real substantive disciplines which should not only contribute but predominantly shape the technological products and services we build.
chiaro 11y ago
What kind of degree are you talking about when you say "social studies"?
- joeclark77 11y ago
  I'm referring to "soft sciences" like social work, psychology, sociology, [grievance] studies, poli sci, etc, as opposed to the humanities: history, mathematics, philosophy, classics, fine arts, etc.
  - chiaro 11y ago
    Not sure what you mean by grievance studies but most of those, besides being quite important, fit under the humanities label. Mathematics on the other hand, probably not.
    - joeclark77 11y ago
      Most of those would be classified as "social sciences", not humanities. It has to do with the methods and philosophies they use. Grievance studies is my nickname for "_____ studies" where the "_____" is the name of some census checkbox.

invisible_dust 11y ago

I honestly think the last thing anyone needs is more sociologists. I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities.

paulojreis 11y ago
Social sciences don't exactly mean sociology. Economy is a social science, psychology too, anthropology might be considered humanities but it's also a social science...
chiaro 11y ago
>I would prefer studies oriented around the humanities. You don't consider sociologists to be the least bit concerned about human cultures and experiences?

Shorel 11y ago

We don't know about social sciences because it is a heavily politically charged subject. The most interesting and potentially enlightening experiments are also probably illegal. That's why it's hard. And you ALSO need a branch of mathematics, called statistics, and probably many more. You can't simply pour lots of money into it without any hard science and expect useful results. tl;dr: it's not about quantity, it's about quality and the political landmine of social sciences.

paulojreis 11y ago
> The most interesting and potentially enlightening experiments are also probably illegal. I fully agree with your points. However, regarding this one in particular, I would like to add that this shouldn't stop the harnessing of already existing knowledge in the social sciences to better shape the products we build. I mean, you're totally right; there's a lot of knowledge "locked" in the difficulties related to studying humans. However, we know some stuff about people and their behaviour. A relevant amount of stuff I would say. And that stuff isn't being applied when we create a technical solution to a human problem; the solution is almost solely defined by technical aspects. We don't know much, but we know enough to do better than what we do with technology today, human-wise. (At least, better than defining "UX work" as pixel-pushing in Photoshop or Illustrator)
innguest 11y ago
> We don't know about social sciences because it is a heavily politically charged subject. It did not used to be that way. It started to change after WW2 and even stronger after 1967. Social "sciences" were made political because a group of radical influential thinkers were interested in furthering studies that would disprove the role of genetics, biology and darwinism in social studies. Before this shift, social studies were not politicized.

chiaro 11y ago

Agreed. STEM has proved incalculably valuable in servicing the lowest (most essential) tiers of Maslow's pyramid, but the higher ones (love through to self-actualization) require more nuanced investigation. As society progresses, people worry less about these tiers, like hunger, and it's not unlikely that the primary concerns of future generations will be emotional/social.

sklogic 11y ago

An extreme of a society where everyone mastered the soft skills is a society of master manipulators. Not sure it's an utopia.

chiaro 11y ago
soft skills != the soft sciences.