Who do you think will make more accurate predictions about humans: a 25-year-old sociology/psychology graduate student...

Who do you think will make more accurate predictions about humans: a 25-year-old sociology/psychology graduate student who has read a ton of studies, or a thousand-year-old vampire?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The vampire. He's got 1000 years of experience and he knows how people have changed over the years. Hands-on experience is one of the most powerful methods of judgment we have.

A 25 year old sociology graduate student will have less accurate predictions about humans than a 25 year old highschool dropout.

A 25-year-old sociology/psychology graduate student will have less accurate predictions than the average retarded inbred dalmatian puppy.

Depends on where the Vampire has been in those years, how many years he'sbeen awake for, and if the undead can actually learn and change.

I mean, there are some pretty retarded old people.

Then again, the 25 year old sociologist could easily be just as biased even if he's well read. I would rather trust a mathematician who later got into sociology and had no strong prior affiliations with any particular stances.

Or best of all, a group of sociologists who understood statistics and had many different political stances.

Bias is a bitch.

>t. All I know about psychology is pop psych retardation

The psych grad.

Even the mathematician who switch to sociology would have his own stance. The fact that you can bias your data even unwittingly to fit your intended conclusion is something that gets drilled into your head in every field of science.

The 1000 year old Vampire is absolutely mad, likely somewhat suicidal and just generally a broken mess unless it has an explicitly non-Human mind. Unless you can give me some details on how, if at all, his cognitive functions are different from a Human, I'd take a pregrad psychology student's opinion over his.

That's why I went further on to say the ideal situation is a group.

Really, the mathematical background is just so that this person would understand statistics and not just be some dope with a degree for agreeing with their professor.

Yes, I know actual sociologists SHOULD understand statistics. But I wanted to be sure that this one would.

Neither, but the vampire will know there's no point in trying to guess what humans will do, while the sociology student still believes he can unearth some rhyme or reason to our actions.

A thousand year old vamp masquerading as a 25 year old with a masters is psych?

If this documentary thought me something, probably the student.

>Human being

or

>Not a Human being anymore, and hasn't been for slightly over 900 years. Also, a DEAD-not-human-being.


I'm going to go with the human here, I wouldn't care much of the opinions of a corpse that treats human beings like cattle.

>implying human are such a difficult structured creatures ,that a millennium wouldn't grand you Joseph powers
We are talking about bald monkeys ,user.

Kill yourself. Psychology uses legendarily poor expirimental design and basically zero quality control for publication. Additionally, both psychology and sociology are insanely politically biased

Does a cow know more about cattle than the rancher?

Depends on the vampire. Your average ancillae that only had his friends and enemies as company won't know much more than theaverage human old fart.
But if he spent that time as a ruler or scholar, with frequent and in-depht contact with the societies of men, then he probably knows much more than the graduate.

In a matter of speaking, yes. A cow knows more about being a cow, not by a reserve of knowledge on the subject, but intuitively. Others might observe and make judgments about it's actions, but they will never actually be cows unless they run afoul a wizard.

But the experience of being a singular cow might not give sufficient insight into how other cows act. The rancher has the luxury of long experience with a large number of individuals. I'd argue that the cow knows most about the experience of being that particular cow, but the rancher definitely knows more about cattle in general.

I'm close friends with someone who is very intelligent and received a bachelors in psychology.

It's very high on his top regrets. People in the medical field are surprised he can be competent at a task, which is an assumption owing to his degree. The worst part is that he feels the field more or less deserves the flak it gets given the issues it has: psychology is sort of a shitty mass-production major for colleges (with most programs featuring few hard science classes), there's been a lot of specious research by psychologists in the past, political and social agendas only funding research favorable to their beliefs, and classifying mental illnesses based off of symptoms and not causes.

>Psychology uses legendarily poor expirimental design
[citation needed]
>basically zero quality control for publication
This is why you study it in university. In order to learn how to separate the wheat from the tares.
>Additionally, both psychology and sociology are insanely politically biased
All science is politically oriented. Otherwise "scientist" would never have become a profession.

>Implying the ant knows more about being an ant than the ant god who created ants.

>[citation needed]
nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

The one that exists.

25 year old graduate

After 1000 of years the vampire knows nothing about being human anymore. The few memories he has were from the year 1016 and people were very different back then. I don't think the same psychology applies to people from the middle ages and current day people.

A ventrue, a malkavian, a Ghangrel, a Nosferatu, a Toreador, a Brujah and their human roommate.

Depends on the vampire though, doesn't it? Maybe he's fascinated by the changes in society and spends a lot of time observing and interacting with mortals for that very reason.

Depends on the prediction they're supposed to make. If its how this person with this mental disorder will react given this stimuli, I'd go with the grad student since the vampire probably has only the most cursory understanding of mental illness. If its how will this large group will react given such and such political shift, I'd trust the vampire cause he has seen empires fall numerous times in his life

>Depends on the vampire though, doesn't it?
No, all vampires are the same.

T. mummy

>Vladislav: Old Clan Tzimisce
>Viago: Ventrue
>Petyr: Nosferatu
>Deacon: Brujah

I'm going to say the psych graduate, because 1000 years is a long time and the vampire probably would've become quite detached from the rest of humanity by then.

Imagine the sheer amount of shit you've forgotten in the last ten years, then multiply that times a hundred.

What if the 25-year-old sociology/psychology student *is* the thousand-year-old vampire in disguise?

Who can predict the future better? You, the guy posting memes on the Internet? Or your grandfather who can't figure out how to reset his AOL password?