Sociology

>sociology

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.dilbert.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>sociology
They don't call it that anymore. It's called behavioral psychology now and it's the most relevant scientific pursuit in politics, entertainment and business. Every time you leave the house you encounter decisions made by sociologists, like why a particular advertisement displayed one primary color over another, why a politician used an unusual phrase as opposed to a standard phrase, why you're not angry that the cereal boxes you buy have less cereal in them but cost more than they used to, the reason pop songs sound bad at first but then sound okay, etc. etc. etc.

Choosing to ignore sociology makes you very easily manipulated by the people with money who don't ignore sociology.

>Scientology

manipulate into doing what, I sit at home smoking the finest kush everyday

It's either to manipulate you into doing things, or to manipulate you into not doing things. Buy one product, don't buy another product. Vote for one politician, don't vote for another politician. Believe this idea, don't believe a competing idea. Not everyone will get influenced, but advertisers and whatever else will still try because it will always give them power and/or profit. If you just vegetate every day, smoking plants as if you were nothing better than a plant, I don't see how anyone would have any use for you in the first place, though. Since nobody cares what you do anymore, because you do nothing, propaganda will never work on you?

The phrase "behavioral psychology", taken literally, is as laughable as is your post. Believing that external behavior correlates accurately with one's mental states and inner processes is just as naive. Sociology is the most trivial and worthless discipline by far, perhaps followed by anthropology; it amounts to nothing but rudimentary statistical data that doesn't employ any mathematical tool other than the percent. Its predictive power is equivalent to the predictive power of an astrologist and whenever it does try to predict, it fails, and embarrassingly so.

>literature board

Sounds like basic things that people can weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.

>Its predictive power is equivalent to the predictive power of an astrologist

Except that's not true

>Its predictive power is equivalent to the predictive power of an astrologist and whenever it does try to predict, it fails, and embarrassingly so.

You're ridiculously uninformed, and ridiculous in general to think absolutely certain predictions are the only kind with merit. If you want someone on the street to do you a favor, first ask them the question: "Do you consider yourself helpful?" This will make them briefly examine themselves for all their memories of helpful behavior, while ignoring all their memories of unhelpful behavior, and this will significantly make them more likely to help you. This has a profound consequence in how people will try to control society, and your head is completely beneath the sand to arrogantly dismiss scientific disciplines because it doesn't correspond with the unrealistic mathematical demands of a hard science like physics to be applied to an object of study which at it's very nature cannot be absolutely quantified.

Yes, exactly, but you have no idea how widespread the science's influence is, or how effective it is. For example, do you think Donald Trump is a dangerous candidate who shouldn't be let anywhere near the White House?

Trump has gotten this far because of sociology. This blog spends a lot of time explaining exactly how:

blog.dilbert.com/

>He's never read zhuangzi's parable of the twisted tree

>correlates accurately
What is that even supposed to mean?

No response yet, eh soft-science denier? I don't have to time wait for one (sorry) so I'm just going to post pic related and assume it was horrifyingly appropriate.

>taking the hard science idiot's bait
He's wrong. You're also wrong because you accept some of his premises. Heisenberg's idea that we are never observing things as they are but through our own frame of questioning could easily have been written by a sociologist unconcerned with statistical data. Strongly math based professions are often more concerned with the sociological than user sets out; actuarial sciences are as drab and math driven as death and taxes and predict awful things user doesn't want to know about his later years or pension. Stop pretending user knows shit about science to shit on another science, kthnks. *whips science man cape and poisons everyone with potassium flash* *exits left*

>if you do something it's because you're being manipulated into doing it
>if you don't do something, it's because you're being manipulated into not doing it
sounds like a conspiracy theory

>sounds like a conspiracy theory

thats what someone highly manipulated would say.

Are there any good books on this sort of practical psychology?
I have no desire to get into the field but this shit is kind of interesting.

>Its predictive power is equivalent to the predictive power of an astrologist and whenever it does try to predict, it fails, and embarrassingly so.
>its literally the most utelised tool that governments, advertisers and corporations have when they try and control human behavior

Read a book nigger.

Sounds like a catch 22

wow you mean people are influenced by the totality of things they perceive?

WOW! I never would've guessed!

>wasn't smart enough to take up econ

have fun plebbing, constructivist shits

but what are they allowed to perceive?

>You're ridiculously uninformed, and ridiculous in general to think absolutely certain predictions are the only kind with merit
As for your first "ridiculous" accusation: Asserting that somebody is "ridiculously uninformed" without providing any supporting evidence for it doesn't magically make it true. The second "ridiculous" is just as bad: it vividly demonstrates--without me pointing it out--just how poor your reading comprehension is. When I wrote "accurately correlates" I intentionally left it vague--it need not necessarily be interpreted as "absolutely certain" (as it is with a function defined as f_n = f_n-1 + f_n-2 with initial values f_0 = 0 and f_1 = 1, say). It could be a reasonable numerical value: 0.7 - 1.0, say.

The rest of your text is twaddle, not worth replying to.

But to the rest of naive butthurts ITT, which I will not name, and to their future job prospects as sociologists (nobody gets as angry as sociologists when it comes to talking down on their worthless education and occupation): Like I said at the outset: your precious little sociology may use whatever methods it desires but don't act, think, or presuppose for a second that it logically entails an automatic and overnight prediction or impact on people's behaviour with high success rate and accuracy. Using a method doesn't necessarily imply a success; and it sure as hell isn't the case with sociolmaogy.

Please, do something worthwhile with your life.

>sociology and not psychoanalytic cultural anthropology

>manipulated into being the last man
>thinks he's not manipulated

lmao that's retarded

if sociology is so great how come all sociologists I know are straight up retarded?