Pseudoscience

>IQ metric pseudoscience

Nearly every psychometrician in existence disagrees with you, brainlet.

economics is more of an abstract version of studying human behavior anyways which is hardly a "science" because we arn't collectively smart enough to figure out our own shit yet anyways

>"psychometrician"
>psychologists giving themselves made up names for a made up field of (((science)))
>pretending like a test of intelligence where the scores vary +/-12 points per test is even close to being scientific.
>pretending like your 110IQ score you got in grade school means anything

Darwinism is the most unproven scientific theory.

magnets

nearly every evangelical pastor disagrees with the idea that jesus didn't die for our sins as well. what's your point?

My hardware is pretty old, do you think it's slowing me down?

>a psychological metric is pseudoscience
>"LOL but every psychological metrician says ur wrong!!"
wat

This is what brainlets really think. Must be hard being an idiot, claiming IQ is pseudoscience seems like a reasonable way to cope.

u rekt him

Ironically in context of OP image, all of those fields are far more empirically scientific than cosmology which is laughably broken.

and keep on ejaculating over your 110 IQ. Im sure it made your mommy super proud of you :). Now go spend your good boy points on something fun!

Here's how it goes.

There's two cases:

Since the rise of the hot new ''Everybody that's not white is a low IQ subhuman'' fad that /pol/ posters been exporting everywhere they can, you can't say anything against it (IQ) without encountering these very same people that may or not be from /pol/ but firmly believe anything that will give some sense (make them feel better) to their lives.

or

These people are so far up their asses that are relieved these IQ tests have finally validated how smart they believed themselves to be. Anything said against this will be perceived as an attack to what may hold an important pillar of their existence in place.

Both are equally pathetic. Don't bother.

what's wrong with cosmology?

evolutionary psychology

this is correct. Even Stephen Fucking managed to beep boop out that IQ is a useless metric.

>metallurgy
>liberal arts
>bibliography
These aren't even science. Wtf?

Why is the Brainlet Brigade so determined to believe IQ isn't relevant?

IQ scores predict success in all fields (including the arts) all the way up the bell curve. A 150-IQ person is far more likely to succeed at painting than a 120-IQ person, etc. This holds for science, philosophy, math, literature, business, fucking everything.

my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf

applied geometry is a fucking retarded meme. Its taught in high school and i am certain thats why so many normies say they hate math. theoretical math is cool and really fun but applied math, especially geometry, is pretty dry

>applied *anything*

Thats the problem.

Same with ''Applied'' Math. Its another attempt at showing people the ''applications'' of the subject and another step in the wrong direction to teaching people math.

These people don't teach math, they teach symbol manipulation and routines to follow, and then they couple it with these ''applied'' classes to try and convince people that they should memorize all of these routines.

It's taught in high school because trade jobs rely on it as bread and butter, and they often will never need to use anything else, but if they go on (say, to engineering when older), they can then learn the other stuff.

>A 150-IQ person is far more likely to succeed at painting than a 120-IQ person
>"succeed"
>at painting
what does that even mean

correlation =/= causation. not science. the IQ metric could just as accurately depict willingness to do what other people tell you to do, which would account for doing well on tests and """""succeeding"""""(lol) in various fields.

social science is not science. you're religious at best.

It means getting recognition for your work and earning money from it, brainlet.

The FDA.

They spew pseudoscience all the time for the benefit of corporations and liberal retards lap that shit right up.

Delusional retards.

is that supposed to be some kind of objective metric inherent to reality? or is it based in opinions?
>social "science"
fuck

It doesn't have falsifiability problems. The problem is that the answers you get aren't the ones people or politicians want, so they ignore it.

nice meme words you learnd.

IQ isn't everything but why are you so mad? Low IQ brainlet much ?

>Behavioral biology
Elaborate? The most basic form of science is observation and behavior is one of the few things that can be measured and studied in living things.

>what's bothering you today, user?

Gay science.

Gays chose to be gay even before there was any science to back them up. Now there is science that has shoddy scientific method and is fallacy ridden if not outright falsified and the gays use this as a temporary lily pad of credibility for a decision they had made before the science came out.

It actually worries me that they can belive some of the incredible bullshit they speak, like gayness somehow raises IQ or is some kind of super power.

When you cancle out the biases in the same way someone balances an alegebra equation you realise there are two real conclusions you can draw about gayness.

1.) It is not an Evolutionary Stable Strategy
2.) There MUST be people in the media that are smart enought to know gayness is flawed but still support it anyway.

Agreed. Do not eat white sliced bread. It'll kill your liver.

intelligent people are usually able to provide arugments instead of ad hominem.

>The most basic form of science
this attitude of different "forms" of science is why social science is allowed to be called "science".

If it follows the scientific method it's a science. And science isn't some gold stamp of "this is more important" that you and other pop sci fans make it out to be.

Nice false dichotomy.

what about those who believe IQ is not perfect but still useful?

how does behavioral science follow the scientific method at all?

do you know what the scientific method is?

>And science isn't some gold stamp of "this is more important"
straw man, stay on topic.

>the IQ metric

>HAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THIS BRAINLET XDXDXXD
>IQ IS NOT REAL!! BACK TO /POL/ >:((((((((((((((
This is the cancerous state of Veeky Forums

>how does behavioral science follow the scientific method at all?

How do they not? Have you ever even read much less seen a behavioral study? They do the same thing every other scientific field does. They make an observation about behavior, make a hypothesis about it, test said hypothesis in a falsifiable way, and then based on the results they either reject the norm or not. There's nothing else to it. They use the same method as chemistry, physics or what have you.

Engineers rely on applied geometry quite a bit too. I get that they take a good amount of math in their own right, but they are usually designed courses for Engineers, which means, the least amount of theory as possible. Mine even utilized "cheat sheets" so you didn't have to memorize so much stuff. Without the basics of geometry, those classes would have been far more difficult.

You could argue that learning more hard theory at a young age, instead of applied math, would make learning applied concepts much easier later on, but there just isn't a lot of proof to back that up.

>test said hypothesis in a falsifiable way
this is where the problem lies. behavioral science allows for a certain amount of statistical anomalies to account for the dynamic behavior of biological organisms. a claim becomes unfalsifiable when you say that it is acceptable for contradictory statistics to be void of proving the claim false.

While not being very good at seperating people with above average intelligence, it still does a fairly good job at displaying the below average. The only people that can't score decently high on an IQ test are either uneducated, educated but plain stupid, or they find such tests so pointless that they don't put any effort into them (the latter is more common than you think; plenty of hard working Joes out there who really don't care about tests anymore).

IQ measures how well you do IQ tests, intelligence obviously helps, but its not proportional since the best way to improve your IQ is to practice IQ tests. And there are parts of intelligence the test are shit at measuring.

Because the tests are normally not reproducible. Somebody else could try to copy a particular study/experiment 100% and still come out with a different conclusion(s). Too much of it depends on the specific person/people doing the study and/or partaking in the study.

Until we have mastered the brain, such studies will always be like fumbling in the dark. They will all have to be redone sometime in the future when more is known.

Gayness is also most likely caused by a cycle of abuse
It's also a mental illness

Yeah and that's why we have this nifty little thing called statistics. Once you use metanalysis from repeated retests the odds of anomolies accounting for the effect are immeasurably small. Much smaller than say equipment malfunction in a giant particle accelerator.

The claims are still falsiable. If the effect does not show from repeated tests it is considered false. Contradictory evidence along with all other measures are used and accounted for in the metanalysis. This is introductory statistical analysis level.

But they are. Just Google any metanalysis on any topic like antidepressants and you will see tests consistently show effects in behavioral science. If they do not then that simply shows the effect is false.

I thought it was something to do with hormones, chemicals during pregnancy, testosterone while having a girl -tomboy or lesbian child is the probably result, oestrogen while having a boy leads to an effeminate, weak boy or male homosexual, something about the chemicals in birth control pills or the local water supply mixing/messing up womens naturals levels

pretty much this, the core of economics is a bunch of unfounded dogmas, and all of the work economists do is based off of these unquestioned dogmas. the work they do simply does not resemble science in anyway.

iq is not even a coherent idea, much less a scientific fact about reality, or whatever its proponents think of it as.

>ethology
>pseudoscience
Lmao brainlet

Physics is bullshit.

I unironically think there are big problems with physics and most of the other natural sciences

Anything above newton level, fundemental or whatever you fags call it, is bullshit.

IQ is completely fine. Would you really wish to be born with an IQ of 65? If it doesn't matter you should be okay with that, if you aren't okay with it then you are admitting IQ is at least somewhat accurate (which is the only argument people make with IQ, that it is somewhat accurate).

I had sex with IQ65 a few times. Later, I said no and I'm pretty sure she hit IQ0 a few times

Accurate with regards to the mentally retarded not for those with elevated mental capacity. Therein lies the crux of the issue as most cite it as a source of renown when it is only accurate as a source of hardship.

Sure but I always thought people hated it because of the correlation between race and IQ.

I get the feeling you think about gayness a lot. How come?

Yep, they're all geeks.

So does everyone else just kind of nod along with all the massive piles of assumptions and general bs that goes into evolution or is that just me?

>unfounded dogmas
>A science based entirely on observation of human behaviour
wew lad

I can tell you never took an Economics class in your life

1.) You don't know shit about evolutionary theory if you think that the death of an individual without passing on offspring is a bad choice. An extreme version is a colony organism wherein only a few cells are reproducing and the rest die creating a stalk for the reproducing cells to bud off of. In organism with high social structure it is beneficial to have non-mating members that are capable of mating if need be, for example in wolf packs there is rarely mating outside of the dominant pair. The rest raise the babies and help produce enough food to offset the drain the babies place on the pack. A similar theory in human development is the importance of grandparents who were able to spend time with the babies and teach them what they learned through their life increasing humans crucial ability of passing skills down generations and spreading through populations. This is just a short list of evolutionary benefits of non-mating members in highly social animals.
2.) You sound like a crazy person. There are people that still believe evolution is a lie and say it on TV.

If you are a troll good job but I want to preemptively stop people thinking they are in good company with incorrect information.
That article is saying that the reason being gay was taken off so fast was because they had no solid basis behind their mental illness classifications.

List some

I would say most of the dogmas in economics are related to mathematization and their circular thinking about the objects they study. But yes their dogmas about human behavior are a complete joke and are most certainly not based off of observation of anything, and arguably do not rise above the level of nonsense.

Besides religion, the other thing that economics resembles most closely I think is an advertisement, or a marketing campaign.

I have had the misfortune of taking an economics class, and never would have if it were my decision. I never attended the class or read any of the materials, and passed easily just by repeating their dogma back on the tests.

is in response to

and you felt it necessary to remove your original post and swap it with an almost identically banal and meaningless quote.

whoaaa dude you mean to tell me that "economics is a technique of thinking" ? ? and it "helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions" ? Whoa thats deep stuff, maybe there is more to economics than I thought

>I never attended the class or read any of the materials
That's not taking a class then.
Opinion dismissed.

The closest to Economics is Climate Science. Both use models to try to figure out reality, both have millions of variables to take into account, and both are heavily politized. But they are based on facts and empirical research, not dogmas, despite what you may want to believe.

...

> Opinion dismissed.

Damn nice move, I suck at debate wars. You definitely 'won' this 'war of ideas', but let me offer you advice. Shit like this is really not impressive to anyone and it especially isn't convincing. You sound like a petulant and disagreeable child to everyone and it signals that you are afraid to confront ideas directly and you don't understand the subject matter. You aren't as smart as you think and when you make what amounts to a trivial ad hominem attack you are probably the only one who thinks you proved something to others.

By the way, since you are so turned on by credentialism, you might be interested to know that my girlfriend is an economics researcher at a highly prestigious institution, and through her I know many other economics phds and grad students. Out of all of them, you were the only one "smart" enough to dismiss the idea I was presenting, so good job.

Nothing more petulant than dismissing an entire field of research out of prejudice without ever having attended a single class. (Your admission)

You having a girlfriend that knows Economics or knowing PhDs in the matter does not make you knowledgeable-by-association and it seems to me you are confusing your girlfriend's refusal to call you out on your childish ideas out of sympathy, with a validation of them.

All of these guys were deviants and weirdos.

>A celibate
>Two hardcore Christians
>2 respected normal guys
I'll give you Einstein though but what can you expect from a kike?

>A celibate
>Two hardcore Christians
>2 respected normal guys

Only in your romanticized fantasy world.

so after calling economics a pseudoscience what shall we do? completely drop the study of economical problems because "muh not real science"?