Powerful

>things go nonlinear
What did he mean by this?

>nasim nicholas taleb
>broadly misapplies his area of expertise, risk analysis, throughout the physical sciences to promote empirically unsubstantiated, ludicrous claims
>"a-all my detractors are r-racist!"

Most maths related stuff is easy, its just plugging numbers into a formula or doing the same thing with diffrent numbers. It doesn't require much critical thinking. Just for some reason normie brainlets have trouble understanding it.

non-linear usually refers to a specific type of system represented by non-linear differential equations (equations which cannot be reduced to Dy=f(x) where D is a linear operator).

such equations, while still deterministic, are very difficult to model because of the extreme sensitivity to the initial conditions. hence, non-linear is basically a way of saying unpredictable when you want to sound smart.

this pleb is just a moron though

that's really not what real maths is like though

he's exactly right
this is why sociology is bullshit
sociology without psychology
is like
psychology without neurology
is like
neurology without biology
is like
biology without chemistry
is like
chemistry without physics
is like
physics without math

since we still don't know shit about the brain, all things from neurology up are prone to be hugely wrong

Things don't go non-linear, sociologists, economists and in more recent times psychologists have ditched the pretense of being empiricists altogether and now use Post-modernism. So they aren't sciences.

You are entirely correct. Basic observation about humans, and societies, reveals uncomfortable, politically inconvenient truths. So psychology/sociology etc have been distorted.

that's not what mathematics is, at all

they were never empiricists to begin with, their fields derive from people shilling their pet, insubstantial theories and ideologies.

I'd guess his line of thinking was "Let's see... Linear means simple, so nonlinear means complex. I want to sound smarter, so I'll just use that."

Durkheim tried to find rules in sociology. He did found some regularities, but now and then people find peoples that are exceptions to those rules.
Also, sociological rules don't translate into technology like Physics.
I wonder if our sociological knowledge ever helped us as physical did

The real-world need to better understand human behavior doesn't have time to wait for the hard sciences to catch up, though.

gravity and electromagnetism aren't linear either

so apparently they're hard like sociology and different from most of physics.

I would rather say things go stochastic, non-linear can still be modelled (which is something many non-meme scientists concern themselves with daily through simulations and such.)

But he is right. It's easier to track a planets motion for the next 2000 years than it is to figure out how a human works. Each human is too different and complex to understand to the level we understand most other things in science.

This guy has an ego way too fucking fat for his stupid face.
At least Bill Nye taught rudimentary physics to kids in a fun way, and is only just now making an ass out of himself because his career completely stagnated.
Magical Space Negro has made 0 contributions anywhere and just tweets retarded ass platitudes.

But it does have time to watch incompetent pseudoscientists flounder aimlessly

How does NNT misapply his expertise? And when does he cry racist?

>x is applied y
Fuck off to reddit, bud.

He got kicked out because he didn't focus on his research enough because he was on their rowing, wrestling, and dance teams. He allegedly admitted that he didn't focus on his research enough.

>Black Science Man

Just a Science Spokesman there to bring Science closer to the average population, while also being the token black man

>Science White man (Bill Nye)

Not even a Scientist, just an engineer that spends his days arguing for the incarceration of those who have an opposing opinion to him on climate change and furthering Marxist propaganda.

>Science Jew (Krauss Lawrence)

Spend most of his time actually doing research and publishing a shit ton of valuable papers per year, just a fraction of his time is used in public talking, and even then it's usually to further scientific knowledge or explain something meaningful, not tied down in retarded ideological politics.
Feels good to be a Ashkenazi Jew, zionist master race. Fucking gentiles don't stand a chance.

No, the amount of knowledge, scientific breakthrough, techonology, marvel of engeeniering that is needed to track the motion of planets is mind bogling.
Sociology is just making polls on the internet.
The ammount of effort put is just not of the same of magnitude.

I wouldn't be so sure.

youtube.com/watch?v=4AyTbLqSBfI

>since we can't conduct a test with 100% certainty, we shouldn't even bother trying to learn about it

That's a cancer meme friend

>How does NNT misapply his expertise?
Essentially every single remark he makes on transgenic crops

>nonlinear
>not stochastic
Brain determinists get out reeeeeeeeee

>stochastic
>not "not well-defined"

He is right tho, living systems are much harder to work with than simple non-linear dynamic systems

Maybe that's because sociology is hard and physics is easy, in principle, not in practice. In other words humanity is too brainlet for sociology

Back to Monsanto buddy. This is a anti GMO

I guess climate change is nonlinear too, since it involves human behavior....

Neil SmokeDaGrass Tyson

Human behaviour is just a product of their surroundings. The sheer amount of variables make it hard to keep track of but it's pretty straightforward

People like to jerk themselves off by feeling enigmatic and intangible though

Not just their immediate surroundings. We observe for instance in treating depression that SSRIs generally show therapeutic efficacy in 3-6 weeks, while final intersynaptic concentrations of serotonin are reached after a day or two. This suggests that it is the -regulation- of serotonin receptors which is clinically relevant, and not the concentration itself, so that things like depression and one's broader mental state depend on a sort of weighted average of chemical phenomena over a period of time, rather than principally on chemical phenomena as they occur. Similarly, genetic, epigenetic, and environmental influences from the distant past can have a profound influence on the present. But I agree with your general contention here that "human nature" is fundamentally understandable and reducible to practice, rather than lending itself to some sort of perverse mysticism. That nothing "falls outside of" the observable world.

Honestly historical materialism is still the best way to approach sociology and related fields, and modern academic departments' rejection of the same is directly responsible for the sheer lack of meaningful progress in these areas.

>confusing neuroscience with neurology
>obviously being a complete fucking layman to the field
>parroting claims that we don't understand the brain without understanding why
>le i fucking love science! Did you know u only use 10% of ur brain???

This is what happens when a math undergrad thinks he can opine about anything other than autistic primes

things start falling onto a spectrum

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume by "nonlinear" he means "hard to predict"

don't fucking remind me
youtube.com/watch?v=46h-LfNWPn8&ab_channel=CrazyCod

>historical materialism
Stop trying to turn what isn't a science into a science. Historical materialism will never make a meaningful difference in the studies of the humanities. Some fag in the 19th century doesn't have the answer to every historical question based on a simple premise.

Interestingly enough, this can be applied to economics.

Communism, for instance, is perfect until human behavior is introduced.

There is nothing all that objectionable about that tweet.

At least you admit that communism is perfect in theory, unlike capitalism, which fails in theory and in practice.

That's why Sociology as a concentration is so easy, it's subjective and no one knows what they're doing or how to judge work

He has a point when it comes to testing ideas. I've seen a fair number of political scientists get giddy over Trump because he is so bizarre they can finally take a proper look at their models and how they handle him. It was a marvelous test of election models--the ones that completely ignored the human element and stances of the candidates did best if you were wondering.

If Communism fails to consider human nature then it is not perfect.

Should have said
>why physics is straightforward and sociology is bullshit

This.

>you can't discover the sky is blue without quantum electrodynamics
ok

and for those things we take the Jacobian

>Communism, for instance, is perfect until human behavior is introduced.
Communism is built around human nature. "People respond to incentives" is its core premise.
I really wonder what part of the theory you think is contradicted by "human nature." Unless by "communism" you actually mean "the government should take everything you produce beyond a certain level and give it to others who produce below it."

>Communism, for instance, is perfect until human behavior is introduced.
No it isn't.

I wonder if hes the "probability is a pseudoscience" guy

>its just plugging numbers into a formula or doing the same thing with diffrent numbers
Spotted the high school sophomore

"There are more stole bikes in my garage than the graham number"
Negro science papi