STEMtards BTFO

>Science is hard. Hard sciences like physics and CS are incredibly difficult. Soft sciences like psychology are even harder.

Google bends the knee for this
twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/894911578126008322

I hope all you liberal faggots suffer in your own creation for what you've unleashed.

How many of you have turned sides and blame your former self?

You've put the insane in charge of the asylum.

>tfw the clueless general public thinks that CS and physics are on the same level in terms of difficulty

Veeky Forums BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

You can keep calling me a brainlet for being a Computer Scientist but in the real world your opinion doesn't count for shit. Deal with this :-)

"well with computers it's all zeroes and ones. everything follows a logical series of steps and you can always figure out what output comes from an input. people are different"

Difficulty, complexity, straightforwardness, etc. All semantics. Psychology is more difficult in the sense that we understand less about it. Hard sciences are more difficult in the sense that we understand it so well.

soft sciences only seem harder because the people doing them are stupider

>soft sciences only seem harder because the people doing them are stupider
not really check this

Soft sciences are harder because the observables are dependant on so many variables that it's hard for humans to correlate them, and impossible to design truly properly controlled experiments. It's a fuckin' mess.

In that sense, physicists have it easy. They can actually do science to things and get real answers.

>All semantics.
Don't dismiss semantics as irrelevant.
It's what distinguishes you from the other apes.

>CS are incredibly difficult
>psychology are even harder

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

I could pick up probably any psychology book and be able to understand it after familiarizing myself with the jargon.

I would like to see a psychologist say the same about general relativity.

Probably Google does that because of A.I. research bullshit.
Yet they keep on getting that nice data from everyone, probably even BTFO'ing NSA.

I like how you're all laughing, but she's actually right.

If we understood psychology in the way that we understand other sciences, our civilization would now be on a straight path.

most CS people are former mathfags or something

like me. I really have natural sciences, like physics and chem, but math is my shit. What's the best way of making money off of that? CS obviously

True psychology is difficult. Publishing in psychology, however, is piss easy.

Susan j flower self taught physics and MS Stanford student, never publish, psychology end up begin to politice or only use young students as source.

Psychology is not conceptually difficult, but for me the hardest thing is trying to understand a particular psychological phenomenon from all the different perspectives that are important. For example, take something like depression - you can understand it through various different cognitive models (each of which might be very similar to the others, with slight nuances), you can look at the actual physical structure of the brain and take a neuropsychological view, you can look at the behaviourist approach and see how depression to a certain extent can be learned through experience, you can take the developmental perspective to understand how certain early experiences and attachment styles can influence later outcomes. It's no longer mainstream in psychology, but you can look at a psychoanalytic view, and get all Freudian if you want to. No one of these views is necessarily more correct than the others - they all converge into something that resembles a psychological 'truth'.

The real sciences are definitely more conceptually difficult than psychology, but I don't think you have this problem.

tfw just about to publish my first paper in a psychology journal, and this is true. The globalisation of academia means that some really bad papers are getting published - I've read lots of papers that are written in such poor English that they're barely comprehensible. Not sure how they made it past peer review, people probably didn't want to get called racist.

>mutilated.jpg

Except people who do hard sciences are dumb as rocks

all sciences are super easy.

Psychology is just a collection of ill posed problems, with ill posed solutions.

well guess what life is also hard but if you're gonna keep being a weak faggot and not break the fear and take a challenge and conquer the challenge then you're not fit for a successful life

Yeah?
Why haven't you done anything in science then?

He's perfecting the science of shitposting

Who is she? Her twitter hypes her as some big deal but can't find a wiki of her

Never heard of her.

who is this? some undergrad psych major thinks they know anything?

apparently, she´s a engineer, physicist and mathematician

>Natural and formal sciences
Autistic fun time with sterile abstractions

>Humanities and social sciences
Historical and cultural depth, phenomenological experience

Their opinion doesn't matter but that doesn't make them wrong. You're still a brainlet. If you weren't a brainlet you'd be in a real STEM major.

t. CS Major.

Computers are made of rocks checkmate fagger

>computers based on easily predictable logic
>human brain most complex object in the known universe

muh CS

>Soft sciences like psychology
Which of the soft sciences are like psychology?

man that's one big bait

It's true.

what the actual fuck kill me now people thinking "soft sciences" are anything but a fucking meme

>Anonymous undergraduate on an anime website says over a millennium of academic culture is just a meme
Good job! I'm sure that universities around the world are closing down their meme departments after your scathing critique.

Psychology isn't a scientific field. It does not meet the minimum requirements to be a scientific field. It may do some science but the field is populated with far too much bullshit and bait to be scientific.
Also who?

You sure told him. :)

Though, you are right that it is not just a meme. Soft sciences do yield rather solid results doing what hard science results do as well, i.e. predict behaviour, and are supported by rigorous statistics. Not always, just like Aether theory some things turn out to be just a meme.

Academic culture is a meme though. Psychology has major problems, problems that bars the field as a whole from being considered scientific, that no one attempts to fix because of academic culture. Meteorology is just as fucking complicated but you never get into arguments about 'is this scientific' because they aren't full of the same bullshit.

humanities people just use the term "soft science" to try to brand themselves as scientific. however just because they aren't scientific doesn't mean they aren't useful somehow. in any case, your butthurt is very apparent

the idea of a soft science IS a meme, thinking of fields of study like economics as equivalent in rigor to the hard sciences is retarded. The point being that there are a lot of valuable fields of academic pursuit that dont apply the scientific method the way the general public thinks and its corrosive to academia in general to reinforce over-generalizations if not outright misrepresentations to the uneducated
also

Yeah they have a ton of use to politicians when they want a fat stack of papers validating whatever they're arguing. FYI that's a large part why academic fields have funding to begin with and why paper pushing is a culture in academia.

CS is easy. You just steal code from someone else on Stack Overflow or some shit.

>mfw my tax money goes towards getting a cultural studies paper published

This actually. I would be incredibly scared to work in this field. I am already loosing sleep over theoretical models in physics not fitting certain behavior in experiments, so I would probably just die of stress trying to explain psychological results in a consistent, falsifiable manner. I have a lot of respect for the people who succeed in doing this.

I agree with her, to this day no one has produced a rigorous psychological model and I don't think anyone will until we can fully simulate the human brain, sociology is impossible to produce repeatable experiments, all of this is in contrast to CS and Physics which is nothin but repeatable experiments and rigorous models, that being said anyone who goes into social sciences believing them to have any validity is little more than a delusional fool

They just fudge their results to push papers or are only there to create a clickbait study that they can write a bestseller book about. Legitimates are so few and far between they might as well not exist. This is partially why psychology has a horrible reproducibility rate.

Yeah psychology is hard in terms of actual working models, but I think people tend to ignore the elephant in the room associated with psychology. The people who research and study psychology are trash.

It's like humanities bad. The humanities are great fields populated with the worst kind of 'academics'

What a manipulative little shitbitch

Why is there so much insecurity over psychology and other soft sciences? It's like there's a constant need for validation that they are sciences. They should just let their work show for themselves but uh I guess they can't?

...

can you model "muh feels" with fuzzy logic?

To be a psychologist you need to understand people.
That's impossible for the autists in the other sciences.

soft science is codeword for pseudo-science?

As a liberal I think we should have every conversation there is to have in as openly and honest a manner as possible.

At the same time, Google is a privately owned business.They have to be able to function as a team. If one of the team members is sending emails company-wide that make other staff uncomfortable, and there was no pressing need for that, then it's not unreasonable for Google to act in its own interest to fire the employee.

As far as the contents of the memo, a lot of it was backed by credible studies. But before we can feasibly determine how much participation is considered proportionate from each demographic on the basis of estimating innate ability, I think we should first focus on the more pressing matter of creating a level playing field. Then, if we don't see us approaching proportionate representation, we can more feasibly decide maybe it's just in women's genes to be interested in some tasks while men are interested in other, on average.

To this effect, I don't think we have institutional discrimination in the US anymore. Everyone except sometimes lgbt folk are given the same rights, and the full set of rights they need to compete on the basis of their individual merits in the economy, just about everywhere in the US. But institutional discrimination isn't the only significant sort of unmeritocratic discrimination. Socioeconomic status is heritable in our society, culture is heritable, so it's sensible in the interest of producing a more meritocratic society that we look at how we can engineer an environment equally tailored toward the success of girls. For example, throughout most of history women enjoyed fewer rights to excel in technical subject matter and academics in general. We've inhered some of the effects of that past discrimination. Girls going into technology often have the additional obstacle of having to be pioneers for their gender in a profession that has typically been male dominated for non-meritocratic reasons.

Soft sciences like psychology, sociology, political science, and economics are important because it's not feaisble to break all problems down into hard science problems.

It's not cost effective to try to model the behavior or economies or cultures on the basis of physics because we have to make assumptions because we have limitations in terms of information processing power. More simplified models can give us the level of precision in predictions that we desire.

Physics>Chemistry>Biology>Social Sciences.
>Social Sciences
Filled with Low IQ Brainlets. Fail to predict. Imprecise. Don't replicate. Often Wrong. Politically Biased. Depending on ideologies. Contradictory. Disagreement between specialists. Rival schools of thought. There is no absolute truth. Truth swings according to " muh feelings ". Avoid math.
>Physics
Filled with high IQ genius. Predict with great precision. Replicate. Often Right. Not politically biased. Regardless of Ideologies. Logically consistent. Universal Agreement between specialists. Unified theory. There is a set of absolute & universal laws of universe. Which don't change regardless of "muh feelings". Written in Math.

>look at name
>It's a woman
kek.

I don't give a shit about a topic being difficult/easy.
I do care about the TRUTH.

You get truth in maths (regardless of the fact it is not definable with it)
You don't get truth on so-called soft sciences, but mostly propaganda.

Probably not. If you're actually good at math, you should probably become an analyst or go into finance or something.

Programmers and Computer Scientists don't make that much money. They do okay but no better than engineers for sure.

Mathfags switch to CS when math gets too hard.

t. CS+Math Bachelors, CS PhD Student

Depends what you mean. Doing soft science if you actually want to get meaningful results is difficult, but it's much easier to be considered professionally reputable and successful.

>For example, throughout most of history women enjoyed fewer rights to excel in technical subject matter and academics in general. We've inhered some of the effects of that past discrimination. Girls going into technology often have the additional obstacle of having to be pioneers for their gender in a profession that has typically been male dominated for non-meritocratic reasons.
Can you explain how these once non-meritocratic reasons impact the success of women today? In what way is being a pioneer a meaningful obstacle that we should have to address?

Not that user, bit probably that not that many humans have the guts to be pioneers, and it is always easier to go with the status quo. So the idea is if the felt burden of pioneering is removed, more qualified women will drift along the same way and an initially artificially established equality can be removed from the forcing constraints and remain in an equilibrium position which is closer to this 50/50 split than it was before. Kinda like pulling a rubber band beyond the elastic regime. So it is more the idea of "this is an desirable outcome, which is not the only possible equilibrium state, so lets try to push it closer to that". Afterwards, you just return to the constraint-free, meritocratic environment.

If you think the soft sciences produce mostly propaganda, then you haven't been looking at good soft science. You're likely seeing the worst parts of it and ignoring the good science to feel superior because you study math. You study ``TRUTH'' and so you're better, right? Wrong. But you're not. Also:


>You get truth in maths
Godel would like a word with you. In maths you get provable `truths' within that system; other systems give other `truths'. And the most commonly used axiomatic systems developed to align with human experience in the real world. But there's no way to say that these are the best systems for maths.

People have to be pioneers regardless, so it seems like a pretty moot point. It's even less desirable when discrimination is advocated as a counter measure, particularly because it's common sense certain people will never want positive discrimination to end even if the state is attained.

sociologist phd here, sociology is 90% fighting about the meaning and defintion of words and phrases. science really sucks if you can't use math.

Do you actually think this? Or is this supposed to be ironic

Do you actually think that you can just pick up a book from any field (that's not an introductory text) and understand all the intricacies of the field? This is like saying you can pick up Shakespeare and understand the play, so English majors are worthless