This is an incredibly important idea. The scientific process has been corrupted by far too much pseudoscience and not near enough actual science. If the data say you are wrong, you are wrong. That doesn't mean finagle the data until you get the result you want, perform endless subgroup analyses, etc. If a theory is wrong, throw it out and start again. Quit salvaging the corpse of broken theory.
Did you ever do academic research in one of the softer disciplines? Because it sounds like you didn't.
I'm pretty critical of psychology (worked in neuro/cogsci for about 18 years). I reckon 95% of its output is wrong. But that's not because of pseudo-science. All theories in psychology are wrong. We've got no idea how the brain/mind works. All we can do is try to make sense of the experimental data that's available, come up with an idea that appears slightly better or has a different angle, contrast it with competing ideas in the same area, and keep defending it until it's utterly destroyed. If you would follow your rather rigid process, theorizing, and consequently experimenting, would stop overnight. It's not the way out of the swamp.
That also means that we should not use psychological theory as evidence for anything, and certainly not for policy making. Some of the applied research can be used though, if it's been established properly and repeatedly (another weakness in much of the social sciences).
I’ve read some Abstract conclusions in the last couple years that are so blatantly trying to fit their data result into some preconceived scheme from their hypothesis it’s laughable.
I wouldn't say they made it about race. The main point of this post still the situation with JeanHeyd. However, a post like this is probably the best place to lay out some of the other issues concerning Rust's team, and representation is a very real issue! Of the people with bachelors+ degrees in computer science in the US, only 6% are black; under half of the population percentage of black Americans (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/stem-workforce-wi..., Figure 6-3)
I don't think discussion like this hurts anyone. I wish diversity was the default and we wouldn't need to discuss these issues, but we don't live in that world.
I feel like Windows UI/UX teams go back to their homes throw their laptops running windows out of the window and boot up a Mac. Windows 11 UI can go fuck itself. Absolute shit, I had to go back to Win 10 LTSC version after using it for a day.
> In what world is ChatGPT’s woke filter liberal centrist?
I don’t know what the fantasy of a “woke filter” is, but ChatGPT’s actual moderation filter is corporate capitalist liberal centrist in the world where it is designed by the corporate owner of ChatGPT for advancing their particular and class interests by avoiding offense broadly across the mainstream political spectrum as part of OpenAI’s broader effort to promote both AI in general and the idea that centralized, narrow corporate control of AI is the means to protect AI “safety”, by which it means “promoting bland inoffensiveness” rather than “actively working to identify and eliminate harmful bias introduced newly in AI models or reflected in AI models due to being trained on the results of status quo structurally biased systems”, the latter of which being the progressive (not particularly left-wing, but left of neoliberal centrism) AI safety concern that OpenAI is both trying to subvert and displace from public discourse by shifting the understanding of the issue.
The infantilization of an entire generation and the extension of adolescence into the 20s is a disaster for mental health. It's hard to find meaning if you remain immature. Without meaning, what's the point in living?
Find meaning? A whole lot of younger people (myself included) don't believe there is such a thing at all. As I enter my 30s I'm more convinced than ever "meaning" is a nonsense concept.
I am sure one could accuse me of being immature because of my view on this, but that simply isn't the case. My adolescence was unfortunately cut short, not extended.
> what's the point in living?
I've been trying to answer this for years now, but I have never found one I find satisfactory.
Life satisfaction comes from devoting yourself to the pursuit of something that you feel is important. Because it's important, you can see and feel the effort that you're putting into it, therefore your effort is important, therefore you are important. Different people consider different things to be important.
Youth is about experiencing many different things so that you can figure out what is important to you. Growing up is making the decision to shut the door on everything that isn't important so that you can focus your time and effort on what is important.
It's not necessary to find meaning if you remain immature. Kids live happily without meaning, and don't even question it.
I think a bigger problem is that humans are, in general, not good at finding meaning above and beyond survival. For most of our history as a species, it simply wasn't necessary, because surviving was hard enough for most of the populace, and religion provided some semblance of meaning for those who had enough free time to ask questions. But now we have a lot more people who have their basic physiological needs consistently satisfied, and OTOH religion got a lot less convincing for a variety of reasons.
Related to the OP and many of the other comments, how much of what has formed your very strong opinions has been from real life, versus online, interactions?
Even if it's not a peasants' revolt by definition, the peasants' (rural population, working class, non-intelligentsia) support him. So it is a de facto peasants' revolt.
