its cool, i have insomnia and the titties, ill take the night shift.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

with you?
my kids are grown but DAMN we would make not only pretty babies but wikkid smaht ones too!
ok..im in.
ill change diapers but good luck waking me at 3 in the morning.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

with you?
my kids are grown but DAMN we would make not only pretty babies but wikkid smaht ones too!
ok..im in.
ill change diapers but good luck waking me at 3 in the morning.

lets make babies!
free, little critical thinkers who shall not be bound by the arbitrary laws of grammar!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

>> ^ajkido:
enoch, you can't teach history without a bunch of dates and names. If you want to talk about teaching problem solving, take a subject where there are actual problems to solve. Like mathematics or physics...
Knowing history is remembering who did what, when and where, and what was the impact on future events. Usually the point of history classes is to teach the bigger picture, but you can't exactly say "and then x and then y and then z..." without any timeframes etc.
And you yourself said that many of the teachers were poorly educated. I guess it's good to not let them teach their own bullshit but to follow the curriculum designed by smarter and better educated people. Also looking at your writing I suspect you're not very highly educated either.




wow.
your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
you go right ahead scooter and let people tell you what and how to think.
great job in missing my point then turning around and making it for me.
thanks buddy!

one small note on your little snide remark about my butchering the english language.
while i am a professional,here is something to think about:
if sentence structure and grammar are a sign of intelligence or a higher education ernest hemmingway would never have had one sentence published.

my POINT,
you know..the one you missed...
is that public education is set up to stagnate.
i was reprimanded for teaching in a way not according to NCLB guidelines.
tests are arbitrary and are an obtuse and vague determination of not only what you have learned by HOW you can or may apply it to other areas.
my job,in my opinion,was to get kids to THINK not memorize.
yet that was the very thing the school system was forcing me to do.
i rebelled,because thats what i do when faced with something so morally WRONG.
you say history is only names and dates.
realy?...REALLY?
because if what you say is true then you dont know history.
you may know names and dates but you dont UNDERSTAND and that was your teachers job.one in which im guessing they failed.
good god man!history,civics,the social sciences and literature all can teach you ways of thinking and viewing the world which can be hugely beneficial to you in the years to come.
names and dates.../shakes head..sheesh.
you want to judge my intelligence and knowledge by my sentence structure thats your choice.i really dont give a rats ass,but dont expect me to take you seriously when you regurgitate the same indoctrinational vomit thats been fed to you and tell me it is "education".
its not.
knowledge without mileage=bullshit.

With average debt, unless it's not mentioned, they're not factoring in inflation which once considered would suggest debts have fallen. The segment about Ivy League schools interesting, I guess it comes down to your individual perceived talent much more than your accreditation. Working internationally my guess is that would play a larger part. The number of people who study social sciences seemingly just because they enjoy it also astounds me. Surely, you could simply focus on that in your spare time?

The fundamental problem with social sciences is it is far more difficult or impossible to isolate factors in an experiment as you would in a laboratory setting. Therefore the level of certitude that you can attain is far lower than that of an experiment in the physical sciences.

Take the development of a democratic society in various countries. You have an incredibly low number of samples or cases from history versus an incredibly large number of factors - or nuisance variables, if you're looking to investigate certain factors in particular. This makes it impossible to look beyond simply values such as correlations to more complex analysis because you will be getting negative degrees of freedom for the error term in your experiment. Yes if you drastically simplify the experiment by removing factors it will become possible, but you would be assuming away factors. In many cases such as the one mentioned here, there is simply no way to replicate it as in a laboratory experiment either.

That doesn't make it a useless science, although really Feynman never implied this, he simply suggested it was not as rigorous as he would have liked it to be.

Yes, taking economics as an example, it is founded on simplifying assumptions such as rational selfishness and yes, exceptions are constantly being found. When prices go up demand goes down unless it's a Veblen or Giffen good. Yes, markets will generally adjust to supply and demand automatically and price accordingly but wages and prices are generally sticky when moving donwards as workers tend to be unwilling to accept pay drops, and price adjustments are generally staggered and made relative to competitors rather than on the spot.

There's certainly a great deal of uncertainty, but surely this is preferably to being in ignorance over how to best stimulate an economy in recession or what factors contribute to a democratic society. The key point is to take this uncertainty on board when you apply it.

My degrees are in Psychology as well, and I can see some of the truth in what he says, but there is also a lot of true experimentation. The problem with disciplines like psychology is the things that are being studied have a high number of variables and its difficult or unethical to control those variables. You can isolate a particle and bombard with all kinds of tests to learn its properties, but do that with a child and suddenly you've gone too far. Ahem, as I was saying the science part in a lot of social science is just limited by our ability to measure the subject of our curiosity. This leads to a lot of supposition, which I don't think is a bad thing, when better measurement tools come along those suppositions can be tested or refined.

Chomsky talks a lot about how Social Sciences are hard to go about proving. However he also points to ways and things you can do to bring them closer to Hard Sciences.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Quick! Someone name an unbreakable natural law discovered by a social scientist...


Throbbins Law: The more 'hard science' a person knows, the less pussy they get throughout their lifetime. (Einstein actually died with negative pussy).

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Quick! Someone name an unbreakable natural law discovered by a social scientist...


AHAHHAHAHAHHA

^I don't find fault with Maddow's overall thesis, only with the details.

It's flimsy to defend our usage of "Nazi!" as harmless metaphor, while presenting our opponents' usage of "Nazi!" as literal and frightening. Naomi Wolf wasn't speaking metaphorically when she was certain that as of Oct 1, 2008 (~3:35) the Bush administration had launched a coup, and we were now living under martial law and a fascist state, and Obama wouldn't be elected.

Partisanship and political wishful thinking become a cognitive bias with significant costs when you're raging against even people whose only concern is a scientific understanding of the world.

You and I still have a bet going that Peter Schiff's certitudinous claim of an immanent end of the world as we know it won't be occurring by the end of 2010.

I know progressives are good people trying to do the best thing, and I do appreciate our debates, though

Yikes indeed...I pussed out on my social science electives and instead just took a bunch of Psychology.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
microeconomics, yikes!!

In reply to this comment by Lann:
What class did you sign up for?

The Family does seem to be at least a secretive, powerful, religious fundamentalist organization, but nobody has any idea how accurate Sharlet's claims are. Authors routinely embellish things or make stuff up completely, and they have strong incentive to do so.

It seems to strain credulity that such a powerful organization that "fetishes secrecy" wouldn't do a background check on Sharlet before letting him view their innermost meetings.

A background check would have revealed that Sharlet is clearly a liberal who's against everything the Family stands for. Sharlet's uncle, who shares the same name, Jeff Sharlet, was a prominent Vietnamn peace activist, and Sharlet himself co-founded a clearly liberal religion magazine called "Killing the Buddha"(Wiki).

All I object to is media figures who don't respect how difficult it is to actually know something free of bias and inaccuracy. http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Feynman-on-Social-Sciences

I don't quite get how organic foods vs non organic is connected to social sciences?

I have a degree in economics, and I agree with Feynman 100% (at least with regards to economics). Beyond the simple operation of supply and demand, economics is complete bullshit. It imitates the rigor of real science, with the math and everything, but it starts from fundamentally wrong assumptions about human behavior. It actually assumes away all psychology, biology, circumstance, tradition, institutions, politics, physics, sociology - until all you're left with is an optimizing machine bearing no resemblance to any human being. Economics is a branch of math - it is not a science. In fact, calling it "science" gives science a bad name.

In my opinion, psychology is the most scientific of the social sciences. Even though they cannot come up with laws of human behavior, they at least do actual experiments where they try to discover statistical regularities of human behavior. If economics were based on psychology, while incorporating insights from other disciplines, it might actually be a science.