Perfect use of this format. "I don't know" is the foundation of wisdom. See: reddit where too many think they know.
"dae I work for a tech startup and I state with absolute certainty that everything in the universe is a computer program"
Working in neuroscience of consciousness field I feel him deeply. Although 57k sounds amazing to a Europoor
You can basically half American salary numbers because we have to pay for a lot of stuff that Europeans usually don't need to pay for. $57k in America is struggling if you live in a city. Anything below $40k is one car repair away from being financially ruined.
Anything below $40k is one car repair away from being financially ruined.
You guys have cars while being poor? Sorry but seems stupid to me
Welcome to our country that has utterly failed to invest in public transit outside of a few major cities, such that we must be dependent on cars. Love it here.
We don't have public transit, so we need cars... It's part of what makes us poor...
You are correct. We are forced to have them though. There's no mass transit and everything is two hours away on foot. Most new cars now are $40k unless you get like a base Sentra but the median income is only $60k.
What are we considering in vs out of city? Does in city mean just downtown, within city limits, within metro area? And what are we considering a city - 300k population?
Less than 30 minute commute, if it's less than that the price of housing goes up ~20% for each 5 minutes you would save.
The biggest lesson from neuroscience: Most psychology is BS and the entire field is little better than pseudoscience.
I think this is a very incorrect take. I don't think neuroscience has been able to make a single claim against psychology yet, nor any real and predictable claims at all which place it above psychology in application or correctness. Psychology of course has problems, and I'm very open to discussions of issues with methods and shit. But don't act like neuroscience has much of anything to say about it. They're entirely tangential fields with one at the experiential level and the other at the technical/non-experience level. Common mistake of thinking you know too much from the meme
If we weren't talking about a brain, but instead a piece of computer software, neuroscience would be digging into the source code to figure out how it works. Meanwhile psychology is like watching a bunch of YouTube videos of people demonstrating the software.
One provides answers. The other provides guesses.
Computer touchers stop assuming everything in the universe is a computer program challenge. Difficulty level: actually trying to respect fields of academia that aren't about computers.
It's a metaphor, my god. You want a less technical version? Neurology is like a farmer analyzing his soil to figure out it's pH and NPK content to determine what crops will go best. Psychology is studying decades worth of Farmers Almanacs. The point is, only one deals with hard, definitive numbers.
I will grant that my view is a matter of opinion, but it is my firm belief that any science that can not answer it's own questions with solid, irrefutable, numerical answers is an undeveloped science.
You may take that as an insult, in which case 1. It's not meant as one, and 2. Get over yourself. It's an observation. I'm not saying these fields aren't important and won't eventually develop far enough to have such answers, but as they are, right now, they are filled with deficiencies.
Because there are no hard, irrefutable, numerical answers, these fields inherently invite biased studies with conclusions searching for evidence rather than the other way around. And while this may not be the norm, it absolutely exists and can be used to justify anything. Then other studies cite that study which cites that study, and on and on. And since it can't just be disproven with an equation, its much harder to refute and correct.
It's educated guesses. Maybe some day they won't be guesses, just like we don't guess that 1+1=2 or that oxygen and hydrogen can combine to make water; but for right now, they're guesses. And no amount of saying that's offensive to those who study it will change that.
It's a metaphor, my god.
Nothing good is going to come after an opener like that.
Reductionism may make you feel very smart, but eliminating everything that doesn't fit and doubling down on the belief that your hobby/specialization knows better than entire fields that are actually dedicated to the subject is sheer hubris.
And no amount of saying that's offensive
I didn't say that. I said the arrogance is obnoxious, because it is. And conjuring up imaginary enemies that are "offended" by your le logical factual facts is a crybully move.
Show
Get over yourself
You first. You're making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, and in the process saying that entire fields of academia are false/pointless because they're not special Main Characters with an exclusive grasp of reality like, presumably, yourself.
Nothing good is going to come after an opener like that.
Yea, and nothing good will come from a shitty meme attacking a choice of metaphor rather than it's content. Which is what you did to start. What a great picture you posted, is that supposed to represent the strawman you built rather than form any actual argument other than "no you're wrong"?
You don't deserve better because you didn't offer anything of value to respond to with better.
"Psychology worthless because brain is a computer" is a level of arrogance on the level of a physicist claiming that they are the master of all things biology by extension of their field and that biology is a worthless subject.
Similar actual usefulness in application too. I wouldn't ask a physicist how to preserve coral in the Great Barrier Reef, and I certainly wouldn't ask you to perform therapy sessions for PTSD victims. It'd be just as disasterous, probably moreso in your case considering the sheer arrogance you're presenting because you touch computers and think very highly of yourself and believe that your computer touching has godlike universal application.
Actually, it's worse than that, because at least the physicist has a straight line that can be drawn, however distant, to biology through chemistry. You don't even have that.
“Psychology worthless because brain is a computer”
See this? This right here? This is you attacking the choice of metaphor rather than the content.
This is you attacking the choice of metaphor rather than the content.
See this? This right here?
Most psychology is BS and the entire field is little better than pseudoscience.
psychology is like watching a bunch of YouTube videos of people demonstrating the software.
One provides answers. The other provides guesses.
Such metaphor!
Until you touch a computer enough to come up with a superior replacement to EMDR or CBT therapy procedures that actually helps people in need of such help, you're just huffing your own farts while trying to invalidate centuries of academia.
I think even psychologists cackle about that one now, but it's Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and it's actually quite effective with treating certain personality disorders if the program is adhered to. Compared to "that's all bunk, brain scans/computer comparisons are all you need bro, trust me bro" dismissive claims backed by nothing, one has actually helped millions of people.
It was a genuine question. I am not a native speaker so I know a different set of specialized terms for this type of thing.
It's all good.
Whether or not it may be useful to you, looking up Cognitive Behavioral Therapy may be interesting to you all the same.
The metaphor was the only content you fucking moron, and it wasn't even a good one. And that's not even to mention whatever you were saying about the brain being like soil or whatever lmfao. Just admit the few sentence throwaway comment you made was stupid and move on, Jesus Christ.
The only self-described neuroscientist I've seen that had such open and direct hostility toward psychology, and had such "everything psychologists do is bunk, trust me bro" arrogance like yourself, was Sam Harris.
And Sam Harris is a quack and a fraud that has failed to submit even a single peer-reviewed scientific paper since his family-funded "foundation" assigned him his doctorate so he could peddle books. You're not a Sam Harris devotee, are you?
https://rhizzone.net/articles/sam-harris-fraud/
I'd dig into you here but comrade @UlyssesT@hexbear.net managed to perfectly. You use the analogy because you believe in what the metaphor represents (that brains can be better analyzed at the level of neurons to understand what they are, while dumbass psychologists think you can get it from experiential analysis). The computers are always of course a metaphor, but you're influenced deeply by the thought processes which arise from the simplification of human experience (or any living experience) to a mathematical basis which computers also use. There is no reason to believe this or take the analysis at that level as any more serious than experience (which we also can't prove but I can feel something so I believe it)
Really? What psychology has been disproven by neuroscience? Are psyc people resisting it or are they working together? Considering how much psyc has changed the world and helped people I think the idea that it's BS is a little strange.
we don't understand the brain very well, psych is somewhere between leeches and luminiferous aether.
if it was more well understood then people won't need to go to 15 fucking different therapists before finding one that helps (if you're lucky), antidepressants would do better than batters do at baseball, you wouldn't need to try dozens of different medications to find one that works (if you're lucky), and they'd take effect more quickly.
Capitalism doesn't put money into social sciences so social sciences are leeches and humour theory pseudoscience. It's unknowable, because the money just isn't there. The free market had decided.
There is money in psychology, but it's all put into making people act more normal. This can be good and useful for some people, many people need aderall to comfortably live, and it's good to stabilize depression, but these being driven by profit means often the underlying problem isn't fixed(in the cases this is possible) and society remains ableist(for issues that are endemic). Other social sciences can be kind of a crapshoot. Many anthropologists are doing very good, important, meaningful work. But not all. Archeology is a land of contrast, and sociology is good when not practiced by privileged westoids.
i mean, (some) painkillers, muscle relaxers, and lots of other drugs work pretty fucken good. we don't have a great understanding of general anesthesia but all that stuff works most of the time in a way that is simply not the case with brain stuff..
cool i just want to not feel shitty all the time and i felt like this when i had a stable financial situation and a partner so i know it's not exclusively because of capitalism, which means the psych field needs to step up its shit, not just help build the guillotines.
Yeah I think I'll be subscribing to this community. Thank you for the meme.
There's a reason they call a hypothetical model that unites the standard model (quantum mechanics) and gravity (relativity) the Theory of Everything.
This is why I laugh at anyone who thinks we "Already know anything" or ever will
Just say everything is a simulation and it makes a tech employee sound like a keeper of secret divine knowledge that lords over everyone else.
At this point I take Simulation Theory about as seriously as someone saying "So, Creationism, but like, with a few more steps and a sci-fi horror twist!"
It says a lot that so many bazinga brained "simulation theory" enthusiasts want the billionaires to "hack/crash" the supposed simulation either to escape it or for the lulz. Death cult with extra steps.
I mean I would like to escape the simulation, or at least match it, maybe add some mods to change some of the characters around. I think the quality of the simulation would be improved if I was a large breasted tiger lady with an ass that just won't quit
That's personal desires which are cool and good, not the "dae le elon is going to cause the simulation's first server lag spike by detonating a chain of le nukes in le space" death drive that so many computer touchers currently have regarding the concept.
My mind broke trying to follow the logic of someone dumb enough to think that letting Elon have nukes or randomly blowing them up in our atmosphere are a good idea or that enough explosions will crash Paper Mario in real life..
So trying to think like someone who believes all three. Hurts
It was a highly upvoted /r/WritingPrompts circlejerk on
. I hated that sub so much because 95% of its "prompts" came pre loaded with the le clever plot twist from the start so it was just /r/GhostWriting with a different name.I hated that sub because the first time I made one. I was banned because they my prompt was homophobic and I was a white supremacist trying to stir the pot...
My prompt was about people sent to Hell, but the demons refused to punish them sensing they hadn't actually done anything wrong.
I was unbanned but the apology they gave me was backhanded and it was clear that they just didn't want to deal with the drama my ban caused anymore.
So I never posted again.
they just didn't want to deal with the drama
Plot twist, those mods were probably powerusers of /r/SubRedditDr!ma and the even more mask-off /r/Dr!ma that got off to tormenting (slurs) for being too not normal in their spare time.
Christopher Caudwell has some pretty excellent critiques of bourgeois science. Scientific progress has stalled because it is no longer profitable for the bourgeoisie, and the world’s best scientists are all bootlickers, at least inside the imperial core. There’s a reason the best physicists in the 20th century were all communists. But China thankfully is turning this situation around.
Every American researcher works for advertising companies, even if they don't realize it.
https://massivesci.com/articles/chaos-in-the-brickyard-comic-matteo-farinella/
spin is something that behaves like spin. the right answer is shut up and calculate
It's mind blowing to me that particles with no inherent physical shape or dimension can be considered "spinning" not because we observe them spinning but because they have literally all the characteristics of a spinning particle other than actual rotation around an axis
How the fuck did I miss that we already had the perfect emoji for this?
https://youtu.be/MmG2ah5Dremoved?si=aFNBbP7FgeQ4AhAo thought this was a good and broadly simple explanation
I'm in geoscience. Physicists are nerds. Touch grass, ya dweebs. We wear hiking clothes on campus and we aren't going on fieldwork until July. It's called dedication.
*removed externally hosted image*
nice! I had a friend do a project on paleo-pollen once, getting core samples was fun!
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a44776417/study-contradicts-newton-einstein-theory-gravity/
maybe there is a modicum of progress?
From my understanding MOND has some pretty big hurdles to overcome as a model. When speaking to my PHD friend he still feels it's hammering away at a model to further fit observations; it might prove useful but is certainly no smoking gun for us to wave a flag that we're onto something. It's a 40 year old concept that hasn't born much fruit yet.
https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1112.1320/
New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Washington D.C., ...
