Why are people who learned in faculties of Humanieties and social "sciences" more dumb / less intelligent than people who learned in the STEM sector?

Status
Closed

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,873
Wirral
#32
Yet when you use words such as "dumb" and "less intelligent," broad, sweeping generalizations, you make your premise difficult to prove. One would think somebody in the hard sciences would know that the scientific method requires a hypothesis that can be proven. IQ tests are simply not proof of one's intelligence. It is one predictor, but not the only. Quite frankly, to assume that IQ testing is the sole measure of intelligence is quite amateurish, in my opinion.
Did you quote the wrong post? I didn’t refer to dumb, less intelligent or IQ.
 
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#33
Probably because the instruments for estimating this are flawed form the outset.

Never mind, history is a form of knowledge all of its own. Its challenges are different. What it takes to get really good at it are also somewhat peculiar.

And in the end, all these things people in the STEM sector take such inordinate pride in fall in the domain of the historians. Then it's of course a downside that most people in the STEM sector do not have the first inkling about how history as a form of knowledge works.
Than I will tell you, that social sciences (like history) and other humanieties are based on a simple concept: simple Root learning.

It actually takes a while, and a fair amount of experience, to work out what you're actually talented at. And the self-congratulatory culture of arrogance cultivated with STEM sector students tends to be a problem in itself, and obscure this. Most of us ARE highly average, whether students of STEM or something else . That doesn't actually answer who manages to do the mostest with the leastest (or mostest) however, but all STEM does in this respect is cultivate an idea of superiority. Like all ideas about "natural aristocracies" it tends to hold up well, as long as you don't actually put it to the test.
Yes, superiority feeling maybe. I have a dream about an utopian society and political system. It based on Weighted voting.

In the old times, Weighted voting favored some social classes (like nobility), or later wealthiest parts of the society, but they failed because of the mass-democracy and these systems became parts of the past.

In my utopia, , people who did not even finished a primary school were counted only 1 point of vote.

See the hierarchy:

People who have technical secondary school degree (vocational school) with matriculation exam were counted as 2 point vote
People have have grammar school matriculation exam get 4points of vote.
People who have university degree related to humanities get 16 points of vote
People who have university degree related to
social sciences get 32 points of vote.
People who have at least PHD in humanities or soc.sci get 128 points of vote.
PEople who have university degreee related to STEM get 512 points of vote.
People who have PHD related to STEM get 4096 points of vote.

I call this new system as intello-cracy.

In that ideal world and new order, people who are dumb will go to their real deserved place (the bottom) in the society.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,222
Welsh Marches
#34
"People who have university degree related to humanities get 16 points of vote
People who have university degree related to social sciences get 32 points of vote.
People who have at least PHD in humanities or soc.sci get 128 points of vote.
PEople who have university degreee related to STEM get 512 points of vote.
People who have PHD related to STEM get 4096 points of vote."

This is just hilarious!
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,366
US
#38
Than I will tell you, that social sciences (like history) and other humanieties are based on a simple concept: simple Root learning.



Yes, superiority feeling maybe. I have a dream about an utopian society and political system. It based on Weighted voting.

In the old times, Weighted voting favored some social classes (like nobility), or later wealthiest parts of the society, but they failed because of the mass-democracy and these systems became parts of the past.

In my utopia, , people who did not even finished a primary school were counted only 1 point of vote.

See the hierarchy:

People who have technical secondary school degree (vocational school) with matriculation exam were counted as 2 point vote
People have have grammar school matriculation exam get 4points of vote.
People who have university degree related to humanities get 16 points of vote
People who have university degree related to
social sciences get 32 points of vote.
People who have at least PHD in humanities or soc.sci get 128 points of vote.
PEople who have university degreee related to STEM get 512 points of vote.
People who have PHD related to STEM get 4096 points of vote.

I call this new system as intello-cracy.

In that ideal world and new order, people who are dumb will go to their real deserved place (the bottom) in the society.
I think you mean rote learning? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since English is not your first language. Not every study in humanities or the social sciences are rote learning. Don't confuse discussion on a history website for academic pursuit. Economics, social work, law, philosophy - these and others require complex understanding of concepts.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,577
Sydney
#39
"People who have technical secondary school degree (vocational school) with matriculation exam were counted as 2 point vote
People have have grammar school matriculation exam get 4points of vote.
People who have university degree related to humanities get 16 points of vote
People who have university degree related to
social sciences get 32 points of vote.
People who have at least PHD in humanities or soc.sci get 128 points of vote.
PEople who have university degreee related to STEM get 512 points of vote.
People who have PHD related to STEM get 4096 points of vote."


This is a perfect recipe for not too intelligent people to gut anyone with white hands ,
rape their womenfolks , pillage and burn their dwelling while drinking their wines
 
Jan 2017
521
UK
#40
Why do people treat IQ tests as the ultimate measure of a person's intelligence? Like any test it's a flawed, inexact measurement which tends to favour certain types of thinking over others, attributes which lend themselves to succeeding at STEM subjects. No wonder certain STEM students love to use their IQ score as a badge of honour yet fail to see the circular logic.

On another note, some people check their blood pressure, cholesterol and weight every day, knowing it can fluctuate on a daily basis. You also don't need a PhD in physiology to know taking a peak flow reading at rest & immediately after intense cardio will give two very different values. Yet some people think IQ scores remain fixed for a lifetime.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions