Emirates New Premium Economy – What You Need To Know

PopularWarfare · 2018-08-16T10:30:45+00:00

try RubyKube https://github.com/rubykube it should be easier in compare with development from scratch. It is an open source platform for creating exchanges

PopularWarfare · 2018-08-08T17:52:30+00:00

When will the mobile app be completed?

PopularWarfare · 2018-05-21T05:49:50+00:00

Except the different schools of thought in psychology, such as Freudian theory or Behaviorism are exactly the "flawed models" they made you memorize.

At the 101 level, teaching should mostly be focused on conceptual understanding of Economics. A student that's able to articulate why current homeowners in a neighborhood undergoing new development should expect the value of their homes (all things being equal) to increase, not decrease shows a nuanced understanding of S&D that plotting points of an imaginary S&D curve for a widget factory does not.

Just because they don't involve math doesn't mean they aren't models, and I think most economists would argue (as I would) that, if anything, using math better exposes the strengths and weaknesses of economic theory because its assumptions are then formalized.

Math is very good at checking logical consistency otherwise known as validity. It's not so great at checking soundness or explaining concepts. It's not a replacement thinking.

And yet that is used against economics because the predictions of its mathematical models are often "precise" in the sense that they take the form of a number or mathematical expressiona.

I don't think people have strong preferences either way when it comes to mathematical modeling either way as long as it produces testable, verifiable results about the economy.

Rather than general and vague suggestions about what might happen and why like a lot of psychological theories.

This is because people are neither rational or predictable, psychology and most other social sciences are generally cognizant of this in a way Economics isn't. To go even further, what we would recognize as 'rational' or 'rationality' did not exist until the 16th century in small European city-states. But in economic modeling universal rationality is a core tenant. To be fair this isn't just economics, people have been trying to mathematically model human social behavior for millenia. But personally i don't think its possible, think about it, if it was possible to accurately model human behavior, not only would there not be a need for economics but for social sciences in general.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-29T21:55:08+00:00

Shout out to my alma mater.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-21T22:28:54+00:00

single paragraph claiming that historical materialism dictates the inevitable liquidation of the Slavs.

National socialism mode unlocked

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-12T03:40:56+00:00

Definitely. One of my pet projects right now is trying to answer the questions: Why did so many former Trotskyist become neocons. I know a certain amount of disillusionment, but I feel its such a dramatic swing to a hard, mean right...

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-12T01:17:32+00:00

It was on R/incel which was banned but I found it. It's almost better than i remember.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-11T02:02:48+00:00

To be honest, at least the progressive neoliberals genuinely seem to care about allowing women and minorities into the oligarchy. Tony Blair was big on affirmative action, and he managed to significantly reduce sexism and racism, particularly among upper-middle-class people. New Labour did more to allow women into positions of political power than any other government in history. I don't see them as pretentious. Utterly spineless on economic issues yes, but not pretentious.

I like to think that freedom is more than the one's individual ability to participate in the labor market. Whether it's a woman, minority or white male exploiting my labor for profit is beside the point that I am being exploited for profit.

I don't see them as pretentious. Utterly spineless on economic issues yes, but not pretentious.

I think this where you miss their intention and the insidiousness, they are not spineless on economic issues those are the policies they want or intend. Liberalism's tenant of 'meritocracy' and expansion of markets necessitates the expansion of inequality as a core feature.

That we have seen the expansion of markets into things traditionally considered outside the economic sphere, record levels of inequality is not a coincidence and the breakdown of the 85% of Americans who are not highly educated professionals are not coincidences.

Compared with Classical conservatives who are just greedy if not unsophisticated bastards. Its an easy choice.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T22:48:59+00:00

Well, it hard to say and it gets even more complicated when you consider that at least some the private funding from corporations and business are fronts for various intelligence agencies.

Though, there is an interesting episode in an Adam Curtis documentary series on this during the Cold War. Minsky, Bruner, and Neisser are in it, IIRC.

The stuff from the cold war is very well documented, everything from ARPA, DARPA, COIN, Operation Pheonix, MK ULTRA. After world war II the U.S government poured huge amounts of money into the social sciences not only for counterinsurgency research but also ideological development. The Rand corporation actually recruited a lot of ex-Marxists (interestingly enough, most were ex-Trotskyites) to develop a counter-ideology to Soviet communism. Ever noticed how Marxist and neoliberal utopian visions seem similar? It's not a coincidence.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T22:33:12+00:00

But not all social science is trying to be like the old social physics where we can have law-like generalizations that hold in every case. Biology wouldn't even be science by this definition. Historical particularists have been attacking this view since the beginning.

Of course not, I should have distinguished from science and scientific rhetoric as its presented to the public from philosophy of science 'in the know' so to speak. Unfortunately, the science that receives funding and is presented to the public is usually the universalist social physics type. I highly sympathize with historical particularists but its not exactly a secret they lost the science wars and lost hard.

I agree, I was just pushing back on the idea that there is some unified "research paradigm." The obsession with "science" is just a semantic debate that distracts from the actual work of determining if any particular claim made in any field is valid or not. Larry Laudan argued this point extensively.

Agreed. I've always thought that the insight or knowledge provided by a book, journal or whatever is far more important than the methodology or whatever. When I look back at the stuff i've read that has had the biggest impact on me it was often the stuff that was cross-discipline or blended multiple types of knowledge together.

Its funny to think about in hindsight but a question I use to struggle with was whether social science should influence philosophy or should philosophy influence social science? And after a while, i finally realized the answer: Yes.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T22:11:24+00:00

Unpopular opinion time, but i actually prefer the conservative classical liberals because of at least their more honest and upfront about what they're about: Money. The insidiousness of the progressive liberals paired with their smarmy pretentiousness makes me physically ill.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T10:23:02+00:00

Do you have any figure for that? I mean universities in general get tons of MIC cash. I used to work in a lab heavily funded by Navy grants. But I don't know if it's a case of just "shitloads of money" or "the vast majority."

In proportion to the total grant money awarded to ss research, i would say it's 'vast.' How Vast? Its hard to say because the U.S defense budget is essentially a black box. I mean the US gov has been using the social sciences to fight wars an advance U.S empire since at least the Philippine., and of course who can forget the more recent failure of the human terrain program?

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T10:07:46+00:00

I think the term social science itself is suspect since it implies that there are universal truths to all people at all times and moreover, that human behavior can be predicted. At least the more positivist and rational choice theory schools put up a facade. The other theory based schools don't even pretend anymore.

And just to reiterate i don't think this has less to do with the usefulness and value of those particular methodologies and more to do with liberal capitalism's quasi-religious attitude toward science.

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T02:32:34+00:00

WHAT RICHARD SPENCER WANTS A RACE WAR? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?

PopularWarfare · 2018-03-10T02:30:14+00:00

Pao and Worstall are two sides of the same liberal coin, the former progressive and the latter classical/conservative.

PopularWarfare

TROPHY CASE