d2jsp
d2jsp Forums > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Scientists Are Bad In... > Anthropology & Social Sciences
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Chevaucheur
#1 Oct 14 2018 07:45am
Group: Member
Posts: 7,806
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 15.00
Warn: 30%
Anthropology

Anthropologists claim that a species is a set of individuals that can reproduce with each other.

Quote (Wikipedia)
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.


Anthropologists claim that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are different species, whereas they can reproduce with each other.
It's an inconsistency.

Almost all humans on Earth descend from Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.
This is proof that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis can reproduce together.



So, what is the true definition of a species?

I think that a species is a group of individuals that share morphological, bacteriological, virological, cellular, anatomical and tissue characteristics.
With this definition, Homo neanderthalensis belong to a different species then Homo sapiens.

With this definition, Ashkenazi also belong to a different species than Homo sapiens.
Let's call this species Homo ashkenazi.

With this definition, Native Americans also belong to a different species than Homo sapiens.
Let's call this species Homo morientes perdunt.

With this definition, I also belong to a different species than Homo sapiens.
Because my brain is different from that of ordinary Homo sapiens.
In my brain, there is a little of all intelligences.
And there are a few of all the characteristics of the warriors.
On a tissue level, my brain is very different from that of Homo sapiens.
Let's call this species Homo subtiliter.

There are 4 races in the world.
And one of these breeds is certainly better than the other three.



Social sciences

Scientists working in the social sciences are very pessimistic people.

They only see the bad side of things.
They see problems all over the world, and they try to solve those problems.

But it's not a good strategy.
Sociologists should try to create a better organization for society, rather than just trying to solve problems.

They have a very passive attitude.

Sociologists only care about problems:
  • racism
  • gender discrimination
  • child abuse
  • animal abuse
  • abuse of power by employers


Here are some examples:

Quote (Eduardo Bonilla-Silva @ President of the American Sociological Association in 2018)
Whereas for most whites racism is prejudice, for most people of color racism is systemic or institutionalized




Paula England was the President of the American Sociological Association in 2015


They do not work on things as important as a better organization of society.
They work on poorly interesting things such as gender, sex, family, or work.


That's a shame.

We trust them to improve our society, and they betray our trust.



Scientists are bad in anthropology & social sciences

We must change things.
We must put pressure on sociological institutions to change things.

It's our money that finances their research.

And we have to let them know that they need to improve the overall organization of society.

It has been decades since Iran threatened to produce and use nuclear bombs.

And what did sociologists do to change that? Nothing!

Sociologists are very useless in our society.
They must change, or we must stop giving them money.

We need things like the theory of culturalism.

It is thanks to the theory of culturalism that the problems between Iran and the West can be arranged.
Sociologists abandoned the theory of culturalism in 1950, but it was a bad idea.

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on Oct 14 2018 08:08am
Drakwen
#2 Oct 14 2018 08:15am
Group: Member
Posts: 14,205
Joined: May 2 2007
Gold: 2,337.00
Racist
Xx Shin3d0wn xX
#3 Oct 14 2018 09:26am
Group: Member
Posts: 9,620
Joined: Mar 4 2006
Gold: 137.01
Warn: 10%
Your theory of culturalism is the exact opposite of everything academia has been teaching in the past 70 years of cross cultural understanding.

How you have the time to actually come up with this crap is beyond me, my only hope is no one listens to you with any sort of belief.
Chevaucheur
#4 Oct 14 2018 09:31am
Group: Member
Posts: 7,806
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 15.00
Warn: 30%
Quote (Xx Shin3d0wn xX @ Oct 14 2018 05:26pm)
Your theory of culturalism is the exact opposite of everything academia has been teaching in the past 70 years of cross cultural understanding.

How you have the time to actually come up with this crap is beyond me, my only hope is no one listens to you with any sort of belief.


Hello, I am happy to discuss with you on this forum,
Are you a sociologist?

I do not understand what is wrong with my culturalism theory for the academic system to refuse to teach it.
Crud1ty
#5 Oct 14 2018 10:08am
Group: Member
Posts: 31,359
Joined: Jan 23 2009
Gold: 12,267.00
word of the day would be "subspecies".

Horse and donkey can reproduce and outcome is mule --> horse and donkey are different species.
Xx Shin3d0wn xX
#6 Oct 14 2018 10:19am
Group: Member
Posts: 9,620
Joined: Mar 4 2006
Gold: 137.01
Warn: 10%
Quote (Chevaucheur @ Oct 14 2018 10:31am)
Hello, I am happy to discuss with you on this forum,
Are you a sociologist?

I do not understand what is wrong with my culturalism theory for the academic system to refuse to teach it.



My highest achieving academic background is in pure mathematics, but I have a studied other subjects. I work nowhere near the realm your speaking of but I enjoy the sciences and stay well read.

Your “theory” is nothing more than an oversimplification of other cultures by someone with little cultural understanding.
Thor123422
#7 Oct 14 2018 10:43am
Group: Member
Posts: 40,896
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 4.45
You should probably take the time to actually learn about modern anthropology before you criticize it, otherwise you just look like an idiot.

Same with culturalism and sociology, maybe actually read about the cultures or experience them before you start making hugely broad generalizations
Chevaucheur
#8 Oct 14 2018 10:52am
Group: Member
Posts: 7,806
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 15.00
Warn: 30%
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 14 2018 06:43pm)
You should probably take the time to actually learn about modern anthropology before you criticize it, otherwise you just look like an idiot.

Same with culturalism and sociology, maybe actually read about the cultures or experience them before you start making hugely broad generalizations


As a pharmacist, I know a lot more about social sciences than most mathematicians.
But thanks for the "advice".
Thor123422
#9 Oct 14 2018 11:02am
Group: Member
Posts: 40,896
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 4.45
Quote (Chevaucheur @ Oct 14 2018 10:52am)
As a pharmacist, I know a lot more about social sciences than most mathematicians.
But thanks for the "advice".


Now you should try to know more about social sciences than the social scientists. That way you can actually criticize them in a meaningful way.

We've already established you are lying about being a pharmacist, why do you continue to lie?
Malignanttumor666
#10 Oct 14 2018 12:23pm
Group: Member
Posts: 6,147
Joined: Apr 12 2013
Gold: 10.00
I would't call social science a science. But everyhing nowadays is a science. Pizza is a science. The science of making food great. Many try it, but few understand it, and few are good at it. Poop 💩 is a science too. Lab technicians analyze it.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll