|
On January 12 2012 12:26 serge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:
Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people.
Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude. But how can a drama blog be enjoyed without drama? If you decide to post on the internet, might as well grow thicker carapace to good and bad humored trolling. --- I've realized today that the TL blog section is extremely bearable and fun, unlike the rest of the boards, BW section excluded. I'm going to make a blog post about some of the atrocious posters that infest the other boards, not unlike sc2 zerg, in the future.
I don't accept any kind of trolling unfortunately.
|
On January 12 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:04 Mobius_1 wrote:
Philosophy of Economics was about what should be the purpose of Econs (and other social sciences), whether it is an ends, a means to an end, how it should be conducted, what caveats are there, and examining some of the basic assumptions used throughout the subject and their real-world validity. Quite a lot of deep discussions and was very intriguing subject. Basically all the things economists never ever think about.
Rofl, touche. Yes, it's a facet that flies right over most economists' and particularly economics students' heads as they are so engrossed in trying to model and predict with a table of various data and a multivar regression running in Matlab.
But you'd be surprised at some of the readings, Milton Friedman and Amartya Sen (Yes, he plays Zerg), among other less recognisable names, have written some interesting perspectives in the field.
That said, some of the economist profession has been a little twisted by finance and governments into nothing more than a prediction machine rather than one to observe and improve the human condition through whatever means are available to economists (an awful lot, it seems, from what I've been studying  )
|
On January 12 2012 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense.
I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?)
Marxist isn't an economist?
|
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
You want a sample of my writing?
As someone said before, you're not smart if you can't show others why. :B
I'd be the first person to admit my own paper writing is pretty bad  , my expertise is based in engineering and my lack of writing skill is compensated for by internal peer reviews. I'm definitely guilty of thinking "this is obvious, why don't people understand this" but it's remarkable how hard it can be to put across your points to other people even if they have at least as good a background as you. The reason I mentioned your prose with regards to papers is because it really struck me that you could have condensed a lot of what you said, at least in my opinion since I love brevity to the point of sacrificing some accuracy. I dislike having to be verbose to put my point across.
However with regards your problem in the OP, you shouldn't restrict your vocabulary. I do wonder though if people that are listening to you have to stop and think about some of the words you use, which could cause a break of sorts in the delivery of your argument.
|
Mobius I feel you bro.
economics as the discipline exists today begs all the hard questions.
|
On January 12 2012 12:30 NeoSlicerZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
You want a sample of my writing?
As someone said before, you're not smart if you can't show others why. :B I'd be the first person to admit my own paper writing is pretty bad , my expertise is based in engineering and my lack of writing skill is compensated for by internal peer reviews. I'm definitely guilty of thinking "this is obvious, why don't people understand this" but it's remarkable how hard it can be to put across your points to other people even if they have at least as good a background as you. The reason I mentioned your prose with regards to papers is because it really struck me that you could have condensed a lot of what you said, at least in my opinion since I love brevity to the point of sacrificing some accuracy. I dislike having to be verbose to put my point across. However with regards your problem in the OP, you shouldn't restrict your vocabulary. I do wonder though if people that are listening to you have to stop and think about some of the words you use, which could cause a break of sorts in the delivery of your argument.
Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that what I'm arguing is too elite for them, I'm saying that the words I may use are just wrong ones where they spend more time digesting the words than the actual argument (so in essence, the quality of the argument is the same if I used simpler terms, but I always end up inflating it to stupid proportions).
My writing is okay, professional writing at least. I still do a lot of run-on sentences and fail to connect points a lot.
|
On January 12 2012 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote:
Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people.
Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude.
Hm, fair enough, I'll leave your blog. It seemed to me that your writing style carried over. My apologies if this is not the case and I apologise again for the presumption.
|
It's not an issue, I felt you were coming here a bit to hurt rather than state a viewpoint.
|
On January 12 2012 12:30 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense. I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?) Marxist isn't an economist?
No, Marx isn't an economist, he is more of a philosopher of history and a theorist than anything else (although he wears many hats at different points and I'm not really an expert on Marx himself - my interest is more in the twentieth century tradition).
In the case of Foucault he is more interested in the social effects of the commodity form, which puts him in the realm of theory, and not economics.
Economists use statistical models and game theory to attempt to predict the functioning of an ideal market.
|
On January 12 2012 12:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:30 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote:
Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense. I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?) Marxist isn't an economist? No, Marx isn't an economist, he is more of a philosopher of history and a theorist than anything else (although he wears many hats at different points and I'm not really an expert on Marx himself - my interest is more in the twentieth century tradition). In the case of Foucault he is more interested in the social effects of the commodity form, which puts him in the realm of theory, and not economics. Economists use statistical models and game theory to attempt to predict the functioning of an ideal market.
Thanks for the clarification! How come wikipedia lists him as an economist? Misinterpretation or broader definition for them?
|
I guess they're using just a more loose definition than how I would term it. He's an "economist" in the sense that he wrote some things about economies, I guess :D
|
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
|
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote:
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
Huh?
I'm smart in Sociology (as ironic as that sounds).
|
It's broad and wikipedia is still a terrible source. When I was doing all my studies (jr high to university level we were told never to cite it). Not to say I don't use it because I do frequently, but only as a reference point in certain cases.
All walks of life talk about economics.
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote:
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
Passion; enjoyment.
._.
|
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote:
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
The curse of the social sciences is that there is such an abundance of drivel and drivelmongers. Doesn't mean the field itself is illegitimate; it's just because students tend to default to those fields if they feel numbers are icky and mediocre students gravitate towards the social sciences and literature.
edit: sorry I'm intoxicated
|
On January 12 2012 12:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote:
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this. The curse of the special sciences is that there is such an abundance of drivel and drivelmongers. Doesn't mean the field itself is illegitimate; it's just because students tend to default to those fields if they feel numbers are icky and mediocre students gravitate towards the special sciences and literature.
Pretty much. I wanted to do Psychology, but I didn't enjoy the biology side of it and there are some personal issues that obliged me to pick a discipline and being unable to change (when I'm 24, I will be able to. It's a long story).
and yes, Sociology takes a lot of dump of students. Just people who don't overall care or are coasting on it just to say they have a degree.
|
On average people change their field of work 6-8 times.
|
I mean, my degree is in English. I know how you feel.
|
Well, whatever floats your boat.
You probably shouldn't mind my over-opinionated self-worth motivated derogatory comments towards large groups of people with a slightly differing value system and educational goals.
TC:DR (too complicated, didn't read): I was just making myself feel better by dissing sociology majors.
|
On January 12 2012 12:50 jrkirby wrote:
Well, whatever floats your boat.
You probably shouldn't mind my over-opinionated self-worth motivated derogatory comments towards large groups of people with a slightly differing value system and educational goals.
TC:DR (too complicated, didn't read): I was just making myself feel better by dissing sociology majors.
Dude don't apologize, it's pretty much a point of academic honor to diss every field that isn't yours as being easy and pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
