Making something social destroys the truth of it because the social groups
need consensus to
survive. Otherwise, they fight they can't get along. And consensus is all about compromise and about truth-seeking science was this unique discipline, at least a natural sciences were where you could have individuals truth-seeking on behalf of the rest of society. Other individuals are verified. They did indeed have the best current model of how reality works and then that could be spread out through inventions the rest of society, but the social sciences work, this virus that
Crept into Academia and have a taken over social sciences themselves are completely corrupted. Firstly. They need to appeal to Society for funding. So they are actually politically motivated and then they themselves are influencing Society because their studies and models are used to drive policy. So of course that ends up corrupted as well, but now even the Natural Sciences under attack from the social sciences and they're becoming more and more socialized. The more groupthink. You see, involve the
The truth. You actually are, and yes, the more you getting along, but you can have a harmonious Society while still allowing truth-seekers within the society to find truth. And to the find, the means to alter and improve reality for the entire group. Even historically, most of the scientific breakthroughs didn't come from scientific institutions. The big ones came from Individual natural philosophers. Who were very independent thinkers who were revealed in their time, often persecuted who fought against the rest.
Of society on the basis of their truths. And it took decades or centuries often after their deaths before those truths were accepted. A lot of these academic theories. Don't actually stand up either to replication. And if you look at what's going on psychology or even to reality, Rory Sutherland had this great quote, where he said something along the lines of marketing is the knowledge of what economists, don't know Economist assume perfectly rational Behavior, but humans are obviously wetware biological creatures, so you can hack around that using marketing or Nassim taleb with
To go even further and say they assume a false rationality. Whereas humans are pricing in the risk of ruin the risk of going to 0 and the academics are making mistakes. About ergodic reasoning. There are assuming that what's good for The Ensemble is good for the individual and it's not because an individual doesn't want to go to zero, doesn't want to go die. So they will not take risks of Ruin and they will not take risks of bankruptcy where it's a group, should be able to take a risk of bankruptcy, because that's spread out among
so many different people.
