The most important thing about science is not science at all, but the application of what was learned to produce real results in the real world. This is usually known as engineering, but not always. Much like gravity, the underlying 'why' is not truly understood, but the 'what' most definitely it is. Couple that with understanding coefficients of friction of a mixed gas atmosphere and the next thing you know you've discovered ballistics. All of this is possible without truly understanding the 'why' of gravity. In the case of the SSH, understanding the hypothesis is enough to make it practical for use in a nearly unlimited number of human oriented scenarios. Is that not more scientific than a peer reviewed and published theory that cannot be reproduced?
The fake peer reviewed science of clown world largely can do none of this. It cannot be used in engineering applications because it is fake and any attempts end in disaster no matter how much anyone believes in the 'experts'. It's really nothing more than marketing used to persuade the functionally illiterate public to act against their own best interests with a smile on their retarded faces.
Yes. Scientage is the set of all the knowledge that we call "science." The fact that much of that knowledge will be found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or entirely fraudulent is irrelevant to the definition.
It's very similar to the childbirth side of Instagram, where a midwife says something sensible about something that is obviously better for moms and babies, only to be barraged with "But SCIENCE!" and "But DOCTORS" and "But MEDICAL SCHOOL!"
People disadvantaged in the SSH may wish it were not so. But they are not God. And hence have no capacity to rewrite it to their preferences. Nor do they have the Wisdom to remodel it to be the best it could be as God does.
Instead we are finite and mortal and must conform to what is. Outside of morality the laws of reality still applies.
We either conform to reality or be broken by reality.
I despise scientage because it instantly becomes "The map is the territory" with accompanying fanatics who will accept no alteration or correction. You could even have a very nice theory that simply needs some updating to accommodate new information and become even better then suddenly you have to fight every tenured professor trying to disemploy you and media outlet painting you as a paint eating maniac.
Knowledge and truth die in scientage because nothing they publish can ever be 100% true except, unlike with just describing phenomenon like with the SSH, now you have to deal with all the barriers to change. You end up with absolutely ridiculous scenarios like the actual creators of theories having to fight institutions to clarify their own ideas.
I've never cared how the Marquardt Beauty Analysis is true or false about beautiful faces. Or if it's a faith and a creed, with atheists opposing it. It's practical for plastic surgeons who work with making faces less ugly. They didn't know what to do before the Marquardt Beauty Analysis showed the lines. And if they did, they can do their job faster and better with it.
And I don't care if the SSH is science or not. And as the Marquardt Beauty Analysis are clearly visible lines, guidelines for beauty, the SSH is a clear goal of how successful and social men behave. Deltas, bravos and alphas are popular because they are good and reliable with people. The SSH shows what to aim for, so you know why bad manners lead to a painful and lonely life. Intelligence is hard to spot, but you can point at stupidity. The SSH shows a clear guideline of what to do. And it's persuasive in ways which phrases as 'do not be idiotic or stupid' isn't.
It´s predictive powers are far superior to any of the -ologies or xxx sciences.
The only thing in the ologies that I have found that has any predictive power at all is IQ, and if you even mention that TLA ( two letter acronym ) half the population has an epiletic fit and screams WIIIIIITCH.
Every mariner in human history has seen the colors of sunlight refract through wave tops. It was obvious, but nobody figured out the why & how until Sir Isaac Newton did his experiments with prisms - finding different bands of colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
Every human that's ever lived has seen various personality types and hierarchies in men, and how they relate to women. It's obvious, but nobody clearly articulated the different 'bands' and created a reliable, predictive taxonomy for these before Vox.
Newton's book, Opticks (1704), revolutionized spectroscopy and understanding light as an electromagnetic energy.
I think the upcoming SSH book will revolutionize understanding and prediction in human social dynamics. Even in development, it's already, obviously spreading throughout common culture and interactions. Also, like Newton's creation of Calculus for math, the SSH will be the new way assess dynamic functional relationships in human groups.
As for the practitioners of modern white coat scientism, they lost my last shred of respect by insisting it was racist to disbelieve a chimeric coronavirus somehow came from a wet market meeting of a pangolin and a bat. It's easier to assume they're lying from the beginning.
The "bands of color" are a human artifact. What the prism gives you is a continuously variable refraction based on frequency/wavelength. So the color bands belong in scientage.
I think you completely missed my comparative analogy.
Human artifact. Human perception.
Leading to human classification, description, and practical application.
Nobody seeing a red light thinks, "oh, look at that massively longer/slower wavelength gamma radiation." It's a red light. Just like nobody thinks that a Bravo in an organization is really an Alpha with a narrowed sense of applied mission concept.
Did you ever read Opticks? It was as practical as it was visionary. Pun intended. Newton conceived of light as 'corpuscles.' Of different categories - leading to his understanding of composites, and how they interacted. Then he wrote about it. And it was all verifiable. Wave theory and particle theory weren't resolved until quantum physics were developed, but that didn't make advanced understanding of lenses & light any less useful. Be careful saying "continuously variable based on frequency/wavelength." If I refract a red light, it won't ever become indigo, no matter how many prisms we use. Just like Delta will never be an Alpha.
So, full circle, when Vox refines his SSH book, it will also be practical and revolutionary. An understanding of categories, behaviors, and predictability. It already is; the difference will be in magnitude.
A confirmed Gamma then proceeding to become a leader of men and prolific ladies man without modifying his behavior or situational status. Keep in mind that back-dating does not qualify for falsification. The prediction must fail.
Keep in mind that probabilistic thinking does not lend itself to the binary thinking of science, which is one reason why I pay zero attention to science. At this point in time, science is for midwits, no one who is truly intelligent can get much from it because probability is how the real world operates.
To the forum readers: are there any other greek-letter categories of SSH out there that could exist, or does this proposed model account for all of it generally?
The model so far accounts for all our observations back into history and has demonstrated reliable predictive power. Until that ceases to be true, it's not worth considering.
I once heard a scientist speaking about Intelligent Design Theory. He didn't believe it himself, but when someone came forward with the objection that "it isn't science," he said, "So what? The operative question is not whether ID is science, but whether it's true. If it's true, it hardly matters whether it's science or not."
On the utility of the SSH, it has suddenly become extremely helpful personally as I have a client who, until recently, I didn't interact with at all beyond the scope of the work. He'd request a specific task that he didn't have time for in his business, I'd do it to spec., and that's that. Months or even a year or so go by, then he pops in with a "hey, could you do this?" "Thanks!"
Recently, though, he's asked for my help on a potentially huge project, and now it's crucial to understand whether he's sigma or alpha in order to best serve the project. All to say, what you do here really is both useful and appreciated.
The most important thing about science is not science at all, but the application of what was learned to produce real results in the real world. This is usually known as engineering, but not always. Much like gravity, the underlying 'why' is not truly understood, but the 'what' most definitely it is. Couple that with understanding coefficients of friction of a mixed gas atmosphere and the next thing you know you've discovered ballistics. All of this is possible without truly understanding the 'why' of gravity. In the case of the SSH, understanding the hypothesis is enough to make it practical for use in a nearly unlimited number of human oriented scenarios. Is that not more scientific than a peer reviewed and published theory that cannot be reproduced?
The fake peer reviewed science of clown world largely can do none of this. It cannot be used in engineering applications because it is fake and any attempts end in disaster no matter how much anyone believes in the 'experts'. It's really nothing more than marketing used to persuade the functionally illiterate public to act against their own best interests with a smile on their retarded faces.
Science also told us paper masks and six feet apart would keep us alive, so there's that too.
Scientage seems like a useful concept. Would I be understanding the concept correctly if I were to say that not all scientage is garbage?
Yes. Scientage is the set of all the knowledge that we call "science." The fact that much of that knowledge will be found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or entirely fraudulent is irrelevant to the definition.
It's very similar to the childbirth side of Instagram, where a midwife says something sensible about something that is obviously better for moms and babies, only to be barraged with "But SCIENCE!" and "But DOCTORS" and "But MEDICAL SCHOOL!"
People disadvantaged in the SSH may wish it were not so. But they are not God. And hence have no capacity to rewrite it to their preferences. Nor do they have the Wisdom to remodel it to be the best it could be as God does.
Instead we are finite and mortal and must conform to what is. Outside of morality the laws of reality still applies.
We either conform to reality or be broken by reality.
I despise scientage because it instantly becomes "The map is the territory" with accompanying fanatics who will accept no alteration or correction. You could even have a very nice theory that simply needs some updating to accommodate new information and become even better then suddenly you have to fight every tenured professor trying to disemploy you and media outlet painting you as a paint eating maniac.
Knowledge and truth die in scientage because nothing they publish can ever be 100% true except, unlike with just describing phenomenon like with the SSH, now you have to deal with all the barriers to change. You end up with absolutely ridiculous scenarios like the actual creators of theories having to fight institutions to clarify their own ideas.
It's not even "the map is the territory" it's "I like pictures" level of fact acceptance.
It's more the scientistry that is the problem. But there is considerable inertia in scientage, that's true.
I've never cared how the Marquardt Beauty Analysis is true or false about beautiful faces. Or if it's a faith and a creed, with atheists opposing it. It's practical for plastic surgeons who work with making faces less ugly. They didn't know what to do before the Marquardt Beauty Analysis showed the lines. And if they did, they can do their job faster and better with it.
And I don't care if the SSH is science or not. And as the Marquardt Beauty Analysis are clearly visible lines, guidelines for beauty, the SSH is a clear goal of how successful and social men behave. Deltas, bravos and alphas are popular because they are good and reliable with people. The SSH shows what to aim for, so you know why bad manners lead to a painful and lonely life. Intelligence is hard to spot, but you can point at stupidity. The SSH shows a clear guideline of what to do. And it's persuasive in ways which phrases as 'do not be idiotic or stupid' isn't.
what I find funny about this article is that those who told you "this is not science" cannot possibly understand this article
Why would they need to understand it? That's what "experts" are for, to understand things and tell us what to think about them.
It´s predictive powers are far superior to any of the -ologies or xxx sciences.
The only thing in the ologies that I have found that has any predictive power at all is IQ, and if you even mention that TLA ( two letter acronym ) half the population has an epiletic fit and screams WIIIIIITCH.
Every mariner in human history has seen the colors of sunlight refract through wave tops. It was obvious, but nobody figured out the why & how until Sir Isaac Newton did his experiments with prisms - finding different bands of colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
Every human that's ever lived has seen various personality types and hierarchies in men, and how they relate to women. It's obvious, but nobody clearly articulated the different 'bands' and created a reliable, predictive taxonomy for these before Vox.
Newton's book, Opticks (1704), revolutionized spectroscopy and understanding light as an electromagnetic energy.
I think the upcoming SSH book will revolutionize understanding and prediction in human social dynamics. Even in development, it's already, obviously spreading throughout common culture and interactions. Also, like Newton's creation of Calculus for math, the SSH will be the new way assess dynamic functional relationships in human groups.
As for the practitioners of modern white coat scientism, they lost my last shred of respect by insisting it was racist to disbelieve a chimeric coronavirus somehow came from a wet market meeting of a pangolin and a bat. It's easier to assume they're lying from the beginning.
The "bands of color" are a human artifact. What the prism gives you is a continuously variable refraction based on frequency/wavelength. So the color bands belong in scientage.
I think you completely missed my comparative analogy.
Human artifact. Human perception.
Leading to human classification, description, and practical application.
Nobody seeing a red light thinks, "oh, look at that massively longer/slower wavelength gamma radiation." It's a red light. Just like nobody thinks that a Bravo in an organization is really an Alpha with a narrowed sense of applied mission concept.
Did you ever read Opticks? It was as practical as it was visionary. Pun intended. Newton conceived of light as 'corpuscles.' Of different categories - leading to his understanding of composites, and how they interacted. Then he wrote about it. And it was all verifiable. Wave theory and particle theory weren't resolved until quantum physics were developed, but that didn't make advanced understanding of lenses & light any less useful. Be careful saying "continuously variable based on frequency/wavelength." If I refract a red light, it won't ever become indigo, no matter how many prisms we use. Just like Delta will never be an Alpha.
So, full circle, when Vox refines his SSH book, it will also be practical and revolutionary. An understanding of categories, behaviors, and predictability. It already is; the difference will be in magnitude.
To qualify as scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Which the SSH, through it's predictive models, obviously is.
So what would count as a falsification here? One single wrong prediction obviously wouldn't.
A confirmed Gamma then proceeding to become a leader of men and prolific ladies man without modifying his behavior or situational status. Keep in mind that back-dating does not qualify for falsification. The prediction must fail.
Keep in mind that probabilistic thinking does not lend itself to the binary thinking of science, which is one reason why I pay zero attention to science. At this point in time, science is for midwits, no one who is truly intelligent can get much from it because probability is how the real world operates.
To the forum readers: are there any other greek-letter categories of SSH out there that could exist, or does this proposed model account for all of it generally?
What reliable behavior pattern have you repeatedly observed that is not covered by the existing categories?
People who start with the label have the entire process backwards. They're just midwit attention-seekers.
The model so far accounts for all our observations back into history and has demonstrated reliable predictive power. Until that ceases to be true, it's not worth considering.
I miss the 80s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83JR2IoI8k&list=RDV83JR2IoI8k&start_radio=1
I once heard a scientist speaking about Intelligent Design Theory. He didn't believe it himself, but when someone came forward with the objection that "it isn't science," he said, "So what? The operative question is not whether ID is science, but whether it's true. If it's true, it hardly matters whether it's science or not."
The same applies to the SSH.
"It is merely a scientific hypothesis that has not yet been falsified."
The attempt to falsify the SSH, in itself, supports the validity of the hypothesis.
The people who will attempt to falsify the SSH are already well classified by it.
On the utility of the SSH, it has suddenly become extremely helpful personally as I have a client who, until recently, I didn't interact with at all beyond the scope of the work. He'd request a specific task that he didn't have time for in his business, I'd do it to spec., and that's that. Months or even a year or so go by, then he pops in with a "hey, could you do this?" "Thanks!"
Recently, though, he's asked for my help on a potentially huge project, and now it's crucial to understand whether he's sigma or alpha in order to best serve the project. All to say, what you do here really is both useful and appreciated.