Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Having studied sociology, that's just not even in the ballpark of true. Most sociology is not even interested in the nurture/nature question, that's more related to fields like pedagogy or psychology.
Also, the idea even within the field of sociology people interested in this question are "trying to prove nurture outweights nature" is just patently false. Also, that's not a political bias.
For the record though, I would agree that a lot of human sciences are BS. But that's not how they're BS.
EDIT:
Also, just no. This is basically opposite to reality.
The whole field of qualitative research was essentially invented because fields like sociology were NOT interested in quantifying things like intelligence and personality, but instead wanted to find ways to say something interesting about these topics without trying to quantify them.
EDIT2: ALso, intelligence and personality are not really sociological topics, you're talking psychology.
Sociology by definition studies groups of people.
|
Perhaps things differ between professors/programs, but the first lesson in my Sociology 101 class was that all human behaviour was learned. I took two upper level sociology classes as well, and it seemed to be same.
Just to clarify I absolutely do not think that all humanities are BS.