Even aside from the Chimpout regarding AI solving millennium problems, my experience with STEMcels has been quite negative at least online. I've often seen them dismiss philosophy as woo woo, autistically critique movies/books for realism/scientific accuracy, rigidly stick to "scientific consensus" (especially in dubious areas like psychiatric meds, treatment of gender dysphoria), etc... For a field that supposedly requires creative, outside the box thinking they are very dogmatic. Basically, I am talking about the average "I heckin love science" reddit-tier stem guys who seem to be the majority.
>>17052528get better friends bro
>>17052530I don't have friends.
you only hear the loudest, don't judge us based on a few people
>>17052557given how you get your opinions of people from terminally online behaviour, no wonder
>>17052562>>17052578>STEMcels proving OPs point kek
>>17052586reminder christofascists get to act like >>17052503 and mysteriously get the #notall treatment from the likes of OP
>AI chimpouts>meanwhile, AI faggots: >>17052384ah yes, these people are definitely acting in a way that wouldn't get them decked if they talked like that to a guy on the street
>>17052588>>17052592You do realise those guys are just typical 4chan trolls right? You have this variety on every board.
>>17052594>groups you like and agree with acting like the exact kind of people they really are online: "those are just trolls">groups you dislike:"this is representative of the group"u-huh.
>>17052557>>17052528So your opinion of "STEMcels" (I remember when people called a particular kind of smarmy undergrad "STEMlord") is based on your (reddit, xitter, youtube comment section) browsing habits?
>>17052596When it's the majority yeah.
>>17052528specializing. we have limited resources. invest all your points into one stat and you're bound to lack in others.there's also time you dedicate to certain intellectual fields/areas.so you either specialize into some shit either become the jack of all trades. both can be useful depending on circumstance.
>>17052670I don't know man, I cannot recall a single instance where I met anybody who was anything like the definitely real and organic xitter/reddit/whatever screenshots and online discussions outside of the time I spent on California. I think "majority" is something we should leave to statistics. I remember a time not long ago where "facts don't care about your feelings" was the overwhelming majority opinion on this site, on some level I wonder how to reconcile that with people like OP.
>>17052528It's just cult mentality and gatekeeping. Simple as. If you're a part of their "community of elite" circle jerk you're in the know of "higher truth" and everyone else is an unwashed barbarian. There is really nothing new under the sun when it comes to human social behaviour.
>>17052528>dismiss philosophy as woo woo, Because most of it is. Who cares that some pissant can say "but WHY do plants photosynthesize light!!?" They just fucking do. "Okay but WHAT IS SPACE???" while lacking the basic mathematical formalism to understand how to quantify it. Then they go one step further and write schizophrenic idiosyncratic treatises on their delusions. >autistically critique movies/books for realism/scientific accuracy, Yes. Because people assume what they see in media represents reality. This stems from the directors not knowing science and making shit up. It's why any competent science based media has science advisors. >rigidly stick to "scientific consensus" (especially in dubious areas like psychiatric meds, treatment of gender dysphoria), Absent alternative explanatory models they stick to what currently is the best descriptor. Look up when plate tectonics was founded. Your grandparents learned a different consensus. Yet you learned the current consensus. You have no idea how science operates. Why do you pretend to understand how those areas work?>etc... For a field that supposedly requires creative, outside the box thinking they are very dogmatic. Science is not a "field" you cum guzzling mouth breathing faggot. It's a method of inquiry and investigation. >Basically, I am talking about the average "I heckin love science" reddit-tier stem guys who seem to be the majority.No you're not. They're not the type who determine consensus nor critique media for lack of scientific accuracy. They lack the expertise to do it. Why are you on this board? You're not a scientist. You've never conducted a rigorous scientific experiment. You don't even know what science is. Keep your bullshit on >>>/pol/
>>17052708A hundred times this. And every time these "people" are challenged or actually prodded for their real opinions on things (things they support, not just the things they are "so reasonably against") you either get A) a creationist loon with an agenda, B) a naziboo (fed?) who got his holocaust facts from memes, C) a debate spic whose politics begin and end with whether to post a wojak, a frog or a stonetoss comic today to own the libs. Or, of course, all of the above.
