Richard Feynman on "Social Sciences"

I agree. It is impossible to be a Social scientist without mixing data and ideology. Subjects such as History, Intelligence and Race require the adoption of postulates, to create theories about why the world is, the way it is. It is unfortunate that baseless theories, have been a convenience to 'experts', across science.

Why postulates when intelligence theories can be grounded in psychometric research? I think such an approach is not "baseless".

Intelligence theory is currently grounded on either the 'opinion' that intelligence is genetic, and therefore constant, or it is based off the 'opinion' that the problem types on conventional IQ tests demonstrate 'complex' reasoning. Despite a plethora of evidence showing differences in working memory capacity, and trainability in fluid skills (and fluid intelligence), the APA, continues to use conventional tests.

If that's not bias, then I don't know what is.

Most psychometric research conducted until recent years, has been almost worthless, as it has all been based off of the stated assumptions. But what is worse is that IQ proponents have long used tautological arguments to support the construct. A sign of desperation....

This isn't all to say that IQ, in itself, does not have something to with intelligence, as could be defined in alternative theories, but IQ has long been over-rated.

Kids in the humanities enjoy being able to rush at the end of the semester to get an essay turned in for a grade. It's like they weren't in college until the last two weeks of the semester. I guess you can't partay if you're in college the rest of the time.

Another funny thing is when I discuss History with my friends that are taking History, but when I want to say some curiosities about Physics they just run away and understand nothing. I even attended one of their classes. Pre-Historical Archaeology is nothing compared to Calculus. It's like comparing the Kindegarden with Iraq.

And the way non-science people make sure that "dr" or "phd" is included with their name at all times! Kills me. It's funny the same way a character like Barney Gumble is funny, you know, if he stopped a bank robbery by accidentally backing up into the get away car, and no one knew, he'd conveniently not mention it and sniff and walk around like this big crime buster, or if he got a PhD in basket weaving, he'd insist on being called "doctor!", conveniently not mentioning what it's a phd in.

So when someone gets a phd in education, you will here them being called, doctor, but never "doctor of education" or "of social work". It's always just "doctor". Don't analyze it, just assume I'm a big shot doctor, ok! LOL.

math is beautiful. economics enriches the soul. it gives me a headache to see math in my economics

I daresay I wouldn't get very far in my practice of economics without mathematics. If you're not using calculus (or some simulacrum thereof), you probably aren't doing economics correctly. In fact, without some firm mathematical framework, economics is just baseless speculation.