<p>Wow, anti. That was completely uncalled for. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow and that one day your sanctimonious, condescending attitude is going to catch up with you - and don’t be expecting anyone to save you when it does.</p>
<p>hahahahahahahahahahahahah the tags</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is all you ever need to know about antipacifist, ladies and gentlemen. It hates the LA majors because they’re “liberal” and liberalism is scary. </p>
<p>Antipacifist, you give STEM majors a really bad name, you know that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Godwins are not Ad Hominem attacks. 2) It’s not a Godwin if what you’re advocating is actually similar to something advocated by Hitler. ■■■■■■ love to say people who invoke a Godwin have “lost” but they tend to forget the actual rules behind it - any old mention of Nazis or Hitler doesn’t qualify as a Godwin. You’d know that, if you had the critical thinking skills to understand it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really… cause as a Neuropsychologist if I branched out into Experimental I could easily make $100k/year starting. Unless it falls under Science, I don’t see Medicine in STEM so my guess is its a field apart and… oh yeah, medical doctors make even more! What rule is this by the way… the rule of “anticormy says so?” The rule of “I pulled this out of my arse?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>■■■■■. My degree is worthless now? I love how you think that~ I love how you think Philosophy is useless too. Then you try to back it up by saying we go on to do graduate work. So… you’re better because your particular career choice ends after 2-4 years? Hon… where I come from the people who stop after 2-4 years are the ones that didn’t have the guts to go the distance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming they don’t get research grants, which anybody and their dog will find a way to earn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I call b.s. Not just on mine but on Philosophy leading to Law. A good Lawyer can make millions on a high-profile case, you’re telling me that’s “low-paying”… Nope, you’re just a ■■■■■. Simple and clean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, actually macmill, what I was doing was pointing out the flaws in a piece of anecdotal evidence, not presenting my own anecdotal evidence (as Carly Fiorina is often held out as an example in such articles).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed it, so I’ll say it again: liberal arts degrees, by and large, do <em>not</em> teach a person to think critically, and <em>that</em> is my criticism (my criticism is not of critical thinking, a thing most often espoused by people who do not actually practice it). Some people have learned to think critically as a consequence of their having gotten a liberal arts education (those people are called “economists”), just as some people have learned to become great artists as a consequence of having attended art school. But nobody would say that art school “creates” artists. They can teach skills but they cannot teach the unteachable. Just because something can be learned does not mean it can purposefully be taught, as you would teach times tables or history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since nothing I’ve said would lead any reasonable thinking person to believe I was trying to say the words you just put in my mouth, I think I just might ignore you in the future and regard you as a ■■■■■. You are one of those people who hears without listening. You assume that because I’ve said one thing, then I must also <em>think</em> another, and decide to treat me as if I had actually said it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Primarily because of people like you, who read one thing I say, think to themselves “ah, so he what he really believes is <em>this</em>” and then proceeds to make a clumsy straw man argument, and then I must waste my time pointing out that no, I never said such thing nor do I believe it. I was attempting to save people time, not merely draw attention to myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m really interested in hearing how we “don’t practice it.” Please, provide an example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying that you need the government to create artificially low supplies of neuropsychologists via occupational licensing (not to mention grad school) in order for that degree to pay off financially?</p>
<p>Just asking…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All I meant by that was that the term “critical thinking” has been abused by the left to mean “THINKING that is CRITICAL of right-wing stuff I hate.” Critical thinking is very important, unfortunately the term itself has been hijacked. The actual methodology behind true critical thinking is not political. But as anybody who has encountered biased liberal arts professors who nonetheless talk about “critical thinking” can tell you, the actual methodology of critical thinking goes out the window when ideology is at stake. Look at what Harvard did to Larry Summers for highlighting a statistical fact that was nevertheless contrary to the official party line.</p>
<p>^Now where did I say that? Neuropsychologists and Experimental Psychologists are in low supply because their fieldwork is specialized, so they get paid more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m gonna stop you there, I had a feeling that’s what you meant. Lemme explain something starting with gay marriage/rights. Critical Thinking doesn’t mean we have to ACCEPT what you are saying about it. Let’s explain it this way: look at the KKK, what they do is unacceptable. We don’t have to listen to a word they say because I gaurentee you 99.999999999999999999999999% of what they have to say is complete b.s. and the .000000000000000000001% isn’t worth sitting through the rest to hear. If it’s something hateful and bigoted, we’re under no perrogative to “critically think” about it, we’re gonna call a spade a spade and shut the person up.</p>
<p>Take Anti for instance - every single thing that comes out of his mouth is foul, offensive and nasty. I respond to him with cogent arguments most of the time when I correct his factual inaccuracies but the rest of the time I’m just responding sarcastically because what he has to say doesn’t merit a critical response. I have no reason to respond, especially because he’s already been refuted numerous times. I can think critically about what you’re saying without agreeing with it. See?</p>
<p>I made the funniest tag. Proof that STEM minus biology, chemistry, engineering, and technology majors are more creative than humanities and social science majors.</p>
<p>I still think the problem is each side thinking Liberal Arts is two different things</p>
<p>One side is using the correct definition</p>
<p>One side is using the definition of what I think of when someone says “Liberal Arts”… so just the worthless stuff. Not Econ, Math, Medical, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, here’s what you said Tommy: B) the statistics are liberal arts majors are buffeted by outliers like people who … attended fancy private schools and used their connections to succeed (Carly Fiorina, for example, … went to Stanford and had well-to-do parents). That’s called anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>
[citation]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This of course doesn’t imply or even suggest that critical thinking can’t be taught, but it is an interesting point that doesn’t at all contradict anything that’s been said in this thread.</p>