User talk:Socioanthropologist

AgingHippie (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"This article is utterly unscientific and needs major work"
Well, then, quit your whining and get to work. The edit button is in the top right-hand corner. AgingHippie (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is people with names like "aginghippie" and their crusty sociology degrees who have never cracked open so much as the Quarterly Journal of Economics in their entire lives tend to revert edits with a trigger finger. The emtire article should really just be the "In Fairness" section and anything that is NOT a fair assessment and is instead some person's political beliefs (so the rest of the article) should NOT be on a "rational" wiki. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Socioanthropologist / talk / contribs
 * My degress aren't in sociology. I've read lots of economic history, though. And please AgingHippie (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how reading "lots of economic history" is a qualification any more than anti-vaxxers who have "read lots about vaccines." To the point, however, the Friedman article contains nothing of his well-regarded work on the so-called Consumption Function, and his famed Permanent Income Hypothesis. Nothing about his denouncing the bad human rights record of the Pinochet regime (and nothing about how in spite of the bad human rights, the Chilean economy did turn out to be a top performer in South America by moving away from Allende's disasterous economic policies) either. Seriously, I appreciate how rationalwiki gets to the point on some topics, but the Friedman article is a total anti-intellectual hack job. I could "quit whining and get to work" (as you so intellectually put it, fürher) if there was any assurance that the same partisan hacks who conjured the clearly-biased article to begin with would not just revert any edits on the grounds that even though they know nothing about the LC-PIH or the relative success of Chile's economy,they totally read a Naomi Klein book that like, opened their eyes to the REAL TRUTH, man, and hence nothing else matters.

Socioanthropologist (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. Do you think we're actually immunologists too?  Comparing rejecting Austrian economics as bunk because it's founded on untrue premises and extrapolates to unreasonable conclusions to rejecting vaccines because google said so isn't honest.  Don't be dishonest.  I strongly dislike dishonesty.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you a different account of AgingHippie or a different user? Just curious, I don't care. Either way, I think it is absolutely hilarious that you assume any reference of Austrian economics has occurred while, I assume, happily denouncing Austrian economics for it's assumptions. I never brought up any Austrian scholarship; Milton Friedman-- while definitely ideologically libertarian-- was not an "Austrian" economist in the sense that Rothbard or Mises were (Mises was so in every sense of the word, lol). His Permanent Income Hypothesis, and his Monetary History with Anna Schwartz (which implied that the Federal Reserve failed in not expanding the monetary base during the depression!) are decicively non-Austrian. Anyway, back on topic, I rightfully compared using "read lots of economic history" in the same self-qualifying sense of "reading economic history." The article on Friedman is an anti-intellectual hack-job. The fact that you think that defending a Nobel prize winning mainstream economist somehow translates to a defense of quack Austrian economics is evidence for my fear that any attempt to edit the article to bring it in accord with documented fact would be disputed by ideologues in this community and ultimately rejected in favor of the current antoscientific hack-job that stands currently. Socioanthropologist (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck would I register two accounts, make hundreds of edits with each of them agree with myself sometimes, disagree with myself vociferously other times, have years between regdates, change one account's name, and have a wildly differently writing style I maintain between these two facades, except to be crazy so someone could denounce me? This is the dumbest accusation.  Two distinct people have disagreed with you.  If that has never happened in your life, that would be seriously odd.  And man can you repeat "anti-intellectual hack-job" without bringing any intellectual input to the table.  As a conciliatory gesture, I apologize for mislabeling you as an Austrian.  That were rude.  But drop the conspiratorial thinking.  It's pretty shitty.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Friedman was a smart guy about some things...but he is still a human being that can be wrong. It doesn't make it more credible when fans go on about conspiracies, paranoia, and making accusations about the people who disagree when history is presented.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake when I was formulating my earlier comment. I wrote 'rightfully compared using "read lots of economic history" in the same self-qualifying sense of "reading economic history."' when the last phrase in quotations should read "reading about vaccines." Fairly pedantic, but anyway, let me respond to two posts at once. Two people really didn't substantially disagree with me; one person told me to (paraphrasing) shut up and edit. Then another baselessly accused me of being an Austrian while I was responding to the other user. I have brought ample "intellectual input" to the table in my response to you, and the one before that. The fact that you don't recognize it does not reflect well on your own intellectual capacity, if you want to speak in those terms, I suppose. As for the second responder (EmeraldCityWanderer) I am decidedly NOT defending all Friedman "fans." However, he WAS against the human rights violations in the Pinochet regime. Plus, when you look at the relative economic performance of Chile after abandoning Allende economic policies in favor of Friedman-inspired economic policies, it's clear that putting aside his political ideology (which, FWIW, I often disagree with), if you ascribe Pinochet's economic policy all to Friedman it must have been effective, because Chile has seen more economic success relative to S. America. The entire Friedman article smacks of anti-intellectualism, strictly in the sense I have identified (so don't go bitching that I have not substantiated that, because I absolutely have, if you read my replies). The only horse I have in this race is facts. I argue against Austrians all of the time. I also argue against half-baked arguments that lack any intellectual weight; weight which no one has brought thus far. I am happy to revise the article more factually and objectively, but I am convinced (as I apparently have reason to be) that people will bring empty political and subjective priors to try and bear against objective fact. Socioanthropologist (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already an article dealing with spewing claimed unsourced "facts" till people's eyes glaze over...then calling them stupid because they don't accept your revelations as THE REAL TRUTH. Source it and it can't be argued with, which would be a more productive use of time then writing another couple page response (exaggeration to make a point).  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And please
Take any specific and actionable objections to the article's talk page. Even granting you "It's biased and anti-intellectual" as a true charge, saying it does nothing to correct anything. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)