/lit/ - Literature

>le high verbul iq judenscience

>>20276401
I'm not reading all that

>>20276464
By the 3rd sentence im already mentally out of the context completely because they insist on writing like retards

>>20276401
This isn't that bad, the worst shit I have seen was some paragraphs from Bulter

>>20276401
>expand transformative learning to include holistic, extrarational, and integrative perspectives.

>>20276401
filtered

>>20276401
This makes immediate and complete sense to me. Have you considered the possibility that you're just not very bright?

>>20276630
It made sense to you because you're dumb and accept meaningless abstractions uncritically.

>>20276401
I am assuming this is just hashing out the definitions. The author will probably expand on those eventually. Keep reading. And yeah, many of these terms are dumb, but whatever.

social science, very clearly, will stand as the symbol of the end of the west. this includes psychology, of course.

>>20276834
it has no connection with truth, exists as masturbation and careerism and as a black-hole sink of tax-money, and sows only contention. It is, to put it mildly: completely useless, and one of the purest outlets of evil you can encounter in the world today.

>>20276838
>. It is, to put it mildly: completely useless
Not really, it's a strong propaganda device

>>20276704
Who says I care about what it's saying? It's literally just an introductory passage and a brief summary of what is to follow. There's very little there to "accept" — critically or otherwise. I don't know what to tell you except that the passage's words resolve to concrete meaning in my head. The concepts the words reference unfold themselves on their own. Could it be more "accessible" to people who might not understand it off the bat? Yeah, probably. I'm not passing judgment on that though. All I'm saying is that this makes sense.

>>20276834
>>20276838
t. 0 pussy stem nerds

>>20276871
>>20276877
post it

>>20276401
>Why is social sciences like that
>quotes an introductory paragraph
Anon, you might be dumb. How about you post something else from the book to prove your point?

OP confirmed absolute brainlet.

This is an undergrad level text introduction, a start at laying out the land. If you don't understand this you don't belong on this board

>>20276881
>there were 6 posts on /lit/ in over a minute
I'm locked in here with you

>>20276401
Like what? it makes you confused? you're fucking stupid then. Say something about the content or go hang, you strange fruit piece of shit.

>>20276401
>can't understand academic terms
That's academia for you. If you haven't read for context you won't understand the terms. Or you might be a little slow.

Dude, what's mumbo jumbo about that? That's how even most textbooks read. Every field has its jargon. So does social sciences.

>>20276401
kek I was expecting something actually egregious but this is completely fine. You're just dump OP.

I am OP

My point isnt that its compltely gibberish. Its that once you understand what they say, you get the feeling that they made it much harder to understand just for the purpose of seeming more verbose. >>20276498 This is a great example

very many things are not improved by more manhours

>>20276915
Then it's not gibberish, it's someone that can't write in a clear way. So, are you talking about an author or social sciences as a subject? You'd fall into the 'can't be clear' category, you dumb fuck. Such a shitty fucking thread.

>>20276915
>much harder to understand
Every word is precise and represents a large concept in much fewer words. If it doesn't immediately resolve to meaning, that's your fault.

>>20276915
>once you understand what they say
you most likely don't understand what they say, as the academic terms used to explain are large and carry a lot of meaning. Using other 'simple' terms would end up in a loss of meaning.

>>20276915
>big word make brain hurt. Make big word EZ for me.
God damn OP, you're fucking stupid, never change

>>20276930
Extrarational is a retarded word that shouldn't exist. We have words like intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual, for things outside of reason.

>>20276947
If you care about precision, none of those words you referenced are synonymous. They all reference specific ways in which something is beyond basic, everyday rationale. These ways are all distinct. Sometimes people choose the exact, precise word they want to use when they refer to an exact, precise concept.

>>20276947
This is why /lit/ will never be taken seriously by anyone that understands any academic subject. Glad I only come here for shitposting.

>>20276947
>transcendental
>Extrarational
Are you stupid? have you never read any philosophy?

>>20276964
Fuck academia, that poster is just an idiot. We are discussing the nature of language use more than anything specific to an academic field at this point. If you're worthy of that academic disdain you're adopting, you'll understand what I'm saying here.

>>20276401
Literally not that hard to understand. Try not being a 100 IQ midwit.

>>20276947
> intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual
Imagine thinking you can use these interchangeably with extrarational

>>20276957
What's the precise meaning of extrarational?
>>20276972
Literally no one in philosophy used extrarational before the 20th century. Have you ever used philosophy?

>>20277023
just quit it nigger, let this shit thread die

>>20277023
>Literally no one in philosophy used extrarational before the 20th century
makes you think why someone would use the term instead of using 'transcendental'. Maybe they are not the same thing. Maybe you're just a retard. Sucks for you.

>>20277027
>>20277034
Define extrarational trannies

>>20276401
>extrarational
>beyond rational
There's no way that isn't euphemistic for sub-rational.

filtered

>>20277036
Why? You completely ignored the point I made here >>20276957 and tried to manufacture some sophist "gotcha" moment, as if the definition of extrarational would somehow invalidate the rebuttal to your idea here >>20276947 that "words like intuition, irrational, transcendental, spiritual" are all synonymous. Address the rebuttal instead of just moving on from it if you want to have an actual discussion in lieu of being called a retard in passing.

>>20276401
What’s the difference between learning and transformative learning?

>>20276401
Social "scientists" are a sorry lot of people who are envious of philosophy for its frameworks, and the sciences for their reliability and ability to make things measurable.
What you end up with is mumbo jumbo in their theories, retarded methodology in their fieldwork, and bad statistics.

>>20277036
Not them but extrarational in the op post refers to a word used in social studies which means „beyond rationality“ in regards to practicability or with a benefit that can’t be expressed in data, such as giving workers days off for grieving, that has nothing to do with „transcendental“ as that means „something that you can’t experience or grasp with human senses“ or „irrational“ which means „going against what would be rational“ and now come to terms with the fact that you’re a brainlet and let this thread die

>>20277061
Imagine thinking OP will honestly try. Anon, I don't know if you're new here or if you still have hope for this board, but I'd advice you to quit while you're ahead. This board is a sea of despair and retards like OP.
You'd be wise to do as >>20276964 does and lurk for shitposts.

>>20277080
By demonstrating how arguments between rational people work, you set the bar higher, even if in any particular instance the person you're interacting with decides he doesn't want to be a vaulter anymore.

>>20277023
extra implies something completely different from trans you dense motherfucker. no why the fuck would you ever think extrarational and transcendental are related.or "irrational". maybe extrarationality has nothing to do with the use of reason and instead with something existing outside of it, hence extra. keep reading the fucking text instead of coming here to complaint about your inability to understand complex subjects

Attaching "science" to such a field is a great tactic of giving it the appearance of legitimacy.

>>20277042
They should have just said irrational and left it at that.

>>20277090
Irrational is still within the framework of rationality, as it is the negation of rationality, while extrarational is outside of the framework, so not the same thing unless you’re too stupid to understand basic principles of epistemology

>>20277090
>google "define extrarational"
>"above or beyond the rational"
Whoa this is making my bran hurt a little.
I think it's a fancy word for irrational that's meant to circumvent the negative connotations of that word.

>>20277161
Or maybe google's dictionary definition is not what the book is refering to! maybe you need to read and gain previous context to understand that 'extrarational ' refers more to >>20277078 maybe you should pick up a book instead of just googling shit!

Isn't it funny how I can read Plato, and read him in quick pace without worrying about misunderstanding words like extrarational, or a science textbook where there is no confusion but you have to work on understanding the concepts rather than filling words

Only in social sciences do you find this bullshit

>>20276871
>>20276883
>>20276884
>undergrad introduction
>requires reading it twice or thrice to comprehend what they are trying to say
You aint too bright yourself either. Why do social sciences downprioritize communication so much? Do they take pride in clouding their work in vagueness? Or is it maybe intentional to fill out the book, not really showing how little there is to it?

>>20277184
>I can read Plato, and read him in quick pace without worrying about misunderstanding words
the autodidact thinks he understands Plato

>>20277193
>Why do social sciences downprioritize communication so much
They downprioritize communication to the ones without the context. They are communicating to people that have studied and understand the terms, not to you, faggot

>>20277184
Social scientists have to use their own language to look like they're doing hard scientific work.It's like how nurses have "nursing diagnoses" now, so they can pretend to be doctors

>>20277169
Lol giving workers days off for grieving is perfectly rational wtf. The only example that comes up from a search is "imagination" and not only is irrational a suitable word for the imagination, dreams and such, but it is also rational in some sense. The imagination can be used for rational purposes, and dreams follow a certain explicable logic that can be interpreted by the dreamer.
Again, it seems like they're just using a euphemism for things emotions and things of that nature that are not rational that is literally an attempt to elevate it above rationality by defining it as such.
Irrational doesn't necessarily mean bad. Although I do see the utility as it's a more specific terminology to their purpose.

>>20276401
>extrarational
>planetary conceptions
>spiritual-integrative
>cultural-spiritual
These just sound like terms picked out of a book on some sort of cult, which I guess academia kind of is.

>>20277090
>>20276947
"Irrational" implies "contrary to rational", even "mad". "Extrarational" lacks that implication, it simply positions the concept "beside" the rational.
It is pathetic that someone on a literature board can be so deaf to nuances in meaning, and even claim that words shouldn't exist. Go to /ic/ and claim that some colours shouldn't exist, lmao.

>>20277204
> Lol giving workers days off for grieving is perfectly rational wtf
Grieving is an emotional process, not a rational one, hence extrarational.
Also, Ratio =/= Logic, but you wouldn’t know since you obviously haven’t studied philosophy

>>20277204
>The only example that comes up from a search
Nigger, google searching won't give you shit.

>>20276918
>>20277065
this kind of writing feels like makework and obfuscation.

from a paper titled Style in Scientific Writing
>The defenders of scientific jargon claim that it allows greater brevity and exactitude than ordinary language. It is true that most of those familiar with jargon find it agreeable. The cognoscenti are pleased by what they perceive as jargon's precision and aura of scientific objectivity. They are also delighted by the fact that their jargon renders their field incomprehensible to outsiders, enabling them to cultivate the impression that only they - the experts - can understand the deep mysteries involved.

So on one hand, you have academics speaking to other academics about a "vast array of definitions, frameworks, and theories" and how else could you engage with that kind of material without adopting that jargon.
But on the other hand, if you had anything to say that that resonates with a wider audience, maybe you could communicate these findings more succinctly.
Its like dressing up an ugly pig instead of boiling it down to its essence.
Its why we (or rather i, like to) engage with this stuff through literature, poetry, and religion. Because there are better ways to communicate the things that are important to us. (i.e. the jargon is not the engaging part to anyone but the jargon users)

>>20277061
>Address the rebuttal
Nothing to address because you misunderstood the point. I never said they're synonymous, I said they should choose the one that matches what they meant.
>>20277078
>benefit that can’t be expressed in data, such as giving workers days off for grieving
That can be measured in data and has nothing to do with rationality. You just mean difficult to measure, so thanks for confirming how retarded "extrarational" is and why it shouldn't be used.

feels like theres misunderstood context around the rational thing. The sociologist and psychologists are using extrarational to talk about human aspects that "appear" irrational, not to say that they can't be explained rationally. like using rational to describe the subject matter as opposed to describing the argument.
giving workers days off for grieving doesn't feel extrarational in any sense though. are there better examples for extrarational?
I'm thinking of things like gambling addicts, or similar self destructive behaviors.
hmmm whole lotta time worrying about jargon over the computer with people i can't talk to face to face, and all the contention in this thread is lame.

>>20277385
>what does this word that doesn't mean anything actually mean?

>>20277392
but it is jargon with actual meaning?
ur shitty attitude made for a shit thread

>>20276401
What a shit thread. Go and die OP

>>20276401
Is there a single thing that social scientists bring to the world?

>>20276401
College is a grift. Anyone can understand this, but only retards who care about the good boy papers and medal would actually put up with four years of this shit. A good amount of the parasites in the system legitimately have no interest in or idea of what the fuck it is they're doing, so they come up with this analytical diatribe that ultimately means nothing so they can not only pretend they're offering a service to society, but that their work is actually worth anything.
That's all it is. Millions of lost and talentless academics justifying a bare minimum lifestyle through the peddling of useless pedagogy because they were born in a system that pushes them to contribute when they would be better off silent by manipulating their base desires for material goods and comfort.

>>20277411
Don't post dumb answers next time

>>20277436
eat my asshole

>>20276401
Social scientists are self conscious about the fact that they're not actually scientists, so they feel the need to posture.

>>20277444
With or without jelly?

It's copium to cover up the deficiencies of their field. Most social science is not even wrong, and perusing fora such as Sociology Job Market Rumors shows why - they lack quantitative skills.

To all the brainlets that shit on sociology:
You do mean that you are saying the writings of Mosca, Pareto and that one other Italian guy are wrong?
That “elite theory” is hogwash?
Just wanted to call attention to it since I know it’s popular around /lit/.

>>20277786
>you think sociology is bad?! what about marxist sociology!
KEK

>>20277850
Sorry but shitting on sociology while still adhering to a specific branch of sociology is contradictory.

I mean, there one motherfucker here and on /his/ that lives to spam this wiki page
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction
As if this had any basis in reality.

>>20277948
I mean it's just le sociological term for the simple concept that too many retards go to universities

>>20276401
That's not even that bad for the social 'sciences'.

>>20276485
this
butler deliberately writes in such a convoluted and densely verbose way that i had to read Gender Trouble 5-6 pages at a time

>>20276401
I've read even worse stuff in my political science courses and it gets funnier when the people start talking that way as well. Of course they fail miserably suddenly trying to appear sophisticated.
Maybe Pol Pot wasn't so wrong and evil in retrospective.

I still dont believe sociology is a science. Can it be called a science when it has no applicability? It might be useful to understand certain phenomenons (partially as it is subjective most of the time). But then again, those phenomenons can be understood more precisely from other disciplines such as psychology.

How can there be several different conclusions for the same question following the scientific method? Sociologists often dont agree with each other. Compare that to physicists.

>>20276401
In short, social sciences are like that because they are not legit sciences. As with most things in life, the people who posture the hardest are the ones who tend to be doing the least real work. There's a very big difference in between using specific terminology for scientific purposes and inventing vague jargon which sounds intelligent to people who don't actually know what intelligence sounds like. Social science tends towards the latter in the vast majority of cases.

>>20276401
in short, it's against the interest of the ruling class to gain true knowledge of the supposed object of study of the "social sciences"

longer explanation:

>Bourgeois science also had its revolutionary phase, which consisted in the demonstration of the historicity of nature. It was marked by two great stages (we put names next to them as points of reference):
>- Galileo and Kant: from the negation of the absolute motion and the geocentric universe to the establishment of the historicity of the solar system
>- Lamarck and Darwin: demonstration of the evolution of living species and approaching the laws governing this evolution; origin of the human species;
>These are the great achievements of bourgeois science. ___As soon as it reaches man, it stops short.___ The third stage, the demonstration of the historicity of socio-familial forms and the laws governing their evolution by Morgan already surpasses the framework of bourgeois science.

critical theory, along with all the garbage in sociology, anthropology, etc. departments is how the bourgeoisie pretends to push science forward in the socio-historical area, while in reality it self-sabotages, making those departments drown themselves in hectolitres of wishy-washy, subjectivist, "postmodernist" crap. this is to make sure that no actual understanding can ever come out of the "research" and that all it can produce is faux-criticism, which "criticizes" bourgeois society by measuring it according to its own ideals, ultimately only reaffirming those ideals, as well as fueling sterile reformism / sectional struggles for recognition by capital from various concocted identity groups.
actual understanding of human history is inadmissible for the ruling class, because it exposes the finitude of capitalism and the inevitability of its demise at the hand of the proletariat. humanities departments are basically one big filibuster against that, hence they produce nothing but empty talk padded with big sounding words.

>>20281284
>>20281416
Wtf are you guys talking about?

>>20277023
All this seething and no definition of extrarational. The emperor has no clothes.

>>20280847
Of course it isn't science that shit isn't even falsifiable.

>>20276401
kek OP I don't like the majority of social sciences and what they put out nowadays but you might be retarded

>>20276401
you are being filtered, this is not bad at all, not even close to some of the shit I've read. Im sorry op

>opens random thread on /tg/
>wow what the fuck why can’t i understand any of this?

>>20276401
>filtered by a literature review
ISHYGDDT

>>20276401
This post alone prove how retarded this board is

>>20276401
Every academic reading is like that, dry and full of buzzwords