Just looking for what im owed

[Anonymous No.8855725]

If you guys are so smart why arent you in the most difficulty field of all cognitive science. Little boy and his mathematics. IT's not even like you understand thats just a non responsive language.

[Anonymous No.8855727]

>>8855725
lol so slow with your "maths" that you can't even respond within a minute

[Anonymous No.8855732]

there's pseudoscience in that chart. turn it into a pentagon then come back.

[Anonymous No.8855736]

>>8855725

why does psychology get Ψ ?

Ψ is for quantum mechanics/quantum chemistry

[Anonymous No.8855746]

[Anonymous No.8855877]

>>8855725
Lol cog sci is just for people who can't into comp sci

[Anonymous No.8855963]

>>8855746
true

[Anonymous No.8856050]

>>8855736
>why does psychology get Ψ
I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually

[Anonymous No.8857033]

>>8855736
Read "Ψ and psychology" aloud, as a hint.

[Anonymous No.8857082]

>>8855725
The people I knew I'm undergrad who studied cog sci were just people who failed to excel at one of the following:
CS
Neuroscience
Linguistics

[Anonymous No.8857145]

>>8857033

that's a pretty stupid reason for them to get our symbol.

Ψ is for wavefunctions

[Anonymous No.8857566]

>>8855732
AI?

[Anonymous No.8857607]

>>8857145
>This level of autism
"It's the first fucking letter of the word" is a pretty good reason to abbreviate it with that letter, fag.

[Anonymous No.8857692]

>>8857145
There's more to the world than just your major my dude.
if troll == False:
print("Try some new things and learn some humility")
else:
print(">nice b8 tho")

[Anonymous No.8858668]

>>8855725

>Psychology
>Philosophy


>Science

[Anonymous No.8858697]

>>8856050
Because the Greek word for 'psyche' starts with a Ψ. Everyone knows this, you aren't special.

[Anonymous No.8858707]

>>8858668
Cogsci is more of a proto-science than anything at this point. It's easy for people in chemistry or physics to forget that philosophy had an important role to play in the formation of their disciplines, but if you work in cogsci, you would understand that philosophy is still extremely relevant. Moreover, cogsci without psychology would be retarded. So stop being a gay gaylord.

[Anonymous No.8858732]

>>8858707

Psychology is still not a Science.

[Anonymous No.8858747]

>>8858732
It's the best science we have on the human mind, you homo sex fag. Unless you want to abandon all research into cognitive processes, you have to accept psychology and its limitations. Obviously the discipline is not as rigorous as physics, but expecting it to be would be stupid.

[Anonymous No.8858798]

>>8858732
its these kinds of people that reminds us

[Anonymous No.8859159]

>>8858747
>>8858798


Still not a Science by virtue of definition.

[Anonymous No.8859172]

>>8859159
doesn't that make it one of the more challenging fields because the maths for it haven't even come close to being discovered for it yet?

Aren't you the pleb for not being in psychology?

[Anonymous No.8859406]

Maybe.


But, Psychology is still not a Science.

[Anonymous No.8859521]

>>8855725
No job, not a science and it is a joke compared to mathematics.

You picked a brainlet major.

[Anonymous No.8859775]

>>8859521
no job? every other cog kid does ux research or design if they want to after making a shit design portfolio and bank six figs on the west coast

[Anonymous No.8859948]

>>8859159
You honestly think science is a well defined concept? Think again kiddo.

[Anonymous No.8859972]

>>8859775
>research or design
You get to do that if you are really good. If you are just "above average" no one will let you research anything.

And your skills are not marketable. What you are doing is something most companies dont care about a mathematician can just walk into most companies and get hired with 300k starting, because companies know that he is probably the smartest person they can get.

[Anonymous No.8860020]

>>8855736
>he thinks the same shit isn't used in multiple fields

[Anonymous No.8860294]

>>8855725
Really something I'm interested in. I'm already too far into my math career though.

I wouldn't feel very secure studying something like that as far career prospects go anyway. Maybe I can use math to help do research in that field or something.

[Anonymous No.8860311]

>>8860294
AI and Linguistics are two fields of cogsci which use a lot of mathematics, so the input of mathematicians is more than welcome there.

[Anonymous No.8861122]

>>8860311
> me: is a mathematical linguist
> also me: can't talk to almost anyone in the field bc most people in ling aren't versed in math outside of very small set of results from formal language theory

[Anonymous No.8861608]

>>8861122
That is true. Most linguists only apply some very specific math in their inquiry on language.

What side of linguistics is your research focused on?

[Anonymous No.8861710]

>>8861608
syntax and formalization of syntactic structure

[Anonymous No.8861719]

Actually that's what I'm considering majoring in.

[Anonymous No.8861722]

>>8855725
My personal reason is that Cognitive science is like studying your navel.

The truth always exists without ourselves, outside. That is what the majority of all sciences prove.

If you think all truth exists WITHIN ourselves, then thats a confirmation bias. You should know what those are given you like cognition so much.

[Anonymous No.8861728]

>>8861710
Nice! I'm more applied myself. I do mostly semantics and pragmatics.

[Anonymous No.8861818]

Trying to study human cognition has to encompass things like philosophy because you're essentially trying to understand what it means to understand things on the most fundamental level. In a way cognitive science is also a metascience, studying the most important scientific tool known to man and the very object of knowledge itself.

>>8861722
>The truth always exists without ourselves, outside. That is what the majority of all sciences prove.
>Why do you want to look inside a human body to try to figure out how our hearts work? Truth only exists outside of us, maaan

It's like you think CogSci and new-age spooky bullshit are the same thing because they both study the mind. That's like saying all geologists are hippies who sell healing crystals because they both try to understand rocks.

[Anonymous No.8861831]

>>8861722
>The truth always exists without ourselves, outside. That is what the majority of all sciences prove.
What exactly proves this in science? I don't necessarily think this is wrong, but I don't see in what respect science proves this. It's easy to wave your hands around and make bold claims, but it's much harder to back them up.

[Anonymous No.8861850]

>>8855732
Artificial "intelligence"

[Anonymous No.8862070]

>>8857692
>if troll==false
Autism activated
>why not if !(troll)

[Anonymous No.8862884]

Cognitive "Science" is the liberal arts of cognition, made for people who are scared to study the depths truly required to master either of the 6 fields.

If you really wanted to have a job or advance the field in any way, you would have chosen Neuroscience, Mathematics or Computer Science. Instead you went for the humanities lite version of it.

[Anonymous No.8862909]

>>8862070
Because he's a babby that doesn't know C.
He also doesn't know PEP8.

[Anonymous No.8862922]

>>8857692
Congrats on taking cs101 in code academy
>>8862909
>C

[Anonymous No.8863394]

>>8862884
Cognitive science is just an umbrella term for the direction some researchers in linguistics, psychology, AI, neuroscience and philosophy (and some might say anthropology, but this is less true now) take. All these fields can be understood as trying to model cognition in some way or another. I don't know what your field of study is, but neuroscience by itself says very little about cognition. This is why research in cognitive neuroscience is always going to be very interdisciplinary, especially with psychology. There's not trying to investigate cognition through neuroscience without relying on higher-level psychological models of cognition. What you seem to advocate is a purely reductionist methodology for cognitive science which, if you worked in the field, you would know is utterly useless.

[Anonymous No.8863418]

>>8855736
Because thats the sign for menorah, and its on psychology because its a jewish invemtion and thus honoring them

[Anonymous No.8863421]

>>8855732
Psychology

[Anonymous No.8863437]

>psychology
>not a science

I know it's a meme, but without psychology, we will not begin to understand AI, without understanding ourselves first.

[Anonymous No.8863602]

>>8863418
What a fucking retard you are.

[Anonymous No.8863616]

I've always looked down on psychology. I always thought it was a meme for brainlets to study ever since I was 14. I was right.

[Anonymous No.8863621]

Why is it so hard for psychology mayors to understand that Psychology is not a Science, yet it can still be useful in some manner?


It really is not a Science, get over it.

[Anonymous No.8863674]

"When we talk mathematics, we may be discussing a secondary language built on the primary language of the nervous system."

-von Neumann

Computational CogSci is sexy af.

[Anonymous No.8864271]

>>8862884
Cognitive science does have its uses. It tries very hard to solve the problem in the dual without referencing the primal. This gives a nice distance metric in the dual (people, the way they act, etc) that can give some intuition to the much harder problem in the primal (brain stuff).

My girlfriend loves Myers-Briggs and all that typology junk. I think the methodology is flawed but I cant deny some of the connections are real. I tried to think of the types in terms of recurrent neural networks and see if I could build networks with similar personalities. After working on the problem for a while, I found a much more elegant subspace within the types based on network variables that tied previously distinct labels together and even found parameter sets that could not be explained as combinations of the labels in the dual. I would have considered these parameter sets as artifacts of my model but they conformed so well to what society considered neuro-developmental disorders. I could not have gone down this line of thinking without some rough idea of a distance metric in the dual to compare my results against, even if it was flawed.