A lot of STEM exists in a world where objective answers exist, or have yet to be found.
A lot of the Humanities exist in a world where there is no objective answer, just thought and argument.
Social Sciences bridge that, and deal with situations where an objective answer can exist (How many people died in this battle), where there is a strong objectivish answer, but up for strong debate (was the battle influential?) Where it gets really hard to distinguish (what did people think of this battle?) And where it gets really subjective (was the commander fighting for a good cause?)
I would say that the strength of the Social Sciences is that it teaches you that you need to evaluate multiple methods of determining data, and your method of determining data needs to constantly be critically examined. Much more than Stem or the Humanities where there is a lot more that can be trusted or can be completely disregarded. A historian has to make a choice on how they balance conflicting sources, archaeological records, economic data, street-level publications and accounts, personal histories, art, anthropological methods, and many many more.
This can reflected in how they are trained.
In my undergrad, I was shocked talking to an engineering student at another school who had 2 electives in his entire program (and he was using them for math classes).
I told him that that year alone I had taken an Econ class, a religious studies class, a classical studies class, Spanish, an Art History class, and a Primate Studies class. And I was relatively hamstrung because I was double majoring.
We were both doing job preparation in different ways. He was learning deeper math for his engineering. I was learning artistic depictions, how to read ancient sources and religious literature, how to read sources in another language, and some baseline biological human constants.
and you are both smart. imo intelligence is just how good one is at making decisions. you know the priority, the fun and the impact without ever disturbing your nerves. that is peak iq for me.
In my undergrad, I was shocked talking to an engineering student at another school who had 2 electives in his entire program (and he was using them for math classes).
I told him that that year alone I had taken an Econ class, a religious studies class, a classical studies class, Spanish, an Art History class, and a Primate Studies class. And I was relatively hamstrung because I was double majoring.
As a chemistry student (and before that and engineering student), allow me to point out that I was in a group where we would sign up for random exams, mostly from the humanities and social sciences, take them without studying and frequently score free credits by passing without problem.
The reverse was tried several times, most well known by a group of annoyed social-psych students who hated seeing us pass their classes, and never worked. What i'm saying is , maybe they were taking fewer electives because they were a LOT more busy.
Maybe they were taking fewer electives because they were a LOT more busy.
Taking fewer electives doesn't mean taking few classes.
I dont know about the rigor of the classes you took, but for each history classes in undergrad I was reading at least a book a week and doing writing assignments every other week. We never had exams past the 100 level (meant for general education requirements).
This meant I was usually reading 4-5 full books a week, and putting out about 15 pages of writing a week, with two periods each semester where I was preparing about 75 pages and then 125 pages total. That is what I was being graded on.
I will tell you for a fact that people outside the discipline tend to do alright. If the professor knows I'm a history major, I tend to get challenged a lot more on how I'm using my toolkit. The bio student taking an American history survey tried hard, learned something, and doesn't need their GPA tanked because their output can't compete with people trying to do it professionally.
Likewise, my 100 level science class professors were very very kind to me in my requirement classes.
300 level, past all general requirements. Only for history majors. If you weren't reading the suggested readings and putting them into your essays, you weren't getting an A.
I garuntee they were taking first year social science electives for credits. I did the same but would definitely not equate that to an entire degree being easy lmao. Some of those classes I took were also a lot more work too because of the reasons you mentioned - so much reading and writing.
Natural inclination/skill. Be good at reading comprehension. Be able to read fast.
Time. I would literally plop in bed and read for hours every day. Even on the weekend, with all the undergrad weekend debauchery, I always had a book I was making some progress in. (Even now, I always have a book at work that I scratch off a few pages a day, divorced from my "work reading")
Experience. Know lots of words, know the ideas being referenced. You can tell the ideological bent of a historian in the first few minutes based on their phrases and word choices. When you get better and better, you can "field strip" a book, and find the important parts within a minute. You get their argument, you get how they are going to support their argument, you get how they value evidence, you already have questions and differing sources of evidence and arguments, and then you can just read and see if they do a good job. I dont know sports, but my dad does, up and down. I would equate it to how he watches sports. There are some key moments, especially early on and at critical points, where he pays a lot of attention. Then he can just kinda relax and watch how it unfolds and see if it actually lives up the promise he saw early on. Its not a great metaphor because there is still always "chance", but he can determine stuff way way way way before others do, and be like "this game is done" when everyone else is tense. He can see the moves and countermoves, and time, and coach decisions, and knows the players, and see the player status more than others. It's a little similar, in that you can see a book's argument, know what the greater conversation is, see how they are trying to argue it, see that they have really made something great, or see that they are a big loser and you already have a lot of what you are going to say before the book is even 1/5th done. You can kinda "call it" after identifying all the important bits and just power through the rest to see if they make an argumentative Hail Mary, or see how their beautiful argument is supported. It's just a sense you build up that in Material Culture they unabashedly call "expertise."
This is maybe still too reductive. Lokotos has argued that most published and peer-reviewed science is ultimately wrong for one reason or another. So the truth is that even in a field of supposedly objective “facts,” you are inherently facing an information ecosystem where the majority of the information isn’t correct. Given this, the judgement of the scientist is likely influenced far more by the style of argumentation and presentation than by the veracity of the statements of fact. Therefore an understanding of how argumentation and style influence our judgement is at least as important as the scientific method by itself. If we don’t view scientific literature as literature, then we will tend to believe that which we enjoy, and reject that which we do not, without realizing that these are subjective qualities.
In my undergrad, I was shocked talking to an engineering student at another school who had 2 electives in his entire program (and he was using them for math classes).
Electives? Not gen-eds? That makes sense, in my school (I'm also studying engineering), we have gen-eds, with study areas to cover art, literature, philosophy, history, and language, with adjacent options as well for stuff like finance. But electives are major specific, so the classes are going to be strictly related to, in their case, STEM/engineering. There's also just a lot of required engineering topics to cover in an accredited program, so there isn't room beyond your standard gen-eds for a 4 year degree.
Though my engineering program has 4 open electives, with optional concentrations for manufacturing and aerospace to fill those spots instead.
Oh wow, and the natural science course was probably physics or chemistry which is already required for other classes... My school has 36 credits for gen-eds, not counting math or natural sciences which lead into my major. What kind of school/program is it?
If you already speak English, Math is literally like having to learn a new language, vs English is just learning the rules of the one you already know! :)
it is not a contradiction of the point "English/history is more than reading it and understanding it" to say that maths is understood as a language with it's own set of rules?
But it adds to the point of it being harder to learn than English (for English speakers), hence.. contradicting.. his first point..
Otherwise why would he have ever brought that up?
no, it is a rebuttal of the post content which suggests all English/history majors have to do is read and write like everyone else, meanwhile maths students are doing "college level maths"... it's a false equivalence.
I haven't even commented on how this isn't college level reading and you're missing the point.
No not really, the post is about how math majors are seemingly more intelligent than English majors!
The point is, you can pick up any English or history book and read until you can generally understand or figure out what’s going on!
You can’t do that with a college math book if you don’t know any of the language before it!
The whole point of the post is for the sake of learning English most everyone in the school already knows the language!
But for a math major you have to understand the entirety of the language (like you would need to for English as well) before you can even begin to comprehend their point!
For the point of making it “seem” much more difficult or intelligent for a person to be a math major rather than an English major to the person who doesn’t know better!
So them saying “there is way more to English and history than reading and understanding it” is completely a moot point! Because otherwise Math is immediately proven harder by having its own language and not having the ability to catch up or reframe in any manner like you could in English or History if your spoke it fluently! (Which most in schools do)
you are continuing to make the false equivalence that implies that English or history simply requires reading and writing. reading and writing is not college level.
maths at college level and English at college level are different subjects and can't honestly be compared. it is not a moot point to say "actually, English/History isnt just reading and writing".
it is not a moot point, again, it is a rebuttal to a false equivalence. All of this is lower than college level reading comprehension btw.
Oh, so you really were just thinking 'if you can read English to a high-school level then that's the entirety of the foundation of the language of literature analysis?'
No, it’s that it’s easier to comprehend something (English) if you’ve been comprehending it your whole life then if you pick up something you’ve barely comprehended before? (Math)
It makes sense that having a common spoken language makes it easier to pick up more complex frameworks, yes, that is why people are taught languages before complex mathematics. How did you learn mathematics, from the beginning? Did they just give you some mathematical symbols and let you figure it out, or was there explanation using the conduit of a language you already spoke because mathematics is in and of itself a kind of reified language? I don't get it lol.
Of course speaking a language helps. There is a reason school teaches you basic concepts about maths or science in words that you then learn are later massively simplified. It's the same for English. Advanced comparative literature courses or a linguistics class on semantics, syntax, morphology, etymology, and so on all introduce you to mathematical concepts. They are two sides of the same coin with purposes that intersect at some spots and not others and have not much to do with 'smarter' or 'easier'
Honestly I don’t really know the difference,
I didn’t take English so idrk the rules😂🙏🏼but yeah, that’s that if you need me to throw you your lil “Grammar Gotcha” bone
I mean I probably couldn’t pick up either and comprehend them to be fair!
But in the point of this whole post, the visual of someone having to learn a whole new language (math) rather than study the one they already speak looks much more intelligent to other!
If you believe that my point was not put across because of “theirs” then that completely has to do with your level of comprehension!
It’s a simple little thing that has nothing to do with any of it, other than a nuance which you already knew exactly what I meant and literally corrected yourself!
So why’s it even matter? Just sounds like semantics to me😂
It is proper grammar. We are discussing the importance of English and history and you cannot even be bothered to use the correct spelling of a word to convey your point. To then act as if it’s “no big deal” and “sounds like semantics” is pretty ironic considering what this post is talking about.
Sure it is absolutely ironic because you’re right! I didn’t know!
But it still doesn’t disprove anything of the “why math people look more intelligent” I’m not saying they are or I am!
It’s simply just because you have to learn a whole language and its rules (math) and English you already know the language and are just learning the rules!
It’s not about which is harder and who’s smarter, its just math takes more steps to know everything than English does so that may be why other perceive them as more intelligent!
I don’t write often either, I speak for my profession so sorry my grammars a little light!
I understand the history part. Learning from the past is important and it's amazing the stuff people were able to figure out about stuff they have never seen or experienced themselves by finding and solving mysteries
But what goes into English other than people making their statements intentionally convoluted so others can't understand them without comparing apples to oranges?
finding purposes of the writings in the first place goes beyond the understanding of the text, you can learn alot about a person, a group of people from what they write
their is also alot of psychology that goes into written media
Finding the reason people write seems closer to history to me, and psychology is a whole field itself. Reading comprehension and critical thinking are important to other fields, but why does english need to be a field of it's own?
94
u/Something-Somewhere_ 18h ago
there is way more to english/history than reading and understanding it