[2013-Oct-27] I don't know who or what I am anymore...

[EvaXephon]

Oh, great. It happened again. My entire concept of myself has been shattered by an SMBC comic. I hate it when this happens.

I was proud of myself for being an intelligent person. But I'm only intelligent because I had good educational opportunities, not because I'm inherently smart or intrinsically clever. I can't be proud of myself for being smart. I can only be thankful for circumstances that shaped me into being well-educated.

I was proud of myself for being successful in my career. But I'm only successful because I was lucky enough to be born into an affluent family. If I'd been born into a poor family right now, maybe I'd be working at McDonald's instead of my dream job. I can't be proud of myself for scoring this job; I can only be thankful for the circumstances that gave me the qualifications for this job.

I was proud of myself for being a hard worker. But if I lived under different circumstances, had a different family life, had different experiences during my formative years, maybe I wouldn't be as diligent as I am. Maybe I would have turned out lazy. My traits were not set in stone from birth. My traits are the result of events throughout my life having an influence on me.

I used to identify myself as a person with specific traits, but now I identify myself as the end-result of a bunch of circumstances I had no control over. It's cause and effect; I'm the "effect" of a bunch of "causes". I'll never be proud of myself, or anything I do, ever again. Why? Because anything impressive that I create is just the end-result (or, rather, the side-effect) of a very long string of events that turned me into the type of person who would produce something impressive. It's not because I am impressive myself.

Thanks, SMBC. You ruined my life. Again.

[GUTCHUCKER]

It's pretty unimpressive how that's all it took to discourage you. Think it through a bit farther before you go all emo on us.

[Sahan]

You can always blow a good advantage in life, like a lot of people do. But knowing all that is useful to remember to counter all the rhetoric that poor people just don't work hard enough/are lazy/are stupid and hence aren't as successful.

[Edminster]

well i think congratulations are in order as we have discovered the first bumper sticker to change anyone's mind on a given subject

[Kimra]

Wait... you needed SMBC to realise all that? Well congratulations all the same.

[Guest]

I used to identify myself as a person with specific traits, but now I identify myself as the end-result of a bunch of circumstances I had no control over. It's cause and effect; I'm the "effect" of a bunch of "causes". I'll never be proud of myself, or anything I do, ever again. Why? Because anything impressive that I create is just the end-result (or, rather, the side-effect) of a very long string of events that turned me into the type of person who would produce something impressive. It's not because I am impressive myself.

This is stupid. A nuclear bomb is the end-result of a very long string of events that turned the matter making a nuclear bomb into a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb is still very impressive.

[GUTCHUCKER]

I love that comparison. That's fucking glorious.

[Nerd]

A sociologist is not really a sciencist, but is closer to a religious scholar that has to be pretty selective when picking populations and when forging statistics in order to achieve confirmations of his/her socialist views, even in a sea of data that outright contradicts them. Their only contribution to science are the various creative ways in which you can interpret data to reach the opposite conclusion of what the table shows, and also setting the lowest level of scientific rigour from any scientific journal, in which a computer-generated article that only contained gibberish, marxist slogans, and quotes from renowned sociologists was able to pass the peer-review and get published in an important journal.

Sociology doesn't met the criteria that separates science from pseudoscience, and their "findings" and theories are known to contradict findings from respected fields of science such as biology and neuroscience. It's also well documented their refusal to study the role that religions play in societies, which means that regarding evidence, sociologists are psychologically trained to ignore the elephant in the room. Sociology also has the doubtful honor of being one of the few fields of "science" wherein their very own students refuse to call it a science even though that results in getting bad grades from their teachers.

[DonRetrasado]

hey guys, it's "dumb and dumber" up in here

[Lethal Interjection]

I also have something to say.

[DonRetrasado]

Did you already say it?

[Lethal Interjection]

I'm not sure anymore.
I'm just so blinded by my many opinions.

[thelee]

A sociologist is not really a sciencist, but is closer to a religious scholar that has to be pretty selective when picking populations and when forging statistics in order to achieve confirmations of his/her socialist views, even in a sea of data that outright contradicts them. Their only contribution to science are the various creative ways in which you can interpret data to reach the opposite conclusion of what the table shows, and also setting the lowest level of scientific rigour from any scientific journal, in which a computer-generated article that only contained gibberish, marxist slogans, and quotes from renowned sociologists was able to pass the peer-review and get published in an important journal.

Sociology doesn't met the criteria that separates science from pseudoscience, and their "findings" and theories are known to contradict findings from respected fields of science such as biology and neuroscience. It's also well documented their refusal to study the role that religions play in societies, which means that regarding evidence, sociologists are psychologically trained to ignore the elephant in the room. Sociology also has the doubtful honor of being one of the few fields of "science" wherein their very own students refuse to call it a science even though that results in getting bad grades from their teachers.

...says someone who has clearly never ever read or done any sociology. (and actually sociology pretty much started to try to study the role of religion in societies. Have you ever heard of Weber? Or Durkheim's seminal "On the Elementary Forms of Religious Life?")

[thelee]

A sociologist is not really a sciencist, but is closer to a religious scholar that has to be pretty selective when picking populations and when forging statistics in order to achieve confirmations of his/her socialist views, even in a sea of data that outright contradicts them. Their only contribution to science are the various creative ways in which you can interpret data to reach the opposite conclusion of what the table shows, and also setting the lowest level of scientific rigour from any scientific journal, in which a computer-generated article that only contained gibberish, marxist slogans, and quotes from renowned sociologists was able to pass the peer-review and get published in an important journal.

Sociology doesn't met the criteria that separates science from pseudoscience, and their "findings" and theories are known to contradict findings from respected fields of science such as biology and neuroscience. It's also well documented their refusal to study the role that religions play in societies, which means that regarding evidence, sociologists are psychologically trained to ignore the elephant in the room. Sociology also has the doubtful honor of being one of the few fields of "science" wherein their very own students refuse to call it a science even though that results in getting bad grades from their teachers.

also, i don't know where on earth you are getting any of your information. perhaps simply "obvious troll is obvious."

also you probably mean "dubious" not "doubtful."

in short, you're an idiot and a troll, in that order.

[again]

A sociologist is not really a sciencist <more idiocy> Sociology also has the doubtful honor of being one of the few fields of "science" wherein their very own students refuse to call it a science even though that results in getting bad grades from their teachers.

man i really can't resist feeding the troll. you are also aware that sociology is in the NSF? obviously a panel of scientific experts disagree with you on whether or not sociology constitutes a science. and what classroom were you in where students discounted their own field?