https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Pineda
Allegedly the First European with down Syndrome to hold a college degree has a degree in
Educational Psychology
This means that educational psychology is the first degree program that a European with down syndrome graduated from
If this individual is the first European with down syndrome to get a college degree then how many non-Europeans with down syndrome have college degrees?
If this individual got a degree in something better we could applaud his accomplishment
@shortstories I think you're missing the point as usual. He was able to work as an actor before, so he clearly don't fall into the severe intellectual disability category. He's clearly deformed physically, but his brain is apparently fine. I mean... in this clip, he's struggling to speak, because of his jaw, but he's not stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL82jwMczWI
People like this are usually used to better understand the condition, since they can actually answer questions.
@shortstories Not sure what difference does it make for you.
Social Science degrees are just repeating the leftist pro government propaganda that you were told
Acting also involves repeating the lines you memorised but requires other extra skills
@shortstories
"Main Fields of Social Science
Anthropology: Studies human cultures, past and present, and human evolution.
Economics: Explores how people and societies make, share, and use money and goods.
Political Science: Examines governments, laws, and how political power works.
Psychology: Looks at the human mind, brain functions, and individual behavior.
Sociology: Investigates human society, social groups, and how people interact in communities."
Nah... I think it's the other way around.
Social Science is just propaganda for the Democrat Party and not actual science or education or maybe social scientists created the Democrat Party platform
Vite typo
Do social science professors vote Democrat more often than Physical Science Professors
Screenshot of search results attached
Search Assist
Social science professors register as Democrats at much higher rates than physical science professors, with studies reporting ratios as high as 40-to-1 in some disciplines.
Screenshot of search results attached
Search Assist
Yes, physical scientists have higher IQs than social scientists on average. This is supported by research indicating a negative correlation between intelligence and both religiosity and political extremism among academic scientists
@shortstories https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/paper-says-physical-scientists-smarter-and-less-religious-social-scientists
Okay, according to your source, you're a low IQ savage, because you're religious and a political extremist. These finding were also reported by a psychologist, who explained, that these higher IQ natural scientists usually don't care about politics to begin with. So long story short, these High IQ natural scientists, that you worship so much, couldn't give less of a shit about you and anything that you believe in. But Social scientists do. :D
Democtats tend to be political and religious extremists because they censor all except a farm more narrow group of view points than Republicans amd Right Wing Libertarians
@shortstories Well duh... They'll vote left to secure funding for their research, just like people on the other side of the spectrum. Unfortunately politics decide the direction of science. But actual scientific progress requires both sides to work together, just like you need both sides of your brain to function.
However, propaganda isn't part of science. Doing so would be career suicide.
Spouting Democrat propaganda in the social sciences would lead to career promotion because the other faculty that can promote you are Demicrat
You could give the propaganda without directly telling the students to vote Democrat by simply starting with a moral value system that matches the Democrat platform and censoring other value systems including punishing students who express other value systems while pretending to be neutral and unbiased
@shortstories @SilentSeeker This is the truth. Social science professor more often believe in climate alarmism than physics professors as well.
@h4890 @shortstories You fall easier to topics, that you don't know. Social science professors likely don't spend days digging into the details of real climate change risk. But they understand the risk and react to it. Although I would wonder how many people in the supposedly high IQ redpill community actually know the science behind climate change and where it originate from. Because it originate from natural scientists and not social scientists.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories The science behind it is called physics, and physicists know that better than social scientists. If you, as a social scientists, are not familiar with the details, then ipso facto, you are not familiar with the risks, and should not speak out in your role as a "scientist".
I think it is very telling that among the skeptics physicists are very common, but in the hysterical crowd, politicians, social scientists, biologists and other such people low in the good chain
@SilentSeeker @shortstories and low in the IQ chain are very common.
Add to that geologic temperature records, and the climate hysteria angle starts to fall apart real quick.
@h4890 @shortstories Well, I'm not trained to do the calculations myself, but I think I'm familiar with the talking points of both sides. And as usual, both sides have credibility, but also personal bias. The Greenhouse effect is real and proven. That can't be taken away from the supporters. But the deniers also correct, that we might be over reacting and there are people who making money on fake solutions. (Bill Gates: CO2 capture business)
Either way, that truth usually require both sides.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories No one has ever doubet that the climate changes. I sent graphs that show you that the climate has changed enormously, and if you check the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in distant history you'll note that it was 5x-10x of today.
Did the planet burn? Did it explode? Not at all. Instead it was covered in vegetation and life.
The real progress in biology is made using physics and chemistry
Biologists name things that have already been discovered but they do not actually discover how things they named work without using physics and chemistry
There have been numerous doomsday predictions regarding climate change in the mainsteam media that were supposed to come true at specific years but which never occured once the predicted years were reached
I would guess if you looked at old chemistry textbooks they would tell you what percent of the atmosphere is Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Nitrogen & if the percent is the same from textbooks say thirty years apart then humans are not effecting atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
@shortstories @h4890 Please drop the vagueness. You keep speaking in hypotheticals. We can name these people and check who they were.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
Unnamed article: 2
Biologist: 4
Environmental advocate: 1
Ecologist: 2
Unknown, maybe philosophy (Peter Gunter): 1
Physicist: 1
Most of the claims belong to 2 Biologists.
If you search for Physicist fails specifically, you learn that there's a bunch of claims based on miss calculations. Boring and not really relevant to real life.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker This is the truth! You could say biology is a helper science. They run around measuring things, find plants and stuff, which they bring back to chemists and physicists to analyze and draw conclusions from. Once the intellectual work is done ,they get their name on the paper as a thanks for running around in a forest collecting samples.
Take anatomy for an example
They make maps of the body and assign names to those regions of the map. Anatomists often debate then decide by consensus where the borders for naming things should be. For examp!e a blood vessel can change names by consensus without merging or branching with another blood vessel simply by crossing a border
If you want to know how muscles move something then that is biomechanics which is physics or biochemistry which is chemistry
@SilentSeeker
And we can celebrate his acting accomplishments but not his educational psychology degree
An acting degree would be more impressive than an educational psychology degree