Making something social destroys the truth of it because social groups need consensus to survive.

Otherwise, they fight, they can't get along and consensus is all about compromise, not by truth seeking.

Science was this unique discipline, at least the natural sciences, where you could have individuals

truth seeking on behalf of the rest of society. Other individuals that verified that they did

indeed have the best current model of how reality works, and then that could be spread out through

inventions through rest of society. But the social sciences, there's virus that crept into academia

and have taken over social sciences themselves are completely corrupted. Firstly, they need to

appeal to society for funding, so they are actually politically motivated, and then they themselves

are influencing society because their studies and models are used to drive policy. So of course,

that ends up corrupted as well. But now even the natural sciences under attack from the social

sciences, and they're becoming more and more socialized, the more group think you see involved,

the further from the truth you actually are. And yes, the more you're getting along, but you

can have a harmonious society while still allowing truth seekers within that society to find truth,

and to find the means to alter and improve reality for the entire group. Even historically,

most of the scientific breakthroughs didn't come from scientific institutions. The big ones came

from individual natural philosophers who were very independent thinkers who were reviled in their

time, often persecuted, who fought against the rest of society on the basis of their truths,

and it took decades or centuries often after their deaths before those truths were accepted.

A lot of these academic theories don't actually stand up either to replication, if you look at what's

going on psychology, or even to reality. Rory Sutherland had this great quote where he said something

along the lines of marketing is the knowledge of what economists don't know. Economists assume

perfectly rational behavior, but humans are obviously wet wear biological creatures, so you can

...