Dude, Females Don't Like Your Videos

[jancivil]

Well, sociology and psychology got lumped in together as pseudo-science. But sociology and psychology work differently in certain ways, and I would note that I take the former as science, when it is, which is to say published, legit peer-reviewed, at least. So I'd bet Jace has looked at some studies, and I know he'd prefer a good argument, ie., one with some support. Some opinions don't seem to have a lot of support if any. So I don't have anything real to go on as to your objection to what he said. Are you rejecting anthropology out-of-hand? He said "socio-anthropological". I would suppose the human species has shown tendencies in behavior and I expect that studying them is better than not doing.

[camsr]

Unfortunately, sociolgy, or psychology are sciences which are mainly based on theories, and opinions,

Typical responses for science deniers include these exact kinds of statements.
In other words, "science only goes as far as my uninformed and emotionally based ignorant opinion".
Yet you are wrong chk071, and you should quit while you are behind.

Look psychology and facts co-existing! Amazing.
http://www.skygaze.com/content/facts/psychology.shtml
http://www.factslides.com/s-Psychology

actually one only needs to listen to them speak, find one you can agree with

[mcnoone]

Unfortunately, sociolgy, or psychology are sciences which are mainly based on theories, and opinions,

Typical responses for science deniers include these exact kinds of statements.
In other words, "science only goes as far as my uninformed and emotionally based ignorant opinion".
Yet you are wrong chk071, and you should quit while you are behind.

Look psychology and facts co-existing! Amazing.
http://www.skygaze.com/content/facts/psychology.shtml
http://www.factslides.com/s-Psychology

actually one only needs to listen to them speak, find one you can agree with

Behavioral studies go way beyond guessing. Besides when someone says that its just opinion or a theory, the word "just" is of no use as the correct words would be informed opinion and theory, rather than uniformed opinion and theory. There is a big difference, and I'll be more inclined toward the informed one over the uniformed one.

[aciddose]

The problem with these fields is that they are subjective and interpretive as opposed to hard science. You can certainly measure the percentage of a sample preferring A vs. B but you can't reliably draw any further conclusion from this.

These fields are all about drawing a whole range of conclusions without the least bit of hard evidence. They exist only because we lack the technology to collect that sort of evidence or perform real experiments without any subjectivity involved.

[Jace-BeOS]

Here's a starter: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093859.htm

There's plenty more out there. I'm not interested in fighting over unqualified opinion here so I'll duck back out again at this point. However, I'd advise doing some more research on the current state of human behavior research before slagging someone off for firmly stating that which study tends to support. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Also worth commenting: Thanks for the benefit of the doubt given by a few commentators.

Have fun

Edit (so my post isn't a mere drive-by):
Culture varies from nation to nation as you should expect, and so too do gender "norms": http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication% ... 10-097.pdf

Women leave engineering because of culture: http://news.mit.edu/2016/why-do-women-l ... ering-0615

Again, there are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies out there. Some are behind paywalls but if you have access to a school or someone at one (I no longer work in academia), someone can probably get it to you for free.

End of edit.

[aciddose]

This study does not say "in fact here is the evidence proving without a doubt that sociology is now a hard science."

It's a little limp.

... the fact that men constitute the vast majority of the prison population supports the idea that men are extremely more aggressive.

No it doesn't. What kind of fool said/wrote this, a sociologist?

How about this one:

... the fact that the thermometer measures seventy degrees today supports the idea that the thermometer is warmer than sixty degrees today.

[Functional]

Now this is a weird thread.

Let me try to clean some confusion. Maybe I can do that.

First of all. Did you people know that there's something called depression? All kind of folks suffer from it. Yeah, you knew? Guess why. Yeah, psychology. So psychology has made an useful observation.

Did you people know that there's something called poverty? All kind of folks suffer from it. Yeah, you knew? Guess why. Yeah, sociology. So sociology has made an useful observation.

So I ask of you people to please not dismiss neither one of these scientific fields categorically being useless. They're useful. The real question is: for what? What kind of observations can they provide? How useful are their observations? How accurate they are?

Here we run into huge issues with both fields of science. It's really hard to say what depression actually is and how it should be treated. No magic cures seem to exist that work for everyone. Or poverty. What the hell is poverty? It seems that relative poverty does matter. But what does it signify? What's the cause-effect relationship? Is it part of our societal structures? Something else? Only god knows for now, maybe for ever. So there's a lot of these dirty questions around simple observations. Plenty of room for opinions.

So are opinions a bad thing? Are they not part of hard science? Well, they aren't really bad things. They give us something to discuss about. Are they part of hard sciences? Yes they are. I think many would consider quantum mechanics to be quite "hard sciency", right? Well, go and ask those professors what does it mean when a wave function collapses. You'll get plenty of opinions about what that actually means.

Or head over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

Yeah, those are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. There's a lot. Some assume that any observers have their own free will, i.e. their observations aren't known to the universe a priori. The results they see are the nature itself, because nature could have never predicted their observation. Some (very few!) instead believe that the world is superdeterministic. General superdeterminism implies that the nature already knew your experiment. You can't fool the nature or somehow catch it "off guard", because you're part of nature. You made an experiment because no alternatives existed. This is called "conspiratory theory" and some people actually believe in it, though it's not popular because it kind of makes observing a questionable practice. No matter what you do, nature always knows. A perfectly designed experiment can never avoid this.

Here's an interesting read for the possibly interested people. https://medium.com/known-unknowns/weve- ... .wo4ycjlvy

Very confusing picture for what is supposed to be a hard science!

So please, do not dismiss social sciences on the wrong grounds. Nothing says that they can't be useful. The question is where and how useful they are.

Regarding gender roles in societies, I cannot say much because I don't know that much on the topic. But I do know that gender identity, for example, is a cultural thing to some extent (there are societies with different views on gender identity). And there's proof that gender roles can also be different in different cultures. What this means is that there is no reason to categorically assume that gender roles are somehow fixed concept that is based in our biology which cannot change.

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

if you want more female viewers, make music that 'females want to hear'.

vst videos are probably a relatively small niche, unless you do something which causes people to get excited over what you're doing.

classic rock videos -- especially originals and not covers of standard fare -- are probably going to attract a male demographic; unless you can channel journey's steve perry or somesuch.

guitar-oriented viewers are probably going to be more interested in hardware demos/reviews, as opposed to either vst vids, or your classic rock originals.

guitar lessons, such as pentatonics, or tapping, or whatever, might go fairly big.

ymmv

147,000 views? 'pretty, pretty good'.

[dark water]

if you want more female viewers, make music that 'females want to hear'.

I'm (genuinely) intrigued... what music do females want to hear?

And can my (bad attempts at) dub reggae attract them, or indeed anyone?

[skipscada]

if you want more female viewers, make music that 'females want to hear'.

I'm (genuinely) intrigued... what music do females want to hear?

Adele, generally

And can my (bad attempts at) dub reggae attract them, or indeed anyone?

It's only a short step over to Lovers rock, if you get desperate.