Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist for a good reason ( observable reality + pattern recognition ) They exclude what are perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keeps sabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.

Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist for a good reason ( observable reality + pattern recognition ) They exclude what are perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keepsnsabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.

Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist for a good reason ( observable reality + pattern recognition ), and exclude perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keepsnsabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.

Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist for a good reason ( observable reality + pattern recognition )reason, and exclude perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keepsnsabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.

Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist and exclude perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keepsnsabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.

Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.

When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because the bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist and exclude perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.

That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keepsnsabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.