[jimmaswell]

>People aren't equations, you can't just input x and expect y.

People react in mostly predictable ways to certain environments and situations. We're largely deterministic state machines. This kind of mystical thinking devalues the importance of a scientific, objective, data based approach to solving human problems. We aren't an exception to science.

[PeanutCurry]

I'd like objective data that sustains your argument then. I think approaching problems, including social problems, as rationally as possible is important. I, similarly, believe that leveraging all available data is important. However, as far as social issues are concerned, American psychology and western psychology in general have shown themselves to be inadequate when addressing the universal set of humans and not the western set. We've seen evidence of this not only in western vs. east-asian psychologies but also in the psychological treatment of refugees from areas like Sudan. I appreciate that there might come a day when human psychology is a solved problem, but unless that problem is currently solved then it seems like leaving room for mysticism is more pragmatic because it permits us to identify, and adapt around, areas of uncertainty while still providing some amount of care.

[jimmaswell]

Admitting uncertainty or having probabilities isn't unscientific, but saying something is outside the realm of normal physics with no evidence is. Sure, psychology as we know it may be flawed, but retail, advertisers, etc. have a pretty good track record of systematically achieving results based on predictable human behaviors.

[danharaj]

Social dynamics are nonlinear and chaotic.