[kebman]

Hi, there. I've studied Political Science, Film "Science" and IT. And Pedagogy. Why do I say Film "Science"? Because I had to use refuted "science" to analyze films, among other things (Freudian Analysis, which was of course groundbreaking at the time, but that does not hold up to modern scientific standards anymore). The professor said to me that, "Yes, I understand you when you say that this isn't stricly 'science,' and that it has indeed been refuted. But you see, everyone in this field does these things, and so you should too, at least for the experience, and to communicate with these people." So since he wasn't trying to force me view it as sience, I accepted it and did it on those grounds, and I passed. Despite this one incident, Film "Science" was my favourite topic at college, not least because it teaches you genre and narrative techniques. But yeah, some of it was definitively "out there," and I wouldn't classify it as science in any meaningful way, though it is a valid system to communicate ideas. Hell, even postmodernism is, which I sadly know too much about now. Too much about now.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Ironically this thread - and the OP - is a superb example of why everyone should study narrative techniques so they can understand the kinds of categories that common arguments and positions fall into.

You can learn a huge amount from ad hoc observational models of behaviour that aren't based on equations or statistics. You can even use them to make accurate predictions.

I used to know a manager who had an outstanding intuitive understanding of organisational and personal psychology. He probably couldn't have formalised his knowledge, but he had a real talent for getting shit done with individuals and groups, and for knowing exactly the right moment to apply leverage in a negotiation - all without bullying, shouting, or underhanded manipulation.

He simply knew exactly what people would do in one set of circumstances, and how to change their preferences by presenting them with alternative circumstances.

This isn't "science" in a formal sense, but it's certainly a very real form of knowledge. It seems to me STEM types tend not to understand how valuable and effective it can be, and how important it is to have some of this skill if you want to change what people do.

[kebman]

There's definitively a value in knowing about culture, and being able to categorize it and discuss it on many levels. If you simply want to get through to more people, the most direct approach I can think of is to study things like rhetoric or take communication classes. There's a wealth of knowledge there for how to improve the way your communication impacts and includes other people. And while I'm at it, let's not forget the cross-section between marketing and psychology, for all those boiler-room types among you. :D