https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
where on earth are the management consultancies supposed to steal their "ideas" from to generate new fads now. I'm for sure none of them have had an original thought of their own.
Maslows hierarchy of needs, while possibly inaccurate, is a very usefull model and concept to have. As our understanding of human condition improves, we need specific terms to understand them.
Imagine is there was no word for love or hunger… for aristicracy or oligarchy… etc.
This is a problem endemic to social sciences due to the replication crisis. Lots of social scientists in this article are saying that their field is important to the economy, but given they mainly produce results that don't replicate (~30% replicate last I checked), maybe they should focus on improving that so their ROI is actually compelling.
> Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out.
No, we need people who understand robust quantitative analysis and empirical methodologies. Sociologists are clearly not them. Open science and preregistration initiatives help a lot, but I should note that social sciences were also the most vociferous objectors to such changes.
Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question for physics or chemistry.
Yes, I'm aware of the reproducibility numbers, that's why I said social science was the absolute worst, by far. Despite only 50% of medical papers replicating, they've still provided significant improvements over the past few decades. Ditto with chemistry.
The same cannot be said for sociology and psychology. CBT is still the tool with the best track record and that was created in the 1960s. The robust, replicated results from sociology since the 1980s have modest effect sizes and are basically things we already knew, eg. that social isolation is not good, and that social norms influence people's behaviour.
> Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question of physics or chemistry.
Neither is it a question of sociology or psychology. Science is a systematic, self-correcting process that should be agnostic to any factors, including human fallibility, conflicts of interest, AI generated nonsense, etc.
They've never needed new ideas before. Why start now?