This is a special post for quick takes by AntonTimmer. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Today I though about how it is weird that so many people go into soft sciences (social sciences etc.) instead of STEM fields. I think one of the reasons may be that feedback loops are way bigger. In STEM fields most of the time you will be shown that you are wrong. However in soft sciences you can go on without ever noticing that you made a wrong judgement (outside view). Maybe alignment should look more into how people came up with theories in soft sciences ? Since it seems like the feedback loops are bigger.
It's possible that those that choose the social sciences do so because the questions are more important, or at least more salient to their social and moral universe. How do people behave, and how do we make them happier, more productive, less violent, whatever certainly SOUNDS more useful than why does the thin-surface of drying fluids avoid micro-wrinkles (yes, I know someone with a Ph.D. in watching paint dry).
It's also possible that the longer (or often, nonexistent) feedback cycles are a feature that are sought by some - it's kind of brutal finding out you're wrong on little details over and over, especially when that feedback doesn't really tell you whether you're right or wrong about the bigger picture.