[Ramcat]

I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.

Counting on your digits doesn't count as higher math.

[Dr. Sivana]

I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.

The overlords don't want anybody understanding, and therefore be able to question, their computer models.

If we are going to drop the algebra requirement, what need is there to warehouse children until they are 18? They may as well go onto an apprenticeship, grunt work or a trade school.

[GladesGuru]

“I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.”

Counting on your digits doesn’t count as higher math.

True, but you forgot to mention that social science is mostly ‘social’ with very little real ‘science’. It is plagued with continual confusion of “correlation” with “causation”.

Given the statistical courses “social scientists” often have, to confuse correlation with causation can only be understood as a willing acceptance of deliberate duplicity.

Oh my! “Deliberate duplicity” is harsh . . . . would “ambitious ambiguity” be more acceptable?

[noinfringers2]

The person is just substantiating why writers and ‘social’ scientists are useless as to the technological advancements needed.