- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Spooky stuff that helps explain a lot of the dysfunction flowing out from Microsoft.
Spooky stuff that helps explain a lot of the dysfunction flowing out from Microsoft.
deleted by creator
this post gave me a couple rounds of whiplash but this was the hardest turn on the rollercoaster:
do you people come off a factory line like this?
Did they read the same article? It addresses this pretty directly I thought.
the poster themselves would have to answer but generally I find the answer to be no
a rather particular form of inductive reasoning. not quite induncetive, but close
I would argue that it is exactly in-dunce-itive reasoning
This is uncessarily mean.
Stop dickriding the growth mindset, and we’ll stop being so mean about it.
I’m not. I think being critical of his presentation of the controversy is not an endorsement of the growth mindset. And I do not condone the implementation of it by Microsoft by middle managers who would deploy it to partake in petty politicing
Being so aggressively mid will frequently get you the mean.
Edit: Before you pedantically argue that the median != mean, I’d suggest that your posts plainly fall on the normal curve because they are all typically boring, standard deviations.
it’s fucking amazing the volume of these guys who think we have a rule about tone (we don’t, we never will, spaces with rules like that end up using them against justifiably angry marginalized people) because it’s what they’re used to using as a weapon in the politics sections of reddit and lemmy, but don’t bother to see what our only written rule is (because they don’t fucking read, there’s no room for that when your whole personality is cosplaying as the smart adult in the room)
I’m not sure what your edit means. Personally, I don’t think of mine response as mid. I think there’s valid cricism of the article. The original article would have been a more interest read, in my opinion, if they had set up a framework that included my critiques it would have been a more insightful read.
I did. And carefully.
Can you cite where they reference the reproducibility issue in psychology? I thought I read it carefully and thought deeply about my criticism. I don’t expect people to agree, of course, but to engage sincerely. So I went back and scanned it again and still don’t see it mentioned.
you’re about to waste my fucking time but:
Ed links an article that talks about elements of the replication crisis in enough detail for an article where the replication crisis isn’t anywhere near on-topic, and I don’t think the article would be better if it included that detail
feel free to include evidence in your reply that you aren’t here to be a debate shitlord
I’m also confused as to what the takeaway was supposed to be here. Like, because a whole bunch of different famous psych studies fail to replicate maybe this one is less invalid?
Also, were they expecting Ed Zitron of all people to not write a polemical?
(as usual) I made the mistake of looking at their posting history
three internet cookies if you know what’s behind door number one
go sealion on someone else’s doorstep
Attempting to engage in a sincere and civil discussion isn’t sealioning.
Fun fact: The Sea Lion is officially 10 years old!
https://wondermark.com/c/1062/
“Very well, we shall resume in an hour” will never not crack me up
I will never forget the dude who argued online that the sealion is the real victim here (a victim of the “disgruntled female”)
amazingly, I’ve seen (and I think banned) people who’ve tried to sealion about the sealion comic. these assholes really are shameless public masturbators
I’m familiar with the original comic. If every attempt to engage in sincere conversations across different points of view on the internet is interpreted sealioning, then there’s no room for sincere engagement.
But this is a matter of perception. Am I a troll or some who sincerely disagrees. I had an honest critique of the article so I expected some heat, but I was that there would be some sincere criticism of the idea. Rather, and shame on me for thinking otherwise, I’ve been called names and my criticism has been dismissed whole cloth. I’m a little surprised that this is as hurtful as it is and that I’m surprised that I am this pricked. Not exactly sure why I continue. Any case, that’s my reply. Good day, sir!
Very well. We shall resume in an hour.
yeah let me help you out with that
we’ve been on the internet long enough to know how a debate shitlord says “go fuck yourself” and you came in fucking swinging
who in the fuck introduces themselves to strangers like this? of course people are hostile
anyway you failed to prove you’re not a debate shitlord so
ban reason: debate shitlord
bye
“I have been unfailingly polite, and [your lemmy instance has] been nothing but rude.”
deleted by creator
I don’t know how to read this as a bad faith question, but I’ll respond with sincerity in hopes that we can have an honest discussion.
First, I’m not sure who “you people” and why my sentence is “off a factory line”. When I reference the reproducibility issue it’s the reproducibility issue in the field of psychology. Couching it in this crisis would temper the polemical tone.
So what exactly gave you whiplash?