4 ms·
This "fallacy" is existential in nature and entirely subjective to the world-view that one holds. In just one example, how one defines "losing at the game of l
by kirse 16y ago
This "fallacy" is existential in nature and entirely subjective to the world-view that one holds.
In just one example, how one defines "losing at the game of life" is completely subjective, so this article really isn't grounded in true logic, and calling it a fallacy is a bit of a misclassification.
File this under -> Gladwellian Pop Psychology.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoIt's an awful article -- with lots of upvotes. Third one from the same website on the front page just today.
- kirse 16y agoOh I agree wholeheartedly! I usually don't comment much anymore, but this one was egregious enough to make me login and post a warning. The unfortunate thing is I've seen an increasing amount of this garbage on HN that purports to be "scientific" or "logical" but is clearly just pop pysch or just the ruminations of someone who sounds intelligent. Of course everyone dismisses that as "Oh, it was at least interesting and thought provoking"... to which I say that there's no point in wasting time eating garbage in the kitchen when there's a dinner table full of steak in the next room...
- kadavy 16y agoFile this under -> Gladwellian Pop Psychology. I recall learning about the exact same thing 10 years ago in Psych 280. This is a Psychological phenomenon that is actually studied academically. So, "Pop Psychology" probably isn't accurate. Okay if you think it's BS, though :)