4 ms·
So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source (on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without sep
by adjkant 8y ago
So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source (on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without separation of type (say, by sexual harassment). That doesn't really show anything beyond the bias of the author. Not to mention the inherent problem with formal complaints vs actual number of incidents that is not discussed at all. As mentioned by others, no accounting for income or any other factors was done either. I wouldn't say any information of value lies in the "analysis" here. Not to say the book is validated, simply that this is clearly hit piece that's trying to disguise itself as a review from any point of neutrality.
- romanhn 8y agoDust jacket refers to the book cover, not the author.
- adjkant 8y agoWhoops, edited accordingly.
- bko 8y agoThe author of Brotopia made the claim of a toxic environment without evidence. The burden or proof lies on the person making the claim. The author of the piece questions the claim with a single data source. Attacking his source doesn't somehow validate the author of Brotopia
- adjkant 8y agoI said exactly that it doesn't validate the book in my post. But showing a single, very irrelevant stat is not a counterargument either.