3 ms·
Yes of course if it had not been excerpted and retitled as "Anti-diversity memo", people would have been less primed to have a knee jerk reaction, or to even cl
by banads 6y ago
Yes of course if it had not been excerpted and retitled as "Anti-diversity memo", people would have been less primed to have a knee jerk reaction, or to even click the link in the first place.
>How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context?
Because you can't begin to know what someone meant unless you read what they wrote.
- jlebar 6y agoOK, if I'm understanding this right, the argument is that because the document was not initially printed in full (i.e. with figures and citations) in the press (and had inflammatory headlines), many people got the wrong impression about it. That seems like a testable hypothesis. 1. If it were true, I'd expect a significantly higher proportion of Googlers to be on his side than the proportion non-Googlers, since all Googlers had access to the full memo. Is that true? 2. If it were true, I'd expect a significant number of people who ended up reading the whole memo to say, I initially had a negative reaction, but after seeing X specific figure or citation, I changed my mind. Has anyone in this thread said that? If not, why not? (Is your feeling that first impressions are everything, and after that, people's views are ossified past the point of being able to change?)