3 ms·

Why is that noteworthy with regards to the article or the question? Is it just so you can try to invalidate his point by using the phrase "anti-democratic polit

Why is that noteworthy with regards to the article or the question? Is it just so you can try to invalidate his point by using the phrase "anti-democratic political right wing"?

eesmith 5y ago
Because it fits the description of "bad answer" given in the text, which includes "might be true, but many people already agree with them." The requirement was that "very few people agree with you on" it. My local science center has a chart showing how many Earths are needed if everyone on the planet uses the same average resources as someone from country "X", so we're not talking some sort of small minority topic.
- notapenny 5y ago
  No you're pointing to the logic of the argument which the parent doubts, and indeed doesn't seem to be that much of a statement very few people agree on. If you read my comment again, I was referring to why that needs to be followed with "anti-democratic political right wing" and his ties to Trump. What does that actually have to do with the topic of the best interview question and the poor example. The point doesn't change just because the one making the example is of any particular conviction and has no relevance to the topic.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Why are Theil's views on an appropriate interview question of any significance whatsoever?
    - dgellow 5y ago
      Have you read the article? Thiel quote is from there, it's the answer he gives to the "single best interview question" (as named by the article. I personally strongly disagree).
      - eesmith 5y ago
        I see you did not read my g'parent comment in this thread, wherein you can see I read it. notapenny questioned the relevance of SideburnsOfDoom's reference to the 'anti-democratic political right wing'. I mis-read it as notapenny not following the earlier part of SideburnsOfDoom's comment. notapenny corrected my mistake. I suggested SideburnsOfDoom's comment is still reasonable because we also have to ask why there's a link to a discussion of Thiel's views in the first place. For examples: were he a Joe Blow, would we even be talking about it? How does his fame and wealth connect to his beliefs and action plans and to the type of people he wants to hire? Does future discussion of his views, w/o further context, unduly raise his fame or whitewash his views?
    - notapenny 5y ago
      Lol, yeah that's a good question. I guess that goes for just about anything including our thoughts on the topic. I guess that's up to the reader.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Can you draw a line from the example belief to the action? Would you say that actions and speak louder than words, large donations louder than blog posts? Is some topic drift OK in internet discussions? (IMHO, yes to all) Why does bringing this fact up, specifically upset you?
- notapenny 5y ago
  Yes to all for me as well. Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. It'd just make the person uttering them a hypocrite or a liar. Or maybe just someone who can't live up to some idea they have, who knows. You're inferring me being upset though and ignoring what I'm pointing out specifically; the language. It isn't the drift, it's how the drift.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. I think that even when two people agree on the problem statement; political take might make them differ greatly on what they think the correct solution is. That doesn't "invalidate the words" even if you think that the proposed solution is e.g. unethical, impractical, not likely to actually fix the problem, captured by a big business, mere crowd-pleasing window-dressing, or otherwise inadvisable. The actions indicate how a person responds to a belief. It's relevant. For example, in the context of globalization, an answer is "just prevent the globalization of industrialization". An answer to immigration was "build a border wall". Supporting those answers might make you a bad person, will reveal a lot about your actual politics, but does not "invalidate the words".
modriano 5y ago
Well, if someone says "climate change caused by globalization of industrialization will destroy the world if it expands it's capacity without revolutionary technological changes", but then backs a party that is firmly committed to defending the problems (eg fossil fuels, car-based transit systems, deregulation of power generation, etc) that will destroy the world if scaled up, you have to wonder "what explains this extreme contradiction"?

Why is that noteworthy with regards to the article or the question? Is it just so you can try to invalidate his point by using the phrase "anti-democratic political right wing"?

eesmith 5y ago

Because it fits the description of "bad answer" given in the text, which includes "might be true, but many people already agree with them." The requirement was that "very few people agree with you on" it. My local science center has a chart showing how many Earths are needed if everyone on the planet uses the same average resources as someone from country "X", so we're not talking some sort of small minority topic.

notapenny 5y ago
No you're pointing to the logic of the argument which the parent doubts, and indeed doesn't seem to be that much of a statement very few people agree on. If you read my comment again, I was referring to why that needs to be followed with "anti-democratic political right wing" and his ties to Trump. What does that actually have to do with the topic of the best interview question and the poor example. The point doesn't change just because the one making the example is of any particular conviction and has no relevance to the topic.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Why are Theil's views on an appropriate interview question of any significance whatsoever?
  - dgellow 5y ago
    Have you read the article? Thiel quote is from there, it's the answer he gives to the "single best interview question" (as named by the article. I personally strongly disagree).
    - eesmith 5y ago
      I see you did not read my g'parent comment in this thread, wherein you can see I read it. notapenny questioned the relevance of SideburnsOfDoom's reference to the 'anti-democratic political right wing'. I mis-read it as notapenny not following the earlier part of SideburnsOfDoom's comment. notapenny corrected my mistake. I suggested SideburnsOfDoom's comment is still reasonable because we also have to ask why there's a link to a discussion of Thiel's views in the first place. For examples: were he a Joe Blow, would we even be talking about it? How does his fame and wealth connect to his beliefs and action plans and to the type of people he wants to hire? Does future discussion of his views, w/o further context, unduly raise his fame or whitewash his views?
  - notapenny 5y ago
    Lol, yeah that's a good question. I guess that goes for just about anything including our thoughts on the topic. I guess that's up to the reader.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

Can you draw a line from the example belief to the action? Would you say that actions and speak louder than words, large donations louder than blog posts? Is some topic drift OK in internet discussions? (IMHO, yes to all) Why does bringing this fact up, specifically upset you?

notapenny 5y ago
Yes to all for me as well. Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. It'd just make the person uttering them a hypocrite or a liar. Or maybe just someone who can't live up to some idea they have, who knows. You're inferring me being upset though and ignoring what I'm pointing out specifically; the language. It isn't the drift, it's how the drift.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Though to be fair on actions v. words, even if the two don't match up, I wouldn't say it invalidates the words. I think that even when two people agree on the problem statement; political take might make them differ greatly on what they think the correct solution is. That doesn't "invalidate the words" even if you think that the proposed solution is e.g. unethical, impractical, not likely to actually fix the problem, captured by a big business, mere crowd-pleasing window-dressing, or otherwise inadvisable. The actions indicate how a person responds to a belief. It's relevant. For example, in the context of globalization, an answer is "just prevent the globalization of industrialization". An answer to immigration was "build a border wall". Supporting those answers might make you a bad person, will reveal a lot about your actual politics, but does not "invalidate the words".

modriano 5y ago

Well, if someone says "climate change caused by globalization of industrialization will destroy the world if it expands it's capacity without revolutionary technological changes", but then backs a party that is firmly committed to defending the problems (eg fossil fuels, car-based transit systems, deregulation of power generation, etc) that will destroy the world if scaled up, you have to wonder "what explains this extreme contradiction"?