5 ms·
Those who readily believe what they are told are easily taken advantage of. While we are on the topic of epistemic integrity, do you not consider it harmful to
by evocatus 5y ago
Those who readily believe what they are told are easily taken advantage of.
While we are on the topic of epistemic integrity, do you not consider it harmful to make a judgment of psychopathy "from the little I know about you," based on a few UTF-8 characters sent over the web?
Had you any actual knowledge of what it is you speak of, you would have known that:
The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy
from the author of the PCL-R [1], "gold standard" for assessing psychopathy (by your own citation [2]).
Why is it that the most morally outraged are the ones most incapable of following their own principles? Doesn't HN rely on people not spreading unreliable misinformation, unlike yourself?
[1] http://www.hare.org/scales/pclr.html http://www.hare.org/scales/pclr.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Diagnosis
- yesenadam 5y agoYour comment, seems to me, is almost entirely composed of vague and ominous phrases, errors, insults, false assumptions that I don't consider worth responding to in any detail. Your intent was seemingly mostly to insult and enrage. If you want useful exchanges on HN in future, with me at least, I suggest not writing like that. p.s. I notice that your page on HN says only "All comments are a work of fiction.", and one of your most recent comments starts "My favorite tactic is to intentionally write down overly constrained or even "obviously" wrong tickets or issues or what have you, to provoke a disagreement".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]