4 ms·

Where would you place the probabilities of: * the reporter invented 20 interviews * 20 people all completely forgot what would have been a memorable event *

Where would you place the probabilities of: * the reporter invented 20 interviews * 20 people all completely forgot what would have been a memorable event * 20 anonymous sources conspired to lie for no apparent gain ...vs. "the guy making money off of this story is lying"? If the standard is "all things are completely unknowable unless you can eliminate every alternative, no matter how ludicrously unlikely" then we may as well not attempt to ever ascertain facts about anything.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
No, that's not my standard. I have a deadly genetic disorder. I have spent more than twenty years getting better while the world spits in my face, calls me a liar, tells me I'm making things up, bans me left and right from various forums, etc. I talk less about that than I used to. Truth being on my side has been irrelevant in the face of internet strangers feeling like a former homemaker isn't allowed to know anything medically significant and I've essentially been bullied into silence on the topic. So I decided the article isn't my cup of tea. Is the token woman on the HN leaderboard not allowed to feel like "I identify too much with the minority individual people are calling a liar. It seems pointless to read this."? Apparently, commenting about this article at all was a huge mistake. The number of replies from people insisting I'm wrong to not wish to invest myself in this story seems ridiculously high.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  You are invested enough in this story to comment on it. You said that credit for your ideas was stolen and you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story. When challenged, you took refuge behind the fallibility of human memory, race, gender, and medical problems. On the other hand, you went into this thinking the world was one way and found out it was somehow different in this case (unless your take-away was just "sour grapes").
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story No, I haven't. You seem to be -- like many other people here -- determined to believe that I am "on his side" because I don't agree with your conclusions. I've stated repeatedly that the interviews were decades after the fact, I don't feel it's possible to know exactly what happened and I just know too much about how human bias influences conclusions in spite of all the evidence. Truth often has little to do with what groups of people agree is the correct narrative. That absolutely does not mean "I am totally on his side and it's the other 20 people who are liars, I'm sure of it!" I don't intend to comment further. This whole thing just seems bizarre to me.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

No, that's not my standard. I have a deadly genetic disorder. I have spent more than twenty years getting better while the world spits in my face, calls me a liar, tells me I'm making things up, bans me left and right from various forums, etc. I talk less about that than I used to. Truth being on my side has been irrelevant in the face of internet strangers feeling like a former homemaker isn't allowed to know anything medically significant and I've essentially been bullied into silence on the topic. So I decided the article isn't my cup of tea. Is the token woman on the HN leaderboard not allowed to feel like "I identify too much with the minority individual people are calling a liar. It seems pointless to read this."? Apparently, commenting about this article at all was a huge mistake. The number of replies from people insisting I'm wrong to not wish to invest myself in this story seems ridiculously high.

nescioquid 4y ago
You are invested enough in this story to comment on it. You said that credit for your ideas was stolen and you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story. When challenged, you took refuge behind the fallibility of human memory, race, gender, and medical problems. On the other hand, you went into this thinking the world was one way and found out it was somehow different in this case (unless your take-away was just "sour grapes").
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  you seem to have projected your own problems onto the Montañez story No, I haven't. You seem to be -- like many other people here -- determined to believe that I am "on his side" because I don't agree with your conclusions. I've stated repeatedly that the interviews were decades after the fact, I don't feel it's possible to know exactly what happened and I just know too much about how human bias influences conclusions in spite of all the evidence. Truth often has little to do with what groups of people agree is the correct narrative. That absolutely does not mean "I am totally on his side and it's the other 20 people who are liars, I'm sure of it!" I don't intend to comment further. This whole thing just seems bizarre to me.