4 ms·

> It quotes some professor who says it's related because “you’ve still got middle-aged, privileged white men making decisions at the top” due to a lack of safeg

> It quotes some professor who says it's related because “you’ve still got middle-aged, privileged white men making decisions at the top” due to a lack of safeguards. Sure, but that's not sound logic. It doesn't actually prove it, it just tries to extrapolate bad behaviour from race and gender (which is what racism and sexism is) > It quotes another professor who says that the lack of structure is what allowed theranos to avoid having controls that would catch things. How is that exclusive to flat organisations? This logic can be used almost verbatim to hierarchical organisations as well - a strong hierarchy is what allowed Company X to avoid having controls that would catch things. (Because no one dared to say anything to the leadership) > Not so much implies as takes as a given, I think. That's been pushed hard for several years now, to the point I often see it treated as axiomatic. This is either propaganda or plain misinformation. I don't accept it in any way, it's definitely not an axiom.

tbrownaw 3y ago
It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question). It doesn't seem particularly worse than I'd expect a minor news article to be. Also, have you heard of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect?
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  Just because you don't expect them to do any better, that doesn't mean this is not just plain propaganda. The correct response to propaganda is not accepting it or saying "well it's expected from them" but to challenge it.
- davorak 3y ago
  > It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question). In this case I think they could have done a better job providing the context and reasoning of the experts. That would not change the point of the article and hopefully give readers an idea, not all of the details, of why the quote experts think what they think. As it is I do no think I can use the article to change my point of view, even incrementally, or better understand what and why others are thinking on the topic.

tbrownaw 3y ago

It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question). It doesn't seem particularly worse than I'd expect a minor news article to be. Also, have you heard of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect?

Pannoniae 3y ago
Just because you don't expect them to do any better, that doesn't mean this is not just plain propaganda. The correct response to propaganda is not accepting it or saying "well it's expected from them" but to challenge it.
davorak 3y ago
> It's a news article, not a research paper. It's kind of expected that they'd find (friendly) experts to rely on for appeal-to-authority and not be picky about questioning "common knowledge" (that the article isn't specifically written to question). In this case I think they could have done a better job providing the context and reasoning of the experts. That would not change the point of the article and hopefully give readers an idea, not all of the details, of why the quote experts think what they think. As it is I do no think I can use the article to change my point of view, even incrementally, or better understand what and why others are thinking on the topic.