4 ms·
It's a statement communicating her strength of opinion, I find it hard to understand how you perceive that as "fanatical" - what would a "scientific method of e
by ghufran_syed 3y ago
It's a statement communicating her strength of opinion, I find it hard to understand how you perceive that as "fanatical" - what would a "scientific method of evidential support" even look like in a domain like business? Is she meant to publish a paper with p-values of his effectiveness running YC or being a YC partner? If she pointed to the success of YC during his tenure (which she could well have done with justification), you'd probably complain there were many other factors (true) and so was only association, not causation?
- jesterson 3y agoit's rather simple - albeit for some reason you seemingly suggesting it is complicated - I would prefer (and share consecutively) if someone says person A did this and that, therefore I support him/her. Fanatics and blindfolded admirers on the opposite side, say I trust him, I like him (and certainly those fanatical definitions have no substance besides blind admirations). I find no peculiar reason to share the latter, however the former provides observer with evidence why person A is worthy of this and that. Hope this clarifies a bit