3 ms·
>Shelley Prevost has never been a startup operator. Her background is in psychological counseling, and she serves that role (in what looks like a team-coach or
by chacham15 14y ago
>Shelley Prevost has never been a startup operator. Her background is in psychological counseling, and she serves that role (in what looks like a team-coach or leadership-coach kind of role) at an incubator.
> That doesn't disqualify her from having opinions about how women should handle gender-based bias, team dynamic, and motivational challenges in startups. But it doesn't automatically qualify her, either.
These two paragraphs do exactly that. The third paragraph could have stood on its own. I was not arguing against you, I was simply pointing out that most of what you wrote was to dismiss what the author wrote without reason. If your point was indeed not so, then why not leave out the first two paragraphs? What do they add?
- tptacek 14y agoI feel like I'm repeating myself. My point was that she wrote a piece that effectively relies on the authority of the author, and that authority was dubious. Think of it this way: if she was a reporter or science writer writing a sourced, reported piece --- or even if she was an essayist constructing a series of arguments for why women shouldn't be talking about their challenges publicly or attending symposia --- her authority would in fact probably be out of bounds. But this piece is neither of those two things.
- chacham15 14y ago>her authority would in fact probably be out of bounds. This is exactly the question, why does her authority matter at all?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- nollidge 14y agoThe point is that, in tptacek's estimation, she provides no evidence for her assertions, relying on us, the audience, to trust in her purported experience and authority. Another way to look at it is that she's committing an appeal to (her own) authority fallacy. Pointing out fallacies is not ad hominem.