4 ms·

How do you know this?

by aet 13y ago

samstave 13y ago
There was an article about how they prefer to hire Mormons. It was interesting because this was before it was revealed that the largest NSA DC was to be built in Utah.
- scintill76 13y ago
  Wow, way to throw an entire religion under the bus to "prove" that the NSA is only looking for mindless zealots. I have heard intelligence and law enforcement agencies like Mormons for things like being bilingual (many have learned a second language while serving a two-year mission full-time) and being drug- and alcohol -free. Disclosure: I'm a Mormon. I can't blame people too much for thinking we are all unquestioningly loyal zombies, but I think we all know it's not really a fair point if you're trying to make a logical argument.
  - samstave 13y ago
    You clearly missed the part of my comment that said "there was an article that said". - I am in no way throwing anyone under the bus. I'm on mobile - but I have posted the article here before. If I remember later Ill find it and provide you the link
    - scintill76 13y ago
      The article is basically irrelevant. Someone said intelligence agencies select "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking." Someone else wondered how this can be known. You said because they like to hire Mormons. (Maybe you didn't mean "because", but I can't imagine any other implied connection between the post you replied to and your own.) See why it's offensive? at least without well-cited statistics demonstrating that many Mormons are more loyal than average and will not think critically if following an authority figure? It's like someone said banks value greed, and you answered "Yeah, because I read an article that they prefer to hire Jews." I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into your post. In context, you were taking it as read that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking" (not your quote, but from grandparent post) and assuming that is the only conceivable reason a government agency could want to have them. I doubt that a well-written article you read used that kind of presumptuous, circular logic. It probably just said intelligence agencies like to hire Mormons.
      - samstave 13y ago
        1. The article: http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didnt-know-about-mormons-2011-6?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didn... The apparent incorruptibility of Mormons' moral righteousness make them ideal candidates for the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Mormons are disproportionately represented in the CIA. A recruiter told the Salt Lake Tribune that returned Mormon missionaries are valued for their foreign language skills, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and respect for authority. >See why it's offensive? Why should I be so sensitive to what offends you when I am simply referring to something someone else wrote? I can think of far better ways to offend you.
        scintill76 13y ago
        Thanks for the article, but you still don't get it. It's not the words you said, or the existence of an article that said them first, it's that you said them in a context that seemed to circularly "prove" both that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking", and that NSA values those personality features above anything else, all under cover of an accurate statistic from a reputable article. If you care to understand or to convince me, look at my hypothetical Jewish thread analogy from last post and explain why it is either a) not offensive/illogical, or b) is not a fair analogy to the thread here. (To be honest, I probably would have said nothing if you had targeted another group, but I still would have found your post illogical and prejudiced.) Either I am completely crazy here, looking for offense, or you can't empathize very well. I feel that I really don't care or get offended if individuals think I or any other Mormons are just loyal robots or gullible fools, or NSA et al. like hiring us for it, but it's totally illogical (and offensive to the spirit of healthy, honest discourse) for you to cite either as if they're a proof that the NSA only wants loyal robots. And maybe that is a completely misunderstood characterization of your original comment, but all your replies have been doing are re-emphasizing the parts I don't disagree with and seemingly ignoring the real issue. I'm not even demanding an apology or anything, but some sort of recognition of my real point or a nuanced rebuttal would be nice.

How do you know this?

by aet 13y ago

How do you know this?

There was an article about how they prefer to hire Mormons. It was interesting because this was before it was revealed that the largest NSA DC was to be built in Utah.

scintill76 13y ago
Wow, way to throw an entire religion under the bus to "prove" that the NSA is only looking for mindless zealots. I have heard intelligence and law enforcement agencies like Mormons for things like being bilingual (many have learned a second language while serving a two-year mission full-time) and being drug- and alcohol -free. Disclosure: I'm a Mormon. I can't blame people too much for thinking we are all unquestioningly loyal zombies, but I think we all know it's not really a fair point if you're trying to make a logical argument.
- samstave 13y ago
  You clearly missed the part of my comment that said "there was an article that said". - I am in no way throwing anyone under the bus. I'm on mobile - but I have posted the article here before. If I remember later Ill find it and provide you the link
  - scintill76 13y ago
    The article is basically irrelevant. Someone said intelligence agencies select "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking." Someone else wondered how this can be known. You said because they like to hire Mormons. (Maybe you didn't mean "because", but I can't imagine any other implied connection between the post you replied to and your own.) See why it's offensive? at least without well-cited statistics demonstrating that many Mormons are more loyal than average and will not think critically if following an authority figure? It's like someone said banks value greed, and you answered "Yeah, because I read an article that they prefer to hire Jews." I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into your post. In context, you were taking it as read that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking" (not your quote, but from grandparent post) and assuming that is the only conceivable reason a government agency could want to have them. I doubt that a well-written article you read used that kind of presumptuous, circular logic. It probably just said intelligence agencies like to hire Mormons.
    - samstave 13y ago
      1. The article: http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didnt-know-about-mormons-2011-6?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didn... The apparent incorruptibility of Mormons' moral righteousness make them ideal candidates for the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Mormons are disproportionately represented in the CIA. A recruiter told the Salt Lake Tribune that returned Mormon missionaries are valued for their foreign language skills, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and respect for authority. >See why it's offensive? Why should I be so sensitive to what offends you when I am simply referring to something someone else wrote? I can think of far better ways to offend you.
      - scintill76 13y ago
        Thanks for the article, but you still don't get it. It's not the words you said, or the existence of an article that said them first, it's that you said them in a context that seemed to circularly "prove" both that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking", and that NSA values those personality features above anything else, all under cover of an accurate statistic from a reputable article. If you care to understand or to convince me, look at my hypothetical Jewish thread analogy from last post and explain why it is either a) not offensive/illogical, or b) is not a fair analogy to the thread here. (To be honest, I probably would have said nothing if you had targeted another group, but I still would have found your post illogical and prejudiced.) Either I am completely crazy here, looking for offense, or you can't empathize very well. I feel that I really don't care or get offended if individuals think I or any other Mormons are just loyal robots or gullible fools, or NSA et al. like hiring us for it, but it's totally illogical (and offensive to the spirit of healthy, honest discourse) for you to cite either as if they're a proof that the NSA only wants loyal robots. And maybe that is a completely misunderstood characterization of your original comment, but all your replies have been doing are re-emphasizing the parts I don't disagree with and seemingly ignoring the real issue. I'm not even demanding an apology or anything, but some sort of recognition of my real point or a nuanced rebuttal would be nice.