11–20 of 112 posts
Can someone explain this to me: > When government cannot impose right-thinking via new regulations it must be imposed by our social and intellectual superiors bullying us: “Everyone needs to get more comfortable with female leaders” I'm having a lot of trouble finding the implication of Greenspun's summary in the quote he uses from Sandberg's book.
This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…
I don't know about the "scientifically verified claim". In general, scientific claims made in scientific journals are nuanced, and context sensitive. I would be wary of a lay person with a particular position weaving attributions to journal papers indiscriminately in their essays. Furthermore, Humanities research is notoriously error-prone and lacking in rigor. In this respect, I'd say Greenspun is probably close to the truth.
People should read (if they must) this in context of Greenspun's rather fanatical political ideology. His blog has plenty of samples, I don't want to link to it.
And exactly what "fanatical political ideology" is that? Must be pretty horrible mind-poisoning stuff if you feel compelled to warn people off of his blog ("if they must"), eh?
"Sandberg’s personal experience, however, contradicts this. She says that she has never worked for a woman. All of the mentors and sponsors she describes are men. When she was 27 years old, a man hired her to be Chief of Staff for the United States Secretary of the Treasury. Would a woman have been willing to hire her for the same job at age 17?"
People should read (if they must) this in context of Greenspun's rather fanatical political ideology. His blog has plenty of samples, I don't want to link to it.
I am however greatly annoyed whenever someone thinks they are doing everyone else a favour by trying to dissuade others from reading an opinion (especially through vague ad hominem attacks). I don't think you need to protect anyone here from uncomfortable opinions.
This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…
>He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, I don't know about the "scientifically verified claim". In general, scientific claims made in scientific journals are nuanced, and context sensitive. I would be wary of a lay person with a particular position weaving attributions to journal papers indiscriminately in their essays. Furthermore, Humanities research…
you can't argue that someone's references are possibly fabricated, and then support your own point with your own "scientific" reference.
really it comes down to: if you ever find yourself arguing that someone's references are likely wrong because they are in the humanities... well...that's a conversation ender.
and i have a phd in math. believe me sometimes humanities people rub me the wrong way. but i would never make a general statement like that, and especially not to "prove a point."
it's the refuge of a scoundrel.
Could someone explain this paragraph? I've read it several times and I don't understand what his point is: "Sandberg’s personal experience, however, contradicts this. She says that she has never worked for a woman. All of the mentors and sponsors she describes are men. When she was 27 years old, a man hired her to be Chief of Staff for the United States Secretary of the Treasury. Would a woman have been willing to hi…
This is so embarrassingly bad...it starts bad, and then gets worse... examples: He discredits one of Sandberg's scientifically verified claims that women take criticism worse than men, by referencing "as John Ioannidis notes, “Most Published Research Findings are False.” Yet he begins his review with a US News report: "This US News article describes research that found that, among college graduates, left-handed men e…
Philip Greenspun used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.
Those who enjoy this review will also enjoy Philip's review [1] of "Straight from the Gut" by Jack Welch (former CEO of GE): If you want to learn the names of every person who ever worked at GE during Jack Welch's 40 years there, you'll find this book invaluable. If you want to learn something about what made GE successful, however, good luck picking out the few saplings of wisdom from the thick forest of names. Golf…
>He doesn't get into the question of whether the investors from 1980 are happy now that they own less than 70 percent of the company.
They should be happy considering GE's value rose 4000% during Jack Welch's tenure at GE.[1]
When Jack Welch became General Electric’s CEO in 1981, the company was worth about $14 billion. When he retired 20 years later, GE was worth nearly $500 billion.[2]
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
[2]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/jack-welch-and-...
Could someone explain this paragraph? I've read it several times and I don't understand what his point is: "Sandberg’s personal experience, however, contradicts this. She says that she has never worked for a woman. All of the mentors and sponsors she describes are men. When she was 27 years old, a man hired her to be Chief of Staff for the United States Secretary of the Treasury. Would a woman have been willing to hi…
My rephrasing of that is, "If the working world is systematically biased against women, was it biased against Sandberg? Why did her male bosses and mentors choose her to be the exception? Would female bosses and mentors have made Sandberg's success easier to achieve?"