If Glenn was an NFL player I’d seriously wonder if he had CTE.
2 Likes
The NYT article is amazing:
2 Likes
Yeah. I wouldn’t be surprised if his job (or his approach to it) caused some kind of mental decline.
That article seemed pretty all over the place and hachet-y to me. It starts off about AI and Rationalists and then ends with 8-10 paragraphs trashing Siskind.
Here’s he’s statement on it:
The article tries to connect me to Charles Murray and The Bell Curve, saying:
In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and IQ in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”
This is true only insofar as I once expressed agreement with an unrelated position of Charles Murray’s, where he thinks that telling poor people “learn to code” is not a compassionate or sufficient response for dealing with poverty, and that we need to act more decisively by providing poor people with a stable income. You can read the full post involved by following the link, but the paragraph that mentions Murray is:
The only public figure I can think of in the southeast quadrant with me is Charles Murray. Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture. But he shares my skepticism that the 55 year old Kentucky trucker can be taught to code, and I don’t think he’s too sanguine about the trucker’s kids either. His solution is a basic income guarantee, and I guess that’s mine too.
The Times points out that I agreed with Murray that poverty was bad, and that also at some other point in my life noted that Murray had offensive views on race, and heavily implies this means I agree with Murray’s offensive views on race. This seems like a weirdly brazen type of falsehood for a major newspaper.
I actually agree with the Times on this in that voluntarily associating yourself with Murray in any way is a big red flag. But they could at least be more forthcoming about what was actually said.
3. The Times also presented a more general case that I was a bad ally to women in tech. I deny this claim. I have repeatedly blogged about studies suggesting that women are underrepresented in tech not because of explicit discrimination on the part of tech companies, but because women lose interest in tech very early, at least by high school (high school computer science classes are something like 80% male, the same as big tech companies). The post that most effectively sums up my thoughts on this topic is Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences. I continue to believe these studies are true, I’ve spoken with some of the researchers who have performed them, and the New York Times itself has previously written about and praised these same studies. I think understanding the reasons behind gender imbalances in tech is vital towards figuring out how to address them better than we’re addressing them now. There is no evidence that women are inherently any less intelligent or any worse at math than men, and I have tried to make this very clear in all of my posts on the subject - for example in the Contra Grant post linked above, where I say, quote, “My research suggests no average gender difference in ability”.
I tend to agree with this - that the problem happens in school and the culture that pushes girls away from STEM.
I just discovered SST a few months ago from all this hubbub. I definitely don’t agree with a lot of his ideas, and I’ve already gotten into it with the techie version of Rogan bros on his comments a few times. But the NY Times piece seems like it starts out as the original planned article about AI and Rationalists, and then ends with a bunch of pissy slams.
The main thing I will say about SST is that at least it’s genuine and in good faith.
that’s incredibly obvious satire. Your brains are broken.
Haha. Very funny motherfucker!
1 Like
Not understanding that Greenwald’s second tweet was satirical certainly highlights a tremendous blind spot you guys have.
Greenwald is unhinged, insane, and best friends with Carlson? Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in this thread.
2 Likes
He’s either a hypocrite or a dick. Past performance suggests the latter.
1 Like
Glenn just digging for the truth as usual, lol.
What a fucking paid and bought for clown.
He’s only taking a principled stance against fueling an authoritarian country’s propaganda.
Glenn’s linking to some nobody who’s using soyface memes as a way to “own” Rupar.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
At this rate, it’s only a few more years before the worms devour his entire brain. The guy used to be good, I think? Or I used to really suck.
No point even trying to make fun of greenwald anymore. Nobody clowns Greenwald better than Greenwald.
We, as a society, used to really believe that the high performing assholes were the protagonists of the whole story. Instead of what they actually are which is not actually +EV since their gains are often misappropriated credit for other people’s work and unacceptable cut corners that ruin the value proposition of the transaction for one of the parties (either the employer or the customer and either one is a big problem).
1 Like
God damn it goofyballer, what am I supposed to do with this link in my clipboard now.
1 Like