[LMB] Provocative innumeracy

Matthew George matt.msg at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 00:23:21 BST 2019

Part of the reason why it's considered suboptimal to constantly split
conversations into new threads, without retaining subject lines, quotes, or
even automatic post links, is that it's so easy for people to introduce new
ideas and put them in others' mouths.  The connections to what's been said
make it easier to keep in mind what's actually being said.

For example:

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:11 PM Doug Weinfield <douglasw at his.com> wrote:

> There is a vast difference between the unfounded assertion that
> psychopathy is a prerequisite to be a CEO or lawyer (or even a successful
> one)

Who made this assertion?  Was it a previous poster, or is Doug Weinfield
introducing it here?

 and the data previously linked to, which for the allegedly most psychopath
> occupation, indicates perhaps 10 percent of CEOs have this traits.

I'm pretty sure that no research, ever, has suggested that 10 percent of
CEOs have those traits.  All human beings have those traits.  It's the
degree to which they possess them that's important.  Which is why the
relevant diagnostic tools involve summing up a checklist and the final
rating determining whether a label is applied.  A given person might lack
certain common features of psychopathy that are considered absolutely
characteristic of the state, and still be classified as a psychopath.
Likewise 'normal' people are expected to have some of those features -
totally lacking them would be freakishly abnormal.

Were we discussing whether people qualify for a particular label, or the
degree to which they have traits associated with that label?  Without
seeing the previous posts, are you quite sure?

Matt "doubt is the wellspring of wisdom" G.

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list