You know that line about judging people by their actions rather than their words? What about people whose only non-trivial output is words? (assume their actions are boringly uncontroversial, like say living basic middle class life funded by job at paper factory)
Here’s a way.
Conversation
Judge them by topics rather than methods of thought. The thinker’s equivalent of action is choice of topic. Almost always, all the real risk is there (but CRUCIALLY may not be borne by the thinker). Methodology (analytical, empirical, logical, narrative, metaphoric) is secondary
4
8
48
Replying to
if you want to understand why people consistently get upset at you, I think this thread nails the core of it.
1
1
I don't think the context helps Robin. There is still very too much moral hazard in how casually you're approaching this.
This is not a case I would attempt to make based on twitter polls for example. I'd only feel comfortable if I leveled up to a properly designed survey.
If it is okay for people to express their individual opinions, I don't see why it is worse to collect 1000 folks opinions and express those. I don't see the "moral hazard" of asking why people aren't bothered by A Star is Born.
3
2
The moral hazard exists because you, as a prominent male academic, are not in fact the highest-risk stakeholder in this conversation. That's still all the women out there who work in male-dominated workplaces. So burden of care is higher for you.
2
6
Show replies


