Title: Grim Trigger; Or, the Parable of the Honest Man and the God of Marketing
Date: 2020-01-01
-Category: other
+Category: fiction
Tags: cathartic
Status: draft
And the honest man stared at the God of Marketing, and the God of Marketing stared back.
-And he drew a silver wistle from his pocket. And he raised the whistle to his lips.
+And the honest man drew a silver wistle from his pocket. And he raised the whistle to his lips.
And the God of Marketing said, "You wouldn't."
In the valley! "Defect!"
-In the alleyways of the capital city! "Defect!"
-
On the road to the provinces, fleeing an angry mob wielding pitchforks, torches, and the occasional brick! "Defect!"
Mashing the big red button on a remote detonator! "_Defect defect defect defect defect!_"
> I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. _Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions._
-The distressing thing about this whole affair (and others like it—I am old enough to remember the Larry Summers imbroglio back in 'aught-five) is the extent to which the vast majority of the outrage over Damore's document fails to engage with _what he actually said_. Damore is _very explicit_ about how he's making an argument about distributions. (I liked [Diana Fleischman's take](https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209).) Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and whether you approve or disapprove of his being fired, one would hope for people to be judged for the content of what they _actually said_, rather than a perceived tribal aura of sexism or anti-sexism. (One wonders exactly what hypothesized value of Cohen's _d_ separates good and evil.)
+The distressing thing about this whole affair (and others like it—I am old enough to remember the Larry Summers imbroglio back in 'aught-five) is the extent to which the vast majority of the outrage over Damore's document fails to engage with _what he actually said_. Damore is _very explicit_ about how he's making an argument about distributions. (I liked [Diana Fleischman's take](https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209).) Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments and whether you approve or disapprove of his being fired, one would hope for people to be praised or condemned for the content of what they _actually said_, rather than a perceived tribal aura of sexism or anti-sexism. (One wonders exactly what hypothesized value of Cohen's _d_ separates good person's hypotheses from from _bad_ person's hypotheses.)
-It would be one thing if it were just the middlebrow, the Twitter mobs and _Gizmodo_s of the world getting this wrong. But _Nature_! One of the flagship publications of our civilization's scientific endeavor!
+It would be one thing if it were just the middlebrow, the Twitter mobs and _Gizmodo_s of the world getting this wrong. But _Nature_! One of the flagship publications of our civilization's scientific endeavor! (Even if it's just an editorial and not an actual paper.)
reason to _solve problems_ (including social problems).