Oddbean

While I radically disagree with their point of view, I try to remain sensitive to people's plights. As someone who once felt misunderstood and cast out because of social quirks and psychological predicaments, I can imagine that people tend to reach for this kind of argument because it speaks to the fact that while merit, excellence and intelligence are, in concept, desirable, the way we have measured that as a society, has been distorted over time. These unfortunate souls do not realize that while their personal experience might have been negative, the overall result for humanity has been positive, as evidenced by our success at increasing the human population and longevity, in spite of the severe problems that we still do face as a species. That we fix HOW we measure these 3 attributes to properly assess the value of an individual to our community, and so that the individual might also properly evaluate their contribution to their's, is what we are taught by lowering our time preference. These creatures have such an alarmingly high time preference, that even reaching for such a realization is beyond them. In due time though.. it will come to them too. Either that, or oblivion. and so we wait.

Ad hominem fallacy to the max. Fuck off because I don't like your policy with no clear articulation of why, perhaps, that way of thinking might be led astray is not good journalism. It's not good writing. It's not good human interaction. If you want us to fee the way you so strongly do, convince us so don't just cus and wait for your horde of like minded people to jump in behind you.

ay Alexander Wang is the guy who was opposed to DE, not the journalist saying fuck off; but I originally thought the post was criticizing HIS statement when it's actually criticizing the journal. obviously Alexander Wang's position is sensible and the journalist is a dipshit, I agree.