interview questions

António Pedro Marques · 07 Jan 2011, 21:16 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:16:01 +0000
Subject: (urth) interview questions
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W37A540DF14C11A32D0D703CF0B0 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W37A540DF14C11A32D0D703CF0B0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4D278291.5080308 at gmail.com>

Lee Berman wrote:
> Dan'l Danahy-Oakes:
>> This is a forced and false dichotomy. It is possible for Gerry to
>> believe you are wrong without believing you are stupid.
>
> I disagree. When you tell someone else they are wrong it means you either think they are:
>
> 1. ignorant- i.e. they do not have access to the full range of information necessary
>
> or
>
> 2. stupid- i.e. they do not have sufficient brain power to use the information correctly

But that's spantastically wrong. Reasoning is a complex process with many 
more inputs than just the data and more mechanisms than just intelligence. 
There is no reason to suppose that calling you wrong is automatically an 
attack on your data or your intelligence.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net