Really guys, the first three sentences should have made this tripe obvious. Expect submission after submission that are purely political hidden under techy click bait titles. We need a new flag, "political"
I don't think this article is political. It's just anti-Fiorina. It's not making fun of people for supporting her. It's ringing an alarm bell for people outside of the tech world that Fiorina's signature achievement was tanking one of America's finest technology companies.
But when a political party has systematically driven away so many qualified women and minorities, they have to make do with the bottom-of-the-barrel dregs of token candidates that they have left, and pretend their naked emperors wear beautiful clothes.
Republicans should spend their energy cleaning up their own act, rather than attacking people for criticizing it.
Rational people tend to be rational. And rational people don't dismiss the views of others because they don't share them.
Well, rational people can and should dismiss the views of others because they don't share them... if they've taken the time to investigate the validity of those views. Isn't that the point of being rational?
You can only make that kind of a conclusion assuming two things:
1. Perfect information. You are aware of everything there is to know which might be tangential to the matter at hand.
2. Identical environment. You share the same exact circumstances as everyone else.
Neither #1 nor #2 are ever true.
You never know everything there is to know. Frequently, we know very little and more important, what little we know doesn't overlap with the knowledge of others. So every person has a little bit, never the entire picture, and we all have very different little bits.
We also don't exist in the same environment. We have vastly different backgrounds, circumstances, motivations, etc. which lead to wildly diverging self-interests.
When you dismiss the views of others because you don't share them, you're not being rational ... you're just being stupid.
1. Perfect information. You are aware of everything there is to know which might be tangential to the matter at hand.
Perfect information is not at all necessary for rational thought. There's a whole field of research about probabilistic reasoning that helps with that.
2. Identical environment. You share the same exact circumstances as everyone else.
That's really just a special case of point 1.
When you dismiss the views of others because you don't share them, you're not being rational ... you're just being stupid.
That's not what I said, either. I explicitly talked about investigating those views.
Suppose my friend comes up to me and says "Blue cars are more reliable than red cars." I inquire further as to how he came up with that statement, and he gives me nothing useful. "Its just my opinion / feeling / premonition / whatever."
Is it rational for me to believe my friend's statement? No, because there is no evidence.
Now suppose that one of the workers in the car factory hates the color red. And he's been subtly sabotaging those, and taking extra time to make sure the blue ones are better. There's that perfect information you're talking about that I'm missing.
However, even in that case, should I be believing my friend's statement about blue cars? No, because I don't have evidence, and neither did he. Until someone collects at least some evidence, it isn't reasonable for me to believe that blue cars are more reliable, because I don't have any basis in theory (that the color blue can actually affect mechanical reliability) or in practice (the statistics for the cars)... even though my friend's statement is actually true.
Rationality is a tool we use to discern truth from falseness. But we still have to do the work.
Yes conservatives bad, progressives good. Except when it comes to tax policy, right? Because SV wouldn't exist at all if the investment returns were taxed at a 50%-80% rate. Then instead of looking for a 1000x unicorn, everyone would be hunting 5000x-10000x unicorns. Which are rarer still.
I suggest looking up how long term capital gains work, and what top tax rates for cap gains have been in the past (hint: much higher than today—even under Reagan). No one has ever suggested taxing cap gains "at a 50%-80% rate".
About the monopoly maybe your left wing is Clinton ( which don't have any monopoly on rational people , because all know she is clown of wall street) , but true left wing (like Lessig Lawrence / Bernie Sanders / etc ) completely have monopoly on rational people in compare to right side , specially academic people in human science branches.