Wow, "created" seems like a heckuva stretch in this title.
It often seems like the intent of this kind of a dishonest title is to imply that so-and-so was the real force behind some thing (see also, Hidden Figures) but was not given credit due to systemic <insert all powerful force of oppression here>.
For me, the real effect is to read everything that comes after with extreme skepticism.
Low-level employees in an ultra-secret military program don't have any real idea of what they're working on? Shocker. This is just bait for their target audience.
Where is the reporting on everyone else who was “tricked into” creating the bomb? Carpenters totally tricked. Landscapers totally tricked.
Actually, I’m doing the same thing. I’m tricking my gardener into creating everything I do while I work from home. I didn’t tell them at all what I do, so I tricked them into creating a data analysis.
This is a silly line of thought and seems to stem from the logical fallacy of “assuming intent without evidence.”
I once had an employee who spend large amounts of time complaining that I excluded them from meetings. They were going through my calendar and making lists of every meeting that didn’t include them and asking me to justify why I excluded them. Meetings that didn’t even show the title or material, just they the time was blocked.
This led to some surreal explanations where they were demanding to be invited to a 15 minute reminder for me to submit an abstract. Or my 1:1 mentoring sessions.
I could not understand their logic but it went something like everyone in the world should operate with their mental model and consider whether their actions would be better with this person participating.
Similarly, in this article, if you think that designs should be shared with pretty low-level employees (or maybe even contractors) for them to make an informed decision, then it’s tricking.
Rolling Stone didn't go far enough with their analysis. They really should of looked into how the war department took advantage of exploiting Isaac Newton for inventing calculus in the first place.
13 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadIt often seems like the intent of this kind of a dishonest title is to imply that so-and-so was the real force behind some thing (see also, Hidden Figures) but was not given credit due to systemic <insert all powerful force of oppression here>.
For me, the real effect is to read everything that comes after with extreme skepticism.
Keep in mind that rollingstone gave us the "Rape on Campus" lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
When it comes to rollingstone, I can smell the agenda a mile away.
Actually, I’m doing the same thing. I’m tricking my gardener into creating everything I do while I work from home. I didn’t tell them at all what I do, so I tricked them into creating a data analysis.
This is a silly line of thought and seems to stem from the logical fallacy of “assuming intent without evidence.”
I once had an employee who spend large amounts of time complaining that I excluded them from meetings. They were going through my calendar and making lists of every meeting that didn’t include them and asking me to justify why I excluded them. Meetings that didn’t even show the title or material, just they the time was blocked.
This led to some surreal explanations where they were demanding to be invited to a 15 minute reminder for me to submit an abstract. Or my 1:1 mentoring sessions.
I could not understand their logic but it went something like everyone in the world should operate with their mental model and consider whether their actions would be better with this person participating.
Similarly, in this article, if you think that designs should be shared with pretty low-level employees (or maybe even contractors) for them to make an informed decision, then it’s tricking.
But it was also bad -- so they must have been tricked into creating it!
Let's now reason backward to support this obviously true conclusion.