Workers Who Love 'Synergizing Paradigms' Might Be Bad at Their Jobs (cornell.edu) 105
Cornell University makes an announcement. "Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like 'synergistic leadership,' or 'growth-hacking paradigms' may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals."
Published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, research by cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell introduces the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool designed to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric... Corporate BS seems to be ubiquitous - but Littrell wondered if it is actually harmful. To test this, he created a "corporate bullshit generator" that churns out meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences like, "We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing" and "By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence." He then asked more than 1,000 office workers to rate the "business savvy" of these computer-generated BS statements alongside real quotes from Fortune 500 leaders...
The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and "visionary," but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making. The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Moreover, those who were more likely to fall for corporate BS were also more likely to spread it.
Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by "visionary" corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.
The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and "visionary," but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making. The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Moreover, those who were more likely to fall for corporate BS were also more likely to spread it.
Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by "visionary" corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.
bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Workers who can't spot obvious bullshit aren't so good at not producing obvious bullshit?
Well perhaps this is one of the cases where what feels obvious to me aligns with reality. Still worth looking because not all results are as expected.
The approach to corporobs never ceased to amaze me. Upper management would spew it, and when people got a chance to push back they'd spew more, and either keep going until the person got fed up talking to a recording or they just shut down the conversation. In both cases they appeared to believe that they had actually convinced someone.
Re:bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually difficult to glean any point you're making.
The latter paragraph seems to be off on a tangent about pushback when the article is about yes-men that gleefully promote every blingy idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the last paragraph is a tangent. Quite a lot of people seem to deeply believe in the power of corporate BS, and seem to genuinely think that if they browbeat people into not pushing back, or refuse to continue speaking then they have somehow won the argument and the victim now buys the line of BS.
Re: bullshit. (Score:2)
Re: bullshit. (Score:2)
I hate it when they latch onto a word, like 'leveraged', and then use it over and over and over in every meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
They are playing what's called "the word of the day", while pretending to be working. Matter of fact, I enjoy playing this game and others too. Why not? I get paid for it.
Re: bullshit. (Score:2)
You mean your employment agreement literally says "pick a word of the day and use it"? Sounds to me like you are bored with your job and imagining things.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate how "ask" is now used as a noun. Although that's been around for at least 10 years.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand so many both do it and seem to glean something from it it's probably just me being a bit too dense to understand it.
Your problem is probably that you try to find actual, reality-connected meaning in this. My experience, especially with business-grads in "leadership" positions, is that basically all of them are fully disconnected from reality and cannot even understand when you try to explain a fact to them.
Re: bullshit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem is probably that you try to find actual, reality-connected meaning in this. My experience, especially with business-grads in "leadership" positions, is that basically all of them are fully disconnected from reality and cannot even understand when you try to explain a fact to them.
This! 1000x
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have trouble understanding that? Interesting.
Re:bullshit. happens! (Score:5, Funny)
In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."
And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors then went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company; with powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
This is How Shit Happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Oldie but a goodie and yet the story had more potential for Funny...
Re:bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Such a surprise. Bullshit artists and bullshit victims produce mainly bullshit...
The thing is, most people do not have actual insight. To you (and me), things like "synergistic leadership" immediately look like nonsense, because that term does not make any sense when you know what the words mean. But most people are so much without a clue, terms like that just sound like deep magic to them and then they try to have some of that magic rub off on them by using the terms themselves. Obviously being disconnected from reality in this fashion does not lead to good decision making skills. It is essentially cultist behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you are in delusion. Yes, there will be a small group that understand the nonsense and see the benefits of pretending to go along with it, but most people are not smart enough for that and many of the rest are not deceptive enough. Engineers are a bit different, but they typically can easily find another job.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of this crap comes from management, not workers. If I hear "we're working on the headwinds" again, I'm going to barf. Also "now is not the time to rest on our laurels" gains notable mention. We had THREE CEOs in a row that spouted this bullshit.
"Dumb people suck at their Job" (Score:3)
Awesomely Shitty. (Score:2)
Depends on the job.
I mean hell, some people get paid to Generate Bullshit. To measure how receptive people are to it in a non-olfactory way.
Sometimes you gotta be downright shitty at the job, to be the best at it.
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to the advertising department.
There are people who love to (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not so much they like being bossed around, they're just too stupid to see through the firehose of gibberish. Remember that buzzword bullshit is spoken by and designed to fool, idiots, it doesn't work against people with any reasonable IQ but given the average IQ is only 100 there are plenty of idiots around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Some research on it: https://theauthoritarians.org/ [theauthoritarians.org]
Warning, the level of simplicity found in these people is staggering. But these are really well established research results. There is no sane reason to doubt them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to reply to the OP: "MOST people like being bossed around." Most people also like to bitch about it, but some don't.
I'm not sure this is true either. The vast majority of people today who work choose the security of a group with a hierarchy of bosses to tell them what to do. We even criticize the loss of "full time" employee positions in favour of contractors. But we don't like to look at it that way because it's a pretty clear cut sit
Re: (Score:2)
From actual research, yes, they like to be bossed around. What you describe is the "sheep" part of the population that goes along with what those around them tell them to think. The "authoritarian followers" actively want that Great Leader that does tell them everything they should believe in, think and do. And they are willing to be violent about it. The sheep are typically not and later usually wonder how the catastrophe could have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
You just defined organized religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Organized religion is just one form of authoritarian structure. There are others. But it is a good example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So destroying society is a good capitalist practice? Asking for a friend...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. These people are called "authoritarian followers" (see, e.g. https://theauthoritarians.org/ [theauthoritarians.org]). They are usually right wing and typically cannot do even basic fact-checking. They are a very bad threat to any form of society that values individual freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be a dangerous lie; given that it justifies systematically rewarding the photogenic 'idea guy' while doing everything you can(and somethings that will catch up with you, not necessarily even in the long term) to treat the unsexy people who just do stuff as expendable cost centers who should be outsourced or exterminated whenever possible; but it is also a comforting one if
Re: (Score:2)
Another possibility is that some people are genuinely trying to understand how organizations work. And corporate-speak gives the impression of intelligence, which can be very appealing to some smart young people, who might waste some precious energy for many years trying to make sense from all that.
Before realizing it is a bag of bullshit, these younger fellas will chase some fads or people that will definitely make them less productive.
Seriously? (Score:2)
"Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like 'synergistic leadership,' or 'growth-hacking paradigms' may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals."
Please tell me something that I didn't already know.
Re: (Score:2)
Did anybody smart already know this? Yes. But getting solid research results on something like this is still worthwhile, because a) not everybody is smart and b) sometimes smart people are wrong.
For me, this falls into a chain of fundamental and groundbreaking research of the last few decades that tells us how people actually work and how very limited most people are mentally. The probably most significant result so far is the Dunning-Kruger effect, but the body of sound evidence is growing. So much that du
Might be bad at their jobs... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Investors are easily conned.
Re: (Score:1)
Investors are easily conned.
Most investors only care about increases in share prices such that they make a profit. They don't really care how it is accomplished as long as they get out before the fall.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they get out before the fall.
If there's going to be a fall, you had better understand the industry well enough to see it coming. And that means recognizing the corporate sales bullshit for what it is.
Less well informed investors had better stick with a stable business with a history of performance. Or an index fund.
How? (Score:2)
Investors are easily conned.
How do so many "easily conned", presumably gullible and/or stupid, people achieve such great wealth? This seems particularly confounding when most of the "smarter" people seemingly can't make a buck, relatively speaking. Why do you think that is?
So many smart people doing the bidding of the easily conned? Why don't they leverage their superior intellect? Are they stupid?
Wow, who knew... (Score:2)
... that incompetents cover up their incompetence with fancy words and general buzzword bullshit in an attempt to sound like they have their finger on the pulse. Anyone who has worked in any reasonably sized company will have met plenty of these people.
Re: (Score:2)
First nomination for the 2026 DBSITW Awards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch the entertaining satire "Visioneers" instead (Score:3)
Yeah using words you don't understand (Score:2)
We learned that recently from the president of the United States. Who is currently speaking at the level of an 8-year-old. Seriously no shit Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
... the president of the United States. Who is currently speaking at the level of an 8-year-old. Seriously no shit Google it.
I think that analysis is unfair to at least a significant percentage of 8-year-olds out there. I'm quite certain that when I was that age my vocabulary, grammar, and logical thinking were much better than Trump's are.
Bingo! (Score:2)
Study design? (Score:2)
The hypothesis that corporate buzzwords generated by actual 'leaders' are better than the synthetic ones that are merely syntactically correct seems plausible enough to serve as a basis for further inquiry; but far, far, from being the sort of thing you can treat as a given for the purpose of testing something else.
Re:Study design? (Score:5, Informative)
You can read the preprint (final draft) on Research Gate for free. It is probably 99% the same as the paywalled one referenced in the story:
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Yes, it sometimes reads like satire, for example when it references the "Pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity" score. Even the abstract is already quite hilarious. Just take this quote: "...“corporate bullshit,” a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way."
But this is solid, journal-level research and it explains all it does and what the strengths and limitations are. The research is actually based on 4 other studies and combines their results into the "Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR)", to allow more uniform reasoning about the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
... combines their results into the "Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR)" ...
I love that, because it leverages the synergy between plain-spokenness and truth to build a better tomorrow full of perceived value!.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty ingenious. Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because I'm a scientist, but I had to use a bot to distill down the example for me:
By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.
I had to press it to simplify a few times, and it came down to:
Our partners will help us see whether our methods work.
And also, maybe because I speak science-geek, the quote from the abstract ...
a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way
... makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And also, maybe because I speak science-geek, the quote from the abstract ...
a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way
... makes perfect sense.
It does, doesn't it? It also contains a huge middle finger to the people described right there in the sentence.
Supercalifragilisticsynergisticalidocio (Score:1)
All bs from th loudmouths. It's the quiet ones... (Score:1)
who've figured it out. And they have neither the need nor the inclination to share their one weird trick...these weird tricks are context dependent and tend to not work if everyone out there tries them at the same time.
If I have a way to build a team that's lean and fast and really good at x, sharing will just let everyone else poach my talent or otherwise erode my competative advantage.
Duh.
we already knew (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg?i... [youtu.be]
Found the solution though. Start with red paper. Color it in and leave the lines open. Increase the dimensions as desired and project it on a two dimensional plane. Whatever you do, do NOT agree on inflating the balloon. It probably is a trap.
Hardly a surprise (Score:2)
This has been a known thing for many years among those of us who have to actually get work done.
When we hear "Leveraging our core competencies to facilitate a paradigm shift in our synergistic approach, we must socialize the key takeaways to ensure we are driving value-add initiatives and pivoting to a future-ready, best-of-breed solution that moves the needle on our deliverables" our first thought is "empty suit". Unless the suit in question is playing the game for empty suits further up the food chain.
Re: (Score:2)
"But say "bingo" after a paragraph of gobbledygook will still get you in trouble."
Once at a large meeting as the suit was speaking, all of a sudden we could hear several "bingos" spoken under their breathes, followed by a quiet wave of titters from other victims at the meeting. PHB was oblivious, various manglers gave various pointed looks, but that was the end of it. We decided that, for the future, discretion was the better part of valor, so we retired our bingo cards. One can push "lese majesty" only so
Is Cornell going to teach what they say? (Score:3)
Bingo! (Score:2)
We kept our boss honest by pulling out the Bullshit Bingo cards at the start of every meeting.
Acronym doesn't match (Score:1)
WTF?
Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale != CBSR
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!
GIGO is a bad evaluation criteria (Score:3)
I worked at a bank where they required every team to create a mission statement. We thought it was silly, but we were ordered to make one, so we did. Oddly enough, we actually found it surprisingly useful to have.
A mission statement answers the questions "What are we doing?", and "What are we trying to achieve?". A good mission statement answers both questions, preferably in as short and concise a manner as possible.
In our case, we were an R&D group, and we decided our mission statement was "research and investigate new technologies to design and build the best possible trading floor". Once we had that defined, we found ourselves quoting it when interviewing new hires, when explaining to other groups what we were doing, and when talking to vendors trying to get them to give us evaluation units.
It was also surprisingly useful in shielding us from having work dumped on us from other groups, on the grounds that it was outside of our mission.
In contrast, when we asked one of the finance guys what his group did, he walked us over to his work area, and showed us a plaque on the wall with their mission statement. It was a firehose of buzzwords about how they were embracing this, deconstructing that, and defending a third thing in order to respect something else.
Not one person in his department could recite their mission statement without reading it. Not one of them could say how what he was doing that day helped achieve that mission. There wasn't a single quantifiable word in their mission.
An exec told me that one of the reasons for asking for the mission statements was to see which groups actually knew what they were doing. If a group couldn't write a mission statement describing what it was doing, they probably don't know. If they couldn't describe what they were trying to achieve, they likely weren't achieving much.
It's useful for upper management to know which groups are like that. A group that can't define success will by definition never succeed.
Workers who love phrases like 'Synergizing Paradigms' usually love it because they don't know what they're doing, and they're trying to hide that fact by using terms that aren't quantifiable. Just as people who can't define success will never succeed, they can't be accused of failing, either.
Re: GIGO is a bad evaluation criteria (Score:2)
Having a defined purpose is not the same as corporate doublespeak, it's just one place you can find it sometimes.
Like job titles. Having well defined job titles is great for figuring out organizational structures and responsibilities. It's also a medium for bullshit like, Solutions Engineer.
In other words... (Score:2)
People start slowly to accept the idea that dumb people are harmful, not cute. Good.
However (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I consider it a different kind of intelligence, where people are really good at turning their brains off when it's beneficial to do so.
I go by the Dogbert Maxim: The most import part of the brain for meetings is the stem.
Guardrails (Score:2)
That opaque, non definitive word is rearing its ugly head again (used to hear it a lot in the 90s). Every AI concept at work, every time we are all giddy about MCP servers (ugh), but they must have the appropriate guardrails. Whatever, just define what the AI thing should and should not do. Guardrails: don't hallucinate!
Re: (Score:2)
Ghu, not... the P word!
A new type of aptitude test? (Score:2)
The research paper itself has a problem: It sets out to prove a hypothesis which is obvious and self-evident, and doesn't need empirical proof. (See e.g. "Politics and the English Language", by George Orwell). This seems to be a common problem with psychological research.
But the "Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale" is kind of neat. I could imagine a version of the scale being useful for screening job applicants, or as a section of the GMAT.
Re:Kamala Harris (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you want to go down this road?
“You know, the new thing is magnets. So instead of using hydraulic that can be hit by lightning and it’s fine. You take a little glass of water, you drop it on magnets, I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Trump said.
“So, you know, the elevators come up in the new carriers—I think I’m going to change it, by the way—they have magnets. Every tractor has hydraulic, every excavator, every excavating machine of any kind has hydraulic. But somebody decided to use magnets.”
“I’m going to sign an executive order. When we build aircraft carriers, it’s steam for the catapults and it’s hydraulic for the elevators. We’ll never have a problem,” Trump said. “He agrees. Everybody agrees. But, ahh, these people in Washington.”
“You know, China intelligently went and they sort of took a monopoly of the world’s magnets, and nobody needed magnets until they convinced everybody 20 years ago, ‘Let’s all do magnets,’” Trump said. “There were many other ways that the world could have gone.”
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
“You know, the new thing is magnets. So instead of using hydraulic that can be hit by lightning and it’s fine..."
Trump has shit for brain. And sometimes it appears that most of the people that support him suffer from the same problem. That is why some of them post as anonymous here.
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing he says is true. His tariffs are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. I guess it's pretty easy to say he is 'concrete' if you are predisposed to believe everything he says.
Re: (Score:2)
> His tariffs are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
He had a feeling based on fact.
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:4, Insightful)
Watching the president spitballing what sort of acceleration mechanism an aircraft carrier is going to use to shove planes around based on his vague feelings about magnets and excavators isn't a sign of good, common-sense, leadership; it's the equivalent of a CEO who has never heard of the OSI seven layer model trying to micromanage fiber out of a random network closet because by god RS-485 was the shit back in his day and he has no idea that different PHYs have different applications and more confidence in his own ability to do it in his head than he does in the ability of an engineering team to be assigned the task of designing an elevator suitable for naval work. (There's also a certain irony in the fact that 'magnets' are apparently just the worst thing in the ocean until it's time for the Trump-class battleship to get a railgun; at which point that has been completely forgotten because reasons; and we receive no lecture at all about how all guns since forever have been operated by chemical propellants.)
It's usually a good idea to be very leery of people who refuse to be concrete about anything; and for more specific implementations you want to actively avoid the people who are either taking refuge in generalities because they are clueless or emulating the speech of those further up the ladder they wish to climb: you need someone to specifically do a particular thing themselves or delegate a very precise set of requirements; but don't fall for the impression that someone who genuinely seems unwilling or incapable of thinking at any level of abstraction is either better or even suitable for many purposes: that's what a congenital incapacity for anything but tacking between wildly disengaged emotion driven demands for extremely vague good results and extreme micromanagement and bikeshedding of whatever details they think they actually do understand looks and acts like. As we've basically seen: essentially nothing between a wildly over specific procurement-by-executive-order decision on how to raise aircraft to the flight deck based on what's common and cost effective in earthmoving equipment and exceptionally vague outbursts regarding wanting to 'win' or 'make a good deal' in inchoate terms that admit only emotional metrics.
In some respects, it's the idea that all abstraction must be bullshit that is more dangerous that any of the specific bullshit produced by peddlers of vague platitudes. The ones who are good at that tend to end up overpaid and overpromoted; but those who think they are immunizing themselves against bullshit by surrendering all of abstraction are massively crippling their ability to carve up problems in ways that allow you to fight against bullshit by following the process of decomposing a large objective into specific pieces in a systematic way.
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh? Please name 3 things from the last 2 weeks where Trump actually got the facts right.
In actual reality, you are a cult member and your great Guru has no insight whatsoever. Except that he can manipulate people as dumb as you. His only skill.
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:5, Informative)
Every time Trump speaks, he speaks rather concretely. He doesnâ(TM)t always get the facts perfect but the guy is a concrete thinker who got his start literally building buildings. His words reflect a desire to build a specific thing or do a specific thing.
Would you mind translating this?
"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
in contrast, Kamala Harris, always spoke in the most vague platitudes and generalities. Her words belied a desire to never commit herself to any position or concrete plan of action. Partially because she was a politician, and partially because she is an idiot.
Ah yes, the man so smart that he threatened to sue any schools that might release his grades. https://www.phillymag.com/news... [phillymag.com]
Meanwhile the president of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum has a Masters and PhD.
Re: (Score:1)
The primary demographic that voted for Trump was young men (and especially young white men). They voted for Trump because he was the republican candidate. They voted Republican because the liberal left (and by association the democratic party) had been demonizing men and whites, making them feel excluded if not hated.
This has been pointed out before and was always modded troll, as this post surely will be as well. The liberal left absolutely does not want to admit to their acrimony towards men and/or whi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Kamala Harris (Score:1)
Nobody takes you seriously, you fucking windmill cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're fucking delusional if you actually believe the statement you just posted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but he's very much the opposite of a concrete thinker (unless you mean the way that, back when he did actually sometimes build things, he used excessive amounts of concrete in building things to keep his mob buddies happy). I am actually pretty sure that he has a serious cognitive problem with 3 dimensional reasoning. There are all kinds of evidence points like his ideas about building a wall at the Southern border (with a moat with alligators and snakes in it, no less), or about raking massive f
Re: (Score:2)
"who got his start literally building buildings"
He's never been involved in building buildings. He was in "real estate development" which involves other people building buildings. He was also bad at it. The most successful developments are actually branding applied to other developer's projects.
I can't actually find where she said that (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you can find her talking about diversity. The Democratic party is a extremely broad coalition where the Republican party is basically a combination of business interests and religious extremists. So the Republican party doesn't need to worry about diversity nearly as much.
Diversity is only a bad thing because we're all afraid of losing our jobs to somebody else. That's not a sign that diversity is bad that's a sign that giving all the money in the world to 1/10 of 1% of the population is bad.
The billionaires can no longer sustain our economy. They cannot generate enough jobs to maintain full employment. They're simply isn't enough work that is profitable and useful to a billionaire to keep us all employed. We are going to have to do something else.
Re: (Score:2)
I can unpack "leveraging diversity". That to me means bringing different world-views or approaches to the table (or the business). I don't know what it means to balance an equity? If something is equitable, then there's balance, so world-views shouldn't affect something like that.
What does that statement mean to you?
That's because he made the quote up (Score:2)
We used to have pretty good quality bots on this site but it's become so irrelevant that barely any show up. The ones I see look to be obvious trying to train in llm. I've got one that pretends to be me and uses my comments.
So I'm pretty certain you could find Harris talking about inequality because that's a big buzz word for the progre
Re: I can't actually find where she said that (Score:2)
It's not hard, unless you've been conditioned to think diversity means _other_ people, and other people bad.
Half of the U.S. Congress is made of representatives in proportion to the population they represent, the other half is made up of two representatives from each state regardless of population, size, economic output, etc. Not equal, but an equitable representation of the diverse states and people that make up the country. So sparse rural farmers in Virginia had a little protection from dense urban New Y
Re: (Score:2)
We are. We've drastically slowed down our breeding. Human labor is going to be come more scarce over the next 30 years, so if AI doesn't actually keep up, we're going to contract and probably quicker then we realize. Since all of our social programs require growth, contraction will be very painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? She is a Deepak Chopra fan. He spews BS all of the time. Few years ago, there was a similar research item here on /. that specifically was about Deepak Chopra and folks who see profoundness in his BS, their low IQ levels and all that.