NYT Co., a Multi-Billion Dollar Enterprise, Publishes 'Capitalists and Other Psychopaths' Previously— Communist Party Endorses Obama |
scream-of-consciousness; "If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."
Saturday, May 19, 2012
'Capitalists and Other Psychopaths'
"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. " |
This will be the comment box |
4 comments:
-
-
And here's a classic correction the NYT, essentially negating their whole story. Hint: 4% of a sample size of 203 is noise. The part about generalization is an absolute hoot.
Correction: May 16, 2012
An earlier version of this article misstated the findings of a 2010 study on psychopathy in corporations. The study found that 4 percent of a sample of 203 corporate professionals met a clinical threshold for being described as psychopaths, not that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are clinical psychopaths. In addition, the study, in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law, was not based on a representative sample; the authors of the study say that the 4 percent figure cannot be generalized to the larger population of corporate managers and executives. - 5/19/12, 10:17 AM
-
-
Why... They must be nuckin' futz!!
- 5/20/12, 8:49 AM
-
-
Ahhh, that old chestnut: "You don't agree with meeee, so you 'must' be stupid / crazy / somehow damaged." Because "meeee" is always right, cannot make a miscalculation, doesn't have a thing to learn. How self-aware.
"If I call someone a nasty name they'll be embarrassed and stop arguing -- which means I win!"??!? It didn't work in third grade - it doesn't work now. Why are they still using that tactic?
And why aren't sensible people calling it what it is?
e~C - 5/20/12, 9:00 AM
- Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
u just did
- 5/20/12, 10:24 AM