The Cult of Microsoft
www.wheresyoured.at
Soundtrack: EL-P - Flyentology At the core of Microsoft, a three-trillion-dollar hardware and software company, lies a kind of social poison — an ill-defined, cult-like pseudo-scientific concept called 'The Growth Mindset" that drives company decision-making in everything from how products are sold, to how your on-the-job performance is judged. I am

Spooky stuff that helps explain a lot of the dysfunction flowing out from Microsoft.

  • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
    17·
    3 days ago

    this post gave me a couple rounds of whiplash but this was the hardest turn on the rollercoaster:

    when they tried to summarize the findings of growth mindset and quickly dismissing it without couching in the ongoing reproducibility issue in psychology

    do you people come off a factory line like this?

      • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
        11·
        3 days ago

        the poster themselves would have to answer but generally I find the answer to be no

        a rather particular form of inductive reasoning. not quite induncetive, but close

            • o7___o7@awful.systemsEnglish
              13·
              3 days ago

              Being so aggressively mid will frequently get you the mean.

              Edit: Before you pedantically argue that the median != mean, I’d suggest that your posts plainly fall on the normal curve because they are all typically boring, standard deviations.

              • self@awful.systemsEnglish
                17·
                3 days ago

                it’s fucking amazing the volume of these guys who think we have a rule about tone (we don’t, we never will, spaces with rules like that end up using them against justifiably angry marginalized people) because it’s what they’re used to using as a weapon in the politics sections of reddit and lemmy, but don’t bother to see what our only written rule is (because they don’t fucking read, there’s no room for that when your whole personality is cosplaying as the smart adult in the room)

        • self@awful.systemsEnglish
          15·
          3 days ago

          you’re about to waste my fucking time but:

          Mindset theory itself is incredibly controversial for a number of reasons, chief of which is that nobody can seem to reliably replicate the results of Dweck’s academic work.

          Ed links an article that talks about elements of the replication crisis in enough detail for an article where the replication crisis isn’t anywhere near on-topic, and I don’t think the article would be better if it included that detail

          feel free to include evidence in your reply that you aren’t here to be a debate shitlord

          • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systemsEnglish
            11·
            2 days ago

            I’m also confused as to what the takeaway was supposed to be here. Like, because a whole bunch of different famous psych studies fail to replicate maybe this one is less invalid?

            Also, were they expecting Ed Zitron of all people to not write a polemical?

          • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
            11·
            3 days ago

            (as usual) I made the mistake of looking at their posting history

            three internet cookies if you know what’s behind door number one

              • gerikson@awful.systemsEnglish
                15·
                3 days ago

                I will never forget the dude who argued online that the sealion is the real victim here (a victim of the “disgruntled female”)

                • self@awful.systemsEnglish
                  12·
                  3 days ago

                  amazingly, I’ve seen (and I think banned) people who’ve tried to sealion about the sealion comic. these assholes really are shameless public masturbators

              • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.worldEnglish
                111·
                3 days ago

                I’m familiar with the original comic. If every attempt to engage in sincere conversations across different points of view on the internet is interpreted sealioning, then there’s no room for sincere engagement.

                But this is a matter of perception. Am I a troll or some who sincerely disagrees. I had an honest critique of the article so I expected some heat, but I was that there would be some sincere criticism of the idea. Rather, and shame on me for thinking otherwise, I’ve been called names and my criticism has been dismissed whole cloth. I’m a little surprised that this is as hurtful as it is and that I’m surprised that I am this pricked. Not exactly sure why I continue. Any case, that’s my reply. Good day, sir!

                • self@awful.systemsEnglish
                  13·
                  3 days ago

                  I’m a little surprised that this is as hurtful as it is and that I’m surprised that I am this pricked

                  yeah let me help you out with that

                  we’ve been on the internet long enough to know how a debate shitlord says “go fuck yourself” and you came in fucking swinging

                  who in the fuck introduces themselves to strangers like this? of course people are hostile

                  anyway you failed to prove you’re not a debate shitlord so

                  ban reason: debate shitlord

                  bye

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      113·
      3 days ago

      I don’t know how to read this as a bad faith question, but I’ll respond with sincerity in hopes that we can have an honest discussion.

      First, I’m not sure who “you people” and why my sentence is “off a factory line”. When I reference the reproducibility issue it’s the reproducibility issue in the field of psychology. Couching it in this crisis would temper the polemical tone.

      So what exactly gave you whiplash?