@inthehands This is going to get so much worse with outsourced services job descriptions banks and, especially, LLMs to give false confidence that the listing, screen questions, etc. are okay because they have fewer glaring errors. The obvious grammatical or technical errors were embarrassments but they did at least give readers a cue that there wasn't a skilled reviewer in the loop at that stage. Now ever penny-pincher is going to think they can pay HR even less because the tools do the work.
@marick I think Diamond has held up better – I haven’t seen accusations of the outright misrepresentation in service of right-wing tropes which characterizes Haidt’s big books - but I think you’re right to reconsider contrarianism. It’s such an easy path to a rush of self-satisfaction that I think it almost inevitably leads to errors over time as the writer relaxes their self-doubt – Nate Silver used to be a better writer when he had to worry about what an editor would say, too.
Probably the most important lesson from that $50k scam story is that thanks to decades of lax businesses being breached, scammers have most of our private data and use it to sound legitimate.
@apodoxus@vaurora a softer form of this is confirmation bias: I’m objectively a smart person, doing well on this test was important to my career & most of my peers’, therefore it must be measuring something real.
I used to support neuroscientists & one thing they’d remind everyone of is that humans are notoriously prone to believing we’re being rational when we’re constructing a story that explains the present.