Also, this gives me a very vivid sense of deja vu; I swear I read this exact article at some point last year... strange.
Sadly people don't have to be stupid or evil to think this stuff is acceptable. Bob sees other people do it, and Bob knows it's bad when those people do it, but when Bob does it it's different somehow. There's a reason somewhere that means what other people do is bad spam, but what Bob does is not. When Ann looks at what Bob is doing she thinks it's pretty clearly dodgy.
These kinds of cognitive biases are tricky to spot in ourselves.
I don't think "cognitive bias" doesn't make you not-a-dick.
My wife hates when people talk on their phone while driving, to the point of screaming obscenities at them. Yet, if her phone rings while she's driving, she often answers it. If I point out the discrepancy, she dismisses it, as her call is "important" or "short" or she's "still watching the road".
I suspect I do the same thing, although (like my wife and her phone) I don't realize that I'm judging others for behavior I myself engage in.
They just didn't have enough evidence, and persuaded themselves that the evidence they had was better quality than it actually was. The surgery isn't outlandish; it has a plausible mechanism of action; patients report good results afterwards. And the reason best standard research wasn't done is because there's a bunch of stuff we do that we've been doing for a long time and are only just now getting around to properly studying.
So, when a placebo-controlled blinded study was done we discover that knee arthroscopy probably doesn't do anything more than placebo for osteoarthritis.
> Carving an exception like that for oneself
Well, I guess it depends on how aware people are of cognitive bias, and how much they're closing themselves off to the possibility that they're subject to biases.
These things are really hard to guard against.
I agree with you and like the example, but I wanted to provide feedback that this example is confusing in its relation to the current topic.
We know that we should only trust double-blind controlled randomised trials. This surgery hadn't had that trial, thus it shouldn't have been trusted, yet it was. And the reasons it was trusted are just biases.
_They're_ doing it because they're pricks and trying to get as many eyes as possible.
That's normally what I see happen.
This is one of the areas that having "no-men" is a good idea. Someone who will force you to reëxamine your idea and lay out alternatives.
Because sadly, everyone abuses actor/observer bias.
As far as the ethics involved, I don't really expect corporations to be ethical at any level. I would like them to, but I don't expect them to. I am a strong proponent of extreme fines/legal action because really if it doesn't effect the bottomline I dont feel it will change behavoir of a business.
You're right in that being unethical is the best way to get ahead in the game, and it might be a good idea to make it so that's not the case.
That said, the US of A is an adversarial society.
It's possible for specific people inside a corporation to behave in unethical ways. However, the definition of maximizing shareholder value is not simply "make the stock price as high as possible in the short term." It's perfectly possible for executives in a corporation to take the high road as the optimal strategy for maximizing shareholder value.
Thankfully, ethics do not depend on the existence of a soul nor conscience. There is a such thing as emergent behavior, after all.
Not if the shareholders want them to be ethical more than profitable. Arguably, shared ownership tends to promote turning a blind eye to that aspect.
Patagonia changed their corporate structure to a California B corp to allow this.
Now, I can see how one might miss the fact that this will send an email.
Things you can say if you're being intellectually honest:
* The fact that this will send an email should be more prominent
* The content of the email should be more explicit
* The tone of the email was overly personal
* The from: field appears as if it's from the person, not FD
* The form is opt-out
* There's no copy on the page indicating an email will be sent
* The copy on the page is hidden below the fold
* The copy on the page is worded designed to mislead the user
* The fact that clicking submit will send an email is obscured
* There is no indication about the content or tone of the email that will be sent
The tone and wording used in the auto-generated email shocked me. I would be pissed if that had been sent to anyone I know.
Saying that the content of the email "should be more explicit" is an understatement of significant magnitude, and it glosses over the crux of the issue. The site clearly betrayed the OP's trust, and had I been in his shoes I would have felt the same way.
My comment was made prior to your edit which added mention of the "tone" and the "from: field".
I have also up-voted your comment, although I strongly disagree with the conclusion.
Other people are saying they found the page they saw misleading. You have to take them at their word.
If FounderDating folks have a brain in their heads, they will take that feedback seriously.
I just created a fake LinkedIn account and will post a similar (and honest) analysis after I receive the invite.
The fact that nobody in this thread bothered to do their due diligence before pouncing is enough for me to discount their opinions as uninformed. But we'll see what the actual page looks like in a sec.