Superficially speaking, it's a great way to scare a generation of to-be parents or those considering becoming parents into behaving responsibly.
Personally, coming from a background where family members go to n-th limits to keep pregnant women happy with the belief that happy emotions keep balanced hormonal levels beneficial to the unborn child, this just seems to add to the truism in the old wives tales.
OK, as per your theory of conformism, smart people want to be accepted as smart by other smart people. That is why they are atheist in the current times. The fallacy of this argument is so transparent in that smart people are generally considered non-conformist. That is the essence of geekiness if one can put it that way.
That there is god is for the theist to prove and not the atheist to disprove. What anyone who is rational chooses to believe is the sum total of his knowledge and his experience. You have lumped smart people as characterless by calling them conformist. So either you are a charlatan theist trying to get in a word sideways or someone who is truly and hopelessly wrong.
Think about Galileo. For every stereotype you cite, I can quote exceptions and make it a circular argument. You did lump every "smart person" in your argument and I wanted to call you out on that. No ad hominems there, just a progression of my counter-argument.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I think you're attacking a straw man. I didn't say that all people conform to the expectations of their peer group in all ways at all times. That statement is trivial to disprove.
This is just wrong philosophy masquerading as science or skepticism. The question of lightning finally got solved by science and there're always things which are beyond the explanation of current science and technology. That doesn't mean that we'll not be able to explain it in the future.
Your belief in a "Personal god" is only equivalent to others believing in a gift of virgins and flying spaghetti monsters. - my opinion of course.
Helped a guy who was an acquaintance, who I thought was a friend move into my apt while in grad school with my other roommates, vouched for him, paid his part of the security deposit too. He turns to be of the kind who talks behind the back, borrows without repaying, a general douche.
Long story short, months later, said guy moves out. Lost my money, lost my other roommates, and lost my reputation as a guy who can vouch for others. Lesson learned: takes years to know a person.
Nonsense. Anyone who knows his talent and worth, and has an ounce of pride wouldn't stand being jockeyed or lowballed. If I figure at any interview that it's being played like the article says, I'd walk right out. It's the company's freaking loss. Any guy worth his salt should do it.
Yeah, it's not a test of "does this candidate really want to work here". It's an attempt to establish a subservient relationship right off the bat.
There was another article on HN that I don't have a reference to offhand but it was something like, hiring an employee at a small company isn't like buying services from a supplier, it's like inviting someone to be a member of a community.