Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryrobes | Hacker News Reader

I recall seeing a tweet this morning stating the same for ethics committees in academic research papers. Students are being taught to put questionable things in - that are easy to excise. They get challenged, remove the red herring, and are approved since the "offended party" feels appeased.

Anyways, Interesting analog. Intellectual dishonestly aside...

I have no first hand knowledge, but it seems highly probable.

View on HN

Students are being taught to put questionable things in - that are easy to excise. They get challenged, remove the red herring, and are approved since the "offended party" feels appeased.

I've heard similar stories with regards to censors. I've also seen it at work with release reviews. Pointy-haired management was given something obvious to correct, to keep them from thinking of something out of left field.

It's a weak strategy. If you make an obvious error in many contexts you are very likely to (at best) invite a cascade of critique that otherwise would have been skipped. At worst, you'll be written off permanently as a fool, fired and/or sued.

It's probably better to not include an 'obvious' error, but a plausible error that has some degree of subjectivity.

It's a weak strategy. If you make an obvious error in many contexts you are very likely to (at best) invite a cascade of critique that otherwise would have been skipped.

It depends on who is on the other end. Against someone who isn't that intelligent, who prioritizes and really just wants to show their dominance, it can work great. Against a genuinely observant and intelligent perfectionist, it's the wrong move.

I've seen it done with alignment and spelling errors. The pointy haired boss feels superior and useful in their attention to detail, and everyone has their needs fulfilled.