koltkorivera

If they sold gift certificates, they would make an immense fortune.

Don't _you_ have people you'd like to send to Mars?

Thank you for posting this, danso.

Thank you for posting this, chrisacky.

The author does well to point the finger for the New Groupthink at contemporary educational practices--which, on the one hand, extol "nurturing each student's uniqueness" but then only value that uniqueness if it is amenable to "being a collaborative team player." The fact is, for a lot of bright people, they feel forced into perpetual collaboration, and experience it like unto that of enduring extended root canals.

As an entrepreneur, I have no problem whatsoever in working with geniuses who need to be alone to exercise their genius. Sure, they need to be able to have some kind of contact,, and to collaborate, with others, even if on a limited basis. (Even Picasso had to deal with models, agents, and art dealers.) But letting such individuals work on very long leashes helps everyone, and furthers the work of the organization.

I am not at all convinced by the author's logic.

Take television for example. Yes, television has a platform. But perhaps the biggest mistake that broadcast television networks are making at this moment is that they do not broadcast all of their programming simultaneously on the Internet, ads and all. By becoming less hardware platform dependent, television broadcasters would gain viewers.

It is not just, as the author says, that "the world is moving into platforms in decisive ways." The world is moving into certain _types_ of platforms--namely, to _portable, multipurpose_ platforms.

Remember dedicated telephones from the pre-wireless era? Compare that to the typical smartphone today: the latter goes anywhere, and allows one to check on e-mail, to receive texts, and to look in on one's social networks. It's the multiple functionality that matters.

The point: Dedicated hardware, of the kind that the author is advocating, is on the way out. Netflix is to be commended for _not_ coming up with Netflix hardware. It is much more competitive by making itself available over any computer, including all variety of mobile devices.

This all comes down to a distinction that is not made in the article at all. One has a choice in engaging the news: one can be a passive consumer of whatever gets thrown at one, or one can be a thoughtful consumer who directs one's own reading/viewing of the news. None of the issues mentioned by the author apply to the latter approach.

In a highly interconnected, multicultural, technological world, it is more important than ever for the ordinary citizen (let alone the entrepreneur, thinker, or "creative type") to be aware of what is going on in the world, and on every scale (global to local). The author's recommendation would lead to a radical disengagement that would be suitable only for those aspiring to be hermits or stylites.

Okay. Point made. Frankly, in a culture that tends to ignore the long-term on so many dimensions, this is a welcome little bit of software.

One thing, though: It should ask for "Date of Birth," rather than "Birthday," which often implies month and day only.

Thing is, this kind of logic has been used before, to justify hiring strategies that left the unbalanced status quo untouched (whether in relation to gender, race, or whatever). This approach shifts the responsibility for the gender imbalance in STEM onto the educators (where, admittedly, some of the responsibility does belong), rather than placing it on the hiring mechanisms of STEM firms.

However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies. If we want to see the gender imbalance change, that is where we have to address that imbalance.

To say this is not to take a position on Adria Richards. It's about the logic of the position, not the mis/behavior of some of that logic's adherents.

Here are some books that I have found worthwhile, for the complete and utter beginner--really, preliminary to learning about genomics itself:

--Matt Ridley (1999). _Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters_. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

--James D. Watson [yes, _that_ James D. Watson] (2003). _DNA: The secret of life_. New York, NY: Knopf.

If you have any interest in the application of genomic science to psychology, this is a good place to start (presuming a basic knowledge of, say, the contents of a good Psych 101 course):

--Robert Plomin, John C. Defries, Ian W. Craig, and Peter McGuffin [Eds.] (2003). _Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era_. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Best of luck to you.

--Mark Koltko-Rivera