I recently interviewed at D. E. Shaw and had a chance to meet many of their team members. I got a very different impression from Cathy O’Neil’s post, which seemed pretty stereotyped and xenophobic. Maybe that would change if I worked there, but that post sent up some red flags in terms of tone.
I would be very interested if you could elaborate on that. I’m interested in distinguishing between possibilities like these:
Cathy O’Neil is some kind of leftist extremist and her real problem with D E Shaw is that she wants all rich people to be rounded up and executed, or something of the kind.
Cathy O’Neil is some kind of rightist extremist and her real problem with D E Shaw is that a lot of the people there are immigrants and she hates immigration.
Cathy O’Neil holds a political position very different from that of most people at D E Shaw, and her problem is simply that she and they are of different tribes.
Cathy O’Neil found D E Shaw doing things aimed at impoverishing pension funds to turn a profit, and disapproves; Dr_Manhattan sees this disapproval as a political matter.
Dr_Manhattan holds a political position very different from that of Cathy O’Neil, and he sees whatever she says through politically tinted glasses.
Etc. (Perhaps there are possibilities that don’t reflect so badly on either Cathy O’Neil or Dr_Manhattan, both of whom seem from the limited information available to me like reasonable people.)
Forgive me, but that doesn’t seem like much of an elaboration.
So far as I can tell, Cathy O’Neil left finance before getting involved in Occupy Wall Street. The fact that she took a job at a hedge fund in the first place, and stayed there for a few years, suggests to me that she didn’t start out with overpowering political prejudices against finance in general or hedge funds in particular.
Does your personal acquaintance with her rule out the possibility that her political opinions are (at least in part) a consequence of her experience at D E Shaw rather than a cause, and if so how?
Yes, I’m sure it does. But wouldn’t that mean that her D E Shaw attitudes aren’t a result of her politics, but of some combination of her experiences at D E Shaw and whatever personality feature(s) predisposed her to react to them by joining OWS?
I recently interviewed at D. E. Shaw and had a chance to meet many of their team members. I got a very different impression from Cathy O’Neil’s post, which seemed pretty stereotyped and xenophobic. Maybe that would change if I worked there, but that post sent up some red flags in terms of tone.
I’ve met Cathy, and I would largely attribute her DE Shaw attitudes to her politics.
I would be very interested if you could elaborate on that. I’m interested in distinguishing between possibilities like these:
Cathy O’Neil is some kind of leftist extremist and her real problem with D E Shaw is that she wants all rich people to be rounded up and executed, or something of the kind.
Cathy O’Neil is some kind of rightist extremist and her real problem with D E Shaw is that a lot of the people there are immigrants and she hates immigration.
Cathy O’Neil holds a political position very different from that of most people at D E Shaw, and her problem is simply that she and they are of different tribes.
Cathy O’Neil found D E Shaw doing things aimed at impoverishing pension funds to turn a profit, and disapproves; Dr_Manhattan sees this disapproval as a political matter.
Dr_Manhattan holds a political position very different from that of Cathy O’Neil, and he sees whatever she says through politically tinted glasses.
Etc. (Perhaps there are possibilities that don’t reflect so badly on either Cathy O’Neil or Dr_Manhattan, both of whom seem from the limited information available to me like reasonable people.)
Occupy Wall Street association.
Forgive me, but that doesn’t seem like much of an elaboration.
So far as I can tell, Cathy O’Neil left finance before getting involved in Occupy Wall Street. The fact that she took a job at a hedge fund in the first place, and stayed there for a few years, suggests to me that she didn’t start out with overpowering political prejudices against finance in general or hedge funds in particular.
Does your personal acquaintance with her rule out the possibility that her political opinions are (at least in part) a consequence of her experience at D E Shaw rather than a cause, and if so how?
I’m 90% sure her opinions were the consequence of DE Shaw experiences. But it takes a certain personality to react by joining OW.
Yes, I’m sure it does. But wouldn’t that mean that her D E Shaw attitudes aren’t a result of her politics, but of some combination of her experiences at D E Shaw and whatever personality feature(s) predisposed her to react to them by joining OWS?
Thanks for the information. I added a link to your comment.