[jedberg]

> Do you have sources to back up the claim that these people left because of safety or ethical concerns?

No, none at all, that was my point. The departure of three execs in a week does not imply that it is a fast paced work environment nor does it imply safety issues.

[zaroth]

Except that we don’t need innuendo to imply Tesla is a fast-paced work environment. You can take Elon and every employees’ word for it. It’s an extremely fast paced work environment, and if auto executives from elsewhere in the industry were lasting for longer than the average tenure, you could argue it would be a cause for concern.

If you’re going to make a claim like Tesla is “playing fast and loose with the rules and compromising safety, and they felt ethically compelled to leave,” its beholden upon you to provide evidence.

If your claim is you have no idea, then you can certainly make that claim which requires no evidence at all.

[jedberg]

I never said they were playing fast and loose. I specifically said it’s a specious claim with as much backing as “they left because it was too fast paced”. We literally have no evidence for either claim as to the reason they left.

[zaroth]

I directly quoted you as saying “fast and loose”.

And we literally do have evidence of one of those things actually existing in the culture. Which tends to increase the plausibility of it being a cause.

The logical process of inductive reasoning uses specific examples of a behavior or event, to formulate more general hypothesis about wider phenomenon. To see specific examples of workplace culture and theorize that it could be resulting in greater executive turnover is a good example of inductive reasoning.

Making up a bad thing that you have zero evidence of happening and arguing it’s theoretically possible it could have been a cause of high executive turnover, therefore this other hypothesis should be dismissed... is simply not a reasoned argument.