Hi, Russ, Eric, Nick, et al,
I hope you will humor me and carry out my request to help me get a clearer
sense of your exchanges. Below, I present a series of observations about a man
who is driving a car followed by a conclusion that one might draw. I am asking
each of you whether the conclusio
Oh, I like this game!
I admit all of the observations, though I might rephrase some of it a bit
if I were being really anal. Most obviously, instead of saying the man
"looks tense and frustrated" I might say something about his "frustration
being easily discernible." That would imply that his
There's an article in this weekend's issue of the NYTimes Sunday Magazine
about what Google has learned about how groups work and fail to work. One
of the test instruments used presents pictures of peoples' eyes and asks
what the people are feeling. Ah, the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test".
Why should less productive individuals enjoy “psychological safety” if they
aren’t essential to getting the job done?Perhaps so when they are let go,
they will be so surprised and disoriented they won’t act in an organized
aggressive fashion towards those that are essential and to management
John,
I don't think yours is a well formed question. All observations are
scientific, if they are in principle repeatable. Now, here we strike the
first problem because in point of fact, no observation is repeatable. (We
never step in the same stream twice, etc.) So, the only way we can
act
Great answer! However, it passes the buck to a new question. You seem to be implying
that the only things that are "scientifically meaningful" are the things that
_construct_ science. John's game doesn't (necessarily) involve the construction of
scientific meaning. I read it purely as _app
I suppose REC didn't include the link so as to avoid implicitly encouraging
others to read the article. I have no such scruples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
On 02/29/2016 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Why shou
Hi, Glen,
See larding below:
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, Februa
On 02/29/2016 03:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
[NST==>Glen. I started to write a long cranky note, claiming to disagree with
this, but then I realized that I didn’t understand it. Unless, you are arguing … is
this it? … that we can use a scientific abstraction to interpret an observation which
By all means, read the article, but it was the idea of reading feelings in
pictures of eyes that seemed apropos to the ongoing discussion.
I thought it was clear that Google already knew how to hire productive
individuals, the question was why they, reliably productive individuals,
made such unpre
“What type of prospective employee would sacrifice personal measures of
productivity for group measures?”
What I’m suggesting is that the group measures may not serve the group benefit.
By being sensitive to vulnerability and insensitive to competitive pressures,
the whole ship may be put a
This has moved so far beyond what I'm capable of thinking about that I'm
lost. (Although I thank Nick for crediting me with pointing out the
activity of the visual cortex. Good point -- even though it didn't occur to
me to refer to it.)
I'm still way back at a much simpler question. What do Nick a
REC ETC,
Hi Roger,
I see you floating on Boston Harbor, even though I know you aren’t there yet.
Let me know when you finally are, so I can feel less foolish.
Reading Minds through the eyes would be, in behavioral terms, just making good
use of the behavior that follows when you gi
13 matches
Mail list logo
