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 give another person full eye contact to predict that person’s future behavior. I was interested most in the following: the question was why they, reliably productive individuals, made such unpredictably productive teams, In Dave Wilson’s book, UNTO OTHERS, there is a wonderful story done by a poultry researcher on production in crated chickens. The tradition way to get a good crate of chickens was to breed individual chickens for productivity. That got you a crate of nine chickens that had to be debeaked to keep them from killing each other and, even so, were always at each other. So the researchers decided to breed for crates, rather than for chickens. Aggression backed off, the chickens didn’t need to debeaked, and crate production rose. I always thought MBA’s were like chickens. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:35 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?) 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 unpredictably productive teams, and the answer was that teams with people who can't read minds through the eyes become dysfunctional. And if you google "reading the mind through the eyes" you'll find that the bibliographies are all about diagnosing autism and aspergers, but that's another article, one that probably gets even creepier. -- rec -- On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:12 PM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote: 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 should less productive individuals enjoy “psychological safety” if they aren’t essential to getting the job done? I think the answer to this is because it's not a zero-sum game (or... they don't think it's zero sum). What is lost by ensuring psychological safety for the less productive, or even the negative productive, is more than (not ≥, but >) compensated for by the benefits. Individually, of course, we all have to decide how much we'll indulge our coworkers' prattling on about useless junk, damaging our individual sense of fulfillment. What type of prospective employee would sacrifice personal measures of productivity for group measures? -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
