*Smack my head* we needed a long study to show what kids, parents, the swashbucklers and Nords already new? Comradery and being nice meens a sold and fun place to be at? lol sigh.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > Slightly relevant, I think: > > http://qz.com/625870/after-years-of-intensive-analysis- > google-discovers-the-key-to-good-teamwork-is-being-nice/? > utm_source=kwfb&kwp_0=256037 > > Frank Wimberly > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Oct 26, 2016 7:33 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve, >> >> >> I think it is a false dichotomy. A healthy collective improves the >> lives of its members, not just a few of them. A large collective (like >> our nation) will have a larger set of objectives to optimize at once. A >> liberal, like me, will argue for throwing the collective resources at those >> harder problems. >> >> A Libertarian will essentially argue for treating the system as a set of >> smaller systems and limiting the complexity of the problem, especially if >> that means no other problems but their own. A conservative will point to >> historical optimization problems that have local optima and claim the >> contemporary optimization is already done if people would just get with the >> program. >> >> >> Folks like Jeff Bezos can just decide they are going to pursue space >> travel, and do what is necessary to make it happen. There's not >> friction in each and every decision. An individual may make mistakes, >> but their internal planning will be relatively fast and coherent. >> >> >> Two other points: >> >> >> 1) Obviously, groups can be exclusionary. The `greater good' can mean >> "amongst Amazon shareholders or customers". >> >> >> 2) Productivity is the ratio of output to input cost. If Bezos drives >> the inputs down through robotics, drones, machine learning, etc. he doesn't >> have to care about how humans happen to interact with one another. This >> has always been the appeal of computers to me, really -- a force >> multiplier. I don't want to delegate to other information workers, I want >> the computer to do it for me while also being able to understand every >> nuance if I want to. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Steven A Smith < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 6:31:35 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers >> Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute >> >> I am fascinated by this general area of consideration... the struggle >> between individual and collective. This study doesn't seem to tell us >> much we didn't already know... for example, that it is easy to craft a >> flawed experiment where what you thought you were optimizing (metabolic >> egg production) is only part of the story and a secondary trait >> (aggression) was being selected for unintentionally. Any of us who >> have lived or worked in a "collective" environment (or read a Dilbert >> Cartoon?) have experienced this. >> >> I was *once* a raging individualist/Libertarian who wanted to believe >> that the prime unit of survival was the individual, followed by the >> nuclear family, followed by the clan, etc.! As I have aged, two things >> have overcome some of that: 1) I'm getting old and in (more) need of the >> support of others, there are fewer and fewer things I can (or want to?) >> do for myself (alone); 2) I've lived a life where I've experienced a >> range of ways of being and I see how happy some people are *because* >> they are part of a healthy collective (not as i had imagined in the >> past, *in spite of* it!) >> >> This is naturally pretty anecdotal and roughly a sample of one, but >> since it is *my* experience, I believe in it's relevance and veracity. >> While we might have a wide spread of natures, experiences and conditions >> on this list, I would propose that many here have a bit of both >> tendencies... high enough, individualistic abilities and interests to >> become technologists (or choose the technological realm to conduct your >> work), but also enough social skills/tolerance/preference to function >> within one kind of institution or another. We all have our stereotypes >> about academia or government or industry to judge that one kind of >> institution or the other is "better" or "worse" than the others about >> this, but my experience is that they are more similar than different by >> most measures. >> >> I raised my daughters to have a strong element of my individuality/loner >> mentality and I feel (because I'm a doting father) that for the most >> part I succeeded. I also gave them enough exposure (acute example: >> Public School System) to "systems" that would demand out of and train >> them for a certain amount of compliance. I didn't do this because I >> was afraid they would fail or starve if they weren't socialized, I did >> it because despite some of my own feral tendencies, I believe that we >> are herd/pack/tribe animals and for the most part ARE happier in one >> kind of milieu or another. One is a PhD Virologist who is well >> ensconced in the systems of bioresearch in the US (often to her chagrin) >> but has the individualism to pursue grants on her own, to work long >> hours on hard problems virtually nobody else can even talk to her about >> ,etc. The other has broken out of a string of administrative assistant >> jobs over 1.5 decades to start her own cross-fit gym and paleo-nutrition >> consultancy. This requires equal amounts of individual >> ability/motivation and herd instinct (else she wouldn't have adopted the >> CrossFit(tm) brand and the Paleo appelation)... >> >> I now only work in *very* small teams, roughly 1-3, and usually where I >> am either in charge of the work scope/strategy or I am the eager support >> for a singular individual whose abilities I signficantly defer to. At >> LANL, I lead teams up to 6-8 in contexts of up to 30 or more on the same >> larger "project" and it was always a stressor for me. I didn't enjoy >> deciding "what is best" for that many other people, even when their >> instincts/affect and the organizational model entirely supported me in >> that. So my tenure in those roles was usually limited and always >> self-terminated when I got too mired in those feelings (3-7 years). >> >> I deeply appreciate those who are good "outliers" on this spectrum... >> those individualists who really can "pull it off" every time... the >> protaganists of Robert A. Heinlein's novels, etc. And on the other >> end, I really respect those who manage to put themselves almost entirely >> subservient to a system and yet maintain significant personal volition >> and creativity. If I could live my life again, with what I know, I >> would probably attempt to apprehend that full spectrum and find ways to >> engage all the way across it throughout my life. >> >> It might seem like a total non-sequitor, but I just listened to Terry >> Gross interview Leonard Cohen about his new album: "You Want it Darker" >> and his experience of living as a Monk in a Zen Monastery for years. I >> think the example he represents in the extrema of writing his own >> poems/songs quite uniquely and seemingly in isolation to mixing it up >> both "on Boogie Street" as one song references, but also in the Monastery. >> >> Mumble, Ramble off >> >> On 10/26/16 1:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> > Any organization needs a reason to stay together. Reasons like profit >> or safety. Many organizations don't have profit sharing or the profit >> sharing doesn't amount to much, and is not a big motivator. On the other >> extreme are organizations like nations or gangs that provide protection >> from the `other'. In the middle is where most of us live, and >> organizations try to appeal to us by exaggerating the significance of the >> reward they can offer or the punishment they can impose. >> > >> > Overall, I think managing individuals is often about undermining >> individuals. Making the organization robust to perturbation of a given >> set of employees without asking why it is that employees would be so >> inclined to cause a perturbation. Also, it is expensive to invest in >> career development, and I argue the trend toward building teams is in part >> just a cost saving measure. A `team' is just code for a preference (by >> management) for particular personality trait -- extraversion. People that >> feel energized or just reassured by the presence of others as opposed to >> those people that may find the ongoing needs of others a drain and a >> distraction on their attention. >> > >> > If one can select such a set of people that don't expect intellectually >> challenging work, or a greater purpose (intrinsic motivation) for what they >> do, or ongoing escalations in salary or bonuses, isn't that just perfect >> for the people at the top? The value of the team for this sort of team >> member _is_ the team. There's no grand idea that makes them get up in >> the morning (or fail to), they just want to be around their friends. So >> long as the members of the team are adequately competent, the work of the >> organization will continue, if perhaps not in a Elon Musk / Steve Jobs sort >> of fabulous way and life will go on. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected] >> <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of ?glen? >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:21 PM >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers >> Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute >> > >> > I particularly liked this part: >> > >> >> Attributed to the once technical director of Real Madrid, Arrigo >> Sacchi, is an insightful quote on this recruitment model “Today’s football >> [soccer] is about managing the characteristics of individuals…The >> individual has trumped the collective. But it’s a sign of weakness. It’s >> reactive, not proactive”. It seems that Sacchi saw in soccer the same thing >> that Muir discovered in his experiments 12 years earlier; teams constructed >> to function as a collective are the ones that will enhance the qualities of >> the individuals within it and prosper. >> > >> > >> > On 10/26/2016 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite >> >> Bleeding heart liberal: >> >> >> >> https://evolution-institute.org/article/memo-to-jeff-bezos-the-most-pr >> >> oducti >> >> ve-workers-are-team-players-not-selfish-individualists/?source=tvol >> > >> > -- >> > ␦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 >> > >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> > > ============================================================ > 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
