Your relative incompetence doesn’t make me a better person.
I’ve become bored of people trying to take credit for other people’s achievements and attempting to apply other people’s success to their personal resumes.
Here’s how things work in a Meritocracy… The better people get the better stuff. The worse people get the worse stuff.
Period. Continue reading “Relative Personal Value [Loser Society]”
The only way you can know where you stand is to compete against the best.
Proverbs 27:17 says “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”
A lot of people have no idea who they are because they don’t have enough life experience to have figured out who they are. Continue reading “Lack of Experience [Loser Society]”
I’m not offering you psychological safety. I’m offering you acceptance for your stupidity.
Inc.com just published an article about Google studying successful team traits. What they came up with was:
2. Structure and clarity
5. Psychological Safety
The first four are clear, but I found #5 interesting:
We’ve all been in meetings and, due to the fear of seeming incompetent, have held back questions or ideas. I get it. It’s unnerving to feel like you’re in an environment where everything you do or say is under a microscope.
But imagine a different setting. A situation in which everyone is safe to take risks, voice their opinions, and ask judgment-free questions. A culture where managers provide air cover and create safe zones so employees can let down their guard. That’s psychological safety.
I know, not the quantitative data that you were hoping for. However, Google found that teams with psychologically safe environments had employees who were less likely to leave, more likely to harness the power of diversity, and ultimately, who were more successful.
Obviously, I’m not Google, and I don’t give a flying **** about team-building.
However.. I’m not offering you psychological safety. I’m offering you acceptance for your stupidity. Continue reading “Psychological Safety”
If you remove losers from your society, guess what, *YOU* become the new losers.
According to Wikipedia, this is the definition of Separatism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism
A common definition of separatism is that it is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group. While it often refers to full political secession, separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy. While some critics[who?] may equate separatism with religious segregation, racist segregation, or sexist segregation, most separatists[who?] argue that separation by choice is not the same as government-enforced segregation and may serve useful purposes. There is some academic debate about this definition, and in particular how it relates to secessionism, as has been discussed online.
Separatist groups practice a form of identity politics, “political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups”. Such groups believe attempts at integration with dominant groups compromise their identity and ability to pursue greater self-determination. However, economic and political factors usually are critical in creating strong separatist movements as opposed to less ambitious identity movements.
In short, separatists of any brand, white, black, lesbianic, whatever, are seeking an environment where only they exist, like Williamsburg.
Here’s the problem…
If you live in a society when you would rather live in a different society, you are a loser. Continue reading “Mediocracy / The Overarching Psychological Failure Of Separatism”
You may as well have asked me how I was going to respond if Ryu threw a fireball at me.
James Comey testified today.
If you’re interested in the transcript, here it is: James Comey Testimony Transcript
I thought that this interaction was particularly interesting:
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Now, here’s the question, you’re big. You’re strong. I know the oval office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn’t you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you.
JAMES COMEY: It’s a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind — because I could remember every word he said — I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That’s why I carefully chose the words. Look, I’ve seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I remember saying, “I agree he is a good guy,” as a way of saying, I’m not agreeing with what you asked me to do. Again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance, but that’s how I conducted myself myself. I hope I’ll never have another opportunity. Maybe if I did it again, I’d do it better.
What I thought was interesting about that is that it combines the elements of what you said, what you did, what you thought, how you felt, and what you meant into one complex situation. Continue reading “Communicating Effectively During Shocking Situations [The Comey Hearings]”