From time to time, someone I know asks me an ordinary and reasonable question: "What's your iChat (or Skype) ID?" My usual reply is to give them the information along with a big disclaimer: I'm almost never logged in. In fact, let me be completely honest and say I thoroughly dislike instant messaging (IM) except in a few specific situations. For months, I've been thinking about why this is - both the technological and psychological aspects - along with whether it somehow exposes a fundamental character flaw, and whether it's something I should attempt to change. Having experimented with a variety of approaches to instant messaging (as well as its close relative Twitter) and having done a considerable amount of introspection, I'm inclined to think that my personality type is fundamentally ill-suited to instant messaging.
Pongámonos en situación: Un tren descontrolado avanza a toda velocidad por una vía ferroviaria. Si no hacemos nada, arrollará a su paso a un grupo de 10 personas, causándoles a todos una muerte segura. Por suerte, tenemos la opción de actuar: si movemos la palanca del cambio de vía que tenemos a nuestros pies, el tren se derivará por una vía lateral. Lamentablemente, en esa vía lateral hay un autobús con 2 personas que también morirán irremediablemente si el tren les pasa por encima.
¿Qué decisión tomar? Si no hacemos nada, 10 personas morirán con toda seguridad. Si actuamos, 2 personas perderán la vida a cambio de salvar a las otras 10 de su destino fatal. La de desviar el tren es una acción que debe ser meditada, pero, ¿es correcta moralmente?
Well, I can't ask Virginia Satir [1],
but I've learned one of her communications models that serves me well.
I've never read her original work, so what I know is the simplified,
second-hand version. Even so, it works for me, and it could work for
you.
In this model, there are four fundamental steps to going from
stimulus to response: intake, meaning, significance, then response. Now
we all know that all models are simplifications, and therefore
incomplete; but this model is complete enough to do wonders. When I see
communication go wrong, Virginia's model usually helps get it back on
the rails.
The Four Types of Employee By and large, there are four archetypes of people in companies: magicians, warriors, sovereigns, and lovers. You can easily define them using the Jungian framework introduced by psychologist Robert Moore and mythologist Douglas Gillette.Magicians. They are the rational yet imaginative souls in your organization. They think a new idea or insight is the only thing that can move the world. In truth, they're obsessed by ideas. Their answer to feeding the troops is to pull a rabbit out of a hat. These types of people think a mere argument over an idea equals action.• Lovers. For them, everything comes down to human relations. They're pragmatic but emotional. They focus on building the winning coalition. They are obsessed not by ideas but by feelings. They consider agreement an action.
• Sovereigns. They are the emotional and imaginative types. They focus on the big picture and judge everything on whether it leads to where they want to go. They redefine what people consider is possible. They are obsessed by beliefs. And they consider direction a form of action.
• Warriors. They are rational and pragmatic. They're focused on the next battle and can only see clearly what's directly in front of them. They hold people accountable to systems and the fairness of those systems. They're obsessed by facts. For them, action is finding the critical factor to get something immediately accomplished.
Kahneman's article (with Jonathan Renshon) "Why Hawks Win" was published in Foreign Policy (January/February 2007); Kahneman points out that the answer may lie deep in the human mind. People have dozens of decision-making biases, and almost all favor conflict rather than concession. The article takes a look at why the tough guys win more than they should. Publication came during the run up to Davis, and the article became a focus of numerous discussions and related articles.
The event was an unqualified success. As one of the attendees later wrote: "Even with the perspective a few weeks, I can still think it is one of the all time best conferences that I have ever attended."
Over a period of two days, Kahneman presided over six sessions lasting about eight hours. The entire event was videotaped as an archive. Edge is pleased to present a sampling from the event consisting of streaming video of the first 10-15 minutes of each session along with the related verbatim transcripts.
