4 ms·
Probably disagreeing over the meaning of hawk then.
by Moodles 8y ago
Probably disagreeing over the meaning of hawk then.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoI’m pretty sure we’re not. They can work very well together as long as they all see each other as competent.
- TuringTest 8y agoProbably. But knowing human condition, that arrangement seems particularly unstable. If there's no emotional bonding, any stumble in competence can throw trust off, and then things may spiral down very fast.
- dasmoth 8y agoI’m not convinced it requires empathy to recognise that the occasional stumble from someone with a solid track record doesn’t mean they’re not going to perform well again tomorrow.
- TuringTest 8y agoNo, but it erodes trust, and may start a quarrel. Then, without empathy it will be harder for people to deescalate tensions, or want to collaborate with someone they've had a confrontation with and are angry with.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThis particular group of people pretty much never fought about anything. They practiced a very extreme version of candor which prevented tension from developing to begin with.
- Moodles 8y agoNo, I think we're disagreeing. Look at the link I made in my original post. By definition, hawks are ones that don't get on well with each other.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThey’re just people who are aggressive and disagreeable. Those people are prone to conflict, but can actually get along very well in the right environment.
- Moodles 8y agoAs I said, we are just disagreeing on the definition of hawk.