2 ms·

Cutting corners isn't necesarily about rule breaking in a disruptive way. It can be about not doing a proper job, ignoring safety constraints etc > If nobody k

by Nursie 6y ago

Cutting corners isn't necesarily about rule breaking in a disruptive way. It can be about not doing a proper job, ignoring safety constraints etc > If nobody knows of your success, you won't get very far. But you don't have to crow about it at family gatherings, social functions etc. The server at the diner doesn't need to know about your business win. You're looking at it through a lens of work-related self-promotion there. And even there, there are limits.

kstenerud 6y ago
I'm looking at it through the lens of semantic ambiguity, which is something that must be VERY carefully accounted for when building serious questionnaires for research purposes. Improperly formulated questions can invalidate your results if a significant enough percentage of your respondents are answering a different question from what you intended. And the worst part is that you won't even know what your error rate is, which makes it even more important to make your questions as airtight as possible beforehand, to the point of even doing a study of peoples understanding of the semantic meaning of the questions in the questionnaire itself. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you should have multiple versions of the questionnaire, and bin them for comparison to discover biases. But, as another commenter mentioned, there's a disclaimer about the questions at the end of the article.
- Nursie 6y ago
  It's not even stated as a questionnaire. While the statements themselves can be seen as ambiguous, if you look at them widely across all areas of life rather than specifically work/business then they make more sense. It casts light on how we are asked to act in a work context though. And perhaps on how much you see yourself as primarily in that context.
  - kstenerud 6y ago
    > It casts light on how we are asked to act in a work context though. And perhaps on how much you see yourself as primarily in that context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - Nursie 6y ago
      That would be an ad hominem if I was trying to say your argument was invalid because of who you are, I am not. Quite the opposite in fact, I was saying your words may shed light on your character, not the other way around.
      - kstenerud 6y ago
        Unless that's your professional opinion as a psychologist after examining me in person, you're engaging in speculation as a backhand attack against my character, in order to pre-emptively disarm any further contributions to the discussion (ad-hominem).

by Nursie 6y ago

kstenerud 6y ago

I'm looking at it through the lens of semantic ambiguity, which is something that must be VERY carefully accounted for when building serious questionnaires for research purposes. Improperly formulated questions can invalidate your results if a significant enough percentage of your respondents are answering a different question from what you intended. And the worst part is that you won't even know what your error rate is, which makes it even more important to make your questions as airtight as possible beforehand, to the point of even doing a study of peoples understanding of the semantic meaning of the questions in the questionnaire itself. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you should have multiple versions of the questionnaire, and bin them for comparison to discover biases. But, as another commenter mentioned, there's a disclaimer about the questions at the end of the article.

Nursie 6y ago
It's not even stated as a questionnaire. While the statements themselves can be seen as ambiguous, if you look at them widely across all areas of life rather than specifically work/business then they make more sense. It casts light on how we are asked to act in a work context though. And perhaps on how much you see yourself as primarily in that context.
- kstenerud 6y ago
  > It casts light on how we are asked to act in a work context though. And perhaps on how much you see yourself as primarily in that context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - Nursie 6y ago
    That would be an ad hominem if I was trying to say your argument was invalid because of who you are, I am not. Quite the opposite in fact, I was saying your words may shed light on your character, not the other way around.
    - kstenerud 6y ago
      Unless that's your professional opinion as a psychologist after examining me in person, you're engaging in speculation as a backhand attack against my character, in order to pre-emptively disarm any further contributions to the discussion (ad-hominem).