3 ms·
The book maybe is garbage, but it makes people think about others feelings and goals in meetings. This is already much more than an average person does walkin
by zibzab 5y ago
The book maybe is garbage, but it makes people think about others feelings and goals in meetings.
This is already much more than an average person does walking into a social situation.
- krsdcbl 5y agobut if it leads them on to thinking about said feelings and goals in terms of dogmatic preconceptions, i doubt that it leads to much useful insight. Rather it will get used for easy dismissal of other peoples standing point or need to think too much about own behaviour, grounded on the illusion of understanding patterns that "make them" be like that.
- yxwvut 5y agoThis is just the “religion might all be made up but it gives people comfort/morality so we shouldn’t look too closely” argument in another form. A useful lie eventual causes side effects (eg: in this case, causing managers to base career trajectories around bunk personality categories).
- arbitrage 5y agoYou can start your meeting with an agenda and achieve the same effect. What you are describing is an institutional problem requiring an institutional solution: the people organising meetings need better training on what it is they're trying to accomplish. Update your meeting invites with an agenda. No agenda? No meeting. It's pretty straightforward, and you don't have to assign people into 16 or 81 pseudo categories to trick them into paying attention to a meeting that didn't need to happen in the first place.
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoSo do any other attempts to label and "systemize" people. Talk about Hogwarts Houses, or astrology. But we know the latter two are fiction, right? Right?