Categories
2014 November

Interesting Quote

I feel this is where RO is weak.
the company’s needs come first and then you optimize for the employee.

While it’s clear the structure of work must be designed to get results, there is a lot of flexibility that RO doesn’t have because it ignores personality/talent/attitude, etc.

Take a look at the 1981 summary from Graves, look particularly at A’N’ (yellow) and see what he says about organizational use of human resources (my words)…

I’ll attach it also in another thread because I promised Mark I would send it to confirm my A = need, and N = neurobiology “lesson” hehe.

The interesting idea about Bennis quote was the introduction of “implicit” genetic factors and leadership has railed at this during the rein of ER-ORANGE and particularly now with FS-GREEN.

This is also the reason why I am “sensitive” (if that’s possible;) to the radical construction ideas where they do NOT explicitly state anything about the subconscious, rather than making assumptions without noting the implicit ground of BS that we live within, both in science and religion (ER and DQ)…

So, my delusions come from the “ground” of BS and not the ground of other things (@F-L-O-W) being one.

If someone doesn’t state that things are largely sub, or nonconscious, then the assumption is implicit @BS, that people can do this stuff with consciousness because anyone can be, do, have, become or contribute anything.

At least I got that bug out of my head, hehe.

mike

 

3 replies on “Interesting Quote”

“If someone doesn’t state that things are largely sub, or nonconscious, then the assumption is implicit @BS, that people can do this stuff with consciousness because anyone can be, do, have, become or contribute anything.”

If you say so, Mike.

yea, that’s my delusion, I own it, hence why I am concerned that “assuming” the implicit nature of something probably is a toss-up, even though we do it, and have to do it, in view of other data, and our own biases…

but in context, I was explaining “my” delusion, not stating a truth, as it might appear from the re-contextualization;)

my idea (bug in my head) was I kept wondering why I was so sensitive to things I read without the nod to differentiating that a lot of what we do is not “conscious” cognition (if I might say), but sub, or nonconscious, so that it doesn’t appear as if “anyone can, or will”…

I think that comes from people who can (1-5%) and then the projection of that to the remainder of folks, who are just lazy, uneducated, etc…vs. not having innate equality…

and of course, that makes me dive into my biggest sensations around the ideas @BS…which are projected onto an “ignorant” and “naive” population by the elite in many cases, not all, but most…

the conundrum is that there is a reason for this disparity and the elites do raise the tide, so there is the argument that is factual, and of course the Moscow couch where it was discussed that “I didn’t do that”…becomes a “lost” item of logic in most…

I think it’s all complex, and trying to understand, unwind it to the point of bifurcation where we “parsed” incorrectly is probably something I find either a good idea or nonconsciously addictive…anaphoric, I think is the process I’ve fallen into…

in any case, saying such is neither necessary or sufficient, in this case;)

mike

Comments are closed.