This could explain a lot....., page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 23-2-2009 @ 11:27 PM by Illusionsaregrander
From a recent article in Time magazine;

Bosses may be an overbearing breed, but more often than not, you've got to admire their business chops. Wouldn't you love to have that same sense of competence and confidence, that ability to assess tough problems and reach smart solutions on the fly? Guess what? So would they. If you have ever suspected that your boss isn't actually good enough at what he or she does to deserve the job in the first place, a new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that you might be right.


Full article here

Hmmmmm.... this really could explain a lot. According to the article, what really gets you leadership positions is being willing to say...well.. anything. Just speaking up and offering an opinion will do, there really is no need for you to be right at all. Or competent at all. Which is really disturbing. Not only that people who are incompetent dont seem to be aware of it, and offer opinions about things they know nothing about, but also that the average person doesnt seem to be able to tell the difference between bravado and competence.

Consider this from the same article;

"Dominant individuals behaved in ways that made them appear competent," the researchers write, "above and beyond their actual competence." Troublingly, group members seemed only too willing to follow these underqualified bosses. An overwhelming 94% of the time, the teams used the first answer anyone shouted out — often giving only perfunctory consideration to others that were offered.


94% of the time, the first answer given was the one implemented. Ack.




[edit on 23-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]


reply posted on 24-2-2009 @ 12:45 AM by Mr Headshot
See, I just dont understand. I'm starting my second year of college and it's so obvious that I will learn nothing that a good apprenticeship wouldn't have taught me.
Viktor Schauberger (bad wiki article but you'll get the picture) was a genius inventor and observer. He was a forest marshal (basically what I'm working towards) and he thought that university actually perverted the thinking of his two brothers, which is why he never attended college himself.

Sadly, in this country, if you want a job working in a national park you pretty much exclusively work for the national parks service which pretty much exclusively requires you to have a degree in some form or another pertaining to environmental science. It's a sad sad system we hath made for ourselves.


reply posted on 24-2-2009 @ 01:06 AM by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Ahabstar

And like most interviews, the question of what my college degree was. When I answered that I had no degree, you could see the interviewer mentally turn some pages and rush through their benefit packages to end the interview.



I agree with both of you on the issue of the value of a college degree in terms of intelligence. I am no more intelligent now than I was before I got my degree. I have been a self learner all my life, and I have learned more via my own independent study than I did in college.

In my opinion, college is simply a hoop to jump through. Half the people in my business classes cheated in some way. Either by getting the group to do their work, (we were graded as a group too, so we had no choice) or by buying papers etc. For them, that degree is as good an indication of what they know and how they can perform as any other piece of paper lying about their houses.

College is a way of locking some people out of certain jobs. Not making sure that only the best get them. If you are interested here is an interesting piece on medical school and why it is so expensive. It is basically a function of people in a profession protecting their own salaries by limiting entry to that profession. It has nothing to do with ensuring quality. Though that is the excuse used.

www.sjsu.edu...

Around 1900 there was a concerted effort on the part of physicians in the U.S. to restrict the supply of doctors; as they termed it, "To practice professional birth control." First campaigns were conducted in every state to require doctors to pass an examination in order to practice medicine in that state. That was easy for everyone to accept as reasonable. However it is one thing for the government to create a program of certification and yet another thing to create licensing. Certification provides consumers with information whereas licensing is always a vehicle for restricting supply. In the case of physicians it was then specified that in order to take the examination a candidate had to be a graduate of an accredited medical school. Somehow that deviated from the goal of requiring competency for medical practioners. But most would accept that as probably basically wise. Then came the clencher. Who was to be the accrediting agency for the the medical schools. The task was given to a committee of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA is basically the union for doctors, or perhaps more accurately the guild for the doctors.



[edit on 24-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Mainstream Media IGNORES Iceland Revolution
  Posted 7 days ago with 96 member flags
Paul says “Next Crisis will be More Destructive”
  Posted 19 days ago with 29 member flags
Nigel Farage: The EU Titanic Has Now Hit The Iceberg
  Posted 17 days ago with 26 member flags
Here Are The 5 Worst Places To Be When The Dollar Collapses
  Posted 3 days ago with 19 member flags
The Coming Canadian Housing Crash
  Posted 13 days ago with 18 member flags
What is *THE* domino you\'re waiting for, and why?
  Posted 7 days ago with 17 member flags
Greece bank run
  Posted 11 days ago with 15 member flags
Facebook insider sales are huge red flags
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags