Archivio per 14 febbraio 2014

14
Feb
14

Are people violent by nature? Probably.

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Do genes make us do it? The idea that human behavior is driven by genes makes many people uncomfortable, and nowhere is the dispute more bitter than when discussing the biological underpinnings of violence.

The war of ideas over violence and human nature has raged since the 1600s, when philosopher Thomas Hobbes first speculated that the “natural condition of mankind” was one of violence and conflict. In the 1700s, Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw things differently. Enthralled with accounts of the New World, he argued that civilization, not nature, shaped the human propensity for violence.

Social scientists have spent the last three centuries embroiled in debate over the degree to which human nature and culture are responsible for war.

In recent decades, biology has entered the fray. Since Jane Goodall first documented the disturbing reality that chimpanzee communities engage in lethal raids against other chimpanzees, evidence has been mounting in support of biological explanations for our species’ capacity for warfare. Over the last few years, scientists have converged on something of a consensus: The human propensity for lethal violence against “out-group” members has deep evolutionary roots.

See on latimes.com

Annunci
14
Feb
14

Are people violent by nature? Probably.

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Do genes make us do it? The idea that human behavior is driven by genes makes many people uncomfortable, and nowhere is the dispute more bitter than when discussing the biological underpinnings of violence.

The war of ideas over violence and human nature has raged since the 1600s, when philosopher Thomas Hobbes first speculated that the “natural condition of mankind” was one of violence and conflict. In the 1700s, Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw things differently. Enthralled with accounts of the New World, he argued that civilization, not nature, shaped the human propensity for violence.

Social scientists have spent the last three centuries embroiled in debate over the degree to which human nature and culture are responsible for war.

In recent decades, biology has entered the fray. Since Jane Goodall first documented the disturbing reality that chimpanzee communities engage in lethal raids against other chimpanzees, evidence has been mounting in support of biological explanations for our species’ capacity for warfare. Over the last few years, scientists have converged on something of a consensus: The human propensity for lethal violence against “out-group” members has deep evolutionary roots.

See on www.latimes.com

14
Feb
14

Intuition and Decisions

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Workplaces are shifting from task-oriented environments to requiring more complex problem-solving. The way that business leaders made decisions in the past is no longer a guide to making future decisions; adopting a multifaceted approach that goes beyond traditional reasoning alone is fast becoming a crucial business practice. Such complexity allows for creativity and a focus on the role of human intuition in the workplace.

No doubt, data analysis and past results remain crucial to drive business decisions. Yet following gut instinct — even with all of its inherent risks — has pushed many an organization to success. Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates was quoted as saying that one often has to rely on intuition. Albert Einstein also was a believer: “The only real valuable thing is intuition,” he once said.

But cultivating and maintaining a work environment that encourages intuitive thought can be a challenge. In a competitive market, when attracting and retaining a quality workforce is necessary to achieve better business results, fostering an environment that leads to increased intuition is essential. Rather than overanalyzing data, which can lead to second-guessing, changing direction or bogging down a project, intuition can push decision-making. 

What Is Intuition?

See on workforce.com

14
Feb
14

Intuition and Decisions

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Workplaces are shifting from task-oriented environments to requiring more complex problem-solving. The way that business leaders made decisions in the past is no longer a guide to making future decisions; adopting a multifaceted approach that goes beyond traditional reasoning alone is fast becoming a crucial business practice. Such complexity allows for creativity and a focus on the role of human intuition in the workplace.

No doubt, data analysis and past results remain crucial to drive business decisions. Yet following gut instinct — even with all of its inherent risks — has pushed many an organization to success. Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates was quoted as saying that one often has to rely on intuition. Albert Einstein also was a believer: “The only real valuable thing is intuition,” he once said.

But cultivating and maintaining a work environment that encourages intuitive thought can be a challenge. In a competitive market, when attracting and retaining a quality workforce is necessary to achieve better business results, fostering an environment that leads to increased intuition is essential. Rather than overanalyzing data, which can lead to second-guessing, changing direction or bogging down a project, intuition can push decision-making. 

What Is Intuition?

See on www.workforce.com

14
Feb
14

DAN ARIELY on : Loss Aversion and The Endowment Effect

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Loss aversion refers to the tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses rather than acquiring gains and some studies suggest that psychologically losses are twice as powerful as gains. Originally demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the late 1970’s, the idea of loss aversion has been further explored by behavioural economist Dan Ariely in his book, “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions”. In his book, Ariely gives many examples of research where many people will not take advantage of a significant material or financial gain if it means giving something up.

What does this mean in terms of modern organisations? Well, organisations are constantly adapting to fluctuating circumstances by changing their organisational structures and processes. Most organisational changes are accompanied by a good deal of personal and group angst and varying degrees of resistance to the change. The benefits to the organisation and individuals may seem obvious yet the initiatives are still met with resistance. Loss aversion helps us make sense of this.

For most people, change means giving something up to do something new. Giving the theories of loss aversion, the personal benefits have to be significantly greater than the perceived loss if someone is to embrace change whether at a personal or organisational level. This situation is compounded by the fact that most change processes are usually initiated in a context of little or no information about the change. The norm seems to be that change is rumoured before being confirmed. Given such situations, most people have the chance to think about what they might lose well before considering what might be gained. No wonder people generally do no embrace organisational change!

See on youtube.com

14
Feb
14

DAN ARIELY on : Loss Aversion and The Endowment Effect

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Loss aversion refers to the tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses rather than acquiring gains and some studies suggest that psychologically losses are twice as powerful as gains. Originally demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the late 1970’s, the idea of loss aversion has been further explored by behavioural economist Dan Ariely in his book, “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions”. In his book, Ariely gives many examples of research where many people will not take advantage of a significant material or financial gain if it means giving something up.

What does this mean in terms of modern organisations? Well, organisations are constantly adapting to fluctuating circumstances by changing their organisational structures and processes. Most organisational changes are accompanied by a good deal of personal and group angst and varying degrees of resistance to the change. The benefits to the organisation and individuals may seem obvious yet the initiatives are still met with resistance. Loss aversion helps us make sense of this.

For most people, change means giving something up to do something new. Giving the theories of loss aversion, the personal benefits have to be significantly greater than the perceived loss if someone is to embrace change whether at a personal or organisational level. This situation is compounded by the fact that most change processes are usually initiated in a context of little or no information about the change. The norm seems to be that change is rumoured before being confirmed. Given such situations, most people have the chance to think about what they might lose well before considering what might be gained. No wonder people generally do no embrace organisational change!

See on www.youtube.com




Time is real? I think not

febbraio: 2014
L M M G V S D
« Gen   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Commenti recenti

Lorenzo Bosio su Un testo che trascende le sue…

Inserisci il tuo indirizzo e-mail per iscriverti a questo blog e ricevere notifiche di nuovi messaggi per e-mail.

Segui assieme ad altri 1.159 follower

Latest Tweets

Annunci

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: