Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

Started by Doktor Howl, March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LMNO

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 07:40:50 PM
Efficiency is always anti-social.

Depending on the scope of "social" and the goal of the task, in my view of things (which is not to ascribe my views to yours).



Sorry, I don't mean to be picking pedantic points with you, but this made me think of when I was in the recording studio last night.  In order to reach our goal (a 4-person collaboration to achieve an aesthetically pleasing song) in the shortest amount of time (because we were paying by the hour), it was completely necessary to be social among the group.

However, what we were doing as a group would generally be classified as anti-social, as we were cooped up in a warehouse for 6 hours rather than contributing to our marriages and relationships.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 07:40:50 PM
Efficiency is always anti-social.

Depending on the scope of "social" and the goal of the task, in my view of things (which is not to ascribe my views to yours).



Sorry, I don't mean to be picking pedantic points with you, but this made me think of when I was in the recording studio last night.  In order to reach our goal (a 4-person collaboration to achieve an aesthetically pleasing song) in the shortest amount of time (because we were paying by the hour), it was completely necessary to be social among the group.

However, what we were doing as a group would generally be classified as anti-social, as we were cooped up in a warehouse for 6 hours rather than contributing to our marriages and relationships.

Social is a pretty inclusive term.  It would include work, including the studio.

Let me ask you this:  Did you follow, for example, Robert's Rules of Order while banging around in the studio?  Or was there the regular amount of coffee-snagging, grab ass, and side chatter?
Molon Lube

LMNO

Hmm...

I'm gonna side track, I'm sure of it.  So let me know if this needs to be brought up in a different thread.


It seems to me that there may be a difference between an "aesthetic" goal and a "tangible" goal, in that traditional aspects of efficiency may not have the same results.

Shoving the guitarist in an isolation booth and telling him to get it done right, and get it done now, and show depth of emotion and really feel it, and do it in the next five minutes is likely to take much much longer than to be social, make him a comfortable monkey, and then hit record. 

So in this case, "efficiency" means not treating him like a robot.  You get a better product in a shorter amount of time.

Again, this is probably straying from your point.  We can split this from the thread.

Jenne

:mittens:  This has made me think, because, truly, I'm an idealist, and that is why I get hurt a lot.  I totally expect more out of the primates I live with and love, and so I get monkey-fucked, in a bad way.  :x

I will write more.  But I liked this, Horrible Troofiness though it was for me.   I need to hear stuff like this, even if I espouse it more often, I don't always act like it IRL.

LMNO

Another thought:

Humans act a certain way 99% of the time, and usually that way is depressingly counterproductive.



But some humans want to be in that 1%.  And there must be examples of when that 1% has been uplifting, gratifying, and useful.

Dok, will there eventually be an essay when these minority behaviors are discussed and perhaps even developed?

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:04:53 PM
Hmm...

I'm gonna side track, I'm sure of it.  So let me know if this needs to be brought up in a different thread.


It seems to me that there may be a difference between an "aesthetic" goal and a "tangible" goal, in that traditional aspects of efficiency may not have the same results.

Shoving the guitarist in an isolation booth and telling him to get it done right, and get it done now, and show depth of emotion and really feel it, and do it in the next five minutes is likely to take much much longer than to be social, make him a comfortable monkey, and then hit record. 

So in this case, "efficiency" means not treating him like a robot.  You get a better product in a shorter amount of time.

Again, this is probably straying from your point.  We can split this from the thread.

Naw, it's relevant.  However, I am using the former definition of efficiency.  The second method you mentioned I'd call being effective.  A sad fact is that most people view the terms as being the same thing.
Molon Lube

LMNO


Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:15:08 PM
Another thought:

Humans act a certain way 99% of the time, and usually that way is depressingly counterproductive.



But some humans want to be in that 1%.  And there must be examples of when that 1% has been uplifting, gratifying, and useful.

Dok, will there eventually be an essay when these minority behaviors are discussed and perhaps even developed?

1.  Precisely.  The trick is to fall into that 1% as often as possible.

2.  Yes, number 4, which will follow #2.

Mad Science isn't required to go in order.  In fact, it can't.
Molon Lube

LMNO


Doktor Howl

Molon Lube

Cramulus

there are companies out there who are really lax on the social issues. There's an animation studio in white plains that has "costume fridays" instead of "casual fridays". I also read about a company which has a "you don't need to ask permission" policy regarding modifying your cubicle, showing up late, taking breaks, using sick days, etc etc.. and apparently their productivity is really high.

So are there working systems out there? Is it possible to devise a system which balances social and efficient environments? What would an ideal system look like?

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 08:19:41 PM
there are companies out there who are really lax on the social issues. There's an animation studio in white plains that has "costume fridays" instead of "casual fridays". I also read about a company which has a "you don't need to ask permission" policy regarding modifying your cubicle, showing up late, taking breaks, using sick days, etc etc.. and apparently their productivity is really high.

So are there working systems out there? Is it possible to devise a system which balances social and efficient environments? What would an ideal system look like?

Yes, there are working systems out there.   As dysfunctional as my plant is, we have an enormous amount of leeway in how we conduct ourselves, run our departments, etc.  My department is the most effective, not because I spend all day scheduling things to be efficient, but because I don't go out of my way to stomp on morale.

People WANT to be effective.  Unfortunately, most managers, lead men, foreman, etc, view that as a threat.  While I am by no means the perfect boss, I do my best to avoid that mentality.

Example:  One of my electricians came up with a way to save us about $80K/year in vacuum blowers, and countless hours of down time.  I invited him to the weekly planning meeting, and let him pitch his idea...all I did was make the engineer shut up until Don was done talking.  The idea was brilliant, and Don looked like a genius.  Best part is, I looked like a genius manager, because I hired Don, and fostered an environment where he felt both allowed and encouraged to look at new, better ways to do things.  

The temptation is for a manager to either say "You aren't paid to think, get back to work", or to steal the credit.  Either way ensures that nobody will ever try to improve things, ever again.  But if you take off your blinders for ten minutes and actually LISTEN, the people that work for you will jump through hoops and be HAPPY.

And a happy human is an effective human.  99% of all problems at work and at home come from ignoring this fact.

Molon Lube

LMNO

The danger is, of course... There are some instances where it is bad to be a happy monkey.


But the value judgement of a process is different that what makes that process run smoothly.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 08:30:15 PM
The danger is, of course... There are some instances where it is bad to be a happy monkey.

Other than basic training in the military, I can think of no useful time to make people unhappy...provided we're talking about "happy" and not "complacent".
Molon Lube

LMNO

Hm.  I will hold my thoughts until I hear more UT essays.  It seems like I'm in need of more definitions.