Hace tiempo que no publicaba un cuento, y creo que este es bueno para estas fechas en las que descansamos, disfrutamos y retomamos perspectivas tras la vorágine del año que se acaba. Dedicado con cariño a quienes sospechan que valen más de lo que les reconocen:
Un padre, antes de morir, le dijo a su hijo: «Este es un reloj que tu abuelo me dio. Tiene más de 200 años, pero antes de que te lo entregue a ti, te pido ir a la tienda de empeños, y decirle que quieres venderlo y veas lo mucho que vale».
El hijo se fue, y luego regresó con su padre, y dijo: “El de la tienda paga 5 € porque es viejo”.
El padre respondió: «Ve a la cafetería«. Cuando el hijo regresó, dijo: «pagan 5€, padre».
«Ahora ve al museo y muestra ese reloj». Se fue, luego regresó, y le dijo a su padre: «Me ofrecieron un millón de euros por esta pieza».
El padre dijo: «Quería hacerte saber que en el lugar correcto sabrán tu VALOR de una manera correcta. Quien sabe tu valor es quien te aprecia.
No te pongas en el lugar equivocado, no te enojes si no te valoran, y no te quedes en un lugar así. ¡Valórate y haz que te valoren!«
Añado una cita relacionada, que me resultó serendipituosa (*) y resonante (**):
«Why try so hard to fit in, when you were born to stand out?»– Dr. Seuss
¡Os deseo felices fiestas y un año nuevo valioso y valiente!
(*) Serendipity = algo que descubres de manera inesperada, no intencionada y afortunada
(**) Resonante = una idea, concepto o experiencia que conecta con significados profundos o aspectos esenciales en una persona
Great interview and great book «The Meaning Revolution: The Power of Transcendent Leadership» by Fred Kofman.
A few ideas:
People equate leadership with formal authority. They confuse leading with bossing. Bossing is to use formal authority, rewards and punishments, to get people to do your bidding. Leading is eliciting their internal commitment to pursue the mission. Leadership has nothing to do with formal authority; it has everything to do with moral authority.
Material incentives – salary and benefits – account for perhaps 15% of employees’ motivation at work. The other 85% is driven by a need to belong, a feeling that what we do day in and day out makes a difference.
According to Kofman, transcendent leaders inspire followers not by relying on carrots and sticks (offering a nice salary, bonus, and tangible perks, or threatening them with demotion or the loss of their job) but by appealing to the belief that they are spending their waking time making a difference in the world.
Transformative leaders don’t just achieve phenomenal business success. Transformative leaders do something greater. They help organizations, people and cultures experience deep, lasting meaning and purpose from the work and outcomes they produce. These leaders foster a culture that nurtures in people the ability to feel they are contributing at the highest level towards something that is making a true difference in the world.
As a father-boss, for example, I want my children to do their homework before they play. My strategy is to threaten to take away their phones if I see them using them before their work is done. I add a carrot to the stick, promising that when they finish their homework they’ll get ice cream. By contrast, as a father-leader, I don’t just want my children to do their homework. I want my children to want to do it. I want them to do it because they want to do it, not because I forced them to do it.
It’s a long process that requires that the leader “dies” (as an ego) while still alive (as a soulful being). All of the barriers to transcendent leadership arise from ego. Think of ego as the part of your psyche that is constantly preoccupied with self-worth and status.
I suggest you to read the whole interview (there are more interesting ideas) by Kathy Caprino at Forbes.
It is one of the most solid and useful psycological concepts used in order to predict success and performance, not only regarding academy, but also at work and in life.
So if you really want to have a good basis to understand intelligence, here is a great lecture by Jordan Peterson. He tells us many interesting scientific studies regarding this polemic issue.
If you work of have an interest in human performance you cannot miss it. Give yourself some time for this free lecture and you’ll feel more intelligent after it! 😉
What is and what is not intelligence?
Why is it important?
What is its structure? Are there many independent intelligences or is there a common G factor?
How can we measure intelligence?
What are the 2 main predictors of success?
How does it relate to the Big Five personality traits?
Why later and more fashionable theories like «emotional intelligence», «multiple intelligences», etc. are questionable to say the least?
Can we improve intelligence through training?
What are the most suitable jobs for different levels of intelligence?
If you want a broader overview on psycology, you may also be interested in this post: Revolución en la psicología
As much as I admire Peterson, I must also suggest other models of intelligence. A short summary (source Wikipedia):
Fluid and crystallized intelligence
According to the theory published in 1971 by the psychologist Raymond Cattell,[1][2]general intelligence (g) is subdivided into fluid intelligence (gf) and crystallized intelligence (gc). Fluid intelligence is the ability to solve novel reasoning problems and is correlated with a number of important skills such as comprehension, problem solving, and learning.[3] Crystallized intelligence on the other hand is the ability to deduce secondary relational abstractions by applying primary relational abstractions to each other.[4]
Carroll’s three stratum theory
The three-stratum theory is a theory of cognitive ability proposed by the American psychologistJohn Carroll in 1993.[1][2] It is based on a factor-analytic study of the correlation of individual-difference variables from data such as psychological tests, school marks and competence ratings. These analyses suggested a three-layered model where each layer accounts for the variations in the correlations within the previous layer.
The three layers (strata) are defined as representing narrow, broad, and general cognitive ability. The factors describe stable and observable differences among individuals in the performance of tasks. Carroll argues further that they are not mere artifacts of a mathematical process, but likely reflect physiological factors explaining differences in ability (e.g., nerve firing rates). This does not alter the effectiveness of factor scores in accounting for behavioral differences.
By Tim bates – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24564663
Cattell–Horn–Carroll
The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory is an integration of two previously established theoretical models of intelligence: the Gf-Gc theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence (Cattell, 1941; Horn 1965), and Carroll’s three-stratum theory (1993), a hierarchical, three-stratum model of intelligence.
Today, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory is considered by some to be the most comprehensive and empirically supported theory of cognitive abilities, informing a substantial body of research and the ongoing development of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests.[4]
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc): includes the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one’s knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
Fluid reasoning (Gf): includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
Quantitative knowledge (Gq): is the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.[22]
Reading & Writing Ability (Grw): includes basic reading and writing skills.
Short-Term Memory (Gsm): is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds.
Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr): is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
Visual Processing (Gv): is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
Auditory Processing (Ga): is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.[22]
Processing Speed (Gs): is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt): reflects the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes).
McGrew proposes a number of extensions to CHC theory, including Domain-specific knowledge (Gkn), Psychomotor ability (Gp), and Psychomotor speed (Gps). In addition, additional sensory processing abilities are proposed, including tactile (Gh), kinesthetic (Gk), and olfactory (Go).[1]
Bastante off-topic pero muy divertido y gamberro para la guerra de sexos. Sólo para personas con sentido del humor políticamente incorrecto.
Hace tiempo encontré esta desternillante clasificación de las mujeres y cómo actuar con cada uno de los tipos resultantes. Tengo amigas a las que les ha parecido divertido y a otras misógino. ¿Qué opinas?
Desde el punto de vista de presentaciones en público, está claro que no le hace falta un ppt para llegar a su público. Conecta con un público concreto (hombres que no entienden a las mujeres), tiene un objetivo claro (evitarles líos con las mujeres peligrosas), utiliza el humor, la sátira y la sorpresa, expone un modelo conceptual sencillo (reduccionista) y que encaja con estereotipos preexistentes, y la comunica con claridad, secuencia, estructura, y concisión.
Al final del video también explica su versión sobre los hombres, para más escarnio. En respuesta, desde las mujeres disconformes con el vídeo original, tenemos esta otra clasificación de los hombres, igualmente satírica aunque menos original.
No hay palabras para describir a esta chica, pero sí números. Yo opino que ella es un 9-9. 😉
Otro video muy (más) divertido sobre hombres y mujeres, y que tras años sigue teniendo visitas regularmente es:
Another great speech by Simon Sinek, about why it is important to select leaders not only based on performance, but also on trust, and his experience working for the army.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dyADuYfbg
We’ve already enjoyed Simon’s talks in other posts:
Un padre, antes de morir, le dijo a su hijo: «Este es un reloj que tu abuelo me dio. Tiene más de 200 años, pero antes de que te lo entregue a ti, te pido ir a la tienda de empeños, y decirle que quieres venderlo y veas lo mucho que vale».
