Comment

Comment by Michel on June 25, 2012 at 10:15am

Well, some of those failures must have seriously hurt their perpetrators - the face landings. The demolished building rolling on the neighborhood is pretty funny too.

Comment by Adriana on June 25, 2012 at 9:36am

It is funny, as long as nobody got seriously hurt, especially the children. Some adults in that video were acting so dumb, they deserved to get hurt. My favorite was the cat attacking the skater

Comment by Marianne on June 24, 2012 at 11:13pm

I thought it was kind of funny....

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on June 24, 2012 at 10:52pm

That's funny. My favorite is when the guy gets kicked by the horse.

Comment by Michel on June 24, 2012 at 7:29pm

A troubling demonstration of risk assessment failure.
Watching this video might induce phantom pain =)

 

Comment by Don on June 24, 2012 at 3:48pm

Sorry, but to my mind this trend is nothing but weird.

"Has Pubic Hair in America Gone Extinct?"

Comment by doone on June 24, 2012 at 8:39am

THE FALSE ALLURE OF GROUP SELECTION

Steven Pinker in Edge:

Human beings live in groups, are affected by the fortunes of their groups, and sometimes make sacrifices that benefit their groups. Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin? If so, does the theory of natural selection have to be revamped to designate "groups" as units of selection, analogous to the role played in the theory by genes? Several scientists whom I greatly respect have said so in prominent places. And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition.[i] They have claimed that human morailty, particularly our willingness to engage in acts of altruism, can be explained as an adaptation to group-against-group competition. As E. O. Wilson explains, "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals." They have proposed that group selection can explain the mystery of religion, because a shared belief in supernatural beings can foster group cohesion. They suggest that evolution has equipped humans to solve tragedies of the commons (also known as collective action dilemmas and public goods games), in which actions that benefit the individual may harm the community; familiar examples include overfishing, highway congestion, tax evasion, and carbon emissions. And they have drawn normative moral and political conclusions from these scientific beliefs, such as that we should recognize the wisdom behind conservative values, like religiosity, patriotism, and puritanism, and that we should valorize a communitarian loyalty and sacrifice for the good of the group over an every-man-for-himself individualism.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 08:33 AM | Permalink 

Comment by doone on June 23, 2012 at 11:33am

Hire Introverts

By SUSAN CAIN

“Hire good people and leave them alone.”

So declared William McKnight, who was 3M’s unassuming CEO during the 1930s and ’40s, and who encouraged employees to spend 15 percent of their time noodling on their own pet projects. (The policy survives to this day at 3M, and gave birth to the Post-it note, among other innovations.)

McKnight’s philosophy anticipated one of the most intriguing breakthroughs in recent leadership theory. According to a team of researchers led by the Wharton management professor Adam Grant, introverted leaders typically deliver better outcomes than extroverts, because they’re more likely to let proactive employees run with their ideas. Extroverted leaders, who like to be at the center of attention, may feel threatened by employees who take too much initiative (but do outperform introverts when managing less proactive workers who rely on their leader for inspiration).

Grant’s research echoes other findings on the power of introverts. They’re persistent—give them a difficult puzzle to solve, and they’ll analyze it before diving in, then work at it diligently. (“It’s not that I’m so smart,” said Einstein. “It’s that I stay with problems longer.”) And they’re careful risk-takers: less likely to get into car accidents, participate in extreme sports—or place outsize financial bets. (Warren Buffett is a self-described introvert who attributes his success to his temperament.)

Introverts are also comfortable with solitude—a crucial spur to creativity. When the psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist studied the lives of the most-creative people across a variety of fields, they almost always found visionaries who were introverted enough to spend large chunks of time alone.

Management literature is full of advice for introverted leaders on how to be more extroverted, says Grant: Smile more! Practice your public speaking! But extroverts might take a page from their introverted peers, too—by hiring good people and leaving them alone.

Comment by doone on June 20, 2012 at 6:03am

WHEN MEN ARE LESS MORAL THAN WOMEN

From Scientific American:

What do Barry Bonds, Bernie Madoff, and James Murdoch have in common? They were all, in their respective areas, in it to win it – whatever the cost. Their appetite for success apparently disabled the moral compass that would have otherwise kept their dishonesty, greed, and hubris in check. The magnitude of these highly publicized ethical infractions may lead one to wonder whether folks like Barry, Bernie, and Jimmy were absent the day their kindergarten teachers talked about lying, cheating, and stealing. Recent research, however, suggests that ethical violations are somewhat predictable, that in fact there are specific circumstances, contexts, and individual characteristics that beckon us away from the moral high road.

One of the most notable risk factors for ethical laxity is one that all of the above offenders share: Being a man. A number of studies demonstrate that men have lower moral standards than women, at least in competitive contexts. For example, men are more likely than women to minimize the consequences of moral misconduct, to adopt ethically questionable tactics in strategic endeavors, and to engage in greater deceit. This pattern is particularly pronounced in arenas in which success has (at least historically) been viewed as a sign of male vigor and competence, and where loss signifies weakness, impotence, or cowardice (e.g., a business negotiation or a chess match). When men must use strategy or cunning to prove or defend their masculinity, they are willing to compromise moral standards to assert dominance.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 05:55 AM | Permalink 

Comment by doone on June 19, 2012 at 8:05am

Why? This is Why, He writes without facts about the Why of the Way He Thinks.

Because reproductive success is the ultimate goal of all living organisms, so intelligent women are more likely to go against such evolutionary design. My theory would also predict that intelligent men should be less likely to become parents, but data do not confirm that. Some suggest that women prefer to have children with more intelligent men, but the data contradict this too. Men’s income or education has no effect on their likelihood of becoming parents. Intelligence doesn’t allow us to do better what we are designed by evolution to do. Saint Exupery writes; “Voici mon secret.  Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur.  L’essential est invisible pour les yeux.”

Suggested reading: “Le Petit Prince” by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1943)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 77
• Next ›
• Page