>After studying over 180 google teams they didn't find any evidence that the composition of the teams mattered (i.e. friends outside of work, male/female, introverts, extroverts, intelligence). Instead what they focused on were the “group norms” or unwritten rules of how the groups interacted with each other. There were two norms that were most important to a successful group.
>1) Members spoke in roughly the same proportion, what the researchers call, ‘‘equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’’
>2) Members all had “average social sensitivity”. They could understand how other team members felt based on non-verbal queues. The underperforming teams had low sensitivity amongst the team members.
I think this sort of thing can be applied to game groups.
This is pretty basic group composition stuff. Everyone has fun if they're all contributing and want the same thing out of the game, and if there isn't anyone with crippling autism.
Joseph Gray
or if there's this one guy/gal that gets offended by everything. or that one guy thats so fucking edgy he never heard the word fun or th- you know what yea i think just saying "crippling autism" covers it.
>Norms can be unspoken or openly acknowledged, but their influence is often profound. Team members may behave in certain ways as individuals — they may chafe against authority or prefer working independently — but when they gather, the group’s norms typically override individual proclivities and encourage deference to the team.
So norms are key? Don't the normies what to abolish social norms?
Christopher Foster
>Don't the normies what to abolish social norms? No, they just advocate a push for a different set of norms. They want to get rid of the "old order" as they (we are talking left-wingers of the "critical theory" and it's siblings) believe it's politically oppressive, but of course they need to establish their own set of normatives instead. Much like Marx himself wasn't advocating anarchy, he just advocated destruction of the old order in the process of creation of new one, modern day Marxist do very much the same.
Luke Hill
>low social sensitivity
What does this mean? Lack of human sentiment?
Dylan Jenkins
It means being a socially-retarded sperglord.
Eli Cook
...
Chase Hughes
>mention thing >people barely acknowledge it
Now, do you A) Pratter on about the thing endlessly, or B) move on to another topic, or let someone else speak?
Henry Clark
If low social sensitivity is missing hints like this, I guess that means high social sensitivity is finding hints everywhere--even where they don't exist?
Which one is more destructive to the game group?
Levi Martin
>I guess that means high social sensitivity is finding hints everywhere--even where they don't exist?
You guess wrong. High sensitivity would be picking up on really subtle things that most people wouldn't catch.
Josiah Hughes
That sounds like it might be a good thing. Gamers would benefit from greater social sensitivity?
Carter Powell
social gamers, like RPG ones, for sure. I think it's the basis of what is basically improv with dice.
Matthew Morales
>Gamers would benefit from greater social sensitivity?
I think that goes without saying. As in, we didn't need Google to tell us that. 90% of bad Veeky Forums related stuff could be fixed by either better communication, or better responsiveness to social cues. Take The Magical Realm, where the Whizzard is pushing his fetish into the game, oblivious to how the rest of the table is not cool with it. If he wasn't blind to the others' disapproval, it would make him feel bad and he'd quit it. This wouldn't work for arch-whizzards like Ed Greenwood, who allegedly gets off on seeing players squirm uncomfortably at the table, but the majority of these situations come about because someone didn't talk to someone, or someone isn't paying attention to the group's mood.
Carson Martinez
But wouldn't someone with lots of social sensitivity be more likely to get offended at random stuff?
Angel King
I think you're confusing different uses of the term "sensitivity."
Thomas Reyes
You know, a lot of the time the person who "gets offended by everything" is around a complete and total fucking asshole that has no idea how much of an asshole he's being. And that type of asshole is excessively common on Veeky Forums.
Brayden Reed
Yeah, I did an annotated bibliography on this shit for my LIS classes. It's pretty common sense, I think.
Colton Hernandez
It could, the problem is that chance of putting together group where everyone has “average social sensitivity” is extremely slim.
Samuel Lopez
We know we're being assholes, faggot. GTFO
Colton Walker
What it a man?
Juan Long
Common, except in corporations or academia, it seems...
Fuck, I couldn't stop laughing once I realized their big discovery was that people like to feel heard and empathized with and in control. >the plebs are actually HUMAN? My word!
Dominic Hernandez
a miserable pile of secrets
Kayden Mitchell
I don't think the big deal is that they "discovered" it, or even that it's a big discovery, as much as they seem to have set up an observable and testable theory for it. If you don't try and make Buzzfeed articles out of it (ZOMG! This Google Study Changes EVERYTHING You THOUGHT You Knew About Effective Group Dynamics!) like a pop-scientist that's at least kinda interesting.
Ryder Allen
The fact that we need to come up with a theory that tells us to treat people with respect speaks volumes about the current state of our species. Or, I should say our culture.
I also love how, at the end of the nytimes article, the study's lead researcher felt hurt by one of her subordinate's free comments - the boss asserts her authority (*all under the guise of her newly-minted 'theory') and forces the subordinate to recant. The lead researcher felt empowered by that exchange; I am sure her subordinate did not feel so empowered; and would, in future, not freely share his or her thoughts as he or she had previously. I was really struck by how the 'boss' who had made this group discovery merely used her new-found knowledge to assert her authority in the same old traditional way, and how the subordinate was required to rephrase their words. What would the lead researcher's response have been if the roles had been reversed? Would the boss rephrase the comment? Or would the boss simply have said: get over yourself? Will this 'newfound' knowledge mean MORE respect in the workplace for subordinates; or will it be simply another tool to force people into line?
tl;dr - the powers that be discover that people like respect; but instead of giving actual respect they merely demand it from their subordinates.
Parker Watson
I think you will find the definition specified "Flat broad nails"
Brayden Campbell
>The fact that we need to come up with a theory that tells us to treat people with respect speaks volumes about the current state of our species. Or, I should say our culture. Or volumes about how the sciences work, you fatalist fucking mong. You're supposed to come up with theories to substantiate everything, even assumed things, because that's how the scientific theory is designed to operate. You're insufferable.
Benjamin Rogers
>social sciences >science Pick one, asshat.
Evan Jones
To add to this, you can think someone is being stupid or annoying, without being offended in the pearl-clutching, "this needs to be censored" sense.
To bring it back to Veeky Forums more specifically: see Lamentations of the Flame Princess' more edgy modules.
Jason Wood
Neutral third-party observer here:
Quality rebuttal.
Hudson Sanders
DAE feel superior as part of le STEM master race?
Adam Taylor
>what the fuck is this, this ought to be common sense. The Man is so stupid, it takes them a study to figure out most people like respect? >no, they're just scientists. Studying seemingly-obvious things is kind of what they do-- >I can't believe society has degenerated so much, seriously, how much longer are the proles going to kowtow to this? We deserve respect! >no, see, they were just gathering evidence that could support... >IMPLYING SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE SCIENTIFIC I don't know what the fuck you want from me. Jesus Christ, you're a child.
Brandon Jones
So, let everyone take their turn talking and don't be an insensitive dickhead? This should be basic shit, but I've been in enough gaming groups to know that it really isn't.
Camden Smith
Oh, right, thanks for pointing it out. Apparently, those are also called "roofing nails" these days.
Jose Carter
Yes, but do you know where we'll find the emptiness?
Connor Lee
>happiness is found in telling people who stupid they are
The worst part is, he was absolutely correct.
Austin Sanders
Most of the times its people being irrationally offended by harmless and normal things like nationality based jokes.
James Johnson
>jewyork times
Charles Young
What's this? Diversity lacks substance?
James Cooper
Depends on the context. "Barely acknowledging" has a small chance to mean "polite silence so you can continue." Most of the time it won't, but you need to keep an eye out.
However, I'm going to assume that wasn't what you meant.
Why not pick C) Ask straight up if they don't find thing interesting. Either they'll say no,, or they don't know because they have no idea what you're talking about, or they'll start talking about how it relates to them.
Jaxon Martinez
>Someone sends her an email that says "ouch" and she freaks out Wait what? How could that possibly be considered offensive?
Isaiah Reyes
Goddamn do I hate this movement. I don't want to participate, or give my opinion. I want to put nose to grindstone and do work assigned to me, and now I'll never have it.
Kayden Nelson
Wrong kind of sensitivity.
Think Social Awareness, not Social Vulnerablility, if that makes sense.
Thomas Hall
1. Citation needed 2. >Google teams That might as well be fucking kindergarten 3. >180 teams >representative 4. I highly doubt the number of women didn't affect "average social sensitivity". That's why I want to see the results for myself. Clickbait articles tend to have conclusions that vastly differ from the actual results of the study.
So unless I see cold and hard evidence, I still stand by my conviction that women poison the well.
Jason Turner
>Wait what? How could that possibly be considered offensive? Did you read the sentence immediately following that one, or were you just skimming the article looking for things to get outraged about?
>I was already upset about making this mistake, and this note totally played on my insecurities.
It wasn't "offensive"; it bothered her because she was insecure about making mistakes in front of team members.
Jordan Gonzalez
180 as a figure doesn't really help, they should list the number of cells and the member count of the cells. 180 10 man cells is probably enough for a small study.
Jason Hernandez
>when you don't have time to read the thread but you still need to post a comment
Tyler Torres
>So unless I see cold and hard evidence, I still stand by my conviction that women poison the well.
Trolling, or for real? Because that's sad if it's real.
Christopher Lee
Why is the black guy the only one smoking.
Oliver Gutierrez
Pipes are normally only smoked by one person at a time. It would probably be awkward if all four of them were trying to use it at once.
Colton Turner
It's a still photograph.
Carson Lopez
MRA dogwhistle thread.
Ian James
Because he's like "fuck this, If I get some time off I'm gonna relax, ya'll have fun with this bullshit"
Cooper Gutierrez
You guys are looking at this the wrong way I think. What was interesting and important to me isn't that the study found that the key to having a productive group is respect and some basic level of social skills (which is completely fucking obvious), it's that the other factors they looked at really didn't matter. >dogwhistle I'm really starting to get sick of that term. I'm not denying it has legitimate uses but all too often it seems like it gets used as a sort of rhetorical philosopher's stone that transmutes the meaning of what someone says to whatever the hell you want it to mean.
