chewyshine

So what's the best alternative?

Doesn't define the notion of a 'trait'. Most of the variables included in this analysis aren't traits in the psycho-social sense as an individual difference that's stable over time and situations.

And no treatment of the correlation among the variables. For instance, cognitive and education are almost certainly highly correlated.

Folks there's good science on the topic of conscientiousness and work performance. Numerous meta-analyses. I'm not a fan of personality assessments for decision making in the workplace. But I encourage you to at least familiarize yourself with a bit of the existing research base before sharing opinions and anecdotes. You sound kinda silly.

Found this...

/* * project-index.ts * * Copyright (C) 2020 by RStudio, PBC * */

As a funded research academic who's studied cognitive ability(ies) for 25+ years, there are too many wacky and mistaken statements in these comments. Intelligence (aka g or IQ) is one of the best researched constructs in social science. We know more about it than virtually any other concept in the people space. We know what it predicts, we know alot about group differences on the variable, and -- to the extent possible in any science -- we know that the group differences are real and not a result of systemic bias in the assessments. We know there's a strong genetic component and, of course, enriching experiences like education can increase it to some extent. We know it's relatively stable from 21 to 60 and, at the group level of analysis, it decreases as folks move from middle age to old age.

So, this is one of those areas I know way too much about and many of the comments seem wrong-headed. Makes me wonder how much faith I should put in comments on topics where I don't know as much.

Old school youtube...like letsdig18 and dirt perfect

Notice how there are no clear criteria for evaluation in this space? No math. No models. Just loose concepts strung together with words and sprinkled with calls to authority (e.g., Andy Grove) to add credibility. No evidence. No science.

As an organizational "scientist" it's amazing to me that organizations are ubiquitous and yet we know so little about how to construct good ones. Software design is in a better state IMO but not by much.

Here's a simple question that should be answerable in any approach to org design. What's the optimal *span of control* for management at each level in the organizational hierarchy? If you can't answer this question, you can't "design" an organization.

3 years in and Elixir still rocks!

Folks, there's so much cynicism here. If you want to learn and invest in yourself, do it! If you want to sit back and wait for your employer to invest in you, don't be surprised when it doesn't happen. Orgs need to make smart investment decisions. If you're not feeling supported it may be that the org doesn't view you as HiPo and that's clear feedback on your current value to the organization.

Maybe the lead made a mistake. Or, I hate to say it but...maybe OP isn't viewed as HiPo and worth the perceived investment. There's always another side to a story.

Unusually useless post. An aggregator that says little. Too bad.

Thanks. After hours of trouble it looks like they're finally getting around to updating status.

Mediation tests don't support causal inference. Sobel method is fine but rarely used now in the social sciences.