chewyshine

So what's the best alternative?

44W is a type of steel (https://www.terranovasteel.com/structural)

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.

Judea Pearl is tough going for me. I've never met him but he comes across as arrogant and condescending through his writing. I also find his writing very tough to follow. Even so, his Do-calculus is a valuable perspective on causal inference. Dawid is my go to source for clear exposition of causal concepts. Hard to find a clearer thinker and better writer in this area.

It's probably too late to contribute meaningfully to this conversation. But look at the tone of many of these comments. So many "know it alls." So many strong opinions about the right way to hire and work with developers. Owners and execs often don't want to deal with the jaded baggage that comes with experience. Many owners/execs want to have a person integrate with the existing work flows rather than having to repeatedly justify a workflow to a person who thinks he or she knows a better way to do things. Not saying it's right or wrong, it just is. It also probably violates the uniform guidelines on employee selection.

Just an abstract. Limited or no peer review so be careful. Here's the text.

Background: Chemopreventive effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer (CRC) has been reported, but there are indications that effects of aspirin are not limited to the colon or rectum. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term use of low-dose aspirin at 80mg for other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Method: A territory-wide dataset which includes all patients admitted to public hospitals of Hong Kong were used to extract a cohort between 2000 and 2004 with long-term use of aspirin and matched against non-aspirin users in 1:2 ratio. Further matching on survival time with duration of aspirin prescribed for at least 6 months was conducted to avoid immortal bias. Patients' outcomes were documented for up to 14 years until 2013. Changes in cancer incidences on colon/rectum, liver, oesophagus, pancreas and stomach were the primary outcomes. Cancer related mortalities were the secondary outcomes. Odds ratio (OR) was used to measure the cancer incidence, and Sub-distribution Hazard Ratio (SHR) for competing risk mortality was fitted to adjust for other cause-ofdeath. Results: A total of 618,884 subjects were included; 206,295 aspirin users with average aspirin prescribed for 7.7 years were matched with 412,589 non-aspirin users. The mean ages of patients in aspirin and non-aspirin group were 67.5 years and 67.6 years respectively. The median dose of aspirin prescribed was 80mg, and inter-quartile range was from 80 mg to 100 mg. A total of 18,500 (2.99%) cases of CRC, 9,433 (1.52%) of hepatic cancer, 2,658 (0.43%) of oesophageal cancer, 2,796 (0.45%) of pancreatic cancer, and 5,877 (0.95%) of gastric cancer were observed. Long term used of low-dose aspirin showed significant reduction on cancer incidences for CRC (OR:0.76, 95% CI:0.73-0.78), hepatic cancer (OR:0.53, 95% CI:0.51-0.56), oesophageal cancer (OR:0.53, 95% CI:0.49-0.59), pancreatic cancer (OR:0.66, 95% CI:0.60-0.71), and gastric cancer (OR:0.62, 95% CI:0.58-0.65). Long term used of low-dose aspirin also showed significant reduction on mortality from GI cancers (Table 1). Conclusion: Long-term use of low-dose aspirin, at 80mg, significantly reduced both incidence and mortality from colorectal, hepatic, oesophageal, pancreatic and gastric cancers.

This was fun and all but it doesn't apply to modern academics. Now, if you 'disregard' you won't get grants and you won't be in academics long enough to make a contribute. Fun but irrelevant today.

This is exactly on point. Current "AI" is pattern matching without the notion of cause or object. There is no understanding or representation.

Baawaahhh!!!!

Wonderful. Thank you for sharing this. We spend so much time talking about the working conditions (open office, lighting, HVAC, etc...). The people and the work matter so much more.

Sure. Search for "structured interview meta-analysis validity" and you'll find a slew of the research on this topic.

It would be interesting to see if all 3 predictors of performance held up in a simultaneous regression. Most likely, the predictors are highly intercorrelated. If so, then only one or none would be significantly related to interview performance in a multiple regression analysis.

If the interviews are "structured", the correlation between interview performance and job performance is probably around .3 based on meta-analyses of research findings. If the interviews are "unstructured", the correlation will be within sampling error of zero.

Top school is probably serving as a proxy for intelligence in this analysis...a well known predictor of both interview and actual job performance.

So many amazing ideas were produced in 1955 & 1956.

Interesting. Most of the "trends" have made similar lists for years (e.g., teams). However, #8 on working together with a greater sense of purpose seems to capture the current zeitgeist pretty well.

Why is everything so big?! Does this make it more important? I swear, simple bar graphs have exploded into the Michelin man in recent years. What gives?