Read More »
In the June issue of Industrial Hygiene and Safety News there is an editorial that presents an interesting confluence of personality, cognition, and safety. This is a special issue on the oil and gas industry and the editorial focuses on the culture of the shale oil industry, which is a remarkable parallel to the gold rush of yore (as well as the real estate boom of the 2000s, but I am still too sensitive about that one to talk about it).
In September, 2014, The Atlantic magazine published a lengthy piece on the Bakken and “the sacrifices Americans endure to find decent work.” It’s the same old story. Mostly young, restless, dissatisfied individuals take stock of their situation and make personal risk assessments.
I was really intrigued by this article in the Ideas section of the Boston Sunday Globe. It talks about the interaction between a robot’s projected personality and user acceptance. One of the things I really like about the Globe’s Idea section is that they cover the original research pretty well. Unlike some other media outlets that I have ranted about recently.
Smart machines need the right “personality” to work well—and experts are finding the best choice may not always be what we think we want.
Romance is a great domain to investigate self-delusion because it is so personal. And since on-line dating sites are still incredibly popular and contain so much data, we can mine it for many insights. And thanks to Chris McKinlay, we have PhD quality evidence. Some of his best conclusions are visualized here. But before I get myself into a lot of hot water by being politically incorrect, let me first say that these insights also apply to lots of other situations…
There often seems to be a false dichotomy between experts who conceptualize expert performance as an innate attribute emerging from cognitive abilities and personality versus experts who conceptualize it as the result of deliberative practice. Scott Barry Kaufman has recently published a brilliant opinion piece in Frontiers in Psychology where he takes issue with this. In contrast, he describes expert performance as:
A complex interaction of many personal and environmental variables that feed off each other in non-linear, mutually reinforcing, and nuanced ways…