PDA

View Full Version : Skillsets: we're not all equal, so wouldn't it be wise to collaborate?



Dennis Leahy
13th November 2013, 18:56
I love to say anyone can sing and anyone can dance, even though my singing is barely adequate and my dancing is comically atrocious. But, I still like to say it. It is the antithesis of the notion that we are born with "gifts", innate talents, and we were either born with them or not.

The truth is, some people do have a "tin ear" and some people do have "two left feet." With study and practice, they might be able to become adequate at singing and dancing, but maybe they really can't. Others display a profound skill level - some at a very early age - that appears to go along with the "nature" not "nurture" concept, because the skill is displayed at such a high level and seemingly without rigorous practice.

If someone is young, I think the encouragement that they can "do whatever they want - the sky's the limit" is good psychology, to allow the person to feel free to try anything and everything that seems interesting.

However, by the time someone has matured, and in a cooperative society, it is advantageous to know your own skillset: both what you are good at, and what you are not good at. Why? Well, remember, I said "in a cooperative society", so I'm not talking about someone working on desired skills in a solo/private setting, I'm talking about cooperative efforts.

If a group of people have a common goal, it would be wise to figure out who has what skillset, and collaborate toward the goal - rather than allowing anyone to "micromanage" aspects they simply want to, rather than what their skillset is suited for.

So far, you may be thinking, "OK Captain Obvious, where's the insight?" Well, it hit me that in the world of "alternative thinkers" and activists, we do frequently forget the obvious. Someone comes forward with [something] (could be an idea, could be whistleblower information, could be a declaration of the truth, etc.)... and many people fully expect that one person to immediately and instinctively know all related aspects of the subject material as well as be a strategist that understands how to best utilize the material, as well as a masterful organizer and communicator. In the real world, there is no one capable of handling every aspect of anything complex better than a collaborative effort of individuals with varying skillsets.

Edward Snowden is a whistleblower and Glenn Greenwald is a reporter - they came together in a collaborative effort. As important as they are, neither (in my opinion) is a strategist. So, the NSA spying material may have provided even more impact if a strategist would have been a part of the collaborative team.

Russell Brand spoke some truth in a public setting, and was immediately attacked because he didn't have a strategist's or an organizer's skillset.

Now I see Karen Hudes - an extremely important whistleblower - being asked to ALSO figure out what to do with the whistleblower information - she is being thrust into the additional role of strategist. I don't think that is fair to ask of her, or wisest for us all collectively.

I think that those of us that could be considered as a part of a group of "alternative thinkers" and activists should not assume that a person coming forward with something of value also has extra skillsets beyond whatever it was that brought them to our attention. And for those on the other side of the equation (the person with an important new idea, a whistleblower, a public truth-teller, etc.), keep in mind that the material may be best served by forming a collaboration with trusted, knowledgeable, like-minded people.

Dennis

Mike
13th November 2013, 19:31
so true.

when John Lennon was stumping for peace, he made it very clear that he did not have a "plan". he was simply saying "give peace a chance". he was just asking us to consider it. he too was visited by obnoxious pundits during his "bed in" events, who frequently declared him "naïve" and "ignorant" for offering up utopiaian ideals without the blueprint.

here's the deal: those that are passionately pushing for change - and I mean *real* change - are generally visionaries, eccentrics, artists, or are members of the so called "alternative community". they have a vested interest in change as things are not going well for them at the moment. but they don't have a mind for politics. and those that do have a mind for politics, and know government and all her peccadillos, are generally myopic and not very creative; and the ones that are in a position of real power are too busy juggling the special interests of the corporate entities that got them there to make any real difference. and they have no real interest in change, as things are going quite well for them. the system is arranged this way on *purpose*. (Karen Hudes was just saying something similar, about the misguidedness of separating the various disciplines of law, economics, psychology etc...as it perverts any real chance of cohesion. very rarely do we get the individual that is schooled in all disciplines, and furthermore, is able to apply them. I think Bill Ryan is one such individual)

still, having said all that, I agree that it is not fair to expect everyone with a revolutionary idea to be a revolutionary strategist. it's very typical of cabal-puppet-pundits to shoot an idea down on this basis, as it generally renders the idea man/woman speechless...unless of course they possess a very rare x factor: wit. wit and humor (see: Brand interview) it confounds these "straights" and renders them powerless. when the question of strategy/the "plan" comes up, the interviewer generally thinks he is asking a very clever close-ended question, as even he must know what a ridiculous question it must be; so when the tables are turned on him in a humorous way he is caught off guard, and the momentum of power shifts from interviewer to interviewee. this is what stood out to me in the Brand interview, and also in many of the old J.Lennon bed in-events.

in other words, we won't win by speaking their language. we will win by rendering it powerless.

Mike
13th November 2013, 19:36
oh, and it's great to see you back posting Dennis!;)

Bubu
14th November 2013, 04:43
To put it simply “COOPERATION” But before it can happen first there should be an agreement. Words are simply not enough to put humanity in agreement it takes more than that. we have to use gut feeling say intuition or the gate way to higher portal “ Pineal Gland” maybe.

I always believe that cooperation is the way to go and that the powers that be also believe in it so that they do everything to divide us. See all those craps that promotes competition. How could there be an agreement (requisite to cooperation) if our normal (corrupted) reaction is competition. And then there is also this cosmic influence like sunburst etc I do not know exactly but I feel strongly there is something that influences everyone simultaneously. And this of course is receive via our “Pineal” (maybe not sure , but I am sure that there is some kind of receptor in us. So is this the reason our pineal is targeted to render us unreceptive to this cosmic message thus we/ most of us are lost, rendering us unable to do an unspoken coordinated effort.
Your message is clear simple and understandable.

example

If thinking outside the box is popular then I am one of those who think outside the house, my threads will attest to this. Sugar is good etc. Couple this with a very poor capability to express, thus this makes me unpopular. Criticize for saying something I believe which unfortunately out of someone’s imagination. So I may need someone to relay my message in a manner that is easy to understand by others. I will need the cooperative spirit. You see I am not like you I failed miserably in communication. “Cooperation vs competition” and “Skill set” are two different titles with same essence. But you see you get many thanks than I do.;)

Cooperation and how to get people to cooperate is a subject I have long played in my mind I have always thought this is the shortest route to evolution. My threads will attest to this.

My conclusion; Start with myself

Welcome back.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Well anyway I just realized that you are doing exactly just that.

"So I may need someone to relay my message in a manner that is easy to understand by others"

grannyfranny100
14th November 2013, 08:00
Currently learning one's skill sets is hampered by assumptions in parenting. For instance trophies are given to all sport team participants to avoid a kid feeling less than exceptional. Kids then continue in a sport for the trophy even when they stink at that game. They expect such rewards in everything in their lives rather than moving on to a different activity which may help them discover a skill set.

For example a quick transcontinental trip made it quick clear that a niece was not meant to be an exceptional soccer player and the following year, she went on to be very good at cross country running. She learned something about her skill sets from that experience.

The same thing happens with the pressure that teachers feel to give out too any "A's." Kids grow up with too little understanding of their own skill sets. A grand daughter was given too many "A"s on her report card. A national test showed much lower ratings on some areas. When the teacher was approached, she explained she gave her lots of "A"s to inspire her. What the grand daughter needed was the national test to get her to see were she excelled and where she needed to focus to get up to par. Today's kids are being given many false illusions.

Society's standards create a bunch of kids who strut around with a sense of bravado that is a determent to cooperation. Look at the idiot news talking heads. They think they are experts rather than teleprompter readers.

Dennis I entirely agree that we need more cooperation but we are not raising our kids to effectively participate in such a society.

mosquito
14th November 2013, 10:17
Listening, real listening is one of my prime skills, which is why I'm sitting here staring at the wall trying to think of something to say ! And the truth is - it isn't necessary to have to always say something, but being online, simply nodding and smiling doesn't work !

This does need to be said though - having Dennis back here posting adds a feeling of extra warmth and intelligent focus to the forum.

gripreaper
19th November 2013, 04:34
Now I see Karen Hudes - an extremely important whistleblower - being asked to ALSO figure out what to do with the whistleblower information - she is being thrust into the additional role of strategist. I don't think that is fair to ask of her, or wisest for us all collectively.

And this is why I recommended that Karen Hudes work with Rod Class. Take a look at what Rod submitted into his DC case against the Prosecuting Attorney in The District Of Columbia, you know that ten square mile territory which is a territory unto itself which houses the corporatocracy?! Karen is an attorney, she knows the ins and outs. Its time to go after the fraudsters...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/awctpx4z381iass/11.10.13%20Rod%20Class%20Request%20For%20Show%20Ca use%20Hearing.doc

Robin
19th November 2013, 05:48
Very nice thread, Dennis. I have always likened the structure of society to a biological cell:

http://www.rocklin.k12.ca.us/staff/pmorrison/biology/unit2cells/AngelaBassalCellasaSchool.jpg

I agree that we need specialists in given areas to collaborate with one another. But I would also argue that having many generalists, or polymaths, are just as much so.

Either way, I think that it is critically important for every individual to focus on what they have training and expertise in. But without good communication skills, an expert is pretty much unproductive towards society. By being awake and aware while having some knowledge of what your colleagues specialize in, we can come together and accomplish much.

But I think that overall a society would be much better off if everybody was good at many things opposed to very good at one thing. What else can an individual turn to if the only thing they know is taken from them? ;)

Dennis Leahy
19th November 2013, 07:24
...I think that overall a society would be much better off if everybody was good at many things opposed to very good at one thing. What else can an individual turn to if the only thing they know is taken from them? ;)

Here's the gist of what I was saying:

"If a group of people have a common goal, it would be wise to figure out who has what skillset, and collaborate toward the goal - rather than allowing anyone to "micromanage" aspects they simply want to, rather than what their skillset is suited for."I agree with and practice what you're preaching. Think of the concept of "homesteading." You don't want one neighbor who is the only expert in canning, another who only knows how to grow root crops, another who could design and build a chicken coop but not much else... So, yes, it is good to learn many things, and not to just be a specialist (on whom others depend, and to be dependent on the skills of others for everyday life.)

I'm thinking in terms of members of the "alternative" community trying to move a project forward. An example is Wade Frazier, who is a comprehensivist, and yet, he went to another person (Ilie) for help with his website. Wade is outrageously bright, and could have just decided to spend a few intensive days trying to learn some specific subset of what Ilie has learned over the course of the last 20 years...or, Wade could be smart, collaborate with someone with that skillset, and move forward quickly with the project.

The specific example that prompted me to start the thread was Karen Hudes being asked (or feeling like she must work alone) to take the data she has gleaned (whistleblower data) and to single-handedly move forward with figuring out the best thing to do with the data and how to proceed. Kimberley mentioned that Karen has been trying for 6 years to get the info out, and only in the last months has hit the alternate airwaves. She also is advocating a process involving US state governors, as if they are not just as corrupt as and beholden to the Elite behind the curtain. That tells me that she would have moved forward much more rapidly - and likely with a more "impactful" (I know, that's not a real word) trajectory had she collaborated with the right person or group (carefully chosen for their skillset and integrity.)

It is only my personal guess that the route going through governors is not going to work, so I used it in the above example. I certainly do not have the skillset to collaborate with Karen, but would listen to someone like Ted/gripreaper who has already (exhaustively), intelligently examined, interacted with, and pursued the path that Karen is proposing to embark upon - with (what I think is) an offshoot of her gleaned data from World Bank fraud and corruption.

Even though I agree that, in life, it is good to be a generalist, collaborative teamwork can exponentially speed a project - and there are many problems in this world that demand the fastest possible solution. Collaboration - harnessing the intellects of several individuals - can also produce better outcomes.

Dennis