About the synthetic validity, a universal system to predict people, the patent is pending for that, and it will take about another three years to build the database to make it a commercial product. If you take a look my CV, you will see I did get my doctorate from University of Minnesota, ranked worldwide as one of the top Universities for psychology (it was number one when I got accepted, but dropped to number three when I left - not my fault). I have devised several new statistical analyses, including a nifty new Bayesian technique for variance estimation.
Also, synthetic validity isn't that hard to understand, though our University media department did spin it a bit with that "Rambo" reference. You are simply using job analysis information to predict validity coefficients (i.e., correlations between performance and predictors). My work on weighted least squares multiple regression really provided the key to making this work. Consequently, once you describe the job, you know who to hire.
I am impressed with the quality of comments on this site, but it is always annoying to hear views from people who believe they can definitively review 30 pages of science, published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed social science journal (Psychological Bulletin), based upon a half-page news column somewhere and 12 seconds of thought. I bring up that it is prestigious just to indicate perhaps other people aren't quite as stupid as you portray. To clarify some sloppy thinking I am reading, the study is a mathematical compliation of ALL research done on the topic. ALL research on the topic consistently shows three major outcomes, procrastinators tend to be:
i) Less confident in their abilities ii) Like what they are putting off more iii) Tend to more impuslive, more distractible, and surrounded by more distractions
The biggest of these is the last, impusliveness. You can be a procrastinator with that trait alone (again, you can be confident in your abilities and procrastinate, it is just a contributing factor). How to explain this? Hmm, well in another article "Integrating Theories of Motivation", published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed management journal (Academy of Management Review), I show consilience (I am a big E.O. Wilson fan) among several streams of thought, that we are verging on a common understanding of human nature, which in a very simplified form (appropriate for a news program) can be understood as E x V/(Gamma x Delay. Of course, the academic article has the freedom to go into this for dozens of pages. If you serious about this at all, please read it.
So, so far, any reader has two choices, believe:
i) The negative comments of a few habitual malcontents is right OR ii) The collective work of several fields, including neuroscience, psychology, and economics is right. Remember, these were REVIEW articles. In other words, you are really are criticizing science as a whole.
Really, you should be holding yourself to higher intellectual standards than this.
I am impressed with the quality of comments on this site, but it is always annoying to hear comments from people who believe they can definitively review 30 pages of science, published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed social science journal ((Psychological Bulletin), based upon a half-page news column somewhere and 12 seconds of thought.
To clarify some sloppy thinking I am reading, the study is a mathematical compliation of ALL research done on the topic. ALL research on the topic consistently shows three major outcomes, procrastinators tend to be:
i) Less confident in their abilities
ii) Like what they are putting off more
iii) Tend to more impuslive, more distractible, and surrounded by more distractions
How to explain this? Hmm, well in another article "Integrating Theories of Motivation", published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed management journal (Academy of Management Review), I show consilience among several streams of thought, that we are verging on a common understanding of human nature, which in a very simplified form (appropriate for a news program) can be understood as E x V/(Gamma x Delay. Of course, the academic article has the freedom to go into this for dozens of pages. If you serious about this at all, please read it.
So, so far, any reader has two choices, believe:
i) The negative comments of a few habitual malcontents is right OR
ii) The collective work of several fields, including neuroscience, psychology, and economics is right
Really, you should be holding yourself to higher intellectual standards than this.
Piers Steel
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Toby.
About the synthetic validity, a universal system to predict people, the patent is pending for that, and it will take about another three years to build the database to make it a commercial product. If you take a look my CV, you will see I did get my doctorate from University of Minnesota, ranked worldwide as one of the top Universities for psychology (it was number one when I got accepted, but dropped to number three when I left - not my fault). I have devised several new statistical analyses, including a nifty new Bayesian technique for variance estimation.
Also, synthetic validity isn't that hard to understand, though our University media department did spin it a bit with that "Rambo" reference. You are simply using job analysis information to predict validity coefficients (i.e., correlations between performance and predictors). My work on weighted least squares multiple regression really provided the key to making this work. Consequently, once you describe the job, you know who to hire.
Sincerely,
Piers Steel
I am impressed with the quality of comments on this site, but it is always annoying to hear views from people who believe they can definitively review 30 pages of science, published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed social science journal (Psychological Bulletin), based upon a half-page news column somewhere and 12 seconds of thought. I bring up that it is prestigious just to indicate perhaps other people aren't quite as stupid as you portray. To clarify some sloppy thinking I am reading, the study is a mathematical compliation of ALL research done on the topic. ALL research on the topic consistently shows three major outcomes, procrastinators tend to be:
i) Less confident in their abilities
ii) Like what they are putting off more
iii) Tend to more impuslive, more distractible, and surrounded by more distractions
The biggest of these is the last, impusliveness. You can be a procrastinator with that trait alone (again, you can be confident in your abilities and procrastinate, it is just a contributing factor). How to explain this? Hmm, well in another article "Integrating Theories of Motivation", published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed management journal (Academy of Management Review), I show consilience (I am a big E.O. Wilson fan) among several streams of thought, that we are verging on a common understanding of human nature, which in a very simplified form (appropriate for a news program) can be understood as E x V/(Gamma x Delay. Of course, the academic article has the freedom to go into this for dozens of pages. If you serious about this at all, please read it.
So, so far, any reader has two choices, believe:
i) The negative comments of a few habitual malcontents is right OR
ii) The collective work of several fields, including neuroscience, psychology, and economics is right. Remember, these were REVIEW articles. In other words, you are really are criticizing science as a whole.
Really, you should be holding yourself to higher intellectual standards than this.
Piers Steel
I am impressed with the quality of comments on this site, but it is always annoying to hear comments from people who believe they can definitively review 30 pages of science, published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed social science journal ((Psychological Bulletin), based upon a half-page news column somewhere and 12 seconds of thought. To clarify some sloppy thinking I am reading, the study is a mathematical compliation of ALL research done on the topic. ALL research on the topic consistently shows three major outcomes, procrastinators tend to be: i) Less confident in their abilities ii) Like what they are putting off more iii) Tend to more impuslive, more distractible, and surrounded by more distractions How to explain this? Hmm, well in another article "Integrating Theories of Motivation", published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed management journal (Academy of Management Review), I show consilience among several streams of thought, that we are verging on a common understanding of human nature, which in a very simplified form (appropriate for a news program) can be understood as E x V/(Gamma x Delay. Of course, the academic article has the freedom to go into this for dozens of pages. If you serious about this at all, please read it. So, so far, any reader has two choices, believe: i) The negative comments of a few habitual malcontents is right OR ii) The collective work of several fields, including neuroscience, psychology, and economics is right Really, you should be holding yourself to higher intellectual standards than this. Piers Steel