Conference 7.286::digital

    Intelligence isn't the issue - common sense is.  I have no doubt that
    most of our upper management is intelligent.  But few seem to be able
    to apply that intelligence to the real world.
    
    						Steve

  It could be argued that the man responsible for this company
  missing several important turns in the market was both:

    o An engineer
    o Highly intelligent


  And, whenever I heard him speak, he seemed to have a good deal
  of common sense, too. Perhaps the answer to "What happened?" and
  "How can we fix it?" isn't quite so simple as the personal at-
  tributes of Management.

  Access to unfiltered information (I.e., less "good news BS" from
  below) may be a part of this. Imagination and creativity may be
  a part of this. Being willing to flat-out *FIRE* obstructionists
  may be a part of this (remember "NOD"?). The nerve to go out and
  try something new, and to stand behind it for more than a few
  quarters may be a part of this. The willingness to invest your
  money in real marketing and real advertising may be a part of
  this.  The willingness to acknowledge and learn from failures
  (whether they're branding campaigns or PCs) may be a part of this.

  And, oh yes, having one clear vision of Digital's future may be
  a part of this.

                                   Atlant

I agree with all of the replies so far: the line grunts (whether Engineers,
Sales, Technical Support, Marketing, Administrative, Manufacturing, and any
other group that I have missed) *and* the management are in my opinion very
intelligent individuals who have their share of common sense.  I think that
Eric's suggestion is just another way of trying to foster class envy and/or
trying to create an us-vs-them environment that I think is totally wrong,
counter-productive, and destructive to our goals as a corporation.

And I think that Atlant identified some problems, the primary one of which
is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).  The combination of only seeing totally
filtered information, because you have made it known that this is the only
kind of information you want to see, and the unwillingness to engage in
real marketing, which includes serious market surveys and intense feedback
from real customers *and* from people who will literally never buy from
you, is deadly.  No one, not the smartest/wisest person in the world, can
make good decisions in a vacuum.

But let me disagree with Atlant on one point:

>  And, oh yes, having one clear vision of Digital's future may be
>  a part of this.

I think we *had* "one clear vision of Digital's future" in the mid-80s: 
remember "One company, one system, one message"?  Unfortunately that 
vision was flawed because of market forces which we should have been aware 
of, but were blind to.  Hey, intelligent people, wise people, *all* people 
make mistakes.  The best are the ones which can recognize those mistakes and
learn from them and never make them again.

I think that we have learned from our mistakes: we developed Alpha/64-bits
before the rest of the industry did (in effect, the rest of the industry 
made the same mistake we did: they are sticking with what they had rather 
than spending the serious money to move into the future, and only now are 
they catching up), we recognized the Microsoft tsunami and made our deals
with them (Alpha NT distributed on the same CD as Intel NT, OpenVMS Affinity,
et al), we invested the serious money and time into UNIX that we needed to
in order to fix the terrible problem we had with ULTRIX, and we are keeping
our OpenVMS customers happy with continued development.

I think that our problems are caused by the "Balkanization" of Digital, such
that people are looking at their own little fief-doms rather than what is
good for Digital as a whole.  We see evidence of this all around us, with
*many* notes in this notesfile testifying and giving examples of it.  

*THIS* is the mistake that I think our senior management needs to correct:
make managers accountable and responsible for providing service and value to
other sections of Digital, and focus less on the cost-shifting from my CC to
yours to make this quarters number look good.

But veiled insults at management won't get this done, and are foolish at best
and destructive at worst...

-- Ken Moreau

	April Fools Day was 2 days ago...

>  And, oh yes, having one clear vision of Digital's future may be
>  a part of this.

> I think we *had* "one clear vision of Digital's future" in the mid-80s: 
> remember "One company, one system, one message"?  Unfortunately that 
> vision was flawed because of market forces which we should have been aware 
> of, but were blind to.  Hey, intelligent people, wise people, *all* people 
> make mistakes.  The best are the ones which can recognize those mistakes and
> learn from them and never make them again.

One can argue that the vision from the early '80s created both the success
the following bust.  One can also argue that the "bust" was directly
attributable to the failure of the vision to evolve over time by fixating
on the current success/profitability at the expense of the future.
("Nothing spoils you like success.")

(A crude analogy - if you're in a boat you need some sort of force
to move you, but if you get on a course and only ever stay on that
course without adjustment over time, sooner or later you run aground...)

The Balkanization is arguably the reaction to the failure of the centralized
vision to migrate over time (which caused an over-reaction in the opposite
direction.)  Pure centralization doesn't work very well, nor does anarchy
(since, to be successful over time, something about a large company must be
better than simply a conglomeration of some number of smaller companies.)

Dynamic programming (for example, bottom up "enumeration" [we can do
a ... z]), combined with top-down selection [OK, let's focus on a, j
and r, with their mutually supporting/overlapping areas] tends to work
reasonably well.  (Note that companies that tend to be successful
over time in spite of bumps in their markets, and representative
democracies, both tend to fit this model.)

    Re .3:
    
    > . . . Eric's suggestion . . .
    
    Try reading .0 again.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .2:
    
    > The willingness to acknowledge and learn from failures (whether
    > they're branding campaigns or PCs) may be a part of this.
    
    Learning from failures is part of intelligence.  When I have seen
    management repeatedly not learn, I have to question why.
    
    > The nerve to go out and try something new, and to stand behind it for
    > more than a few quarters may be a part of this. 
    
    What would make somebody stand out from the pack?  It requires ideas
    other people don't have -- and the belief in them that comes from
    knowledge.
    
    
    Re .3:
    
    > No one, not the smartest/wisest person in the world, can make good
    > decisions in a vacuum.
    
    Making a decision in a vacuum is the easiest thing there is:  GET SOME
    OXYGEN!  When I see people repeatedly making decisions without
    information, I have to wonder if the reason they do not make this
    easiest of decisions is because they cannot.
    
    If there is not a gap between engineers and managers, then test results
    will put the idea to rest.
    
    
    Re .1:
    
    Common sense is often just intelligence that is so blindingly obvious
    to one person that justifying it seems like a waste of time.  But I
    have never ceased being amazed by the discprepancy between the things
    that are common sense to some people and black magic to others.
    
    (Witness for example this morning's radio news announcer and disk
    jockey commmenting to each other how "lucky" it was tonight's lunar
    eclipse would be a good show because it was occurring on the night of a
    full moon.)
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re: .2

>  Access to unfiltered information (I.e., less "good news BS" from
>  below) may be a part of this.

I find it interesting that Gil Amelio, who just took over Apple,
is meeting personally with randomly selected groups of about 10
employees to get their ideas about what has gone wrong and what
needs to be done.  Oh, i guess it isn't completely random--he's
trying to keep managers above the first level or so out of it!

- paul

    EDP: are you implying that engineers *as a class* could run this
    business better than the current crop of managers?  I don't see any
    reason to believe that they could.
    
    We engineers certainly know some things and see some things differently
    than the plush office set.  But what we need is the free exchange of
    information and ideas so "they" can learn what we know and "we" can
    understand it in a greater business context, so that we "all" can put
    our individual strengths together to pull in the same direction.
    
    Calculating results on the MENSA entrance exam gets us nowhere but
    apart.
    
    -Mark

    Re .9:
    
    > EDP: are you implying that engineers *as a class* could run this
    > business better than the current crop of managers?
    
    a) No.
                                                         
    b) You are disqualified.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re .10's BS
    
    What do you think you are doing?  You write a controversial 
    (tongue-in-cheek is a tad forgiving) basenote and then take personal 
    pot-shots at the debate that ensues.  I don't find this approach 
    likely to enhance the image in which engineers are held in this 
    company.  I guess that disqualifies me too?
    
    /Chris.

    Who the hell cares if an idea is divisive?  I am not going to support a
    lousy team just for the sake of having a team.  I have seen plenty of
    evidence over the years that many managers are idiots.  So let's find
    out.  If there are some good apples in the bunch, let them run things. 
    The idiots should be transferred to the No Output Division.
    
    Get a grip, folks.  Just because humans are social animals does not
    mean you have to act like animals.  Managers are not your friends. 
    Digital is not your friend.  Digital and managers will happily use you. 
    Don't let them fool you into thinking you are a "team" with your
    "buddies".  You are cogs in a machine -- a business machine for making
    money.  If Digital wants loyalty from me, there's an easy way to get
    it:  Offer me a contract.  Promise loyalty to me, and I'll offer
    loyalty to you.  We'll negotiate terms and write them down.
    
    Do any of you think Digital the corporation likes you or won't hesitate
    to fire you the moment it is expedient for business?  Don't give me any
    crap about being a "team"; Digital considers you no more a part of the
    team than is convenient for today's business, and, if you think
    otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
    
    Now, back to the issue.  I've seen plenty of evidence to believe
    many managers are not the brightest people on the planet, and there's
    not much evidence to show otherwise.  Maybe a few of them are smart,
    and testing will help distinguish them from the rest.


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .11:
    
    > . . . repackaged "Bell Curve" . . .
    
    Odds are you didn't read the book and can't even state one major
    conclusion maintained by the authors.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    The idea presented in .0 assumes that IQ is a good predictor of
    management performance.   I doubt that would be the case.  
    
    I've known people with high IQs who would be dismal failures as
    managers OR engineers.  The worst manager I've ever had would 
    probably score reasonably well on a standard IQ test.  
    
    If we can't dismiss the idea as divisive, how about dismissing it
    simply because it is a bad idea?
    
    Perhaps a better question is "How might Digital improve our methods
    for evaluating performance of its management employees?"

       re .13
    
        Amen... hallaluja... right-on... etc.
    
        later,
    
        robert
    

>    It was suggested to me that engineers volunteer for intelligence
>    testing so that we can determine the distribution of intelligence among
>    engineers and then challenge managers to take the same tests.

... and in either camp, to decline the test is to pass.

This sounds to me like a "Dilbert" cartoon in the making ...

Given that engineers are paid to do lots of smart things and manager are paid
to avoid doing stupid things, I envision something like the following:

<knock, knock>

Mgr: Yes?

Egr: Excuse me, sir.  I'd like you to take this intelligence test.  See, a
	bunch of us engineers already took it and it proves that we are 
	collectively very intelligent.

Mgr: You should be.  I try to avoid hiring stupid engineers.  They tend not to
	do lots of smart things.

Egr: We'd like you to take the test, too.

Mgr: Why me?  I don't plan to become an engineer.

Egr: Well, to be honest, we want your test to serve as proof that you are
	stupid -- at least, more stupid than we are.

Mgr: I see.  I'm paid not to do anything stupid.  And, as far as everyone
	knows, I'm not because there's no proof.  And, since there is no proof,
	you've decided that I should take this test so there will BE proof.

Egr: Exactly!

Mgr: Seems to me that just TAKING the test would be proof that I'm stupid!
    	Well, I REFUSE to take the test!
    
Egr: Congratulations!  You've passed the test with flying colors!


Steve ;^)

    send it to ScottAdams@aol.com (sanitizing as appropriate :-)

    
    	Oh, if you think that then you don't know edp.
    

    RATHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

RE: .13 <<< Note 4521.13 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Who the hell cares if an idea is divisive?  

Uhmm, anyone who cares more about actually getting a job done and accomplishing
a worthwhile goal, rather than deliberately fomenting trouble and creating
dissent and friction for no purpose whatever?

I found the next two points interesting:

>                                             I am not going to support a
>    lousy team just for the sake of having a team.  
>[some text omitted]
>                                           Managers are not your friends. 
>    Digital is not your friend.  Digital and managers will happily use you. 
>    Don't let them fool you into thinking you are a "team" with your
>    "buddies".  

In one sentence you state that we are a lousy team, and a few sentences
later you state that we are not a team, and anyone who thinks so is being
fooled by people who are not their friends...  So I guess you have been
fooled into thinking we are a team, but that you have your own estimation
of how well this team is doing. :^)

But I must take issue with the next point:

>                                                  I have seen plenty of
>    evidence over the years that many managers are idiots.  

I accept that you have seen evidence that many managers make decisions that
you disagree with, or that they made decisions that events later show were
not the best decisions which could have been made, or even that they made
decisions which were felt by peers and subordinates to be incorrect at the 
time they were made.  But I do *not* accept that you have evidence that many
managers are idiots.  For one thing, the word idiot is a medical term, which
means "having intelligence in the lowest measurable range, being unable to
guard against common dangers, and incapable of learning connected speech"
(American Heritage Dictionary, copyright 1973).  I have seen many speeches
and mail messages from many managers over the years: the text may have been
lacking in content in many cases, but the "speech" was relatively well 
constructed.
    
>    Do any of you think Digital the corporation likes you or won't hesitate
>    to fire you the moment it is expedient for business?  Don't give me any
>    crap about being a "team"; Digital considers you no more a part of the
>    team than is convenient for today's business, and, if you think
>    otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
 
"Digital the corporation" is not capable of like or dislike, nor is it capable
of considering anyone part of anything.  "Digital the corporation" is a legal
fiction, a convenient label, and (at it's best) a shared idea among many
people.  There are only people here, managers, engineers, et al, who do their
job the best they know how.

And as for the rest of it, stripped of (what I perceive as) your angry tone
and spiteful attitude, I agree with it, as I stated over in the note on the
"New Deal" between Digital and it's employees.  The compact between Digital
and an employee is one in which each has some power, and in which each is
totally dependent on the other.  Go over there to read what I wrote, I won't
repeat it here.

But I will repeat myself on this point: we're all just bozos on this bus.  All
of us, managers, engineers, sales, marketing, manufacturing, support, every 
single one of us has a job to do, and I don't see *ANYONE* who is as actively
cold-blooded and contemptuous of their underlings as I see you writing about
in your notes.  I see people who are trapped by decisions of others into 
doing some things they honestly don't want to do (laying off MCS/SI people is
among these activities that the managers don't want to do but which they are
forced to do), and that is *all* I see.


Why not extend this further?  There are some software groups who are widely
known to produce code which is not optimal, there are some hardware groups
which produced hardware which didn't meet market requirements, there are some
marketing groups producing marketing campaigns which do not produce optimal
results, why not test them as well?

Could it be that intelligence has little connection to results?  Thomas 
Edison said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, a concept
that I have always liked.  Both of my children have been tested to have
above-average IQs, but the testing professionals were *very* quick to point
out that this only indicated **POTENTIAL**, not guaranteed results.  I have
interviewed engineers for hiring into Digital, and I quickly discovered that
the brightest people on paper were frequently not the most valuable people
in practice.

So I think your (or your friend's, all I know is that you wrote about it here)
idea about testing is irrelevant to accomplishing the goals we need to get
done, will take up a lot of time and money that we can ill afford right now,
will create friction where it did not exist and exacerbate it where it does 
exist, and have no useful result.

-- Ken Moreau

    Having managers take an IQ test as a means of discerning their
    suitability for the job is a ridiculous idea, based on the false
    premise that intelligence (as measured by an IQ test) is indicative of
    management ability.
    
    It is further flawed by the idea (implication?) that because a
    potentially larger number of "engineers" would pass an IQ test than
    managers, it offers proof that the managers are in some way unfit to
    manage people of "superior" intelligence. Perhaps more accurately, in
    some way less fit to be managers than those of "superior" intelligence.
    
    Managers already take tests, every day of their working lives. The test
    is called "doing their jobs". The problem is that when they fail it, as
    some often do, on frequent occasions, they rarely, if ever, suffer the
    consequences of that failure. That is to say, lose their jobs.
    
    Aside from all its other flaws as previously outlined, the suggestion
    in .0 is attacking the symptom, not the problem, and smacks of
    self-aggrandisement.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I've always noticed that Engineers in DEC had a great way to get best
    in class training.  Only very qualified (skill,ability,etc) engineers
    got promoted.  This system was much like HP.  
    
    I've never seen a formal system at DEC that tried to train good
    managment.  I have seen many great managers here but it was luck if
    they had the right skills / ability.   This is where HP has a more focused
    approach than DEC did.  I still see many GREAT managers of
    people/projects in this very unsupportive system.  It's luck not
    process that makes it happen.
    
    Jon

I can't believe this discussion is even happening.  But here I go, adding to it.

A couple thoughts came up on reading all these replies.

1. Aren't the majority of managers (at DEC) former engineers?  So when did they
lose the intelligence that engineers supposedly have?  


2. .13 (edp's note which began 'who the hell cares...) is, in my opinion 
the exact root of the problems found within the American corporation.  This 
distrust of the company, us vs them mentality has been killing the output
of companies across the country for far too long.  The companies that have 
been truly successful, have found a way to get beyond that.  

    Re .23:
    
    > In one sentence you state that we are a lousy team, and a few
    > sentences later you state that we are not a team, . . .
    
    I stated neither of those things.  Reread the sentences that confused
    you and spend some time picking out the subjects and verbs.
    
    > But I do *not* accept that you have evidence that many managers are
    > idiots.  For one thing, the word idiot is a medical term, . . .
    
    You know full well I used the term in its ordinary sense, not its
    medical sense.  Or did somebody give doctors license to regulate the
    English language and prohibit the use of common words with non-medical
    meanings?  By "idiot", I mean, for example, a manager who embarked on a
    project in spite of overwhelming opposition by the people involved, in
    spite of the fact that the person commissioned to do it had no training
    in the field and no experience, in spite of the fact that there was no
    plan for how to construct results from the data collected, in spite of
    the fact that serious flaws in the data collection had been pointed out
    and not resolved, et cetera.  But the manager went ahead with the
    project anyway.  More than a year has passed and, guess what, the
    results promised still have not been delivered.
    
    A person of average intelligence could have predicted this.  The
    manager in question did not.
    
    > . . .  why not test them as well?

    Does the base note say to test only managers?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                

    Re .26:
    
    > 1. Aren't the majority of managers (at DEC) former engineers?  So
    > when did they lose the intelligence that engineers supposedly have?
    
    The statistics of a subset of a group is not necessarily the same as
    the statistic of the group.  There's no reason to believe engineers who
    become managers are typical of engineers generally.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 >Re .26:
 >   
 >   > 1. Aren't the majority of managers (at DEC) former engineers?  So
 >   > when did they lose the intelligence that engineers supposedly have?
 >   
 >   The statistics of a subset of a group is not necessarily the same as
 >   the statistic of the group.  There's no reason to believe engineers who
 >   become managers are typical of engineers generally.
    

Aha..  The Peters Principle!  Read the rest of his books, I don't think you'd
see him advocating this divisive nonsense your writing.

    Several respondents have WRONGLY commented that the suggestion made in
    .0 is to use intelligence testing as a job qualification or performance
    predictor.  That is not what is written in the base note.  So where did
    it come from?  Apparently, that's YOUR own idea of how intelligence
    tests ought to be used.  But you are afraid of it.
    
    Why are people so scared of intelligence tests?  Are you offended if
    somebody points out that you are not one of the fastest runners in the
    world?  Or that you cannot bench press as much as some people?  Not
    everybody can be the fastest thinkers, so why are you upset if you are
    not?
    
    Some people do not think very fast or very well -- and they shouldn't
    be kept in jobs where good thinking is needed anymore than people who
    without physical speed or strength should be kept in athletic jobs
    where those skills are needed.  It's not an insult; it's not demeaning
    to your humanity -- it's just a fact of the world.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .20:
    
    > This will be my last "snippet" on this doggerel however I would  like
    > to know what the base noter would do if he "flunked" this supposed 
    > "intelligence" test.
    
    I offer to take any general intelligence test provided you do too and
    we agree that the lower scorer pays the higher scorer $50 per standard
    deviation of difference up to six standard deviations.  The test must
    be one commmonly accepted by psychologists.  If you want to make this
    easy, I took the GRE and the LSAT within the last five or so years; we
    could use those scores instead.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    my brother's a shrink.  for laughs, he gave several of us in the family
    IQ tests.  my score was off the chart - WAY off the chart.  yet, my 13
    year-old daughter scored 3 points higher than i did.  anyone want to
    work for a 13 yr-old kid?  
    
    i fail to see how any general intelligence test (mine included knowing
    who wrote "Faust" [!]) is any accurate measure of mgmt acumen.
    
    rather than indulge in broad-brushing (which is a big reason for the
    current mess), why not address problem areas (or people) on a
    point-by-point basis?  there's no reason to dump the whole bushel
    because one apple has worms.

> 1. Aren't the majority of managers (at DEC) former engineers?  So when did they
> lose the intelligence that engineers supposedly have?  

They never had it. They were not good engineers. So they went into 
Management.   8-{)

Steve

    >Several respondents have WRONGLY commented that the suggestion made in
    >.0 is to use intelligence testing as a job qualification or performance
    > predictor.  That is not what is written in the base note.  
    
    Yes, you did not state the purpose of comparing engineering IQ scores
    with management IQ scores.  
    
    > So where did it come from?  
    
    We assumed the purpose was to evaluate management.  Your statement 
    that you wished to get rid of the "idiots" in management appeared to 
    confirm this assumption.  If you have a different purpose in mind, 
    please explain it.
    
    > Apparently, that's YOUR own idea of how 
    > intelligence tests ought to be used.  
    
    No, I do not believe that IQ tests should be used in this fashion.
    IQ tests have enough inherent flaws that I would be against using
    them in isolation for almost anything.
    
    > But you are afraid of it.
    
    No, I'm not afraid of IQ tests-- I do quite well on them.  I would
    be afraid, however, of using IQ tests as a measure of manager or
    engineer performance potential.  The "intelligence" measured by IQ
    tests is just one of many factors need for success in management or
    engineering.  I would certainly hope that a good interview specific
    to the job in question should provide greater insight to likely 
    performance on the job than a general IQ test.
    
    If Digital *did* try to use IQ tests as a method of screening employees,
    it would only be a matter of time before the practice would be 
    discontinued due to a lawsuit claiming that the test(s) in use were
    gender/racially/culturally biased (but that's another rathole).
    
    Jim

    Re .34:
    
    > The "intelligence" measured by IQ tests is just one of many factors
    > need for success in management or engineering.
    
    Nobody said it shouldn't be more than one of many.  The problem is we
    aren't using it as a factor at all.
    
    > I would certainly hope that a good interview specific to the job in
    > question should provide greater insight to likely  performance on the
    > job than a general IQ test.
    
    How can people believe an interview has any more predictive power than
    a test?  Especially for management types, an interview is an
    opportunity for them to display their talent for bullshit -- and we've
    got too much of that around here now.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      The methodology decribed cannot possibly achieve the results
     suggested.  A voluntary test used as a layoff scheme could
     only work by deception.
    
      bb

    If I take the test and pass, can I get an official 
    
    Certificate of Idiocy?  
    
    I'll hang it on the wall, next to my
    
    Certificate of Being 10 Years Older Than I Was 10 Years Ago
    
    I want a free hat though. And a whistle. 
     

    Re .32:
    
    > my score was off the chart - WAY off the chart.  yet, my 13 year-old
    > daughter scored 3 points higher than i did.
    
    Wow, way off the chart.  Which end of the scale?  I have to ask,
    because if your score were off the chart on the high end, your daughter
    couldn't have scored three points higher.  You must have pegged it low.
    
    I suppose you'll deny that, which means I've caught you in a
    contradiction.  Fact is, you were exaggerating -- and exaggerating more
    than a little bit.  People make up anecdotes about intelligence tests
    to cover up their own insecurities.  These stories should not be paid
    any attention.            
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    About 10 years ago, I took an intelligence test, and was accepted as a
    member of British MENSA (having discovered the large number of wierdos
    and social misfits therein, I soon left). I was and am reasonably
    intelligent. I don't believe that makes me a suitable person to be a
    manager though. Neither do I resent working for one less intelligent
    than that test said I am, and I find this intellectual snobbery
    "interesting". I still fail to see the benefit of making managers take
    IQ tests, and I still fail to see the relevance of passing or failing
    said test to their ability to do their job. Except where they're
    clearly moronic, and I don't believe we have any of those, and if we
    had, we wouldn't need a test to spot them.
    
    Laurie.

    >>How can people believe an interview has any more predictive power than
    >>a test? 
    
    Well...  A written test gives no indication of a person's verbal
    communication skills.  It gives no indication of his/her ability to
    work with others.  It provides little indication if the person will
    *like* the job in question.  A good interview (or set of interviews)
    should do all of the above, in addition to evaluating the candidate's 
    experience and assessing his/her general aptitude for the job in 
    question. 
    
    Does Digital always do a good job of inteviewing?  I can certainly
    think of many examples to the contrary...   Would using an IQ test help?
    Perhaps, but I doubt it would help much.

    re: .35
    
    > How can people believe an interview has any more predictive power than
    > a test?
    
    Because an interview is essentially a test, and it's more closely
    focused on testing for the skills required for the position.  And, the
    test may be very different in different organizations, even for a
    similar position (e.g., "engineering supervisor").  The differences may
    include judging whether the candidate will work well with the
    particular set of engineers currently in the group.
    
    > Especially for management types, an interview is an
    > opportunity for them to display their talent for bullshit -- and we've
    > got too much of that around here now.
    
    A good interviewer will see right through bullshit.
    
    	Steve

    re: .40
    
    Notes collision.

I will come out of the closet and admit that many, most certainly
edp, will best me on an intelligence test. I also agree with him that
this does not demean me, it just ranks me on some "scientific" scale
that tests for arbitrary knowledge. I further agree that we have way
too much BS in the management chain. What I don't agree on is that
intelligence is the issue here.

What I percieve to be the problem is lack of courage and risk taking.
Also a lack of learning what their groups really do and how it affects
the company rather than their short term success at dazzeling the
managers above them. That old joke about the shit at the bottom being
called great fertilizer at the top is very true. We need people in
management who see reality and speak it. They do exist, I've known
several. The problem is that they are overshadowed by the good news,
"yes man" crowd that paint overly rosy pictures to big boys at the
top. liesl

    Re .40:
    
    > Well...  A written test gives no indication of a person's verbal
    > communication skills.
    
    You mean "oral".
    
    
    Re .41:
    
    > . . . it's more closely focused on testing for the skills required
    > for the position. 
    
    An interview focuses on how well a person can conduct a conversation. 
    But a conversation is a very different thing from leading.  A manager
    must be able to convey instructions authoritatively without being
    abrasively.  A person could be terrible at that and never have it show
    up in an interview.  Also, a manager, especially of a technical group,
    should understand the group's work.  To decide what projects have the
    best expectations of profit, you must understand the project.  That
    helps you evaluate the project AND it helps you understand the people. 
    A good manager has to think about how what they are asking for affects
    the group.  A good manager also has to think about how their group
    interacts with other groups.  In these and other ways, a good manager
    has to think.
    
    > A good interviewer will see right through bullshit.
    
    I saw right through that.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .43:
    
    > What I percieve to be the problem is lack of courage and risk taking.
    > Also a lack of learning what their groups really do and how it affects
    > the company rather than their short term success at dazzeling the
    > managers above them.
                                                       
    Intelligence is a tool to solve these problems.  Don't know what your
    group does?  Learn.  If you do not understand a project and its risks,
    of course you won't have courage.  A manager who is intelligent enough
    to undertand the risks will also understand the potential rewards and
    the value of taking those risks to get the rewards.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Why is this even a topic in here.  Shouldn't this be in SOAPBOX?
    
    (note followed by "next/unseen" from here on out....
    
    Toodles.....JPs
    

Source American Health magazine. April 1996 page 80
Title Rethinking Intelligence by Susan Chollar

I will not enter all the article, just excerpts.

Denny McGuire is a 62 year old crane operator, 8 grade education
and "IQ" of 81. This places him in the lowest 10% of Americans.
100 is considered average. One thing he does well is pick horses.
He has the ability to select the favorites 9 of 10 times. He uses
track conditions, horses's past performance and the competition.
Two doctors from Cornell Univ. tested him against other handicappers.
Conclusion, they found no correlation between IQ and accuracy of
predictions. 

Americans have long beleived in intelligence as a measureable quality
that powers not only our performance in school but ultimitely our
success in life. IQ often shape our expectations of what a kids can
accomplish.

The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein equate high IQ to success and
low IQ to social ills including crime, unwed mothers and welfare.
The idea of IQ as destiny.

Daniel Goleman, 1995 book , Emotional Intelligence brings together
what it takes to do well in school and life. EQ emotional intelligence
the ability to cope, empathize with others and be self motivated.

IQ has predictive powers to correlate IQ scores to doing well in
school. It does not correlate to how well we do out of school.

The article talks about Stanford-Binet tests for historical background.
IQ assesses the basic language and math skills and predicts the grades
a child will earn. 

Studies of top executives suggest that corporate stars get to the top
in part because they are good collaborators and can instill a sense of
mission in their employees. Self confidence and motivation are also key.

Dr. Sternberg, Yale Univ., beleive that practical and intuitive skills,
common sense and street smarts are the key to success. Dr Howard Gardner
of Harvard developed a theory of multiple intelligence,seven traits to
account for human intellectual ability. They include Linguistic ability
and math, the stuff of IQ, spatial intelligence, the ability to visuallize,
interpersonal intelligence, the ability to understand the motivation of
others, intrapersonal intelligence, ability to understand oneself,
musical intelligence, sensitivity to melody, rhythm etc, and body-
kinesthetic intelligence, athleticism.

Street Smart people are good at selecting the environment to fit their
needs, and shaping this and adapting this to themselves when necessary.

A study at Bell Labs in Naperville, a science and engineering think tank,
set real achievers apart was their rapport with a network of key people and
not IQ or academic genius. Simply put, stars had good relationships with
co-workers. When they hit a snag in the project, were able to call on
others for advice and get solutions. The office tyrant with high expertise
had few workers that trusted his ability to manage.

IQ is something we can shape in the classroom. Intelligent behavior is
shaped outside the classroom. A study found that job related knowledge
predicted career performance better then IQ. There is more to a good
manager then just being able to solve a math problem. Much of this is
experiance and wisdom. Emotional Intelligence.
 

The only open issue I can find in this string is "Who wrote Faust?"  The 
answer is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832.

Ray

    Re .47:

    > He has the ability to select the favorites 9 of 10 times.

    Would the favorites be the ones listed first?  Aren't they the ones
    with low odds, so picking the favorites is as easy as looking at the
    numbers in the listings?  Or does this excellent author actually mean
    picking the winners?

    But of course, the favorites often win -- that's why they are
    favorites.  So picking the winners often is not too impressive either.
    
    The true measure of performance would be predicting winners _more
    frequently_ than other people, not just picking them often.

    > Two doctors from Cornell Univ. tested him against other handicappers.
    > Conclusion, they found no correlation between IQ and accuracy of
    > predictions.

    Wow, they tested one anomalous subject against some other people.  What
    an impressive sample size.  Particularly if they measured his
    performance using the betting odds rather than his frequency of picking
    the winners -- the betting odds are formed from combined knowledge of
    the horses, so those odds incorporate a lot of information about which
    horses are likely to win.  In other words, much of the "signal" about
    the winners has been extracted, and what is left is mostly "noise".  If
    you compare people by their ability to win at this sort of gambling,
    you are using an inherently unreliable statistic.  It's like giving
    people multiple-choice tests in which most of the questions do not have
    right answers available to pick -- so people guess randomly.  The
    signal from the valid questions will be drowned out by the noise from
    the invalid questions.
    
    > The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein equate high IQ to success and
    > low IQ to social ills including crime, unwed mothers and welfare.
    
    That is 100% incorrect.  Murray and Herrnstein state the opposite: 
    They say intelligence does not equate to success or crime.  They state
    this in the introduction and repeat it throughout the book.  They
    caution against the danger of using one individual's intelligence as a
    predictor for that individual.  They do say that intelligence is
    CORRELATED with success and crime -- but they even caution against the
    danger of using this fact, coupled with intelligence of groups (men,
    women, blacks, whites), to associate people with positions in society.
    
    > Studies of top executives suggest that corporate stars get to the top
    > in part because they are good collaborators and can instill a sense of
    > mission in their employees.
    
    "Collaborators" is a good word.  It reminds me of that study that
    showed the "natural leaders" of a group were also those who were the
    best liars.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    http://www.verstek.com/blo/faus.html

    I think that the psychologist who invents a test for Negligence
    Quotient (NQ) would win a Nobel prize in medicine. 
    

edp appears to be a truly cranky individual.  It appears that an 
ill-conceived project and an ill-conceived manager.   useless to 
argue....

This will be my last entry in this topic, but I could not let some of the
mis-statements and un-called-for personal attacks stand.

In .10, Eric states that a previous noter is now "disqualified".  Why, and
on what authority do you state that?  If the person is to be truly 
disqualified from anything, then shouldn't this action require an IQ test,
according to the theory that Eric is proposiing? :^)

In .27, Eric ridicules my responses ("spend some time picking out the
subjects and verbs"), which is kind of par for the course.  He also states
that he used the word "idiots" in a general, not medical, sense.  All well 
and good, but then in .38 Eric ridicules another noter for using the words
"off the chart" in a general, not medical, sense.  I took the words "off
the chart" to mean that he scored exceptionally well, but that his daughter
scored even better.  The noter, Eric, myself, and all people who are even
distantly familiar with intelligence tests (Stanford-Binet et al) know that
these test yield a numeric score, which is classified into broad levels
which are described by words like "idiot", "mildly retarded", "normal",
"gifted", "genius" etc.  (This is not a canonical list, nor are these the
exact words, but they give the flavor of the words).

So here we have an instance of my being taken to task by Eric who states
that he was using terms imprecisely, and yet he then ridicules another 
noter for using imprecise words (off the chart).  Sorry, Eric, I wish you
would choose whether you are speaking precisely or imprecisely.  Either way
is perfectly acceptable, but don't get on somebodies case for doing the
exact thing you said was ok for you to do.

And by the way, it should have been perfectly obvious to you, as it was to
myself, that the person quoted in .49 was picking 9 out of 10 winners at
the track, which even I (a person who does not follow horse racing and who
has never bet on a horse in his life) realize is an *ASTOUNDING* record,
far above statistical probability.

In .30, Eric stated that "people are scared of intelligence tests".  Where
did you get that incorrect idea?  I have not seen that in any of the people
I know: most people have taken at least 1 or 2 of these kinds of tests in
their life, and most people that I know treat them the same way they treat
physical tests: an interesting exercise, to be taken for fun, and one which
has very little application to real life.

For the record, I have taken several of them.  Unlike .34 or the MENSA member,
I do *not* do well in them.  I am thrilled that my children got their genetic
traits in intelligence from my wife, because I have very little to contribute
in this area.  But I have learned that I am able to do fairly well in my job
without needing to be especially smart.  But afraid of them?  Hardly.

The ability to communicate (to construct a reasonably coherent discussion,
and, more importantly, to *listen* and understand what people are saying),
a willingness to work hard to accomplish a goal, and a relatively pleasant
personality so that people are willing to work with you, are traits that I
have found to be **MUCH** more important than a score on a standardized test.
Other traits are important as well, but these tend to vary by job.  Engineers
need to be able to focus on the broad picture during design, and then switch 
to tiny details during implementation and debugging.  Managers need to have
superior inter-personal skills to be able to understand and motivate a wide
variety of types of people, plus they tend to need to be organized and ready
to handle many different tasks at once.  Senior managers need to be able to
let go of details and focus on the broad picture, as well as the ability and
willingness to delegate (this is harder than it looks, and I know this is one 
reason I would not make a good manager).  Other professions require other
skills, but the point that I (and others) are making is that very little
of this is dependent on superior intelligence.

Finally, people make decisions for a wide variety of reasons.  Neither Eric
nor I know the *full* story of the manager Eric discussed in .27, who made
what appears to be a sub-optimal decision.  Perhaps the manager was trying
to develop some skills in the group which were lacking?  Perhaps the manager
was trying to accomplish some lesser goal than the one which was formally
stated, and the results in fact accomplished that goal?  Perhaps the manager
was under direct orders from their manager to do this precise task, for
reasons none of us know anything about?  There are many possibilities here,
and I believe that Eric is being unfair by insisting that lack of intelligence
is the only possible reason.

As I said above, I am done here.  I have attempted to make what appear to
me to be reasonable statements, and you can judge for yourself whether I have
been successful at that.  But Eric has responded with nothing but insults,
snide comments, (what appear to me to be) deliberate distortions of what I
was writing, so I am done.  Eric, I hope you get some enjoyment out of taking
what I write here and twisting it to fit your agenda.  But I won't participate
any more.

-- Ken Moreau

    mostly read-only, but..
    
    There is a LOT of reserach that shows that 'testing' looking for
    competencies does *much* better than intelligence testing for suitability
    to almost all jobs.. Once upon a time, Digital (well, DEC) even
    recognized this fact.. but, alas, those days are gone.. ("*we* know
    what the answer is!")
    (parenthetically, I have a good personal friend who is one of the
    leaders in the field of competency theory; one of the areas that makes
    it hard for companies to swallow that area of research and appication
    is the fact that to build a competency model for a given job is HARD
    WORK. Everybody wants easy answers. If the people who interview at
    Digital had any idea of what competencies they are looking for,
    interviews might actually be a useful event.)
    
    
    I suspect that Intelligence (as measured by an Intelligence Test) has a
    low, maybe even negative, correlation to performance as a manager, both
    as measured from above and below. But I have no scientific data on 
    this, and do not claim to.
    
    ...tom

    OK, I give in.  I can't read another note in this string without
    putting my 2 cents in.
    
    This whole idea of Intelligence Testing is absurd and no I won't even
    bother to justify this statement.
    
    However, I do believe that Eric has one valid point.  I have to agree
    with him that Engineering has done their job.  In the last few years
    they have produced a plethora of solid, good quality products.
    For instance:
    
    1) Alpha Workstations - Top performance, best bang-for-the-buck,
       highly reliable, very competitive.
    2) Network products - I can't think of anyone that has such a large
       portfolio of quality networking products.
    3) Operating Systems - Digital UNIX, OpenVMS, Windows NT...all top
       quality products as good or better than the competition's.
    4) PCs - Our PCs are probably as good quality as HP's.  Yet HP entered
       the market after we did and is already more successful.
    
    and many more.....
    
    So why then are we not wildly successful?  And I believe that Eric's
    ranting is just a symptom of this frustration.
    
    In the Navy, we would have said "failure to execute."  We have some
    of the best weapons, a skilled and competent crew, but we can't seem
    to execute the battle plan.
    
    We cannot seem to build market share, mind share, or momentum.  And
    this is surely a failure of management/leadership at some or many
    levels.
    
    How do we fix this?....I don't have a clue, but this is what quality
    leadership is all about.  But I do know that if you toss too much
    of your crew over the side the problem only gets worse.  And fighting
    amongst the crew only weakens their resolve.
    
    That is all. :-)
    
    
    Paul Brooks
    Who by the way is not in engineering, but has high respect for same.

    
    
    To Ken Moreau...
    
    I have this distinct impression that whatever intelligent and
    rational discourse you have stated here would only go to Eric's 
    deaf ears simply because Eric is not interested in any discussion 
    except listening to himself talk (as seen in Soap, eh?].
    
    To Eric... wait a sec... wasn't arrogance one of the problems that
    plagued Digital? Made us overly complacent, that we ALREADY know what the
    markets wants and that if a product is cleverly engineered then buyers
    would come with orders in hand? Well, your subsequent responses exude
    similar arrogance; only you would know what is right, correct?
     
    Your insulting behaviour in this string has been rather obnoxious and serve
    no good whatsoever [but see, I am separating you from your behaviour
    :-)]. Granted that provocation seems appealing to you, what really is
    your motive behind .0? 
    
    By the way, right off the bat, if I was a hiring manager (which I had
    been) and had interviewed someone like you, I probably would not have 
    hired a person whose attitude is like yours for a lot of reasons 
    already stated in here, which probably has nothing to do with intelligence
    quotient. I think that person would have been disruptive for the team, and 
    furthermore since a manager is the sum of a coach, a mom, a leader, the 
    boss, the shrink etc, I wouldn't have the time to stroke his/her ego or 
    calm down tantrums, to get the job done.    
    
    So if you sincerely wants a healthy, reasonable and  meaningful discussion,
    please LISTEN and lay-off the tendency to correct any response not to 
    your liking, and DO leave the sarcasm at home! 
    
            

    I've been thinking about this supposed link between IQ (as defined by a
    test) and management ability, and more particularly, the idea that a
    lack of IQ (qv) is indicative of a lack of ability to manage people and
    to make decisions competently. As I've said earlier, the entire concept
    is fundamentally flawed, and not, IMO, worthy of discussion by
    intelligent people, nor would I expect an intelligent person to propose
    such a plainly ridiculous idea.
    
    However, I find it interesting to imagine the following. Let's take an
    imaginary individual whom we believe to be intelligent, and having
    shown this IQ (qv), subsequently becomes a manager. Now, let's suppose
    that once in office, this individual displays all the characteristics
    of one whose managerial skills appear to be wholly at odds with this
    intelligence (should such a link exist). To whit: a lack of ability to
    listen to reasoned but contrary debate, a refusal to even acknowledge
    or countenance an opposing view, a confrontational communication style,
    a high level of belief in personal superiority, irrational and
    aggressive counter-measures when there is no other course open apart
    from acknowledging self-fault, etc. Such a person, however intelligent,
    would make a terrible manager. In fact, the sort of manager who would
    go ahead with a project even when all around said it would be folly.
    
    Thus I believe that there is little link between IQ (qv) and managerial
    ability. In fact, raw IQ (qv) is nothing more than an indication of an
    ability to pass a certain type of multi-choice test. The skills
    required for life, not to mention management, are many and varied, and
    IQ (qv) is *no* indicator that such a person has those skills. In fact,
    as my experience as a member of MENSA has shown me, many (but of
    course, not all) highly "intelligent" people are complete geeks when it
    comes to social skills and the ability to perform "mundane" tasks.
    
    If, however, tests along the lines of the leadership and social tests
    undertaken by officer cadets for military service were implemented,
    along with a minimum IQ rating, sufficient to show an ability to walk
    without ones knuckles dragging on the ground, then I could believe such
    tests *might* possibly help improve management stock. Fundamentally
    though, I still believe it attacking the symptom, not the cause, and
    poor management should be rooted out and dispensed with.
    
    Laurie.

    	I agree that we should collect data to illustrate company problems,
    	but collecting the IQ of anyone will not help you illustrate
    	comapany problems - this will only illustrate a measure of
    	intellectual ability, it will not illustrate company problems.
    
    	Therefore the premise of the base note is invalid. You should
    	disqualify yourself.

	Intelligence is not a measure of ability.

	edp - have you ever been in a management position i.e. manager,
	      supervisor, team leader, project leader ?

	regards,	


                tom   

I also could not resist...

I believe that Digital, by and large, does in fact hire sufficiently intelligent individuals 
in the professional ranks.  There are ways in which this is done, e.g. for new hires we do 
look at Grade Point Average in school.

However, intelligence itself does not a successful manager or engineer make!

Certainly, there is probably a bare minimum level of intelligence required to perform the 
jobs, but success is a combination of many other factors that are not easily measured by an 
intelligence test.

People skills, leadership, communication skills, etc.

Perhaps one of the key attributes that are required is COMMON SENSE.  Managers nor engineers 
have a lock on this commodity.

I have seen engineers design supplier end-of-life components into brand new products.  The 
parts are no longer obtainable on the market, but what a neat design that actually did take a 
lot of intelligence to create.  This is still happening.

Eric's example of the manager pursuing a stupid project with no chance of success...

I believe these type of things are not a function of intelligence solely and to try and act 
like poor decisions are not made by intelligent people is foolish.  

To try and believe that Engineers are inherently more intelligent than Managers - especially 
in Eric's us vs. them mentality - is unconstructive and probably a meaningless factoid if 
indeed true.  

Ken



  

    
    I also could not resist...

    I believe that Digital, by and large, does in fact hire sufficiently
    intelligent individuals  in the professional ranks.  There are ways in
    which this is done, e.g. for new hires we do  look at Grade Point
    Average in school.

    However, intelligence itself does not a successful manager or engineer
    make!

    Certainly, there is probably a bare minimum level of intelligence
    required to perform the  jobs, but success is a combination of many
    other factors that are not easily measured by an  intelligence test.

    People skills, leadership, communication skills, etc.

    Perhaps one of the key attributes that are required is COMMON SENSE. 
    Managers nor engineers  have a lock on this commodity.

    I have seen engineers design supplier end-of-life components into brand
    new products.  The  parts are no longer obtainable on the market, but
    what a neat design that actually did take a  lot of intelligence to
    create.  This is still happening.

    Eric's example of the manager pursuing a stupid project with no chance
    of success...

    I believe these type of things are not a function of intelligence
    solely and to try and act  like poor decisions are not made by
    intelligent people is foolish.  

    To try and believe that Engineers are inherently more intelligent than
    Managers - especially  in Eric's us vs. them mentality - is
    unconstructive and probably a meaningless factoid if  indeed true.  

    Ken

    RE: .38
    
    actually, i wasn't interested in posting my score; by "off the chart",
    i meant "outside of the top score range".  since you pushed it, my
    score was over 130.  the top of the high range was 130.  and my kid
    scored 3 pts. higher than me.  and it doesn't make either one of us
    good at anything, other than taking an IQ test.
    
    high IQ is no measure of "smarts"; and  smarts is no measure of good
    character (the #1 trait of a good mgr, in my experience).
    
    have a nice weekend, eric.

My Observations from the field.

On the Positive Side of Things:


           I believe that we do have great hardware and software products.
	We do have some of the best, hardest working and talented people
	in this industry, in both engineering and management. Our sales 
	force is doing its best (sure they've been slackers from here and
	there - but all company's have their fair share of those). I'm working
        with some of the hardest working people I know, they spend long off 
        hours working at home, spend many frustrating hours trying to get 
        answers from our own internal people, so that they can answer their 
        customers questions.

	   I have seen tremendous progress toward getting "high level"
	VP's from Digital meeting with our customers highest level CIO (our
	customer is 130 billion+ Corporation). This is a first, and I credit 
        that to our new Corporate Account Manager and the team he has working 
        under him. He is absolutely the best manager I've had/worked with in 
        a long time (he's not actually my manager --- but I work with his team
        --- and his actions affect all of us). For the first time in what 
	seems like "upteam" years (since I've been with the company). We're
	actually talking to "the man", The man who controls/influences all
	those other customers and their managers we work with. That's a big
	+.
 

On the NEGATIVE Side (I'm trying to be constructive)

	On our products, we don't seem to know how to "get the word out". 
	It's almost as if there's an "in crowd" in this industry and "we're 
	not part of it". Perhaps we've been too arrogant in the past, maybe 
        we still are. 

	    I've observed on many occasions top-notch engineering folks 
        coming out to the field and "not listening" to what the customer has 
        to say. There was no doubt as to the engineers qualifications and the 
        "legitimacy" of his points to be made, but, his/her feelings were more
        important to be made, than the customers. Instead of trying to listen 
        and trying to understand what issues/concerns the customers had, it 
        was more important to our engineers to argue that these (the customers
	issues) were actually non-issues.

            In the past with our management (I'm talking about the Ken Olson
	days), we'd have (what we thought were very high up) VP's come to 
	our customer site for a visit. That VP would make commitments to 
	the customer, everyone was smiling, liked the meeting, then the VP
	would go back to wherever he came from  and guess what? 
        Non of the commitments he made were followed through on. Either he/she
	didn't really have the clout, nor power to pull off what they committed
	to, or they we're just blowing the customer off. Either way, we lose.
        After so many of these visits, the customer becomes very sarcastic to
	our ability to execute on anything and to our sincerity. There for 
	a while, the local account team was very leery of bringing anyone in.
  
	    Recently we've had several quality issues on our account with 
	software, hardware products and field services ability to fix them.
	I think the reasons for these, is that everyone (in the groups that
	are responsible for these products/services) is "being squeezed".
	All groups have been compressed so much, that it is affecting their
	ability to do their job. So, some things fall off the table. 
	Unfortunately for us (the local account team) and Digital (that's all
	of us), the customer is the one finding the pieces on the floor. And
	believe me, the customer is not liking it.

	   We've cut so much head count, that it is affecting business and our
	ability to service our customers (the large ones). Making the cuts
	and putting systems in place to allow fewer people to do things
	more efficiently "really would make a lot of sense". But, all I've 
	seen are the cuts. Fewer people now attempting to do more, with less.
	Since joining Digital, I've only had the opportunity to work with 
	sales, so I've become familiar with the tools they have for getting
	they're jobs done. Today compared with 7-8 years ago, same systems 
        for preparing quotes, it appears that the SOC's are now gone (even 
        they were not the greatest, but they were at least something to lean 
        on), and oh by the way the Sales Updates and SOC's were not always 
        accurate, so use what you have, go through the painful long process of
	putting together a configuration, but even after you're done, knowing 
	what you know about the accuracy of our configuration documents,
	wanting to not foul up, because its your customers system and you'd 
	really like for him/her to buy from Digital again, you'd better make
	sure you contact someone in DECsale or Storageworks support to check 
        over what you've put together is right - just in case ------ more time 
        away from the customer. There used to be someone in our group that 
	used to work for Sun MicroSystems, her comment to me, was that at 
	Sun, it was so easy to put together configurations, it was like 
	falling off a log, guess that translated into more time with the 
	customer. 

	   We recently had technical training DVN on the new Rawhide product
	(which I thought the training was great and want to see more of them).
	During that training someone from the manufacturing organization came
	on to speak, unfortunately his voice was shot, and was therefore 
	unable to complete his talk. But, he mentioned that 30%-40% of the
	orders received from the field were inaccurate, incorrectly configured
	etc. Resulting in non-shipment of orders, lost revenue and least not
	we forget ---- a dissatisfied customer. But, can you imagine the costs
	involved, when 30%-40% of orders are incorrect (it all adds up to less
	profit for the company). Now is the right answer to the problem to 
	point the finger at the field and "say its their fault", we need to
	do something about the field, they're really screwing up. Or is it to
	look at the systems/processes we have in place. Too many times, 
	there's finger pointing, instead of working the issues as a team,
	each with a portion of the blame, it's been "our group didn't screw
	up --- you did" ---- that's bull#hit. That's the way the automotive
	companies existed a while back, not anymore. They finally wised up
	and realized that they're all in this together and that the only way
	for their problems to fixed is to work on them together as a team.

	 You folks out east (and west) may not believe this, but we do work 
        as hard as you do, we are competent in what we do. We also have some 
        abilities (as you do in each of your areas) that each of you don't 
        possess, the ability to develop and nurture relationships with        	
	customers,
        we have the "established" relationship and their trust (although some
	actions by Corporate lately is eroding that too).

	  There seems to be a 
	disconnect right now between management and grunts (I've always
	call myself a GIM -- Grunt In the Middle - as in between the customer
	and sales :). I think that people were shocked over these latest
	round of layoffs, especially in MCS. Just recently it seemed that 
	they (MCS) were talking "rosy" scenarios and hiring people, poised for
	growth. We have a good quarter with actual revenue growth, then 
	BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the layoffs start happening. 
        It's being hinted at (via the layoffs) that things are not really
	improving. And What they (Digital Management) told you two - three 
	months ago wasn't true. Who do you believe anymore? People are going 
	to say, well its a fact of life, there is no job security anymore. 
        Well I also believe that, but there still is such a thing as honesty 
        and integrity, without it, there's nothing left. Perhaps we've lost 
        that somewhere.  

	  More Layoffs ---- "What a demoralizing feeling". 

	   Well this is my two cents worth, I have more (lots more), 
	but it's time for me to go home and be with my family.
           


	Rick C.

    
    Re: .24  and others on the issue of managers not being 
    accountable for decisions...
    
    I have rarely seen any accountability for failure by anyone,
    manager, technical person, admin, etc.  If a manager makes a 
    poor decision based on the facts they understood at the time, 
    using all of their best management skills, should they be 
    treated differently than a respected design engineer that 
    makes a poor (in retrospect) design decision that costs major 
    dollars?
    

    Re .52:
    
    > It appears that an  ill-conceived project and an ill-conceived
    > manager.
    
    That sentence no verb.
    
    
    Re .53:
    
    > Why, . . .
    
    Because to manage, you've got to comprehend what people say, and the
    author of .10 didn't.
    
    > In .27, Eric ridicules my responses ("spend some time picking out the
    > subjects and verbs"), . . .
    
    I do find it ridiculous that somebody would read a single sentence
    written in plain English and then suggest that it contains things that
    clearly are not there.
    
    > . . . a general, not medical, sense.  I took the words "off the
    > chart" to mean that he scored exceptionally well, . . .
    
    I wasn't aware there was a different medical meaning to "off the
    chart".  Gosh, those funny doctors, speaking in tongues.  Silly me, I
    thought "off" mean not on and "chart" meant the scale answers are shown
    or plotted on.
    
    > . . . yet he then ridicules another noter for using imprecise words
    > . . .
    
    No, I did not ridicule a writer for using imprecise words -- I
    ridiculed them for excessive exaggeration.
    
    > Where did you get that incorrect idea?
    
    I got that correct idea by observing people's reactions.  It doesn't
    mean everybody is scared of them, but there are certainly many who are.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .56:
    
    > . . . what really is your motive behind .0?
    
    I heard an idea that amused me, so I passed it on.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .58:
    
    > . . . but collecting the IQ of anyone will not help you illustrate
    > comapany problems . . . 
    
    Ah, yes, determining the result before collecting the data, a fine
    time-tested tradition.  Just how can you be so SURE that managers of
    groups that have performed well will not have average scores even a bit
    higher than managers of groups that have screwed up?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

        ... and it was SO much fun, I just started yelling "FIRE!".
        

    Re .59:
    
    > However, intelligence itself does not a successful manager or
    > engineer make!
    
    Nobody said it does.
    
    > To try and believe that Engineers are inherently more intelligent
    > than Managers . . .
    
    Nobody said that either.  It may well be that in good companies, the
    average intelligence scores of engineers and managers are roughly
    equal.  But in a company where managers are screwing things up, it's
    time to ask questions.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .61:
    
    > i meant "outside of the top score range".
    
    What does that mean?  The test has a top range, but it gives scores
    above that range?  What's a "range" on this test?
    
    > since you pushed it, my score was over 130.
    
    That's not a very high range -- one person out of 44 scores better than
    that.                                           
    
    > and it doesn't make either one of us good at anything, other than
    > taking an IQ test.
    
    Really, and your evidence countering the numerous observed correlations
    is what?
    
    > high IQ is no measure of "smarts" . . .
    
    Yeah, and height is no measure of tallness.  Sure.  Does that make you
    feel better?
    
    
    				-- edp
    

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    rep .69
    
    
    >> > since you pushed it, my score was over 130.
    
    >> That's not a very high range -- one person out of 44 scores better
    >> than that.
         
    So the said person is in the 2.2 percentile, and that is not very high.
    I beg to differ.
    
    
    >> > and it doesn't make either one of us good at anything, other than
    >> > taking an IQ test.
    
    >>   Really, and your evidence countering the numerous observed
    >>   correlations is what?
    
    
    I agree that IQ tests don't measure much of anything, except maybe that
    you are a "good" test taker, and that you are familiar with the content
    of the test.  Being good at chess is one measure of intelligence that 
    lots of people use.  But all as that means is you are good at chess,
    Bobby Fisher was the best in his time, what has he done lately!
    Notta.
    
    
    >> > high IQ is no measure of "smarts" . . .
    
    >>   Yeah, and height is no measure of tallness.  Sure.  Does that make
    >>   you feel better? 
    
              
    No height is no measure of Stature. (1)
    
    (1)  Stature:  A level reached, as by achievement; status. 
    
    
    
    /art   (Who gets the final answer on Jeopardy most of the time)
    	    Does this put me in line for CEO, I must be smart!
    

    
    rep .72
    
    
    >> If the Unabomber had a high IQ, which many reports imply he might,
    >> would that make him a good manager at Digital?
                    
    
 
    Probably not, he's been known to explode at things he doesn't like!
    Or was that explode things that he didn't like.
    
    /art

    Re .71:
    
    > So the said person is in the 2.2 percentile, and that is not very
    > high. I beg to differ.
    
    So differ.  But it's actually a 97.8 percentile.  2.2 is really an
    idiot.  I say it is not very high because most engineers are at or
    above that level, as are most people with bachelor's degrees.  Maybe on
    the street you'll have to sample 44 people on average to find one at
    that level, but within any high-tech company, there are plenty of them.
    
    > I agree that IQ tests don't measure much of anything, . . .
    
    That doesn't answer the question:  Where is the evidence countering the
    numerous correlations?  People with high intelligence test scores are
    more likely than others to go to college and get better jobs -- even if
    they are disadvantaged socioeconomically.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .72:
    
    > If the Unabomber had a high IQ, which many reports imply he might,
    > would that make him a good manager at Digital?
    
    Do you understand the difference between "equate" and "correlation"?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Re .75
   
>    So differ.  But it's actually a 97.8 percentile.  2.2 is really an
>    idiot.  I say it is not very high because most engineers are at or
>    above that level, as are most people with bachelor's degrees.  Maybe on
>    the street you'll have to sample 44 people on average to find one at
>    that level, but within any high-tech company, there are plenty of them.
   

So edp, do you have any data to support these statements?  Or are you 
making this stuff up as it suits you?  I'm interested in the part about
most people with bachelor degrees.  Also, I trusted you when you said over
130 IQ is scored by 1 in 44, now I'm questioning the accuracy of that 
statement also.  Anything to back that up?    

	  I'm not Eric, and I don't even play him on television....

	  By definition, the mean IQ is 100, and the standard deviation is
     15.  If actual tests don't match up over a period of time, they change
     the scoring. 

	  An IQ of 130 is at (130-100)/15 or +2 standard deviations.

	  In a normal distribution, 97.725-% of the distribution is at less
     than +2 standard deviations.  Thus, 2.275+% of the distribution is at
     or above +2 standard deviations.  Thus, 1 out of 43.956- is at or
     above +2 standard deviations.

	  IQ scores are roughly normally distributed.  (They are actually
     closer to log-normally distributed, with a mode of 95, but let's not
     get into that.)

	  Eric's estimate of 1 out of 44 is likely a little high, as the 
     distribution of IQ scores is skewed, but close enough for illustrative 
     discussion.  Equivalently figures for other IQs, again (falsely)
     assuming a normal distribution, are:

	       IQ  Pctile	1 in
	       --- ------ ---------------
	       100  50.0              2.0
	       110  74.8              4.0
	       120  90.9             11.0
	       130  97.7             44.0
	       140  99.6            261.1
	       150 100.0          2,330.4
	       160 100.0         31,559.6
	       170 100.0        652,598.0
	       180 100.0     20,696,863.4
	       190 100.0  1,009,976,677.5
	       200 100.0 76,017,176,740.0

     (Percentiles of 100.0 are of course 99.95+, and only round to 100.0.
     I have not examined the Excel implementation of the normal CDF 
     function at the tails, on which the above table depends; I would 
     assume accuracy of +/- 1%.)  Very high IQs are more common than is
     indicated by the above -- there are several hundred known cases of
     IQs in the 200+ range, although by the above there should not yet
     have been one case in the history of the world.

	  Now, as to what IQ is, the best definition I ever heard was "The
     IQ ('intelligence quotient') is whatever is measured by an IQ test."
     As to what good a high IQ is, well, high IQ is highly correlated with
     success in academics, and that's about it.

	  Would high IQs mean better managers?  To an extent, I suppose.
     Generally people can deal with IQs of up to about 140-150 without
     excessive negative impact on their socialization.  Persons with IQs
     above 150, however, are at very high risk of overemphasizing the
     intellectual, and consequently having stunted "real life" skills.

				     Brian

>And I should have referred to David Kaczynski as the Unabom *suspect*, not the
>Unabomber.

Um, that's Theodore Kaczynski who is the suspect - David is Theodore's brother.

				Steve

    Re .76:
    
    > So edp, do you have any data to support these statements?
    
    A 1250 SAT score (1977 to 1993) is an IQ of about 131, which may give
    you some idea of how well college-bound seniors have to score to get
    into college.  I have more specific data that I'll have to look up.
    
    > Also, I trusted you when you said over 130 IQ is scored by 1 in 44,
    > now I'm questioning the accuracy of that  statement also.  Anything to
    > back that up?
    
    Most intelligence test scores are scaled to have an average of 100 and
    a standard deviation of 15, and they approximate a normal distribution. 
    In a normal distribution with mean u and standard deviation d, the
    portion of the distribution below x is erf((x-u)/sqrt(2)/d)/2 + 1/2.
    
    "erf" stands for the error function, which is defined by an integral
    and must be evaluated by table look-ups, polynomial approximation, or
    other numeric methods.  You can verify this information and find tables
    in a statistics textbook.  I evaluate the normal distribution by typing
    "normal(x,u,d)" in Derive and asking it to approximate.  For
    "normal(130,100,15)", Derive gives .97725.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .78:
    
    > I was not "equating" anything.
    
    Yes, you did -- if there is only a correlation between intelligence
    scores and success, and not an equation, then one should not expect an
    intelligence score to directly predict success.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Compare:

B> 	  Eric's estimate of 1 out of 44 is likely a little high, as the 
B> distribution of IQ scores is skewed, but close enough for illustrative 
B> discussion.  Equivalently figures for other IQs, again (falsely)
B> assuming a normal distribution, are:
B> 
B> 	       IQ  Pctile	1 in
B> 	       --- ------ ---------------
B> 	       100  50.0              2.0
B> 	       110  74.8              4.0
B> 	       120  90.9             11.0
B> 	       130  97.7             44.0
B> 	       140  99.6            261.1
B> 	       150 100.0          2,330.4
B> 	       160 100.0         31,559.6
B> 	       170 100.0        652,598.0
B> 	       180 100.0     20,696,863.4
B> 	       190 100.0  1,009,976,677.5
B> 	       200 100.0 76,017,176,740.0
B> 

Versus:


E> "erf" stands for the error function, which is defined by an integral
E> and must be evaluated by table look-ups, polynomial approximation, or
E> other numeric methods.  You can verify this information and find tables
E> in a statistics textbook.  I evaluate the normal distribution by typing
E> "normal(x,u,d)" in Derive and asking it to approximate.  For
E> "normal(130,100,15)", Derive gives .97725.


  Eric, you just (once again) proved Brian's point:

B> Would high IQs mean better managers?  To an extent, I suppose.
B> Generally people can deal with IQs of up to about 140-150 without
B> excessive negative impact on their socialization.  Persons with IQs
B> above 150, however, are at very high risk of overemphasizing the
B> intellectual, and consequently having stunted "real life" skills.

  Think about it.
                                   Atlant

    Re .84:
    
    Fine, we won't insist any managers have IQs of 150 or above.  Let's aim
    for at least 120, though, and 130 if we can find enough of them.
    
    Actually, it is more precise to say there is a communications gap
    between people with IQs that differ by more than certain amounts.  I
    don't remember the amount, maybe 25 points?  That's another reason to
    make sure we hire intelligent managers, to keep them on a par with
    engineers.
    
    By the way, who gets to define "overemphasize"?  What makes you think
    most people do not underemphasize the intellectual and lose a lot of
    enjoyment of life they could have?  Is there a sign carved in a rock
    somewhere that says "Thou shalt gossip and discuss weather, and thou
    shalt not study the mysteries of the universe"?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                               

    	
    	After spending perhaps too much time reading this listings, it
    	appears that this is an endless debate based on speculation and
    	peoples reactions to edp's abrasive means of communicating. 
    
    	I would challenge the theory that people with high IQ's make better
    	managers, team leaders, decision makers, etc., basically because
    	you can't prove it.
    
    	So you have the results of every managers IQ test and when someone
    	makes a 'bone head' decision you look at their test results and say
    	"see, I told you..."? You can't prove that bad decisions are made
    	by people with low IQ test scores because bad decsions are also 
    	made by people with high IQ's. How do you determine good decisions
    	from bad ones? If you weren't part of the decision making you are
    	speculating and stero-typing those who made the decision and if
    	that's the case I'd think we would all know what you look like 
    	by looking-up the word self-righteous in the dictionary.
    
    	Ken Olsen, who probably has a high IQ based on his back ground,
    	made the decision that PC's were toys and didn't see the potential
    	market. We all know about this story and Ken will admit to his
    	mistake. It was Ken's ability to capitolize on the idea of 
    	mid-range computer that put Digital on the map. So although he is
    	smart enough to start his own company, he is human and makes 
    	mistakes.
    
    	*Everyone* makes what *others* would consider bad decisions, 
    	irregardless of the results of a IQ test. It's the individuals
    	propensity to learn from their mistakes that helps avoid them
    	in the future.
    
    	We learned that turning our backs on PC's was a bad decision,
    	Bill Gates learned that not understanding the huge revenue
    	potential of the internet was a bad decision, the Great 
    	Depression taught us that the theory of a capitalist economy
    	does not work, etc.
    
    	What's truly amusing is how some people (edp), who after posing a 
    	question that leads to obvious debates, arrogantly castigates opposing
    	views of a subject that's purely speculative. By the way, do you
    	have any quantitative data that supports your claims? I didn't 
    	think so......  
    
    	-- Greg  
    
    	              
    	

    re: .74
    
    Most people with a bachelor's degree have an IQ that places them
    in the 97.8 percentile???
    
    If a majority of BS/BA recipients represent less than 2.2% of the
    population, then BS/BA recipients must represent less than 4.4% of the
    population.   I don't think so...
    
    
    Jim

    
    
    
    
    
    If nobody else responds to this string, maybe this IQ absurdity will
    die!
    
    I'm done.  It gets kind of frustrating trying to have a conversation
    and the other person doesn't listen, hear, believe, or care about what
    you are saying.  So I'm not going to bite the hook anymore.
    
    /art

	  Who gets to define what is overemphasizing the intellectual?
     Psychologists -- the same people who get to define most other
     cognitive impairments.

	  I should point out that overemphasizing the intellectual is not
     "being smarter than me," nor is it "enjoying using your brains."  It
     is being _incapable_ of dealing with things other than intellectually.
     Another way of putting this is insisting everything have an intellect-
     ual explanation.  Just as walking around all your life with a **BIG,
     POWERFUL** hammer permanently attached to your hand makes just about
     everything look like a nail, walking around all your life with a
     **BIG, POWERFUL** intellect permanently inside your skull makes just
     about everything look like an intellectual or logical problem.

	  We all have a preferred approach to things, situations, life in
     general -- we tend to do things that worked for us before.  Physically
     strong people very often see a physical approach to a situation,
     strength having worked for them before.  Similarly, very intelligent
     people very often see an intellectual approach to a situation,
     intellectualism having worked for them before.  It is no surprise that
     the preferred approach, the approach tried first, is quite often
     intellectual in very intelligent people.  But the difference between
     "the first approach tried" and "the only approach tried" is that be-
     tween functional and dysfunctional.

	  Since the world is fundamentally non-logical (not illogical, mind
     you, simply non-logical), overintellectualization -- being capable of
     dealing _only_ with intellectualizations -- tends to result in a gross
     impairment of life skills and activities.

	  There is nothing wrong with being smart, or taking pride in one's
     intelligence.  There is a _lot_ wrong with thinking "smarter" is auto-
     matically "better."

	  Now, one can do quite a lot of philosophizing in this area, as
     one can with most impairments.  If someone is absolutely incapable of
     appreciating some aspect of the world, how can they miss it?  Well,
     arguably, they can't.  Since it does not make them unhappy, how can it
     be an impairment?  Well, perhaps it isn't.

	  On the other hand, to pretend that having the impairment is some-
     how more valuable than not seems absurd.

				     Brian

    RE .86:
    
    > . . . speculation . . . . challenge the theory . . . because	you
    > can't prove it.
    
    Hence the title of this topic.
    
    > You can't prove that bad decisions are made by people with low IQ
    > test scores because bad decsions are also made by people with high
    > IQ's.
    
    Accidents happen before and after daylight savings time begins, but a
    recent study found that more accidents happen just after the change. 
    How did they do that?  Statistics.  Griping that things happen both
    ways so you cannot tell them apart is just closing your eyes and
    claiming you must remain ignorant.  It does not have to be that way; we
    DO have the techniques for examining the data and determining where
    there is significant effect.
    
    > How do you determine good decisions from bad ones?
    
    You wait and see what the effects are.
    
    > By the way, do you have any quantitative data that supports your
    > claims? I didn't think so......
    
    Wow, you sure are open-minded.  You wait what, all of an entire second,
    before typing the second sentence?  As a matter of fact, quantitative
    data do exist.  _The Bell Curve_ contains an example of how the effect
    of intelligence on job performance can be estimated.  And before people
    poo-poo the book, why don't you try reading it?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .89:
    
    > Psychologists . . .
    
    Show me a definition by a psychologist.
    
    > Since the world is fundamentally non-logical . . .
    
    Maybe you mean people are fundamentally non-logical in their decisions. 
    But the world is fundamentally logical, as increasing achievements by
    science and technology prove.  And people are also logical -- they
    might not THINK logically, but the rules that govern their behavior are
    logical.
    
    > If someone is absolutely incapable of appreciating some aspect of the
    > world, how can they miss it?
    
    There are no people blind from birth who wish they could see?  A person
    who is completely missing some faculty can still know they are missing
    something.  And very few people are completely missing any faculty --
    almost everybody has enough sense of art, music, good food, reading, or
    knowledge to know there is much more available in the world than they
    will ever be able to experience fully in their lifetime.  But even if
    we did accept your premise, even if somebody did not KNOW there was
    something more they could have, that person's life would still be
    lacking that something extra.  Not knowing you could have more does not
    alter the fact you could have more.
    
    > On the other hand, to pretend that having the impairment is some- how
    > more valuable than not seems absurd.
    
    Talk about absurd.  You demonstrate a perfect example of prejudice
    against intelligent people.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .84:
    
    > Compare:
    
    Okay, we're comparing.  So how much difference are you stipulating
    there is between Brian's IQ and mine?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Just a thought...How does competence relate to IQ scores?
    

      
      [ Received this gem today courtesy of a friend. The only
         attribution was "Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2" ....
 
        Submitted with the intent of keeping with the spirit of the main
        themes of this note, management decision making, intelligence and
        frogs. 
        jc ]

      ---- Start ----
      
      A parable about schedules, cycle times, and shaping new behaviors.

      Once upon a time, there lived a man named Clarence who had a pet frog
      named Felix.  Clarence lived a modestly comfortable existence on what
      he earned working at Wal-Mart, but he always dreamed of being rich.

      "Felix" he exclaimed one day, "we're going to be rich.  I'm going to
      teach you how to fly."  Felix, of course, was terrified at the
      prospect: "I can't fly, you idiot......I'm a frog, not a canary!"
      Clarence, disappointed at the initial reaction, told Felix: "That
      negative attitude of yours could be a real problem.  I'm sending you
      to class."

      So Felix went to a three day class and learned about problem solving,
      time management, and effective communication.... but nothing about
      flying.

      On the first day of "flying lessons", Clarence could barely control
      his excitement (and Felix could barely control his bladder).  Clarence
      explained that their apartment had 15 floors, and each day Felix would
      jump out of a window starting with the first floor and eventually
      getting to the top floor.

      After each jump, Felix would analyze how well he flew, isolate on the
      most effective flying techniques, and implement the improved process
      for the next flight.  By the time they reached the top floor, Felix
      would surely be able to fly.

      Felix pleaded for his life, but it fell on deaf ears.  "He just
      doesn't understand how important this is..." thought Clarence, "but I
      won't let nay-sayers get in my way."  So, with that, Clarence opened
      the window and threw Felix out (who landed with a thud).

      Next day (poised for his second flying lesson) Felix again begged not
      to be thrown out of the window.  With that, Clarence opened his pocket
      guide to managing more effectively and showed Felix the part about how
      one must always expect resistance when implementing new programs.  And
      with that, he threw Felix out the window.(thud)

      On the third day (at the third floor) Felix tried a different ploy:
      stalling, he asked for a delay in the "project" until better weather
      would make flying conditions more favorable.  But Clarence was ready
      for him: he produced a timeline and pointed to the third milestone and
      asked, "You don't want to slip the schedule do you?"

      From his training, Felix knew that not jumping today would mean that
      he would have to jump twice tomorrow.... so he just said: "ok.  Let's
      go." and out the window he went.  Now this is not to say that Felix
      wasn't trying his best.  On the fifth day he flapped his feet madly in
      a vain attempt to fly.  On the sixth day he tied a small red cape
      around his neck and tried to think "Superman" thoughts.  But try as he
      might, he couldn't fly.

      By the seventh day, Felix (accepting his fate) no longer begged for
      mercy.... he simply looked at Clarence and said: "You know you're
      killing me, don't you?"  Clarence pointed out that Felix's performance
      so far had been less than exemplary, failing to meet any of the
      milestones goals he had set for him.

      With that, Felix said quietly:  "Shut up and open the window," and he
      leaped out, taking careful aim on the large jagged rock by the corner
      of the building.  And Felix went to that great lily pad in the sky.

      Clarence was extremely upset, as his project had failed to meet a
      single goal that he set out to accomplish.  Felix had not only failed
      to fly, he didn't even learn how to steer his flight as he fell like a
      sack of cement.... nor did he improve his productivity when Clarence
      had told him to "fall smarter, not harder."

      The only thing left for Clarence to do was to analyze the process and
      try to determine where it had gone wrong.  After much thought,
      Clarence smiled and said: "Next time ... I'm getting a smarter frog!"
    

       >  Show me a definition by a psychologist.

     No.  If you're really interested, take a course, or talk to a
     psychologist.  One with experience in handling abnormal cognitive
     development would be most informative.

       >  Maybe you mean people are fundamentally non-logical in their
       >  decisions.

     Actually, no, I mean the world is fundamentally non-logical.

       >  You demonstrate a perfect example of prejudice against
       >  intelligent people.

     Umm, I don't think so.

	  You know, "you demonstrate a perfect example of prejudice" is a
     moderately inappropriate way of saying "I disagree with you."

				     Brian

    Re .95:
    
    > No.
    
    Thought so -- your note was just bull.
    
    > Actually, no, I mean the world is fundamentally non-logical.

    Then you're just plain wrong.
    
    > Umm, I don't think so.

    Then you haven't thought about it enough.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

       >  Thought so -- your note was just bull.

	  No, I'm just not interested in jumping through the hoops you put
     out for me to jump through. 

       >  Then you're just plain wrong.
       >  Then you haven't thought about it enough.

	  "Did not!"  "Did so!"  Sigh.

				     Brian

    	This is a pretty silly discussion. So, for that reason, I thought
    I'd join in. I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test, nor do I have
    any interest in my IQ. My guess is that I'm retarded, and it would be
    very depressing to see it in black and white. So I'd rather remain in
    the dark, thinking I might be intelligent.
    	The problem is that I didn't score 1250 on my SATs. So I know my IQ
    isn't 130. I did participate in a full-day of aptitude testing a few
    years ago. I did awful in all the things where engineers normally did
    well and really well on all the things where engineers usually had
    difficulty. I guess that means I'm more comfortable writing lengthy
    notes in NOTEs files which ramble on and on and don't say anything than
    doing engineering. Hmmmm. Well, as the French say...Ah, who the hell
    cares what the French say.
    	Anyway, Eric's reply a few back seems to suggest that he believes
    the outcome of this testing would show that managers would score lower
    on the average than engineers. However, I suspect the averages wouldn't
    differ by a significant amount, such as the 25-30 points where
    communication theoretically becomes problematic. Oops. I'll try to use
    words with fewer syllables for any of you idiot readers out there. So
    what does it prove, and what does it matter for that matter? We could
    test everyone, and any managers we find with IQs over 130, we say,
    "Hey, you're too smart to manage. You're an engineer!" Any engineers
    with IQs over 150, we say, "What the heck is someone so smart still
    doing working here?" And if you're retarded like me, you get NOTEs file
    duty or get to manage a small group.
    	I'm hoping there are some other idiots out there reading this
    because most of you intellectuals haven't understood a word I just
    said. Thanks for listening. We now return you to this fruitful debate.

    Best note yet in this string. Only the French, oh Rhetorical huh....
    
    That remind me "If your so smart why arn't you rich" 
    
    Are managers rich?
    
    The smart one are.
    
    Just my 2 pence

	I never had a real IQ test but when I was at University as an
	experiment we had to take an IBM test which was used to recruit
	programmers. The shortage of programmers at the end of the sixties 
	was impressive. 

	The maximum score was 95. in our cohort many people scored 93/94
	and even one 95. Below 62 or 64 the diagnostic was 'forget about 
	programming'. My friend Jean-Pierre scored 34 and he did it
	seriously.

	JP had a strange cursus before that, he had a bad sickness, did
	not fully follow the primary scool, was slow in everything... 
	
	Not only he become a great programmer but he also created his
	own company, he must be in the hundred employees range and...
	he is a lot richer than I'm. 
	EDP, I do not know how rich you are but I just whish you to be as
	rich as my friend.

	Joel

    EDP....
    
    	I was challenging you! Based on your comments in previous notes,
    	you claimed to have sufficient data that would support a company
    	wide idiot test.    
    
    	Note 4521.13
    
    	" I have seen plenty of evidence over the years that many managers
    	  are idiots". What evidence? What criterion? Is this the world
    	  according to EDP? How many managers? What percentage? How many
    	  managers have you worked for?   
    
    	" ....there's not much evidence to show otherwise." Prove it!!
    
    	"... Digital and managers will use you" I haven't used anyone
    	 and I'm a manager.
    
    	I was an engineer turned manager. I've made my share of bad
    	decisions and I'm really glad I did because I've learned from
    	them. Does this make me an idiot?  
    
    	You still haven't produced any non-subjective information to support
    	claims as it relates to this company. If your intention was
    	to collect data to illustrate company problems based on your
    	assumptions, I think by now you should have your answer.....
    
    
    	I guess when people with high IQ's make bad decisions (and they
    	do), we call them accidents, mistakes, or they must have based
    	their decision on information given to them by people with lower
    	IQ's. And when people with lower IQ's make bad decisions, we will 
    	call them idiots. This is absurd...
    
    	This is not even an arguable debate anymore. We could expand this
    	topic and say that people who make the wrong grammatical decision
    	when writing memo's are idiots.....
    
    	Then again that would include all of us (even EDP) and we would'nt
    	have a means of socially seperating ourselves (isn't this what were
    	really discussing). 
    
    	Now we could remove spell check from All-In-One and criticize those
    	who send memo's with grammatical errors...... Hmmmmmmmmm sounds
    	like a good topic for another notes discussion.... Not! 
                                                                       

    Re .101:
    
    > What evidence?
    
    I've already given one example.  I'm not going to list every one -- I
    don't WANT to base my assessment of managers on anecdotes.  THAT IS WHY
    I SUGGESTED COLLECTING DATA.
    
    > " ....there's not much evidence to show otherwise."
    
    You quoted this out of context, without even a response number to go
    check, and I'm not going to work to find the context you should have
    explained when you asked the question.
    
    > "... Digital and managers will use you" I haven't used anyone
    > and I'm a manager.

    Did I say EVERY manager will use employees?  How long have you been a
    manager -- have you NEVER "laid off" (really fired) an employee?  Have
    you never participated in the decision who to "lay off"?
    
    > I was an engineer turned manager. I've made my share of bad
    > decisions and I'm really glad I did because I've learned from
    > them. Does this make me an idiot?  
    
    Does asking stupid questions make you an idiot?  I have already
    addressed the issue in this topic of whether people become stupider
    when they become managers.  The answer is that the selection process
    may select atypical engineers to be managers -- a subset of a group may
    have characteristics different from the group as a whole even though no
    specific action is performed upon the subset.  Please don't continue
    repeating issues that have been addressed already.
    
    > You still haven't produced any non-subjective information to support
    > claims as it relates to this company. If your intention was
    > to collect data to illustrate company problems based on your
    > assumptions, 
    
    We still have not collected any.  If you are going to argue there is
    no non-subjective data to support the collection of non-subjective
    data, that's pretty stupid.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .0 - since the topic is about data collection, and since your idea to
         use one's IQ as a metric is overwhelming rejected, how about
         YOU coming out with another suggestion. I don't think we mere
    	 noters would even mind it if it was not brilliant!
    
       - so far you have positioned yourself as a pundit a judge, not that we
         asked for either, so please put on your thinking cap, and come with 
         ANOTHER idea.
    
       - By the way, I still do NOT buy your response that you're merely
    	 passing on someone else's idea. I do not sense you to be a
         helpful sort, let alone having any altruistic bent. 
         
                 

Can we please dispense with the personal jibes?  There's no call for 
questioning motives.  If you don't want to respond, then don't.

				Steve

    	Okay.....
    
    	This could obviously go on forever and I don't believe you will be able
    	to substantiate your reasoning for collecting data, so good luck on
    	your search. 
    
    	When you do find the answer to this companies problems, please let
    	us know.
    
    	Thanks for the one-sided debate.
    
    	-- Greg
     
    
    	

    FDR was once working the people and shaking hands on a campaign swing
    for his 3rd/4th term as president, one woman said to him:
    
    	"Mr. President all the intelligent people are for you"
    
    whereas FDR says,
    
    	"Well thank you mam, but I'd like to WIN the election"

    Re .87:
    
    You are right, there are more people with bachelor's degrees than that.
    However, the mean IQ of people entering fields such as accountant,
    engineer, architect, college teacher, et cetera is 120.  (_The Bell
    Curve_, page 51.)  The IQ of those who remain in the field may be
    higher.  So my point stands, an IQ of 130 is not all that rare in a
    high-tech company.
    
    
    Re .103:
    
    > since the topic is about data collection, and since your idea to use
    > one's IQ as a metric is overwhelming rejected, how about YOU coming out
    > with another suggestion.
    
    Here are two reasons not to do that:
    
    	a) The reasons not to use IQ are based on prejudgement of
    	the results.
    
    	b) Other methods are not as good.  Studies have already been
    	done that compare how well people do on various predictors
    	to how well they actually do on the job.  Here are the
    	validities of some different predictors of job performance:
    
    		Cognitive test score		.53
    		Biographical data		.37
    		Reference checks		.26
    		Education			.22
    		Interview			.14
    		College grades			.11
    		Interest			.10
    		Age				-.01
    
    Note that a method suggested earlier, interviews, is actually quite a
    poor indicator.
    
    These are from _The Bell Curve_, page 81.  That source gives
    information on the meaning of this validity statistic and its
    translation into productivity and profit.  I can enter some of that,
    showing how you can estimate the dollar value of using job interviews
    or test scores, if there is interest.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .106:
    
    > -< re: .90 statistics can show anything..either way! >-

    That's a good reason to learn MORE about statistics, not LESS, so that
    you'll know when statistics are used correctly.  The phrase "statistics
    can show anything" is the rallying cry of people who wish to remain
    ignorant.
    
    
    Re .103:
    
    > I still do NOT buy your response that you're merely passing on
    > someone else's idea.
                        
    I never said I was MERELY passing on somebody else's idea.  It is
    somebody else's idea; that is true, and I could prove it, although you
    have no call to be questioning me on that and it is rude of you to do
    so.  But I am ALSO passing the idea on, because as I said in .65 and
    you conveniently ignored, I find the idea amusing.
    
    > I do not sense you to be a helpful sort, . . .
    
    I do not sense you to be very bright.  Try reading what I write instead
    of what you imagine.
         
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                      

    re: .109
    
    and used correctly of course is only by those who use them???
    
    > is the rallying cry of people who wish to remain ignorant
    
    oh really....is that why anyone who realizes that statistics
    can be used to say what anything are considered by you to be
    ignorant??????????

    Re .110:
    
    > . . . and used correctly of course is only by those who use them???
    
    No.  Did I say that?  No.  In fact, I said the opposite:  LEARN about
    statistics so you can judge them YOURSELF.  Duh.
    
    > oh really....is that why anyone who realizes that statistics can be
    > used to say what anything are considered by you to be
    > ignorant??????????
    
    Yes.  
    
    More specifically, there are logical rules for the correct use of
    statistics, and people who are not ignorant of these rules can figure
    out what information statistics convey, independently of what the
    people who present them say they say.
    
    If you know those rules, you have a valuable skill.  If you do not know
    those rules, you are ignorant of them.
    
    Oh, and another reason I should think you are ignorant is that if
    anything is a sure sign that information is desperately needed, it's
    the extreme emphasis of using ten question marks.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

	Or as they say out west. There are Lies, damn lies, and statistics

    
  >  LEARN about
  >  statistics so you can judge them YOURSELF.  Duh.

   some of us have, that's why we disagree with your bull
    
    
    > oh really....is that why anyone who realizes that statistics can be
    > used to say what anything are considered by you to be
    > ignorant??????????

  >  Yes.

   this just shows your ignorance...
    
 >   Oh, and another reason I should think you are ignorant is that if
 >   anything is a sure sign that information is desperately needed, it's
 >   the extreme emphasis of using ten question marks.
    
   or the extreme emphasis of thinking your IQ makes you better than
   others...
       

If people can't behave here, I will have to write-lock the note.  Please
stop the name-calling immediately!

				Steve

    Re .113:
    
    > . . . some of us have, that's why we disagree with your bull . . .
    
    Well, if you've learned about the rules of statistics as you claim and
    you say THAT is why you disagree, then you can certainly show how the
    rules were violated to cause your disagreement.  Please do so.
    
    > . . . or the extreme emphasis of thinking your IQ makes you better
    > than others...
    
    I haven't written a word in this topic about what my IQ is.  If you are
    jealous, that's too bad for you.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    Steve.....
    
    PLEASE write lock it.......PLEASE.
    
    Thanks.....
    

    
    I asked Steve to write lock this yesterday, but he didn't see any
    reason to do so.  Can we do it now?
    
    /art

    
    Hi steve - yes, let's write lock this thing!
    
    EDP is now frothing as the mouth. I hate to stoop down to his level,
    but oh boy, I am greatly tempted!!!
    

    This should be tranferred to SOAPBOX instead of here.

    
    	Or ::ASKENET.
    

    A very succesful company - they are doing very great in lottery systems
    - tried it the other way round.
    Instead of taking some standard tests, they asked their best people to
    share an experiment. Take a good psychologist, try all the tests
    believed to fit for this purpose on them. And look for new people with
    the similar profile the test has shown...

    Dont just write lock it, delete 4521.* should be run.
    
    This has been one of the least civil and most ignorant notes Ive
    ever read in a DEC Notes files.

    
    	Well, it started out quite well.
    

    Write lock it.  Delete it.  Attempt to exclude a certain individual
    from future entries.  I can not recall ever being so angered by the
    arrogance of an individual in this entry and many others.  Not to
    mention the company time being WASTED by this person.
    
    Usually RON

    Well, personally, I've found it an interesting concept and
    intellectually challenging...  Not sure what conclusions I've
    drawn, but exchange of ideas (not the exchange of insults) is
    goodness in my book.
    
    				-John

I won't delete it - there's nothing that is against corporate policy.  I will
write-lock it since some people don't seem to be able to refrain from
name-calling.  It's too bad, really....

					Steve

    Aw, don't close it yet -- I want to find out if the manager who wrote
    .101 fired anybody, as asked in .102.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.