So when are you in Los Angeles again? I just got back in for a few weeks. Are you going to be around? Let me know darling! How is your son doing lately? I'll call you later to chat. Stay warm and healthy my dear! Talk to you soon.
*****Happy Holiday's Everyone*****
Hi Len,sorry I was in LA on the 20th Dec. and flew out on the 22nd for FL. I am in Atlanta, Georgia now. Hopefully the tornado warning will be gone on Monday when I fly out to NY for a few days before returning to London.
Happy New Year to all.
fortunately, I'm in a field that has a large share of thinker/doers, as it's kind of a requirement to succeed in this industry. And I find associating with other T/Ds helps me raise my own level of accomplishment. I'm a real estate investor and a thinker alone would not survive as he would get 'analysis paralysis' nad never buy the first property. A doer can survive, but will not be really successful, as it takes 'having a niche' to really do well in this business. It's the thinker/Doers that do well in this business.
We also learn, that money is an obstacle that can easily overcome with the right property.
So, I believe someone, even without funds, who believes in his/her product and has the determination and puts the intent out there, can suceed in whatever he/she is trying to accomplish.
So, instead of saying 'that'll will take forever, so I don't even want to start', it's so much better to just go ahead, one step at a time and you never know what other oportunities show up half-way through.
Yes, there are thinkers, doers, and hybrid thinker/doers, but there are problems with each. I am mostly a thinker and don't have the patience for much doing. I could keep a million people busy with useful things that I think of, but unfortunately no one has give me that million.
A thinker/doer who starts doing, which may take him years or his lifetime, gets so wrapped up in completing his project that he rarely gets to think anymore. Thus he becomes less and less of a thinker and becomes mostly a doer. However he often does accomplish the original task he wanted to accomplish - if he is lucky.
Doers need to be hooked up with good thinkers, but most of they time they are not. They are usually working for other doers. As a result, the final product or service often suffers, may even become obsolete before its completed or mature, and the company fails. I have seen hundreds of huge companies fail because the doers obtained control of the direction of the company and the original thinkers were ousted or lost power. There are hundreds of examples in the computer industry alone. I would guess that 99% of the original computer hardware, software, and high-tech manufacturers of 20 years ago do not even exist today, and I attribute most of that to doers gaining control of the direction of the companies and the lack of long term strategic thinking and planning.
The world tend to be made up of doers, thinkers, and the hybrid thinker-doers who love to see their ideas come to fruition..and that requires great motivation..what motivates us all is the crux of the question.
Money remain the irresistible motivator but it has it s limits beyond a certain point. Altruism could take over...
to do is to be-socrates
to be is to do -plato
do be do be do-sinatra
Those people are the backbone of society. They make it all happen. Many, probably most, "thinkers" are not good implementers. The implementers "get er done.", where it be caring for the elderly or teaching the kids.
Cynburghleah write: wwww1234 write: ...I probably buy that in general males are better system thinkers than females, but that is just the tip of the iceberg... - I wonder if any testing has been done to prove or disprove this?
...but that is not anything weird as you might be implying... - I'm not sure what you're referring to :)
I can relate to being too close to your work; sometimes one needs to pull away from a task in order to clear their mind and start fresh, or gain different perspectives. Outsiders can provide valuable insight as well. I understand the concept of systems intelligence and wonder if those who possess it are able to put it to use at every opportunity presented to them, or are there certain areas or fields of work where its more applicable? Are these people more prone to be attracted to or excel at traditionally systemized, technical enterprises or hard sciences like computer programming or analysis, engineering, medical research, chemistry, physics etc., and do they have less interest or success in the soft sciences like human relations, psychology, music, performing and visual arts etc?
I do not think good systems intelligence is limited to the sciences at all. All of the great music composers had to have good systems intelligence - in their field at least. They were able to envision how 100 musicians would sound as a system. This is above and beyond being a good musician. The same could apply to a good movie producer.
So, I would say that systems intelligence, combined with natural talents or abilities can result truely revolutionary achievements.
However usually these people are unable to obtain the necessary funds or permission to accomplish the task. Thus 99.5% of the really revolutionary ideas go nowhere. Our society has no way to recognize and fund them. These people are probably not good at raising venture capital, slick presentations, etc. etc.
Cyn, I probably buy that in general males are better system thinkers than females, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
If we gave a typical PhD in engineering person a systems intelligence score of 3, then there are people, who might not even have a degree that can have a system score of 10 (in comparison). I worked with literally thousands of engineers and people with almost every science degree you can imagine and found very few (maybe 1 out of a 1000) that had high level systems and systems intelligence skills. In some cases, often a good systems outsider could solve some of the major systems problems in the blink of a eye, solutions that the regular team simply could not see.
There is a old saying that you can become too close to your work, and that is part of the answer, but not all. It takes a special type of intelligence, systems intelligence, but that is not anything weird as you might be implying.
sharp1 write: I realize I prefer someone who can think beyond their work field, and are able to discuss a variety of subjects in an "intelligent manner".Any other thoughts?
Besides intelligence, (what ever that may mean) I would also desire a person who is interesting to talk with, can communicate, naturally smiles or laughs a lot, is aware of who he is, and of course, must like animals.
After reading this thread I sit in awe of the thoughts that some of you have chosen to leave here. Thank you, each of you, for taking the time to post your thoughts. Every day I learn a little bit more about me, and others, as a result of the wonderful people who share your words and thoughts here.
I'm presently under my cloak, observing anonymously. Ads ot my picture...well, I look just like....er...Catherina zeta-jones, yeah, that's it, that's excalty what I look like. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)
Actually, I'm trying to get away from this website, so I deleted all my blogs and comments and am trying to come here, but, darn...here I am again - lol
I normally haven't ventured into Forum-land too much, but have been spending time in the Blogs. So, I started reading and this is an interesting topic dear to my heart.
One thing I'v enoticed is that noone has brought up the differences between men and women as to what they expect form their potential partner in terms of intelligence.
I found that a man, even if he says that he wants an intelligent partner, that he really means:'as long as she's less intelligent than me.'. Men are usually a lot more comfortable with a partner, that is perceived to be less intelligent.
Yes, I know there are different types of intelligence. But I'm talking aobut the general one that's normally thought of as in 'the potential to think logically and use common sense'. I know it's simplified, but please bare with me.
A woman, even if she's perfectly happy with a mate with lower intelligence can run into problems with the man feeling inadequate. Feeling threatened in his masculinity by not being superior in that department. In turn that narrows the number of compatible mates for women the higher her intelligence. Yet, it actually increases the field for men as there are many more women with lower intelligence the higher a man's iq is. Of course I'm not taking in consideration those men that do want a mate closer in intelligence. But in general, that's my observation.
Well I guess some people are just educated, they are experts at what they do , they even may be successful at what they do but it is not a guarantee they will be interesting interlocutors for women.
I believe in so called "natural intelligence" which is not necesseraly connected to the number of books one read or degrees they gained. This is that golden thread of intelligence.
Of course, it is nice when both education and natural intelligence can be found in one person, but that is rare.
The better you and your people are about analyzing your strengths/weakness and the enemies, and taking advantage of that fact, the more likely you are to win the battle or the war.
The same is true in business, or in most systems. If you can understand how our body fights diseases and infections and then understand how plants and animals do the same, you might come up with a revolutionary new disease fighter for either or both. Of course this is being done today, but rarely by medical doctors.
Until companies and academia recognize the great value of systems intelligence systems thinking, systems design, systems strategy and goals, etc., we will have very few people properly trained or properly recognized. What is needed is a entirely new type of advanced degree that incorporates many different sciences and disciplines, much like the liberal arts degree does for the arts.
whewwww. Sorry about the dissertation.
Could we discuss human sexual behavior and sexual systems now???
I stand corrected, after reviewing what is available on the web, it looks like progress is being made in the concept of systems intelligence. I first used the term about 30 years ago in a attempt to explain the lack of systems intelligence by people who were otherwise intelligent or highly educated.
Let me elaborate a little about my thoughts.
If you are dealing with a complex system of any type, and you want to evolve and improve, maximize its usefullness, minimize its cost, provide proper goals and strategy, etc. you have to understand all of the multi-disciplinary elements that make up that system, of which there may be hundreds or even thousands. Thus, finding people who are multi-disciplinary is a absolute must if you want decent results.
People who become multi-disciplinary people are usually very curious people, curious about everything. Their learning abilities may high, or just average, but their curiosity is way above average. Further, they are able to apply what they have learned to the system in question. They understand how something new to the system can improve the system, and understand where the fatal or inefficient flaws in the system might be. This understanding probably cannot be taught and is part of what I call systems intelligence. It is a creative process, but multi-disciplinary is the key factor here.
The system in question could be a business, a manufacturing plant, the economy, medicine, the human body, society, a large complex computer system, a war, a airplane, or something as simple as the paperwork involved in running a office.
For example, if you were in a war, and planning a battle, you should be concerned about your and their: technology, people, training, physical condition, moral, the weather, the effect of weather on your equipment and people, the logistical situation of both parties, terrain, and literally hundreds of other factors. The better you and your people are about analyzing strengths/weakness ..continued
IQ vs. EQ..interpersonal skills call for a different type of skills which sometimes have less to do with educational or academic skills or the conventional ways of measuring intelligence or financial success.
A vibrant pastor, a memorable teacher..who could reach out and inspire the discouraged, the lonely , the despot and the desperate..a gret inspirator does not need to prove himself in terms of his academic nor economic successes. WE should measure a man's success with his fellow human beings by the friends he has and keep. If he could walk and talk with the mighty and the small, he is my man.
A man who does not box anyone in or want to be boxed in anyway, a man who could demolish that box and think not outside but or inside a box, but just think irrespective of boxes..is an intelligent man who does not let confines and borders hem him in..must be a mad man too..or a dead man who lives in a box but thinks he is going to heaven.
Cynburghleah write: I think it's a given that people prefer to associate those they deem intelligent, but intelligence comes in many forms...which do you prefer?
Linguistic? Logical? Kinesthetic? Spatial? Musical? Interpersonal? Intrapersonal? Emotional? Existential? Naturalist? Any that Ive missed?
I think that some level of all of these intelligences are important...
I think there is at least one more. I call it large systems intelligence. It applies to all types of complex systems, including humans, war, large companies, complex designs, economies, etc. These people are able to easily recognize what is really important or critical in a system, easily find flaws, make improvements, etc. that are overlooked or not recognized by almost everyone else. However this type of intelligence is not recognized by the experts. The people who have it are very rare and their value is often not recognized because their bosses, co-workers, etc. do not have the same talent. They often are recognized in the military because of war games, etc.