btrmt.

Analects

Here you'll find all the btrmt. content from across the projects.

Other Projects  |  About btrmt.
btrmt.

Analects

filter by:

Everything

stuff from all anthologies

show:

article

You could think of a collection of group dynamics like ‘groupthing’ or ‘deindividuation’ or whatever are bad. Or you could consider that our social identity is formed by making the distinctions between in- and out- groups clear. Then it all makes sense.

'Harmful' group biases describe all group dynamics

Article

There’s this cluster of classic social psychology experiments from the 50’s through the 70’s that you’ll be presented with in documentaries and whatnot whenever groups of people are behaving crazily. You’ve probably heard of some of them. Milgram’s ‘shock’ experiments, or Zimbardo’s prison experiment, or Asch’s conformity tests, and so on. This is the second in a series on group dynamics. Here we’ll talk about how the same group dynamics people like to worry about actually underpin all group dynamics.
You could think of a collection of group dynamics like ‘groupthing’ or ‘deindividuation’ or whatever are bad. Or you could consider that our social identity is formed by making the distinctions between in- and out- groups clear. Then it all makes sense.
Read this article

filed under:

collective-architecture connection gratification on-culture on-ethics on-friendship on-leadership

article

For group dynamics to produce really bad behaviour, you really need to work at it. You have to train your authority figures to be cruel, prevent dissent or disengagement, and intervene all the time to stop people fixing things. It’s <em>hard</em>.

Catastrophic leadership is actually really hard

Article

There’s this cluster of classic social psychology experiments from the 50’s through the 70’s that you’ll be presented with in documentaries and whatnot whenever groups of people are behaving crazily. You’ve probably heard of some of them. Milgram’s ‘shock’ experiments, or Zimbardo’s prison experiment, or Asch’s conformity tests, and so on. This is the first in a little series on group dynamics. Here we’ll talk about the classic experiments, and show that the kinds of catastrophic group dynamics people trot out to illustrate them are actually really difficult to achieve.
For group dynamics to produce really bad behaviour, you really need to work at it. You have to train your authority figures to be cruel, prevent dissent or disengagement, and intervene all the time to stop people fixing things. It’s hard.
Read this article

filed under:

betterment collective-architecture connection on-ethics on-leadership somatic-architecture on-culture on-friendship

article

We can think of motivations in terms of three things. There is the <em>content</em>: what things motivate us. Then there is the <em>process</em>: how things motivate us. And lastly, we have those things that <em>maintain</em> our motivation.

Motivation pt. II: Stickytaping it all together

Article

I needed to do a little refresher on motivation for another audience, so I’m going to subject you to it as well. It’s a messy subject, but at a high level, there are some interesting frameworks for understanding what makes people do things. This is part two of a two part series, where I’ll outline theories that try to make the mess all work together, with mixed success.
We can think of motivations in terms of three things. There is the content: what things motivate us. Then there is the process: how things motivate us. And lastly, we have those things that maintain our motivation.
Read this article

filed under:

betterment on-leadership somatic-architecture wealth-architecture

article

Individually, the disconnected dichotomies of intrinsic vs extrinsic, normative vs motivating, ‘cognitive’ and ‘biological’, and the like have little utility. But when you put them together, you can get some quite juicy fidelity on why people do what they do.

Motivation pt. I: Haphazard Dichotomies

Article

I needed to do a little refresher on motivation for another audience, so I’m going to subject you to it as well. It’s a messy subject, but at a high level, there are some interesting frameworks for understanding what makes people do things. This is part one of a two part series, where I’ll outline the main thing motivation theory has produced: a series of haphazard dichotomies. And then I’ll show you how you can use them best.
Individually, the disconnected dichotomies of intrinsic vs extrinsic, normative vs motivating, ‘cognitive’ and ‘biological’, and the like have little utility. But when you put them together, you can get some quite juicy fidelity on why people do what they do.
Read this article

filed under:

betterment on-leadership somatic-architecture wealth-architecture

article

Stress is a good thing before it’s a bad thing. It motivates us to act. We are scared of the f’s, but we don’t need to be. We should fight for things worth fighting for and fly from things that aren’t. Use the f’s as guides to action, not just things to avoid.

Giving in to Fight or Flight

Article

One particularly sticky idea is the idea of ‘fight or flight’ or whatever variation of “fight, flight, freeze, fawn, and sometimes f***”. As you might be able to tell from the slow accumulation of f’s, fight or flight is suffering from the chinese whispers effect that has us drawing wildly innappropriate conclusions from academic literature and the superficial silliness of many pop-psych ideas—where will the f’s end! So, let’s dust of the f’s and make them useful again.
Stress is a good thing before it’s a bad thing. It motivates us to act. We are scared of the f’s, but we don’t need to be. We should fight for things worth fighting for and fly from things that aren’t. Use the f’s as guides to action, not just things to avoid.
Read this article

filed under:

betterment on-(un)happiness on-being-fruitful somatic-architecture
Newsletter
Join over 2000 of us. Get the newsletter.
Read it first | Privacy | Not working?