Difference between revisions of "User talk:Matts"
BenofZongo (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
--[[User:BenofZongo|BenofZongo]] 17:14, 22 March 2007 (MST)The article is interesting, but also kind of depressing: I feel like if you take him at his word the bottom line is that you need a huge range of variables to match up between your participants to have a workable group. I mean, G, N, S, in six to eight players: the likelihood that all 8 have the same one is essentially zero. Furthermore, I've been organizing this group for about 4 years now, and I can tell you it's run ok even though I think that we've got a decent spread (mostly G and S, maybe 1-1.5 Ns). At the end, he sort of veers off and admits that its all a social issue: you either communicate and work out your differences or you don't. But then, why spend all this time in a lexical exercise trying to find the fundamentals of things if it doesn't actually help explain/solve/design anything? | --[[User:BenofZongo|BenofZongo]] 17:14, 22 March 2007 (MST)The article is interesting, but also kind of depressing: I feel like if you take him at his word the bottom line is that you need a huge range of variables to match up between your participants to have a workable group. I mean, G, N, S, in six to eight players: the likelihood that all 8 have the same one is essentially zero. Furthermore, I've been organizing this group for about 4 years now, and I can tell you it's run ok even though I think that we've got a decent spread (mostly G and S, maybe 1-1.5 Ns). At the end, he sort of veers off and admits that its all a social issue: you either communicate and work out your differences or you don't. But then, why spend all this time in a lexical exercise trying to find the fundamentals of things if it doesn't actually help explain/solve/design anything? | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (MST)his point is that with a well-developed vocabulary and understanding of what it is that people actually want, you can game with a better understanding of people's motives and so forth. Knowing those fundamentals, understanding on an atomic level your goals, that kind of thing I personally think facilitates communication. | ||
Revision as of 19:42, 22 March 2007
--BenofZongo 17:14, 22 March 2007 (MST)The article is interesting, but also kind of depressing: I feel like if you take him at his word the bottom line is that you need a huge range of variables to match up between your participants to have a workable group. I mean, G, N, S, in six to eight players: the likelihood that all 8 have the same one is essentially zero. Furthermore, I've been organizing this group for about 4 years now, and I can tell you it's run ok even though I think that we've got a decent spread (mostly G and S, maybe 1-1.5 Ns). At the end, he sort of veers off and admits that its all a social issue: you either communicate and work out your differences or you don't. But then, why spend all this time in a lexical exercise trying to find the fundamentals of things if it doesn't actually help explain/solve/design anything?
--Matts 17:42, 22 March 2007 (MST)his point is that with a well-developed vocabulary and understanding of what it is that people actually want, you can game with a better understanding of people's motives and so forth. Knowing those fundamentals, understanding on an atomic level your goals, that kind of thing I personally think facilitates communication.
