I have a few tests for people before I can trust them in any professional capacity, and from a quick reflection, I think I developed it to avoid theorists:
Are they able to solve simple logistics problems: How do they deal with missed trains or planes? how do they deal with lack of seats when we go to eat at a busy restaurant? how do they cope with rain, snow, excessive traffic, or crowds if we need to hail a cab? How do they treat bar and waitstaff? how about hotel staff? Are they able to book and change rooms in a sold-out hotel? How fussy are they about limited options for a late night meal? lack of internet? flat tire? a massive brawl nearby? road closures? power outages?
If you want to test someone's will to survive, in this day and age, put them in the stadium part of town immediately after the big game and watch them fetch for themselves and compete for food and transportation, not to mention personal space, with hordes of drunken and volatile masses.
The ones who whine, wince, or the least bit annoyed or confused should be dropped like dead weight.
The ones who whine, smirk, or the least bit annoyed or confused should be dropped like dead weight.
There is a good chance you'll end up dropping the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. In fact, the only kinds that might be able to make past your test may be emotionless robotic types.
Anyone who is not at least a bit annoyed in those circumstances is not human.
My opinion is that people who are negatively affected by difficult circumstances outside their control are usually driven to wishful thinking and operate under assumptions, and a mental model, that are far too removed from reality.
Just watch your friends the next time your group gathering is inconvenience by a forced change in plans, and watch out for the first person who becomes angry or yells out "oh great!", etc.
No, I think you need to know people a bit better than that. F'rinstance I know that the guy swearing like a sailor because of some minor thing is a sailor and has dealt with the shit hitting the fan in a hurricane out where there's no possibility of rescue; if he wants to blow of a little steam, let him. Hell, it's even funny, it lightens the mood of the rest of the group!
Nonsense. You can be annoyed without being a jerk.
Showing emotion is quite ok, abusing people is not.
And if that would filter out Steve Jobs or Bill Gates is an open question, I don't know if they would be rude, abusive or simply not nice in such situations.
No, he's saying that negative emotion is all bad and a dealbreaker.
And I fully concur with that. When faced with adversary circumstances you can choose to be active and constructive (and polite to boot), or you can be inactive and negative (complaining, whining, 'why doesn't anybody do something' and so on).
I have dismissed a huge spectrum of "negative" reactions as all bad; these range from short and quick despair followed by action to fix the situation, to the more extreme total emotional breakdown and road-side sobbing. The brush need not be that broad, but you can usually gauge how much of a go-getter someone is by seeing their reactions, unconstrained by social appearances, keeping face, etc. People can fake calmness just by being shy :-) so you need to take into account how well someone takes bad news; I have seen people who made nothing of complete disasters and always had a plan B for everything.
If you feel entitled to stuff then all the problems in the world are caused by and supposed to be solved by others.
If you have a 'get up & go' attitude then there is not much that will faze you, after all, you trust in your own competence and judgment to solve things.
There is a certain 'complaint' culture, where everybody is just whining about stuff all-day-long. It really can get on your nerves sometimes. So, you complain. Fine, now what are you going to do to fix it. And if the answer is nothing then stop complaining.
I think it is a major indicator of how people are put together, if they're not treating people that are in a temporary position of having to serve them in a decent way then that speaks volumes about their mentality.
My opinion is that people who are more drastically affected by outside circumstances than the rest of their group, and who have their own private way of suffering, unshared with the rest of the unit, those people don't tend to be team-players and rarely volunteer leadership or take responsibility.
When the bus breaks down and everyone is about to miss their appointment, there is no sense in being the biggest cry baby. Lament is acceptable, but the person who gets out of the bus first and runs for a cab is the real winner. _IMO_.
Are they able to solve simple logistics problems: How do they deal with missed trains or planes? how do they deal with lack of seats when we go to eat at a busy restaurant? how do they cope with rain, snow, excessive traffic, or crowds if we need to hail a cab? How do they treat bar and waitstaff? how about hotel staff? Are they able to book and change rooms in a sold-out hotel? How fussy are they about limited options for a late night meal? lack of internet? flat tire? a massive brawl nearby? road closures? power outages?
If you want to test someone's will to survive, in this day and age, put them in the stadium part of town immediately after the big game and watch them fetch for themselves and compete for food and transportation, not to mention personal space, with hordes of drunken and volatile masses.
The ones who whine, wince, or the least bit annoyed or confused should be dropped like dead weight.
[Edit: s/smirk/wince]