The Psychology Thread

And if you are in Australia, they will probably want to keep the poisonous 17 legged spawn of satan who vomit their own guts as a pet for it being too cute or something

I mean.

Probably.

@Gab - Good point.

This is the vid that made me raise that question:

It's striking how (most of the time) men are so chill to the prank compared to the ladies. XP

edited 11th Nov '15 7:45:26 AM by dRoy

I would be abjectly terrified.

Who would let a poor pizza go to such waste?

New York pizza isn't that good. It's overpriced and just basically a ball of grease. New Yorkers also don't know the value of toppings.

So it's not a big waste.

Yeah the one friend I have that has pretty much the exact reaction to rats/spiders/other creepy crawly things is a girl, it's nothing to do with our genders and everything to do with the fact that we both grew up in big spooky houses full of such things, so we grew up used to them.

i think it's also affected by personality/genetics, you could argue that those with a more anxious disposition are more likely to fear insects/creepy crawlies. You can also use the psychological theory (I forget what this is called0, but if you see your parent screaming 'ahhh a spider', then as a child you think that spiders are meant to be a thing that should be feared, regardless of what gender you are.

Did you notice that the little girl in the second scene didn't act at all frightened, until she saw the grown woman's reaction? There's your answer.

I did NOT notice that. Her outfit was too distracting.

That color combination, urgh.

So many people will wonder about why this belongs to a psychology thread, but I am hijacking it for two reasons:

• First, Organizational psychology is a valid department of psychology
• Second, I am an asshole

But seriously. Browsing through databases for applicants turns out with beautiful gems such as people like this:

In the part where they speak of their previous jobs they can put several things, like who their boss was, what job they did, and what achievements they accomplished during there. This particular person decided that her best achievement during her stay in a company was...and here I am just translating without paraphrasing anything "Getting hired by (Name of another company)".

That is right, her best achievement during the stay at another job, was ditching them by getting hired by someone else.

As someone recruiting for a company how am I supposed to look at this and say "Well hot dang. Someone willing to drop us and badmouth us for someone else. Hire immediately."

I'm guessing organizational psychology has some common grounds with social psychology?

No. Well. yes in the sense that they are psychology, and they may use the same theories sometimes, but, the applications are different.

Here are APA's divisions of psychology to have an idea of what there is and what they do.

edited 12th Nov '15 8:10:58 AM by Aszur

Organizational psychology is much like social psychology except that it wont kill you out of sheer boredom. Or: Organizational psychologists are just like social psychologists except they actually make money.

Then why am I dying of boredom and being paid in peanuts?

Not even full peanuts. Just the empty shells.

edited 12th Nov '15 9:53:45 AM by Aszur

Quick, on a scale of 1-10, where 10 is "I feel like an organizational psychologist" and 1 is "I feel like absolutely nothing at all like an organizational psychologist" please indicate how much you feel like an organizational psychologist. But first fill out this five page consent form.

I do not see the "I feel like jumping off a bridge" option

See the inadequately provided space under "If Other, please clarify."? I think you're supposed to put it there. Well, maybe.

It's not like the instructions are ever that clear (because HR were told to cut costs and ink may's well be made of unicorn hair).

We get all the blame for it, though.

Like now I am told to get people interested in Quality Assurance positions (Which in IT is a technical job), yet they refuse to pay more than about USD $800 a month. Which is actually fine since it is a technical job.

But they also want a woman. They want somone who has absolutely no pretention to ever go above that. And they want someone who has technical studies about that.

And when I tell them "Ok. here are the people who fit that" and do not give them a pile, or give them the currilculums from people who can barely type their way out of a wet paper bag, they think the market is screwed and there is no one ever.

Yeah, that sounds about right. "We need to fill diversity quotas with certified technicians who have to have tertiary educations (with the associated student debt)... but, we don't want them moving up the chain for 15 years or so and are willing to pay them in lint fluff and dust bunnies. What, no takers? Damn, this generation is full of selfish slackers!"

edited 12th Nov '15 10:37:39 AM by Euodiachloris

Actually the woman thing is not a thing about diversity quotas.

It is about this being the preference of the jobs because in their experience men who join the QA job just used the QA experience to later move on to programming whereas women tend to stay there.

That is, in their experience of "I do not know how to read Resumes. Who would have thought the people studying programming would want to quit to go program!?"

Yes. I already warned them "And you think women of this generation who study IT stuff are going to want to stay there? BY THE WAY THE PIGEON MAIL ARRIVED TODAY. There is a dinosaur skin condom in there for you."

edited 12th Nov '15 10:40:51 AM by Aszur

It's the same thought process that goes, "We need an MBTI test to give us dynamic movers and shakers!" For a dead-end job that's basically troubleshooting and the last place you want the mythical Type A beasties.

I still cringe remembering the economic oriented paper in my country released a "study" that said that narcissistic people where good at high power administrative jobs.

Just imagine. Someone out there probably believes that or worse, did it.

@De Marquis, Aszur - Phhhffff

That reminds me for whatever reason, was there some studies about highly intelligent sociopaths being good in certain management positions? Can't for the life of me remember what.

They are certainly good for the company and good for the spot and the objectives.

They are certainly hell for whatever subordinates they have.

They're good for the short-term objectives, sure. But, if you want the company to be successful thirty years down the line, not-so-much.