While it is clear that we need quite a bit of improvement in math, science and critical thinking skills, it is just as clear that all skills, these included, are subordinate to people skills.

These people skills include, but are not limited to, listening skills, conflict resolution skills and negotiating skills. It would include the ability to understand and express our needs, understand the needs of others and the skill to maximize getting everyone's needs met.

Learning to be empathetic and caring is a people skill. Learning to be directed by a strong sense of fair play is a people skill. Understanding ourselves is a people skill. These kinds of skills are critical to creating a world that maximizes human potential.

With- out strong people skills, it is better that we have less science and technology because it is unwise to give knowledge to fools. Why teach the technological skills to make a bomb to people who do not understand why they should never make a bomb or allow those who would use it against humanity access to one?

The world does not lack resources or technology. It just seems so because it is run by dysfunctional Machiavellians who lack people skills.

Human resource managers say that the most common reason that people are fired from their jobs is their inability to get along with other people. People who lack the ability to get along with other people make many, otherwise enjoyable, jobs miserable. There is an overpopulation of employers who require employees to do tasks they would never do under conditions and wages they would never accept.

Employees who are more interested in creating drama in the workplace than being productive or even earning a paycheck are way too plentiful. And while these people may have the technical skills to run a company, the efficiency of that company is severely limited if the people can't work well together. And it is much easier to improve the technical skills of a person with good people skills than a person who disrupts the workplace.

Look at the time and money lost to labor disputes. At the core of every labor dispute is a lack of people skills. The imaginary line division between management and labor is a symptom of the lack of people skills. These two groups are interdependent; they should be on the same side of the table.

Look at the lost sales for want of people who know how to provide good customer service. How can you sell without good people skills?

Whether it is government services, retail businesses, schools, churches or social clubs, all enterprises rely on good people skills. Even in our present war on terrorism we find that, while we can run circles around the terrorists in killing technology, we lack the people skills to win. We are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.

Looking at human history from 50,000 feet we see that, while we have made great strides in understanding and controlling many things in our environment, we have done very little in learning to understand and control ourselves.

I submit that it is time to change emphasis. Let's put our greatest emphasis on learning how to live with each other. Let's put the bulk of our human capital to work expanding the human experience and potential. What is the point of all of this technology if it is not expanding the human experience and potential?

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16326214.htm

So do we need people skills?

If yes, can they be taught? How?

If no, why not?

Yeah, we need people skills. They can be taught. However, a major concern is that not all people have the same values. How can everybody win when everybody has a different set of values?

People skills are kind of like children-rearing. You don't really need to go out and read a book to learn them or get by. But reading books and seriously studying these things certainly can't hurt.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16326214.htm

So do we need people skills?

If yes, can they be taught? How?

If no, why not?

People skills should not be taught. If you are good with people, you should keep it to yourself, it's your advantage. If you want to share it, share it with a close friend.

Those are the idle dreams/fantasies of someone who has never had to deal with large groups of people. It's virtually impossible to get, say, ten people to even agree on what to order on their pizzas much less something that might involve their entire lives.

It is by no accident that in almost all human endeavors involving groups of people, there must be an overall authority to make the difficult decisions.

Francois: "However, a major concern is that not all people have the same values. How can everybody win when everybody has a different set of values?"

Exactly! And it's only people who can't or don't recognize that fact who write such idealistic dreams as the man who wrote that posted article. Just by reading it, I can tell that he's never been in a position of authority over a group of individuals ....and yet he writes to tell others how to do it?!

Baron Max

People skills should not be taught. If you are good with people, you should keep it to yourself, it's your advantage. If you want to share it, share it with a close friend.

An interesting viewpoint. At first, I laughed ....but then I reconsidered.

Just think of it for a moment; What if everyone had the same/similar "people skills" and they were all in the same meeting/negotiation? It would be each individual trying to outdo the others in much the same way as happens now ...mostly chaos and anger, with the final verdict by the one with the most power.

Baron Max

Yeah it would be weird if everyone had good people skills, then us with them lose our advantage. Sometimes I wear sunglasses so I get more knowledge out of a conversation than the person I'm talking to does.

Ha I sound a little psycho but it's not that extreme.

Anyway, I always thought critical thinking skills were the fundamental, and people skills grew out of those.

But yeah, they're very important

Baron:

We're not talking about a change in values, but an ability to perceive the merits of a difference in point of view.

Do you think it is impossible to train people so that they are able to get along better?

Baron: We're not talking about a change in values, but an ability to perceive the merits of a difference in point of view.

Perceiving the differences, and working to form some agreement between two diametrically opposing value systems is two very different things, Sam.

In reality, for the most part, I think people "generally" understand some of the merits of other value systems. But then most don't agree with those value systems.

It's not so difficult, for example, to understand the Chinese guy making and selling the movies with hot, young chicks killing the kittens ....but, Sam, understanding that is not the same thing as accepting it or approving of it. I understand him making the movies ...because they sell and make him money. But that sure don't mean that I approve of it; nor do I think he and I could possibly come to an understanding about it. See?

Do you think it is impossible to train people so that they are able to get along better?

No, not really. I think we might be able to strip people of their emotions, thus they might be more apt to get along better. But with human emotions in tact, the first time some black guy cuts them off in traffic, they're emotions kick in and they yell, "You Black motherfucker!!" ...and any other time, they'd say that they weren't racist against blacks.

See? It's emotions that are the main problem, not the rational thinking or the rational understanding. I think Star Trek hit it pretty good when the invented Spock and Vulcans ...all logic and no emotions. In that way, it's easy to see how people could get along peacefully (even if they might disagree).

Baron Max

deleted

NO subject should be studies more than people. People are the beginning of all sciences and mathematics, and it is by people only can science and mathematics be ended.

If you cannot socialize nor comprehend the mind of others, then mathematics and sciences are useless to you.

If you cannot socialize nor comprehend the mind of others, then mathematics and sciences are useless to you.
Hmmm... Wrong on every point. Interesting.

I have found this. I will relate it to an engineering design review.

Age and experience play a large role in the "get-alongness" factor. Younger, more insecure (or older but less competent) engineers will tend to want to "dominate" and establish themselves better by being the center of attention and offering the "brilliant" ideas. One might think that this would be disruptive to an effective design review. Suprisingly, it's not. The highly experienced and competent members of the team will often sit back and allow the other team members to "battle it out", egos and all, and sort of moderate. The benefits are that often the moderating team leaders will see nuggets of gold in the battle. And it allows the younger members to show off.

My point is that by getting along too well, you can stifle the creativity of competitive moderated conflict.

Does this have anything to do with the topic? How the F would I know?

Hmmm... Wrong on every point. Interesting.

And I'm wrong because......

And I'm wrong because......

Go back and read your post again ....think about it some. Then I'm sure you'll see why he said you're wrong.

Baron Max

And I'm wrong because......
Let me help:

SIR ISAAC NEWTON.

'k?

Go back and read your post again ....think about it some. Then I'm sure you'll see why he said you're wrong.

Baron Max

Some peoples kids, huh Baron?

I got thinking about the idea of people being taught social skills on a broad basis. I cant see it happening because i believe it would soon become apparent that children were in fact being taught to be little manipulators.
Just how skilled/manipulative do you really want the average person to be?

I always used the fact that I have more people skills then my peers to my advantage. But yes, it should probably be taught.

I define learning as the interaction between self and environment. No matter its richness, the mind cannot be complete without the external environment.

Isaac Newton is touted as an example of a person who's mind was his environment. He had many, many flaws that crippled him socially and was not helped any further by his own self-isolation. Although we are thankful for his contributions to humanity (which is debateable as the work of Liebnitz), one cannot help but wonder what his life might have been like had he gotten out more. Granted this was the 17th century and there wasn't much to do. But for his times, he was backward in many ways. Could humanity have lost out if Isaac Newton had a girlfriend or two? Maybe spent his friday nights with the boys drinking whiskey? Or should we care at all?

Absolutely. Interacting with people is pretty much all of life, and we should do it well. It can be taught, but I'm not sure it would be well taught in schools.

No, not really. I think we might be able to strip people of their emotions, thus they might be more apt to get along better. But with human emotions in tact, the first time some black guy cuts them off in traffic, they're emotions kick in and they yell, "You Black motherfucker!!" ...and any other time, they'd say that they weren't racist against blacks.



That's asinine.

If I am pissed at someone, and that someone happens to be black, I don't have a go at them because they're black, I have a go at them for whatever it was they did that pissed me off.

I define learning as the interaction between self and environment. No matter its richness, the mind cannot be complete without the external environment.

Isaac Newton is touted as an example of a person who's mind was his environment. He had many, many flaws that crippled him socially and was not helped any further by his own self-isolation. Although we are thankful for his contributions to humanity (which is debateable as the work of Liebnitz), one cannot help but wonder what his life might have been like had he gotten out more. Granted this was the 17th century and there wasn't much to do. But for his times, he was backward in many ways. Could humanity have lost out if Isaac Newton had a girlfriend or two? Maybe spent his friday nights with the boys drinking whiskey? Or should we care at all?

Look at it another way. Had he conformed to what seems to be your ideal he might have discovered nothing at all because of being too busy wanting to see all points of view. Liebnitz ( sic ) is a red herring.

No, it's nonsense. Imagine a world where everyone got taught it. It's teaching ideology and killing individualities which in turn would reflect in lack of strong and peculiar characters, examples of which have been many great scientists.

The world does not lack resources or technology. It just seems so because it is run by dysfunctional Machiavellians who lack people skills.
Just think of it for a moment; What if everyone had the same/similar "people skills" and they were all in the same meeting/negotiation? It would be each individual trying to outdo the others in much the same way as happens now ...mostly chaos and anger, with the final verdict by the one with the most power. We seem to have quite varied ideas about what "people skills" are.

Let's say that Machiavelli did not lack "people skills", and his advice concerning the skill set for a particular people-oriented job was well considered.

And let's say that the "people skills" involved in getting a farmer's cooperative grain elevator and processing operation off the ground are a somewhat different set.

"The ability to tell someone to go to hell, and leave him looking forward to the journey" - one people skill I've noticed in short supply.

btw: There's a replicable, scientific measure of a certain kind of "people skill": show increasingly brief clips of scenes of human interaction, and set a multiple choice questionairre for the viewer on what the dominant emotion or mood was. Some people can tell you that the scene was an angry argument based on clips flashed so quickly they can't tell you how many people were in it.

These people have uncanny abilities to read emotions and pick up on subtle cues. They are often socially dysfunctional - always a step ahead of everyone, they are out of sync. They tend to make poor team players, since when operating at full capacity they trip up their teammates and react to ephemeral situations.

One the other hand, we have human resources personnel - usually retarded, socially inept, assholes. That blunt social stupidity is very valuable in that job, as long as the job is properly limited (these folks should not make hiring decisions). It's what you want, if you want a large bureaucracy to function properly.

So: people skills. Which people should have which ones, in an ideal world ? And if you are going to try to "teach" them, who are you going to put in charge of that project - soemone from Human Resources ?

As the Head Linguist around here I'm obviously going to say that the fundamental people skill is communication. And despite being the Head Linguist I'm going to quickly add that this is not limited to verbal communication. It's about sensitivity (without the baggage that word has lately acquired): understanding people's needs and desires, strengths and weakness, problems and achievements, what motivates them and what discourages them, how much leadership they have or want, how cooperative they are, how they respond to various situations, how they themselves communicate.

Of course "people skills" can be abused such as the classic example of Machiavelli or the more commonplace example of the con man. But any skill can be abused. That's no reason to discourage it. Astrologers and other people who claim to be practitioners of the paranormal simply use their people skills to tell their customers things that reinforce their faith in the astrologer, but the best astrologers and psychics use that advantage to perform straightforward psychotherapy and help people with their problems who would never consider going to a "shrink" or a marriage counselor.

Consider: If we all improve our people skills, we're less likely to be conned by faith healers, investment scammers, and megalomaniac politicians!

People skills are a tool. No one tool is the magic tool that will make the world better or even make the practitioner a better person. But the tool SET helps us all.

Consider: If we all improve our people skills, we're less likely to be conned by faith healers, investment scammers, and megalomaniac politicians!

But the faith healers, investment scammers and megalomaniac politicians would have better people skills as well, allowing them to be better con-men.
Perhaps not much would change if everybody would improve their people skills.. ;)

Social skills are one of the greatest feats to possess, and social development is a must. How can you live and function in society without communication? I say, these "people skills" are of far more importance than advanced science. Most never use it, but social skills are used throughout your life.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16326214.htm

So do we need people skills?

If yes, can they be taught? How?

If no, why not?

a large part of teaching people skills is teaching people to see and understand themselves (as opposed to simply "analyzing" others)

perhaps a problem of scientific circles is that the issues of the seer are considered negligible ("a good science worker is objective")

That may be fine for compiling charts, but doesn't cut the mustard in management, steering committees etc etc

I frequently have to go WAY out of my way to be extra-nice to someone whose head I want to rip off. I have to remember to control my thoughts, actions, and speech.
I have learned being extra-nice to people always disarms them--especially when they are upset about something.
Nice works. :)

Most are taught by parents, but when your parents lack those skills, then...
I don't see the schools teaching those skills. I see classmates doing it. If you can't play nice and use some of those skills, little kids will let you know.

People skills can be learned, and whatever can be learned can be taught,

but somehow the image of a Human Resources professional setting up a required course in "Business Communication and Interpersonal Cooperation Fundamentals" for the machinists and deburring crew, overtime at straight pay, floats into view.

If you want your dogs socially competent, raise the puppies together, let them play.

I'm working as we speak & it's business to business sales inwhich you have to be a people person!

yeah for sure people skills bring on the skills