Blurry photo; impressive bird. Felton CA. 
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Soap search: the whole food edition
I got this recently. I like the smell, although not overwhelmingly. It's milled and I like it but it's not as foamy as some milled soaps I've used in hotels. The price is reasonable. It doesn't melt while drying in the shower like some soaps.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Trader Joe’s Brewed Ginger Beer
Yesterday I tried Trader Joe’s Brewed Ginger Beer. I liked it--it's strongly flavored. It's a little sweet to drink plain, but I bet it would be good with vodka. Denise thought it could be spicier. Contains lime and lemon juice.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
Facial hair GWAS
When Eyebrows Collide: Scientists Map the Genetics of Facial Hair - Discover
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/03/01/gray-hair-genes-unibrow
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Manolis Kellis epi YouTube to watch
https://mobile.twitter.com/manoliskellis/status/704709517477552128
My Keynote Lecture at the @WellcomeTrust Epigenomics of Common Diseases 2014 was just posted
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
Deadpool
Great opening scene, both the dynamic 360 degree camera work and the credits (“a film by some douchbag"). Generally funnier than I expected. Very raunchy, at about the level of the first hangover movie. 
Working with teams
When I'm working with a great team, the advantages are obvious, but becoming a great team is tough. Here's a nice discussion about Google efforts to identify what makes teams great.
http://nyti.ms/20WG1yY
As the researchers studied the groups, however, they noticed two behaviors that all the good teams generally shared. First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ‘‘equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’’ On some teams, everyone spoke during each task; on others, leadership shifted among teammates from assignment to assignment. But in each case, by the end of the day, everyone had spoken roughly the same amount. ‘‘As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well,’’ Woolley said. ‘‘But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.’’
Second, the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. People on the more successful teams in Woolley’s experiment scored above average on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. They seemed to know when someone was feeling upset or left out. People on the ineffective teams, in contrast, scored below average. They seemed, as a group, to have less sensitivity toward their colleagues
...Within psychology, researchers sometimes colloquially refer to traits like ‘‘conversational turn-taking’’ and ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ as aspects of what’s known as psychological safety — a group culture that the Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as a ‘‘shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.’’ Psychological safety is ‘‘a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,’’ Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. ‘‘It describes a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’
...Most of all, employees had talked about how various teams felt. ‘‘And that made a lot of sense to me, maybe because of my experiences at Yale,’’ Rozovsky said. ‘‘I’d been on some teams that left me feeling totally exhausted and others where I got so much energy from the group.’’
...For Project Aristotle, research on psychological safety pointed to particular norms that are vital to success. There were other behaviors that seemed important as well — like making sure teams had clear goals and creating a culture of dependability. But Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work.
...However, establishing psychological safety is, by its very nature, somewhat messy and difficult to implement. You can tell people to take turns during a conversation and to listen to one another more. You can instruct employees to be sensitive to how their colleagues feel and to notice when someone seems upset. But the kinds of people who work at Google are often the ones who became software engineers because they wanted to avoid talking about feelings in the first place.
...What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home. But to be fully present at work, to feel ‘‘psychologically safe,’’ we must know that we can be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear of recriminations. We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can’t be focused just on efficiency. Rather, when we start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers and then send emails to our marketing colleagues and then jump on a conference call, we want to know that those people really hear us. We want to know that work is more than just labor.
...By adopting the data-driven approach of Silicon Valley, Project Aristotle has encouraged emotional conversations and discussions of norms among people who might otherwise be uncomfortable talking about how they feel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)