Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Infographics: sharing, previews, & feedack

PreviousPage 15 of 15

I agree they should both be shared.

However, I think they should be shared separately.

The sliding scale seems easy enough to understand. I'm finding the bell curve difficult though.

Here's another idea I'm thinking of so far:

The idea is:

  • The (taking) behavior of fully crooked and fully honest people is predictable: and, therefore, it's a lot easier to navigate exchanges and social situations with them because you know what to expect.
  • The (taking) behavior of most people (who fall in the middle) is more unpredictable: and, therefore, requires more power skills to navigate.

Then, the sliding scale concept can be introduced with its own infographic showing the importance of power skills to

  • Limit and reduce naivete: to recognize and protect yourself against those who turn out to be more toward the crooked/cheat side.
  • Increase personal empowerment against takers: to avoid losing.

Happy to read thoughts.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for the feedback, Ali!

If it isn't clear, then it's not good of course.

Though before going for the "two separated ones", generally speaking, when and if possible, one is better than separated.
Provided one can explain the concept with just one, of course.

So I need to think it over how to make one single image clearer.

Edit:
If anyone else found the sample image with slider + bell curve either clear or unclear, very happy to read.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

It's very clear.

In my mind, before seeing the image I understood "sliding scale" as literary scale with a scale weighing more than the other. That is: it would require two images: one when the left plate is too low (too naive) and when the right plate is too low (too nasty). I like your image more. Maybe the idea above could be useful to you. In any case, I love your images in the courses!

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for the feedback, John, it's super helpful!

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

OK, new idea:

  • Bell curve above the arrow: displaying how most people behave labeled for different types of people (honest vs crooked).
  • Descriptions above the arrow: detail how people will treat you based on the type of person they are.
  • The middle of the curve: as Lucio noted, the highest point because it's where most people are. Yet, it's also yellow (and not green like the description) because how people treat you can be good or bad (green or red) depending on the situation and you.
  • Labels below the arrow: range from you being naive to overly analytical of power dynamics. When you're in the "over-analyze" phase, you may recognize takers and be adept enough to avoid losing to them, but lack the power mastery to experience the benefits of being a more advanced (effective) social strategist (such as creating more win-win relationships).

You might be wondering why the "Too Honest People" are in red even though they never take (which, for you, is a good thing).

Well, generally speaking (for a myriad of reasons), it's better to associate and collaborate with those who are power-aware than those who are naive, so I think it's more educational for the reader if we keep only the middle positions green (and, as with anything here, I'm open to feedback on that).

Happy to read any thoughts.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for this, Ali!

May be I should have mentioned that I had reached a semi-final draft with the designer:

It will be 2-3 of these with differing levels of "your power skill" to better explain the concept.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.
Ali Scarlett
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I like yours better, Lucio, looks more scientific too :).

On the percentages, was there a study published that confirms their accuracy?

I think it's understanding the concept that matters most, not necessarily the precision of the numbers.

However, if you're unsure about the numbers, maybe the 80/20 rule would apply better here:

  • 80% of your relationships will be with people who take/give depending on the situation and, in large part, you.
  • 20% of your relationships will be with those individuals who are closer to (or are on) the 100% end of the spectrum

So, that might adjust the numbers to:

  • 5% → 2.5%
  • 20% → 7.5%
  • 50% → 80%

I think this might better reflect what most people's experience in life will be (people who are total, absolute givers/takers regardless of context are quite rare after all, in my opinion).

P.S.:

Now that I think about it a little further, if we were to find and pick 100 people on the street at random, could we say that chances are high that at least 25 of them are almost sure takers (assuming we're in a more neutral environment—not something like a bad neighborhood)?

So, more than what might be realistic, I'm wondering if the numbers presented here might make readers a little too on the cynical side.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you for the note, Ali!

The initial numbers were rounded up/down, but not completely random.

A common statistic is for around 1% for psychopathy and Martha Stout says around 4-5% for sociopathy.

And Grant says that around 60% are matchers, and givers and takers are around 20-20.

So that would make those percentages, if not "perfectly representative", at least "somewhat, roughly realistic".

That big slice of 50% + the smaller numbers on the right isn't cynical in my opinion, but quite encouraging actually: that's the majority that gives you back what you give them.
You put out good vibes with the world, and you get good vibes back more times than not.

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.
Ali Scarlett
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
PreviousPage 15 of 15
Processing...