An example of what I mean. Inclusive college admission looks inclusive only to a population who went to college.
Many of those who cannot go to college want to find good jobs without having to travel to a college the other side of the country leaving their parents alone.
Of course, inclusive college admission is better than non-inclusive one. But it’s still pretty non-inclusive, to everyone for whom college is not a viable option, and to all towns and families for whom having their young go away is not a viable option.
Decentralization would probably be more inclusive than any form of inclusive centralization.
Inclusivity, as a gatekeeper, doesn’t mean to ensure that the population you let through is diverse.
It means getting out of the way as much as possible, and only gate when strictly necessary.
Colleges, I’m looking at you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A problem of many organizations is that they are aware of the needs of employees (impact, recognition, growth, fair salary, etc) but fulfill them as they would with a checklist: let's do this superficially, checked, done.
Some examples (& solutions) ↓
1/8
Example #1: recognition.
Many companies and managers know that employees want recognition.
But they fulfill this need in a very superficial way. With a small internal award, a certificate, etc. Top red flag: it's HR-driven and/or feels cringe.
2/8
The alternative:
– make it personal: it should come from the boss or the boss' boss.
– make it congruent: a moment of recognition followed by a year of no recognition feels (and likely is) fake.
3/8
Whenever we desire an outcome but not the actions that would make us achieve it, we end up with inaction, busywork, shortcuts, excuses, and, ultimately, frustration.
(a thread of highlights from the first chapter of my book "The Control Heuristic")
1/14
You probably do not have a decision-making problem, but an action-taking one
2/14
Decision-making is not the same as action-taking.
The cortex is mostly responsible for taking decisions, and the ~basal ganglia determines whether we act on our decisions.
The recent wealth tax increase in Norway was expected to bring an additional $146M in yearly tax revenue
Instead, an estimated $54B-worth of ultra-rich left the country, leading to a lost $594M in yearly wealth tax revenue
A net decrease of $448M+
(sources and calculations ↓)
The Guardian estimates the wealth of the relocated millionaires at 600B NOK, or $54B. That would have been taxed at 1.1%, which means $594M in wealth tax lost
Norway raised NOK 16.1B = $1.46B in wealth taxes in 2019 (page 3 of the PDF below); increasing the wealth tax from 1% to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Plenty of replies who seem to think that leaving the country to keep one’s money is greed, but implementing a wealth tax to get someone else’s money isn’t