Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[ferball]

Question: So what exactly is “it” that these people possess?

Answer: Executive Presence

What is Executive Presence?

Sylvia Ann Hewlett states that Executive Presence is seen in the way you act, look and sound.

People with executive presence exhibit confidence, competence, poise, effective communication skills and the ability to remain calm in the eye of the storm -all fundamental characteristics of executive presence.

If you don’t look, act and sound like an executive or leader, it will be extremely difficult to be perceived as one or to become one.

Here’s the really good news. Executive Presence can be learned.

3 Key Ingredients Essential to Executive Presence

1. Gravitas – how you act or behave is perhaps the single most important component of Executive Presence.

If you want to be an executive/leader, you must act like one by exhibiting authenticity, competence, confidence, trustworthiness, poise and an ability to remain calm in the eye of the storm.

People with executive presence treat everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of their position within the company.

Their behavior towards others displays a genuine interest in who they are as a person first – and what they do as a professional second.

Want to increase your gravitas?

Increase your self-awareness.

The more you understand yourself, and what makes you tick, the more executive presence you will display. Increased self-awareness will directly impact the way you behave and act towards others.

2. Effective Communication Skills

The ability to communicate effectively is an essential component of executive presence.

Exemplary verbal & non-verbal communication skills are consistently demonstrated - along with the ability to actively listen to others.


Active Listening allows you to hear what is not being said – and ascertain the question that is not being asked.

These are invaluable skills for any leader (and parent for that matter).

Effective communication allows you to connect with others. And isn’t that the goal of all forms of communication?

Want to improve your Communication Skills?

Executive coaching, self-help books, attending workshops and seminars and asking for open honest feedback about your communication skills from colleagues and friends will all improve your ability to effectively communicate.

3. Award Winning Appearance – how you look.

Make no mistake about it, people make a snap judgment about who you are and what your level of competency is based upon your appearance.

Therefore, it’s obvious that your appearance plays a huge role in how you are perceived.

Want Your Look Like You Got “IT”?

Dress appropriately.

Wear clothes that are not too loose or restrictive and appropriate for your company’s corporate culture.

Practice good personal hygiene including healthy teeth.

Extend a firm handshake, make appropriate eye contact, exhibit positive body language and utilize good posture.

These aspects of our appearance speak volumes about who we are and how we feel about ourselves – and will influence what others think of us. (Like it or not – this is a fact)!

Executive presence is an important tool for your success.

You can readily increase your executive presence by demonstrating the above 3 key characteristics – so you, too, can have “IT!”

Its just presence. Executives can get ****ed.

 

[ferball]

100% correct, and this is the problem.

These folks are the lab mice in Edward Bernays's great "social conditioning" experiment.

They vacuum up everything that spews out of the left/right political paradigm assembly line, then defend it with the fervent conviction typically witnessed in a religious zealot, when in fact they are clueless as to how to properly disseminate the topic at hand from an individual perspective.

Any challenge to the inserted dogma is then met with emotional outrage.............due to the dogma originally being emotionally inserted in the first place.

In order to be "woke", first you have to be "awake".

You wouldn't have heard of Bernays if I hadn't bveen raving about him here since you joined.

 

[ferball]

Morons?
Who exactly are "you people"? I dont understand what you mean?

, That maybe more effective and beneficial to the problem then just shutting down our energy resources IMMEDIATELY.

"You people" are Tef and you right now.

You're a pair of cretinous w***ers who are virtue signaling to each other about how clever you are while ignoring the actual content of the discussion.

No one is claiming we shut down our energy sources immediately. If try putting a coal seam gas well in my part of the world tho, I'll monkey wrench it and come looking for you. Those "solutions" aren't being implemented now. They might be and they might work in the future if they can be implemented on a mass scale.

So you're suggesting we put all out eggs in the basket of them working and do nothing else to mitigate the serious risks we are facing and the ongoing damage to our economy that climate change is already causing. And lets leave aside the costs of insurance, rebuilding flooded or damaged communtities high rates of hospitalisation and higher rates of death due to increasing numbers of hotter longer heatwaves and just focus on the loss of food production that's happened in the last 2 years. Despite all this raw material for growing (ie CO2 in the atmosphere) Australia has imported wheat for the first time since the last drought and looks like needing to do so again and our national cattle heard has dropped to its lowest level in decades despite a greater population and ongoing beef exports. In the last 2 years weather events have wiped out large numbers of cattle too.

The future outlook for both these staples of the Australian economy is grim without rain.

Its unreasonable to assume that the future will get better since all we have seen is sweet * all of nothing.

The links are there to highlight that there are multiple solutions to climate change

I need them up on that ridge and I need them up there ten minutes ago. Why the * aren't they there?

 

[Snake_Baker]

You wouldn't have heard of Bernays if I hadn't bveen raving about him here since you joined.

Join date: July 24, 2015



Posted: October 21st, 2012



Okay, you asked for it.

I have never "learned" a single thing from you.

IMO, you don't even qualify as particularly intelligent for this place, much less my entire exposure to the world.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Royal Flush]

"You people" are Tef and you right now.

You're a pair of cretinous w***ers who are virtue signaling to each other about how clever you are while ignoring the actual content of the discussion.

No one is claiming we shut down our energy sources immediately. If try putting a coal seam gas well in my part of the world tho, I'll monkey wrench it and come looking for you. Those "solutions" aren't being implemented now. They might be and they might work in the future if they can be implemented on a mass scale.

So you're suggesting we put all out eggs in the basket of them working and do nothing else to mitigate the serious risks we are facing and the ongoing damage to our economy that climate change is already causing. And lets leave aside the costs of insurance, rebuilding flooded or damaged communtities high rates of hospitalisation and higher rates of death due to increasing numbers of hotter longer heatwaves and just focus on the loss of food production that's happened in the last 2 years. Despite all this raw material for growing (ie CO2 in the atmosphere) Australia has imported wheat for the first time since the last drought and looks like needing to do so again and our national cattle heard has dropped to its lowest level in decades despite a greater population and ongoing beef exports. In the last 2 years weather events have wiped out large numbers of cattle too.

The future outlook for both these staples of the Australian economy is grim without rain.

Its unreasonable to assume that the future will get better since all we have seen is sweet fu** all of nothing.



I need them up on that ridge and I need them up there ten minutes ago. Why the fu** aren't they there?

So you are that triggered that you decided to throw insults drunk on a Saturday night?

You probably need to focus more on your self awareness and your anger than external issues.








Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Groin guru]

Join date: July 24, 2015

View attachment 780191

Posted: October 21st, 2012

View attachment 780190

Okay, you asked for it.

I have never "learned" a single thing from you.

IMO, you don't even qualify as particularly intelligent for this place, much less my entire exposure to the world.

 

[Groin guru]

RIP Science

The virtue signaling has reached BJSM, British Medical Journal, and the Lancet.



“Because the talent is there.” Even in a male-dominated specialty, parity on editorial boards is easy to achieve. Editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine acknowledged “medical journals have an obligation to address unequal opportunities” and vowed as an initial step that they will “assess the current representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in our journal community, including first and senior authors, invited expert contributors, reviewers, and editorial team members.”

The Lancet’s editors recently published a special issue focused on women in medicine and discussed what they are doing about gender and diversity.

They noted gaps are not due to a lack of qualified women, but rather the “supposed meritocracy is rigged against them, resulting in an unjustified and unacceptable masking of women’s contributions.” Their data also showed gaps in the representation of women authors and reviewers. They disclosed gaps in the representation of women as commentary authors, consistent with existing research in pediatrics and dermatology which showed that women in these specialties were not equitably represented as authors of opinion and perspective articles. This is a very important finding, because it essentially diminishes the voices of women in medicine, and a lack of diverse insights may negatively impact research and clinical care.

ournals depend on the privilege of publishing the best scientific work, and they need women’s research to be successful. As such, physicians and scientists (regardless of gender) can consider preferentially submitting to journals with a good track record on equity and inclusion. Before hitting “submit” women and allies might ask themselves, “Is there evidence that this journal is focused on treating women fairly?”

Now is the time for all journals and their owners to address gender bias. When women physicians and scientists face barriers to publication and journal leadership, the pace of discovery slows and critical perspectives are lost. Patients may also be affected as they are relying on researchers with the brightest minds—many of whom are women—to advance the science that will help them overcome disease and disability. There is no doubt we need her science, and when science wins, everyone wins.

 

[ferball]

Join date: July 24, 2015

View attachment 780191

Posted: October 21st, 2012

View attachment 780190

Okay, you asked for it.

I have never "learned" a single thing from you.

IMO, you don't even qualify as particularly intelligent for this place, much less my entire exposure to the world.

No.

You certainly haven't.

 

[ferball]

You'll love that the first people from this website I went to the footy with after joining and meeting thru here thought I was Tef won't you.

 

[ferball]

So you are that triggered that you decided to throw insults drunk on a Saturday night?

You probably need to focus more on your self awareness and your anger than external issues.








Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I wasn't drunk. That post sat there for about 15 hours while I was out doing stuff.

And you still can't answer the substantive arguments it contains. And you haven't once. Whenever the neo liberal s**t you speak gets shown up for what it is you resort to insults and lies about my political beliefs.

I think your confusing anger with a combination of irritation and contempt.

 

[ferball]

Join date: July 24, 2015

View attachment 780191

Posted: October 21st, 2012

View attachment 780190

Okay, you asked for it.

I have never "learned" a single thing from you.

IMO, you don't even qualify as particularly intelligent for this place, much less my entire exposure to the world.

Just read that sig line.

Seems like you've learned sweet FA from Terry and our mutual friends too.

 

[Royal Flush]

Whenever the s**t you speak gets shown up for what it is you resort to insults and lies about my political beliefs.

Did you just say that?

You got 3 fingers pointing right back at you.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

RIP Science

The virtue signaling has reached BJSM, British Medical Journal, and the Lancet.



“Because the talent is there.” Even in a male-dominated specialty, parity on editorial boards is easy to achieve. Editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine acknowledged “medical journals have an obligation to address unequal opportunities” and vowed as an initial step that they will “assess the current representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in our journal community, including first and senior authors, invited expert contributors, reviewers, and editorial team members.”

The Lancet’s editors recently published a special issue focused on women in medicine and discussed what they are doing about gender and diversity.

They noted gaps are not due to a lack of qualified women, but rather the “supposed meritocracy is rigged against them, resulting in an unjustified and unacceptable masking of women’s contributions.” Their data also showed gaps in the representation of women authors and reviewers. They disclosed gaps in the representation of women as commentary authors, consistent with existing research in pediatrics and dermatology which showed that women in these specialties were not equitably represented as authors of opinion and perspective articles. This is a very important finding, because it essentially diminishes the voices of women in medicine, and a lack of diverse insights may negatively impact research and clinical care.

ournals depend on the privilege of publishing the best scientific work, and they need women’s research to be successful. As such, physicians and scientists (regardless of gender) can consider preferentially submitting to journals with a good track record on equity and inclusion. Before hitting “submit” women and allies might ask themselves, “Is there evidence that this journal is focused on treating women fairly?”

Now is the time for all journals and their owners to address gender bias. When women physicians and scientists face barriers to publication and journal leadership, the pace of discovery slows and critical perspectives are lost. Patients may also be affected as they are relying on researchers with the brightest minds—many of whom are women—to advance the science that will help them overcome disease and disability. There is no doubt we need her science, and when science wins, everyone wins.

This is a great tragedy for the women of science who earned their place at the table.

 

[ferball]

RIP Science

The virtue signaling has reached BJSM, British Medical Journal, and the Lancet.



“Because the talent is there.” Even in a male-dominated specialty, parity on editorial boards is easy to achieve. Editors at the Journal of Hospital Medicine acknowledged “medical journals have an obligation to address unequal opportunities” and vowed as an initial step that they will “assess the current representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in our journal community, including first and senior authors, invited expert contributors, reviewers, and editorial team members.”

The Lancet’s editors recently published a special issue focused on women in medicine and discussed what they are doing about gender and diversity.

They noted gaps are not due to a lack of qualified women, but rather the “supposed meritocracy is rigged against them, resulting in an unjustified and unacceptable masking of women’s contributions.” Their data also showed gaps in the representation of women authors and reviewers. They disclosed gaps in the representation of women as commentary authors, consistent with existing research in pediatrics and dermatology which showed that women in these specialties were not equitably represented as authors of opinion and perspective articles. This is a very important finding, because it essentially diminishes the voices of women in medicine, and a lack of diverse insights may negatively impact research and clinical care.

ournals depend on the privilege of publishing the best scientific work, and they need women’s research to be successful. As such, physicians and scientists (regardless of gender) can consider preferentially submitting to journals with a good track record on equity and inclusion. Before hitting “submit” women and allies might ask themselves, “Is there evidence that this journal is focused on treating women fairly?”

Now is the time for all journals and their owners to address gender bias. When women physicians and scientists face barriers to publication and journal leadership, the pace of discovery slows and critical perspectives are lost. Patients may also be affected as they are relying on researchers with the brightest minds—many of whom are women—to advance the science that will help them overcome disease and disability. There is no doubt we need her science, and when science wins, everyone wins.

There is a post made 4 posts before yours about a state parliament (or its equivalent) in the US ruling that science is no longer science - that incorrect answers in scientific exams cannot be penalised but must still be considered correct if the student waffles some religious bullshit and you think that is the death of science.

How does that work?

 

[ferball]

Did you just say that?

You got 3 fingers pointing right back at you.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

You're the one that bangs on about everyone wanting to shut down the grid immediately.

 

[Groin guru]

This is a great tragedy for the women of science who earned their place at the table.

Sure is.

Two knock-ons are:

• Young female researchers will shout "yeah, we deserve it" despite never dealing with any hardship. They have been given a gift. They will be given scholarships and awards and feel vindicated.
• Young male researchers are being told: "you know that industry you want to work in? Well, all the new jobs that open up are going to be taken by female scientists because we need to create a 50/50 balance. It doesn't matter who is the more deserving candidate. Also, shut your mouth and smile while it happens because if you don't you're a sexist pig"

What an absolute load of s**t. Trying to create balance when it is just shifting it to the other side. Complete s**t show.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sure is.

Two knock-ons are:

• Young female researchers will shout "yeah, we deserve it" despite never dealing with any hardship. They have been given a gift. They will be given scholarships and awards and feel vindicated.

Ultimately, science doesn't give a stuff, and you end up with an over credentialled scientist that can't cut the mustard and WILL get found out.

• Young male researchers are being told: "you know that industry you want to work in? Well, all the new jobs that open up are going to be taken by female scientists because we need to create a 50/50 balance. It doesn't matter who is the more deserving candidate. Also, shut your mouth and smile while it happens because if you don't you're a sexist pig"

What an absolute load of s**t. Trying to create balance when it is just shifting it to the other side. Complete s**t show.

A 30 year chem academic recently told me that the quality of post grad work has taken a big dive in recent years due to bureaucratic interference to maximise bucks, and the facilitation of politically correct policies.

However, it's not like the best prospects aren't getting through, but there's a lot of pretty useless research getting pumped out by the undeserving post grads.

As usual, at the end of the day, it's the tax payer who foots the price.

 

[Val Keating]

With the coup in Bolivia, it’s starting to get real hard to ignore the rise of far right taking power across the world.

 

[Snake_Baker]

With the coup in Bolivia, it’s starting to get real hard to ignore the rise of far right taking power across the world.

Hey, blame the lunacy of contemporary left politics. How else can we explain Trump, Boris & Morrison?

Working class politics needs a revolution.

 

[Val Keating]

Hey, blame the lunacy of contemporary left politics. How else can we explain Trump, Boris & Morrison?

Working class politics needs a revolution.

closest thing to that at the moment would be Sanders

 

[Groin guru]

There is a post made 4 posts before yours about a state parliament (or its equivalent) in the US ruling that science is no longer science - that incorrect answers in scientific exams cannot be penalised but must still be considered correct if the student waffles some religious bullshit and you think that is the death of science.

How does that work?

My apologies for not selecting every single variable and then formulating a meta-analysis to highlight the weight of each when signifying the death of science. Obviously, they all add up.

But BMJ and the Lancet resorting to shameless gender virtue signaling is a lot worse than religious types in one country allowing some bullshit for their exams.

The Lancet has an impact factor of 59.102, BMJ 27.604 - They are two very highly ranked journals.

To put it in perspective: The Journal of Gender Studies is 0.918, European Journal of Women's Studies 1.16, Journal consisting of Greta's thoughts 0.00

 

[DesertRoo]

With the coup in Bolivia, it’s starting to get real hard to ignore the rise of far right taking power across the world.

 

[ferball]

But BMJ and the Lancet resorting to shameless gender virtue signaling is a lot worse than religious types in one country allowing some bullshit for their exams.

So large scientific publications not changing their publishing criteria is more of a threat to science than a government that makes teaching science properly illegal?

This thread has gone to s**t since K4E and SLF left.

 

[giantroo]