By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, sure CEO are dumb people that doesn't have departments to look at all that is needed. And I'm certain that psychologists and social scientists are the ones that have the best studies about productivity and thus are the most sought after professionals for companies.

CEOs are on their position to bring the best profit they can (and that pretty much involves improving efficiency). But since you know so much more than them, where is your company for you to apply all the knowledge you have.

And just to make it easier for you, you don't have to be PhD in a subject to understand or use the discoveries of it.

So if all the companies go asking the advice of a Voodoo magician, then that somehow makes him an expert? Sorry, but being right is not a popularity contest. 

CEO's are in their posistion to being the best profit that they can. That means doing everything they can to screw over their employees and customers. You need more than knowlege to have a company. You need money. Sorry, if I don't have a million dollars laying around to start up my own company. 

No, you don't need a PHD to understand a subject. But ignoring the input of a PHD in favor of some layman, is an idiotic thing to do. 

I fail to see where did you got that asking advice makes someone an expert.

If you truly believe that making profit is about screwing employees and customers I have nothing else to discuss with you, and trust me even if you had 100M in the bank you wouldn't be able to start a company. But if you really knew what you pretend to know you wouldn't need more than 1k USD or even less to start your company.

And who is ignoring the input of PhD? But again I fail to see where do social scientists perform experiments on productivity and performance gains on production or abstract work. But again, you are the bright one and I'm the idiot and stupidy so you probably know better.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."