A compelling metaphor, but where is it most properly applied?

Screenplays here.

In screenwriting, you have to cover a lot of ground with very few words (a mentor of mine once described it as “the thong bikini of writing.”) Instead of spending a half page describing a character, I have to do it in a sentence. And it better be a good sentence, specific and vivid enough to help everyone from a casting director to a costume designer bring that person to life.

Obviously, the number of words and their strategic placement connect to the metaphor. A few right words, like a well worn thong bikini on the right body, make the effect in a screenplay.

Thongs metaphors stimulate thinking.  Consider.

Compare Emily Dickinson’s poetry to almost everyone else’s poetry and every screenplay ever written and you must give the metaphor to her.

Zounds, Emily Dickinson in a thong bikini?

And, then, what is advertising copy? Yet, if a screenplay already wears that thread, what’s the dress for Just Do It?

A g-string?

Hmmmm, thongs.

Say less only when it reveals more.

But that requires a comely topic like Venus or Adonis. So write thongs when presenting an inherently and obviously beautiful idea.

But, can’t hot writing make beautiful the homely?

There are limits – just look around at WalMart – but can’t you use thong writing to make Venus’s less pretty sister or Adonis’s less pretty brother seem more attractive? So write thongs to hot up cooler ideas.

Thong writing for hot topics, less reveals more.

Thong writing for cool topics, reveal a little to hide a lot.

And, again, sorry.

No pictures.

No way.

Organizations thrive on their People.  Hey, without people the organization wouldn’t succeed, baby.  Where would you be without me?

Human Capital, that’s where it’s at, Jack.  The knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs – geez, I’m having a Fed flashback) of The People make The Organization.

Right.

Let’s do a meta analysis.  The abstract gives it up.

Theory at both the micro and macro level predicts that investments in superior human capital generate better firm-level performance. However, human capital takes time and money to develop or acquire, which potentially offsets its positive benefits. Indeed, extant tests appear equivocal regarding its impact. To clarify what is known, we meta-analyzed effects drawn from 66 studies of the human capital–firm performance relationship and investigated 3 moderators suggested by resource-based theory. We found that human capital relates strongly to performance, especially when the human capital in question is not readily tradable in labor markets and when researchers use operational performance measures that are not subject to profit appropriation. Our results suggest that managers should invest in programs that increase and retain firm-specific human capital.

How about that?  Human Capital “. . . relates strongly to performance.”  Of course, “strongly” is a word that refers to a quantity.  What’s the quantity of that strong effect?

Pearson r = .17.

Thus, correlate 66 different measures of Human Capital and 66 different measures of Organizational Performance and you get .17.  That’s a Small Plus effect, a Windowpane of 42/58.  That’s just about the same size as the Buxom Blonde effect for server appearance and tip size.  Kids, let’s Prove It!  Now, realize that each data point is a correlational study, not an experimental study.  That means you’ve got lots of those convenience samples with lots of self report.  Further realize that there’s no Comparison here with other factors that might effect Organizational Performance (patents, copyrights, access to capital, and on and on).  The only Comparison here is within levels of Human Capital, those beloved KSAs.  This is a pretty loose test of the Human Capital produces Organizational Success hypothesis.  And what’s the effect?

r = .17.

Color me a little surprised.  Given all the methodological weaknesses within each study from this meta, it’s probable that this estimate is . . . generous.  Everyone is using different indicators of the key variables, drawing convenience samples, no manipulation or control.  This is a lot of that epi Tooth Fairy Observational Storytelling and the best story they can deliver is r = .17.

It seems more likely here that you have to have a minimum level of competence in your people and past that, there ain’t much bang for the buck.  Certainly you need superstars in key positions, but the Human Capital argument pleads for All Stars at every position and r = .17 doesn’t hit me as All Star.  Hey, I’m a pharma with a blockbuster drug, offshore factories, and ironclad patents; how much Human Capital do I need?

Of course, I’m being a jerk who doesn’t get it.  This meta is a phenomenal verification of Human Capital and that Small Effect is exactly what you’d expect if you’d read Robert Abelson’s classic analysis of the Variance Paradox:  When A Little Means A Lot.  Hey, look at his example of the effect size for great hitters in Major League Baseball.  The difference between excellent hitters (average over .300) versus poor hitters (.220) is only a Small Effect.  Pretty much the same size as the Human Capital effect, you knucklehead.

Well, if you put it that way, my fiery friend, let me revise my remarks.  Human Capital, upon further reading and reflection, is a very good thing and I’d like to call together all the members of our family here at Engulf and Devour, LLC.  Let me stand before you, humbly, and express my appreciation and respect for the valuable and ineffable KSAs each of you brings to our table.  Without your Ks and your Ss and especially yours As, I’d be a lonely and unsuccessful man here at Engulf and Devour.  You bring inestimable value and worth every day and deliver the performance E&D needs to excel.

We are you!

Hey, persuasive speeches cut down on the turnover rate AND hold down bonuses!  Or else it’s really the Human Capital.

P.S.  Let’s get out of here with Peggy Lee and her classic hit, Is That All There Is.  Contemplate the Variance Paradox, Small Effects, and Human Capital as you enjoy Ms. Lee.

P.P.S.  The Variance Paradox applies at the extreme top end of human performance.  At the World Series, a little means a lot.  At the Beer League Championship, a little means small beer.

Wowser, statistics and Shakespeare.

Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443-456.

doi:10.1037/a0022147

Walt Whitman is esteemed as one of the great poets of the ages. Even one brief poem illustrates his power.

283. A Clear Midnight

THIS is thy hour O Soul, thy free flight into the wordless,
Away from books, away from art, the day erased, the lesson done,
Thee fully forth emerging, silent, gazing, pondering the themes thou lovest best.
Night, sleep, and the stars.

Now, contrast this against the only major poem Whitman published with a fearful commitment to rhyme and meter.

193. O Captain! My Captain!

CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head;
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

This in response to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Now, consider another attempt on the same theme. The opening stanzas.

192. When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom’d

WHEN lilacs last in the door-yard bloom’d,
And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,
I mourn’d—and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.

O ever-returning spring! trinity sure to me you bring;
Lilac blooming perennial, and drooping star in the west,
And thought of him I love.

O powerful, western, fallen star!
O shades of night! O moody, tearful night!
O great star disappear’d! O the black murk that hides the star!
O cruel hands that hold me powerless! O helpless soul of me!
O harsh surrounding cloud, that will not free my soul!

In the door-yard fronting an old farm-house, near the white-wash’d palings,
Stands the lilac bush, tall-growing, with heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
With many a pointed blossom, rising, delicate, with the perfume strong I love,
With every leaf a miracle……and from this bush in the door-yard,
With delicate-color’d blossoms, and heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
A sprig, with its flower, I break.

In these three poems we see the poetic comparison and contrast of my Rule, All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere, as adapted from Oscar Wilde’s Bloom amended, All Bad Poetry Is Sincere. Whitman’s great poetry as evidenced in Clear Midnight and Lilacs follows a subtle structure, an unplanned plan that makes poetry shimmer with art. Then cringe through the marching thump of Captain Oh Captain and observe every trick, move, and cry.

The art and skill of poetic persuasion hides any sincerity no matter how deeply felt. It’s what you do to the Other Guy, not what It does to you.

It was in that room too that I learned not to think about anything that I was writing from the time I stopped writing until I started again the next day.  That way my subconscious would be working on and at the same time I would be listening to other people and noticing everything, I hoped, learning, I hoped, and I would read so that I would not think about my work and make myself impotent to do it.  Going down the stairs when I had worked well, and that needed luck as well as discipline, was a wonderful feeling and I was free then to walk anywhere in Paris.

Ernest Hemingway, Moveable Feast, page 13

It is simply too easy to obtain a p value below .05 and to subsequently publish the result . . . When researchers publish ambiguous results as if they were real and reliable, this damages the field as a whole: Time, effort, and money will be invested to replicate the phenomenon, and when replication fails, the burden of proof is almost always on the part of the researcher who, after all, failed to replicate a phenomenon that was demonstrated to be present (with a p value between .01 and .05).  Thus, our empirical comparison shows that the academic criterion of .05 is too liberal.

Ruud Wetzels, Dora Matzke, Michael D. Lee, Jeffrey N. Rouder, Geoffrey J. Iverson and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers  (2011).  Statistical Evidence in Experimental Psychology:  An Empirical Comparison Using 855 t Tests,  Perspectives on Psychological Science May 18, 2011 vol. 6 no. 3 291-298.

doi: 10.1177/1745691611406923