<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.fastcompany.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/member_recent_content/114533</link>
 <description>Member recent activity block for member profile page</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-24883</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;As a facilitator - who spends a lot of time getting people and companies to unblock.  This cuts at the nub of the  2 factors that help create new insight.&lt;br /&gt;
1.  A fresh perspective.  See things from somewhere else 2. You then add in stimulus. I can ask you to be angry or scratch your car and you are angry.  The pressures on time, targets, roles and functions means too often we short circuit time spent on fresh perspectives and adding in stimulus to break us from our habitual thinking ruts.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:54:28 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>mark palmer</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1424173 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5904</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;We get too hooked up on neuroscience and the desirefor a predictive answer. If you accept Jung belief in personality preferences which is the basis for Myers Briggs profiling - the most commonly used personality profiling methodology and 2m done a year - we have preferences which are inate - but we can choose or learnhow to act of preference.  In contrast to what this paper states the opposite is true for marketers.  Let me explain.  The 2 main functions in Myers Briggs assessment are how we perceive and how we decide.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5904&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 18:19:06 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>mark palmer</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1288050 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Fast Talk Response - </title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/node/831199</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Learn from the film industry.  Film companies used to want to own the talent. Now they accept they market the talent and let the talent create the concepts.  Increasingly the money is in the concerts, the merchandise and the fame vs the records. So why not charge a royalty on income based on fame increase over time....e quotient.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:21:06 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>mark palmer</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">831199 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
