Talk:VUCA

The following link no longer works: Beyaz Limon - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Social categorization

This huge section seems to have undue weight, not least given how remote it is from the original concept (military). Ben Finn (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Was about to say this exact same thing - if you don't pick up the section title you read it and it's all about sociology. At least one contrasting use (especially in terms of military or crisis management) in the same level of detail might illustrate the broader point. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

With this issue in mind I have added a "broaden" hatnote. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Volatility

The part about volatility is poorly written, presents crude stereotypes, and most importantly, is completely misguided.

Volatility is defined in this article as "the different situational social-categorization of people due to specific traits or reactions that stand out during that particular situation". I can't imagine most English speakers, much less anyone with English as a second language, understanding this. It suggests that in different situations, people observing someone else categorizes them differently. But the article is ambiguous about whose traits shape whose categories, the observer's own traits, or the traits of the observed.

The article uses an example that's needlessly crude. "When a Hispanic woman is cleaning the house, most of the time, people connect gender stereotypes with this situation..." 1. "the house"? 2. "most of the time"? Measured by whom? 3. "people"? Who? But "when this same woman eats an enchilada, ethnicity stereotypes surface." Enchilda? I read the referenced article. It does not contain this example. Its example is how non-Chinese observers of a Chinese woman applying make-up triggered their gender stereotypes, while the woman eating with chopsticks triggered ethnic ones. Inventing a different stereotype example, and claiming it has research support, is ugly.

But more important: the reference does review the multiple ways people get categorized, and relates this to VUCA - but this intersectional category aspect is more "Complexity" than "Volatility." That's right, the entire volatility section is misguided. Yes, the Bodenhausen and Peery article does refer to volatile responses to complex, intersectional categories, but also refers to ambiguous responses to complexity. The article is about the application of VUCA to social cognition, not how social cognition is the key to VUCA. And it's derived from social cognition complexity.

English

History of vuca 115.147.35.73 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)