Comments on: The Occupation Test

By: Let's Hear It For "Soft Skills": Communication & Collaboration | Consequential Strangers

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:19:39 +0000

[...] something different to the table–and to each other’s lives. That’s why the Occupation Test, has a range of jobs, up and down the socio-economic ladder. As sociologist Bonnie Erickson, [...]

By: Consequential Strangers » Blog Archive » Do You Have Culture Smarts

Consequential Strangers » Blog Archive » Do You Have Culture Smarts — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:41:42 +0000

[...] is my social convoy? Do you I people up and down the occupation ladder? To find out, take the Occupation Test. You’ll see that in national samples, the highest scorers know people in 19 of the 22 [...]

By: melinblau

melinblau — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:27:30 +0000

Andy, your definition of a “not-stranger” meets a more rigorous standard than my “consequential stranger” which is anyone who falls in that vast territory along the relationship continuum between complete strangers–people you know nothing about and with whom you have no history–and intimates (close friends and family). Admittedly, that’s a very broad group, and as I explain in the book, there are different types of consequential strangers within that range. Some are closer to the stranger end of the continuum, such as fleeting relationships (an occasional handyman). Some are “anchored” to a particular place (the gym) or activity (golf), And some, whom you spend a lot of time with (co-workers) or are very important to you (mentors), fall much closer to the “intimate” end of the relationship continuum.

That said, everyone has a different yardstick for intimacy. I remember a friend commenting about how surprised she was to hear her husband refer to an army buddy he served with in Vietnam and whom he now talks to maybe every four years as his “best friend.” Obviously, life-threatening circumstances can create a bonds that would transcend time and frequency of contact, but it’s also possible that his yardstick for intimacy is different from hers. And in your case, I can see setting a stricter standard for “stranger” when talking to children.

By: Andrea White

Andrea White — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:29:37 +0000

I was very surprised. I knew people in all categories. For someone who is pathologically shy, this is not bad. If we use the definition of stranger we use with the kids: someone who has not been to dinner at the house at least 3 times, a good amount were CS. It doesn’t seem to cover it.

By: melinblau

melinblau — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:24:06 +0000

I’m not surprised, Bernie, among other reasons, because of the kind of work you do.

By: bernie hoban

bernie hoban — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:36:53 +0000

pretty cool! I knew everyone but a farmer, I knew farmer in the dell but now I only have a dell computer!

By: melinblau

melinblau — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:40:12 +0000

Glad you all liked this. Barbara Green, the New York City bus driver whom I interviewed in the book (Chapter 3) also scored a 22, and I used her as an example of someone who moved up the ladder because her job exposed her, and gave her connections to, to all sorts of people.

By: Chuck Adams

Chuck Adams — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:51:07 +0000

Hi…..well I just blew away the national norm…….I know someone in all 22 occupations. Then again I’ve lived in this town for 17 years and don’t just sit at home. I’m an extrovert so it probably isn’t fair. Very good reading though…..rather hard to put down once you get started…..

Chuck

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:52:05 +0000

I found the list excellent. It covers a broad range of possibilities in which I am acquainted with someone in more than half the categories.