If this is your first time around it might serve you well to review the first post of What, Why, When and Where and take a glance at the twix theory. Truly Discourse and Jargon at its finest.
Which is Better?
More of a Good Thing, or Less of a Bad thing.
Which would you prefer?
To have a little more of happy stuff, or not as much of a negative item?
The background story.
I work 4-10 hour days each week. I usually work Tuesday through Friday and one of my co-workers works Monday through Thursday. We do this so that there is a 10 hour worker there each day of the week. Sometimes we switch around and work the opposite schedule. During my 6 months at this job I have found that I greatly prefer the Tuesday through Friday schedule. Let me explain, then you can debate.
When you work Monday through Thursday the sensation in your mind is that you are getting OFF EARLY. You are cutting the week short. For means of this discussion you are getting less of a bad thing (the work week). In contrast when you work Tuesday through Friday the feeling is that you have extended your weekend. When Sunday night comes around I feel great because I get a longER weekend. Notice we both get Long weekends. But in my case (Tues.Fri) I get to feel a longER weekend. More of a good thing.
I'll give you another example to allow you to apply this to other situations. For your whole life, every wednesday, you have eaten brussels sprouts for dinner with 1 scoop of ice cream for dessert. (yes brussels has an s). I know this is a weird dinner but stay with me for the sake of conversation. One evening you get presented with an option.
1. you only have to eat 6 brussels sprouts tonight and you still get you same 1 scoop of ice-cream.
2. you have to eat the full 10 pieces of sprouts but you get 2 scoops rather than the normal 1 scoop of ice-cream.
Choice two is the clear winner. And I think would be the winner for most people because having more of a good thing is better than having less of a bad thing.
Now of course you can make this scenario go either way you want. If the choice was more ice-crease vs. less bullets in your arm I think you would choose less of a bad thing. But when considering relatively equal options of bad and good I think more of a good thing wins every time.
What do you think?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Ten rules about the sports center top ten. In no order.
1. A walk off home run does not automatically qualify a play for the top ten
2. There should never be more than 5 diving baseball catches
3. Random sports and ostrich races do not qualify as a top ten play
4. Don't ever show mascots racing and one of them getting knocked off their feet. we've see it 100 times already
5. A hockey goal does not qualify as a top play unless the shot is different or causes amazement
6. Cannot include a horse race unless one horse actually jumps another horse in order to win.
7. Should not be made up entirely of the sporting events that were broadcast on espn the night before.
8. Should never ever ever include an awkward world series of poker celebration.
9. NASCAR should never break the top 5.
10. Use high school and amateur sports at least twice a week.
Change any of these? Add anything we missed?
A Clayton and John Veazey cooperation.
1. A walk off home run does not automatically qualify a play for the top ten
2. There should never be more than 5 diving baseball catches
3. Random sports and ostrich races do not qualify as a top ten play
4. Don't ever show mascots racing and one of them getting knocked off their feet. we've see it 100 times already
5. A hockey goal does not qualify as a top play unless the shot is different or causes amazement
6. Cannot include a horse race unless one horse actually jumps another horse in order to win.
7. Should not be made up entirely of the sporting events that were broadcast on espn the night before.
8. Should never ever ever include an awkward world series of poker celebration.
9. NASCAR should never break the top 5.
10. Use high school and amateur sports at least twice a week.
Change any of these? Add anything we missed?
A Clayton and John Veazey cooperation.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Power of Acquaintance
So remember those connectors I was talking about? Those people who do an amazing job of networking with tons of people. The trick is not that these people have some special gift to have 1,000 best friends that they know and love. Connectors remember names and characteristics about people. They really do care for and want to know these people, but they don’t know them like best friends. It is impossible to know so many people as best friends
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
So if you can't just be friends with a member of the opposite sex at least with this information having them as an acquaintance does have its advantages. They might get you a job.
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
So if you can't just be friends with a member of the opposite sex at least with this information having them as an acquaintance does have its advantages. They might get you a job.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Twitter Immunity
To follow up the Tipping Point blog I will highlight another part of the book I found very interesting. Remember the posts a while back about electronic communication and how it is the devil? Here comes more.
Beware of Immunity of Communication.
Communication is always changing. New and better ways to deliver messages are always appearing. First think of the fax machine. That is a great invention. The author points out that unlike commodities, when a means of communication becomes more prevalent the value of that items increases with the prevalence. Think about it. The more fax machines there are, the more value your fax machine has because it becomes more useful. That is the opposite of commodities where more of an item usually decreases the cost… more wheat, cheep wheat. That first fax machine was worth nothing because it couldn’t fax anything. The second fax machine made the first one worth much more, and so on and on.
The same with the phone.
When people plan how to get their product or information out in the world they carefully think of the most effective, inexpensive way to market. The phone became a beautiful connector for all things. And so we have the telemarketer. In the beginning this worked like taking candy from a baby. Can you imagine the first telemarketer that called and tried to sale you knives. “Well these knives have to be great because they cared enough to call my house to tell me about them!!!” But now look at what has happen. No call lists. Call weighting. And of course endless jokes about how to “stick it to” the caller.
Telemarketer: Hello, is this Mr. Greene?
Me: Yes
Telemarkter: lksd;flkaj dlkjf ;aslkj lakjsd ;flkja sf insurance a;slkdjf aks best deal ever a;lksdj f;lkjas f bye now.
Me: I’m in the middle of dinner can you give me your number so I can call you at home later tonight?
Or my favorite.
Telemarketer: Hello, Is Mr. Greene there?
Me: No, he is in the shower
Telemarketer: Is Mrs. Greene there?
Me: No, she is too. (hahahahaha)
Telemarketer: Ok, just leave them a message that their accountant needs to speak with them.
Me: Crap, I’m sorry.
What has happened is we have developed immunity to communication and receiving information on the phone. And the same thing will happen to twitter. It is so great right now to be able to know everyones thoughts all the time… but at a critical point it will become too much. We will turn from our 150 word updates and again rely on what we know and love the most. Personal, face to face, human interaction.
I think the same thing happened with this blog. Too many bloggers, not enough time, “I quit”.
I’ll take your silence as agreement.
Beware of Immunity of Communication.
Communication is always changing. New and better ways to deliver messages are always appearing. First think of the fax machine. That is a great invention. The author points out that unlike commodities, when a means of communication becomes more prevalent the value of that items increases with the prevalence. Think about it. The more fax machines there are, the more value your fax machine has because it becomes more useful. That is the opposite of commodities where more of an item usually decreases the cost… more wheat, cheep wheat. That first fax machine was worth nothing because it couldn’t fax anything. The second fax machine made the first one worth much more, and so on and on.
The same with the phone.
When people plan how to get their product or information out in the world they carefully think of the most effective, inexpensive way to market. The phone became a beautiful connector for all things. And so we have the telemarketer. In the beginning this worked like taking candy from a baby. Can you imagine the first telemarketer that called and tried to sale you knives. “Well these knives have to be great because they cared enough to call my house to tell me about them!!!” But now look at what has happen. No call lists. Call weighting. And of course endless jokes about how to “stick it to” the caller.
Telemarketer: Hello, is this Mr. Greene?
Me: Yes
Telemarkter: lksd;flkaj dlkjf ;aslkj lakjsd ;flkja sf insurance a;slkdjf aks best deal ever a;lksdj f;lkjas f bye now.
Me: I’m in the middle of dinner can you give me your number so I can call you at home later tonight?
Or my favorite.
Telemarketer: Hello, Is Mr. Greene there?
Me: No, he is in the shower
Telemarketer: Is Mrs. Greene there?
Me: No, she is too. (hahahahaha)
Telemarketer: Ok, just leave them a message that their accountant needs to speak with them.
Me: Crap, I’m sorry.
What has happened is we have developed immunity to communication and receiving information on the phone. And the same thing will happen to twitter. It is so great right now to be able to know everyones thoughts all the time… but at a critical point it will become too much. We will turn from our 150 word updates and again rely on what we know and love the most. Personal, face to face, human interaction.
I think the same thing happened with this blog. Too many bloggers, not enough time, “I quit”.
I’ll take your silence as agreement.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Tipping Point
So my most recent book read was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It says #1 National Bestseller so it must be good. I picked up this book because it seemed to have a Discourse and Jargon feel to it. It is a theory about how little things can make a big difference. The theory discusses how trends, fashions, ideas, disease, and behavior usually gradually change wax and wane but in certain situations they reach a tipping point where the trend or idea becomes an epidemic and swings into exponential change. See the D and J? A theory that applies to many different areas of life… candy bars, and people.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)