What professional benefits do you see by investing some time in a FOAF-style network?
In chapter 9 of Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky describes using friend of a friend style networks. In these networks, you receive notifications of your friends and those of your friends' friends. Shirky describes using a service called dodgeball. He sent out a blast to his network saying he was going to a certain bar. His friends got messages that he'd be at the bar, but his friends' friends also got messages that their friend's friend was going to that bar. Through this service he met his friend's friend that he probably wouldn't have been able to meet otherwise, using it to "broker introductions" (219).
I can see this kind of network have many advantages professionally. The job I had through high school, I received because one of my friends had a friend that was hiring someone to help with her graphic design business. Having "bridging" capital and friends with "bridging" capital is valuable, as Shirky describes. Having a network that is based on cultivating these connections could have professional benefits by aiding in receiving a job and moving up in companies. I think that is the main advantage, especially right now when it is statistically harder to get a job when you're qualified, connections are vital. Just how Shirky met someone he didn't already through a friend using this kind of network, we could meet future employers.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Prisoner's Dilemma and eBay
Considering the Prisoner’s Dilemma in this chapter, provide your own insight on how sites such as eBay “work” for most participants of this popular online auction site. Do they really work? Or is there too much risk?
In chapter 8 of Here Comes Everybody Shirky describes the Prisoner's Dilemma and its effect on social dilemmas. In a Prisoner's Dilemma, there are four possible scenarios: One suspect confesses and goes free while the other gets a long sentence, the other suspect confesses and goes free while the first gets a long sentence, both confess and get medium sentences, or neither confesses and they both go free. The dominant strategy for each prisoner is to confess because they will either go free or get a medium sentence instead of the full sentence. Unless there is communication (i.e. they can see each other make the decision not to confess) or an external force enforcing the arrangement (i.e. they'll get killed if they don't cooperate). This dilemma does not just apply to criminals, but also in economics and social situations.
eBay has these four scenarios as well: the seller sends the product and the buyer pays, the seller sends the product but the buyer doesn't pay, the seller doesn't send the product but the buyer pays, or the seller doesn't send the product and the buyer doesn't pay. If their is no communication or external enforcement, their dominate strategies would be for both to cheat and not pay and not send. Personally I don't chose to use eBay hardly at all because there is the possibility of this risk (and high shipping, but that's besides the point). I think eBay is able to stay running because there is the possibility for communication (emailing the seller to see if they really sent it and vice versa) and eBay has begun to act as an external enforcement mechanism. They now have a policy where you can (in theory, I've never tried) get your money back if the product isn't sent or ins't like described. Just having the threat of this enforcement helps successful transactions occur. If these kinds of sites didn't work the majority of the time, sites like this wouldn't still operate.
In chapter 8 of Here Comes Everybody Shirky describes the Prisoner's Dilemma and its effect on social dilemmas. In a Prisoner's Dilemma, there are four possible scenarios: One suspect confesses and goes free while the other gets a long sentence, the other suspect confesses and goes free while the first gets a long sentence, both confess and get medium sentences, or neither confesses and they both go free. The dominant strategy for each prisoner is to confess because they will either go free or get a medium sentence instead of the full sentence. Unless there is communication (i.e. they can see each other make the decision not to confess) or an external force enforcing the arrangement (i.e. they'll get killed if they don't cooperate). This dilemma does not just apply to criminals, but also in economics and social situations.
eBay has these four scenarios as well: the seller sends the product and the buyer pays, the seller sends the product but the buyer doesn't pay, the seller doesn't send the product but the buyer pays, or the seller doesn't send the product and the buyer doesn't pay. If their is no communication or external enforcement, their dominate strategies would be for both to cheat and not pay and not send. Personally I don't chose to use eBay hardly at all because there is the possibility of this risk (and high shipping, but that's besides the point). I think eBay is able to stay running because there is the possibility for communication (emailing the seller to see if they really sent it and vice versa) and eBay has begun to act as an external enforcement mechanism. They now have a policy where you can (in theory, I've never tried) get your money back if the product isn't sent or ins't like described. Just having the threat of this enforcement helps successful transactions occur. If these kinds of sites didn't work the majority of the time, sites like this wouldn't still operate.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Information Cascade
Look deeper into the concept of a “information cascade.” Can you cite an example of where following the actions of others was a sound idea? Where doing so ended up being a poor choice?
"Information cascade" is the term used to describe situations where a person or group of people observes the actions of another and decides to take those actions themselves because they perceive little threat. It is described by Clay Shirky in chapter 7 of "Here Comes Everybody" and is linked to shared/social awareness. Shirky describes shared awareness as having three levels: "when everybody knows something, when everybody knows hat everybody knows, and when everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows" (163). It allows groups to work together efficiently because you can see what's going on around you and make decisions based on what you observe and know others have observed/concluded. Shirky states that technology has limited the number of hurdles to this kind of organization. Like with flash mobs, one person texts that they're going to a department store so others hear about it and join. Then flash mobs for entertainment appear across the US because the word got around it happened once without repercussions.
I was in New Orleans a few years ago on a mission trip. Most of our group was outside getting ready to load into the cars to go get dinner, when a cop drove by on the street many yards away with his sirens while another cop yelled out of the car with a bull horn. I didn't hear him and neither did the few people around me, but others that were closer did and began running towards the church we were staying in. As they were running some of the leaders called the others inside and told them to stay where they were. I did what everyone else was doing because they were doing it. Those inside stayed inside not because they knew what was going on but because they knew we were all coming in too. Those of us who didn't hear the police found out shortly that there was a suspected shooting a couple houses down. In this situation I think it is important to follow the actions of others because they knew more of what was happening.
One example of when following the actions of others can be a poor choice is when it comes to speeding on the highway. If everyone around you is, it's so easy to start driving five, then ten, then maybe fifteen above the speed limit. They haven't gotten caught, nor are there any accidents, so it seems like a fine decision to make. Nine times out of ten nothing does happen, but there's always that chance you could get pulled over or in an accident. In most cases that involve breaking the law because everyone else is, I'd say it's not the best choice.
"Information cascade" is the term used to describe situations where a person or group of people observes the actions of another and decides to take those actions themselves because they perceive little threat. It is described by Clay Shirky in chapter 7 of "Here Comes Everybody" and is linked to shared/social awareness. Shirky describes shared awareness as having three levels: "when everybody knows something, when everybody knows hat everybody knows, and when everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows" (163). It allows groups to work together efficiently because you can see what's going on around you and make decisions based on what you observe and know others have observed/concluded. Shirky states that technology has limited the number of hurdles to this kind of organization. Like with flash mobs, one person texts that they're going to a department store so others hear about it and join. Then flash mobs for entertainment appear across the US because the word got around it happened once without repercussions.
I was in New Orleans a few years ago on a mission trip. Most of our group was outside getting ready to load into the cars to go get dinner, when a cop drove by on the street many yards away with his sirens while another cop yelled out of the car with a bull horn. I didn't hear him and neither did the few people around me, but others that were closer did and began running towards the church we were staying in. As they were running some of the leaders called the others inside and told them to stay where they were. I did what everyone else was doing because they were doing it. Those inside stayed inside not because they knew what was going on but because they knew we were all coming in too. Those of us who didn't hear the police found out shortly that there was a suspected shooting a couple houses down. In this situation I think it is important to follow the actions of others because they knew more of what was happening.
One example of when following the actions of others can be a poor choice is when it comes to speeding on the highway. If everyone around you is, it's so easy to start driving five, then ten, then maybe fifteen above the speed limit. They haven't gotten caught, nor are there any accidents, so it seems like a fine decision to make. Nine times out of ten nothing does happen, but there's always that chance you could get pulled over or in an accident. In most cases that involve breaking the law because everyone else is, I'd say it's not the best choice.
Revolution
Based on the quote from this chapter, “revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies--it happens when society adopts new behaviors,” do you agree or disagree? Cite examples to support your position.
In chapter six of "Here Comes Everybody", Shirky discusses the two priests in the Catholic church who molested children and were merely moved from district to district when accusations arose. As Shirky stated, the church's strategy was mainly "not for ending the abuse but for managing the fallout" (147). In 2002, the Boston Globe did covered a story on one of these priests, Father John Geoghan. The story ignited action and the formation of the group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF). This situation had arose before, they had been covered in newspapers, but why now did it ignite an organization to form and a bishop who knew about the priest to resign? The answer, as Shirky reveals, is the adoption of technology. The first email was sent between two side-by-side computers in 1971 by Ray Tomlinson. This first email didn't start a revolution, but a revolution was started in 2002 when most of country utilized email for aspect of their life. It became an invisible behavior that most practiced; therefore, the story had the ability to spread like wildfire across the United States and beyond.
For this reason, I agree with Shirky's quote, "revolution doesn't happen when society adopts new technologies--it happens when society adopts new behaviors" (160). Let's look at the revolution of communication in the past couple decades. Corded phones became wireless phones, which became cell phones. The first text message was sent almost 20 years ago, but I don't believe it started a revolution then. I don't remember anyone "texting" in my elementary school or even middle school. My parents had cellphones probably in late elementary school but they didn't have texting capabilities. Then plans phones made texting easier and wireless companies made it cheaper, now it's widespread. A New York Times article on the subject said that in 2007, the best guess (an underestimate at that) of the number to texts sent per year is 3 trillion. The utilization of texting had changed communication. You can be almost anywhere and communicate, no internet or actual talking necessary. It has even created it's own language. It seems like a revolution in communication, and although it all began with the first text message in 1992, it did not truly change communication until people began adopting it as a new behavior.
Sources:
http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventions/a/email.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/technology/05iht-sms.4.8603150.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
In chapter six of "Here Comes Everybody", Shirky discusses the two priests in the Catholic church who molested children and were merely moved from district to district when accusations arose. As Shirky stated, the church's strategy was mainly "not for ending the abuse but for managing the fallout" (147). In 2002, the Boston Globe did covered a story on one of these priests, Father John Geoghan. The story ignited action and the formation of the group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF). This situation had arose before, they had been covered in newspapers, but why now did it ignite an organization to form and a bishop who knew about the priest to resign? The answer, as Shirky reveals, is the adoption of technology. The first email was sent between two side-by-side computers in 1971 by Ray Tomlinson. This first email didn't start a revolution, but a revolution was started in 2002 when most of country utilized email for aspect of their life. It became an invisible behavior that most practiced; therefore, the story had the ability to spread like wildfire across the United States and beyond.
For this reason, I agree with Shirky's quote, "revolution doesn't happen when society adopts new technologies--it happens when society adopts new behaviors" (160). Let's look at the revolution of communication in the past couple decades. Corded phones became wireless phones, which became cell phones. The first text message was sent almost 20 years ago, but I don't believe it started a revolution then. I don't remember anyone "texting" in my elementary school or even middle school. My parents had cellphones probably in late elementary school but they didn't have texting capabilities. Then plans phones made texting easier and wireless companies made it cheaper, now it's widespread. A New York Times article on the subject said that in 2007, the best guess (an underestimate at that) of the number to texts sent per year is 3 trillion. The utilization of texting had changed communication. You can be almost anywhere and communicate, no internet or actual talking necessary. It has even created it's own language. It seems like a revolution in communication, and although it all began with the first text message in 1992, it did not truly change communication until people began adopting it as a new behavior.
Sources:
http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventions/a/email.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/technology/05iht-sms.4.8603150.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Transaction Costs
Explain and give an example of a mental transaction cost.
To understand mental transaction costs, we must first define transaction costs in general. Transaction costs are what you give up when agreeing to and following through on a bargain. Mental transaction cost is the toll of thinking through a decision. In this chapter, Anderson explains that "free" works because it eliminates mental transaction costs by eliminating the felt need to decide if something is worth paying anything at all.
It may seem weird that charging an adult one extra cent would keep them from buying something. Many adults would probably pass up a penny they saw on the street deeming it not worth the effort; they have a steady or somewhat steady source of income. When going from 0 to 1 cent, a penny makes all the difference. I think looking at young teens can help clarify this concept. Many young teens don't have jobs, so even a penny seems like a lot. Let's say a young teen is at the mall with their mom. They see a gum ball machine and instantly want a piece, but it's 5 cents. Seeing this teen only has a few quarters in her pocket, is it really worth it? They then begin having to weigh what else they could buy with cents or what they could put this five cents towards if deciding against the gum ball. What if the gum ball is stale? What if it is not the desired flavor? All of these questions and the cognitive energy used in answering them are mental transaction costs. If her mom, however, pulls out a pack of gum from her purse and offers her a piece for free, all of these costs seem to disappear.
Although adults usually make money, because of the "penny gap" (described in this weeks other blog post), these transaction costs weigh heavily on all minds when deciding to purchase something for a price.
To understand mental transaction costs, we must first define transaction costs in general. Transaction costs are what you give up when agreeing to and following through on a bargain. Mental transaction cost is the toll of thinking through a decision. In this chapter, Anderson explains that "free" works because it eliminates mental transaction costs by eliminating the felt need to decide if something is worth paying anything at all.
It may seem weird that charging an adult one extra cent would keep them from buying something. Many adults would probably pass up a penny they saw on the street deeming it not worth the effort; they have a steady or somewhat steady source of income. When going from 0 to 1 cent, a penny makes all the difference. I think looking at young teens can help clarify this concept. Many young teens don't have jobs, so even a penny seems like a lot. Let's say a young teen is at the mall with their mom. They see a gum ball machine and instantly want a piece, but it's 5 cents. Seeing this teen only has a few quarters in her pocket, is it really worth it? They then begin having to weigh what else they could buy with cents or what they could put this five cents towards if deciding against the gum ball. What if the gum ball is stale? What if it is not the desired flavor? All of these questions and the cognitive energy used in answering them are mental transaction costs. If her mom, however, pulls out a pack of gum from her purse and offers her a piece for free, all of these costs seem to disappear.
Although adults usually make money, because of the "penny gap" (described in this weeks other blog post), these transaction costs weigh heavily on all minds when deciding to purchase something for a price.
Free
Why is “zero” such a hot-button word?
Zero is referred to as a hot-button word by Chris Anderson because it provokes a response of irrational excitement. If something is zero cents, completely free, we tend to choose it because there is no visible possibility of loss. No one wants to lose or be wrong, so if it doesn't cost anything, then we believe we can't lose anything or be making a poor decision by choosing it. As soon as the price gets raised to even a fraction of a cent (as is the case with web pages that make you pay per click), the customer likely senses the possibility of loss and has to decide whether the product is worth it. Many times they decide it's not. In human minds, the difference between $00.00 and $00.01 seems so much greater than the difference between $00.01 and $00.02. This difference causes a bend in the demand curve referred to as the "penny gap".
The "penny gap" can be seen in the chapter by one economist's experiment selling Hershey kisses and Lindt truffles. At first, the truffle was $00.15 while the kiss was $00.01, and students overwhelmingly bought more truffles because they were seen as better quality (more for your money, so it's worth the extra 14 cents). Then, the prices were lowered by 1 cent. The truffle was $00.14 while the kiss was free. Students bought more kisses than truffles in this case even though the difference in price remained constant.
These perceived benefits of having "zero" as an option make it exciting to get something for nothing. In our minds we are able to gain a product or service with no possibility of loss and that does tend to provoke a response of excitement.
Zero is referred to as a hot-button word by Chris Anderson because it provokes a response of irrational excitement. If something is zero cents, completely free, we tend to choose it because there is no visible possibility of loss. No one wants to lose or be wrong, so if it doesn't cost anything, then we believe we can't lose anything or be making a poor decision by choosing it. As soon as the price gets raised to even a fraction of a cent (as is the case with web pages that make you pay per click), the customer likely senses the possibility of loss and has to decide whether the product is worth it. Many times they decide it's not. In human minds, the difference between $00.00 and $00.01 seems so much greater than the difference between $00.01 and $00.02. This difference causes a bend in the demand curve referred to as the "penny gap".
The "penny gap" can be seen in the chapter by one economist's experiment selling Hershey kisses and Lindt truffles. At first, the truffle was $00.15 while the kiss was $00.01, and students overwhelmingly bought more truffles because they were seen as better quality (more for your money, so it's worth the extra 14 cents). Then, the prices were lowered by 1 cent. The truffle was $00.14 while the kiss was free. Students bought more kisses than truffles in this case even though the difference in price remained constant.
These perceived benefits of having "zero" as an option make it exciting to get something for nothing. In our minds we are able to gain a product or service with no possibility of loss and that does tend to provoke a response of excitement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)