The Wisdom of Crowds

I have read a fascinating article, in of all places People Management (September 2012) about predictive markets. Basically the article wasn't exactly well written but the concept was strong. The article may not have been well written because it was extracted from a book, Oracles: How Prediction Markets turn employees into Visionaries, by Donald Thompson (published by Harvard Business School Publishing).

The basic concept is that a few technology and finance companies have been running internal stock markets where any employee can use fictional dollars to invest in ideas. Anyone can post an idea which is good for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is no hierarchy in ideas, it doesn't matter at what level in the organisation you are, you can post an idea and hopefully people will listen. Secondly, because the buying and selling is anonymous just because an idea is from a senior manager doesn't mean you have to support it, unlike in most meeting where if you want to get ahead you need to support the boss (however dumb their ideas are - after all your next promotion might depend on them).

Essentially good ideas are valued commodities and bad ideas are junk stock. This approach frees up innovation and allows companies to see what ideas might work best. There is also a fun element in that if you invest wisely you will become a market leader especially if your ideas work in practice. Another part of life that has now been gameified.

Anyway as is my was I thought about this and decided I could create one of those. So I have created my own model and will build a small website for people to play with. If the model is any good it may become the next big thing or as is more usual it will be become another vaguely interesting project on mycreativeboost.co.uk the repository for all my mini projects.

Experimental Predictive Market The Rules V1.0

• Each stock is a question i.e. "Workers in the UK should be given 1 extra bank holiday?".
• Each stock initially lists at a price of £10 with 1000 shares for sale (Numbers would change if it ever became really popular).
• If no one buys the stock, the price will drop at a rate of 0.04p per day (the stock and therefore idea is unpopular).
• If someone buys stock the price rises at a rate of: 'Number of shares bought * 0.04p'.
• If someone sells stock the price falls at a rate of: 'Number of shares sold * 0.04p'.
• Trading limit of 100 shares per transaction.
• If price above £10.00 stock rises at a rate of 0.04p per day (Idea is popular and will keep rising until investors tempted to sell - Price will hopefully stabilise at the value of the idea)

I will admit the above rules are a bit rough and ready and may need refining over time. Think of it as a bit of a starter for ten.

Of course I accept no responsibility if I never finish this project, I have a habit of getting distracted by real life sometimes.

Humanistic design - Part 2

In a previous article I wrote about how we associate different sounds with different objects and even when those sounds are no longer made due to developments in technology we still associate the sound with a quality product. Thus product designers add these sounds back in artificially so that we continue to make the quality connection.

Partly this is due to the human failing of not feeling comfortable with change. The absence of something that has always been there makes us feel slightly uncomfortable even though we may not fully make the connection between what is missing and the feeling. A good example of this is yesterday when I was driving home the car sounded different, the engine noise was different, I started wondering whether there was anything wrong with the engine, was it as responsive as normal, I started to feel uncomfortable.

The answer to this ,which dawned on me eventually, was that I had forgotten to turn the radio on. So I turned it on and everything returned to normal.

Now imagine a day when I get into my first electric car, I turn the engine on and apart from a click, there is no noise, I will feel slightly uncomfortable. I might not even buy the car if I was looking for a new one. This for designers is the ultimate nightmare.

So they are looking at making electric cars sound like traditional cars with engine noises. For two reasons, one is that the driver wont be put off buying them and secondly that a pedestrian can hear the car coming. When you can choose the engine noise or download the latest engine noise from the internet things might feel a bit weird.

For sports car models they are even thinking about creating a throaty engine roar, as after all, everyone knows the best sports cars have the throaty roars.

How engineers create artificial sounds to fool us (BBC)

Anyway I digress, the whole point of this article was to post an interesting follow up to my original article. The BBC have posted up a similar article with a few extra quotes and examples.

The car door example is one I found very interesting as Professor Cox is right, car doors should have a solid clunk to them. There have even been advertising campaigns based around the sound of the closing car door clunk.

I also love the fact that Harley Davidson are quoted as saying they won in the court of public opinion. In other words technically they didn't win according to the law.  Anybody can win a popularity context without being great at what they do, or right, or talented just check out the numerous winners of various reality talent competitions.

New Scientist : Age of Denial

De Nile, not just a place in Egypt,sorry that is one of my favourite jokes, along with Dubai, no I was just window shopping. I can hear the groaning from here. Normal service resumes in 3...2...1...

This is commentary on a New Scientist Special Report, State of Denial, Volume 206 No 2760 15 May 2010 pp 35 - 45 by various writers including Michael Shermer, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jim Giles, Richard Littlemore, Debora MacKenzie.

Are you a denialist or a sceptic?

A sceptic should review all the available information and reserve judgement until they have reviewed the information. At that point they follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

A denialist will make the judgement first and then bend the evidence to fit their case or even discard contradictory evidence to support an argument.

Of course not everything is so black and white there are many shades of grey, in all healthy debate people will choose evidence that supports their case but will generally not ignore evidence that is overwhelming against their argument.

This definition is very important to any discussion about the world being in a state of denial. Take any modern issue facing humanity like climate change / global warming. The information is so vast we cannot review and interpret it ourselves, scientists themselves are not public relations people so we have to rely on scientific commentators or journalists to interpret us for us. This relies on them to present the correct interpretation to us and even if they are presenting the correct interpretation they are often overshadowed by the opposing view who have a bigger marketing budget. In climate change oil companies have a bigger budget to present a view that supports their future business. This does not meed they are necessarily the evil empire but they have a lot to say and we are more likely to hear it first.

If I as an average man in the blogosphere wanted to completely investigate global warming then it would probably take at least a full year full time and about £50,000 and at the end of the year I would have just another book of the truth about global warming. Actually how much could I add to the debate? Only Science truly adds to the debate not commentary.

Of course being presented with all this commentary on global issues is it any wonder that some people are happy to deny the truth. I believe that denialists latch on to the most coherent or in your face argument and then accept supporting information denying any contradictory information. In a way we like to have a definitive opinion on an issue such as global warming. Having a view of "I just don't know" is uncomfortable if you are unable to do a complete review of the evidence or progress towards a definitive opinion.

The media although a force for good in reporting everything also confuses us because it constantly contradicts itself. Look at the basic media interview, whatever the person says the interviewer will ask the opposing question. This leads us to question everything and in a sense not to believe what is in front of us but look for the conspiracy or the hidden agenda. We are actually in a state of mistrust even to the point where we no longer trust ourselves.

To quote a song "All of these problems are in your head... you took something perfect and painted it red."

How would the Twitter generation have coped with 9/11? (PC Pro blogger)

This is another interesting article by the PC pro blogger Barry Collins.

Barry is thinking of Sept 11, 2001 and how technology today would change how we would have heard about such an event now. There were few camera phones around in 2001 and social networking at least on the scales of twitter and face book has not yet taken off. There were still bulletin boards and other internet forums you could log on to which did much the same things but these were perhaps not as mainstream as twitter and facebook. Barry missess this point slightly and suggests there was no comparable internet media source.

What Barry imagines is that the minute the plane hit the first tower the internet would be awash with photos, tweets and status updates about the attack. The rumours would fly around the internet until the truth was lost. As Barry points out the established news media struggled to keep up with the unfolding crisis and was full of rumours that day.

Barry goes onto point out there would be no censoring of the material went out. Everything would go out onto the internet. Could you imagine if someone had been streaming live onto the internet from inside the twin towers. Now imagine if 100's of people were doing it. I recently saw a documentary which included lots of personal video footage from outside the twin towers, from streets or apartments. These were very raw and emotional even 8 years on. I am not sure I can imagine the horror of watching footage of someone trying to get down the stairs in the twin towers hearing a rumble from above and then a few seconds of film before the signal breaks. There is footage from camera crews that were close in to the towers that are already quite shocking to watch. Do we need such emotional scars on our public psyche? Are we immune to events reports in this fashion? Would uncensored material actually cause emotional distress on a grander scale, in the future could people who were not even there suffer post traumatic stress could a similar attack paralyse the entire population. As the gap between reality and virtual reality decreases could it feel like we were actually in the middle of the crisis ourselves rather than just a spectator.

I remember the tube attacks in London in 2005. It started off with a news article about delays on the underground due to an electricity supply problem and went on from there. I followed the story on the urban 75 forums where people who had been caught up in it started posting. It was faster, personal and more raw than the mainstream news.

One of the problems with citizen media is that often people will take footage on their mobile phone and not help. I remember a few years back hearing about a horrific crash where a family was killed and the police not only had to deal with the accident but deal with motorists going the other way slowing down and using their mobile phones to get footage of the accident. Is there a legitimate reason to take such footage or have we turned into ghouls looking to get the most raw uncensored footage on the internet to get the highest views on you tube ever? Have we forgotten about the human lives destroyed?

Did Stephen Fry and Twitter really score a victory for free speech? (PCPro)

This was a very interesting blog article from the PCpro writer Barry Collins. Nearly everyone will have heard about the parliamentary question that was subject to a gagging order. Depending on who you listen to Twitter and Stepehn Fry in a blow for democracy and free speech spread it all over the internet, proving that you cant gag free speech or perhaps proving the "twittering classes" are willing to break the law.

The article basically points out while everyone is giving each other high five's in getting information which should have been in the public domain out, what happens when information that shouldn't be released is broadcast on twitter.

Twitter is a public lynching waiting to happen. Technology has allowed us to move on from throwing stones to throwing tweets, we can all act now on rumours and gossip and devolve ourselves of responsibility to join the mob mentality. How long before a name is given out on twitter in a horrific criminal case which leads to an assault or worse a public lynching. How about national security information which jeopardises security or criminal cases. Twitter is not above the law and people that tweet should be aware that they may be breaking the law by releasing confidential information. The consequences of a major breach in security or information released which lead to damage or injury would be dealt with seriously by the law courts.

Mob mentality has always been a problem but with lightening fast technology where rumours are trusted more than official news organisations mobs can easily be mislead or mis-guided and dire consequences may arise. We have yet to see the potential of twitter to cause mayhem, lets hope we are prepared when the time comes.

With Freedom of speech comes responsibility, the responsibility of knowing when to talk and when to shut up.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton

I re-read this book recently, it is a work of fiction which introduces the premise / theory that the environmental lobby is just another method by the establishment to keep us in a perpetual state of fear, following on from the cold war came global warming. This state of fear creates spending and political power but the book using scientific references to support the fictional plot suggests that global warming is at best inconclusive and suggests that we are yet to learn so much about are environment that any theory about global warming is little more than a guess.

However as the character in the book suggests just because you don't agree with global warming doesn't mean that you don't want pollution controls and CO2 reduction. I have to say Michael Crichton creates a compelling argument. One of the best simple comparisons is that despite all the investment and technology we cannot accurately predict the weather beyond 5-10 days so how can we consider a prediction for a 100 years hence to be accurate.

There are loads of other rational arguments in the book but with the alternative view I find it difficult to believe that global warming is a global conspiracy. I suppose one of the problems is that until it happens we wont know whether everyone is right or wrong.

The precautionary principle also mentioned in the book means that if there is the slightest change of the catastrophic scenario occurring then we should not take the action that would cause it. Therefore the precautionary principle would suggest that because scientists have found a potential risk we should do everything to eliminate it. However you could use the precautionary principle to say we should live 50 ft underground all the time because every time you go outside there is a risk of a plane falling on your head.

Then I reach the thought in my head that says "Do I believe in global warming?". Then my second thoughts kicks in and realises the framing of the question suggests there is a belief factor rather than relying on cold, hard, undeniable facts and truths.

"Do I believe in doing something to protect the environment?". No facts required this time but how do you protect an environment, again it raises in the book that you can only manage an environment and we still don't know how to manage land to protect something. The ecosystems around us are ever changing we cant protect and preserve but we can manage it in a direction. In the books it talks about nature not having a balance but oscillating between different factors as species rise and fall.

Finally the book finishes with the premise that they should set up a new environmental group which basically looks for problems and fixes it, so take land management, you accept you do not know how to do it, so you take 8 similar parcels of land, have a different management policy in each one. Try things out get them evaluated by outside consultants and by trial and error find out what land management policies work and don't work.

One character talks about scientific journal authors talking about simulations as if they were real world data and suggest that such articles should be labelled "Warning: Computer Simulation - May be erroneous and unverifiable" and then suggests a label for newspaper articles as well "Warning speculation - may be fact free".

I have long argued about labels for news articles, some kind of evaluation of the source:

How about this the Zephryist- Morton coding
(the highest number would be taken in each code)

8 - Video evidence
7 - Sound evidence
6 - Multiple eye witness accounts
5 - conflicting eye witness accounts with some commonality
4 - Single eye witness account
3 - written evidence
2 - Multiple eye witness conflicting accounts
1 - 2nd hand source no eye witness accounts
0 - opinion only no verifiable witness 1 or second hand

4 - Known as giving previously reliable evidence
3 - No previous record of evidence
2 - Questionable record of giving reliable evidence
1 - interpretation of known facts with own opinion on conclusions or extrapolation
0 - own opinion - few known facts with open interpretation.

3 - Expert / professional in field
2 - Media expert in field
1 - Amateur in field
0 - Unknown knowledge status in field.

So with this you could evaluate any news source such as the BBC news website which would be a 8 by 4 by 2 site, one of the highest rating with video evidence, known to give reliable evidence in the past, and with media experts.

You could also rate a blog, my highest rating would be a 4 by 4 by 1 unless you felt I was merely giving opinion where my blog would be rated 4 by 1 by 1. Of course with a fully functioning system the ratings would be given by peers.

The beauty of the system is that the lower the number the more questionable the source, it would help any reader instantly be able to separate fact from fiction without having to read pages of previous articles and compare them with other sources to determine the reliability, with a peer reviewed system other people have already done the leg work.

You could go further and break down the rating system more by breaking each section into a series of questions almost an acid test of reliability.

I may return to this some day or like many other posts on my blog it may just be a random thought that sits on the shelf collecting dust.

February and the Customer Service Manual

February

It has to be said I cant remember much of February, I have worked two Saturdays out of the last three weeks, my full time day job, two evenings and for the last week I have had a really rotten cold. It amazed me quite how much snot a human can produce, at its peak I could have been selling two pints of snot a day.

Anyway I can now feel myself returning to normal and hopefully march should not be so bad.

The Customer Service Manual

I was in homebase shopping for light bulbs in my ongoing campaign to replace all the light bulbs in my house for energy efficient bulbs. The campaign is going well, all normal bulbs have been replaced and at homebase I secured replacements for the candle bulbs in my art deco lamp which just leaves some GU10 halogens and some R50 spots to be replaced. All can be replaced its just a question of finding a shop that sells the right bulbs.

Hence my trip to homebase which I have to say if you want a 60W replacement bulb which is a standard energy efficient stick then they have enough to refurbish Buckingham Palace. Everywhere you turned there seemed to be a bottomless 1 m square bucket. If that is repeated in every homebase in the UK then homebase must have billions of them, which given they last ten years is a bit pointless. Have I uncovered the great European Lightbulb mountain, are they unable to turn off the machine that makes them and every shop in the UK is having to hide them instore to avoid a national calamity?

If you want any other kind of bulb they had a few bits and pieces but no GU10 replacements or R50 replacements. Eventually I gave up and headed to the till with two candle bulbs, a plant and a pair of oven gloves.

The Checkout assistant had obviously been on the mandatory customer service course and was well briefed on the Customer Service Manual. The Conversation went as follows:

Checkout: Did you find everything you needed today?
Me: No, I was looking for some lightbulbs but your selection is a bit rubbish at the moment.
Checkout: Yes our selection is a bit rubbish at the moment.

Great, so the trick is to agree with the customer. The manual probably states sympathise or affirm the customer's comment to give them validation.

Although in this case they actually achieved less than nothing. Good Customer Service might have been to ask me what I had been looking for and would I like them to order some for me, or hold some when the next order came in. No, they let a slightly peeved customer walk off into the sunset. I will pop back there another time to see if they have the light bulbs back in stock but chances are they wont and so I will just have to order them off the internet.

If you are trying to improve customer service a half hearted by the book attempt is worse than nothing at all.

The end of the world as we know it..

OK may be not quite the end of the world but the end intellectual debate and the dumbing down of the English language.

I am designing some new assessment materials at work based around communication skills, part of the folio is some group discussions. These group discussions have now gone out to consultation with our partner groups and I am collating the feedback.

One topic included the world "eradicate", one comment has suggested that we use the word "remove" instead, as people may not understand the word "eradicate".

I am all in favour of not over complicating things, I started nodding and thinking what a good piece of advice that was. Then I had one of those record screeching moments where the needle is taken off the record scratchily (that reference probably lost 90% of the audience but I shall struggle on, if you are not sure what a record is try wikipedia). If someone doesn't know a word it is not cruel or unfair to use it or a reason for me to change it, that is a reason for someone to pick up a dictionary or use the internet to look up the meaning.

To me the two words have distinctly different meanings so I feel it is important to use eradicate. The English language is currently rich with many great words for all occassions, we should not reduce it to a language where there is only one word for everything. What next, get rid of blue and call it light black, where do we stop, eradicate is a good word and I say it stays.

"Say no to the eradication of eradication"

My point is that everyone, if they dont know something should take the opportunity to learn and look it up. It should never be that if people dont know something its the other persons fault for not using the right word. Individuals need to take responsibility, develop themselves and protect the richness of the english language.

Another comment was that I cant use a discussion topic about insurance because some people might not understand the concept. Well if they dont that should form part of the discussion and if they dont, why dont they? Insurance is virtually fundamental to several aspects of life and surely it is a fairly simple concept. Even if you cant explain how insurance works you know about premiums, claims and have a vague knowledge of risk. Again we shouldnt avoid discussing things because people might not know, the things people don't know are the exact things we should be discussing. Humanities job is to learn and develop, there is nothing wrong with ignorance if you do something about it, if you ignore it and hope it goes away then the only person you are failing is yourself.

End of moan, join me next week when I tell you about the new course I have been on, "Effective moaning for professionals". Apparently it even comes with roleplays.

I have been thinking...

I have been thinking about one thing that will change the world. I have a spare £1 in my pocket and know that there are 60 million other people in the UK that have a spare £1.

Effectively then I have £60 million to make a small change to make the world a better place. I have £60 million because while some will give none a lot of people will give more.

So one small gesture to create a big gesture, to change the world.

If you expand that premise to the world there are 6.7 billion people so £6.7 billion to make an even bigger gesture.

The question is what could you invest £6.7 billion in, to really fundamentally change the world for the better for everyone.

£1 to change the world 6 billion reasons to do it.

Notes:

There is a part of me that wants to write in a post ironic modernism type of way after the above article "Zephyrist Aged 10 and a half". There is a certain idealistic naivety to the article that the entire population of the world could unite to make one change when often charities struggle to get just a few people to donate money.

There is another part of me that says the only people that have ever changed the world are the idealistic dreamers. They dare to dream the impossible, somehow and no one quite knows how, it becomes possible.

Leadership is about creating new realities, drawing people in and breaking down barriers. Great leaders dream both the dream and of how to make it a reality.

One thing I do know is that if you never think of something or never say it out loud you have strangled the dream at birth.

The ten and a half reference harks back to childhood where nothing is impossible, all the bad things don't exist and we can do anything if only we set our minds to it. Growing up is about finding out there are barriers whether in skill or talent or just what seems like luck. However much we want something sometimes it just wont happen.

At times like that it is easier to get cynical and look negatively at things. There is no point applying for that job, I wont even get an interview and they are probably not looking for someone like me. However, if you don't try, how do you really know you will fail. Even if you cant imagine the possibilities, all of them are out there.

Maybe I can't change the world all by myself but maybe if I keep generating ideas someone will pop along, pick it up and run with it.

Our only limitations are the limitations we impose on ourselves.

The Folly of Growth (New Scientist)

What I love about New Scientist is that they are not just a pure science magazine. With the recent credit crunch they ran a special issue on "The Folly of Growth - How to stop the economy killing the earth".

You see Capitalism is based on a false premise, that we must have continuous growth. The problem with that is with finite resources you cant have continuous growth as at some point resources run out, prices rise and you get shrinkage. This is the fundamental nature of boom and boost, the credit crunch and everything else that is wrong with the economy at the moment.

It means Gordon Brown is wrong, without infinite resources we cant beat the boom and bust cycle. All because of this one simple premise, which everyone can quite clearly see is wrong but no one wants to admit it because to do so would be to admit that capitalism which has worked for 200 years no longer works. A modern tale of the emperors new clothes.

It would suggest that Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, in fact you could argue that it is more flawed than Communism as to solve the current credit crisis the governments had to move towards communism by part nationalising the banks and increasing government control of the banking system.

Of course with finite resources the logical economic system would be one that is based on efficient use of resources or more precisely sustainable development. So why do we not have a sustainable or steady-state economy already?

Well,such an economy would mean we would have to live within our own means, no more large debts, greatly reduced oil based travel, less hours worked, the redistribution of wealth from the poor, no benefits to saving and investing, and finally greater control over all aspects of our lives.

The transition period would be much harder as well, just think if tomorrow you were told you could no longer own a car, you had restrictions on the electronics you could buy and only 200 air miles for the year for your holidays. Ouch!

Of course there would be an upside, the end of consumerism, the end of boom and bust, less work, less stress, less inequality, living in harmony with nature rather than against it, better public transport, less pollution, stable prices, no income tax (tax would be on inputs and outputs to the environment), less road congestion, the end of global warming, the end of inflation, no more credit crunch, no more tax havens for the rich, stable population and much much more.

So lets look to the sustainable future and lets hope for the better tomorrow becoming reality.

I have to say all the articles in the new scientist special edition were great and are well worth reading, I may even post some more articles about sustainable development soon.

From West Wing to the real thing (The Guardian)

For the last few days I have felt that Barack Obama reminded me of someone and then it hit me there is a link back to the Presidential Campaign of Matthew Santos in "The West Wing".

It was the plain speaking approach of Obama that finally reminded me of Santos. Truth often follows fiction but according to the linked article fiction followed truth only for truth to follow on again, if you see what I mean.

My question will be, in the forth coming election will the "West Wing" story line have subconsciously prepared American voters to vote Obama. Will the fact that in the show Santos won prepare voters for a Obama victory, have the lines between the show, which was almost like a documentary at times, and reality somehow blurred.

Hard to reach customer groups

I was in an interesting meeting the other day with our new advertising agency. I wasn't supposed to be attending as I wasn't supposed to be at head office and the meeting was only vaguely connected to my work. It was about recruitment but a different project.

As I was at a loose end I popped along, it was a good opportunity to size up the agency contacts on something I didn't necessarily care about.

The interesting thing was that the whole meeting was about how to reach a customer group we don't normally reach. We as an organisation recognised this groups impact on our business and recognised that the way we normally advertise i.e in local media, didn't reach them.

Another good point was that the project team had determined that the best way to determine the key messages for this group was to talk to a focus group of these customers.

After that it went down hill, the group decided that they didn't have the contacts and couldn't afford either the time or money to make the contacts.

The project team then set about assuming what the key messages were and that print media still worked as it did last year with a different customer group.

At this point another colleague pointed out that we had already decided this approach hadn't worked, so why were we resurrecting it, they pretty much got blank looks.

So I weighed in, pointed out it was a different customer group and there was no reason to suggest that approach would work, so why would we waste money.

There was a good ten seconds of blank looks including a staring contest with a senior manager.

You cant win them all ... I am looking forward to the traditional print campaign which achieves nothing not because it was the wrong approach just because the customer group is hard to reach. The really annoying thing is by that time nobody will remember the conversation that the key thing was to talk to the customer group before deciding on the message. My mate Sir Alan would have sacked several of the muppets present in the room.

Is it me or is the first step to talking to your customers actually finding a customer and talking to them.

Seriously, how hard is it?

Burma - 18 days on

18 days on.
78, 000 dead.
56,000 missing.
2.4 million severely affected.
Only 25% of people needing aid being reached.

Naked facts about a horrific natural disaster made worse by human inaction, human pride, human ignorance and human failings.

18 days on and people still die while idiots talk.

I, like others have tried to comprehend or find some understanding in this. Why do the Burmese military Junta refuse to openly accept all the aid that can get into their country. They must know that people are dying because of their decisions.

Humanitarian Emergencies are not about politics, or pride or national / regional boundaries they are about saving lives, helping people and restoring basic services.

Are the Burmese leaders too proud too accept help. Would it cause them so much dishonour to recognise that they need outside assistance? Can that really be what prevents them from acting.

Leadership is often about making the hard decisions, about not being afraid to focus on the end game. Sometimes its about the end justifying the means, its can be about breaking rules. For the Burmese military leadership should be about recognising we need all the help we can get. Call in all the favours and all the debts, accept every bit of charity because our people need help now.

If there is a fall out from such Western involvement it can be dealt with later. There is no honour or pride in 78,000 dead.

Envelope Psychology: 'See you soon' or 'See you later'

Question:

What do you most often say, or which of the following phrases would you use?

"See you soon."

OR

"See you later."

Theory:

Which phrase you use or choose says something psychological about your personality. Well it might do, I am not sure but this is my notes from the back of the proverbial envelope.

See you soon.

You have a nurturing personality. Usage of this phrase suggests an emotional attachment to the subject and it acts as a reminder both to you and them that you care. This is predominantly but not exclusively use by females who tend to be more emotive in their language. It also suggests that you fully intend to see them and may already in your mind be making plans to do so.

See you later.

You have a more pragmatic, practical personality. Usage of this phrase is slightly dismissive in that the meeting is at an end but we will meet again later at some unspecified point which is not guaranteed. This is predominantly but not exclusively used by males who tend to be more pragmatic in their language. It does not suggest that a further meeting is expected and certainly no thought has been given to a future meeting but such a date may already have been arranged or will be in the future.

Disclaimer:

I base the above on limited anecdotal evidence but I am open to a debate of the issues. I myself use "See you later" and know at least two female friends who always use "See you soon". I realise this is not conclusive evidence but it did make me pose a theorem.

Celebrity meltdowns are we to blame (BBC)

You may have noticed Britney Spears having a meltdown all over the trashy end of the media. The BBC have written an article which basically asks whether we are to blame for this celebrity culture.

The expert they consult suggests that these are modern day fairy tales or morality tales. We can all look at these people and say that is what happens to you if you do X, Y and Z. A kind of internal verification that if you act irresponsibly you don't get a happy ending.

Are we kidding ourselves really? After all lots of people don't end up like Britney but are just as bad. The thing is they don't get caught out.

Are such stories a bitter pill designed to keep everyone else in there place. After all that is essentially what a morality tale is.

"But we also want to know what it's like to live to the point of destruction, to experience the thrill of it without actually having to do it ourselves, and that's where Britney and co come in."

- Phillip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

So basically we know the result and therefore do not need to carry out the experiment. Although there are some things that any normal person could work out from first principles. It is not rocket science is it.

"Britney is a victim of an exploitative industry, a sensationalist media, and a public who seem to enjoy voyeuristically the troubles of superstars and celebrities."

-Marjorie Wallace, Sane

Yes, sadly the public are guilty as charged. It is compulsive car crash compulsive viewing, you have to watch even though you know what is going to happen next.

What's the answer? There is none we need morality stories to show what happens when things go wrong, but does it really need to be headline news? Morality stories don't need to be current affairs, in fact the best stories live longer than the current news day.

Public Sector Pay Reviews

The government has been busy insisting lately that all public sector pay reviews should be kept to as near the 2% target inflation level as possible. The cold hard logic is that because there are so many public sector workers the more money they are given, the greater the inflationary pressure.

The first problem with this is that it doesn't reward workers in the public sector. In fact really given that other inflation figures are higher including the RPI index at 4.0% it probably gives anyone working in the public sector a pay cut. So not only are public sector workers under appreciated with less job security they must now take a pay cut year on year.

The second problem is that it is a very short term knee jerk reaction which does not make economic sense in the long term.

Lets start with a premise which we can all agree on and then apply the New labour policy to see what happens.

Premise:

We want a public sector which rewards and values employees. In doing this we recognise we will not be able to compete on salary but workers will not be penalised simply because they work for the greater good.

We will treat employees as individuals encouraging innovation, recognising that a strong capable workforce will mean a strong Great Britain

New Pay Scheme:

No salary settlement to be higher than lowest rate of inflation.

Implications:

• Differential between Public and Private sector increases in the same way that the differential between house prices and earnings have increased
• Employee motivation decreases, if salary does not change employee become priced out of the economy (eg housing) and so have to seek promotion on a new grade or move to the private sector. Staying in the same post is not a viable option.
  
• Low paid jobs attract poor employees who cant compete for average jobs. There is a tendency for public sector employers to hire or retain poor employees rather than have no one in post.
• Low paid jobs cannot be filled, greater reliance on temps which cost up to X1.5 more.
• Employees who remain in the same post for their career i.e. police officers, paramedics decide to leave the industry.
• Organisations cheat: they award pay rises outside of the annual payment to keep employees effectively negating any economic effect the annual policy has.
• When employee leaves, the job cannot be filled, the salary is then regraded to a salary which the old employee would have liked but was not allowed. So the public sector is willing to pay more for a new person with less experience. The policy does not retain employees.
  
• Public sector will never be world class. You get what you pay for, you pay third rate wages you get third rate service.
• The average employees suffer, these pay settlements don't effect the fat cats only the front line staff.

In reality you may save money by restricting salary growth but you end up paying more in hidden costs and your public sector improvement / reform policies suffer.

Public sector pay as an economic tool is a blunt instrument. There is an argument for making sure that things don't get out of hand by applying a cap or by phasing large pay rises. However, the bottom line is that the policy does not treat people as individuals.

There are much better ways of managing the economy without penalising a section of society who choose to give up private sector wages for the greater good.

Friday's Work day prayer

While trudging to work at the end of a long week I was thinking of a prayer to get me through the day. Don't worry I am not about to get all religious on you I was remembering some joke prayer about asking for the strength to get through the day despite all the idiots or something like that.

A bit of google work later... there are a few versions of a joke email that gets forwarded everywhere which is in turn a corrupted version of a famous prayer called 'The Serenity Prayer'.

The Joke Version:

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I cannot accept,
And the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people
I had to kill today because they pissed me off.

You can see how apt this is when you are facing another day at the organisation where the phrase 'bureaucracy gone mad' was invented.

The Original Version:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

The second version is a nice little prayer even if you don't believe in God.

This all got me to thinking that really in the poem the word god could be replaced by something like " God, any other religious deity, any being or anything that has the power to help me".

In my simple thoughts of religious matters I ponder whether belief in a god is necessary for a prayer to take place. After all a prayer could be described as asking for something where the outcome is not certain. After all if a close relative is dying we still will them to survive even if we do not start our thoughts with "Dear God".

Which made me think of a thought experiment about whether atheists pray. If a person had for whatever reason jumped out of a plane without a parachute and was plummeting to the ground with about four minutes to live what would they be thinking. Well you would be thinking I hope something happens to save me which in a sense is a prayer. Proof positive.

Of course testing this would require speaking to people who are falling to their impending death. Given that most people don't willingly jump out of a plane without a parachute this could be a bit difficult.

All those thoughts because of another tedious Friday.

Note: If this article has caused any offence to anyone, this was not my intention. It was merely a random thought from my brain.

Recursive dreaming

I read in New Scientist magazine about the linked blogger who wondered how many levels in a recursive dream you could have.

Basically a recursive dream is a dream within a dream.

My dreams are fairly good and I can exercise some limited control over them or at least I have had some dreams so many times that I can rewrite them.

My recursive dream tends to be about getting up and doing all your morning preparations and then leaving the house. In some ways its quite a natural dream in the sense that your brain is waking up and preparing itself to get ready, so it is creating a mental to-do list and running through it which is expressed as a dream. The other thing is that morning routines are fairly regular and repetitive so most of it could be done subconsciously in your sleep not really having to wake up until you eventually arrive at work.

Anyway the dream is quite simple, I get up, get shower, shave, clean teeth, get dressed, go downstairs, get breakfast, collect final bits and leave house for work.

So I am busy dreaming this very real dream which feels just like a normal day, I leave the house and then I wake up. This is where the recursive bit comes in, because although I wake up I start the dream over again, so I wake up, get up etc until the point I leave the house again except then I wake up.

Its difficult to say how many times I have managed to repeat this dream but I think at least three times in one morning. Of course by the time you are actually awake all you can think is that you have done all this three times already.

Another repeating but not recursive dream I keep having is an old favourite about failing an exam. It varies from turning up late or not preparing, I know it means that I am just worrying about some detail that I haven't finalised yet.

It has become such a common dream that now I often start telling myself not to worry as I passed these exams years ago. As these dreams are in the past it is a past me with future knowledge. I have to say that the past me never recognises this time paradox.

Dreams are such strange things and I always find mine fascinating.

The Roy G. Biv theory

This is one of those half baked ideas that I have.

I cant decide whether this idea is:

a multi million pound paper back book Christmas special finally giving ordinary people the key to live a happy, successful life...

Or...

a parody of the million pound paper book back... blah blah blah etc etc etc...

Or...

a collection of odds and sods reorganised into something that is completely worthless...

Or...

just an interesting coffee break thought.

For those of you that don't know 'ROY G BIV' represents the colour and order of a rainbow (although according to wikipedia there may be some argument about this).

R - Red
O - Orange
Y - Yellow

G - Green

B - Blue
I - Indigo
V - Violet

Now inspiration particles (Terry Pratchett reference) hit in completely random places, this one hit me on a bus on the way to work in bright sunshine on a late October day. It was inspired by the following musical lyric.

"...And it was all yellow... "

-Yellow, Coldplay

So anyway on to the theory.

The Roy G. Biv Theory

Take any day and assign it a colour from 'ROY G BIV' according to the following colours and meanings.

Red -

Red is for passion, not just love but any day when you are passionate about something. It can be a thirst for making a change in your life or passionately arguing to change somebodies mind. It does not representative destructive anger or negative argumentative passion.

A red day is a positive day.

Orange -

Orange is about ideas and creativity. Orange screams listen or look at me. Orange are for those days where your energy and creativity are strongest. You mind solves intricate problems with ease.

An orange is a positive day.

Yellow -

Yellow is sunshine, happiness and contentment. Yellow is about being at ease with yourself and enjoying your day. Maybe nothing special happens but a yellow day is a pleasant emotionally stable day.

A yellow day is a positive day.

Green -

Green is the colour of change. Green is about changing not necessarily for the better. Green days are tough days that take a lot of energy and concentration potentially for little reward.

A green day is a neutral day.

Blue -

Blue is the colour of sadness. It can be a very emotional time, negative often associated with depression or tears. Blue days are emotionally draining days where you would rather be wrapped up under the duvet shutting yourself off from the world.

A blue day is a negative day.

Indigo -

Indigo is the colour of spiritualism. It is about deep thought sometimes with a detachment from reality. Indigo days are characterized by a feeling of not being a part of the every day world. A day of being lost in your own world.

An indigo day is a neutral day.

Violet -

Violet is the colour of anger. It is about anger barely contained, an explosion waiting to happen. Violet days are characterized by a general grumpy feeling, a tense day where you could lash out at anyone and everyone.

A violet day is a negative day.

Now do this for a week taking the predominant colour of each day and you will have a list like so

Colour
RRGBOYII

+/-
++ . - + + .. giving a total score for the week of +3.

Obviously the more positive your week the better, and for negative weeks you can look closely at your problem areas.

As the weeks go by you will start to see patterns to the days and emotions which will enrich your understanding of yourself.

This framework is about starting a voyage of discovery about you and your emotions and how that ebbs and flows over a week.

...End of theory...

Now,do you see the problem I had at the start of this article. On a very superficial level my theory seems as good as any other mumbo jumbo that makes it into the paperback Christmas chart but when you look a bit close isn't all just a load of made up nonsense.

All the colours are an adaption or reorganisation of existing colour theory or just what the colour sometimes means to me.

Either way I am going to park it here on my blog, make of it what you will.

Just in case, if it does turn out that the idea is worth millions, please note the copyright and intellectual property contained here in belongs to me, and I will sue.

Humanistic Design

Humanistic Design is about how we as people relate to things like technology. Our interaction with technology is a whole science about human interfaces and usability.

Humans intuitively know how things should work. We pick up a camera and we know when we press the button not only should the button go click but we should hear the shutter open and closing.

The thing is technology is now so advanced that the camera doesn't need to go click and make a shutter noise. So why does it? Well quite simply if it did not we as humans would feel uncomfortable without quite knowing why. Therefore the camera would become an alien object to us and sub consciously we might buy the camera that does have the noises even if there is an option to turn them on and off.

The other strange thing about human design is what we expect technology to look and sound like. Take a gadget like an MP3 player, generally silver, small with sexy curves is a good thing. The MP3 player I bought a while ago followed this design ethos, it was small sleek with simple buttons.

However, I discovered a humanistic design flaw. The design is essential a tube with the headphone jack at one end and the usb port at the other. The problem came when deciding what the headphone jack would look like, they went for a straight jack rather than an L-shape. After about two months all the twisting has broken the cable and I have had to go and buy some new headphones. I bought an L-shaped jack and although it breaks up the sleek lines it probably wont break so easily.

Take cars as well, we all know that a really great car will have a throaty engine roar. So engine designers make sports cars with throaty roars, whether they need a good roar to have a good engine is a mute point. Humans demand a good throaty roar so they must have it.

Humans are fascinating creatures, we have so many rules, traditions and customs which our mind creates to make life easier. Our interaction with things is just one study of psychology that I have always found fascinating.

Here are two example clips of humanistic design which are pointless but satisfying, prepare to release your inner geek.

Camera shutter

Phone shut