Posts tagged as:

Evolution

I love to theorize about social behavior and how it relates to our behavior on the internet. But sometimes I get the urge to be just a little more practical about things. How can we actually use all this theory? Before we dig into what I call The Hang Glider Theory, let’s gossip a little.

The Anatomy of Gossip

It seems reasonable to me that gossip evolved as a tool to manage coordination of larger societies. It was a way to trade the social currency called reputation. Reputation, in turn, was a way to govern collaboration between individuals where you neither had a close enough common interest in genetic propagation, nor first hand knowledge of the individual’s contribution or withdrawal from the common pool of value (stash of nuts, Mammoth meat, whatever), nor a strong enough reason to hurt or kill the individual in question. Gossip was a more granular way to control behavior so that it wouldn’t become abusive. Killing individuals for stealing a banana makes society somewhat unstable, but so does letting banana theft run wild, right? Gossip and reputation worked really well here as a way to make societies more stable, to enable rudimentary trade over time and distances, and support larger scale collaboration in general. Societies using this tool prevailed and individuals mastering social behavior thrived. If this wasn’t true, we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing today. Apparently, those who stayed behind in their caves and didn’t interact perished. Maybe somebody should tell this to marketing execs who don’t think they need to engage in social media.

Positive and Negative Gossip

If this is how gossip evolved, one can imagine why negative gossip is so much more common than positive gossip. It was more valuable to know who not to trust than knowing who to trust, simply because it was more expensive to be ripped off or killed than to miss out on the benefit some good social interaction. This could explain our approach anxiety and also why our reflexes for spotting danger is so much quicker than the mental process of spotting something good.

To this day, negative gossip dominates. Even though I can’t show you any conclusive evidence, I think we know it intuitively from our everyday lives. Just look at a rack of gossip porn… sorry gossip magazines.

Gossip and Brands

This is also true for brands. It’s so much easier to go viral on some negative spin than on some positive one. There are tons of examples, the “Disgusting Domino’s Pizza Clip” being only one.

But wait a minute – if this is built in to our minds from thousands of years of evolution, and the internet makes this kind of gossip ultra efficient, will this not happen to us all the time? Yes, my dear Watson, it will. And for that reason, strategies to handle it will have to be part of our management models, but also part of our strategic communications thinking.

How to build it into our management models is crucially important, and includes things like corporate guidelines, empowerment of employees, etc. It is outside the scope of today’s post, but I promise discuss it further some other day.

Instead, today, I’ll propose a model for building it into our strategic thinking. I call it The Hang Glider Theory:

The Hang Glider Theory

If the domination of negative gossip is human nature, then we have a downward gravity of gossip on our scale from attraction to repulsion. So what if we could do what hang gliders do and use this force of gravity to gain speed and create lift again? To nurture warm upwinds and gain even more lift, eventually ending up turning negative momentum to positive lift?

What EA-Games did to handle a bug i their Tiger Woods ‘08 game is an old but clear example of this strategy. The bug was that you could walk out on water in the game, which created quite a bit of buzz in the gaming community. But instead of doing something boring, like fixing the bug, or just keeping quite, EA put on their hang glider and used the momentum. This it what they came up with:

Now, I’m not saying that creating a funny film will solve your problem, make sure you hear me now. For Domino’s for example, that would probably have been disastrous. But this film is a clear example of the theory at work.

But even for the Domino’s case much could have been done. Cool campaigns could have been created for recruiting 2 new employees (implying that there were in fact only 2 people involved), or you could have taken these two individuals in to help out with improving working conditions at Domino’s (they were obviously the two most dissatisfied employees in the country), or you could have turned the restaurant in question into an institute for food freshness and employee care, making the incident a turn around symbol. Or whatever. Just not this:

…which is boring, and guilty sounding. It’s also very similar to the “a few bad apples”-defense used in the Abu Ghraib trials. It sounds like you throw out and indict two employees without changing anything in the system, thus leading us to wonder if there aren’t a thousand others just like them out there, being just as dissatisfied and disloyal, only waiting to sneeze on my mozzarella sandwich.

So – this is The Hang Glider Theory. Try it out. Tell me what you think of it. Have fun!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Similar Posts:

{ 1 comment }

Contrasts are what make life interesting. Yesterday I woke up here:

…from the sound of sheep walking around outside my tent. Today I woke up and threw myself into a cab to Arlanda to fly off to Oslo and Strömstad for the Bring Dialogue Conference ‘09.

When I got here I realized I’d be staying here:

…at the luxury spa resort in Strömstad. Slightly different from camping – haha! It’s actually even nicer than what the picture shows.

But conferences are all about the people. The people at Social Web Camp were the elite of social media – almost like Sweden’s own R&D-department of digital communication. Here we have a similiar number of people from the business elite (at least from what I can tell so far). Probably as smart, as passionate, and as creative, but in slightly different fields. Also, we have some amazing speakers like Kjell A. Nordström, Micael Dahlén, Magnus Lindqvist, and Jan Bylund. Only to name a few. (Note that all but one are striking the same knuckles-in-chin-pose). :-)

And then I haven’t even begun talking about the shellfish buffet that is planned on Koster for tommorow night.

Those of you who attended my session at the Social Web Camp got to see a preview of the talk I’m doing here. Stay tuned for Slideshare presentation that will be posted shortly. I’ll be discussing the evolution of gossip, good, and evil, draw parallels to social media, and also present thoughts on strategy for approaching this new breakdown of brand privacy.

See you soon!

Similar Posts:

{ 3 comments }

The Most Dangerous Politician in The United States?

by Walter Naeslund on June 22, 2009

Biden

One of the most dangerous politicians in the United States – that’s what CNET calls Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden. What they are talking about is Biden’s relentless attacks on internet liberty, and the threat that he thereby poses to the evolution of technology. Now that the dust has settled and we have sobered up after celebrating the Obama victory, the Biden threat has become very real. Among other things, he has backed proposals like outlawing region free DVD-players, forcing internet providers to hunt “pirates”, legalizing the entertainment industry’s use of spyware and trojans, and, not least, having the state finance the film industry’s court costs when sueing file sharing teenagers(!).

I would love to say that this gives us Swedes a competitive advantage as a nation, but the problem is that internet innovation is collaborative and spans the entire world. If one nation pours gravel in the machinery, everybody suffers. Especially if that nation is the world’s leading internet nation.

On the positive side, these repressive policies always lead to rebellion and creativity. Philip Zimmermann’s wildly successful PGP-encryption was for example created to protect private communication from a law proposed by none other that Joe Biden himself. PGP is known to have helped dissidents in oppressed nations communicate freely, but also to have put terrorist communication in stealth mode. Funny what a little oppression can lead to. My guess is that we’ll now go into innovation mode again and figure out some really sophisticated stealth file sharing technology. But really, I’d much rather see that we humans would innovate to make the world a better place than to fight oppression. It feels more constructive somehow. Innovation to avoid legislation has a treadmill ring to it.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Blogging from the boat by you.

Im out in the sailboat reading a couple of newspapers from yesterday and the day before. A couple of different articles caught my eye. One of them is by Thomas E Patterson, media researcher at Harvard university. In the article, he talks about the future of the newspapers, or rather the production of news in general. Print media is in a crisis, more so in the US than in Sweden, but it is only a matter of time before we have the same situation here. One of his points is that quality news reporting is produced by the newspapers, and thus the newspaper crisis is really a crisis not so much for the papers but for the production of news in general and ultimately for our democracy.

Well – perhaps. But something tells me that a world of information liberty and low cost for production and distribution should tell a different story than that of LESS quality information. From a birds eye perspective it just doesn’t make sense that removing the need for expensive equipment and institutional organization should lower quality of the output. What WOULD have this effect is if the demand for such quality information is really much lower than what we have believed earlier, and that people have just read quality news because it was the only product available. If this is the case, lower quality news reporting will be the inevitable outcome. It’s just evolution. But I find that hard to believe. Sure, perhaps we’ll have a period of bad news reporting, people taking advantage of this, causing for example democracy trouble, but as long as we keep the internet free and uncensored, this pendulum will swing back. It always does. Sometimes violently. Let’s hope that this will not be the case, but I think the real danger isn’t the death of an outdated business model, but legislation threatening internet liberty, such as the the Swedish FRA- and IPRED-laws and the French HADOPI variety.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

In about an hour we will know the verdict in the Pirate Bay-trials. Let’s hope that people are being smart about this. Because a guilty verdict would not be good for anyone. Especially not for art and artists.

A guilty verdict would do little to boost sales. I believe we’ll see the opposite result. Darknets and stealth services (like Pirate Bay’s own would evolve quickly. Innovation incentives in the legal realm would be smaller. We would do little but slowing down inevitable change. From a wider perspective, it is just not intelligent.

If they are found not guilty however, it will be considered a future oriented statement. One that would benefit artists, culture, our country, and eventually the world. The music industry will have to come up with something better and more useful than Pirate Bay, and to be honest, they already have. Though Spotify would perhaps need some healthy competition. Spotify is just one small step, but it is a step in the right direction. This type of evolution is where we are going. A guilty verdict would just make us look dumb. Especially in the history books.

From the angle of the artist, nobody has put it better than Paulo Coelho:
“I didn’t start writing to get rich, I started writing to get read”.

Read more: 
Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Or if you don’t feel like reading, listen to this interview with Mr Coelho:

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Similar Posts:

{ 2 comments }

I’m NOT a Pirate. I’m a Realist.

by Walter Naeslund on March 1, 2009

Just to clarify, there seems to have been some confusion, I’m not on the side of The Pirate Bay, I’m on the side of evolution.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

A few days after the fact I read this article on Realtid.se. The contents of the article are nothing jaw dropping. The comments on the article however, reflect the fact that so much of this discussion is taking place well outside the realm of relevance. People are talking about whether or not artists should be able to be artists, something that would require them to get paid for their work. Fair enough. But it is utterly irrelevant. Art will not dissappear. Neither will the internet. I will not waste energy on this discussion. Like most things, it will evolve Darwinistically.

To be productive we have to discuss value. The business model of charging for copies is obsolete. Some copies, such as physical books, have a certain value and will prevail. CDs are just a hassle. So are digital self hosted files really. So where can we add value? Here are some examples:

1. Hosting. Hosting music and syncing it between players is a hassle for the consumer. Especially if you have to authorize the player (In which case the stolen product is actually superior to the purchased one. Go figure).

2. Shareability. An effect of sharing a central database of music is that sharing music only requires sharing a tiny link. The evolution of sharing services is still somewhere around the stone age.

3. Upping the S/N-Ratio. There is just so much music! Finding the stuff you love could easily be a full time job. In my engineering days we talked about upping the signal to noice ratio. Last FM and Genious has scraped the surface of this field, but here you can create real value. And again, a centralized music database makes this much more effective.

4. Augmented Intelligence. Yes, Jan Guillou, I know you’re upset about your audiobooks and that I’ve been focusing on music. But here is an idea for audiobooks as well: If a centralized service keeps track of what I’ve “read” of what audiobook it can help me mine this data (since audiobooks are also available in text form) and help me draw conclusions that I would perhaps not otherwise have seen. I’ve personally co-developed a service doing knowledge clustering for the television industry. We could just as well do it with this data. Suddenly the person using this service is smarter than the person downloading on Pirate Bay. Again – this is real value. If anyone out there would like to develop this service, give me a call. I’ve made quite a bit of progress here already.

The current discussion about Pirate Bay is a joke. We will laugh at it ten years from now. If that.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

The Privacy of Evil – Part Two

by Walter Naeslund on November 25, 2008

This is the second part of my idea sketch on privacy and integrity. The first part can be found here. There is also an interesting comment on that post by Michael Dahlén where he talks about information symmetry, a theme that I’ll adress later in this post.

In this second part I will show you two talks, the first of which happens to be one of my favorite talks ever, by the phenomenal writer and psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The second talk is a rather graphic and frightening one by Philip Zimbardo, and I will only present the link here and not embed it since there are some very graphic images in the presentation.

Anyway, I wrote in the first part about how we psychologically maintain moral behavior in a self-regulating way, by rewarding and punishing each other in more or less subtle ways to maintain moral equilibrium. It’s an extremely impressive distributed control system, much like the self balancing control system of a market economy, but much more refined and granular.

In Haidt’s talk, five moral foundations are listed as ones that we have with us from birth. These five are:
1. Harm/care
2. Fairness/reciprocity
3. Ingroup/loyalty
4. Authority/respect
5. Purity/sanctity

If any one of these foundations are challenged, we react quickly to restore equilibrium. At least until we shift the equilibrium by fundamentally changing the rules of the system. There are several ways of changing the rules of the system, but I will focus only on one of these here. The one I will focus on it the introduction of anonymity.

If we remove personal responsibility from the system by introducing anonymity, studies have shown that several of these moral foundations seem to fail. Some of these studies are presented briefly in the talks below. Personally I’m most intrigued by the first two of these foundations. It seems that people can turn evil and cause harm when power is introduced in combination with the removal of personal responsibility. Consider uniforms in war for example, or hoods worn by executioners through all time. And people in many systems seem to loose sense of reciprocity by cheating when individual contributions are unclear. We also seem less prone to do good under such circumstances.

So is this view highly cynical? Well, perhaps not. Perhaps it’s just how civilized group behavior evolved. How else would something like this be governed? The peer to peer equilibrium control system is perhaps the only viable path for evolution to take (Darwin would say that the present state is proof of that. I would too).

This view would explain why religion was a really good idea for keeping up moral behavior. Because even when nobody was watching, god was. But the notion of god created a huge information asymmetry which was quite scary, and often abused throughout history.

But as the internet removes anonymity in a (more) symmetrical way, it is much more difficult to abuse this information. I don’t mean to be bombastic, but I can truly see us moving into a new era of higher moral standards and a better world – simply because we increase communication efficiency and information symmetry. And I would like to encourage you to consider this the next time you read a negative article about the breakdown of privacy.

It also puts a new spin on Google’s “Do No Evil”-tagline, doesn’t it?

Now watch these two amazing talks and consider what I just said:

Talk number 1 by Jonathan Haidt:

Click here for talk number 2 by Philip Zimbardo.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Similar Posts:

{ 2 comments }

The prosumer revolution is no joke. And it has been brought about by different factors. One, obviously, is the ease of publishing and distribution along with its the radical drop in cost. Another is the set of psychological incentives activated by social media. And yet another is the dramatic democratization of production equipment, which is what I would like you to consider in this following example. Because while prices drop on professional media production equipment, the consumer models are becoming so good that the singulatiry where equipment is no longer a barrier of entry is near.

Consider this example. In this article, a $40,000 Hasselblad camera and Phase One 39 Megapixel back (pretty much the top of the line in digital photography) is compared side by side with a $500 Canon G10 point and shoot digital pocket camera.

Canon PowerShot G10

And the results are staggering. Sure, I don’t mean that the G10 would suffice for any situation, but just the fact that they are so close in this test that the best person in the test group could only get 60% right answers when comparing prints from the two cameras should raise some questions. They might as well have flipped a coin.

I think I’ll head down to the camera store and buy a G10 today.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Predictions And Afterthoughts

by Walter Naeslund on November 12, 2008

Times change, and it’s always easy to be smart when looking back. But when you’re back there, things are rarely that obvious. We can laugh at Bill Gates for saying that 640k of RAM is all anyone will ever need (or did he?), but predicting the future is a whole different ball game.

An excellent book on the topic that I would recommend is “Fooled By Randomness”. Read it if you haven’t read it, and I promise you’ll see things differently.

The same is true for our world. Sure, we could envision social media in a way. Personally I played a social game called “Global War” on a self hosted BBS (predecessor of websites) in the 1980’s, and the “reply all” button in any email system was a form of many to many communications (Social Media), but few people could forsee the incredible impact and breadth that many to many-communications would come to have. Or mobile phones for that matter. Or that two youngsters in a garage could launch the world’s biggest television network in just two years from scratch and with no money (YouTube).

And that makes me wonder – what will have happened in another two years? Or five? (I guess going beyond five doesn’t make any sense). This evolutionary jolt is not over yet, and I believe there are more empires to be built on the potential that this enormous technological and behavioral shift has created. In two years, when looking back, this will be obvious. And we’ll all say “I could have done that”.

Similar Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes