My quotes are pretty much accurate, except for the fact that I wanted Obama to talk about the iPad. Close enough, though.
It turns out that recent research from the University of Pennsylvania indicates that news articles which inspire awe (i.e. are very literally “awesome”) are amongst the most shared and popular articles:
most of all, readers wanted to share articles that inspired awe, an emotion that the researchers investigated after noticing how many science articles made the list.
The researchers also found a way to begin to quantify how something, exactly, becomes awesome.
They used two criteria for an awe-inspiring story: Its scale is large, and it requires “mental accommodation” by forcing the reader to view the world in a different way.
“It involves the opening and broadening of the mind,” write Dr. Berger and Dr. Milkman, who is a behavioral economist at Wharton.
This sort of research directly compliments my existing theory: being awesome is enough. If what you do is on a large scale, and requires a “mental accommodation” – changes the way that someone views the world, you will succeed. Of course, this is much, much easier said than done – but if you can do it, you’ll do well.
Being awesome is difficult because you must transcend the ranks of simply being interesting or being surprising. As one article contributor noted,
“If I went into my classroom dressed up like a pirate, that would be surprising, but it wouldn’t be awe-inspiring,” Dr. Berger said. “An article about square watermelons is surprising, but it doesn’t inspire that awed feeling that the world is a broad place and I’m so small.”
As you, readers, embark on your daily lives, I encourage you to think about the ways in which you can cultivate awesomeness, operate on a scale larger than yourselves, and make a significant impact on the world around you. Encourage “mental accommodation,” inspire awe, and create positive change. The world can always use a little more awesomeness.
I am contemplating a running series about how awesomeness begets success, so feel free to send me your awesome encounters, or awesome projects.
Edit: Wired Magazine has confirmed that being capable of inspiring awe is, indeed, enough to become successful. They suggest the following headline for their article:
The world is huge, and you are small. But not as small as these billion-year-old particles we found on a giant spaceship.
Works for me.
Things are really busy today, so I’m copping out and stealing a post from over at Zen Habits. Interestingly, I suspect that if I were better able to manage tasks like Leo, I might have time for an honest-to-God blog entry.
Anyway, here are twelve great posts from Leo’s blog:
- Peaceful Simplicity: How to Live a Life of Contentment
- The Four Laws of Simplicity, and How to Apply Them to Life
- The Cure for What Ails You: How to Beat the Misery of Discontentment
- 30 Things to Do to Keep From Getting Bored Out of Your Skull at Work
- A Guide to Cultivating Compassion in Your Life, With 7 Practices
- 9 Steps to Achieving Flow (and Happiness) in Your Work
- 10 Simple Ways to Live a Less Stressful Life
- 15 Tips for Becoming as Patient as Job
- 12 Practical Steps for Learning to Go With the Flow
- Calm as a Monk: How Equanimity Can Save Your Sanity
- The Many Paths to Simplicity
- The Magical Power of Focus
An academic environment provides plenty of opportunity to engage with a wide range of ideas on a wide range of levels. Being situated at this intersection is often incredibly stimulating, can lead to great conversations, and provides a chance to expand one’s horizons on a daily basis. There comes a time, however, when you must stop talking and start doing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that there’s no value in the theory or the hypothetical – quite the opposite. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I’m always willing to discuss the options, possibilities, off-the-wall ideas, and what-if’s of any scenario or situation. I love it! But, as much as I do, I’ve recently realized that unless you wish to make a career of it, at some point you have to take the plunge (those aspiring to be researchers, professors, or academics should probably stop reading at this point).
Taking the plunge is scary. There are risks: of failure, embarrassment, financial loss, emotional distress. There are also potentials for reward, success, recognition, financial gain, and emotional fulfillment. The obvious question, then, becomes “How do you know?” How do you know if this is the idea you should act on? How do you know if this is the time to act? The short answer: you don’t. Because you can’t.
Very rarely in life do opportunities so perfect present themselves that you simply cannot take them. Often times there are smaller signs, compromises, trade-offs, and coincidences that all come together to present what amounts to a decently good chance that you’ll break even on this proposition. This could be anything from choosing a check-out line at a grocery store to founding a new venture. All of these decisions are, at some level, the same. But still – how do you know?
Like I’ve said – you can’t know when to go, you can only know that you’re ready. And you’ll know when you’ve reached this point. It will be clear that you’ve gotten all that you can or need out of the discussion, out of the theory, and that you’ve reached the point where actual engagement is the only direction left. When it’s your time, go. Don’t get bogged down by the naysayers, or “wantreprenuers” who can only focus on the risk and the possibility of failure. If you’re ready – do it.
If you think you’re ready, and you’d like to start small, that’s fine too. There are plenty of resources for getting your feet wet in the world of doing. Once you realize that it’s your time to be doing, soon you will find that it’s all you can do – and that’s perfect, because doing is hard, takes time, and does carry very real risk. But it also carries the possibility for so much more.
Once you’ve exhausted your time and growth in the world of thinking, I wholly encourage you to take the plunge into the world of doing – there is so much out there to be done!
Several very interesting articles have come out lately discussing various attempts to crowdsource national defense functions, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. While crowdsourcing is a very interesting and powerful technique, applications like this run an enormous risk and must proceed with extreme caution.
What is crowdsourcing? Crowdsourcing, a combination of “crowd” and “outsourcing,” is the method by which an organization tries to harness the collective knowledge of many individuals. This is usually done through some sort of online facilitation (in order to increase the reach and size of the “crowd”), and has been referred to as a number of things, including community-based design, distributed participatory design, and human-based computation.
Essentially, the idea is that the more eyes and brains you have looking at something or working on something, the faster and better it will be done. Lots of people like this idea, including Netflix, Wikipedia, and the Democratic National Committee.
According to WIRED, DARPA’s new budget includes a
$13 million dollar project, called “Deep ISR Processing by Crowds,” looks “to harness the unique cognitive and creative abilities of large numbers of people to enhance dramatically the knowledge derived from ISR systems.”
As we have already seen, information sharing is already a real challenge for the Department of Defense. Intuitively, does it make sense to further distribute the information collection and analysis process? The National Security Agency is already building a separate facility simply to store the data that they collect but cannot process. Do DARPA and the NSA believe that an infrastructure is in place to distribute, analyze, and collect sensitive information and hope to achieve actionable results? Doubtful.
Furthermore, the hardest part about intelligence work is providing the appropriate context to any particular piece of information. By further distributing this data, we make the challenge of building appropriate contexts exponentially more difficult, thereby increasing the time and cost to turn data into information, and information into meaningful action.
In a pilot program that makes DARPA’s look like child’s play, the Home Office announced a new website that will allow individuals to anonymously report online activities that “spread hate and violent extremism.”
The reports are anonymous and are then reviewed by police officers who are part of the new Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, run by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). A Home Office spokeswoman said that unit would be responsible for determining the intent of the content posted, which would determine whether it is in fact illegal.
In a country where you can be prosecuted for “owning information useful to terrorism,” this seems like Big Brother’s dream. Now people will be able to report their neighborhood terrorists, or neighbors, without ever having to leave their home. Conveniently, the form provides a button at the end of the form to immediately start a new form. Perhaps the next version will include the ability to submit a batch of terrorists at once, thus saving everyone time.
Have someone to report? Here’s the Home Office site. If you need help determining who may or may not be a terrorist – the National Counterterrorism Center has an absolutely fantastic 2010 Counterterrorism Calendar (seriously), featuring terrorist groups, methods and tactics, and terrorist profiles.
No word on whether the 2010 calendar features any beach or bikini shots.
If we are going to be serious about fighting terrorism or increasing our national security, then we need to move beyond cliche and dangerous proposals like this, or the National Threat Advisory, and put serious effort into a societal-level change in how we conduct our lives, balance liberty and security, and envision our collective future.
Failing that, we’ll all soon be reporting each other with one screen and processing that same information on another. How long until you see yourself in the information you’ve been crowdsourced? What will you do then?
Take a close look at the above picture – because these are America’s new astronauts. Sort of. At least one of them is technically a former astronaut, but now they all work for private firms who are developing their own spacecraft and other intergalactic capabilities.
How can they afford to develop these capabilities when the return on investment is so low, and the risk so high? Tax dollars, of course. It was announced yesterday that
NASA has awarded $50 million through funded agreements to further the commercial sector’s capability to support transport of crew to and from low Earth orbit.
Rather than rekindling the national support for the space program, or even working on some sort of collaborative arrangement between NASA and the private entities (much like happens with other methods of transportation – see railroads, for an example), NASA has decided that it will just outsource this process entirely, and then when the occasion arises that they need to send people to the International Space Station, they’ll just buy them a seat like everyone else.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden characterized these moves in the following way:
We’re departing from the model of the past, in which the government funded all human space activities. This represents the entrance of the entrepreneurial mindset into a field that is poised for rapid growth and new jobs. And NASA will be driving competition, opening new markets and access to space, and catalyzing the potential of American industry. This is a good investment for America.
A good investment? Perhaps – but only at the $50 million price tag that was announced at this particular event. A little more investigation reveals that the actual “investment” is going to be much larger than $50 million. Space.com is reporting that Obama’s new 2011 budget includes
a $6 billion boost over five years to support commercial spaceflight development, but scrapped NASA’s Constellation program to build new Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets aimed at returning astronauts to the moon.
For the math impaired (myself included) that is 120 times as much money as the “investment” that NASA announced today. NASA also failed to announce that this meant the scrapping of both the Constellation program and the Orion and Ares programs.
Essentially, this budget is saying that the powers that be do not feel that we can build a successful low-earth-orbiting craft and return to the moon for less than $6 billion. Does that make sense? On it’s face – no. Not at all. In context, it makes fantastic sense.
The Apollo mission cost $150 billion to $175 billion in 2003 dollars – more in 2010 dollars. Now the privatization looks like a bargain, provided they can deliver what NASA seems to be promising.
The danger here, of course, is that NASA wasn’t motivated by profit in 1968 and they’re not motivated by profit in 2010. Each of these new partners, however, is motivated by nothing but profit, always has been, and always will be. Profit can be a great motivator, and there is much value in allowing the free market to determine progress, costs, and supply. There are some things, however, that we, as a society, have decided should not be subjected to the whims of the free market. These things include military and law enforcement forces, and the entirety of the judicial system. Other things that were formerly sacrosanct have been recently unleashed to the aforementioned market forces – I’m looking at you, Supreme Court of the United States.
Coming on the heels of such a landmark ruling, perhaps citizens should prepare for a continued onslaught of market-based life. Institutions that used to be the bedrock of American society – space dominance, corporate/political separation, and even military supremacy – have been privatized, outsourced, and sold. Meanwhile, more money that people can seem to count is flying out the door to banks and insurance companies who turn around and give it out as bonuses:
- $100,000,000 in bonuses at AIG
- $4,400,000,000 in bonuses at Bank of America
- $9,300,000,000 in bonuses at JPMorgan Chase
- $16,200,000,000 in bonuses at Goldman Sachs
America runs the risk of very literally selling the ground out from under itself. We must change our direction – drastically, and soon. Otherwise, we will quickly find ourselves in the Privatized States of America, which is a place that I do not want to be.
A member of the Tea Party movement, this story serves as a very interesting exploration of the new media in our national dialogue. According to the story, Keli became so popular from her blogging and viral videos, that she has been invited to become a spokesperson for this new movement:
Republican party leaders would very much like to harness the Tea Party energy. Just last week, former Congressman Dick Armey’s organization “Freedom Works” invited Carender and dozens of other Tea Party organizers to Washington for training and networking sessions.
What makes Keli’s situation so interesting is the fact that her largest claim to fame is her ability to share her ideas through new media outlets, particularly blogs and YouTube. According to the NPR article, Keli’s most popular video features her speaking to Rep. Norm Dicks, culminating in her offering Rep. Dicks a $20 bill as “down payment for the health care plan”:
While new media is an incredibly powerful tool, and I am clearly in favor of exercising its potential, the thing that makes it so unique is the ability for it to cut both ways. From the traditional perspective, individuals aren’t able to “talk back” to traditional media outlets. Now, however, one YouTube video can beget another, and another, and another.
To juxtapose Ms. Carender’s video, take a look at two filmmakers who made the trip to the 9/12 “DC Tea Party” and spoke with attendees about their feelings on the various issues:
This video provides some insight into why the organizers of the National Tea Party Convention are facing considerable difficulty.
Tea Partiers don’t want to be harnessed. They’ve shown a willingness to reject Republican candidates they don’t like. On the other hand, they’re not about to start their own national political party, as evidenced by the backlash within the Tea Party against the Nashville convention. It’s a movement without a central organization.
Like new media, this lack of central organization also cuts both ways. While Ms. Carender may have a clear grasp of those issues on which she feels strongly, other YouTube videos would suggest that many people who call themselves Tea Partiers do not share Ms. Carender’s mastery.
And that’s okay – because in the world of new media, you don’t have to know what you’re talking about, you just have to be able to talk.
Here’s what happened: someone posted a 29 second clip of their toddler dancing to a Prince song on YouTube. Universal, who owns the rights to Prince’s “Let’s Get Crazy,” filed a takedown notice with YouTube – who proceeded to take the video down (as a side note, this seems to be the standard procedure: act first and ask questions later). The poster then filed a counter notice and six weeks later YouTube reposted the video.
The article is getting press mainly for one reason: the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is suing Universal for $400,000 “a remedy for false take-down notices.”
Is this an exorbitant amount? Yes. Is it based on reality, or billed hours, or amount of work required? Probably not. Is it any more ridiculous than RIAA damage claims for downloaded songs? No. The going rate is $80,000 per song, by the way. But that’s not what’s important here.
What is important is how egregious the claims are in this case by Universal. I mean – really. Please take 29 seconds to see what we’re talking about here:
There are a two major things that make Universal’s takedown notice so asinine:
- The length of the clip is only 29 seconds, something that clearly could fall under Fair Use. Hell, I can get a 30 second, hi-res sample of the song from Amazon- click here to get yours.
- Between the Mom, the toddler, and a young Mario Andretti doing laps, you can barely hear the music, much less make out the song.
Why on Earth would Universal decide to go after this video? Clearly this woman is working hard to raise another generation of Prince fans who will continue to buy albums, attend concerts, and generally make money for Universal Music.
What really scares me about this takedown notice is that in addition to the shaky ground Universal originally filed on is YouTube’s blind acquiescence to corporate direction. Don’t people review these notices for validity? If we enter a phase where any hint of impropriety (or DMCA violations) result in the automatic removal, then we face a very grave danger. Good-bye mashups!
I can understand the enforcement arm of the DMCA, and even the motivations behind it, but I would urge that these things be used with great restraint and care, not abandon. For everyone’s sake, we must adopt an attitude of verification and validation in this arena. If we cannot, we will stifle not only many great creative works, but likely some very needed voices along the way.
January 2010 was by far the best month this blog has seen. I’d like to thank all of my readers for their continued support, and hope that I can continue to provide what it is that keeps you all coming back.
Thank you all very much.
A few days ago I wrote about why I won’t be buying the iPad. Since then, many people have speculated on what role the iPad will really end up filling, and how it might best find success.
Some of these ideas include targeting non-traditional computing markets – kids, older folks, etc. Other ideas include incorporating the iPad’s functionality with the existing iPhone infrastructure in novel ways, such as a board game. Imagine if the iPad was the Scrabble board, and you held your tiles on your iPhone, and were able to interact with both devices and your fellow players at the same time. That might be a novel application that would drive some serious iPad sales – and I may be forced to eat my words.
Other items have hit the market with great skepticism or early misconceptions about usefulness or applications, only to find massive success at a later date. Take, for example, pizza. If my introduction to pizza was the below video, I’m not sure I would be to keen on eating a “biscuit base” topped with “nippy cheese.” Yet, can you imagine America today without pizza?
Other items have debuted to similar circumstances. Take the original iPod, for example. After it’s debut, industry experts were critical:
Apple may take some heat for entering the consumer electronics market.
I question the company’s ability to sell into a tight consumer market right now at the iPod’s current price.
Other apple technologies have had a rocky roll-out, too. One article said that
“the iPhone has the potential for a high disappointment level because of the high expectations,” and “the initial market looks to be quite limited.”
How did it turn out? To date, Apple has sold over 42 million devices. That’s a smashing success, and the skeptics are left looking foolish.
I don’t know how the iPad will turn out, but my only hope is that I don’t end up looking like some of the other early critics. I still won’t be buying one, but that doesn’t mean that 41,999,999 others won’t.