This looks far more interesting and uplifting than some of the other things I have been dealing with lately - POP!TECH. Fast Company has had a number of articles on the conference.
Live from Pop!Tech: My Kind of Dinner Party
Live from Pop!Tech: Thursday's closing thought
Live from Pop!Tech: The Art of Giving Consumerism Stats Emotional Punch
Live from Pop!Tech: Friday's Closing Thought
Live from Pop!Tech: Losing Books from the Library of Life
Live from Pop!Tech: Questioning Our Slow Instincts and Speed Limits
Live from Pop!Tech: Today's Social Capitalist Assignment
In the meantime TED is blogging on the PopMech Awards
Showing posts with label fast company. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fast company. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Robert Frank - The more natural economist
Justin Wolfers on October 3, 2007 had a post in Marginal Revolution in which he introduces Professor Robert Frank and his new book the Economic Naturalist. There are a couple of lessons that I can readily take away from the reviews and interviews. First is Professor Frank's advice to his students that their answers to the questions should be viewed as intelligent hypotheses suitable for further refinement and testing. They are not meant to be the final word. Second is that a good way to learn about a new idea is to write about it. As Professor Frank sees it, "As someone who's written a lot, I can attest to the validity of that. I've never learned as efficiently about something as when I'm trying to write about it." This weblog is based partially on that belief. There are a number of other connection which I look forward to exploring. Some are provided in the link to the Economic Naturalist.
Not being a formal student of economics, it is difficult to determine if Professor Frank's approach puts him in the heterodox category or not. I do see this approach as being more useful to my own concepts of intentional beneficial paradigm shift. The ability to think logically about the effects of actions could have on the future, at least on the local level. My attempts to understand the Grameen Phone issue raised by Fast Company is one example.
Not being a formal student of economics, it is difficult to determine if Professor Frank's approach puts him in the heterodox category or not. I do see this approach as being more useful to my own concepts of intentional beneficial paradigm shift. The ability to think logically about the effects of actions could have on the future, at least on the local level. My attempts to understand the Grameen Phone issue raised by Fast Company is one example.
Design Delights
Fast Company does have an interesting look at the design visions of Bob Greenberg which is now under Paradigm Pathways Business & Economic Development
But since the proof is in the pudding or the pictures, those are here.
Other interesting links to concepts of design, also from Fast Company, are the Cooper Hewitt Natural Design Museum and their National Peoples Design Award program .
But since the proof is in the pudding or the pictures, those are here.
Other interesting links to concepts of design, also from Fast Company, are the Cooper Hewitt Natural Design Museum and their National Peoples Design Award program .
Fast Funds from the Fat
Professor Tyler Cowen's thoughts have been reflected upon within this site a few times. For the non-economist he is a good mix of technical knowledge and natural narrative. He is "classically liberal" enough to appeal to certain philosophical assumptions of mine and, as a libertarian with a conservative bent, to challenge others. His latest book Discover Your Inner Economist was the inspiration of a Fast Company article Entrepreneurship: Making Money On The Obese.
Here are my thoughts on the article. The link from Fast Company to Marginal Revolution in the article was wrong. The writing was an exercise. What is in truth the third incarnation hopefully has fewer mistakes.
First off its one study and not a particularly extensive one. Second the better question is why does money even small amounts induce people to loose weight while health and social acceptance does not. I doubt its the ability to get a couple extra videos for rent. The answer to the question in the article does anyone dare is obvious - plenty Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers etc. etc. Third the two scenarios are quite different. Professor Cowen's version is negatively re-enforced. Even if it works for a few, the repeat or referred business will drop off fast. The study scenario is positively re-enforced for the participants. The company is the one paying there is no participant contribution. It is the Fast Company version that raises the questionable ethics. Under it, one it has too presume that most don't lose weight so in turn do lose money. It in fact presumes that the study is false and money does not make a significant difference. Finally, because there is now an investment to protect in a group interaction, which was not true of either Professor Cowen's version (no group) or the study version (no investment), there is the potential for sabotage because if others fail I could get more, thereby bringing in the questionable ethics and practical failing of the system. The ethical gray area of making a profit on people's negative self image. I think that's called the fashion industry. Actually the most interesting point raised is by Professor Cowen, an economist who argues, Money isn't always a useful tool in altering human behavior; anyone who's offered financial rewards to their children for doing chores can tell you that the results are mixed. Both costs and benefits it would seem are in the eyes of the beholder.
Here are my thoughts on the article. The link from Fast Company to Marginal Revolution in the article was wrong. The writing was an exercise. What is in truth the third incarnation hopefully has fewer mistakes.
First off its one study and not a particularly extensive one. Second the better question is why does money even small amounts induce people to loose weight while health and social acceptance does not. I doubt its the ability to get a couple extra videos for rent. The answer to the question in the article does anyone dare is obvious - plenty Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers etc. etc. Third the two scenarios are quite different. Professor Cowen's version is negatively re-enforced. Even if it works for a few, the repeat or referred business will drop off fast. The study scenario is positively re-enforced for the participants. The company is the one paying there is no participant contribution. It is the Fast Company version that raises the questionable ethics. Under it, one it has too presume that most don't lose weight so in turn do lose money. It in fact presumes that the study is false and money does not make a significant difference. Finally, because there is now an investment to protect in a group interaction, which was not true of either Professor Cowen's version (no group) or the study version (no investment), there is the potential for sabotage because if others fail I could get more, thereby bringing in the questionable ethics and practical failing of the system. The ethical gray area of making a profit on people's negative self image. I think that's called the fashion industry. Actually the most interesting point raised is by Professor Cowen, an economist who argues, Money isn't always a useful tool in altering human behavior; anyone who's offered financial rewards to their children for doing chores can tell you that the results are mixed. Both costs and benefits it would seem are in the eyes of the beholder.
First Impression: Service
Design takes more and more of an importance in the views of this weblog on bringing about change through shifts in paradigms. This article relates design to customer service which should mean communication for mutual benefit.
|
| |||
| September 24, 2007 | |||
| |||
Online Persona
An effect of this web experiment is that I now have an online persona. I have had online identities before so that the e-mail can get to the right place but not a persona. Of course its a fledging one but definitely has some advantages over my real world one. Best one is that I can always go back and correct errors that I usually can't in the 'real' world. Also my many quibbles and foibles are left behind or are at least not as apparent. Still there are many mistakes to be made in the online world as well. My online persona gives me - courage seems too strong a word - but making a first comment on other blogs seems easier than before. I had already started commenting on TED. Yesterday I saw a post from Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen, Every claim is wrong. Though likely more "liberal" than most of Professor Cowen's readers, his post raised some interesting questions which I have to take some time to ponder.
There have been other posts on the web also requiring greater thought dealing with the Grameen Phone Company who's founder Iqbal Quadir is featured under Social and Economic Paradigms . The article raising the questions is from Fast Company - Unplanned Obsolescence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)