What professional benefits do you see by investing some time in a FOAF-style network?
When I think of professional benefits, I automatically think of jobs or anything will high standing status. FOAF, friend of a friend, I believe is very effective. For example, going through the application process for colleges, some students that I graduated with got some pulls to colleges because of FOAF. Either family friends, coworkers of their parents, etc, friend of a friend, they got some leverages on certain colleges that other students did not have. This definitely carries over into the professional world. Sometimes I feel like this job force is all about connections, who you know through connections to simply get your name to the boss. Once you have your name in the boss' mouth, you stand above the other's you're competing against for the job, simply because he has you in mind. Also, using FOAF, another person knows their work ethics and could predict their future with the company, giving another benefit. They can basically judge if the person is suitable for the job. It's a safe decision because the company knows who they are hiring. People can use the FOAF style by searching for people that can take the job. Having a connection can make all the difference. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I was having a conversation with my brother, who just graduated college with an engineering degree, about my future job opportunities. At the end of the conversation, he simply said, "Well if you ever want to look into an engineering job, I could definitely get you one." And just like that, I'd have a job, even if it wasn't my college degree. FOAF pulls strings for people. FOAF can feed from friend to friend to friend. It is very beneficial for professional standards because word gets around like wild fire. If you know a person who you are friends with who is capable of having a job like your own, why not hire them? It's a win win situation. FOAF definitely has professional benefits.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Prisoner's Dilemma
Considering the Prisoner's Dilemma in this chapter, provide your own insight on how sites such as eBay "work" for most participants of this popular online auction site. Do they really work? Or is there too much risk?
Shirky sums up the description of the four possibilities of the Prisoner's Dilemma. They are: 1. We each stick to our stories, they've got no evidence, and they keep us both overnight. 2. I stick to the bystander story and you turn me in. You get the reward, while I get charged. 3. I turn you in while you stick to the story. I get a reward, while you get charged. 4. We turn each other in. We both get charged. Shirky notes that the worst outcome, being number four is the rational one.
With eBay, as from personal experience, this site kind of works like this. EBay definitely works, it would not be as successful as it was today. The more you sell an item, the more credibility and a higher ratings you will attain if you provide good service. If the seller provides good service and has a high score, then there is no guessing game on how good the business is. However, if the person has no credibility, then the guessing game begins. If the person has never sold an item before, most people stay away because you never know what item or items you're getting. You don't know if the person is selling good quality products, if the item they have online really is the product, and so on. That's when eBay is too much of a risk. When there is the unknown of the seller and the buyer, there is a lot of risk. When there's too much risk, the Prisoner's Dilemma for eBay becomes: 1. Both the seller and buyer hold their end of the deal. Both are rewarded. 2. The buyer doesn't follow through on the deal and the seller ends up with a loss. 3. The seller doesn't follow through on the deal and the buyer ends up with a loss. 4. Both the seller and the buyer do not hold their end of the deal, both being empty handed in the end. Another risk is that the seller could be selling their product for too much, tricking the buyer into a "good deal" when it really isn't. When a seller does not have credibility and great history on eBay, risk involves a lot. Trust needs to be made between the bond of the buyer and the seller. Trust from the seller is that the item they're selling is indeed what they are describing and is not overpriced. And trust from the buyer is that they will pay the seller their money for their product. With trust, outcome number one is the most rational and the most desired from eBay consumers.
It all seems tricky, but eBay has been on the web for years, so it obviously does work. Buyers and sellers just need to trust one another, and a smooth transaction can be made. And most buyers and sellers do trust each other, giving eBay great success.
Shirky sums up the description of the four possibilities of the Prisoner's Dilemma. They are: 1. We each stick to our stories, they've got no evidence, and they keep us both overnight. 2. I stick to the bystander story and you turn me in. You get the reward, while I get charged. 3. I turn you in while you stick to the story. I get a reward, while you get charged. 4. We turn each other in. We both get charged. Shirky notes that the worst outcome, being number four is the rational one.
With eBay, as from personal experience, this site kind of works like this. EBay definitely works, it would not be as successful as it was today. The more you sell an item, the more credibility and a higher ratings you will attain if you provide good service. If the seller provides good service and has a high score, then there is no guessing game on how good the business is. However, if the person has no credibility, then the guessing game begins. If the person has never sold an item before, most people stay away because you never know what item or items you're getting. You don't know if the person is selling good quality products, if the item they have online really is the product, and so on. That's when eBay is too much of a risk. When there is the unknown of the seller and the buyer, there is a lot of risk. When there's too much risk, the Prisoner's Dilemma for eBay becomes: 1. Both the seller and buyer hold their end of the deal. Both are rewarded. 2. The buyer doesn't follow through on the deal and the seller ends up with a loss. 3. The seller doesn't follow through on the deal and the buyer ends up with a loss. 4. Both the seller and the buyer do not hold their end of the deal, both being empty handed in the end. Another risk is that the seller could be selling their product for too much, tricking the buyer into a "good deal" when it really isn't. When a seller does not have credibility and great history on eBay, risk involves a lot. Trust needs to be made between the bond of the buyer and the seller. Trust from the seller is that the item they're selling is indeed what they are describing and is not overpriced. And trust from the buyer is that they will pay the seller their money for their product. With trust, outcome number one is the most rational and the most desired from eBay consumers.
It all seems tricky, but eBay has been on the web for years, so it obviously does work. Buyers and sellers just need to trust one another, and a smooth transaction can be made. And most buyers and sellers do trust each other, giving eBay great success.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
When a Society Adopts New Behaviors
Based on the quote from this chapter, "revolution doesn't happen when society adopts new technologies-- it happens when society adopts new behaviors," do you agree or disagree? Cite examples to support your position.
I fully agree with this quote. These days, revolution evolves because society needs new things for their new behaviors. Society doesn't happen because new technologies evolve, we produce the technology because of the new behaviors. For example, when the Internet was invented. The Internet is the infrastructure to support electronic mail. Once the Internet started to have its boom, the Internet was revolutionized. The revolution started when people realized that there was no other way mail should be sent. Behavior effects technology; behavior effects revolution. Society's behaviors have shaped the Internet. Our behaviors called for the Internet to be updated, to be faster, to explain more, etc. Our behaviors shape technology which shapes our revolution. Another example is the cell phone. Society invented the cell phone because we wanted phones that we could use outside the home land lines. Then, people wanted cell phones that had texting, so people invented texting. Now a days, people want faster Internet on their phones, so cell phone companies are trying to provide their customers with faster and better Internet. Our behaviors clearly shape our technologies. Revolution happens when society adopts new behaviors because we invent and shape our society by our new behaviors, having the Internet and the cell phone two prime examples.
I fully agree with this quote. These days, revolution evolves because society needs new things for their new behaviors. Society doesn't happen because new technologies evolve, we produce the technology because of the new behaviors. For example, when the Internet was invented. The Internet is the infrastructure to support electronic mail. Once the Internet started to have its boom, the Internet was revolutionized. The revolution started when people realized that there was no other way mail should be sent. Behavior effects technology; behavior effects revolution. Society's behaviors have shaped the Internet. Our behaviors called for the Internet to be updated, to be faster, to explain more, etc. Our behaviors shape technology which shapes our revolution. Another example is the cell phone. Society invented the cell phone because we wanted phones that we could use outside the home land lines. Then, people wanted cell phones that had texting, so people invented texting. Now a days, people want faster Internet on their phones, so cell phone companies are trying to provide their customers with faster and better Internet. Our behaviors clearly shape our technologies. Revolution happens when society adopts new behaviors because we invent and shape our society by our new behaviors, having the Internet and the cell phone two prime examples.
"Information Cascade"
Look deeper into the concept of a "information cascade". Can you cite an example of where following the actions of others was a sound idea? Where doing so ended up being a poor choice?
The concept of a "information cascade" occurs "when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made (Wikipedia)." Most of the time, it's made by a rational decision. Information cascades usually occurs when people see other people make the same choice which provides evidence that outweighs one's own judgment. An example would be in 1989 in Leipzig, Germany. Small protests started with only a few activists challenging German Democratic Republic. Slowly, the size grew little by little but by the time the government attempted to address it, it was too big to squash. Later that year, over 400,000 people marched the streets of Leipzig and two days later the Berlin Wall was dismantled.
An example where the information cascade ended up being a poor choice would be any type of riot that leads to arrests, fires, injuries, deaths, etc. For example, back in March of 2010, University of Maryland students started a riot after winning one of their big basketball games against Duke. Hundreds of students and residents of the college park area crowded the streets, taking down street signs, climbing stop lights, etc. The riot police were called in and had to use shields, batons, rubber bullets, etc, anything to contain the crowd. People were arrested and injured throughout the riot. The riot started because a small group of people decided to crowd the street and chant UMD songs and other people joined in, soon collecting hundreds of people on Route 1. However, this is an example of how information cascade ended up being a poor choice because of the arrests and the injuries that resulted from the riot.
Therefore, "information cascade" can bring both positive and negative consequences to a situation. It all depends on the situation and what comes from it.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade
The concept of a "information cascade" occurs "when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made (Wikipedia)." Most of the time, it's made by a rational decision. Information cascades usually occurs when people see other people make the same choice which provides evidence that outweighs one's own judgment. An example would be in 1989 in Leipzig, Germany. Small protests started with only a few activists challenging German Democratic Republic. Slowly, the size grew little by little but by the time the government attempted to address it, it was too big to squash. Later that year, over 400,000 people marched the streets of Leipzig and two days later the Berlin Wall was dismantled.
An example where the information cascade ended up being a poor choice would be any type of riot that leads to arrests, fires, injuries, deaths, etc. For example, back in March of 2010, University of Maryland students started a riot after winning one of their big basketball games against Duke. Hundreds of students and residents of the college park area crowded the streets, taking down street signs, climbing stop lights, etc. The riot police were called in and had to use shields, batons, rubber bullets, etc, anything to contain the crowd. People were arrested and injured throughout the riot. The riot started because a small group of people decided to crowd the street and chant UMD songs and other people joined in, soon collecting hundreds of people on Route 1. However, this is an example of how information cascade ended up being a poor choice because of the arrests and the injuries that resulted from the riot.
Therefore, "information cascade" can bring both positive and negative consequences to a situation. It all depends on the situation and what comes from it.
Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Mental Transaction Cost
From the audio book chapter on Free: Explain and give an example of a mental transaction cost.
Mental transaction cost is the thought process one has to take when making a decision in purchasing something. You take things into account, like is it worth it? Should I get my wallet out? That's why having something for free or the "zero" concept eliminates the mental transaction cost. People like things when they don't have to think that much to make a decision.
An example of a mental transaction cost is Zappos shoes. Zappos eliminated shipping costs both ways. Therefore you don't have to pay for shipping to get them and if you want to return your shoes, you don't have to pay for the shipping back either. This way, you will want to order a lot of shoes to try on and then send back the shoes you don't want. However, in Zappos mind set, they hope that trying on all the shoes after you already purchased them, you will easily keep the shoes, which gives them more sales. Therefore, is it worth purchasing the shoes? Will you really want to end up keeping all the shoes you try on and be spending more money in the end? However, with free shipping, it almost eliminates some of the questions. If you had to pay for shipping, you would be more wise about the decision since you'd feel like you were paying more.
Another example would be Amazon books. If you purchase more than 25 dollars of books, then you have free shipping. So Amazon is hopeful in that you will buy two books instead of one to get the free shipping. Even though clearly, the second book was worth more than the shipping you'd have to pay. But the mental transaction cost thought was that you are getting free shipping over 25 dollars, so it's almost better to buy two books than buying one and paying for shipping. The mental transaction cost benefit is the free shipping. It makes your decision easier when something free is involved. Questions are eliminated from mental transaction cost thought process when "free" is added into the equation.
Mental transaction cost is all the questions you ask yourself when purchasing something and if the product is worth it. Do the shoes fit? Do I like them? Should I get more if it's free shipping? And how about the books? Should I go for two or stick with one? All of this thought process is mental transaction cost.
Mental transaction cost is the thought process one has to take when making a decision in purchasing something. You take things into account, like is it worth it? Should I get my wallet out? That's why having something for free or the "zero" concept eliminates the mental transaction cost. People like things when they don't have to think that much to make a decision.
An example of a mental transaction cost is Zappos shoes. Zappos eliminated shipping costs both ways. Therefore you don't have to pay for shipping to get them and if you want to return your shoes, you don't have to pay for the shipping back either. This way, you will want to order a lot of shoes to try on and then send back the shoes you don't want. However, in Zappos mind set, they hope that trying on all the shoes after you already purchased them, you will easily keep the shoes, which gives them more sales. Therefore, is it worth purchasing the shoes? Will you really want to end up keeping all the shoes you try on and be spending more money in the end? However, with free shipping, it almost eliminates some of the questions. If you had to pay for shipping, you would be more wise about the decision since you'd feel like you were paying more.
Another example would be Amazon books. If you purchase more than 25 dollars of books, then you have free shipping. So Amazon is hopeful in that you will buy two books instead of one to get the free shipping. Even though clearly, the second book was worth more than the shipping you'd have to pay. But the mental transaction cost thought was that you are getting free shipping over 25 dollars, so it's almost better to buy two books than buying one and paying for shipping. The mental transaction cost benefit is the free shipping. It makes your decision easier when something free is involved. Questions are eliminated from mental transaction cost thought process when "free" is added into the equation.
Mental transaction cost is all the questions you ask yourself when purchasing something and if the product is worth it. Do the shoes fit? Do I like them? Should I get more if it's free shipping? And how about the books? Should I go for two or stick with one? All of this thought process is mental transaction cost.
"Zero"
From the audio book chapter on Free: Why is "zero" such a hot-button word?
In the audio book, the narrator described that "zero" is an "emotional hot button" and "a source of irrational excitement". "Zero" is easy to say but difficult to measure. Having "zero" makes people think less and has the opportunity to make decisions easier. If something is presented with "zero" we don't have to question ourselves to open our wallet. An example they gave in the audio book was a chocolate experiment. They had Lindt truffles and Hershey kisses for customers to buy. In the first experiment, the truffles were 15 cents and the kisses were 1 cent. Naturally, people paid more for the truffles. Then the second experiment, they lowered the truffles price 14 cents and the kisses were "zero" or free. The kisses this time around were consumed more even though they were still 14 cents difference, the fact that they were free, made them wanted more. However, the question of quality comes to mind when something is free in society. But just because something is free doesn't mean that it's quality has been taken away too. When something is free, we forget the down side. Things seem more valuable if it's free. The example they gave in the audio book was that if you were to go out and buy socks wanting padded and gold toe, but then you enter a store and there are regular socks for free. You end up leaving with the free socks even though they aren't padded or gold toe, but they are more valuable because they are free. However, the only down side of having free things, is that people don't care as much about the product. We don't take care of it. We become hoarders and gluttony takes over. Free gives people confidence because you can try it without consequence, since it was free.
"Zero" is a hot-button because it gives people an easier choice. If something is free, then they don't have to think about taking it, it's free, why not take it? With the kisses and the socks example, we value free things a lot more in this society because it's just an easier decision and we don't have to reach for the wallet. It's exciting knowing something of quality is free.
In the audio book, the narrator described that "zero" is an "emotional hot button" and "a source of irrational excitement". "Zero" is easy to say but difficult to measure. Having "zero" makes people think less and has the opportunity to make decisions easier. If something is presented with "zero" we don't have to question ourselves to open our wallet. An example they gave in the audio book was a chocolate experiment. They had Lindt truffles and Hershey kisses for customers to buy. In the first experiment, the truffles were 15 cents and the kisses were 1 cent. Naturally, people paid more for the truffles. Then the second experiment, they lowered the truffles price 14 cents and the kisses were "zero" or free. The kisses this time around were consumed more even though they were still 14 cents difference, the fact that they were free, made them wanted more. However, the question of quality comes to mind when something is free in society. But just because something is free doesn't mean that it's quality has been taken away too. When something is free, we forget the down side. Things seem more valuable if it's free. The example they gave in the audio book was that if you were to go out and buy socks wanting padded and gold toe, but then you enter a store and there are regular socks for free. You end up leaving with the free socks even though they aren't padded or gold toe, but they are more valuable because they are free. However, the only down side of having free things, is that people don't care as much about the product. We don't take care of it. We become hoarders and gluttony takes over. Free gives people confidence because you can try it without consequence, since it was free.
"Zero" is a hot-button because it gives people an easier choice. If something is free, then they don't have to think about taking it, it's free, why not take it? With the kisses and the socks example, we value free things a lot more in this society because it's just an easier decision and we don't have to reach for the wallet. It's exciting knowing something of quality is free.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)