Interview with James @jamesparton and Chris @bookmeister on HashBang.TV which is a new web TV show covering the exploding UK software development and startup scene.

In their own words .... "HashBang.TVs mission is simple; Highlight the amazing talent the UK has to offer, and comment on major industry topics. But all done in the HashBang.TV style."

A long standing professional friend is Alan Moore and his new book is, like previous books, excellent.

....We have arrived at the edge of the adaptive range of our industrial world. At the edge, because that world, our world is being overwhelmed by a trilemma of social, organisational and economic complexity. We are in transit from a linear world to a non-linear one. Non-linear because it is for all of us socially, organisationally and economically ambiguous, confusing and worrying. Consequently we are faced with an increasingly pressing and urgent problem, WHAT COMES NEXT? And also we are therefore presented with a design challenge: HOW do we create better societies, more able organisations and, more vibrant and equitable economies relevant to the world we live in today? No Straight Lines presents a new logic and inspiring plea for a more human centric world that argues we now have the possibility to truly transform our world, to be more resilient, to be more relevant to us both personally and collectively, socially cohesive, sustainable, economically vibrant and humane, through the tools, capabilities, language and processes at our fingertips......

I can see we are slowly rejecting the wisdom of books as the method of learning and passing facts.  We are moving back to pre-printing press when non-linear existed and where our brains probably want to be again.  Non-linear is not a struggle unlike long form concentration and deep thinking.   With my true engineering hat on, linear and straight lines are only special cases so why did we focus on them?

If you want to buy his book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Straight-Lines-Making-Non-linear/dp/0956766242
http://www.amazon.com/No-Straight-Lines-Alan-Moore/dp/0956766242

Original article is on Read/Write Web http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_why_do_people_use_facebook.php

A new study entitled "Why do people use Facebook?" from Boston University's Ashwini Nadkarni and Stefan G. Hofmann proposes that the social network meets two primary human needs: (1) the need to belong and (2) the need for self-presentation. The study also acknowledges demographic and cultural factors as they relate to the belonging need, and the variation of personality types on Facebook usage.

Comment : Neither of these are new or revolutionary and continue to show that our digital self is just us – warts and all

Abstract

The social networking site, Facebook, has gained an enormous amount of popularity. In this article, we review the literature on the factors contributing to Facebook use. We propose a model suggesting that Facebook use is motivated by two primary needs: (1) the need to belong and (2) the need for self-presentation. Demographic and cultural factors contribute to the need to belong, whereas neuroticism, narcissism, shyness, self-esteem and self-worth contribute to the need for self-presentation. Areas for future research are discussed.

The Department of Psychology at the University of Texas published a study that found that Facebook users are no different online than they are offline.

"Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self-Reported Facebook-Related Behaviors and Observable Profile Information" published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Unsurprisingly the study revealed strong connections between real personality and online-related behaviour.

Professor Samuel D. Gosling and his colleagues found that self-reported personality traits are accurately reflected in online social networks such as Facebook by looking at the big five personality traits - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

There are two studies covered in the paper

Study 1

Researchers examined personality and self-reported Facebook-related behaviors. The study drew 159 participants from a psychology student study pool at Washington University in St. Louis; 68% were female. Of those who shared their ethnicity, the numbers boiled down to 7% African-American, 18% Asian, 68% white or Caucasian and 6% other. Study subjects were assessed using the Ten Item Personality Inventory and 11-item self-reported Facebook-specific activities.

Extroverted Facebook users reported the most friends and highest engagement levels. Conscientious types, who are characterized as disciplined, organized and achievement-oriented, reported the least Facebook usage across the board. Overall, extroverts tended to engage more than introverts.

Facebook might not be a real-world coffee shop or a bar, spaces where real-life social interaction occur, but it certainly is a space where extraverts seek out virtual social engagement.

Study 2

Personality and Observable Information on Facebook Profiles, "researchers examined whether objectively assessed observable information found on Facebook profiles was associated with personality traits. One-hundred and thirty-three people from the University of Texas at Austin received $10 compensation, were entered into a lottery to win $100 in exchange and received partial fulfillment of course requirements if they were already enrolled in Introductory Psychology. The participants signed up via the Web; they did not know that this study was about Facebook. Of participants, 61% were female. Forty-two percent were Asian, Asian-American, Indian or Pacific-Islander; 53% Caucasian or white; 13% Hispanic or Latino/a; 9% black or African-American and 2% other.

The researchers saved the Facebook profiles of participants after they signed up so that participants would not be able to alter anything before the research officially began. After that, nine undergraduate research assistants (five female, four male) rated the personality of the 133 participants based only on their Facebook profiles. If the observers realized that they already knew one of the participants in an offline context, their ratings were not used.

Individual Facebook profiles were coded with eight types of information: number of photos, number of photo albums (some were user-generated wall photos, others thematic), number of words in the free-response "about me" section, number of wall posts, number of groups, number of friends in local network based on region or organization, total number of friends, number of networks (groups linked by a common region or organization). The researchers found a number of links between observable information on Facebook profiles and the users' actual personalities….. Extraversion was correlated with the number of friends overall and the number of friends in the local network. These personality types seek out virtual social contact and were more engaged in online social experience than introverts.

The other dimension associated with information was openness, which correlated with number of friends in both local and total networks. The researchers did not discover a correlation between conscientiousness or agreeableness and observable profile information. Openness was expressed through exploring new activities, meeting people and changing the visual scenery. Neuroticism was not easy readable on Facebook; researchers found it difficult to judge by outside observers, especially in relation to more observable traits like extroversion. The study also found that low-conscientious procrastinators used Facebook as a way to avoid doing actual work.

The study determined that online social networks are not an escape from reality, but rather a microcosm of peoples' larger social worlds and an extension of offline behaviors.

Tomorrow (Wednesday 18^th Jan 2012)  Wikipedia will black out, friends will not Tweet and I am sure other activities will occur to protest for Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US.

This post is not about why I support but more of a reflection about action.  I have never been able to strike or stop work as I have been self employed or in growth companies for just about my entire working career. But I now have the choice to make my view known.  Many of us watched in awe as several counties used the Internet to bring about regime change and have enjoyed free services in exchange for our data and advertising.

It feels good that we can now raise a peaceful protest and have a voice, but how did we get to this point?  I am left wondering how it is that the US even got as far as they did with the proposals and who’s voice is the true voice Government listens to until we protest.  Why is it that we protest late and not early?

Within the EU we are facing the same issue with policy and proposals being introduced from Viviane Reading that appear to be backed by those who have an old model to protect and want the state (law) to do something that the senior execs failed to do.

Issues that we should be engaged in include: Tracking, Nymwars, security, location, GPS, privacy, DoNot Track, Government Data, storage and protection of data, citizenship, rights and access to name a few.  If only there was enough time….

Therefore, I can see someone coming up with a new CAPTCHA style idea, See this TED talk, where at the joining stage of a service ( or usage) we get to voice a vote about something – massive scale online collaboration to bring about change rather than a day of protest a continual stream of consciousness from the voter? 

So we know where you have been, we know where you are, now Forecast is where you will be (an intention)

Where you have been may indicate what you want but there is nothing as good as telling me what you want and giving me time to market to you before you get there.  Intention (in the widest meaning) is an untapped market.  Really looking forward to Doc Searls new book on this “The Intention Economy”

“Personalisation before you even need it”

Guilt through association is a well written about topic and there are well published errors in analysis that have caused many outcomes to be misguided.  danah boyd wrote an article here on “Guilt through algorithmic association”  It is well worth reading and which picks up on several blogs on My Digital Footprint

When Big Data says "Happy Christmas", what is the sentiment?

Google changes the algorithm; nothing new but what about the bias of coders?

It is well reasoned (opens a debate) with some great comments, the critical point here is how does the fact become fact, is it content or is it because we searched for it.  Content is a source and can be tracked (or should be) this is why pagerank works: Authority.  However, as we give way to “search terms” as a source we are in danger of rumour, gossip and prejudice becoming fact based on an algorithm.

Algorithms can be gammed for benefit aka “Google Bombing” so the question becomes do people actually react to the instant search results and what is the level of influence.  

The next question is how does it become infectious and does an example of Google instant search need a higher level of crowd control….