Category Archives: Technology

If You’re a Senior Executive and You’re Not on Twitter, You’re Doing It Wrong

I’ve seen a number of articles in the past 12 months (here’s one, and another, and another still) that discuss CEO’s and social media. Of the three I pointed to in the previous sentence, two are for and one is against. On the whole, I think the majority of what I’ve read in the popular press is that CEOs should be on social media. There are a number of good reasons (know your market, humanizing your brand, appearance of accessibility, etc.), but I learned of an externality last week.

When I was at the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) event, I was with a number of staff at George Mason University. Our aim at this event was to share positive things about Mason, which is one of the purposes of AI. During this sharing, it was possible to overhear conversations of other groups around the room (especially when there was a pause/lull in my group’s discussion). In a couple of these silences, I overheard groups talking about the President of George Mason University — Angel Cabrera — who is known for, among other things, being on Twitter.

In fact, a couple of these people who were talking about it, mentioned that this was the reason that they joined Twitter — just so that they could follow the President! And this isn’t the only time that I’ve heard of faculty/staff joining Twitter just to see what the President was saying. While these pockets of people saying this may not be a representative sample, it certainly seems like it might be the beginning of a trend, or at least something that’s worth noticing.

In a couple of the articles I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the authors specifically point to social media being a way for CEOs to connect with their employees. After hearing about these folks at Mason who joined Twitter just for President Cabrera, I can see other benefits, too. Once these folks are on Twitter, they may be more likely to follow other conversations and continue their learning/development. But more than that — for the company/brand/organization/school, these employees will be showing potential customers/employees another window into the workings of the company/organization. That may have been a confusing sentence. By being on Twitter, these employees could offer a window of what it’s like on the inside.

So, while there are obvious benefits of CEOs partaking in social media, I think it’s important to point out some of the externalities that result from CEOs being on Twitter  — namely — their employees joining Twitter. As you’ll notice in the title of this post, I would argue that senior executives should join Twitter, so not just the CEO (or President, in the case of George Mason University). In fact, at George Mason University, you’ll find that President Cabrera isn’t the only senior executive on Twitter. Mason’s Provost (Peter Stearns) is on Twitter, the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (Jack Senser) is on Twitter, the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development is on Twitter (Mark Ginsberg), etc.

So — if you’re a senior executive, make your way to social media — now! And for all the employees out there, head on over to social media to check and see if your company’s/organization’s senior executives are on Twitter… you never know.

Markets Are Cyclical: Why the Internet Monopolies Don’t Matter (that much)

Survival of the biggestThere was a nice feature on Technology in this past week’s Economist. In fact, there were a number of articles I found intriguing (medical tricorders was a good one!), but I want to draw your attention to one in particular: Battle of the internet giants – Survival of the biggest. The case is made that these internet behemoths are getting too big and that their scope needs to be curbed. Okay, I understand that, but I think that the fear is a bit unfounded. Here’s why.

Remember back to when railroads were the only way to get around? Remember when all commerce and long-distance travel was done by locomotive? Now, I don’t know if this is a perfect comparison, but bear with me for a second. There were at least a few big players in the railroad game back in the 19th century (Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southern Pacific). I’m sure that there were people back then who were irked that there were monopolies in the railroad business and probably wanted there to be more regulation (like is being argued in the article about the internet).

However, with the turn of the 20th century, a new form of transportation was starting to emerge: the automobile. It didn’t happen overnight, but the automobile eventually became a much more preferred method of transportation.

There’s another example: television. Remember in the early days of TV, there were just a few channels? If you had a TV (and you watched it), you probably saw the same program that everyone else who had a TV was seeing. Again, I don’t know, but I imagine that some folks were pretty peeved by this monopoly. Although, slowly but surely, there came to be more and more choice of TV channels. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where we’re unlikely to ever see the most watched television program eclipsed because there’s so much choice.  Though, some would argue that there still are monopolies in television.

And now what’s starting to breach the monopolies of TV? The internet and online media. There was a slide deck that was passed around courtesy of Business Insider earlier last week that shows the future of digital. There were lots of graphs and lots of data. One of the graphs showed that the percentage of live TV watching has dropped 25% in just the last 4 years. Conversely, recorded TV watching is up over 50%! And a new category has emerged: streaming TV. Whereas there was no streaming TV watching in 2008, it now makes up 7% of primetime viewing in the US.

So, even with all of this choice in television, there is still room for newness and growth.

Tying this back into my argument about the internet behemoths: maybe we can’t see it now, but based on history, I would bet that there’s going to be something that comes along (eventually) and unseats these internet behemoths. Of course, that’s not a reason not to regulate them, but it is something to keep in mind when you see articles like the one in last week’s Economist.

Mind Lab: How Is Our Consciousness Connected to the World?

A little over a week ago, I was introduced to Mind Lab from Japan’s Science and Technology Agency. It. Is. Awesome! There are 4 lessons that take about 15 minutes each, so you could (theoretically), complete the lessons over your lunch break. There are some parts with sound (so you may want headphones), but theoretically, you could skip those parts and still get the gist of the lesson. If you want, you could also bookmark the page and come back to parts. So, if you only had 15 minutes, you could do the first lesson and then go back at a later time when you could finish another lesson (or all the lessons).

In the first lesson, we learn about blind spots, eye saccades, and apparent motion. In fact, you even get to measure the size of your blind spot. In the second lesson, we learn about 3D images in a 2D space, and how shadows effect our perception. In the third lesson, we learn about colors and the way that our brains can interpret the same image in two different ways. Lesson #3 is very intriguing. It reminds me of the those cognitive illusions you’ve probably seen in a psychology class. In the fourth lesson, we learn how contours effect how we perceive the existence of objects. There’s also something else during the last ‘slide’ of lesson #4 that I don’t want to spoil for you — but I really hope that you check it out.

In fact, after you’ve done lesson #4, be sure to come back and check out this link. The implications of what you’ll discover at the end of lesson #4 have been written about in that post.

I also wanted to mention that it’s been pointed out that the interactive nature of these lessons would likely eclipse any way in which they could be taught in the “old-fashioned” way.

Why I Like Twitter: The Great Equalizer

Twitter is one of my most used tags (as you can see from the Tag Cloud on the right-hand side). Part of this is because I started that series of people I follow on Twitter, (which is way out of date). In fact, I probably don’t follow a lot of the people who are in those posts, but when I wrote those posts, I did. Anyway, I’ve been using Twitter for almost a year and a half now and I felt compelled to share why I like Twitter.

One of the main reasons I use/like Twitter is for the ability to curate things I may like to read. Some folks would say that this is the same function that RSS served when it first came out — yes, this is true. When RSS came out, I wasn’t as active on the Internet as am I now. But of course, this isn’t the only reason I like/use Twitter. You can also have conversations with people (plural!). For instance, just last week, after watching The Conspirator, I took to Twitter to say some things about capital punishment. In my series of tweets about capital punishment, I had some questions. Thanks to Twitter, someone responded to my question — and even included a source!

Perhaps the thing I like the most about Twitter — everyone’s on an equal (arguably) playing field. Yes, some have more followers than others and yes, there are promoted tweets, but more or less, the people on Twitter are tweeting for themselves. That is, when Lady Gaga tweets something, it’s probably her talking. Similarly, when I tweet, it’s me tweeting. There are famous athletes like LeBron James, famous actors like Tom Hanks, famous chefs like Guy Fieri, and — of course — famous politicians like Barack Obama. Though, not every tweet from President Obama’s Twitter account is something from him (personally).

Where on the Internet is Jeremiah Stanghini — November 2012

Everything is dynamic — nothing stays the same. As I looked back at on the first time I wrote a post of “Where on the Internet” I am, I was struck by how much has changed. As it is, I updated the other post 3 times (I didn’t include a note when I updated it the first time) — and that was just between January 2011 and June 2011… 6 months!! Now, a year out from there, a lot more has changed. As a result, I thought it worth it to give you an update. Notice this time, I’ve included a month/year in the title of the post because — while I don’t anticipate any major changes, there’s a good chance that things will change. Without further adieu!

Jeremiah Stanghini’s Blog — Since moving my posts from Genuine Thriving to JeremiahStanghini.com, this is probably one of the best places to find me. In the top right-hand corner, there’s a button you can click to get updates of every time I publish a new post — which — I’ve been aiming for two a day (during the week) and once a day on the weekend.

Twitter — Jeremiah Stanghini — Since starting to tweet in June of 2011, I’ve gone through quite a process. I used to only use Twitter through the web client (twitter.com), but since realizing the value of TweetDeck and lists (!); if my computer is open, there’s a high probability that I’ve got TweetDeck open, too. I do my best to tweet things that are interesting, news-y, noteworthy, or funny. Of course, I don’t always tweet links. On the sidebar, you’ll see some of my most recent tweets and a follow button — (shameless plug) — follow me on Twitter! There’s also a link to my Twitter page in the menu at the top of the page.

Facebook — Jeremiah Stanghini — I recently switched my Facebook profile to a Facebook page. Like Twitter, I do my best to post articles/videos that are interesting, noteworthy, or funny. Like with Twitter, there’s a Facebook widget on the wide bar — (shameless plug) — like me on Facebook! Again, there’s also a link to this Facebook page in the menu at the top of the page.

 – Of course, I have a profile on LinkedIn that provides my professional resume. As with Twitter/Facebook, there’s a link to this profile/resume in the menu at the top of the page.

As I wrote in the first version of this post in January of 2011, I have profiles with two of the more popular commenting services for blogs,  and . On these profiles, you’ll be able to see the various comments I have made on blogs around the Internet.

Quora — Jeremiah Stanghini — Lastly — I’ve started to Quora use a little more frequently. There are some interesting questions that I find on Quora and when I can, I try to pitch in and answer questions.

Humans Reach the Top of the Sky and the Bottom of the Ocean — in the Same Year!

Earlier this week, I came to a realization: humans have made some startling ‘achievements’ this year as it relates to pushing the boundaries of experience up — and down. Forgive me if you’ve already made this connection (or if someone else already has), as I said, I just came to this realization a couple of days ago.

Down
Almost 8 months ago, director, screen-writer, visual artist, imaginary genius, and all-around cool guy (he’s Canadian, too!), James Cameron reached the “bottom of the ocean” — the Mariana Trench. Cameron was the first person to do this dive solo and no doubt, saw things that no other human being has ever seen. Absolutely remarkable. I can’t wait to see what kinds of things that Cameron comes up with after having added these new images to his realm of possibility.

Up
Just about a month ago now, Felix Baumgartner reached the “top of the sky.” Baumgartner travelled almost 40 km up into the stratosphere — and then jumped! The stratosphere! Baumgartner now has the record for highest manned balloon flight and the highest altitude jump. Part of the purpose of the jump was to collect data to assist in the probability of space tourism.

~~

So — in case you hadn’t put “Up” and “Down” together, humans have gone to places they’d never gone before. The strange part that I see is that in amongst everything, both of these events weren’t necessarily initiated by government agencies. The “Up” certainly had NASA assistance, but it wasn’t something (from what I’ve read) that was initiated by NASA. Similarly, the “down” wasn’t initiated by a government agency, either. I wonder if this will be a sign of things to come. That is, can we expect more exploration paid for by private funding rather than public funding?

An Evening of Historic Proportions

Last night was a historic night. It was the first time in the history of social media that I was “locked out” of Twitter. Okay, probably not the historic event you thought I was going to cite, but it did happen.

While I was busy tweeting and retweeting last night, I didn’t even consider that I would hit the “daily update limit” — but I did. The irony is that just before I sat down at my computer to begin watching the coverage (on TV and online), I saw a tweet from someone who was speaking for @TheStalwart — who had just hit the daily limit and thusly wouldn’t be participating in the “Election Party” on Twitter last night. It was a bit strange last night — to — in a way — be excluded from the excitement on Twitter, especially just after the networks were calling the election.

~

All kidding aside, last night was a historic evening. Since the United States is such a major player on the world’s stage, there is certainly interest around the world in the person who holds the office of the President of the United States. As you can see from the graphic on the right, some may say that the rest of the world was happy with the result of last night’s election.

~

There’s just one more thing I want to share in this post and it does have to do with history. After Pres. Obama was declared the winner by most of the networks, his Twitter account tweeted a photo that has been retweeted more than any other tweet in the history of twitter — and it’s still going! It surpassed the record (somewhere in the 200,000’s or the 300,000’s last night), but in looking at the tweet a few minutes ago, it’s almost up to 750,000 retweets. That’s a lot of retweets! In case you haven’t seen it yet, I’ve included it below:

 

 

Twitter and Dunbar’s Number

I wonder: has there been any research done on Dunbar’s number and the number of people that one follows on Twitter?

For those who don’t know, , “a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” The magic number that is is 150, but it was theorized to be somewhere between 100 and 230.

I’ve written about on here on a , specifically about the people that I follow on Twitter, (which has grown quite substantially since my last “Who To Follow” post). I follow more than 350 accounts on Twitter, but I don’t necessarily follow them all with the same attention. Of course, Dunbar would tell us that this is unlikely. Over the summer, I found I had more time to create lists (at one point pushing up against the maximum number of lists that Twitter allows: 20) and manage the people I follow in this way.

Once classes started up again, the amount of time I had to dedicate to this endeavor severely shrank. I’ve pared back the number of lists I have and pared back the number of people on those lists. The other day, I went and counted the total number of accounts on those lists: 210.

On that note, it looks like I’m right in the range of Dunbar’s number. To be honest though, I know that all 210 of those accounts don’t tweet with the same frequency, which is probably a good thing for me. If they did, I might find it harder to keep up with what they are all saying.

When the Wisdom of the Crowd Fails

A couple of weeks ago the  (SCOTUS) ruled that the (otherwise referred to as ) was . This ruling did not come without controversy because, as with most cases brought before the Supreme Court, there were people who disagreed with the ruling.

More to my point though, is that there was controversy because of the lack of agreement amongst the news agencies as to what the ruling was in the first few minutes that it was released. If you like political humor/satire, then you’ll definitely want to check out about the mixup. Interestingly, one of the best on the morning that the decision was released comes from the same website that is being of the decision.

As you’ll have seen if you watched the coverage, read about it, or clicked through to the clip from , CNN was the first agency to report on the decision — but — their reporting was wrong. Immediately after CNN reported the (wrong) decision, those with access to technology began perpetuating the wrong news to their social networks. Shortly after CNN incorrectly reported the news, SCOTUSblog put forth their interpretation and the subsequent major news agencies fell in line reporting the right decision. Even after this happened, CNN and FOX News continued to report the news incorrectly.

This situation brings to light what I see as a potentially major of our ability to connect with hundreds of millions of people in an instant (read: ). As soon as the reports from CNN and FOXNews came out, everyone began telling everyone else the wrong news. This spread quickly. When the right information was thrown into the mix, it became hard for people to know who was right. Were CNN and FOX News right because they had it first? Were SCOTUSblog and other news agencies right because they took the time to read more than the ?

Regardless of who’s right and wrong in this situation, it left people confused and unsure of whom to trust. Different news agencies were telling them different things (about the facts). Now, this happens on a , but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.

~

I’m beginning to wonder about the and it would appear that I’m not the only one. I came across an interesting article this weekend from called, “.” There were some interesting points made by Leonhardt, particularly as they relate to how some folks have begun to trust the “wisdom of crowds” as showcased by websites like  (an online trading exchange website where people can bet on events in a similar fashion to how people can buy/sell stocks).

Some folks think that the internet can be viewed in the same way (wisdom of the crowd). I’m not sure how I feel about this, especially when a well-respected news agency like CNN that’s been operational for over 30 years can make a mistake like this and set the internet ablaze. I like the last paragraph from Leonhardt:

After several years in which the market was often celebrated as a crystal ball, the Supreme Court ruling was a useful corrective. The prediction-market revolution, like so many others, initially promised more than it could deliver. But it’s not as if the old order was working particularly well.

Do You Sign Your Emails With Intention?

Most people have some sort of email signature that is attached to every message they send. This can be helpful because it usually contains other contact information, relevant titles, associations, etc. While I can see the value (read: saving time, saving money) in this, I wonder if not signing your name at the end of emails may begin to foster an ambivalence to the content (or more importantly) the tone of the email?

A brief aside: Having spent time in PhD program, I became accustomed to the phrase, “that’s a dissertation topic,” and I’ve definitely kept note of that since. There’ve been a number of times since enrolling in business school where I’ve come across potential ideas for a dissertation. While I have no intentions (in the immediate future) to return to a doctoral program, I have a feeling that I may continue to see ideas in this way. My guess is that this is a positive attribute as it continually reminds me to think in terms of the scientific method. This digression was meant to point to the fact that I think it might be interesting to see some research on email signatures and the author’s ambivalence to the tone of the message. Back to the email signatures.

I wrote a about a year and a half ago about the “whys” with regard to how I sign-off emails or messages. I’ve slightly changed the way I sign-off emails (no longer writing “love”), but the good intentions are still the same. My desire to ‘write it out’ each time is, in part, because in writing this word (gratitude) every time I send an email, it reminds me (if even for a millisecond) to feel gratitude. Similarly, when I write my name, it feels like — to me — as if I’m signing my name in ink to what I’ve said in the email. In so doing, I take a greater sense of ownership over the content of the email.

After my stint in business school has concluded and I’m back to working full-time, I wonder (hope?) that this inclination still remains.