Super Jellyfish

Well I’m sure you all know that he’s a famous author, but, honestly (like always), I did not connect the dots between all the interesting articles he’s written for the New Yorker with the same person (him)!

I went to his website recently, and I found article after article that I LOVED, but since I don’t pay attention, I didn’t realize they were all written by the same one person! (This is also similar to what happened to me with Dubner and Lowenstein…)

In any case, today I want to highlight several interesting articles Gladwell’s written:
(more…)

So I’ve been reading this book about the adaptive unconscious (Strangers to Ourselves, by Tim Wilson) and it says that introspection is not necessarily the best way to get a hold of your unconscious thoughts and feelings. The analogy Wilson alludes to was to compare your mind to a a giant cave; you only have a flashlight and archaelogical tools to explore the mind with. But apparently there are some deep, dark places in your mind that no amount of archaelogical work can dig up.

[Note: this is a long entry...]
(more…)

New York Times to Charge for Content [Heading East]

Whoa… This came out almost a week ago! I guess I am NOT on the ball. The subscription will be $79/year for online only and $39/year if you already subscribe to the print edition.

The question remains, are people willing to pay for content?

Will the link generator still work? And will the buzz on articles be as great? All to be determined I guess.

The obvious comparison is with the Wall Street Journal — there’s plenty of discussion online about Journal articles, but, then again… readers of the Journal can afford to pay for the Journal and other things.

I guess the future will tell what will happen.

Chet aka investment banker aka well-dressed/polished buffoon?

Long discussion about the question of the value that investment bankers bring and the kind of skills (if any) required to be successful found here, here and here.

The original question was:

“There is one thing Chet is not, ever, in my experience, and that is particularly bright…

Is the role of these guys just to schmooze clients for their banks?

Is this a market failure caused by suceeding generations of Chets selecting other Chets?”

The response?

“There are four relevant human capabilities here: the ability to master details, the ability to quickly grasp what the salient issues are and follow them through to their conclusion, the ability to work like a dog, and the ability to size up people.”

Further from Marginal Revolution…

“I suggest that detail mastery, analytical thinking and working like a dog are more open to meritocracy than sizing people up because to size people up it helps to get them to like you and that is more culturally bound than the other skills.”

Financial Rounds chimes in:

“I heard once that arrogance comes from comparing your strengths to someone else’s weaknesses. We have a natural tendency to look down on those with “different strengths”.”

Are we just green with envy?

Well, what do you think?
(more…)

Wow, this blog has declared war on Google!!

Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a bit..

“It is absolutely unacceptable to try building the world’s largest Internet traffic data collection under the misleading excuse of speeding up web surfing. This calls for active resistance to Google, which deserves to be put completely out of business for this move.”

The upshot? You will be unable to do a search on Google to find his site! Craziness!

Update: the author stopped the redirect. You can now search for Lenz Blog on Google.

Great post from PVRBlog on the long tail of content. Jumping off from a Wired article from last Fall, USA Today takes on the issue..

Here’s a quote from Ramsay, CEO of TiVo:

What we’ve found is that the viewing patterns of people who watch live television — and are therefore restricted to prime time whenever they’re home — are dramatically different than the viewing patterns of people who have the choice of just picking whatever they want.

Given the choice, people will migrate towards a much greater variety, and the deal is you’ve got to make everything available to everybody so that they’re not restricted. And if you do, the market for that more esoteric, more specialized stuff is just as big as the market of the mainstream stuff.

The life of content is being extended as people are discovering all kinds of entertainment they previously didn’t know existed. (Consider the longevity of the Star Wars series… although, I’m sure most people know of the existence of Star Wars!)

People all around the world have diverse interests. In the past, it was tough to line up an efficient delivery mechanism for that content while connecting consumers with content they’re interested in.

For example, I love to watch anime, but probably only a small percentage of people in America like Japanese animation.

As Wired says:

Everyone’s taste departs from the mainstream somewhere, and the more we explore alternatives, the more we’re drawn to them.

In the past, broadcast television was the only way to get a show on-air and in order to appeal to a large audience, only the most mainstream and popular shows would survive and be aired. Primetime audiences were really limited in what they could view. A primetime anime show just wouldn’t survive in the United States (of course, in Japan, that’s another story).

I think what the cable industry has shown us is that there is an audience for very niche-based channels, channels focused on topics such as weather, science fiction, cooking, etc. These differing topics will not appeal to everyone, but if the right audience is made aware of the existence of the material and if they can cheaply obtain the content, I believe consumers will consume far more more content than they do today.

If you can believe it, “more than half of Amazon’s book sales come from outside its top 130,000 titles.”

I agree with what the Wired article proposes. Make everything available and help consumers find it. Finally, make it affordable/efficient to obtain the content.

If we can’t figure out that the content exists, how can we purchase it and enjoy it?

People love to stimulate their minds — as Robert Reich said:

The greater value and more eager expenditure comes in the psychological domain: speed and convenience, entertainment, intellectual stimulation, feelings of well-being and financial security… it is the rare human who can obtain enough of these; greater wealth only whets the appetite for more.

Humans have an unsatiable appetite…

• How Dumb Rich People End Up In Debt [Slate]
  “The rich are different than you and me. They shop at better stores, and they don’t fly commercially. But in one way, they are very much the same: A fair number of them spend more than they make.”
  Hmmm.. interesting..

• Famed Google chef leaving the company
  I suppose its hard to stay a chef when you have so many options!!

• Search and Destroy [Fortune]
  Microsoft is on a mission to take down Google!

• Lifestyle tips: How to simplify your life in 2005 [Sound Money Tips]
  How to simplify your mind and achieve peace of mind… funny, I already do most of these things!

• AOL Instant Messenger jumps into free email [AP]
  If you have an AIM account, you automatically get a free email with your screen-name@aim.com. 2 GB free!

Plaxo comments on the used-car salesperson sales tactics used at 24 Hour Fitness

He’s well trained and he tried to use a high-pressure sales tactic on me. He threw out gems like “clearly, you need to get back into a gym routine” and “you didn’t come in tonight looking for a deal, you came in looking to join a gym. Let’s get you started right now.” Um… ok, not exactly the angle I would’ve chosen, but I guess he’s the sales guy, and I’m the unwitting customer right?

Unfortunately, a lot of gyms other than 24 Hour Fitness continue to use the hard-sell technique to try to win customers. I guess this made sense 20 years ago, when exercise wasn’t as much in the consciousness of Americans.

But hello! Its 2005!

Even the Food Pyramid recommends physical activity!

Seems to me there should be enough consumer demand to just let a customer walk in, view a clear pricing system and sign up! That’s simple enough, right?

The industry will change, but it takes time.

Some great nuggets can be taken from Brad Delong’s recent post and associated commentary on Class, Status and Prada.

Delong states:

“Happiness is attained when you achieve your dreams and solve your problems. Material abundance helps you do so, but it also teaches you to dream bigger dreams and pose yourself more complicated problems…

“On the other hand, it may not be a very big mistake to think that human happiness consists in expanding our powers and capabilities to accomplish things (not the least of which are maintaining our comfort and satisfying our curiosity), and that wealth is a powerful tool to those ends.”

What’s the impetus for all this discussion? The recent New York Times series on class and class mobility or lack thereof.

Carol argues that:

“Most “class” structure is about power relations, and the feeling that you have more power than someone else. Power symbols (cars, clothes, etc) are used to signal that the owner thereof has power (in our society lots and lots of money).”

Is that really true though? Is class simply based on money and power? I sort of thought that the desire for money was more related to the desire for a feeling of social security and well-being. Having the ability and yes, maybe the power, to feed loved ones and take care of material concerns. But is this class?

Schweitzer commented:

“Happiness (in the material sense) does not depend on the size of real disposable income; it depends on the real disposable income you receive, compared to the one you expected. But expectations get revised on the basis of past experience. Therefore permanent Happiness is not possible.”

And this sort of leads us to the concept of choosing the right pond. How have your experiences defined for you what it means to better or worse off? Is it all just relative? Are we simply happier being large fish in small ponds?

Another interesting comment made by Jim S. was:

“In spite of the fact that every member of this society would be equally qualified for any position in it, there would still be only so many spots in middle management, fewer spots in upper management and so many CEO, CIO and CFO spots. The structure of virtually all businesses necessarily limits how many people can move up the ladder. There is no way to eliminate this fact given the structure of our businesses.”

This is very true. There is simply a structural limitation on the number of people who can be at the “top” and make a large number of decisions — decisions with impacts that will affect the masses. Does decision-making by consensus work?

Hearing out multiple points of views is important, but this sort of organizational structure also results in indecision and dissent. When there are so many opinions, its hard to shift direction or even know which direction to go in.

To finish off, one last quote from John C. Halasz and ultimately from another far older source:

“The poor will always be with us, because we ourselves are the poor”

If you have time to cook and don’t work a killer job, Community Supported Agriculture is a neat way to get fresh fruits and vegetables in New York.

The way it works is that a CSA farmer sells shares in his or her upcoming harvest during the winter and spring. Then, from June through November, the farmer delivers the week’s share to a central neighborhood location. Each share usually includes 7 to 10 types of veggies… and over the course of a season, members get at least 40 different types, changing with the seasons.

In the East Village, there’s one at the 6th St Community Center, 638 E 6th St (seems kind of far huh?) 212-677-1863.

I couldn’t find any information on pricing on the website… does anyone out there have any idea how much this costs?

The fear with signing up for something like this is what if you run out of time and aren’t able to cook? Leaving a box of rotting vegetables in my kitchen doesn’t sound that appealing… And what if you’re pickier than you think?