Nice quick post by Chris Dixon reflecting on why certain web-based marketplaces are taking off now when they haven’t in the past. The key:
I asked Roelof Botha the “why now” question regarding web-based marketplaces. He said something I thought was really interesting: marketplaces depend on trust, and trust requires knowing the reputation of a prospective counterparty. Today, for the first time, you can get background information on almost any prospective counterparty by searching Google, Facebook etc. Or put more simply: we finally have an internet of people.
One of my favorite things about Airbnb is the way they handle reputation by looking at your social connections. If thousands of people follow me on Twitter and I have hundreds of friends on Facebook, I’m probably not an impostor looking for trouble. Square does some of this as well, I believe.
More broadly, “why now” is often just a matter of timing. I think of Dodgeball, which never took off in the way Foursquare has even though they’re essentially the same thing (or at least started that way). Sure, you can probably partially blame Google for neglecting Dodgeball post-acquisition, but a bigger key was the rise of smartphones, and the iPhone with its app marketplace in particular.
Dodgeball was a great idea. Foursquare exploded because it was a great idea at the right time.
Steve Jobs was theorethically channeling Picasso when he said ‘Good artists borrow, great artists steal,’ but he may have been onto something. It turns out that creatives are more likely to cheat, according to new research by Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely:
Is there a link between creativity and unethical behavior?
There certainly is, according to an article in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In “The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest,” the authors report that inherently creative people tend to cheat more than noncreative types. Furthermore, they show that inducing creative behavior tends to induce unethical behavior.
It’s a sobering thought in a corporate culture that champions out-of-the-box thinking.
“In any organization, especially in contexts that are global and very competitive, there is so much focus on trying to be innovative and creative,” says Francesca Gino, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, who wrote the article with Dan Ariely of Duke University. “But is creativity always good? We often hear of cases in which people use innovative behavior to create a sense that what they’re doing is not morally wrong. So, Dan and I started wondering whether there is something about the creative process that triggers dishonest behavior. Specifically, we decided to explore the idea that enhancing the motivation to think outside the box can drive individuals toward more dishonest decisions when facing ethical dilemmas.”
Overall, the researchers learned, the higher the creativity required for the job, the higher the level of self-reported dishonesty.
Then, through a series of experimental studies, the researchers tested—and largely proved—the theory that creative people are more likely to exhibit unethical behavior when faced with ethical dilemmas.
“These were simple studies, but they were powerful in showing that our ability to justify things is significantly greater if we are in a creative mindset or when we are creative people,” Gino says.
That said, Gino is quick to add that she and Ariely are not suggesting that companies put the kibosh on innovation in order to keep dishonesty at bay.
“We’re not saying that creativity is bad,” Gino says. “But we are saying that it can lead to problems. And so the question from a manager’s perspective is: How do you get the good outcomes of creativity without triggering the bad outcomes?”
While “The Dark Side of Creativity” doesn’t answer that question directly, Gino hopes that the research will remind innovative organizations not to give short shrift to ethics.
“As a manager, if you’re highlighting the importance of being creative and innovative, it’s important to make sure that you’re stressing the presence of ethics, too,” Gino says. “Dan and I are of the hope that managers will start thinking about how to structure the creative process in such a way that they can keep ethics in check, triggering the good behavior without triggering the bad behavior.”
Perhaps the creatives’ world view involves a relaxation of the ‘principles’ that constrain people with other perspectives? What is they are inseparable? I don’t think you can chase away the devils of creativity without losing the angels, as well.
“Fluent in providing for yourself, moderate in showing who you are to others for fear of being rejected [probably you are influenced by your father or have a strong relationship with him]. You are more a researcher than a fighter or a dreamer. You show your emotions to those who seem to be unstable so that you can be the one who stabilizes them [the “God complex”], but you avoid those who are emotionally stable because you feel they could transform you in a steady rock, and not a moving one [the “rolling stone” syndrome]. You enjoy the simple joys of life, but also search for the hidden dark side aspects of people. You are not afraid of what you might find out [the ‘Jesus complex’].”—Someone who reads minds
EUROPA - Press Releases - Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda ICT for democracy: supporting a global current of change Freedom Online – Joint Action for Free Expression on the Internet The Hague, 9 December 2011
The Arab Spring was a wake-up call for all of us. A reminder that democracy is not just a rich world luxury—but something which people hope and struggle for everywhere. And a reminder that, across the world, information and communications technology can support freedom of speech and enable the peaceful transition to democracy. It is clear that, in particular, mobile phones, online social networks and microblogging sites have an incredibly important role to play. Helping activists organise, mobilise and exercise their rights. And so we should support the use of those tools.
This is an interesting and strong statement. And it gets stronger and more directed towards corporations:
I think it is high time for the industry to decide where they stand, and what they are going to do. If not as a moral issue, then as an issue of corporate reputation. Being known for selling despots the tools of their repression is, to say the least, bad PR.
I just wonder if she understands the threats these technologies and shifts in values among the citizens pose against the model of representative democracy that we have today and which was created in the 18th century, at the dawn of the industrial and scientific age?
Un juzgado de Huelva desestima una denuncia contra el mago de Oriente presentada por una particular, que resultó herida en un ojo por uno de los caramelos lanzados. Según el auto, Baltasar es una persona extranjera, sobre la que no se tiene jurisdicción en España, y de la que el propio juez se considera fiel seguidor.