Matching Idea and Money People

I have neglected this Social Technology
blog lately, and feel guilty every time
WordPress informs me that I have a new
subscriber, someone who might be expecting
new content. Welcome, and sorry for the
delay.

When I first started writing about social
technology, years ago, the term was
rare.  I wrote mostly about creating social
connections. Big issues were interpersonal
matching and employment services: matching
people to jobs.

Elsewhere I’ve explained my logarithmic
scale for match quality: the number given
is the base ten logarithm of the size of
the pool of candidates from which a match
of that quality is likely. Thus a Level 2
employment match would be best job out
of one hundred available ones, while a
Level 6 match would be the best job out
of a million available ones. From an
employer’s perspective, a Level 2 match
is the best of a hundred applicants,
a Level 6 match, the best of a million.

A key idea which I have tried to explain
many times is that some tools and techniques,
collectively called technology, social
technology, can approximate bipartite
matching.  That would mean that every one
of a million individuals could be matched
to a million job openings so well that
each employee and each employer would
be achieving an extraordinary Level 6
or one-in-a-million match.

I’ve written about this kind of employment
services for a long time, but actually
wrote many more words about interpersonal
matching. Fitting well into the workplace
is important, but I suspect that purely
social matching is even more important.
That may be true even if economic impact
alone is considered.

There are other kinds of matching I’ve
written about. Today I reflected on how
long I’ve been doing this. If I am right,
then a lot of good could have been
accomplished by establishing a connection
between this one idea person and some money
person. Now think about this: think
about matching one million idea people
with one million people who have money
to invest. I think technology exists
to approximate a bipartite match with
such pool sizes. What would it be like
if every one of a million people with
good ideas found exactly the right person
to understand and fund the development
of those ideas?

Posted in Social Networking, Social Technology in General, Technological Fantasies, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Use of Subscribe2 plugin.

If you receive this blog post in an e-mail,
it is because you are listed as one of the
subscribers to the Social Technology blog
at http://www.SocialTechnology.ca/ — until
now, posts have not been mailed to subscribers
because WordPress does not ordinarily do that.

So that you have the choice of receiving new
post by mail, I have installed the Subscribe2
plugin on this WordPress site. That software
is supposed to give you almost complete control
over what you will receive. If you want no more
messages from here, there should be a link
elsewhere on this message, to ensure that
you don’t receive any. Other options include
receiving digests of excerpts on a weekly basis.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Please See Diagrams Page

Anyone interested in the last couple of posts on my telecommunications/information-theoretic model of the social network and what it means for social technology should visit a page from my old site: http://www.SocialTechnology.ca/oldpages/diagrams.html.  That page was one of many created by hand with HTML, and all of those pages are still available from http://www.SocialTechnology.ca/oldpages/, which may interest you.

More on this topic will appear very soon. In the meanwhile I am reorganizing my other sites.   — dpw

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Social communications channel: distortion, noise and honesty.

I would like to encourage you to think of your friends and other social connections as channels through which information flows outward from you into the global social network as a whole, and from which information from the whole of society reaches you. For now, ignore other channels, such as those found on the Internet. Think just of interpersonal channels.The “information” carried on these human channels can be anything which human beings can carry in their minds and communicate to others, including thoughts and feelings. Let us not pretend that we ever get completely accurate information, nor information uncluttered with irrelevancies.

What the social network receives from us via our direct social connections is distorted information and noise. Who knows which of your outputs society might consider noise, but no transmission is noise-free.

We can use the technical term ‘couple’, a verb, to describe the ways in which our friends connect us to the social network. We are coupled into the social network through the people in our social environment.

What matters about each connection is it’s strength in term of bandwidth or data rate, its distortion characteristics, and its noise characteristics.

When seeking a friend, spouse, lover, a teacher, a mentor, or perhaps a younger person to guide, what you should be seeking is a person whose interactions with you will have desirable data rate, distortion and noise characteristics.

You should seek someone who can and probably will exchange a lot of information with you: someone having a high data rate when communicating with you.

You should seek someone who does not distort your messages when passing them on to society, someone who does not distort society’s message when sending it to you. You should seek someone who does not fill your communication with irrelevant noise.

When we speak of honesty, for example, we tend to treat it as a property of a person: someone is truthful, or is a liar. It is not wrong to make such judgements, but rather than attribute them to a person, it is more useful to use them in describing a connection.

Rather than saying that Albert is an honest person, for example, it would be more useful to say that there is much honesty in the communications of Albert with his best friend, Bruce. We could also say that there is much honesty in the communications of Albert and his wife Abbie.

Honesty is related to distortion, the distortion of the truth. It may also be related to noise, the masking of the truth with irrelevancies.

In choosing a best friend, Albert wisely chose Bruce, because they are capable of being honest with one another and want to be honest with one another. These are more human ways of describing some aspects of the distortion and noise characteristics of their relationship as a communication channel.

In choosing Albert as a husband, Abbie wisely chose someone she could have an honest relationship with. Not an easy thing to do!

As I mentioned yesterday, there are several properties of communications channels which are important, and all of them should be considered in choosing social connections. As I will show in a later post, there are so many important factors that finding good connections “by hand”, personally, is almost impossible. The mythical “one-in-a-million” relationship is just barely close enough.

That is were social technology comes in. Social technology must provide the tools and techniques with which a person can establish good social connections and live in an increasingly optimized social environment. The key goal is a few relationships of the highest possible quality.

Current social utilities like Facebook do just the opposite, they make it easy to find many relationships of low quality. Another goal is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the total of your communications within society. Facebook does just the opposite, adding social noise.

Think of it this way: Society is trying to tell you something. Don’t seek it on the Internet, ask your friends. If they are the right friends, society’s message will be in their words. You probably want to influence society in some way. Most people do, if only for their own gain. For whatever reason, the best way to influence society would be to influence your friends. If they are the right friends, that will be effective.

So, the key is finding the right friends and the best possible other people to form your social environment. You just can’t do that by acting in person. Even with all the social technology that is currently available, it will be hard.

What I envisioned decades ago was a world in which it would be easy to find and form high quality social connections. Ever since then I have been working out the technical details, which I will discuss in successive posts. Stay tuned.

 

dpw
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Social Tech, Social Network Optimization, and Bandwidth

When I first started using the term ‘Social Technology‘ back in about 1993, it was an expression I had not heard before, though a rather obvious one. I seized upon it because I needed a replacement for the term I had been using when writing about my work. I had been spending a lot of time on something I called ‘Social Network Optimization‘, but that term had bad connotations of social engineering. As a friend pointed out, nobody wants their social network “optimized” for them.

I now use ‘social technology’ to refer to any collection of tools and techniques which a person or organization might use for social purposes, but for me the main goal is still network optimization. By this I mean the process of replacing poor social connections by good ones. This doesn’t necessarily mean turning your back on former friends, it just means spending less time with them. The amount of time you should spend with a friend or lover should depend on the quality of the connection. In technical terms, a social connection should have a high effective bandwidth, low distortion, and high signal-to-noise ratio. I’ll talk about bandwidth now, leaving the other two topics for later posts.

Social technology can be broken down into hardware and software, though of course hardware devices like smartphones and tablets contain a lot of software which is just there, behind the scenes, below the level of the user app.

Imagine a piece of hardware like a cellphone which supported only texting, not voice or video. It is easy to see that this has a low effective bandwidth.  ‘Bandwidth‘ is not quite the right term here. What I am referring to are channel capacities and channel data rates, which could be measured in bits per second, bps. At blindingly fast typing speeds, a person might text 10 characters per second, or 80 bps, but someone else might find that composing and typing in messages at 1 character per second is much too fast, and end up communicating as slow as 1 bit per second, 1 bps.

In contrast a high-definition video link with voice can let people see and hear each other, but take 10 million bits per second, 10 mps.

The actual effective bandwidth is harder to specify. Imagine using voice and video to transmit a license place number. With texting, you might just type in “213 YES”, while on videophone you carefully enunciate “Two One Three Yankee Echo Sierra”.

Decades ago I began thinking about social or personal bandwidth, in which an individual is thought of as a communications channel. This is a natural enough notion, since people are often hired precisely to serve as a communications channel between two people who would otherwise have trouble communicating. For example, if I wanted to explain this to someone who understands only Japanese, the traditional intermediary would be a person, a bilingual English-Japanese interpreter.

When I began writing about what I then called ‘Social Network Optimization’, my idea was to think of a person as a communications channel in the abstract, not as a channel to anyone in particular. What I meant was that the ultimate recipient of the message was to be the global social network, everyone. Suppose you have some remarkable new idea or interesting piece of gossip. You could tell it to different people. Some might not listen, some might misunderstand, some might fail to pass the idea on to anyone. But one or two of your friends might listen carefully, ask questions, make sure they understand, then try hard to pass the idea on to everyone they can. The same friends might be people who listen carefully to what other people have to say, and carefully summarize the best of what they hear when speaking to you.

Such friends would be good communications channels. Just how good would depend on the quality of their own connections. If they didn’t have any good incoming or outgoing links of their own, they might be almost dead ends, capable of communicating with you but unable to push information further out into the network or pull it in from there.

Decades ago I had a vision of an optimized social network. The core of this network would be at least two very high quality social connections per person. I have written a lot about a third, fourth and fifth, but the first two were obvious: a best friend and a spouse or lover.

I envisioned a world in which it was easy to make good social connections of these kinds. That raised several questions, which I have written a lot about over the years.

“How easy?”

“How good?”

“What kind of relationships would these be?”

“How would the world change as a result?”

I think the answers might surprise you. Stay tuned.

dpw

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A few new posts to come, now that socialtechnology.ca is back up.

Recently I had to regenerate this site from backup because it had been hacked. Since then I have gotten a few new user registrations from individuals whose email addresses look real. I am so used to spam registrations that I have gotten into the bad happen of ignoring new arrivals.

It has been a while since I posted here, since this blog has not been an effective communications channel. That is probably my fault: my supplied content has not been all that good. I’m going to post some new stuff and see if there are any interesting responses.

dpw

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Recovering Hacked Site!

I have a put a lot of work into this site over the years.  It was disappointing to see it hacked by people claiming to be Tunisian rebels.

dpw

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Limiting Public Disclosure

If there is going to be a business venture based on advanced social technology, we must consider the question of public disclosure.   If the venture is to be successful, not too much should be disclosed up front to the general public.

I decided to post the fact that there will be a completely interactive real-time and personalized question-and-answer interface instead of user profiles to be filled out. That is almost revealing too much already. Other social networking services could easily decide to use this approach, though I doubt they would be as sophisticated as what I plan.

I also decided to post a few words about the chaining method for growing social networks. This is less likely to be understood by potential competitors, so I decided to mention it.

I do not want to say much more. I do not want to tell people any more details about the user interface for fear that the competition would adopt them.

I don’t know how to interest potential partners and investors without telling them more, so I propose the use of non-disclosure agreements. But even that may not be enough. Sometimes only a hint is necessary.

A cautionary tale is the story of Smalltalk, Apple and Windows. The management at Xerox PARC asked Adele Goldberg to show Steve Jobs of Apple the Smalltalk system with its revolutionary windows interface.  Goldberg refused, saying that would be giving away the shop – even a brief demonstration would be enough to show Apple what to do.

Xerox management ordered Adele Goldberg to give the demonstration, which she was coerced into doing despite her protests. Steve Jobs saw a well-developed windows interface, the first one ever developed, and the rest is history. Everyone knows Apple and Microsoft’s Windows, few have heard of Smalltalk.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Possible Business Venture

I would like to refer readers to a new post on the Facebook discussion group Advanced Social Technology for the Entrepreneur, called A Possible Business Venture.  It may be seen at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=336&uid=125926210758491

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Invalid Comparison Algorithm Produces Bad Suggestions

There is a new service called GetSatisfaction, which StumbleUpon refers you to when you seek information or wish to complain.  I posted this on that site:
“StumbleUpon “Suggested People” or “People You Might Know” is not really useful because it is not normalized (in the mathematical sense).  As it works now, you get suggestions about people who have something in common with you — because they have stumbled a lot and have lots of favorites. By the laws of chance someone with a vast number of favorites will share a lot of them with you. What you should see instead are people who have a lot of favorites that you have, relative to the total number they have. A comparison algorithm should try to predict the probability of the two people having similar page-favorite profiles, i.e. the probability they are actually alike and will like the same pages.”
This is true, and should be taken seriously, but the sudden and enormous growth of StumbleUpon
is swamping the system.   I persist in hoping that, unlike other services, StumbleUpon might actually be good social technology.  If fixed, this would help.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment