Not too long ago Amy and I went to a cafe intent on coming up with a new strategy for helping Unitarian Universalists talk about our faith.  We were inspired to do so by  Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point.  Reading it we realized that Unitarian Universalism hasn’t met the three criteria Gladwell identifies for a product, service or idea to spread from a small group of passionate supporters, for it to “tip” and go viral.

Did you hear that UU growth fans?   There is a reason why our message isn’t spreading.

Gladwell states that for something to reach a point where it “tips” the following three criteria must be met:

1. The right context
2. A passionate group of supporters
3. An ideas that is what Gladwell calls “sticky”.

OUR CONTEXT
Look at the world today. In my opinion, the context for sharing Unitarian Universalism couldn’t get any better. The world is ready for our our message. Criteria number one? Check!

PASSIONATE SUPPORTERS
Next is a passionate group of supporters. Gladwell calls this the Law of the Few. Tipping doesn’t require millions of people. A small number will do just fine. We have thousands and thousands of people ready, willing and even trying to share our faith. Criteria number two? Check!

THE UU NON-STICK BLOCK
The world is ready. We have passionate people trying to share our faith. Why on Earth are we so slow to grow? What’s missing? This is where the third criteria comes in, stickiness.

This my friends is the problem. As the average UU explains it,  Unitarian Universalism is not sticky at all.  From a scale ranging from Sweet Delicious Honey to a Cinder Block, its the cinder block.

And that’s our block…

STICKINESS EXPLAINED
What does stickiness mean? Simple. For an idea to spread you have to be able remember it long enough to accurately share it with someone else. Sticky ideas are easy to remember and share person after person after person. According to Gladwell if you can’t remember what someone tells you you will never change your behavior or buy their product or go to see the movie they recommended.  And certainly not visit their church.

Criteria number three? Yikes!!!

A BAD GAME OF  TELEPHONE
Explaining our faith is often like a brutal version of the game telephone. You know the game. You put a bunch of people in a circle and whisper something in the ear of the first person. They whisper it – as best they can remember – to the next. And on and on it goes.

If there is any complexity to the phrase or story shared, by the time it goes through the chain of people something very different comes out the other end.  In real situations, if it is complex it doesn’t get passed at all.  And that’s where we’ve been.

If you set up a game of telephone with non-UUs and tested out the various elevator speeches developed by our members,  how far do you think the average one would travel?  Two people? Three?  Maybe five at best?

How many people with no knowledge of our faith could YOUR explanation survive before degrading?   But imagine… Imagine what would happen if we could overcome this lack of stickiness.  Think what would happen in we suddenly met all three of Gladwell’s criteria?

What if the average UU could say with confidence that Unitarian Universalism is a really long name, but its really easy to explain.   Everything else we’ve talked about growth wise, yes. All that needs to happen.  But in terms of our message spreading,  we need to all get to the “its really easy to explain” zone.

A faith that is easy to explain and share – can you imagine the impact that would have?  Imagine if EVERYONE  UNDERSTOOD what Unitarian Universalism is?  Huge.

Back to the cafe…

Amy and I talked about the average NON-STICK explanation of Unitarian Universalism. We came to the conclusion that far too often people try and pack too much into their explanations.  They also try and explain why we have such a long name.  I’ve heard people try and explain the Christian origins of the names Unitarian and Universalism, follow up with a disclaimer that we’re not really very Christian, well some, and then try and go on to explain what our congregations are like now.

We need to lead with the now.  What is Unitarian Universalism about today?  That’s what people need to hear.  That’s the “oh my gosh Unitarian Universalism is exactly what I’m looking for!” idea…

About ten cups of coffee into our session Amy and I decided we need to confront the UU-NON-STICK problem not by changing the name, but re-framing or re-branding what  Unitarian Universalism for the 21st century.

It is time for us to share with the world, not our history, not a disclaimer that we’re not this or that, but hope. And this hope is no longer about the unity of God or the universal nature of salvation.

Today our message, the Unitarian Universalist message, is about people with diverse beliefs coming together and living lives of meaning and purpose based on shared values AND (big and) taking action to address the issues of our time, again guided by our values.

The UUA’s recent capital campaign had the slogan, “Now is the Time.” We think now IS the time for our faith. But all the marketing campaigns in the world won’t help us grow if the we can’t get our name, our message and the idea of Unitarian Universalism to stick.

Stickiness is the difference between starting to grow a wee-tiny-bit again and growing in a whole new way, a new magnitude of growth. That’s what I’m looking for.

Fortunately we don’t need a lot of money to change how we talk, just intention. Together Amy and I offer you our simple way to explain  Unitarian Universalism.  It might not be perfect, but it is designed to stick.  If it does and people come to visit they can grab a history brochure.

THE STICKY EXPLANATION

To explain Unitarian Universalism all you need to do is remember the name of our faith. The rest is in there.  The message is the name, the name is the message.

Unitarian Universalism

What’s at the root of Unitarian?  Unite. What does that mean in a 21st century UU context? In what ways do our congregations Unite?
We bring diverse people together.

The root in Universalism?  Universal. What does that mean in a 21st century UU context? What is universal about our congregations or faith? I think it is our values.  We bring diverse people together around shared Universal values.

We bring diverse people together around shared Universal values.

Now you spring this on somebody and they are going to have questions. That’s cool… Answer the questions.

What people?
What values?
And why?

You put our core in the message we are trying to spread – the starting point of the telephone game.  Then answer the questions. Then elaborate. Short, sweet, sticky.

By infusing our explanations of our faith and the name Unitarian Universalism with meaning, we can make it easier for our members, friends, and their friends to tell others about our faith. Amy and I think that this explanation is sticky.  When I’ve guest preached on this topic and shared it I’ve had people repeat it again and again in coffee hour.  Last month I preached at a congregation with two services and during the fellowship in between people were explaining it to those attending the second service.

So how are we doing?  Do we meet Malcolm Gladwell’s criteria?

1. The perfect context – check.
2. A group of passionate supporters – check.
3. A faith that is easy to explain and share – check?

Amy and I  invite you to try this.  Teach it.  Preach it.  Share it however you like.   If you do, come back to the UU Growth Blog and share your experience.

Together we can try it out and see if it sticks…

Sad days.

Good hair.

So I failed to keep to my Sunday posting (big surprise). Though I did do a lot of cooking recently and had a wonderful time with my family. I only hope that you also had a great Thanksgiving Holiday with your family and loved ones. Before the holiday season really rolls in and completely takes over my life and daily activities, let me pass along the titles of some books that we’ve added to our collection that look really interesting. Maybe one of these books would make a great gift for someone you love. I include for your convenience a link to the Barnes & Noble entry, so you can preview before you pick it up:

My Sister from the Black Lagoon by Laurie Fox: A novel that is supposed to read like so many of the memoirs that our students enjoy reading. Life stories filled with laughter and tragedy on the same page, and sometimes in the same sentence. 

Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher: Imagine being Clay Jensen, high school student, and finding out you may be one of the 13 reasons why a classmate took her own life. Worse than that, she left you tapes explaining her pain, and your role in her descent. Not an easy read, but a page turner nonetheless.

Evolution Me and Other Freaks of Nature by Robin Brande: An interesting take on high school life that includes, as a backdrop, some of the “controversy” surrounding science education and evolution, in particular. A short novel, recommended by many young adult sites.

The US Constitution; a graphic adaptation: I know most people don’t think the Constitution makes for good reading, and they’re mostly right. But thanks to the magic of graphics, the story of how the founding fathers gathered to draft, write and pass the cornerstone of our representative republic is an easy and entertaining read.

Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner: I know we’re mostly a little late on getting the “latest” books into the LMC. It’s hard to keep up with the number of titles that are published, and it’s even more difficult to know which books will be read by students, staff or faculty. This book, published in 2006, is still worth a place on your short list of non-fiction. Who would have ever thought that statistics could be so much fun?

Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell: Like the book above, this one is a little late in arriving to our bookshelves, but now that it’s here, be sure you pick it up. Gladwell is an entertaining writer who works for the New Yorker and is known for his easy style and intriguing connections. In this book, he explores the idea of a tipping point in societal trends like crime, teen smoking, and hush puppy shoes.

The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan: What do tulips, apples, marijuana and potatoes have in common? According to Pollan, they have all tapped into some human desire and perhaps even “chosen us” to keep watch over them. This book is an eye opening peek at the history of four plants and their relationships with humans. It may make you think in new ways about every tree that you see, every bouquet that you get, and every fruit that you bite into.

And just because it’s still the Year of Darwin, some bonus recommendations of oldies, but goodies:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne: If you still have any doubts about evolution after reading this book, then you’ll never accept it, so move on. Coyne’s writing is clear and accessible, but still conveys the gravity of the science behind the evidence for evolution. The convergence of information from geology, genetics, anatomy, biology, and other sciences are all gathered here and laid out as the grand witness to evolution’s truth.

Darwin Among the Machines by George Dyson: Yes, this book was published in the last century (1998) and it’s not really about “evolution” in the usual sense, but I remember it being an interesting read about our “co-evolution” with our machines. Filled with interesting anecdotes about scientists and inventors, the author attempts to show how eventually, our machines may just become another branch on the tree of life.

Hope you find something worth reading and sharing. Thank you for stopping by.

Copyright © henry toromoreno, 2009. All rights reserved.

Since the midterm of my first semester at law school, I have spent more time studying, blogging, and reading.  I’m not sure what got squeezed out (maybe sleep?) to make room, but it has been a great semester.  I read eight books during the first half of the semester, and eleven books in the second half.  When I am reading them, I have lots of thoughts that sometimes get translated into articles for Political Cartel, but I rarely feel like reviewing them after I am done – I am too antsy to move on to the next book.

These are my latest books and my quick thoughts on them:

• Snuff, Chuck Palahniuk – Palahniuk is always a clever writer and this was one of my top three favorites of his.  Everyone knows Fight Club, at least the movie, but they have no idea how disturbing his writing really is.
• Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller – Lots of people loved this book at Harding, but I don’t know why.  It was poorly conceived, poorly organized, poorly written, and poorly edited.  Miller is apparently a full time writer, and he frequently complains about it in his book – no wonder, he is not a good writer.
• The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins – Dawkins is a leader in the aggressive atheist movement.  There is a possible shift now among atheists from merely avoiding religion to openly attacking it.  Dawkins’ approach is based partly on biology and partly on philosophy.
• The Evolution of God, Robert Wright – Wright describes how religion evolved from pre-historic to modern times, and makes a good argument for the value of religion at a time when defending religion is not intellectually fashionable.  It started out very good, but got a little goofy at the end.
• The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,  Bobby Henderson – This is a cleverly satirical mockery of intelligent design and religion by the prophet Bobby.
• Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal – This was a great book that describes the Religious Right’s destructive obsession with sex, tying together lots of stories and scandals.
• The Bible: A Biography, Karen Armstrong – It is a short summary, not of the Bible itself, but of its compilation and interpretation.  It is a combination of source criticism, literary criticism, and historiography, and it is good.
• What the Dog Saw, Malcolm Gladwell – I’m glad he calls these stories “adventures,” because each one feels like that.  It’s a different format from the Tipping Point and Blink, but it is good.
• The Jungle Book, Rudyard Kipling – It made me feel like a kid again.  So much that I rented the Disney movie from the library and watched it multiple times afterward.
• The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine – It was really interesting to see his arguments and how relevant his criticism of religion still is.
• True Love, Tich Nhat Hanh – Heather gave me this because she loves me and knows that I love Tich Nhat Hanh.

If I can read 15-20 books per semester and a few more over Christmas and summer, then I can finish more than a hundred during my three years at law school.  That would be cool.

If you have read any of these, you may have your own insights.  I’m wondering what to read next.  I have the new Dan Brown book and a book my mom recommended, The Road.  I also have the Koran and the Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.  I want to get a book by Ray Kurzweil because my undergraduate debate professor was obsessed with him and I enjoy his talks on TED.com, and I want to get some book about primatology.  Any other ideas?

Listen to MP3 of my talk  “Unitarian Universalism Unleashed – Our Tipping Point.”

11/3/09 Update: For a text explanation visit this post.

This version  was delivered at the Westminster Unitarian Church in East Greenwich, RI on November 15, 2009. The tipping point is a reference to Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point: How little things can make a big difference. The sermon looks at how our faith presently doesn’t meet Gladwell’s three requirements for a product, service or idea to “tip” and go viral.

Over on Ellenska’s Blog (12/1/2009) the issue of the name “Unitarian Universalism” and branding has been raised including this charge:

I call on the Unitarian Universalist Association (the American denomination) to survey non-UUs, to find out how they understand and respond to the words “Unitarian,” “Universalist,” “Unitarian Universalist,” and “UU.” We talk about growing our denomination, but we’re squandering our biggest asset — a branded name. And it isn’t “Unitarian Universalist.”

Personally I agree that our name presents a challenge.  A huge one.  In 2007, for our congregation’s Association Sunday my wife, Rev. Amy Freedman, and I presented the congregation with a new way to explain Unitarian Universalism.  In short, we attempted to re-brand Unitarian Universalism for the 21st century and give the congregation an easier way to talk about their faith – easier than having everyone craft their own elevator speech.

Since then I’ve been guest speaking and sharing this message.  In a sense I’ve been field testing this.  And so far the results are very encouraging.  I’ve encouraged people to email me with feedback and the feedback is that this is helpful.  Ellenska’s post has inspired me to share the most recent recording of my talk on this theme with you.

In developing this we established the criteria that it should pass not the “elevator test” but the telephone test.  Telephone is a game where people gather in a circle and then one person whispers a phrase or line into the fist person’s ear. They then turn and pass it on.  It is whispered around and around and around until it goes full circle.  The last person shares what they were told  and usually it is so distorted everyone laughs.  With the average UU elevator speech, even the well crafted ones, I would wager they wouldn’t survive more than one or two telephone exchanges.  Ours?  Its grounded in the name which serves as a cheat sheet.  Remember the name and you can remember our explanation.

This past Saturday, I signed my latest children’s books at The Bookmark, a wonderful, independent bookstore in my hometown of Fort Madison, Iowa. While I was there, an illustrator, Mark Anderson, stopped in to visit. He graduated from my high school a year before me. My hometown of 10,000 also produced horror writer Tina Jens (graduating the year after me) and movie star, TV actor, and author Hil Harper (graduating a few years after me). People from my hometown keep asking me, “Was there something in the water those years?”

I have yet to figure out why we had so much creativity come out of Fort Madison during those years. But I read from Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers: The Story of Success, while  staying at my sister’s house, and I keep thinking about one thing Gladwell wrote. He suggested that success is largely influenced by when people are born. He noted that a few scattered spurts in U.S. history account for virtually all of our self-made tycoons.  When the Industrial Revolution started happening, a few men born at the right time rose to the top. Same with the computer revolution.

Gladwell also noted that people scoring highest on intelligence tests don’t always achieve the greatest success in life. He found that people who achieve great success, such as The Beatles, put in about 10,000 hours honing their abilities before reaching that level of success. I’m a practical person, so I immediately calculated how many years it would take a writer to achieve success using this as a formula and writing one hour a day.

Twenty-eight years.

I wonder if blogging counts.

I’ve been a bit disappointed in myself lately. I haven’t had a chance to really get out and be in Paris as much as I would have liked.  And I’m blaming that on the 2 scholarship applications and 5 graduate applications I’ve been working on since I arrived in this beautiful city. But at last, the end is in sight.

A bit of background: I went into my undergraduate degree knowing I’d want to do a Masters in Architecture. I was one of those annoying kids that knew exactly what she wanted to be when she grew up, and then stuck it out. And I don’t regret it, not one bit. Architecture has never been “work” for me, just a constant source of discovery and pleasure, ok, mixed in with some pain (for example, the frustration when those damn riser heights won’t add up to the FFL).  It’s almost hedonistic, the joy I derive from basking in Foster’s atrium, or reaching out to touch the zenith-esque corners of Pei’s National Gallery addition. There is, of course, the fun in solving a design problem and the associated satisfaction of having all the puzzle pieces fit.  But, to be honest, what keeps me coming back for more is that I am never not dazzled, impressed, intrigued, disgusted – I am never without a reaction, soit positive soit negative, to architecture. Sometimes I have to take a step back, get a breather from the chaos that seems to be inseparable from the designer’s life (thus this stay in Paris), but that break always has me coming back for more.

And here we are.  For the last few months, I have been pulling together applications for graduate programs in architecture.  This involved recreating a portfolio, since I had to include my thesis project and since each school had its own specifications, writing thousands of rough drafts for essay upon essay, and pestering faculty for letters of reference.  The first two are are pretty much out of the way.  The last one, well my deadline is in a few weeks and I have a feeling I’m going to be the one filling their inboxes pretty soon.

One thing I didn’t realize when setting out on this venture is the cost of applying to all these places and scholarships.  Around $30 to print each portfolio, $5 to mail them, $7 for each transcript, $150 for the GRE, $80 for each application…it starts stacking up.  I’d estimate that by the time March comes around, I’ll already have spent more than $700 – and that’s all before knowing which school has accepted me into their program.  Once I am accepted, there’s the first deposit, and paying to take summer courses if I haven’t been able to take care of the prerequisites.  Then, of course, there’s the cost of graduate school itself, about $50,000 per year. So, dear Reader, this post is to inform you that I’ve started a scholarship fund, for myself.  If you’d like to contribute, please send your cheque to…just kidding. Though that is quite tempting.

Actually, the point of this post is to let you know why I’ve decided to make my New Year’s resolution early. I’ve felt like my break from the art world has been long enough, and knowing that I’m living in a city that has inspired many an artist, I owe it to myself to take charge of my aesthetic destiny.  That, and I’ve been Stumbling upon some very inspiring images. I’ve always been decent at drawing, but I’m ready to take my pencil sketches to the next level. So, I’m resolving to sketch an hour every day during the week and two hours on weekends.  Gladwell thinks it takes about 10,000 hours to master a skill.  Well, I suppose that means in about 20 years, I might be nearing proficiency in drawing.  In any case, if I manage to do this for a year, I’m bound to get a little bit better.  I’m going to try and get a head start by squeezing in some sketching time this week, and I’m debating whether not having work on Wednesdays and Fridays makes them weekend days…oh, why not.  When in France…

So here’s to grabbing the pencil, and jumping over the lazy dog that was my dormant art career.

P.S. That means you’ll be seeing sketches in addition to these awesome photos I’ve been posting. Aren’t you excited?

Estoy leyendo Outliers: The Story of Success de Malcolm Gladwell (Outliers (Fueras de Serie): Por Que Unas Personas Tienen Exito y Otras No.)

Gladwell comenta que lo que explica que Bill Gates o Tiger Woods sean fueras de serie, no es simplemente el hecho de que sean “genios” en su materia (ya sea informática o golf) sino, entre otros, a la ecología sociológica* de cada individuo.

Por supuesto, otros factores afectan al éxito del individuo, desde su motivación personal, a inteligencia (menos importante de lo que nos pensamos), el trato paterno y el número de horas que el individuo dedique a la actividad en cuestión.

De momento, no puedo dejar de leer el libro, pero lo que me ha hecho pensar ha sido el concepto de “suerte demográfica.” Gladwell utiliza el ejemplo de Joe Flom, uno de los abogados con más éxito de Manhattan. No fue fácil, judío, bajito, con padres extranjeros y acento extraño, no consiguió trabajo en las principales firmas legales donde buscaban altos rubios nórdicos con raíces cristianas.

No obstante, lo interesante del Sr Flom es que creció después de la depresión, cuando hubo una caída dramática en el número de nacimientos y aquéllos que tuvieron la suerte de nacer entre 1935-40, se encontraron con aulas desiertas y atención extra. Mercados laborales donde las compañías no podían encontrar trabajadores para copar con la gran demanda de productos y servicios de las generaciones anteriores.

Supongo que el equivalente de Joe Flom hoy en día, serían los pequeños emperadores de China, donde la política de tener un único hijo ha concentrado recursos y atención de un par de padres y dos pares de abuelos en virtuosos del piano como Lang Lang, de la ingeniería, la economía, bioquímica o lo que uno se quiera imaginar (de ahí, lo imparable de China al menos en la primera mitad del siglo XXI.)

Entonces me he puesto a pensar en el otro lado de la ecuación. Sólo un vistazo a la pirámide de población española en 2005 deja ver el problema.

Si los nacidos en periodos de baja natalidad tienen más oportunidades, ¿qué les sucede a los nacidos en periodos de expansión demográfica que llegan a la madure económica o laboral en medio de una depresión o recesión? Demasiada gente nació entre 1960 y 1980. La tasa de fertilidad fue declinando de 21,7 nacimientos por cada 1.000 habitantes en 1960 a 10,73 en 2005, pero eso explicaría muchas realidades de la sociedad española de los últimos años. Entre otras:

• Exceso de construcción de viviendas. Al fin y al cabo, todos estos treintañeros tendrían que vivir en algún sitio, ¿no?
• Inflación por las nubes. Más demanda que oferta, precios al alza.
• Desencanto generalizado. Es irreal pensar en vivir mejor que nuestros padres, ellos eran menos a compartir.
• Alza en el nivel de divorcios. También hay más de donde elegir…
• Desempleo elevado. Hay más trabajadores que trabajos.
• Pocos fueras de serie. Masificación de las clases y estandarización de la educación.

En resumen, un futuro personal y profesional bastante negro para los nacidos entre 1970-80 ya que los puestos bien retribuidos fueron cubiertos por los que ya tenían 30 en el 2000.

Pero no todo es negativo, si bien es más difícil despuntar, es más fácil identificar nichos del mercado laboral donde, por seguir la corriente, licenciados en derecho y diplomados en empresariales no sirven de nada.

* RAE. Ecología: Parte de la sociología que estudia la relación entre los grupos humanos y su ambiente, tanto físico como social.

La verdad es que me molesta. Y mucho.

Estuve hablando el otro día con David, bibliotecario de una entidad pública y me comentaba por encima que la “Ley del Libro” existe en España para proteger al pequeño librero e impedir que las grandes superficies pierdan dinero al vender un libro pero lo utilicen como reclamo para atraer compradores para otros productos.

Se lo hice repetir varias veces.

De verdad, no entiendo nada. Las únicas razones por las que iría a una pequeña librería a comprar un libro son:

• Por que no tengo tiempo para ir a una gran superficie
• Por que sólo quiero comprar el libro
• Por que tengo prisa y está al lado
• Por que son amigos y me sabe mal que me vean con una bolsa de la competencia
• Por que busco un libro de arquitectura palestina del siglo XXIII y sólo lo encuentro en librerías especializadas

¿Hubiera leído más en España si los libros hubieran sido más baratos? Por supuesto. Por suerte estoy explotando mi sed de conocimiento en el extranjero, donde los libros son un 20-50% más baratos que en España.

Estoy leyendo Outliers: The Story of Success de Malcolm Gladwell (Outliers (Fueras de Serie): Por Que Unas Personas Tienen Exito y Otras No) y comentando con Alberto la posibilidad de leerlo al mismo tiempo y comentarlo, he empezado a buscar versiones en español para que se lo compre.

He hecho una búsqueda por internet y he encontrado las siguientes opciones para la versión en español:

Opción 1. La Casa del Libro. Precio: €20+ gastos de envío

Opción 2. El Corte Inglés. Precio: €20+ gastos de envío (envío gratis a partir de €50)

Opción 3. Fnac. Precio: €20+ gastos de envío (5% de descuento para socios)

Opción 4. Amazon UK. Precio: desde £14,25 [€15,61]+ gastos de envío (€3-4)

Opción 5. Amazon UK de segunda mano. Precio: desde £7,14 [€7,82]+ gastos de envío (€3-4)

Opción 6. Amazon USA. Precio: desde $13,59 [€9,00]+ gastos de envío (€3-4)

Opción 7. Amazon USA de segunda mano. Precio: desde $9,99 [€6.69]+ gastos de envío (€3-4)

Recuerdo cuando me dio por leer en inglés. Cada semana iba a Fnac a comprar otro título, hasta que mi velocidad de lectura fue superior a mi capacidad de ganar dinero. Tuve que dejar de leer por falta de ingresos.

“Para eso están las bibliotecas públicas.” Me decía David, pero claro, ves a buscar las últimas novedades a una biblioteca pública. Y en lengua extranjera.

¿Ley del libro? ¿A quién favorece?

Malcolm Gladwell is a media empire.  If you don’t believe me, google the name and discover he takes up more space than Connecticut.  And has anyone noticed, the man does not have a decent photograph of himself?  Please, don’t break into a sweat if you are a fan as I am not disparaging him.  He ferrets out interesting topics, reads and investigates, and finally writes an essay worth your time to read.

He writes and writes, and fortunately for us he knows how to cull his own work so when a new collection like What The Dog Saw and other adventures comes out you know every essay is good.  My recommendation extends to Clarion Friends and to President Obama as well.  The President could learn a thing or two from this book, particularly Part Two: Theories, Predictions, And Diagnoses.

After reading his Outliers: The Story Of Success I recall writing something about it for Clarion Friends; however, if I did I must not have given him credit because I can’t find it.  To make amends I suggest you put both books on your Christmas wish list.  If Santa does not come through, take your indulgence in hand and buy them yourself.

Does anyone know what they pay him at the New Yorker?  He surely gets more money and benefits than a Congressional Representative.  Charles Marlin

I have just finished The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell.  My second book in as many weeks by him.  This book, as with all of Gladwell’s books, has been remarkably thought-provoking.  Gladwell is an author of such talent that I am disappointed that I did not pick up his books a few years ago, when I was first prompted to by one of my professors.  He takes concepts that are impossibly large and makes them relatively simple to fathom, and I will gladly add this book to my permanent bookshelf.  I feel that I have been building a book collection that I will continuously reference from this point forward.

The Tipping Point is a book devoted to the science of social epidemiology.  Social epidemics are very similar to health epidemics, in the sense that they tend to spread person-to-person, instead of being miraculously airborne.  The foundation of these social epidemics is fairly small, and must involve the right kinds of people in order for them to spread quickly.  Gladwell develops a well-applied vocabulary that describes all of the aspects of a social epidemic well.  I will attempt to replicate it here.  First and foremost, there are three rules that Gladwell attributes to Tipping Points.  The ‘Law of the Few’, the ‘Stickiness Factor’, and the ‘Power of Context’.

The Law of the Few dictates that there are three types of people required to develop a social epidemic out of a run-of-the-mill product.  Connectors know a large amount of people and constantly meet new ones, dabbling in a variety of social circles.  Mavens have a devotion to learning, and are always out to discover more; they tend to be the early adopters of society.  Salesmen are experts of the pitch and of making people feel comfortable by understanding their situation.  These three kinds of people combine to make an epidemic powerful.  In order to create a social epidemic, all one must do is find these people.

The Stickiness Factor is just that – how well a topic sticks in peoples’ minds.  Find a way to form your idea so that people remember it, and people are drawn to it, and you have stickiness.  Stickiness is the thing that separates the ‘fad’ from the permanent trend.

The Power of Context is the idea that, in order to facilitate – or prevent – an epidemic, targeting the epidemic itself may not be the best method.  There may be outside, minor – and easily manipulable – factors that will cause more progress than any direct scheme.  In order to find context, significant research generally has to be done to determine what the true contributing factors to an epidemic are.  Gladwell relates to the NYC Subway system, which once had an extremely high crime rate until two things happened – graffiti was wiped out by law enforcement, and people who did not pay tolls were punished at a much higher rate.  These two factors, while minor in terms of the big picture of the crime in the subways, caused a massive reduction in overall crime by modifying the context – in this case the environment – that the crime was occurring in.

Gladwell’s assessment of epidemics is so simple, and yet so profound.  After reading the book, it makes absolute sense.  It has made me look at myself, to determine what (if any) characteristics I have of any of the three key personalities.

Gladwell has a test in his book in which you take a few minutes to list off of the top of your head all of the people that you know, when given a list of surnames, to determine how connected you are.  I built an Excel document of the list of people with the same surnames that I know.  I came up with 34 names – Gladwell lists the average at 21.  Of the 34, 16 were people from home, and 18 were people from school.  There were more names from school that sounded familiar, but that I could not quite place with a first name or a face – I’m sure if I saw the person, I’d remember them, but this was meant to be off the top of the head (I referenced Facebook to make sure a couple of times).  Of the 16 from home, 5 were siblings (3 in one family, 2 in another).  I would say that, from this, I am not a Connector by any means, though I am extremely social and can talk to new people easily.

I may qualify to be a Maven, with how much information gathering I do.  If I find a good book, such as this, I tend to spread it around after acquiring all of the knowledge I can off of it, and that tends to also be something I do with other products.  These are the key qualifications of a Maven, so I may have found a niche there.  I have a somewhat insatiable thirst for learning, which I hope never stops, and which I like to pass on at every opportunity.

When it comes to being a Salesman, I feel like I do not have the force of personality required.  I can be influential, with the right people, and when I am speaking on a topic that I feel great emotion about I can be quite persuasive, but that does not apply to my everyday life, so I do not qualify there.

In order to develop a successful business, there must be people from each of these three categories involved at some point in the process.  A small business owner must have characteristics that fit all three of these in order to move his business up to the next level.  He must be well-connected, which stems from a very sociable personality – I don’t know any successful small business owners that can’t socialize well with their customers.  He must be a maven of his trade – people need to be able to trust his knowledge.  Finally, and most obviously, he must be a salesman, because running a business without being able to sell a product or service is impossible.

Read it.

My blogging colleague, Bob Morris, is more able to tackle this post than I am — but here’s my try.

I was reading a couple of the speeches in the great William Safire compilation, Lend Me Your Ears.  (I blogged about this before here and  here, and Bob reviewed the compilation here).  I read this toast: George Bernard Shaw:  George Bernard Shaw Salutes His Friend Albert Einstein.  It is a remarkable piece.  Here is a key excerpt from the beginning of his toast:

Napoleon and other great men were makers of empires, but these eight men whom I am about to mention were makers of universes…  I go back twenty-five hundred years, and how many can I count in that period?  I can count them on the fingers of my two hands.
Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Kepler, Copernicus, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein – and I still have two fingers left vacant…
Newton made a universe which lasted for three hundred years.  Einstein has made a universe, which I suppose you want me to say will never stop, but I don’t know how long it will last.

George Bernard Shaw

 

It was the phrase “makers of universes” that grabbed my imagination.  I really don’t think that we can put the business luminaries listed above in the same category.  (Well, maybe Drucker).  But in a lesser sense, and certainly in a narrower arena, I think we can say that these business thinker/business book giants have created at least some small universes.

Here’s what I mean.  When you think of “leadership,” you think of Bennis.  When you think of studying successful companies, extracting their secrets, you think of Peters and Collins.  Collins “hedgehog principle” has become part of our vocabulary.  And Gladwell is the true master at introducing phrases that become part of our understanding and vital parts of our vocabularies, (even if he borrows the ideas from others):  “tipping point,” “outliers,” the “10,000 hour rule.”

And, if you had only one you could read, you could make the case that Drucker is the one you would choose.  Many have observed that in communication, Aristotle said it first, and everyone else simply provides commentary and updates illustrations.  Well, in business, Drucker said it first, and everything else builds, in one way or another, on his work.

As I said earlier, Bob Morris is far more qualified to choose the names that could be called the “makers of the business universe.”  But I like the quest – who are the voices, the minds, that have most shaped our usable understanding of business effort and success?  Who has created our business universe?

Lloyd explains why Pinker and Gladwell don’t agree, which is partly based upon Gladwell’s new book, What the Dog Saw., a collection of essays that were published in the New Yorker.

The mind at work is volatile and complex. Much of the time, as Malcolm Gladwell, the hairy (in all senses of the word) and brilliant author of The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers said, we can’t even say what we want or realize what we like until we are actually trying it.

I am type who never tries the specials off the menus, and orders the same delicious dish almost compulsively once I find it. Had the menu at Babbo in NYC been traditional when I ate there this past weekend, I would have never ordered the black spaghetti with rock shrimp (safest-sounding dish.) And I would have never realized I could practically lick clean a dish swathed in bruise-colored squid ink and prepared to slither around my fork with oily residue. Yum!

It’s the possibility of finding happiness from the unknown that makes life, and henceforth, internships, exciting. As thoughts of the future cross your path this season, test your taste buds creatively.

Watch this video as Malcolm Gladwell discusses none other than…spaghetti sauce.

A few years ago, Malcom Gladwell wrote a book titled, The Tipping Point.  Basically, Gladwell explains that “the tipping point is the biography of an idea, and the idea is very simple.  It is that the best way to understand the emergence of fashion trends, the ebb and flow of crime waves, or, for that matter, the transformation of unknown books into bestsellers, or the rise of teenage smoking, or the phenomena of word of mouth, or any number of the other mysterious changes that mark everyday life is to think of them as epidemics. Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do.”

My favorite example that Gladwell explores is how former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his team of leaders dramatically reduced crime in New York City in the 1990’s.  The book sites the statistic that in 1992, there were 2,154 murders in NYC and 626,182 serious crimes. 

So how in five years did the murder rate drop 64.3% to 770 and total crimes drop to 355,893?  What was the tipping point?

The obvious answer to attack these types of terrible crimes would be more police on the streets, which was an expensive solution.

But that’s not what they did. With William Bratton as the head of the police department and Giuliani as mayor, they collaborated on the “broken window theory.”  Attack the lesser crimes in order to decrease the number of more serious crimes.  These are noted as “quality of life” crimes, examples are public urination, public drunkenness. They arrested repeat offenders and cracked down on graffiti.

In fact, David Gunn, the head of the subway department, said that “the graffiti was the symbolic collapse of the system.”  And you know it’s making an impact when Saturday Night Live spoofs the situation, which they did.  (I have searched and can’t find that youtube video.  If you can find it, I would love to see it again and attach it to this blog post.)

Even though these crimes are insignificant compared to the more violent offenses, they were the tipping points in order to make an impact of the decline on more serious crimes.

So what does all of this have to do with healthcare reform?  I’m not an economist, nor do I even have a business degree. But in my humble opinion, there has GOT to be a tipping point in order to fix our broken healthcare system.

Spending more money to tackle the big problem is just not going to work. It’s like putting more cops on the street.  How does that help? 

I’m a strong believer in healthcare reform, but reform in the right way.  Therefore, I feel we, as Americans, should be asking our politicians what are the tipping points that will actually make a difference…what is healthcare reform’s graffiti?

Again, I’m not an economist, but I believe tort reform and strict mandates on buying insurance are the start to tip this thing back in our favor. 

Why? 

Tort reform will lower the ability for patients to sue their doctors, which would lower their malpractice insurance, which would lower their costs for services.

Strict mandates on individuals will force the young, healthier people into the insurance pool, which would 1) get them covered and 2) would lower the premiums for everyone else because of them buying into the system.

Wasn’t that the goal in the first place, insure more people at a lower cost?  Hmm…

Maybe this makes no sense at all; maybe it makes too much sense.  Either way, we really need to watch Washington and make sure they are not just putting more cops on the street when we really need to go after the graffiti.

I’m kind of surprised at the ignorance of some writers, especially when it comes to mathematical terms, such as Igon Value. For those of you who don’t know, it’s not igon value, but eigenvalue. Here’s what eigenvalues are all about. The name come from the German word eigen, which means “self”.

Eigenvalues, eigenvectors and eigenspaces are properties of a matrix. They are computed by a method described below, give important information about the matrix, and can be used in matrix factorization. They have applications in areas of applied mathematics as diverse as finance and quantum mechanics.

★

An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “sagittal plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.

★

 

På lördag eftermiddag sätter sig Augustin Erba i Akademibokhandeln i Skrapan, Stockholm, och ger boktips till de som funderar på julklappar.

Men du kommer väl bara rekommendera din egen bok till alla?

Haha, nej, det tycker jag låter pinsamt. Men jag har läst flera av de böcker som är aktuella och jag tror att jag kan ge goda råd till den som har lite bråttom och vill hitta den där boken som passar flickvännen, mamma eller mormor.

Kommer du prata något om Ensamhetens broar?

Jag kommer att göra sällskap med Tidningen Vi:s bokdoktor Nina Frid. Hon har sagt att hon vill prata om min bok. Den har ju blivit extra aktuell i och med domen som föll häromdagen.

Kan du redan nu säga någon bok som du kommer att rekommendera?

Malcolm Gladwells senaste är bok är underhållande. Och så gillar jag Våtmarker.

Arrangörer: Bokcirklar.se

Övriga medverkande: Annika Koldenius från Bokcirklar.se och författarna Moa Herngren och Mats Strandberg.

Akademibokhandeln kl. 15.00 den 28 november.

In my three years of blogging, the post that received the most hits was one on cock fighting.  In fact, it was getting so much traffic that I removed it from my blog.  Thinking about reposting it after reading Malcolm Gladwell’s article comparing football and dogfighting. Gladwell’s article is a disturbing one–partly because I likely will still watch football along with the other millions around the world.  Gladwell interacts here with reader responses to his football article and I get the sense that a solution is far on the horizon.  Gladwell’s article is disturbing on a number of levels for me–many may not want to read his descriptions of the injuries that happen to dogs and football players–often after an initial injury.   What bothers me is that so many react emotionally to the trauma and abuse that happens to the dogs but could seemingly care less what happens to the football warriors.

But, what is truly stomach turning is Gladwell’s description of “Gameness.” Gameness for dogs is a “desire to please an owner at any expense to itself.” “In a fighting dog, the quality that is prized above all others is the willingness to persevere, even in the face of injury and pain.”

(cont. from yesterday)… and into an even narrower room. About 20 people lined the walls, men one side, women the other. It was impossible not to notice that everyone else in the room was black.

It took a millisecond to absorb the situation – I’ve explained thin-slicing to you already, haven’t I – before, being a nice Christian girl with liberal values, I reasoned that this was a marvellously refreshing situation, which would teach me valuable lessons in how it feels to be a minority. I was resolved to throw myself into whatever singles activities were being acted out here. T and I handed our £10 to the organiser and dutifully joined the ladies’ line.

I’m not sure what I was expecting. (In my university when people lined up in this way it normally signalled a drinking game, but that seemed unlikely in the situation.) Name games, perhaps, or some sort of race involving an orange under your chin. Instead, the organiser announced that we would now dance ‘to’ each other, with every singleton taking their turn to ‘freestyle’ in front of the others. To a 12-minute track.

I can’t even imagine what kind of preparatory, ice-breaking measures had been taken in the hour we’d missed* that could convince 20 relatively sober humans to agree to this. The only thing I’ve come up with so far is group hypnosis. T and I hadn’t even had a drink yet – we hadn’t been given a chance to get anywhere near the bar in our hurried introduction to the event. Now, I don’t what Deuteronomy or St Paul say on the subject of forcing people to dance in front of complete strangers without so much as a half of Bud Light. Maybe it’s a sin, maybe it isn’t. But I’m pretty sure it breaches the Geneva Convention on Human Rights… (cont. tomorrow)

*we were on the bus, remember?

The Connectors

To those who wish to become much more effective connectors, here is some excellent advice from Maribeth Kuzmeski:

1. Develop a true “What’s in it for them” mentality: Focusing on others brings more for you.

2. Listen – curiously listen: Connecting is not about being a great talker.

3. Important questions to ask are those that attract and nourish connections: get others to do the work!

4. Get the sale to close itself: Use creative strategies to sell without pushing what you offer.

5. Create a memorable experience: Differentiate yourself by the positive, memorable impact you have on others.

Kuzmeski explains how to achieve these objectives in The Connectors: How the World’s Most Successful Businesspeople Build Relationships and Clients for Life, published John S. Wiley & Sons (2009).

I also urge you to check out the resources at www.RedZoneMarketing.com.

The formula for Malcolm Gladwell’s three best-selling non-fiction works is simple:  amusing anecdotes plus a little science equal some “interesting” ideas about how we could fix something.  In Blink he looked at a variety of seemingly disconnected things like taste tests and military war games to show how gut reactions can be better used and trained to take advantage of their accuracy.

Outliers seeks to answer questions about why some people are successful.  The answers that Gladwell finds are neither earth-shaking, nor really all that “interesting.”  The anecdotes, however, are, and it’s Gladwell’s ability as a story-teller that still makes the book worth reading. 

In short, Gladwell argues that success is shaped by opportunity and legacy. This means that an uncontrollable factor such as when or where you were born could be a more controlling influence over the likelihood of an individual succeeding as factors like genetics or hard work and responsibility.  Gladwell does not deny the influence of these other factors, noting that they are, in fact, necessary.  Only that hard work alone does not necessarily account for why some succeed and some fail.

Gladwell leads this into a discussion about what can be done for schools to help students experience success.  Among the ideas he advocates:

Re-grouping classes based on birth month.  Gladwell shows how the younger students in a class are wrongly judged on their abilities because of their development.  He recommends a 3-4 month grouping so the gap between youngest and oldest isn’t as pronounced. 

Using the Asian system of numbers.  Gladwell believes the American number system  is counter-intuitive and that the Asian system fosters a greater ability to calculate individually. 

Adopting year-round school.  According to stats that Gladwell produces, most schools work.  It’s the summer break that skews what progress is made when reading and math scores are broken down along socioeconomic lines.  The lower brackets lose reading gains over the summer and actually make greater strides during the school year.  Were the school calendar to reflect a more natural work calendar (or an Asian calendar) these gains would be maintained.

Adopting Asian-type school days.  Looking at the TIMSS test Gladwell shows how you can predict the outcome of the test based on the number of questions students leave blank on the pre-test questionnaire.  It’s amazing but true.  This gets attributed to attention span and the way school days break down.  Asian schools have longer bells, allowing for more time on individual problems, while typical American students give up after 30 seconds-2 minutes.  Gladwell’s theory is that if American students were better at persisting (something he imaginatively attributes to rice paddy farming v. American-style farming) we would improve our ability to score highly on these tests. 

In the end, it’s hard to say much more about Gladwell than “that’s interesting.”  It’s not science, it’s not research, it’s a loose connection of anecdotes.  Taken together, he seems to advocate Asian schools and Asian culture for producing academic success as measured by standardized tests.  Why we should use such tests to measure what a successful student is or care about their results is not, however, addressed here.  He leaves that for the academics.

See Gladwell on Charlie Rose (12/19/08 ) here.

What we read while trying to get into Justin Bieber’s Twitter account….

• Here’s an interview with Jonathan Safran Foer, normally a great fiction writer, whose new book Eating Animals tries to get people to stop eating meat. Hasn’t he read Josh? In 100 years, this whole discussion will be moot.

• Last week, we linked to Steven Pinker’s negative review of Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw, a collection of essays. This week, in the interest of equal time, here’s Gladwell’s three-part response–with all parts brief and in large print. Part I on Pinker, Part II on Quarterbacks, and Part III on Eigenvalues.

• It hasn’t even been a week since John S pointed out the double standard applied to Miley Cyrus. Well, in that time she’s been criticized for the death of her bus driver and for not liking Twilight. What a bitch!

• For all our Buffalo readers, why Perry Fewell isn’t the answer–and it has more to do with the sport than the team.

• This post, as are all others from NPI and the rest of worldwide blogs, is brought to you from our collective mothers’ basements.

• For the man who has everything this holiday season… DON DRAPER THE DOLL!

• The BCS has a Twitter; run amok.

• The BCS Twitter is citing some of the dumbest propaganda I’ve ever read; run amok.

Love is so sudden, a lighting flash from no where. Or is it? Roger Housden in his book Ten Poems to Open Your Heart offers one poem by Wislawa Szymborska titled “Love at First Sight.” This poet won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1996; at the time she told others that a poet lives to create by saying, “I don’t know.” This mystery space helps so much to notice the world and moments that seem to have a cause but truly arrive from a place we don’t know. Some call this Chance capital C. Malcolm Gladwell argues this in his amazing book Blink, Thinking Without Thinking. Just by arriving to life without knowing we can learn so much–instantly, in the blink of an eye.

What then of love at first sight? Star crossed lovers will remember their first meeting and recall in surprise how this was their first view of each other. But is this true? How would you know if perhaps on the bus, in the bank line, or at the bakery you had seen her before? Maybe. Hard to say. We don’t know. Szymborska laughs at these lovers, their blindness as to the first mystery meeting. She writes about the lovers in her poem:

They’d by amazed to hear
that Chance has been toying with them
now for years.

Not quite ready yet
to become their Destiny,
it pushed them close, drove them apart,
it barred their path,
stifling a laugh,
and then leaped aside.

The poem reminds me that I’m living from the “I don’t know” school of philosophy. That’s too neck-up actually. I just mean that each day will unfold in a way I cannot predict and so I simply attend the gatherings mostly to watch and see what will happen next; I’m insatiably curious to know but all bets are off.

Housden, for example, bumped into a woman who greeted him joyfully thinking he was someone else. They excused themselves once real recognition settled in. One year later the same woman booked ten days at a monastery where Housden had to stay by accident. Her name is Maria and two years later they were married.

This evening I went for a swim in the outdoor pool at the UCSF Baker Fitness Center and stared at the stars above. A bright crescent moon hung way up high too. Pool lights filtered through clear water and I felt bathed in moonlight and pool light; my swim felt easy and happy. The water always pulls me into an “I don’t know” mood where cognitive thought turns off and intuitive sensing washes in. I’m not thinking about anything in the pool suspended by water, grateful for the chance to take a load off my feet, so after when I’m dressed some of my best “ideas” surface. Yet I’m still unsure about love’s fire.

Housden helps me ruminate more lucidly about love at first sight in the following words:

“The poem reminds us that there is a season and a time for things that cannot be orchestrated. It’s like death–when it’s our time, we fall. Lovers need to ripen on the vine. You will know the right moment by the ease with which you fall into this next chapter of your life. It will require no effort, just an assenting to what wants to happen” (54). Perhaps then I will turn off the light now and simply say my prayers to close this day, sleep well, and wake to see what the next day brings. Good night.

This morning, while cruising through my blogroll I was distracted by a pretty interesting news story. Apparently, a pitcher for the Philadelphia Pirates has taken an internship with the USDA.

Change.org : MLA Pitcher Interning at USDA

This got me thinking about the effectiveness of advocates, and how sometimes the biggest impact doesn’t come from experts, but people who are generally interested in a topic. On my drive from Atlanta to New Orleans last night, I listened to a book on tape called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It talked about epidemics in societies, and not just biological ones. Behavioral epidemics can affect all aspects of life and yet very little attention seems to be paid to the people who “tip” a behavioral pattern from an underground movement to a mainstream phenomenon. The book pointed out that people who stay in the same circles are less capable of spreading new ideas than those that cross a lot of circles from a variety of backgrounds. This brings us back to the pitcher with a USDA internship and the future of the ComFood movement.

As I read through possible policy sites for my time in DC I can not help but begin longterm planning for the future. I still feel pretty young, and pretty unsure about what I want to do “when I grow up”. Maybe the best route for me to promote something I care so much about (ComFood) is to explore my other interests, much like this pitcher, Ross Ohlendorf, is exploring his. What would the ComFood movement look like if more advocates were pursuing other interests instead of become martyrs to the non-profit world that asks of workers too much while frequently paying too little. Maybe by diversifying our portfolios we could tip this alternative food system into something that isn’t so “alternative” afterall.