Clicking With Others

So we have all had those moments in which we are talking with someone we have never met before or have know for only a brief time and you feel a sense that the two of you have much in common and you enjoy the conversation. We can think of this as clicking with the other person, they just seem aligned with our thoughts and beliefs and talking with them is enjoyable. You leave the conversation with them hoping to have some time again when you can again engage in a stimulating talk with them. So what are the things that make people click with us. Can they be analyzed and distilled down to certain traits?

Well Ori and Rom Brafman have written a book all about what makes people click, it gives insight to some of the criteria that are necessary to make these connections, in a meaningful way. What facinates me is the similarities to some of the ideas of Paul Adams when he describes people and their social circles that he has observed in his work on social networks for Google and Facebook.

Let's look at some of these requirements as outlined in the Brafman's book. They refer to these as click accelerators, because they talk mostly about rapid connections. I think these also apply to long term relationships as well. They outline these click accelerators as:

Vulnerability
Showing our weakness's or how human we are can open others up to trust. Being honest and telling the truth offers others a chance to help us and share a problem or thought. Vulnerability can be considered as being shown in two stages the transactional and the connective. The first stage is made up of three steps:

Phatic, is not revealing.
Factual is only giving information about ourselves as data.
Evaluative reveals our views of people and situations, without emotion. This has limited risk of revealing information about ourselves.

The second stage the connective interactions are based more on our feelings and emotional point of view, these are far more revealing and authentic conversations. It consists of two more steps:

Gut Level, these are statements that are more emotional cues to how we feel about something or someone.
peak statements, these are the most emotional and inner thoughts and feelings we have towards others. They have the most risk of make us vulnerable to wrongful attack but are also the most valuable way to express ourselves authentically to others.

Moving through these steps of vulnerability takes our relationship and ability to click with another through different stages and levels of attachment. The more vulnerable you make yourself the more risk you take to get hurt, but also the deeper the relationship you will have with another.

Proximity
Being close to someone physically makes a huge difference in our ability to connect with them. Whether working in an office or just meeting in at a football game. People respond better when they can be in close proximity to others. Having spontaneous communication helps forge relationships. Most of the work I have already looked into talks about the creative process improving when people interact more and are closer together in a building. Paul Adams also mentions that when people communicate they seem to prefer regular small lightweight interactions. These are going to occur more often if people are near each other. These interactions need not even result in a conversation, they might be what is referred to as passive contacts such as a nod of the head or can be thought of as liking something or someone in Facebook. It merely shows recognition of that person, but it all registers as another interaction, that adds up.

Resonance
mihaly csikszentmihalyi, talks about this as being in a state of flow. Things just seem to be working, we are engaged at a deep level, with enough challenges and effort to keep us stimulated and enough progress to make us feel achievement and self satisfaction. This helps us make a connection with others when we can give them our undivided attention and listen intently at what they are saying. This level of engagement will be obvious to those involved both sides talking and responding with authentic conversation. There is a sense of agreement and acceptance of the others point of view and ideas. Much of this is about empathy.


Similarity
Birds of a feather flock together, and we are no different. We tend to gravitate to those that have similar beliefs or interests as us. This makes sense when you consider how we want to support our own inner narrative, of who we are. Again Paul Adams talks about his observation of our social circles, and how we may have 4-5 distinct groups but how each group shares common attributes with us and with each other. It would make sense that to get a good connection we would look for similarities with those we converse with. We of course want to avoid conflict and are not always looking for arguments, and especially try to avoid those that cannot accept us for what we are or think. Interestingly, when in a business environment, we tend to align ourselves with others in our group, to appear similar, and avoid conflict. So when we can control our choices we prefer to find those that already believe what we do.


Safe place
The power of our environment has a profound effect on us. This is especially heightened when there is a shared goal or reason that puts us together. Adversity can bring people closer, and having a problem that is solved as a group or team makes that team string as a unit. But this doesn't need to be a negative event. Even sitting in the home of a person from another country than your own can have an immediate effect on forging new relationships, there is a sense of being removed from the normal status quo of your natural environment, and so you look for anything that can connect you to others in the group. This is all part of the wanting to be part of something larger than ourselves and looking for our our identities.

These are just some of the great ways that people can move from ordinary relationships such as they have with work colleagues to deeper relationships built on friendship and trust. These moments of clicking with another can be enhanced by some of these observations and being aware of them can help you achieve wonderful friendships that can last a lifetime.

Keep Talking The Power of Social Networks

Paul Adams who works on the product team within Facebook, has many great and wonderful thoughts on how and why people share content online. Certainly the experience and knowledge he has from working at Google and now Facebook places him at a wonderful vantage point to see how people use the social networks he has helped to build. He recently gave a talk and outlined many useful ideas and insights that can be utilized in designing for social media and networks.

Most importantly he emphasizes that people don't really share or like things what they are really trying to do is talk. Talking is the foundation on which most social media is really based on and the objects they share and comments they make are merely tools to help start those conversations with others.

So why do people talk? 

We talk to make their lives easier. They have am issue and want feedback, they have a thought and want to gather others opinions on the ideas they have.

We talk to build relationships. we have always since early days of tribal living wanted and needed to be part of social groups.

We talk because we like to help others. People usually like to help other people, especially if they have an experience or knowledge that maybe someone else doesn't.

We talk to craft our identities. The things we talk about and the people we talk with help us establish our self identity, and help us gain a great appreciation of who we are what we believe.

Paul mentions that people don't like and comment on social sites because they have a deep liking for the link or statement someone has made, but because they actually like the people behind the information. People look for commonality among others in their groups, jokes and humorous uploads can help see a match with like minded individuals. Most conversations we have are part of our reputation management, conversations help us define who we are.

Talking requires good listening and response. Today's conversations online are mostly what Paul calls Lightweight interactions and especially companies should be having many lightweight interactions with their customers. Talking and conversations are much more natural and long lasting into the future if they last for shorter periods of time but more frequently. The days of having deep and meaningful conversations are becoming rarer in our always connected world.

So who do we talk to? We mostly talk to people just like ourselves. People we have strong ties with. Most people Paul suggests have 4 small independent groups, in which 80% of the conversations are with the same 4-5 people. We are most influenced by the people we are closest to. People in each group are very similar to the person at the center of the social circle. Things that are interesting to friend in one group, will most likely be interesting to another group in your social sphere



So what do people talk about?

Personal experiences. 70% of talk is about this. This is one reason to build experiences around brands, it gives people more to add to their daily conversations.

People talk about other people. Not always in a bad way, but as part of what makes our lives, interacting with others. These form social norms, and gossip can help teach us how to behave with each other.

We talk about what's around us. Stuff in our Worlds, and in our current environment.

We prefer to talk about feelings not facts. We like to tell emotional stories.

So if you plan to build a social network or site that always social grouping and talking Paul suggests the following considerations as among the most important.

Why: Help people build relationships
How: Create lightweight interactions over time.
Who: Optimize for strong ties
What: Feelings not facts.

Could Crowdfunding be the Future of New Project Development?

Reading this article reminds us that the jump from concepting and ideation to actual production is something that can be very difficult. Could crowdfunding be a possible solution to this more difficult problem of funding ideas?

Traditionally, design companies show new product development workflow as something like this.

With design concepting and ideation on the left progressively working towards a proof of concept and prototype, then finally flowing through to production and distribution. All very simple when you know how. Of course this is the idealized view of product development and it requires time and effort, not to mention money to make this process work.

The reality is as the article suggests more like this.

Where the concepting and ideation are can be quick and full of possibilities then the reality of having to make and distribute and getting investors involved can change the new products possibility of surviving in the marketplace. Ultimately you have to get to a point in the product development where considerations about marketing and product placement occur. To get people to buy your product thoughts on differentiation from competition and potential rivals has to occur. Most likely you will need some kind of advertising and marketing effort to make that happen. When should these have been considered? Probably quite early on in the product life-cycle. Then the questions of manufacturing and shipping to consumers has to discussed and solved. Apple hasn't just been innovative in their products but also in the infrastructures that support the making and shipping of these items. Innovation si more than a good idea and great product.

So this leads onto the focus of the article, for the majority of start ups and small businesses that have lower budgets and not the reach and resources for these systems to be put in place, how can they solve these issues without help? Could a form of crowdsourcing that involves investments from a crowd, called crowdfunding help?

Firstly there are 2 important questions to ask yourself.

1. Do I have the time to make this commitment?
2. Do I want to develop this publicly

These questions of course have huge impacts on whether you should begin a crowdfunded project.

Certainly crowdfunding has been shown to work in gathering money for projects\ that seem worthwhile. One attempt at this that has proven successful has been the work by Grameen bank, an attempt at helping the third World at getting micro financial help for individual projects that can help those in extreme poverty.

So how might this fit into the building of an idea at what stage should you seek funding from other people. The website suggests getting people involved at the proof of concept stage, of course this makes sense that people want to see at least something working in action rather than pure speculation. Then the idea has already started to prove at least it can be made. The speculation of course might still be in the interest of the public at large and it's possibility of future growth and success. But then that is what investment is all about, speculation on future growth.

There are already many sites forming on this concept such as kickstarter and IndieGoGo, they are proving out the model and already have many projects looking for crowd funding. Time will tell how successful these become. but already signs are looking positive for this new venture into funding. Kickstarter has already as of 2010, had 319 successful projects and raised over $9.1 Million in funding these efforts. Top catagories seem to be towards film and music efforts with design making a growth sector in third. The reason suggested is that designer primarily spend their time working on projects for others and are not as used to pitching their ideas for themselves.

Noted reasons for Kickstarters crowdsourcing success are suggested to be:

1. They filter which projects get posted to the crowd -
makes them interesting and worthwhile

2. You only get funding if you meet the threshold of prior to launching your project
keeps projects realistic and encourages crowd participation in promotion as projects get close to reaching their goals

3. Easy to find and promote projects
Easy is always good in these efforts, as it makes it easier for anyone to get involved.

4. Its success has made it more successful
As Malcolm Gladwell would suggest reaching a tipping point in success will only lead to more interest by others.

5. It's not about the money
Like most crowdsourcing efforts the crowd is most motivated by personal pet projects and interests.

You can find out more information about crowdsourcing in a previous post here.

Are we domesticating ourselves?

Whilst driving through Seattle, I was listening to an interesting broadcast from a local radio station (88.1 KPLU), in which they were discussing an experiment that was still going on in Russia that had been started over 50 years ago. Dmitri Belyeaev, a Russian scientist had setup a breeding project in 1959 to see how the domestication of dogs may have occurred, from Wolves. They went on to describe the experiment and some of the interesting results, of the domestication of Siberian foxes over 50 years. More about the experiment can be read here. I do not necessarily agree with the experiment but, the results are facinating

What is most fascinating to me about this experiment was less that indeed the foxes could be bred to be domesticated and not afraid of people, but I was intrigued by the results of what it had done to the foxes as a result of the domestication. It seems that as a result of the selective breeding of the foxes that exhibited the correct responses to good behavior, that other aspects of their physiology altered too. Their teeth became smaller, their ears were more droopy (less cartilage), their tails less straight and their bones smaller and lighter. It seems that the selective breeding had focused not only the desired character traits but has also funneled certain genetic mutations that altered their appearance and structure. Through the filtering of good behavior and removal of the otherwise necessary aggressive traits that would keep them alive in the wild the foxes had begun to alter to suit their new temperament. So of course this is very interesting, from a scientific stand, and definitely goes along way to explain how Wolves may have become domestic dogs. The next thing the talk moved on to thinking about humans and our own evolution. This was when I started to get interested what was proposed.

The premise was put forward that humans too have through group behavior and social exchange actually evolved themselves and arguably domesticated themselves. The thought is that once we were like apes in small groups and the strongest mostly survived and a strict hierarchy could be seen. Then as time moved on and we became wanders and probably grew larger groups we had more people fighting for the top spots, soon it was necessary for progress to get along the friendlier males would have more success with females than the fighters and aggressive males. Jump forward a few thousand years and today we see that we are in large groups and in very close proximity and getting along is a very valuable trait to have to survive, aggression will only get you so far. They mentioned how if you placed 100 chimps on a long haul flight across the Atlantic not many would survive they would definitely kill each other, being so close for so long. We however, have learnt to get along and can tolerate such closeness and are generally friendly. Does this mean as the radio show suggests that we have domesticated ourselves into a more passive and friendly animal just like the Siberian Foxes. Certain it is suggested that we have altered genetically in a similar way, we have smaller bones, smaller teeth than our ancestors. The concept of become a domesticated species is interesting to me, not so much that the idea of a "pet" human, but because it shows that as we grow as a society and population that lives in closer and closer proximity, we are having to alter how we react and respond to each other on a daily basis and it seems it would be fair to suggest that we are altering not only our personalities but potentially our physiology as well.

Of course this may all be an interesting parallel and really we of course are far more complex creatures with our ability to rationalize, but none the less it was an interesting radio talk show. As a follow up I discovered there is a book on the subject by Peter J Wilson called interestingly enough "The domestication of the Human Species", it is now waiting in my Amazon wishlist.