Back in late January we talked about new advances in quantum computing. Science’s Jan 23 report talked about scientists’ success in using a qbit’s state of essentially occupying two spaces at the same time to, in essence, teleport it. A baby step perhaps, but pretty exciting stuff.
Now Microsoft has announced the eXtreme Computing Group (XCG) headed by Dan Reed. Formed this month, the group will develop, “radical new approaches to ultrascale and high-performance computing hardware and software.” Among others, these approaches include quantum computing.
Is it possible we’re that close? Stay tuned for more news from XCG.
“Tell me whether you’ve heard this one,” Christian Shea begins his post in MarketingProfs: “All the research shows that companies that spend on marketing during a recession come out ahead of the competition as the economy rebounds.” But is it really true? Kudos to Christian for challenging the oft-cited but rarely backed-up claim, and for giving us the full disclosure on what available studies reveal, and what is often left unsaid. Check it out here, at the MarketingProfs site.
Today I read the closing line of an email telling me that the Chinese symbol for crisis is composed of two intriguing characters. You know how reliable those signature lines are, so I looked it up. Indeed, it’s true.
The first character represents danger or peril of the situation. The second character signifies a crucial point of opportunity. The opportunity is, of course, to take action to remove or stablize the danger and take advantage of the opportunity.
The additional Zen touch I love:
Modify the first character, and your crisis becomes “a turn for the better”.
What are you doing to find the opportunities in the current crisis that will assure, for you, it becomes a turn for the better?
How much do facts and data really influence our choices? One of the presentations in my current luncheon series focuses on this very issue, asking participants to choose between two options, based on the same facts. Despite having the same data and the same choices, each half of the audience chooses a different option.
To learn more about why this happens, and recognize other ways you experience this in your life, view this TED presentation from Dan Ariely.
“Carbon nanotubes are smaller and harder than asbestos fibers, making it easier for them to enter the lungs and likely to cause far greater damage once there. Yet there are no standards for controlling them as a potential hazard in the lab or end-products.”
I was startled when I read this over five years ago in Science News. The article featured past discoveries and technologies with great capability or promise, but whose use was now banned, due to simple failure to consider and address inherent risks. Lessons from the past were followed by new, highly-promising discoveries with readily identifiable risks still waiting to be addressed.
Today, more than five years later, the risks for nanotechnology are still not addressed according to @WIREsNanomed (on Twitter), who brought to my attention a newly-released paper written by scientific representatives at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, American Chemistry Council Long-Range Research Initiative; EPA; and Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Council of North America. The paper calls for researchers and standard-setters to pursue the establishment of appropriate standards to safeguard ourselves and the technology.
Those representing the businesses and other organizations who do/will benefit from nanotechnology should take the lead. While my quote from the Science News article is based on recollection, its point is unalterable. The ultimate cost of inadequate protective standards is the viability of the technology itself, even ignoring financial and ethical responsibilities for harm done. With many products already touting their inclusion of nanotechnology, the time for research to preserve its benefits is now.
I still recollect that first meeting perfectly: a room filled with over a hundred well-dressed business owners, executives, and a few retirees belting out,
“Old MacDonald had a farm, E - I - E - I - O,
And on that farm he had a…”
Why was this group of otherwise sane executives oinking, quacking and singing together? This ritual of sometimes-strange singing synchronicity is a long-standing tradition at this and many other Rotary clubs. In fact, whether pulling you into the Chicken Dance at a wedding or a rowdy version of your college fight song at the big game, the tug of synchronicity is hard to resist.
And, Mind Matters points out, it’s only natural. More than birds and fish benefit from synchronicity. Whether in the bush or the ghetto, any adversary would rather face an individual than a coordinated group. And we are so clued in to coordinating with others that our brains actually have special parts, mirror neurons, that, as we watch, re-enact others’ experiences in our own brains. So it’s natural, but how big might the benefit be?
This is what Stanford researchers wondered about, and found. For those of us who work in teams to accomplish mutual goals, the benefits of coordinated group behavior can actually help us more effectively accomplish our goals. For example, comparing students who marched around campus together singing songs to control groups who did not, they found in later games and competitions that the synchronized students were more cooperative, more willing to sacrifice their own goals for the group’s, and felt more connected with and trusting of each other.
Getting back to those Old MacDonald pals, their cooperation in putting together tens of thousands of dollars each and every year for schools, community non-profits, scholarships, international clean water programs and hundreds of millions worldwide in an effort to end polio, is pretty amazing indeed. So the next time you’re searching for ways to build your organization’s connectedness, consider a fun round of synchronized activity to build on that sense of unity and cooperation. Even if it’s not a round of Old MacDonald, you may be surprised at the results.
Wow, I was expecting something totally different. Yes, from Susan Boyle, but also from Guy Kawasaki’s Twitter post this morning referencing her, with a link, saying this was another reason he believes all interviews should be done by phone.
Yes, I thought. Exactly. Susan Boyle is an excellent example of how our brains look for shortcuts, forming our opinions long before we realize we’ve decided what to think. From then on, we interpret all facts through that filter of opinion.
Generally speaking this is a good thing. Our brains use our experience to judge circumstances quickly, allowing split-second reactions. If it looks like poison oak, you avoid it like poison oak. When the movie starts Freddy Krueger music, you brace yourself. If you’re in a dark alley and a shadow moves… But then there’s Susan Boyle. We make mistakes.
From well-respected geologist Charles Dawson’s hoax of Piltdown Man to our actual greater, measurable enjoyment of a wine we believe is more expensive: we filter the world to match our expectations. Often only when we are spectacularly wrong, such as in the case of Susan Boyle, do we feel the surprise of noticing our faulty assumptions.
Similarly when we meet people we form first impressions, and interpret information to fit them. If you think a good singer looks like Kelly Clarkson and Susan Boyle walks through the door, your only chance to understand her talent is to ask her to sing. Without that opportunity to see her perform, you’ll filter her story through that same lense of disbelief. When you see a candidate that does not look the part, if she can’t sing for you, she loses the opportunity to blow you away.
And those perceptions persist, regardless of performance. In the NBA, an industry almost obsessed with continual citing of hard athlete performance data, Staw and Hoang showed that for every round later in the draft a player is picked, he gets about 23 minutes less playing time than a player of equal demonstrated performance. He’ll also leave the league more than three years earlier than his counterpart. Likewise someone reading deep in the details that a presenter is a warm person or a cold person is most likely to evaluate them after the presentation as exactly that - warm or cold, whichever was read earlier.
So it made perfect sense what Guy said. Eliminate faulty first impressions from a candidates looks by doing the interview over the phone, and increase your chances of making your decision based on facts.
And then I clicked on the link and found out that’s not what he meant at all.
Update: After creating this post, Guy Kawasaki tweeted back that, in this case, my first impression was correct: ”My message is that phone interviews are good because it help(s) you not form false first impressions….you won’t even consider talent if you make first-impression decisions.”
