• E-Prime and the Retiring of ‘To Be’

    A form of constrained writing, E-Prime strives to completely restrict the use of the verb to be as a way to prevent implications of certainty and objectivity.

    As part of the This Column Will Change Your Life series, Oliver Burkeman discusses the merits of E-Prime and unambiguous language.

    To think about and function in the world, [Alfred Korzybski] said, we rely on systems of abstract concepts, most obviously language. But those concepts don’t reflect the world in a straightforward way; instead, they contain hidden traps that distort reality, causing confusion and angst. And the verb “to be”, he argued, contains the most traps of all. […]

    “Our judgments can only be probabilistic,” wrote Allen Walker Read, a Korzybski follower. “Therefore we would do well to avoid finalistic, absolutistic terms. Can we ever find ‘perfection’ or ‘certainty’ or ‘truth’? No! Then let us stop using such words in our formulations.” E-Prime provided an easy way to do this: simply stop using “to be”.

    All this might seem maniacally pointless pedantry. But as cognitive therapists note, thoughts trigger emotions, and “finalistic, absolutistic” thoughts trigger stressful emotions. “I am a failure” feels permanent, all-encompassing, hopeless. Restating it in E-Prime – “I feel like a failure” or “I have failed at this task” – makes it limited, temporary, addressable.

    via rtbc

  • Words and Phrases Lost in Translation

    Coming from the author’s confusion in relating to her German-speaking Balkan partner, the question is asked: can phrases and words that we give great weight to in our native tongue truly be translated across cultural and language barriers.

    Could it really mean the same thing for him to say “I love you” in English if he spoke German? He said it did, of course it did. But I sensed that when he cursed in English it was just a sound to him, because when I curse in a foreign language it’s just a sound to me. Why should saying “I love you” be any different? […]

    I don’t speak German but I’ve said “ich liebe dich” plenty of times and it never does feel like a contract the way saying “I love you” feels like a contract. […]

    I once tried saying “volim te” — “I love you” in Serbo-Croatian — and he didn’t respond. I asked if I’d said it right and he said I had. Then he repeated it quietly.

    That’s the one, I thought: volim te. That’s the “I love you” that works for me, the one that is honest.

    It’s a touching article, and presents a thought that is now at the forefront of my mind given my impending move to a non-native English-speaking country.

    Euphemisms, politeness, suggestiveness, sarcasm, irony and passive-aggressive gestures — all risk being lost in translation.

    In my writing class, I teach my students about subtext. I tell them people alter their conversations depending on whom they wish to address. I tell them people rarely say what they mean, that we are constantly revising our words, that the movement from thought to word is often transformative and strange.

    Subtext does not often transfer between languages.

  • The Transformative Power of a Narrative

    Can a narrative attached to an everyday object increase its objective value? That was the question posed by Rob Walker (author of The New York Times‘ Consumed column) and Joshua Glenn (author of Taking Things Seriously) when they started the Significant Objects Project—an experiment designed to test whether a series of stories created about an object will increase its selling price.

    After buying 100 “unremarkable” objects with an average price of just under $1.29 each, the two advertised them for sale alongside narratives created by volunteers. They then sold for a total of $3,612.51—more than 28 times their original price.

    Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational discusses the project and its findings:

    The results may seem surprising, but this is actually something we see all the time. It’s the basic idea behind the endowment effect, the theory that once we own something, its value increases in our eyes. […] But ownership isn’t the only way to endow an object or service with meaning. You can also create value by investing time and effort into something (hence why we cherish those scraggly scarves we knit ourselves) or by knowing that someone else has (gifts fall under this category).

    And then there’s the power of stories: spend a fantastic weekend somewhere, and no matter what you bring back […] you’ll value it immensely, simply because of its associations. This explains the findings of the Significant Objects Project, and also how other things like branding works.

  • Credit Card Customer Profiling and the Luhn Algorithm

    From a Q&A with a VISA fraud prevention agent on reddit:

    Some years ago, someone wrote a paper claiming he could get the age, gender and race only from the credit card purchase history. It worked very well. Today, with your full purchase information, we can even “guess” your income range, number of dependants and even weight. We have a statistical profile of every customer. We can even calculate the odds you eat at McDonald’s today, considering you ate there once every X days. 98% of the time, this model is very accurate.

    One drawback is that it requires a lot of information. That is why it takes a few years and then, we are fully able to track you. In many cases, we compare the profile calculated from your purchase history to who you really are (and you thought they asked your income for credit validation) to further improve our models, and track fraud, most of all. It’s so sophisticated that if you order products a person in your group never ordered, your card will get automatically locked.

    As I’ve mentioned previously, “I’ve always loved reading and learning about data mining and its applications”—this is no exception.

    From this Q&A I also discovered the Luhn algorithm.

  • The Irrational Use of Credit Cards

    Our irrationality toward money and inability to fully visualise the impact of distant events is how credit card companies thrive and many bank balances suffer.

    That’s the conclusion one draws after reading this article from Time that looks at a number of studies showing that we fail miserably in making logical decisions about money when we use credit cards rather than cash.

    As a species we’re just really bad at understanding costs that come later on. Instead, we assign a disproportionate amount of importance to what’s immediate and tangible. […]

    Once we’ve got our card in hand, our behavior becomes riddled with irrationalities. In one experiment, Drazen Prelec and Duncan Simester of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that people were willing to pay twice as much for basketball tickets when they were using a credit card as opposed to paying cash. Credit-card spending just doesn’t feel like real money. In another study, Nicholas Souleles of the University of Pennsylvania and David Gross of the consultancy Compass Lexecon calculated that the typical consumer unnecessarily spends $200 a year in interest payments by keeping a sizable stash of cash in savings or checking while at the same time carrying a credit-card balance. In our heads, the two don’t line up.

  • What People Pay For

    As a natural follow-up to his Monetizing Your Web App article [previously], Dan Zambonini looks at user needs and what people are willing to pay for:

    • Time: Convenience, Efficiency, Immediacy
    • Scarcity
    • Comfort
    • Esteem: Id, Desirability, Self-Image, Ego
    • Belonging: Relationships, Sex, Affection
    • Survival: Health, Safety, Wellbeing
    • Financial Security: Wealth, Success, Career
    • Entertainment: Emotion, Experiences
    • Intellectual Stimulation: Creativity, Learning, Expression

    I concur with this:

    I highly recommend reading Kevin Kelly’s brilliant Better Than Free article, where he discusses the concept of “Generatives”: non-copyable qualities that retain value in a digital age.

    Those generatives: Immediacy, Personalization, Interpretation, Authenticity, Accessibility, Embodiment, Patronage and Findability.

  • Three Words of Startup Advice

    Posted one at a time to his Twitter feed and spread using the #StartupTriplets tag, Dharmesh Shah–founder of HubSpot–has distilled his best startup advice into forty-seven three-word chunks: startup triplets. My favourite ten:

    • Hire generalists early.
    • Hire specialists later.
    • Invest in culture.
    • Encourage diverse thinking.
    • Decide with data.
    • Accept imperfect data.
    • Encourage rational debate.
    • Make decisions swiftly.
    • Face harsh realities.
    • Improve employees’ resumes.

    Guy Kawasaki enjoyed the list and added a few more of his own, including:

    • Always under promise.
    • Use a Macintosh.
    • Eat only noodles.
    • Ship then test.

    On those first two from Shah’s article; Dustin Curtis’ latest looks at why you should hire generalists early and specialists later.

  • What a Non-Programmer Should Do In a Startup

    Twenty things a non-programmer should do in a startup; a list compiled by Spencer Fry in response to a question asked on Hacker News:

    1. Writing the copy for the website. Mainly keeping the support documents up-to-date.
    2. Doing all the business related tasks.
    3. Doing all the customer service.
    4. Handling all incoming e-mail.
    5. Doing all of the social networking stuff (facebook, twitter).
    6. Doing all of our marketing. Handling Google AdWords, banner advertising, text advertising, etc.
    7. Dealing exclusively with our accountant.
    8. Tracking all of our expenses, etc., into Excel and getting everything ready for accountant (see 7).
    9. Handling all legal work with our lawyer.
    10. Doing all of our networking. I’m the guy that goes to all of our relevant events.
    11. We all come up with ideas for product development.
    12. Blogging. I do all the blogging.
    13. Handling payroll. I do that.
    14. Dealing with the bank accounts. I deal directly with the small business rep at our bank.
    15. Market research. I find out as much as I can about our competitors, what they do, etc. I also learn about our market as a whole.
    16. Handling all incoming advertising requests, setting up their campaigns, etc.
    17. Dealing directly with all our merchants (credit cards + PayPal). Dealing with the very few chargebacks we receive.
    18. Paying all of our bills (server expenses, software licenses, domains, advertising, etc.) and monitoring our cash flow.
    19. Pitching. I handle all of that.
    20. Anything that requires a phone call. Incoming or outgoing.

    Fry has now written an article that provides information on what exactly these twenty tasks entail.

    via @alexjmann

  • Creating Effective Messages

    Nature has published a short interview with psychologist Robert Gifford looking at the “interface between psychology and climate change”.

    Noting the problem of pubic distrust of scientific messages that are delivered with uncertainty, Gifford proposes five elements of effective messages*:

    1. It has to have some urgency.
    2. It has to have as much certainty as can be mustered with integrity.
    3. There can’t be just one message: there must be messages targeted to different groups.
    4. Messages should be framed in positive terms. (Evidence from a recent thesis […] shows that people are less willing to change their behaviour if you tell them they have to make sacrifices. If you tell them they can be in the vanguard, be a hero, be the one that helps — that works.)
    5. You have to give people the sense that their vote counts and that their effort won’t be in vain.

    This doesn’t apply just to messages on climate change, of course.

    via Mind Hacks

    *The original article has, since posting this, gone behind a paywall.

  • An Analysis of Supermarket Checkout Times

    An analysis of supermarket checkout times has shown that express lanes (for people with fewer than 5 items, say) are not always the most efficient checkout route for time-sensitive shoppers.

    Dan Meyer, a high school maths teacher, has done the hard work (providing his data and analysis) and came to the following conclusion:

    [Express lanes] attract more people holding fewer total items, but as the data shows […], when you add one person to the line, you’re adding 48 extra seconds to the line length (that’s “tender time” added to “other time”) without even considering the items in her cart. Meanwhile, an extra item only costs you an extra 2.8 seconds. Therefore, you’d rather add 17 more items to the line than one extra person!

    via Kottke