Who are the most influential thinkers on the planet? A new network analysis reveals the thinkers who most influence the rest of us and suggests ways to join this elite list
[Thank you MIT Technology Review | From MIT ArXiv 08.09.13] Who are the most influential thinkers on the planet? That’s a question that you might imagine ought to be straightforward to determine, given the recent advances in the study of social networks and how information flows around the globe. And yet, while this network approach has been widely used to rank websites, successful sports stars, business leaders and so on, there has been little work on influential thinkers. “The most important thought leaders and trends shaping our society have not been subjected so far to any truly systematic analysis,” say Karin Frick at the GDI Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute in Switzerland and a couple of pals. So these guys have set out to change this by putting together the first ever ranking of leading thinkers. And their analysis of this list leads to some interesting tips for thinkers hoping to break into the rankings in future. First, a little about their method which is similar to the page-rank algorithm that Google uses to rank websites. The basic idea is that a thinker is important if he or she is influences the most important sources of discussion. The difficulty is in measuring this influence. Frick and co do this by starting with a hand-picked list of 100 thinkers in the fields of philosophy, sociology, economics and the hard sciences. Frick and co cross-check this list by asking 50 thought leaders to name their most important influences, a process that throws up essentially the same people.
0 Comments
When should you jump from from your corporate job to start the social venture you’ve been been dreaming about?
Hybrid organizations combine the social logic of a nonprofit with the commercial logic of a for-profit business, but are very difficult to finance. So why would anyone want to form one? [Thank you HBS Working Knowledge] [by Michael Blanding | 08.12.13] Consider two organizations with the same noble purpose: to solve the problem of poor eyesight in developing countries. The first, the Centre for Vision in the Developing World, follows a traditional nonprofit model, soliciting donations that fund the creation and distribution of specially designed eyeglasses that can be calibrated by the user to circumvent the need for an optometrist. The second, VisionSpring, follows a different approach, working to build a network of entrepreneurs who sell eyeglasses in their communities. Rather than raise funds through donations, it sustains itself primarily by the sale of the glasses themselves. VisionSpring is what organization scholars call a "hybrid" social venture, since it combines the social welfare logic of a nonprofit and the commercial logic of a for-profit business. When hybrids work, they can be a fantastically creative means of solving real-world problems in totally self-sustaining ways, harnessing the strengths of both for-profit and nonprofit models. But they are a difficult bet for entrepreneurs starting out in the field of business. Because hybrid social ventures fall into a gray area between business and charity, they aren't easily funded by venture capitalists on the one hand or philanthropic foundations on the other. The hardest part is our emotional resistance. We're so focused on our own challenges that it's often hard to acknowledge the challenges of others.
[Thank you Harvard Business Review] [by Peter Bregman | 04.23.13] I was running late. My wife Eleanor and I had agreed to meet at the restaurant at seven o'clock and it was already half past. I had a good excuse in the form of a client meeting that ran over and I wasted no time getting to the dinner as fast as possible. When I arrived at the restaurant, I apologized and told her I didn't mean to be late. She answered: "You never mean to be late." Uh oh, she was mad. "Sorry," I retorted, "but it was unavoidable." I told her about the client meeting. Not only did my explanations not soothe her, they seemed to make things worse. That started to make me angry. That dinner didn't turn out to be our best. Several weeks later, when I was describing the situation to a friend of mine, Ken Hardy, a professor of family therapy, he smiled. "You made a classic mistake," he told me. "Me? I made the mistake?" I was only half joking. "Yes. And you just made it again," he said. "You're stuck in your perspective: You didn't mean to be late. But that's not the point. The point is that you were late. The point — and what's important in your communication — is how your lateness impacted Eleanor." In other words, I was focused on my intention while Eleanor was focused on the consequences. We were having two different conversations. In the end, we both felt unacknowledged, misunderstood, and angry. The more I thought about what Ken said, the more I recognized that this battle — intention vs. consequences — was the root cause of so much interpersonal discord. As it turns out, it's not the thought that counts or even the action that counts. That's because the other person doesn't experience your thought or your action. They experience the consequences of your action. |
head of product in colorado. travel 🚀 work 🌵 food 🍔 rocky mountains, tech and dogs 🐾Categories
All
|