Monthly Archives: May 2013

Daniel Pink: To Sell is Human

Editor’s Note: Daniel Pink is the author of five provocative books– including the long-running New York Times bestsellers, A Whole New Mindand Drive.His latest book, To Sell is Human, is a #1 New York Times business bestseller, a #1 Wall Street Journal business bestseller, and a #1 Washington Post nonfiction bestseller. Dan’s books have been translated into 34 languages. His articles on business and technology appear in many publications, including the New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, Wired, and The Sunday Telegraph (See a sample of articles here).

His TED Talk ‘The puzzle of motivation‘ has almost 6 millions views and RSA Animate Talk ‘The surprising truth about what motivates us‘ has more than 10 millions views. Dan has provided analysis of business trends on CNN, CNBC, ABC, NPR, and other networks in the U.S. and abroad. And he lectures to corporations, associations, and universities around the world on economic transformation and the new workplace.

In 2011, Thinkers50 ranked him one of the 50 most influential business thinkers in the world. To read his full bio, please click here, here and here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed Daniel Pink recently to gain insights about Conceptual Age, To Sell is Human, Art and Design which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Dan, thank you so much for joining us. We are very honored to have you at eTalks.

Dan Pink: My pleasure.

Niaz: As you know, we have been living through the agricultural, industrial, and information ages. According to you, we are now living in a conceptual age. At the beginning of our interview, can you please tell us about ‘Conceptual Age’?

Dan Pink: We are leaving the Information Age — an economy and a society built on logical, linear, computer-like capabilities — and entering an economy and a society build on inventive, empathic, big-picture capabilities — the Conceptual Age. The defining skills of the Information Age — what I call “left brain” capabilities — are still necessary, but to them we need to add “right brain” aptitudes and qualities. In A WHOLE NEW MIND, I identify six essential aptitudes for the new age: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, and Meaning.

Niaz: You say, in today’s world, we are all sales people. Your most recent book ‘To Sell is Human’ has become New York Times, Wall Street Journal’s and Washington Posts’ Best Seller. We must comprehend now, whoever we are, whatever we do and wherever we belong, we do sell. Why do you believe ‘To sell is Human’?

To Sell Is Humna

Dan Pink: Like it or not, we’re all in sales now — whether we have sales in our job title or not. But sales isn’t what it used to be. We’ve moved from a world of information asymmetry (sellers have lots more information than buyers) to one of information parity (sellers and buyers are more evenly matched). And that has nudged us from a world of “buyer beware” to one of “seller beware.” Selling effectively — whether it’s your idea or your product or yourself– in a world of seller beware depends on three key qualities: Attunement (taking another’s perspective); Buoyancy (staying afloat in an ocean of rejection); and Clarity (moving from accessing information to curating it and from solving existing problems to identifying new problems.) I talk about these qualities keeping in mind the skills you need to become more effective at selling, but in the end I hope that what this book shows is that selling is more important, more urgent, and more beautiful than we realize. The capacity to sell isn’t some unnatural adaptation to the merciless world of commerce. It’s part of who we are.

Niaz: You’ve said that abundance changes the way we see material goods. We no longer just want to have things; we want cool things. We want well-designed things. We want things with a meaning. On the other hand, you’ve also said that the new master of business administration is the master of fine arts. Why do you think art and design are the next big things?

Dan Pink: We live in a world of such abundance and prosperity that, for businesses, it’s no longer enough to make a product that’s reasonably priced and adequately functional. It must also be beautiful, unique, and meaningful. Design – the marriage of utility and significance – has become an essential aptitude for personal fulfillment and professional success in the Conceptual Age.

Niaz: As you know, so many of us now want to contribute amazing things to make this world a better place. We also see people want to change the world to make it a bit more special. In reality, it is so tough to change the world. But having a wish to change the world is really appreciating and great. Can you please tell us about the top most problems of this planet which has to be considered greatly to make this world a better place?

Dan Pink: The general story of humankind is a slow (and often unsteady) march toward progress. If you look back from today, things are much better for most people than they were 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago. That’s not to say we don’t have contemporary challenges. Here in the U.S., I’d put two issues at the top:

1. Our economy is increasingly leaving a slice of our population behind, marooning them without meaningful work or a sense of hope;

2. Our government, particularly at the federal level, is close to dysfunctional.

On a world level, I’d put at the top of the list two more issues:

1. Global warming and the fact that we’re not fully ready for its consequences;

2. The fact that while you and I are conversing via email, more than a billion people still live in poverty.

In general, though, I’m optimistic that we’ll slowly resolve these challenges — because, as I said earlier, that’s been the trajectory over time.

Niaz: Dan, thanks again for giving us time in the midst of your busy schedule and sharing us your invaluable ideas.

Dan Pink: You’re welcome Niaz.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

01. Philip Kotler on Marketing for Better World

02. Hugh Mac­Leod on Creativity and Art

03. Philip Delves Broughton on What they teach you at Harvard?

04. Naeem Zafar on Entrepreneurship for the Better World

05. Derek Sivers on  Entrepreneurship, CD Baby and Wood Egg

06. Jeff Haden on Pursuing Excellence

07. Rita McGrath on Strategy in Volatile and Uncertain Environments

08. Gautam Mukunda on Leadership

09. Gerd Leonhard on Big Data and the Future of Media, Marketing and Technology

danah boyd: Future of Technology and Social Media

Editor’s Note: danah boyd is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, a Research Assistant Professor in Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, a Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School, a Fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales.

To read her full bio, please click here, here and here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed danah boyd recently to gain her ideas and insights on Future of Technology and Social Media which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Danah, thank you so much for giving us some time in the midst of your busy schedule.

Danah: You’re welcome Niaz.

Niaz: As you know, we have already passed two decades of Internet bubble burst. By this time, we have got Google, Amazon, Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple and some other great companies. At the same time, our economy is transforming into digital economy. What are the revolutionary changes going to be occurred in the upcoming decades?

Danah: Decades? I think that the most interesting technological transformations are going to come from bioinformatics and the health sector.  I think that we’re at the earliest stage of this process, but I’m looking forward to see where it goes.

Niaz: What do you think about the future of Internet and social media?

Danah: In terms of social media, I think we’re in a lull of innovation.  This always happens when too many people are focused on a particular arena.  The focus is on perfecting, consolidating, and small iterations. I don’t think it’s possible to say what’s coming around the corner that’s a true breakthrough.  If I knew, I’d be helping build it. <grin>

Niaz: How do you define ‘Big Data’? What does excite you most about ‘Big Data’?

Danah: If you haven’t read this, you should  read ‘Critical Questions for Big Data‘.

Kate and I define “Big Data” as a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon that rests on the interplay of technology, analysis, and mythology.  The latter is the most important here.  As a phenomenon, “Big Data” has nothing to do with bigness, but everything to do with the belief that lots of data and math can solve all of the world’s problems.

I’m excited to see more people engaging with math and data, but I think it’s critical that folks never forget that interpretation requires more than math.  It’s in the interpretation that knowledge – and biases – lie.

Niaz: Thanks again for joining us. We hope to get you again for a detailed interview.

Danah: You are welcome. Sure, we will sit another time.

Ending Note: danah boyd is currently very busy with her on going projects and research works. She got a little time to talk to us.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

1. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger on Big Data Revolution

2. Gerd Leonhard on Big Data and the Future of Media, Marketing and Technology

3. Ely Kahn on Big Data, Startup and Entrepreneurship

4. Brian Keegan on Big Data

5. Aubrey de Grey on Aging and Overcoming Death

6. Irving Wladawsky-Berger on Evolution of Technology and Innovation

7. Horace Dediu on Asymco, Apple and Future of Computing

8. James Allworth on Disruptive Innovation

9. James Kobielus on Big Data, Cognitive Computing and Future of Product

Stephen Walt: Global Development

Editor’s Note: Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School. He has been a Resident Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also served as a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the National Defense University.

Professor Walt is the author of The Origins of Alliances (1987), which received the 1988 Edgar S. Furniss National Security Book Award. He is also the author of Revolution and War (1996), Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy (2005), and, with co-author J.J. Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby (2007).

You can read his full bio from herehere and here. For reading his blog on international relation, foreign policy and global affairs please click here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed Stephen Walt recently to gain insights about his ideas, research and works in the field of Global Development which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Stephen, thank you so much for joining us. We are honored and thrilled to have you at eTalks.

Stephen: My pleasure.

Niaz: You are a realist in an ideological age. You have been a leader in the field of International Affairs. You have done a significant amount of research and added gigantic amount of knowledge in this field.

As you know, by this time, we have developed superb technologies, published millions of great books and developed a lot as human beings. At the beginning of our interview, can you please tell us, how far have we progressed?

Stephen: From one perspective, human progress is remarkable. In the past 500 years, we have identified many of the basic laws of the physical universe, discovered the principles of evolution and genetic inheritance, eliminated many diseases, and lifted millions of people out of poverty.  And along the way humans have created a vast and diverse array of music, literature, and art. Yet these same creative impulses have also been used to create powerful technologies of destruction and various harmful ideologies. Human progress remains a decidedly uneven phenomenon.

Niaz: What are the lacking, scope and opportunity to progress?

Stephen: By developing language, humans became able to record and communicate their discoveries and to work together to create new realities and possibilities. That capacity remains the greatest source of human potential: our collective ability to work together to achieve common ends.

Niaz: Despite all of the progresses we have, why countries keep fighting each other?

Stephen: At the most basic level, conflict between nations arises from a combination of fear, greed, and stupidity. Humans are social beings, and we are hard-wired to establish group identities and loyalties. Once formed, social groups tend to worry about what other groups may do to them, and this basic insecurity drives competition that sometimes leads to war. That’s fear.  States also fight because individual leaders have dreams of glory, or because they seek wealth through conquest and plunder. That’s greed. And finally, wars occur because leaders are fallible; they often misperceive or miscalculate. In particular, they convince themselves that victory will be swift and easy and then discover too late they were mistaken. That’s stupidity. Unfortunately, humankind remains all too prone to all three tendencies.

Niaz: Why do countries fail to build and sustain international relations? Can you please explain us the reasons? 

Stephen: In fact, countries form all sorts of valuable international connections. Global trade and investment has grown steadily, allowing millions to live more comfortably. Previously war-torn regions such as Europe have now known decades of peace. Information now flows all around the world at very low cost. Global institutions like the World Trade Organization or the United Nations have not eliminated global conflict, but they have helped keep international rivalries within bounds.

Yet there are still limits to what global institutions can accomplish. In particular, they cannot keep the most powerful countries from acting as they wish and from competing with each other for advantage. Nor can prevent some individuals and groups from using violence to advance their own political agendas.

Niaz: What do you think about the core problems of building sustainable international relations?

Stephen: I believe the core problem for the next century will be managing the development and rising power of Asia, and grappling with the political and social effects of environmental change. These two challenges will make many of our current concerns seem trivial by comparison.

Niaz: How can countries overcome those challenges?

Stephen: I believe the key to more effective global cooperation lies primarily in encouraging more honest and open global discourse. When countries are guided by myths, self-serving national narratives, and inaccurate information about political and natural phenomena, then clashes and errors are inevitable. By contrast, when humans are able to confront shared problems honestly and openly, they can identify where they disagree and are more likely to develop solutions that work. But it is still a fragile process.

Niaz: Is there any net gain from wars?

Stephen: In some cases, yes. States are sometimes able to improve their position via warfare, or at least can prevent others from gaining an advantage. But “rolling the iron dice of war” is always risky, because no one can be 100 percent sure how things will turn out. For example, it was clear in 2002 that the United States would not have much trouble defeating Saddam Hussein’s army, but the occupation of Iraq quickly turned into a costly quagmire and the final result is far from what the Bush administration intended. Because warfare is always an uncertain enterprise, wise leaders will go to war only when forced to fight.

Niaz: Can you imagine a world without any war? If yes! How can we build that world?

Stephen: I can. For one thing, as my Harvard colleague Steven Pinker has recently shown, the overall level of human violence has been declining fairly steadily for quite some time. Furthermore, I believe nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent to great power wars, and it is these sorts of wars that cause the greatest human suffering. Lastly, I believe that our species has the capacity to learn, and this capacity can help us avoid some of the circumstances that have fueled war in the past. But none of these measures makes war impossible, which is why we need to remain vigilant against its occurrence.

Niaz: What are the responsibilities of developed countries to restrain them from war?  

Stephen: Because developed countries have the most military capability, they have the responsibility of not using it to oppress others. Sometimes developed countries can use force to deter or halt aggression, which is a good thing. But other times they use their superior power to coerce others, or they wage low-level conflicts that kill innocent people to no good purpose.

Niaz: As a global citizen what are our responsibilities for stop killing each others?

Stephen: I think the first step is for global citizens to try to inform themselves about events, and not to trust just what their own governments and media are telling them. A second step is to develop empathy, by trying to imagine how international problems look to others. We don’t have to agree with those whose interests may be different, but we should try to figure out how they see things, and why.  

Niaz: As you know, there are millions of NGOs and social organizations who work for removing poverty, protecting our environment and so on. But what happens in reality? Business Organizations do the harm. Chinese version of capitalism doesn’t work. Governments are corrupted. And NGOs form for doing good. NGOs keep taking donations from business organizations to survive. Overall, this is a strong circle which continues for hundreds of years. Where do our core problems reside actually?

Stephen: I think we need to be very careful here. There are many NGOs and business organizations who do wonderful work in a number of areas. At the same time, there are other organizations whose activities are actively harmful. What we need most is greater transparency: the more we know about what different organizations are actually doing, and the more we know about who is paying for these activities, the easier it is to judge whether they are a positive or negative force.

Niaz: Do you think we can remover poverty by these poverty removal activities?  Why or Why not?

Stephen: Yes, but the record here is mixed. On the plus side, economic development in countries like China and India have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and similar miracles have occurred in a few other places. But on the negative side, the gap between the richest countries and the poorest has actually grown over the past 100 years. When you combine this level of inequality with global communications you have a recipe for trouble, because people in the poorest countries or the poorest sectors can see how the wealthy people are living.

Niaz: What are your ideas to remove poverty and to make life better to contribute in this mother earth for making it a better place?

Stephen: I’m not an expert on economic development, but I think there are several obvious answers here. First, the only way to eliminate poverty is to increase productivity. Second, increasing productivity requires increasing educational levels, and bringing women into the work force in large numbers. It also rests on eliminating barriers to investment and trade, while at the same time creating a legal and regulatory environment that discourages corruption and prevents excessive concentrations of political power in the hands of the wealthy. But none of this is easy or automatic, and when you add it all up, you can see why sustained economic growth is so difficult to achieve.

Niaz: Any last comment?

Stephen: Only this: it is tempting to look for radical solutions, in the belief that some bold stroke will suddenly solve all our problems.   But I think history shows that grand schemes that are supposed to produce some magical solution rarely work, and often cause great misery. Human progress is due to more to patient, steady, trial-and-error efforts, and not from idealistic visions.

Niaz: Dear Stephen thanks again for your invaluable time. We are really enlightened with your ideas, knowledge and experience. We wish you good luck for all of our endeavors. Take very good care of yourself.

Stephen: You are welcome Niaz.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

1. Peter Klein on Entrepreneurship, Economics and Education

2. Derek Sivers on  Entrepreneurship, CD Baby and Wood Egg

3. F. M. Scherer on Industrial Economy, Digital Economy and Innovation

4. Diego Comin on Entrepreneurship, Technology and Global Economic Development

5. Joseph Nye on Global Politics

6. Juliana Rotich on Social Entrepreneurial Innovation

Joseph P. Newhouse: Health Economics

Editor’s Note: Dr. Joseph P. Newhouse is the John D. MacArthur Professor of Health Policy and Management at Harvard University, Director of the Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Chair of the Committee on Higher Degrees in Health Policy, and Director of the Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy.  He is a member of the faculties of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Medical School, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, as well as a Faculty Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

You can read his full bio from here, here and here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed Joseph P. Newhouse recently to gain insights about his ideas, research and works in the field of health economics which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Joseph, thank you so much for joining us. We are very honored and delighted to have you at eTalks.

Joseph: It’s my pleasure to join with you.

Niaz: You received B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Harvard University. Following your Bachelors degree, you were a Fulbright Scholar in Germany.  You are John D. MacArthur Professor of Health Policy and Management at Harvard University, Director of the Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Chair of the Committee on Higher Degrees in Health Policy and Director of the Inter-faculty Initiative in Health Policy.  At the beginning of our interview can you please tell us about your educational journey and the transformation of your career from Economics to Healthcare?

Joseph: I have always thought of myself as an economist who worked in the applied area of health and medical care.  After I finished graduate school I joined the RAND Economics Department, intending to spend about half my time working on projects related to health and the other half of my time in other applied areas of economics.  In the domain of health I was interested in the demand for medical care and early on designed what became known as the RAND Health Insurance Experiment.  That projected required my full time – really more than full time – attention for 15 years, by which time I had given up any notion that I would work on topics not related to health and medical care.

Niaz: You are one of the nation’s top health economists. What do you think about health economics?

Joseph: I think health economics has two main streams of work.  One relates to medical care, with the seminal paper being Kenneth Arrow’s 1963 American Economic Review paper, Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.”  This stream focuses on issues that arise because the market for medical goods and services differs in so many ways from the model of a perfectly competitive market in introductory economics textbooks.  The second relates to health as opposed to medical care, with the seminal work being Michael Grossman’s 1972 Journal of Political Economy paper, On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health” and his earlier National Bureau of Economic Research Monograph, “The Demand for Health.”  This line of work focuses on the actions of individuals that affect their health, and sometimes the health of others as well, including not only seeking medical care but also investing in education and engaging in various behaviors that are either beneficial or detrimental to health.

Niaz: What are the nucleus aspects of health economics that every policy maker should keep in mind?

Joseph: In answering this I take the perspective of a middle or high income country; the issues in low income countries differ somewhat.  The issue at the front of mind of most policy makers I interact with, as well as most citizens, is the cost of medical care.  In almost every country spending on medical care has risen faster than income, meaning it takes an ever larger share of tax revenue and often of households’ after tax income as well.  There are, of course, a huge number of suggestions and approaches coming from health economics to address the cost of care, but in the interest of being succinct, I will just mention two, both of which relate to the distinction between a high level of cost and a high growth rate of cost.

Every health care system has its share of inefficiencies; not surprisingly, most solutions proposed for dealing with health costs are directed at these inefficiencies.  One example is reducing paper work.  Although it is laudable to reduce inefficiency, success means one will have achieved a once-and-for-all reduction in cost, which will not necessarily reduce the steady state growth rate of cost.  In other words, once the inefficiency is eliminated, those savings have been achieved and costs will start to rise again unless a new action is taken.  Yet in the long run it is the steady state rate of growth that is the larger problem.  In other words, by all means minimize inefficiencies, but ultimately policy makers need a strategy for dealing with the growth rate.  Peter Orszag, when he was the director of the US Congressional Budget Office, called such a strategy this bending the curve.

The second observation relates to policies that address cost.  The growth in health care cost stems partly from the growth in income and partly from new and improved methods for treating patients of all sorts such as new drugs, new medical procedures, new medical devices, new imaging, and new diagnostic tests.  Growth in income and growth in knowledge interact; the developers of the new therapies expected to find a market for them, or they would not have proceeded to develop them.  Efforts to reduce the growth rate of cost will almost certainly slow development, but need to be done in a way that considers the benefits that may be foregone by adopting the new policy.  There are many diseases for which current therapy is not very effective, for example, many cancers as well as Alzheimers and other neurodegenerative diseases.  It would be worth giving up quite a lot to have effective cures for these diseases.  I hear too many discussions where it sounds as if the only objective is to reduce cost or the growth rate of cost rather than reduce or eliminate those activities that do not provide sufficient benefit.

Niaz: As you know, millions of people are now living under poverty line. They can’t afford to have food every day. Health care is mostly a day dream for them. After living hand to mouth they depart. And it has been happening decades after decades. What are your suggestions to save those people to live a healthy life and to contribute for this mother earth?

Joseph: My expertise pertains to higher income countries, but economic growth has pulled tens of millions out of poverty in China and India, and many low income countries have started to grow at good rates.  Such growth not only means higher household incomes but also enables public investment in infrastructure that can improve health.  That plus good governance are undoubtedly important in helping these people.

Niaz: Why private Medicare plans don’t cost less?

Joseph: Private Medicare plans are called Medicare Advantage plans.  They generally provide those who join them rather than joining traditional Medicare lower premiums, lower cost sharing, and/or additional covered services, but this is in part because of higher reimbursement.  My own view is that the larger benefit of well run plans, however, is better medical management of many chronic diseases such as diabetes. (I should note that I am a director of, and own equity in, Aetna, which sells Medicare Advantage plans.)

Niaz: We are living in the age of superb technological innovation. Most developed countries are taking optimum advantage of technological innovation for better health care. What are your ideas for under developed, developing and poor countries to take the advantage of technological innovation to build a better health care?

Joseph: Again, my expertise is around higher income countries, but I think an innovation with large promise for low income countries is mobile telephony because medical advice can be given over the phone to lower level personnel when transportation to physicians with more training is not feasible.

Niaz: Different countries have different health care policies. According to you, what should be the most priority for a country in setting health care policy?

Joseph: Each country has its own values, traditions, and health care institutions which quite properly shape its policy. For that reason I doubt that there is a general answer to this question.  But aspects of life styles in many countries are inimical to health.  For example, obesity rates have increased rapidly in many countries, so much so that some demographers predict life expectancy will fall.  Any use of tobacco is damaging to health, and its use varies substantially among countries.  Trying to promote a healthy life style plus insurance coverage to protect households from being devastated financially by illness are priorities that seem applicable to a wide range of countries.

Niaz: What will be the potential challenges/roadblocks in the way of implementing those top priorities? How can countries achieve those priorities?

Joseph: Lifestyles are difficult to change, but we know that taxes can change use of goods such as tobacco.  Changing social norms also help; restricting the use of tobacco in public places, for example, has contributed to an overall fall in use.    Achieving universal coverage is largely a political issue, although there are certainly technical issues.

Niaz: Can you please briefly tell us about your book ‘Free for All: Lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment’? 

Joseph: The booksummarized the results of perhaps the largest health services research project ever done.  The Experiment was a randomized trial that varied the level of initial cost sharing for medical services; some families received all care at no cost to them, others had (approximately) a large deductible, and still others were intermediate.  The cost sharing was scaled down for lower income households.

The use of services clearly responded to what patients had to pay out of pocket; use was roughly 30 percent higher if patients didn’t have to pay that if they faced a large deductible.   For the average person we found minimal deleterious effects of cost sharing on health outcomes, but low income hypertensives had their blood pressure better controlled if care was free.  In addition, some families were randomized to a Health Maintenance Organization, where care was free if it was sought at the Organization.  Those families made markedly less use of the hospital than families in the fee-for-service system and we detected no adverse effects on their health.

Niaz: Our readers will also love to know about ‘Pricing the Priceless: A Health Care Conundrum’. Can you also please tell us about it?

Joseph: This book is an elaboration of the Walras-Pareto Lectures given in Lausanne in 1997.  I tried to summarize the many years I had spent on Commissions that advised the American Congress on setting reimbursement in Medicare.  I went through several examples of how easy it is to misprice in administered price systems and then went on to consider mixed systems of reimbursement, part fee-for-service and part capitation.

Niaz: You have been doing all exciting works in your whole career. You have achieved a wide variety of prestigious awards. You have been leading great organizations. What does excite you always to do the next big thing?

Joseph: To learn what is not known, to teach the next generation, and to learn from my colleagues.

Niaz: I have learned that you love to spend your spare time with your grandchildren and playing golf? Do you actually get spare time? 

Joseph: Most definitely.

Niaz: Can you please share us about the secrets of your sustainable remarkable career? 

Joseph: Thank you for the compliment.  I have tried to work on problems that I felt were important, and I have been blessed to have many wonderful colleagues who have helped me enormously.

Niaz: What is your advice to people who want to follow your footsteps?

Joseph: Choose important problems to work on that motivate you and are tractable, and surround yourself with persons whose skills complement yours.

Niaz: Any last comment?

Joseph: Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Niaz: Finally, we are grateful to you to have your precious time. Thanks again to share us your invaluable ideas, knowledge and experience. We wish you luck for your good health and impressive works.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

1. Peter Klein on Entrepreneurship, Economics and Education

2. Derek Sivers on  Entrepreneurship, CD Baby and Wood Egg

3. F. M. Scherer on Industrial Economy, Digital Economy and Innovation

4. Diego Comin on Entrepreneurship, Technology and Global Economic Development

5. Stephen Walt on Global Development

6. Juliana Rotich on Social Entrepreneurial Innovation

7. Joseph Nye on Global Politics

Barry Schwartz: Wisdom and Happiness

Editor’s Note: Barry Schwartz is one of the very few people who thinks Really Big. He is an American psychologist and Dorwin Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action at Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, where he has taught for thirty year. He spoke at TED Main Stage for three times. He has over 5 Millions Views on his three thoughtful, profound and impressive TED Talks: The paradox of choice, Our loss of wisdom and Using our practical wisdom.

He is the author of several outstanding books including: The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing and The Costs of Living. You can read his full bio from here, here and here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed Barry Schwartz recently to gain his ideas and insights about Wisdom and Happiness which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Schwartz, thank you so much for joining us. We are honored and thrilled to have you at eTalks.

B. Schwartz: My pleasure, Niaz.

Niaz: In 2010, you along with Kenneth Sharpe have published a book called ‘Practical Wisdom’. You call practical wisdom the “Master Virtue”. At the beginning of our interview can you please tell us about practical wisdom?

B. Schwartz: I call it the master virtue because it helps us decide whether, how, and how much to display other virtues. For example, courage is the mean (Aristotle’s word) between cowardice and recklessness.  It takes wisdom to find the mean.  Honesty is a virtue and kindness is a virtue but sometimes we have to choose between them.  Wisdom is what enables us to do so.

Niaz: You’ve said in the past that we’ve lost practical wisdom. How and when did we lose it?

B. Schwartz: Wisdom has to be nurtured by giving people the opportunity to use their judgment, get feedback, and improve their judgment over time.  We have substituted rules for judgment.  As a result, people can do the same job for 30 years and have the same bad judgment after 30 years as they had when they started.

Niaz: Why do you think “The good news is you don’t need to be brilliant to be wise. The bad news is that without wisdom, brilliance isn’t enough.”?

B. Schwartz: Because it takes judgment to do the right thing in the complex social world.  Being brilliant does not mean that you have good judgment.

Niaz: Can you please tell us about how wisdom applies to happiness?

B. Schwartz: Here is how I think wisdom applies to happiness.  Two key determinants of happiness are meaningful, engaging work and close relations with other people.  I think wisdom is essential for both of these things.  If you are wise, your work is better and your social relations are better.

Niaz: Why does ‘the secret to happiness is low expectations’?

B. Schwartz: Because we evaluate what we get by comparing it to what we expected to get.  If our expectations are too high, we’ll be disappointed with even good results.

Niaz: I have one other major question. You said that what makes people happiest is close relationships, not having things, even though these relationships constrain our choices. But don’t relationships also expand our choices — in a superficial way, by people giving us information about movies to see, places to vacation, etc. — and also in a more profound way, by giving us a chance to experience the world through other eyes, and see other ways of viewing things?

B. Schwartz: You don’t need close relationships to get movie recommendations.  Close relationships imply mutual concern and obligation.  That constrains choices.

Niaz: And in terms of happiness, what is your word on decision making?

B. Schwartz: My word is that too many options can undermine happiness inducing paralysis, bad decisions and dissatisfaction with even good decision.  So also can having standards that are too high—always wanting the best.

Niaz: You say that rules are the enemy of moral skill. But many people are saying that the country’s current financial meltdown was caused by an absence of rules and regulations.

B. Schwartz: Yes.  We need rules. Absolutely. But anyone who thinks that the “right” rules will solve the problem of financial irresponsibility is kidding him or herself.

Niaz: As you know, modern times, technological innovation and western prosperity have enabled us to do just about anything we want. What is the downside?

B. Schwartz: First, now that we can do anything we want, we can’t figure out what we want to do.  Also, we adapt to good things we experience in life so that they stop feeling like good things and we look for even better things.

Niaz: In 2005, you have published ‘The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less’. What is the “paradox of choice”?

B. Schwartz: The paradox is that more choice should enhance our sense of freedom but for many it leads to paralysis.  The paradox is that lots of choice should enable us to make better choices and thus be more satisfied but it makes us less satisfied.

Niaz: In the NYT magazine, scientist Roy Baumeister talks about decision fatigue: His theory is that too many decisions wear us out and negatively affect our judgment.

B. Schwartz: Yes, and he’s correct.

Niaz: What’s the scope of the paradox of choice?

B. Schwartz: I don’t know, but I suspect it applies to everything.

Niaz: What about outside consumer goods?

B. Schwartz: Jobs, places to live, what to study, where to study, romantic attachments.  It operates in all of those domains as well.

Niaz: What happens as we become more, if not over-reliant on filters?

B. Schwartz: Relying on filters helps us solve the problem of too much choice.  Of course the filters have to be good ones.

Niaz: How far would you take your experiment before you offer, to quote Henry Ford, “any color, as long as it’s black”?

B. Schwartz: I would never do that.  Choice is good.  The trick is to figure out how much choice allows us to derive the benefits of choice without paying the price.

Niaz:  Do you think people in their 20s and 30s are having more problems than earlier generations in making some of these major life decisions — are putting off choosing a career, a mate — some of those really big decisions?

B. Schwartz: Yes.  Absolutely.

Niaz: Finally, how do you nurture people to do the right thing?

B. Schwartz: You do it by setting an example, by giving people a chance to use their judgment and by being there to catch them when they fall and help them improve their judgment.

Niaz: Thanks again for joining us and sharing your enlightening ideas and knowledge. We wish you good luck as well as we want your healthy and safe life. Take very good care.

B. Schwartz: You’re welcome Niaz.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

1. Jeff Haden on Pursuing Excellence

2. Daniel Pink on To Sell is Human

3. Gautam Mukunda on Leadership

4. Derek Sivers on  Entrepreneurship, CD Baby and Wood Egg

5. Peter Klein on Entrepreneurship, Economics and Education

6. Naeem Zafar on Entrepreneurship for the Better World

Ryan Holladay: Technology and Music

Editor’s Note: Ryan Holladay is an American artist and co-founder (along with his brother Hays Holladay) of BLUEBRAIN, a music and technology duo creating site-specific sound installations, interactive concerts and GPS-based compositions for sites across the country.  He is a TED 2013 Fellow. WIRED dubbed Ryan and Hays as “pioneers” of location-based music composition.

Bluebrain has been featured in The New York Times, BBC World Service, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Engadget and Fast Company among others. Additionally, Ryan serves as the new media curator at Artisphere.  You can read his full bio from here.

eTalk’s Niaz Uddin has interviewed Ryan Holladay recently to gain his ideas and insights about Technology and Music which is given below.

Niaz: Dear Ryan, thank you so much for joining us. We are thrilled to have you at eTalks.

Ryan: Thanks for having me Niaz.

Niaz: You are a self taught musician.  Can you please tell us about your background and the evolution of your musical journey?

Ryan: Well self-taught isn’t quite accurate. I would say I’m just under-trained. I took piano lessons as a child and then learned other instruments along the way. But neither my brother and I (with whom I collaborate on everything) would consider ourselves masters of any instrument. I think the studio has always been our instrument. And with that, we are self-taught.

Niaz: You are the co-founder of ‘BLUEBRAIN’, a music and technology duo creating site-specific sound installations, interactive concerts and GPS-based compositions for sites across the country. Can you please briefly tell us about ‘BLUEBRAIN’?

Ryan: So Bluebrain stemmed from my brother and I dreaming up ideas that didn’t fit in the category of a normal band. We love performing music and releasing records, but we also have always talked about ideas of ours that didn’t really make sense within your touring band scenario. We were taking inspiration from conceptual art, landscape architecture and emerging technologies. So eventually in our mid-twenties, when our last more or less typical band ended, we formed Bluebrain with the idea that no ideas were really off the table. So yes, sound installation, interactive performances, even iPhone app development became central to what we were doing. So much so that the typical “band” label didn’t seem to fit us at all after a while.

Hays Holladay and Ryan Holladay

BLUEBRAIN: Ryan Holladay and Hays Holladay

Niaz: How many instruments you do play?

Ryan: I’ve always been better at piano and Hays is really an incredible guitarist. But really, neither of us are virtuosic. We use the studio and get by with the musical skills we have.

Niaz: What are your current projects?

Ryan: We have a number of things in the works right now, but primarily we’ve been spending time as visiting artists at Stanford University’s Experimental Media Arts Department working on a location-aware composition for Highway 1. It’s been a fun project and one that allows us to get to spend time on one of the most beautiful stretches of road anywhere in North America.

Niaz: WIRED dubbed you and Hays as “pioneers” of location-based music composition. What is location based music composition?

Ryan: Location-based music is the somewhat clumsy term we’ve used to describe a type of composition that uses GPS to sonically map a landscape. We have released 3 albums, each for a different location (The National Mall in Washington DC, Central Park in New York and Austin, Texas for SXSW Interactive), released exclusively as mobile apps. These aren’t albums you can download or purchase on a CD. That’s because the music and the landscape are intrinsically linked and they only work within the confines of the designated space. Musical nodes and pockets are geotagged throughout a park so that as the listener traverses the physical space, a musical score is unfolding around him or her. Think of it as a chose-your-own-adventure of an album.

Niaz: That’s really awesome. You serve as the new media curator at ‘Artisphere’. Can you please tell us about ‘Artisphere’ and your involvement with it?

Ryan: Artisphere is 3-year old arts space in Rosslyn, Virginia — just over Key Bridge outside of Washington DC. I am one of two curators and I deal with all of the new media work — so video art, film, sound art, anything that plugs in or is interactive. It’s a wonderfully symbiotic job that compliments my work as an artist very well — they’ve been really supportive of all of the work I do with my brother and I think our experiences with Bluebrain have introduced me to artists that I wouldn’t have met otherwise and have brought into Artisphere. I’m really fortunate to have such an amazing job.

Niaz: What do you think about the future of music?

Ryan: I don’t know how well I can answer that question, but I can tell you that my desire is to see artists and music companies start to innovate more than they have. I think music lends itself to disruption so much — not just in how we consume and share it but in how it’s created and enjoyed. As artists begin to explore more how to use these technologies, not simply to add bells and whistles to the old model, but to dream up new ways to experience music in our everyday lives, I think things will get more and more exciting.

Niaz: By the way, my heartiest congratulation for you on being selected as TED Fellow 2013. What are your favorite TED Talks?

Ryan: There are so many! I’ve always had a fondness for talks about architecture. Having lived in Seattle for a while, I really loved ‘Joshua Prince-Ramus‘ talk on creating the breathtaking Seattle Public Library.

Niaz: When are we going to see your TED Talk? 

Ryan: Hopefully sometime soon! They don’t tell me when the talk will hit the web but I’ll be sure to let you know when it goes live.

Niaz: Ryan, thanks so much for your time and ideas. All the best wishes for your all upcoming projects.

Ryan: You’re welcome and good luck to you too.

_  _  _  _  ___  _  _  _  _

Further Reading:

1. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger on Big Data Revolution

2. Gerd Leonhard on Big Data and the Future of Media, Marketing and Technology

3. Ely Kahn on Big Data, Startup and Entrepreneurship

4. Brian Keegan on Big Data

5. danah boyd on Future of Technology and Social Media

6. Irving Wladawsky-Berger on Evolution of Technology and Innovation

7. Horace Dediu on Asymco, Apple and Future of Computing

8. James Allworth on Disruptive Innovation