Furthermore in the last days some people have warned me that I should not give up posting and write more frequently. It’s a bit difficult because right now I’m so immersed in my Industrial Engineering exams and all the work I do as a freelance web designer that I simply can’t spend my time writing. Anyway, once I read “there’s always time for the things you really like”, so I think I don’t really have an excuse.

Talking about university, one of the subjects I had this year was Industrial Economy; I have become more and more interested in this field for some time now. This interest mostly comes in terms of my field – if I really have a field where I grow and develop – from the preoccupation of not only provide users with tools so they can kick ass, but also make it in the most efficient way; i.e. do great shit.

Anyway, it usually doesn’t work like that. And this conflict is what Economy is all about.

If we come back some posts ago I wrote that there’s always somebody who will explain whatever you are dealing with much better and in a more intelligible way than you. Then I was talking about Punset and now I confirm this with a book I have recently read, Freakonomics. It doesn’t have a real line of thinking but recount how the World is controlled by the everyday details and the fact that we usually don’t notice this relationship due to their relative minor importance; all this studied from the point of view of an economist.

In due time reading Freakonomics I could find a plausible answer to my Openness concern, which is based in the fact that when there’s a lack of openness, or as they properly name it Information Asymmetry, somebody expects to make a profit somehow or other. This phenomenon happens in Economy as in the Real World™; in fact if how we would like the Real World™ was belongs to moral, Economy explains how really is.

Returning to my Economy classes something we studied was price elasticity of demand, which is the reaction (more or less marked) of the consumers to an increase or decrease of some product price. This involves a pile of factors that are involved in the behaviour of every consumer such as its income or the prices of the rest of the products, which finally determine the elasticity or inelasticity.

So, why not extrapolate the elasticity to web development? Not that elasticity. What I am saying is that we could explain the users reaction to a redesign, to the inclusion or removal of functionalities, etc, through the elasticity associated to every website or web service. They definitely don’t feature the same characteristics and not every user will respond in the same way, because of their inherent factors that we can devise somehow through agile methodologies and iterations; release early, release often. Moreover if all this work is supported by measurement and proper analysis of metrics we can be ahead and anticipate what users demand and the coolest thing: put all the efforts in those modifications that in the end will reinvest in the own web service by a positive reaction from users.

And this is my favorite part, where somebody has already rambled on this topic, and explains it much better than I. Now I have to find it and learn as much as I could.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

I love the situations, the memorable quotes, the people – like Punset himself – that make me think and make my brain exercise; and some time ago I read or listened the question “How could I stop being myself?”. It has took me ages to find the source googling since the vast majority are self-help entries that have nothing to do what the topic I’m talking about; anyway it certainly belongs to the Marketing guru Geoffrey Moore and his book Crossing the Chasm, which deals with innovation at the enterprise.

How could anybody stop being oneself?

After thinking it for some time and rack my brains I came to the conclusion that it is simply impossible not being oneself. Even when somebody is a fake, the fact of being a fake belong to the personality of that person; and when somebody intends to change and finally he does that person’s behaviour hasn’t changed, he is being himself as long as he decides to change and has de determination to do it.

Of course I am not an specialist nor a psychologist, although I am very interested in the people’s behaviour field, and I am speaking from the ignorance of somebody who hasn’t studied years of how the mind works and the problems and tricks it has.

So, what do you do to be yourself?

P.S: At the end of the interview Punset said that one sure thing for the human race is that we are afraid for change and even if we know we are wrong we make biased decisions. Well, some people not.

I myself have to attend classes in the University where the teacher does not care at all about the students performance and I can tell this affects the outcome, creating a vicious circle that is hard to break. Of course there are exceptions but they are very rare.

Besides professions, when it comes to blogging I don’t understand those people who have a blog just because the fact of having it. They don’t mind updating frequently, they don’t mind writing interesting and original content… why do people bother having it?

Furthermore the other day I found that somebody plagiarized one entry in a commercial blog, from another personal one. That is none of my business but I can’t understand the reasons to do it. Since I write in a commercial blog I try to do my best to provide every post with great value in form of opinion, or just differentiate it from the others.

I cannot understand it. So, the question arises “Why don’t people love what they do?“

However if you digg deeper – or go straight to the wikipedia article –  you will find that not only this is a way of software development but also a way of life. Literally:

Openness is a philosophy that is being used as the basis of how various groups and organizations operate. It is a relatively new term to describe this general way of doing things.

Of course, this is obvious, but I’d like to emphasize this relationship between software and personality.

I’m a relatively open person, in the sense of transparency and even predisposition to be critical against what isn’t beneficial for me (or for anybody I care about). In fact, I think that it’s good to be open.

Why not to be open? If so, the case is that you are hidding something. Why? Is it that bad so must remain veiled? Maybe, because in a long term it’s better than let anybody know about it. But, why not achieve this benefit by (what could be called) fair means instead some other way that cannot be revealed.

It occurs similar to software. I’m keen on Open Source software because I think knowledge must be free. Anybody must be able to know how things occur and why if you press one button it causes an action in your screen. As always not everybody is aware of that or have the same interests but, if there’s just ONE person that want to know it, in my opinion, that knowledge must be transferred.

Value isn’t in some information that you know and others don’t. Value is when you know how to apply that information better than others.

However, here comes disruption. Would you be determined to make use of proprietary software if it meets your needs? Or let’s approach the problem differently. Would you date with a girl or a boy (in case you are a female, that is quite difficult if you are reading this) that makes you happy, although you previously know won’t be open to you? In this case you have to blindly trust your partner or piece of software.

It’s a difficult dilemma that everyone will solve up to their way of living. What would you do?