One human species? Yeah.

The urge to group humans by those who invented race was not just about delusions of their own superiority, was also about an easier handle.

Like in the United States for American slaveowners, group punishment required group identification.

But is like with the label Asian as used in my country. To an American racist, if you have some people from China, some people from South Korea, North Korea and Japan in the same room? They are to THAT racist all SIMPLY Asians.

And said person may make various claims about them as a group, as if their nationalities were irrelevant. But also if they are subordinate in some way, like are employees at same company? That racist might talk of a group policy--towards Asians.

So is also a way to lower the importance of human difference. Like by claiming that frictions for historical reasons between Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are irrelevant for that person, an American racist can in effect claim that such things are tiny in comparison to a perceived greater dominance.

Does give me problems will admit, as various titles for groupings in the US have shifted finally to Black for many, or African American. But for Black folks who go visit the African continent, can be jolting have heard: In a place where your skin color does not supposedly provide any grouping at all.

Being dark skinned in Africa? Why would that be considered a race indicator?

Of course race is a social construct, and we can trace out why was constructed, but does not change continuing impacts. Like slave masters also wanted to be able to whip their slaves for punishment, but whipping an adult, never whipped? That person can go into shock and die. A solution might brutally use to prepare for the shock? -- Beat children to get them ready for the whip as adults. Was myself beaten with a leather belt by my father so brutally at 6 years old, my legs were bleeding. Slavery ended over 150 years ago. We have to face these things though.

Talk more on my blog Lost in Commentary: Facing the legacy of American slavery

So why not talk these things? I find the subject fascinating even though can be distressing. But one of the weird things about racists is the belief that they had awesome ancestors which makes them awesome too. So have noticed this insistence as if the history of American slavery somehow diminishes my ability. It does not.

Have talked some on my blog Seriously Commercial: Greek slaves would have laughed

People can have all kinds of wild ideas: especially when people wish to diminish or dominate others. But what YOU believe? Is still really up to you. I say that to also say: no excuses.

In our times the web lets truth flow freely. So you can read up on humanity, and learn how we are one species. You know, if you're actually curious, you know, about being human.


James Harris

When the planet is your stage

One of my favorite posts a while back was: Who makes me? Can I make you? Nah.

Where we have a much better situation now thanks to the web where you really primarily have to perform, and people all over the planet MAY be interested, based on what YOU deliver.

But how do people all over planet Earth know about any particular person? And that's where promotion of some type is required. Best is word-of-mouth where someone notices something you have and tells someone else, especially excitedly. And that can sweep the globe.

Happened for me with plenty of things, like note have 100+ countries global reach annually from my open source project Class Viewer. All I did was put it up on a site called SourceForge back in 2004. Others did the rest.

But that's just one thing. I like to keep at least three things pulling attention from 50+ countries from at least 3 continents annually, which I do, and more, but that's a baseline I've arbitrarily chosen. And includes this blog which managed 50+ this year.

Yeah am kind of spoiled by attention but humbled by LACK OF MONEY, which is lots about my paranoia of money people, I guess. Am working on it. But the attention draw is the objective reality I experience, proving my ability to interest people like YOU all over our planet. Is cool.

So how can someone like me maybe appear to matter much to promotional reality?

In my opinion you have folks who are under-promoted, often by their agencies or whomever is in charge of their marketing. Where often is country focused. Like organizations who still struggle to grasp how the web has changed things will have a global act, tied up in relentless national based promotion.

Or even worse, you can have a person who can be global who is trapped in city by city promotion because of Old School management.

Someone like me notices, and puts up a tweet, or a pin, or whatever and just like that--that person or group is GLOBAL. And if step up to that plate, whoosh!!!

(Oh yeah notice, no money required and is the best kind of promotion really.)

If they are NOT under-promoted then is just one more fan thing. Which to me is more fun. I prefer when just feel like one more happy fan among MILLIONS versus thinking, wow, I helped someone whose agency is clueless.

Brilliant acts being under-promoted is a modern weird, which I think should go away as we all get more used to modern web reality.

As people learn, you have people get to their level on their own faster and faster and it is all about YOU. Does help to do things to get noticed, of course, showcasing what you do best, and proving you have what it takes to deliver, day after day, or night after night--preferably for years.

Really it's also about you if you are letting some person or organization only promote you in a city or something dinky when you should be promoted in 20+ countries. Or 50+ countries. Or over the entire freaking planet.

You need to have web sense.


James Harris

Social disruption is good for your attention

Finally have a better handle on how the web is transforming our globe with respect to our attention, which also involves our time. And for YEARS have hyped that wonder of efficient and easy distribution of information that the web provides, but the attention reality is about finding quality content.

That is disrupting prior attention industries. Where I no longer have to talk about the hypothetical of whether or not television shows were good or not, as we can just watch which ones are still here.

Like Star Trek was better than I even realized. And so many other television shows were SO much worse, and people are deciding on the constant now. The pressure against current television shows is not just with each other, but with whatever content is available, including from the past.

The television model was not what I thought, and is now evolving as web completes absorption of television, and folks can learn how such shows actually become successful.

The correct attention model learned with my own content is rather constant, with bursts of attention happening here or there in a way I now consider not terribly interesting. Have had things of mine in their own way go viral for a bit. Have dealt with bursts of celebrity in certain areas here and there.

And realized is a very big world, when you consider billions of people, and what interests them.

Have focused so much on television often and in this post as was so dominant in my life. And I learned some really wrong lessons from what I thought I knew about television. While now I rarely talk in detail and especially stay away from current shows--as I do not wish to accidently crush them.

Being able to channel the interests of millions with such a limited thing as television is, gave a lot of power to certain people and helped fuel a lot of industry, especially advertising. Now advertising has to evolve, and I think is great.

While I had to invest vast amounts of time and attention in figuring out web systems, with the money thing in the distance, until it became the biggest thing. Where I found out you do not need money to be global if you have interesting content.

Right now am stuck in a homeless shelter in Macon, GA, USA as try to figure out the money thing. Yet I can shift the reality for just about anything on television without much effort. And I no longer think being on TV would be a big deal. Am more global than much.

How can someone like me consistently put up content that draws attention from around planet Earth, year after year after year? And how do I connect that safely to some way to make money?

Such things I ponder.

Our species I think is very peculiar. More I pay attention to what from me keeps getting global attention? More I wonder. To me now television industry is tiny, but still kind of interesting, some times. They DO still try. Maybe now they will learn to be much better.

They had better, if television industry wishes to survive and am sure it will. I have an odd faith I think where maybe should question more why. Television industry is competing with a web of attention from all over. And people have standards now unlike before.

Today we can compare past as well as present in our decisions on best content. And choose at a moment what best moves us, or maybe those close to us. And it IS important to each, as is about how best to spend precious time.

Is yours--your time. You only have so much in a life.


James Harris

How do we know web success?

Have been pondering quite a few things and found myself relentlessly checking a LOT surveying systems of the world. And yet it did not occur to me to really ask how is it that I think something on the web is successful.

And the sad answer is: have yet again been using prior metrics which really learned in the 20th century, where metric just means measure. When I should have known better.

Have emphasized ease of the web with information distribution. Discovered from my own story that something useful travels well. And found myself struggling to find an explanation for MY money difficulties, until yet again realized should look broader.

Yet again reason could not find a conspiracy around myself would seem to be a broader suppression, which is so weird am more speculative here.

But consider, like a music artist could conceivably with the direct connect of the web, make money, from fans buying songs directly, and I think to myself there are those who do, right? I remember an example in a documentary I saw a while back.

And yeah am vague on subject. Who IS making money on the web? Besides certain HUGE corporations I refuse to name.

Then getting to questions of success. So much focus is on social media. And I really don't know, though have an explanation based on entertainment value for how people who are entertaining would get big social media counts. However only now can we really look to how those correlate with ANY other measure, as have the gift of time.

Can just consider how big social media numbers match with anything else for a person.

So am more speculative here. Have assumed much was seeing success on the web where am not so sure now, but am not sure was not. Like aren't there bloggers who make money? I think there are influencers in lots of areas who end up with agents, who are some of the folks I call money people, and dawns on me, am not sure really how they actually justify monetary amounts.

The full potential of the web? Could put a lot of money people maybe out of work? I guess. Really hadn't thought of them much until recently. Did they figure something out though? Quickly? When challenged? If so, what?

What if though, and here am speculating to the wild limit, the money people are working to make sure you have to go through them? But how would they do it? Ok, will say this direction may be a wacky stretch. But will post as is my blog. And posting helps me get web help, as the ideas flow.

How do we know web success? From whom do we get this information? The public information is there with social media at least, which usually is follower numbers and such. Already talked that though.

And yeah, am focused away from web commerce where of course people are buying things through the web like through a few big companies will not give free advertising by naming. Though I know they do not need it.


James Harris

Advanced communication perspective

Recently began talking social media as just a phrase for advanced communication tools, more akin to the telephone than television, as yeah, people CAN respond to you, you know? And communication on social media at its best is a conversation.

That simple concept had me promptly thinking about over a hundred years ago when telephones arrived. And imagine, someone back then wondering what was the point of talking into some gadget when you could just walk over and chat with your neighbors like a sensible person? As imagine something hypothetical maybe was said or thought in the past as similar in my mind to puzzling over why some people in our times wish to share pictures of their food.

And started typing this post and making sure to verify what I was confident was correct about telephones and arrival time was surprised was earlier than I remembered. A Google search gave the answer of 1876 as when Alexander Graham Bell called his assistant Thomas Watson. Yeah I know the story, but forgot the date.

Well quickly reminded with web authority, which is phrase I use to talk about the information we get that easily with web search being the primary way have in mind now. Where others use phrase differently am sure. But I defined authority functionally as authority relative to one entity is when some other entity has information needed.

Then easily web authority is when the web has some information I need, like knowing when the telephone arrived.

And social media is a back-and-forth conversation potentially which is far more advanced than technology gave in the past, which to me is more definitive when trying to understand. Is SO useful, so to me is a functionality that helps explains.

Where television was more broadcast, though yeah there were attempts at getting feedback, here and there. And even shows that rely on it, like voting, for singing competition-type shows.

Which leads me to thinking that the web in its absorption of television will change television, ever more rapidly until is nothing like it was in the past, and the conversation will rule there as well.

Which is how you quickly move with some basic ideas to big prediction, and talk a space in a way which I think of as meta. So in defining meta space around social media with this post, am labeling it in that way which you can see below.

James Harris

Web attention reality challenges

Feel like have usually avoided talking negatives associated with our new ease of information distribution reality possible over the web and with good reason. Along with so much positive in being able to share globally, you can also discover how easily people can reach out in negative ways.

And why do they? Well lots of reasons but in my opinion often you discover some territoriality which is not justified where for instance a complete stranger may believe should have control over YOUR free speech.

A routine example have noticed is when people order celebrities to not talk politics on social media.

In the United States where freedom of speech is a cherished ideal that is especially remarkable. And sure you can be upset with someone's politics. But what delusion makes you think you have power over that other person?

The ease of social media can reveal people willing to use insults or threats of physical aggression in areas that surprise. And in my experience is just about the numbers.

Once you draw attention into the thousands? From what have witnessed, you WILL have people who will attack you in some way on the web. And that from what I've noticed is without regard to anything else. Is just about the numbers.

To some people apparently just receiving attention at certain levels makes you a target.

Was very important for me to learn as naturally in the past DID tend to consider more factors when facing negatives only to find--there were none. It was an adjustment needed to view attention itself as only trigger for some to lash out at you.

The information distribution reality created by the web age is primarily positive am certain. I do talk it gleefully a LOT. But also sheer ability to potentially reach you can mean that people can attempt for a variety of reasons.

And negative attention is not a subject I talk much because for one thing I think it's silly behavior but also can be dangerous or very irritating. However, have noticed that if there is a lot negative about you out there, there are people who MAY trust it.

People are getting smarter about the web as we learn from experience as a globe.

But should also acknowledge, that hey, negatives about a person may be true! But also may be made up, or misleading, from someone expecting to get away with it.

Which is another reason that people engage in such behavior. Like maybe if enough of them can be hostile to public people, like to a celebrity, then they can silence them on a subject.

Society is getting smarter about that behavior, thankfully.


James Harris

When truth is just the start

So yeah have opened up a LOT recently about an important year for me, as in 2004 had a memorable event where was validated by two anonymous peer reviewers and an editorial decision to publish a pivotal math paper of mine, where I demonstrated how to appear to prove something by the same rules that said it was wrong.

Cool!

Well after the chief editor must have, who knows, he tried to literally delete out of what was an electronic journal, which managed one more edition before it keeled over and died, I like to say. A European organization maintains archives, so you can see where chief editor deleted out. (Was 2003 edition which actually went live late in early 2004.) But that European organization called EMIS also maintained my original paper with a separate link! So cool.

Which I've noted before. Where have, um, not noted that didn't really mess ME up that much. Sure practiced a bit talking with world press, for interviews that probably, ok yeah, should have happened. But when didn't? For me, was a shrug.

Why would mathematicians, specifically number theorists try to run away from a result showing a clever person could both appear to prove and disprove something in a paper?

Well let's speculate and use our imaginations. Imagine you're a top number theorist at a prestigious university, with accolades and awards, and some nobody who isn't even a mathematician gets a paper published, which reveals you have NO significant mathematical accomplishments at ALL. None.

Your papers? On which you had so much pride? False because of some esoteric math thing and God knows, why should such a thing exist? And how could it not have been found a century ago?

Why you?

Your entire life is built on an esoteric mathematical error that entered the field before you were born and what chance did you have?

So imagine that hypothetical person, who is probably male as field is dominated by males. And now over 13 years later, he has simply lived his life. What would YOU have done?

For me, who cares. I'm a major discoverer who was freed upon the world after doing my due diligence. And kept discovering things, without being hassled with other things, like wearing a suit much. Or teaching classes. Or making speeches. Or grading student homework if I'd ever bother is kind of thing grad students do. Or yuck, being in places with supposedly important people, congratulating me on how great I supposedly am.

Yeah, I lost nothing. And joking above to some extent as am NOT a mathematician, and do NOT see myself as an academic. Is just not appealing to me.

And was probably going to just let things ride with my blogs and disclosure as is harsh. Those mathematicians back then? Yeah dealing with something not known. But teaching invalidated math concepts to new students? Actually is evil. Yeah that is the appropriate word. That does puzzle me a bit, as how could anyone do such a thing? They're condemning their students in what I think is a deliberate act, while they didn't have that chance. The research generated doesn't actually work either, in case you're wondering. It's just wasted human effort. And the truth is KNOWN. I proved it dramatically.

How can mathematicians have research that is BOGUS without that revealing itself? They do what they call pure research which has little or no practical application. So can't be seen by it failing in the real world. Is such a pat system. Very hard to get anywhere against such a thing.

Got much more upset years ago about students, but what can I do? So also why have tried to be sure the information is available. So maybe they can come across it and save themselves.

So yeah, have it on my blogs.

The truth is out there, you know?

That got me powerfully motivated for a bit years ago but such a slog! The truth was just a start and was dealing with powerful social forces. As these folks I guess have been relying heavily on same, as I have tried things. And as years go by, in between doing my own research which is important to me and NOT doing it would have been not good, also probed solutions to what I call, the social problem.

Lately that got a bit of urgency with my latest. Found yet another mathematical discovery less than six months ago, though no longer really looking. And is first addition to a certain area in over 200 years. As I found a new fundamental way to do something called a modular inverse. Where last person can see in the record who had a new fundamental was Euler, back in 1763 according to this article just read this morning as finally got curious enough. Only other primary technique is something called extended Euclidean algorithm relying on ideas, yeah, go back to Euclid. Um, he was around couple of thousand years ago, but you knew that am sure, right?

One would think only a few humans in human history could come up with such a thing. Just the way it was done required using advanced number theory I discovered. But enough about me. Joking yeah. Just seems hard to process.

The concepts could impact global security systems that rely on some of these things, which forced me to accept that maybe I've had enough fun, ranging.

Can you imagine though? Knowing you have these truths which will NOT go away, and you just get to hang with folks who have no clue as there are these odd failures in human systems?

Is like a dream.

That's weird. I know, but like hanging out with folks without all that other.

Apparently parts of me are more responsible though, and have pressured me into doing the right thing. Isn't that such a phrase.

So what can you do? Probably nothing much. Need governments for this kind of thing. They've been a bit more obtuse than I expected.

Governments really need to wake up soon. If you ARE in government, then check the story. Verify the facts, and then accept the truth.

Am concerned about an open door. Yeah I opened with research, but the truth was always there.

I just found it. I'm simply the discoverer.


James Harris

My blogging reality

One of my favorite posts is from 2016, when I decided to give MY advice on how to use Twitter without getting many followers, which to me could also highlight how contrary I can be. And if curious here is a link to that post.

For those who'd like a synopsis upfront gist of it is: don't be entertaining.

If YOU think I'm entertaining then that is another subject and will not explain why I think that is in this post. But if you think about it long enough, you should be able to figure out why.

At that time I had 144 followers on Twitter which I noted and somehow, despite my efforts I currently have 196, where will admit have been pushing myself to allow it to go higher which may be why it is that high.

To me such information should be useful. Like I have 4 blogs now and have been blogging for over a decade and suspect I have some skills developed. These skills involve me doing what I like to do, which is write a lot. And I even have a post I conveniently noticed for this post where I talk about liking to write.

Yet I feel I should emphasize that yeah, am serious. I DO like to write. And I do like keeping my social media accounts in comfortable zones for me. And if you like things that way, maybe you can do things like I do, and watch in amazement as you succeed at keeping things low.

If you want millions of followers though I wouldn't do things way I do. Because that would be moving in the opposite direction. Duh.

Will admit though have been doing much more discussion with myself with shifting a little bit, where convinced myself can do that and mostly not really shift things much at all.

Which to me? Makes a lot of sense.


James Harris

Functional reality of interest flow

The web allows a relentlessness of attention which is neither good nor bad in and of itself but to me is ALWAYS testing. The web probes. Those probes from the web check every aspect of something which means I take it for granted that every angle of something I put up public WILL get noted, in someway by someone.

So I like to talk of web as a singular abstraction but reality is human interest, and with public items that interest can flow 24 hours a day, every single day. Those endless checks fascinate me. I can watch the impact, and they help me find errors will note, no matter how small, like even minor grammar ones.

For me that functional reality is needed as for instance I will put up something with light editing and then edit over time. And part of the point is I'll get feedback by various means, which by now is hard to explain. One way is to note that at times posts will bubble up I like to say, as people seize upon something in them, and then I'll see that and study the post until see what drew the attention.

That can go back years. And at times it's like, why now? I don't know but can guess, and as years go by and experience this reality am recognizing I see things differently.

That constant flow of attention naturally seeks out error, so I can take that for granted. And I think it will be interesting over time to see how the web polishes certain areas.

My blogs contain the work product of constant attention from around the globe over more than a decade. With three blogs getting most of my focus during that time, while my latest less than two years old benefits from lessons learned.

The web polishes, as the attention flows, and finds every single little thing, no matter how small. If I notice then can fix! So I work at reading the signals.

It has dawned on me that my standards are now at a level I must be cautious when considering others who have less scrutiny.

To draw global attention for over a decade there is comfort in maintaining a standard that makes experience feel easier.

Though for me is usually a gentle thing now, where attention flows are a constant, ever present. So it's like sitting by an ocean watching the waves of attention, come in and go out.

That is a functional reality based on experience. I find that comforting.

It's not what I imagined would be.

It's what has been the experienced reality.


James Harris

Thoughts on Pinterest

So I link to this blog on my Pinterest account, and other accounts, while my other blogs have their own, but most social media links back to here for some reason. And I really like my Pinterest account for collecting things visually but also admit that it is nice to have an audience, and more I learn about that audience the more I find myself considering it as I pin things.

And, um, talked it more on my G+ account in a Collection where I muse on social media.

On my blogs I feel free to link to any social media that makes a point, and it's also about seeing what happens. Just curious.

Oh yeah, so at times I think hey, should talk Pinterest a bit for people who might wander over here, from there, as I link to this blog there.


James Harris

One way social media motivates me

Really like social media but really not good at that getting followers thing, which is ok with me. But got me wondering, what does it really mean? So was motivated by social media with SO much emphasis on follower counts or whatever is related to having TONS of people show popularity, to figure it out.

Not surprisingly given admitted low numbers, like have 165 Twitter followers which is actually up, have concluded am ok and one of my posts with suggestions for using Twitter actually starts by noting how to keep your follower count low. I'm serious too.

Puzzling out social media lead me to the conclusion that people build audiences by being entertaining. Which is kind of a duh. But realized then I wasn't quite certain what entertainment was, so I made up a definition. Yup. Am serious on that as well

To me getting a functional definition for entertainment, as that's in contrast to a descriptive one, because I was wondering what all those follower counts meant, is such a BONUS. And have had it for over a year now, and it changes my perspectives will admit.

For each of us, I think is an interesting question, how good am I at entertaining? And I think it very useful that I can explain that functionally, as really is about what you can sense in others and help them feel.

To me that's more to the fun of it. As I say it's all about moods. And how people safely control them. And am now in the mood to stop typing. And thankfully have complete control, so will wind down this post. And end things here.


James Harris

Web audience is real

Sometimes really am talking things out a lot for myself, which helps to build context. For me posting public knowing other people will read helps reinforce, and yes, make it real. And with the web, including social media, did find myself at times concentrating on numbers as abstractions, but remember, I'm not one.

And plenty of times have been on the web looking at something, from someone, and finally would think to myself, to this person I would just be maybe a statistic, as one of, a relatively few people checking something out! But of course to me doesn't feel that way. And has helped me to realize for people who do come across my content, they are NOT just numbers.

If one person is there that matters.

Needing to emphasize that message to myself is ALL about immediate feedback in my opinion and we may be the first humans to have the ability to talk to so many people with so little feedback. And it's just radically different than say, standing in front of an audience of people where you can GET a reaction from them of some kind so easily. Sure maybe you'll get that on web, but lots of times just will not.

But for EACH person coming across what you have public regardless, person's time and attention is important to that person, maybe can be even more than if sitting in an audience.

I want that sentence for me to ponder. And why? Well you're more free, say at home, reading something. As have been in audiences where am like, huh? And look around, to see how others are reacting. But with web things it's just me often. And my opinion can run from amazement and awe, to far, far less, and there's less likelihood there will be other feedback, except yes, some of those web metrics.

Like on YouTube will admit there are times I'm like, huh? And see, oh, millions of views, and tens of thousands of likes, so let me think harder on this thing. But without that? It's just my opinion on what am seeing, and to me? My opinion is very important to me, which is yes, meta.

But maybe that's the thing! The meta me reality of the web for the people coming across what you have is what's missing if you just see numbers and think about how YOU feel if a few hundred or less. But for EACH of those people?

Their attention is a really big deal.

And I think it is a transitory thing, as web is so new really even if it doesn't still seem it, where you can have people who may be calm about a few hundred with some social media metric, but imagine instead standing front of a few hundred people. If still calm then fine. If terrified, then guess what?

You were all along, whether you knew it or not, or accepted it or not.


James Harris

Hypothetical as speculate social media impact

Going to speculate wildly this morning because I see a use of social media I suspect can have the opposite impact intended, so want to talk it out. And I think it's where old ideas from television advertising run into the impact reality of the modern web, as will imagine a company with a product with one million followers on some social media, where to me that is an audience number.

But for this hypothetical scenario imagine that company posts several things to try and galvanize that follower group to buy something, and one percent or ten thousand interact, and one thousand purchase, which company sees as a good result.

However, I'm like--what about that other ninety-nine percent?

And the company finds it had a one time bump, but a yearly sales decline and found also that its favorability rating had dropped by fifty percent.

Just to put numbers on it, which I'll yank out of the air, say it had a sales decline of one hundred thousand units year over year across all product lines.

Now in this imaginary scenario where I made up lots of abstract figures, we see a company getting one time sales of one thousand units on posts to one million followers, which leads to a sales loss of one hundred thousand units.

Executives have a meeting where they are completely puzzled. They don't understand the power of social media! Maybe they think, they just need to invest in the one area where things seemed to work! So they pressure their social media person to do more of those posts!

Next burst of posts? They get one thousand positive interactions. Now there is a howl of negative feedback. And as company plummets, it dawns on the executives, social media killed their entire company. Company files for bankruptcy as its sales collapse.

And the world barely notices.

Ah, I like that as a fun social media horror story which is just my wild imagination. Is that scenario possible? 


James Harris

My suggestions on using Twitter

Currently have 144 followers at time of this writing--as that thing can change--on my Twitter account which I think is a decent number. Kind of wonder sometimes why it's that high, but I'll take it. And have some suggestions for those out there who wish to keep their follower count low.

First off, have posted already that "followers" I think is the wrong word, as is more an audience in my opinion. So yes, if you're not entertaining? Don't expect it to get high.

So yeah, don't try to entertain people if you wish to manage your follower numbers!

However human beings like to compare themselves to others so you get really weird behavior on Twitter. Like I try not to follow accounts that start following me for a while, as I noticed that some of them? Would wait to see if I followed and if I didn't they'd drop me!

They were JUST FOLLOWING TO GET FOLLOWERS which is utterly worthless behavior.

So they didn't care about what I was tweeting. No interest in me as a human being AT ALL. I was just a way to try and get one more number which is useless as it's an audience number. So it's like you have these people trying to fill an auditorium when they don't have an act.

And that's about it. Don't try to entertain people, and don't follow just to get a follow back, and you too, like me, can I believe successfully manage your Twitter account.

But DO follow accounts that interest you. Follow just enough to have as many tweets in your stream as you like, without being overwhelmed. And look for areas of interest to you when picking accounts to follow.

It's your time. Why not use it to get the best information you can from the accounts that deliver it to you consistently, accurately, and fast?

I like to call Twitter the social media power tool of the 21st century. And learning to use it takes WORK. Some people try things that leave me shaking my head. But hey, it's free. They can do what they want. And it's not like I know for sure they're wrong!

However I strongly suspect some people see follower count as a status symbol. Yeah, maybe for celebrities or organizations, but to me? It doesn't matter under a million.

So if you don't have a million or more followers? Your Twitter account doesn't have status with me in that way. But I'm just one person with an opinion. Maybe others might be impressed?

Occurs to me that's actually quite arbitrary. Just an obvious metric. So does less than a million matter? To me? Yes. But that doesn't mean that's actually meaningfully valid I guess by some way I can't even think would actually fit here as typing. Really not that important I guess to me.

But if you're chasing status that way? I think that's interesting. It IS so obvious if you're trying. Hard not to notice.

Twitter is a fascinating place. Lots of players using all kinds of ways. Getting to the top of the heap there? Well everybody has an opinion on that one am sure.

I prefer to just enjoy Twitter as one of the greatest tools for communication ever devised.


James Harris

Thoughts on idea and use complexity

To me before there was the notion of finding the great idea which could be complicated, but these days more and more think simple ideas rule where more important is great implementation. So I think idea complexity is a big deal, and can talk with some big name modern examples.

Like consider Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Instagram where have focused on social media that I routinely use. Sorry SnapChat, not there yet with you but suspect will get to it eventually.

And Twitter has extreme simplicity at its heart which is a short burst message. That is not a complex concept. And Facebook at its heart is a way to "friend" people for messages. While Google+ lets you add people to your circles. And Instagram is a way to post pictures.

Before taking over the world I suspect if you'd claim to someone, say, in the 20th century that such simple concepts could so dominate they'd have laughed at you. Ok, maybe not laughed, but probably looked puzzled. Back then I know as was around back then, was more the notion of complex and powerful ideas. But we see reality of simple and powerful ideas.

Here's one of my favorite Tweets from Twitter celebrating the concept:

Twitter is simply the best,
when you simplify, yes.
Too many words don't work.

Keep it simple--is not stupid.
It's a perk!

— James Harris (@jstevh) August 4, 2015

Which to me says so much.

It also highlights a reality that simple concepts can have levels of complexity though, as made use of whitespace to construct a structure versus putting all flat.

And Twitter actually has done a lot to let users get creative, including ways around limits on total words, where they use pictures with words in them, as pictures are allowed to be posted. That actually means I think that use complexity of Twitter is actually rather high as SO many ways to use it, even within its simple limits.

In contrast Facebook while seemingly broader in use, has I think less actual use complexity. Where I've felt that the company actually pushes people to use it in certain ways which means less to figure out! And may help explain rapid adoption.

But for instance, Facebook for a long time only let you "Like" something. Which I think was brilliant, and has only recently expanded how you do so, as it carefully raises use complexity.

In contrast, Google+ has am guessing some of the greatest use complexity of any social media though hard to characterize. And I find myself focusing on the concept of circles as powerful, but also gives an extraordinary amount of possibly complicated ways to use. And I've seen people usually just stick with a couple, myself included. And you have few limits on how you communicate, which I think fits with the philosophy of the parent company. But I think use complexity greatly slows adoption.

While Instagram has a simple concept, and is simple to use. And am not surprised is now controlled by Facebook, which am sure will keep it that way. And yes, plenty of people also find ways to increase use complexity on Instagram, for instance with photos with words, but even then, tend to use simply.

To me ideas are SO much fun. And ideas about ideas are meta-ideas and do find I go meta a lot, which is because I enjoy peeking behind the curtains of the show which is our ever more interesting reality.

Here have used idea complexity and use complexity as core concepts to explore some modern social media companies, with hypotheses about how usage can vary based on them.

Which is wild in a way, as am suggesting SIMPLE ideas, so low idea complexity helped lead to the dominance of certain social media, while usage complexity, can help explain their current total user numbers.

Twitter is in my opinion very complicated to actually use BEST, despite its simplicity in many ways. With Google+ which I prefer to call G+ coming in next. Followed by Facebook and then by Instagram, which I think has the lowest usage complexity.

But Facebook is the biggest in terms of total users, followed by G+, then by Instagram, and then Twitter.

Does that ruin my hypothesis then? I don't think so, as it gives me more room to ponder. But enough done already for one post! So will end here.


James Harris

What I think is future of social media

Reality that social media can allow easy communication with people of like interests all over the world will drive its future am certain. And shared interests are extremely important where I think the first phase of social media which is now, is not optimal to that view.

And in fact already put up a blueprint of what I think another type of social media company might be which I put up back December 2014, which is my Globloc concept. And re-reading it now it's rather dense reading! So a bit of warning if you chase the link.

Connected with it is my idea of expected alignment, where I posted the next month.

And to me the first paragraph talks what I think the future of social media is, while have continued with what I think are some possible solutions which will drive things towards that future. Which doesn't mean am right! But it is fun to pursue such avenues of thought for me, and gives me content for my blog.


James Harris

My take on social energy

Quite deliberately I find I don't talk on certain subjects related to social, which has to do with certain theories I have on the subject I just decided when thinking of this post to call social energy.

Not surprisingly LOTS of energy is involved with social activities, where web activities have the unique ability to unite a wide group of people into thinking related things, which actually literally involves energy as well. So there's also inertia involved, like how much energy and time it actually takes to have a given number of people know a certain thing.

Physicists could actually do rough calculations believe it or not.

Some people can try to ride social energy associated with people who draw lots of attention, and discovered that years ago, like in over a decade, when would find myself irritated in weird unending arguments about math on a place called Usenet. In one case I actually just kept at it to see and had some person arguing with me indefinitely on into the night.

I concluded that was not desirable so studied it.

Much to my chagrin realized I had been providing the social energy. As I studied how that happened, learned to cut it off, and something amazing! Arguments ceased. People might still reply to me, and usually I would not reply back, but that was just part of it, as that hadn't worked before.

So why not explain it?

Because then might have to rework everything as such people adjust. But gist of it is, if you're a person who wants attention without deserving it, then one way to get it is to try and ride along with someone who has it.

Then one person is moving in social media entirely by another person's social energy.

And that can be cut off and parasitic person can just fade.

The behavior is parasitic in that one entity is sucking the energy from another and if you see a social person with TONS of such people all over, said person can literally be driven off the web by them.

But I think the behavior can be countered and socially parasitic humans can be discouraged--if you're careful.

Maybe should add more. One thing is I try not to let another person decide how I am to respond. In some cases you really have no choice, like if a police officer or someone in authority needs a response, but some random on social media? Why let that person control you? Which when you think about it, is the point of an insult! The person insulting you wishes you to respond angry or hurt or in some negative way. So it's a control mechanism.

But why should you give them what they want?

On what basis does that person deserve attention, for instance? Like consider an insult yelled at the president of the United States from someone in a crowd? So what?

Trouble with social media is people can seem too close. And simply seeing that insult makes it feel like someone is right next to you. That is an illusion. That person is still probably just some distant figure. Why let randoms control you?

If they are close then why are they? Is that a reason to distance them? Can you use community to shame bad behavior? Community is AWESOME when it's on your side.

Distance though I think is the best protection. Figure out why you think a comment matters, then keep asking until you realize why it doesn't. If it does, then deal with appropriately, like if a peer is upset with you.

Also it helps to figure out what someone has invested in an opinion. Classic for me was when singing karaoke and after LOTS of people would come by to congratulate me on singing something, there would be that one person who would wait to calmly inform me how horrible I supposedly was. I found that fascinating.

To me opinions, especially quick ones, can be more about feeling than objective or even subjective reality. Someone can get mad at you because how good you are makes them feel bad, I theorize. I've watched it happen so many times though feel confident on that one.

Actually have done it myself and felt silly, as it's so wacky. I try not to compare myself to others unless am really competing with them, and even then cautiously. Nothing wrong with wanting to be the best in a category, but I try to make sure am checking against people somewhere near my competitive ability.

Regardless of what you do though, someone might still get to you with some nasty statement or comment which I guess is also why I don't like talking about it too much. Admitting that I don't have a complete solution doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's just a human reality. We can't completely control the ability of others to affect us.

Besides, am quite capable of expressing my opinion about someone that is not about positives, though follow certain rules. Like very important I think to try to tell the truth as best you can. Still it is an area where I ponder constantly as I don't want to be the thing I decry in others.

Just some thoughts. It's such a deep subject am wary of digging into it as could post for days. But main thing I think is asking yourself questions about why this particular person is grabbing your attention, especially if that person does not deserve it.


James Harris

Tweets local?

Find myself concerned about Twitter again, and started pondering where I think there is a problem with more people signing up to be on the platform and I think it's simple: plenty of people are hesitant about potentially talking to the planet.

And yeah an awesome strength of Twitter is that a public tweet can bounce around the world but what if that causes caution in plenty of people? Then they can sign up, yeah, but without tweeting themselves are likely to feel left out. And also Twitter relentlessly reminds you of your follower count, which is another subject, but not tweeting? Where is it likely to go?

So occurred to me quickly, wouldn't it be cool if there were an option for tweets to just be local?

And I'm brainstorming here, with just thoughts as a fan of Twitter, tossing things out on my blog. Does not matter for me if taken seriously or not. But if are? Cool.

But like, say you had to have location on, which is the one problem with this idea, and tweets tagged to a location, like say New York City, would only be shown by the Twitter platform to people IN that location? So like from San Francisco you couldn't see those tweets at all.

And you couldn't see them if you didn't give your location which is my one concern with this idea as I brainstorm it out. But you can cut on location to SEE such tweets if you arrive some place and cut it off, when you leave or just don't want to see those tweets.

So these would be special location specific tweets, while public ones would be just the same.

And of course there would be the caution that the tweets could still be potentially seen outside a location as people could figure out ways to share them but that the platform would only show them location specific.

So the Twitter platform would behave a certain way with them, and guess they couldn't be shared like public tweets which is another problem. Like no retweets except to local? But people can't see them to retweet them anyway. Or even if retweeted only would show local? Yeah that makes sense. So even if retweeted, for someone outside the locale they just wouldn't even show. The platform would just check: is user in location? If yes, show. If not, do not show.

You could do it by city or region maybe. It could even be user controlled though don't know how heavy of a coding task and infrastructure load that might be. But like if you could tweet local to even a small city, or town, that could be a powerful feature, where people could chatter away for just their location with a reasonable expectation that others were unlikely to see!

And I think LOTS more people would sign up. Actually tweet, without worrying about talking to the planet, and even build decent follower counts within their locale.

Public tweets can be a BIG deal. Twitter should recognize that reality. And maybe give people more options to limit their exposure?

Just a thought. But yeah I think it could be cool. Like you arrive in San Francisco, cut on local tweets, and walk into conversations just within the City, which you can't see until you get there. Could be like a welcome home.

And decided to brainstorm this post which means limited editing. Oh, so better go back and read through a couple of times before I post. Limited editing done. Throwing out there.


James Harris

Social media is more honest

Found myself this morning once again looking at Instagram fascinated by likes. And can take it for granted now that soon after someone posts have a lot of information, where for some it's that it has 1 million likes. So different from television where if you even bother to keep up with ratings someone has to tell you what they were.

And it has to be more honest even though some seem to love doubting this immediate and very public information about what actually interests people, at least on Instagram, but why do we believe television ratings? Or do most people not? Or do most just not really think about them?

And it matters a LOT as you can see trends being set, and the impact hits economically, and politically, so it turns out it's a big deal where people are actually paying attention.

Which has me wondering, as there are ways I think things are clearly improving, and gotta ask: why did we think we had the most important information before?

Looking in just one area I am endlessly puzzled often, while we could get such simple answers before, as if the viewing audience could be so readily explained.

Maybe they just wanted to believe that, the people crunching the numbers, so they put something that made sense to them out. But today?

We get human interest reality, I think. There is that skeptical side of me that wonders how am sure, but you know? The complexity of it comforts me. It IS hard to explain.

That sounds very human to me.


James Harris

Looking for community, art and the conversation

Most of my life one of the most important words has been "art" which has dominated so many of the best parts. From books to photographs, paintings, and poems, and so much more. But also to my own feeling that science is the art of prediction.

So of course was fascinated when a premiere institution of art, tweeted a great question! And I answered:

.@SFMOMA I think art is the purest expression of our core humanity. Is sharing in a way that resonates with the human soul. Time irrelevant.

— James Harris (@jstevh) September 4, 2015

Whether you like my answer or not, the conversation to me is also so fascinating. And talking with other people sure beats just talking to yourself, though I enjoy that too.

And SFMOMA retweeted me! Was one of the most exciting days of my social media life.

Ours is no longer a passive world mainly absorbing what is put out by people who can get on television, or radio or gain the interest of newspapers. In our world we can be part of the conversation.

And if you are on Twitter and haven't followed the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, I'd highly recommend you do.

Community is where one can kind of get the feeling that maybe these ideas that run through one's mind aren't completely off-base.

Somehow I think it is just part of being human that need to share with others. And so much better when you feel like that was appreciated. Better when we share.

Community and the conversation are the most important things to me on social media, as you can get so much information which I love, but you can try to add back as well. And get a response.

And so much better when someone asks the questions.


James Harris