presented at the Library of Congress, June 23rd 2008. This was tons of fun to present. I decided to forgo the PowerPoint and instead worked with students to prepare over 40 minutes of video for the 55 minute presentation. This is the result.
more info: http://mediatedcultures.net

0:00 Introduction, YouTube's Big Numbers
2:00 Numa Numa and the Celebration of Webcams
5:53 The Machine is Us/ing Us and the New Mediascape
12:16 Introducing our Research Team
12:56 Who is on YouTube?
13:25 What's on Youtube? Charlie Bit My Finger, Soulja Boy, etc.
17:04 5% of vids are personal vlogs addressed to the YouTube community, Why?
17:30 YouTube in context. The loss of community and "networked individualism" (Wellman)
18:41 Cultural Inversion: individualism and community
19:15 Understanding new forms of community through Participant Observation
21:18 YouTube as a medium for community
23:00 Our first vlogs
25:00 The webcam: Everybody is watching where nobody is ("context collapse")
26:05 Re-cognition and new forms of self-awareness (McLuhan)
27:58 The Anonymity of Watching YouTube: Haters and Lovers
29:53 Aesthetic Arrest
30:25 Connection without Constraint
32:35 Free Hugs: A hero for our mediated culture
34:02 YouTube Drama: Striving for popularity
34:55 An early star: emokid21ohio
36:55 YouTube's Anthenticity Crisis: the story of LonelyGirl15
39:50 Reflections on Authenticity
41:54 Gaming the system / Exposing the System
43:37 Seriously Playful Participatory Media Culture (featuring Us by blimvisible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yxHKg...
47:32 Networked Production: The Collab. MadV's "The Message" and the message of YouTube
49:29 Poem: The Little Glass Dot, The Eyes of the World
51:15 Conclusion by bnessel1973
52:50 Dedication and Credits (Our Numa Numa dance)

The Numa Numa quote is from *Douglas* Wolk (not Gary Wolk as I mistakenly said in the talk).

Labels: anthropology, education, fun, internet, learning

Posted by Nick HaC @ 6:09 AM

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g&feature=PlayList&p=432FAC8C5F7AD43B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

I watched this last night with my mate Tom Kelshaw....

Labels: anthropology, business, economy, education, internet, learning, technology, video

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:25 AM

Labels: anthropology, education, learning

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:21 AM

From: Are Software Developers naturally wierd?

Labels: ideas, software

Posted by Nick HaC @ 4:41 AM

A mate of mine Remo (of Remo General Store) gave this great presentation dissecting "what IS cool?" at Interesting South 09. I had been bugging him to release it on slide share and now it is here!

If you like this be sure to follow remo @remorandom

Labels: fun, ideas, success, thoughts

Posted by Nick HaC @ 7:02 PM

A history that claims that it was an aggregation of electronics companies, brought together
by military and government R&D spending, that led to a cascade effect on the local
environment.

http://ipc-lis.mit.edu/globalization/Silicon%20Valley.pdf





There has been a really interesting look at how to re-create a silicon valley in australia, "Silicon Beach", presented here:

http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/

Labels: economy, entrepreneurship, internet, learning, technology

Posted by Nick HaC @ 3:40 AM

Alain de Botton examines our ideas of success and failure -- and questions the assumptions underlying these two judgments. Is success always earned? Is failure? He makes an eloquent, witty case to move beyond snobbery to find true pleasure in our work.

Labels: business, education, success

Posted by Nick HaC @ 8:20 PM

Marshall Goldsmith's current book, What Got You Here Won't Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful, is a New York Times best-seller and was ranked as America's #1 best-selling business book in The Wall Street Journal.

In this Video - Dr. Goldsmith identifies 20 bad habits, mostly behavioral problems, that hinder high achievers from reaching future goals and suggests methods for promoting behavior change.




Also found another great Marshall Goldsmith Video "The Best Career Advice You'll Ever Get: Marshall Goldsmith's Advice to Cisco partners at the 2009 Partner Summit in Boston"


Marshall Goldsmith: The Best Career Advice You'll Ever Get - More related videos from Asterpix

Labels: education

Posted by Nick HaC @ 8:11 PM

Labels: education, startups, technology

Posted by Nick HaC @ 6:43 AM

Just bought this book, is warming up nicely...

You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton shows that feeling certain—feeling that we know something--- is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. An increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. In other words, the feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

Bringing together cutting-edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain challenges what we know (or think we know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.

Buy here at Amazon

Labels: education

Posted by Nick HaC @ 6:17 AM

I gave a talk this week at BootupCamp on how to build buzz and market your startup using free marketing techniques. Here is my pres and a video...

Labels: entrepreneurship, marketing, nickhac, startups, thoughts

Posted by Nick HaC @ 8:53 AM

Posted by Nick HaC @ 2:29 AM

Posted by Nick HaC @ 2:28 AM

Posted by Nick HaC @ 1:29 AM

BBC 4 documentary about the legendary record label Factory Records. Footage and interviews with members of Joy Division, New Order, Section 25, Happy Mondays and more



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7364382083623348500&hl=en

Labels: documentary, music

Posted by Nick HaC @ 10:16 PM

Bribery 101 (Reddit)

I said this elsewhere, but I had to learn how to bribe people, and so maybe a short primer would help you feel less nervous.

1) Make it clear that you have money. Let them see it. Hold a bill in your hand. Don't wave it around, don't draw overt attention. Just hold it.

2) Tell them that this is REALLY important. Look them in the eye. It's REALLY important.

3) Because it is so important, you want to pay the required special fee for the extra investigator. This happens everyday. Ask nonchalantly whether there is a place to pay the extra fee or whether they will be accepting it themselves. Your tone should be similar to asking where the bathroom is. Make sure you emphasize the "do I just give it to YOU?". Hold out the money.

4) The official will offer to accept the fee. They are now your friend and should help you. It pays to get as high up the chain as you can before doing this, because the lowly guys usually can't get much done. Consider using smaller bribes to move up the chain, offer to pay the guy up front for a "ticket" to see the captain.

If for whatever reason they give you a stern look or say they don't accept bribes (they won't do this) just say "oh" and go on. React as if he told you they don't have a bathroom. Act as if where you come from it is usual to pay police a personal fee like you tip a waiter. If this is your attitude you won't arouse suspicion. Only way to go wrong is to act nervous.

A faster route is to know someone who knows someone. Any friend whose dad/uncle/roommate's friend is a police officer will give you an in, and at least a bit more of a chance of bribing the right guy. Work connections first, then "make friends."

Edit: It is also probable that you will be asked to pay the required "return tax" if they recover the stuff. Just so you aren't shocked.

Also: Amounts work like bargaining. Unless you give them WAY too much, they will act insulted to try to get more. Don't be surprised by this, give what you think is reasonable and what you can afford and don't automatically reach for more if they hold out. Let it be known that you know EXACTLY what you are doing and you are savvy, and they will usually take what they can get.

Posted by Nick HaC @ 10:04 PM

China's Electonic Waste Village

Posted by Nick HaC @ 9:51 PM

We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask.

How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live

Posted by Nick HaC @ 9:47 PM

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help small men up by tearing big men down.
4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
5. You cannot lift the wage-earner up by pulling the wage-payer down.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a mans initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Labels: quotes

Posted by Nick HaC @ 9:32 PM

So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money?

Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.

Is this what you consider evil?

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Labels: ideas, thoughts

Posted by Nick HaC @ 6:03 AM

www.spectator.co.uk

The Eighties mantra ‘greed is good’ may be unfashionable, says Fraser Nelson, but it is still true. We have forgotten that wealth generates revenue, while high taxes crush prosperity and pauperise nations. Will the Conservatives have the guts to declare this economic truth?

Before Gordon Brown was writing books about political courage, the subject that fascinated him most was greed. He detected plenty of it when the Thatcher revolution was in full bloom. In 1987 he wrote a polemical book entitled Where There’s Greed, denouncing both the Conservatives and the ‘sinister insights of Adam Smith’. The surge in wealth on both sides of the Atlantic had that year been brilliantly caricatured by the Oliver Stone film Wall Street, in which the anti-hero, Gordon Gekko, proclaims that ‘Greed is good.’ To Mr Brown, people like Gekko with their brazen belief in untrammelled wealth creation were the enemy: morally, politically and economically.

It has taken this Gordon two decades to serve up his revenge on the other. And, for Brown, the sweetest feature of his 50p tax on the affluent is that — thanks to electoral timing — it will be imposed on his class enemies by his political enemies. As Mr Brown correctly calculated, David Cameron has said he would keep the tax but that it would be — as Pitt the younger said of income tax — a temporary measure. This is not a battle Mr Cameron and George Osborne dare wage: attacking the very idea of high taxes for high-earners. It would expose them to the attack line they fear most: that they lead a party of the rich, for the rich. The Gordon Gekko party, in other words.

The pollsters, who have all too great an influence in the shaping of Tory policy, report that the proposed tax on the rich is popular. Well, of course it is. The measure suits the spiteful spirit of the age: it is a tax designed to appease the current hang-a-banker mood, a milder, fiscal equivalent of smashing Sir Fred Goodwin’s windows. At this particular moment, in this particular recession, the idea that the rich should bear the cost of recovery through targeted tax rises is inevitably seductive. It also happens to be economic nonsense. The reason it has not been attempted in Britain since the 1970s is simple. It demonstrably does not work and is the surest way to prolong a budget crisis.

The paradox is age-old and was most famously depicted on a cocktail napkin in a Washington hotel in 1976 by Dr Arthur Laffer, a Chicago University professor, who was explaining the tax system to a White House staffer named Donald Rumsfeld. Charge zero tax, and you’ll have no revenue. Charge 100 per cent tax, and no one will work. As the ‘Laffer Curve’ showed, the secret of maximising one’s tax revenue is to choose a point in between. The key to sound government is to find that balance.

Mountains of data from scores of countries have shown this to be true. The renewal of Britain’s prosperity started in 1979 when the top rate of tax was lowered from 98 per cent to 75 per cent. But the rocket boosters were applied in Nigel Lawson’s 1988 budget which cut the top rate of tax from 60 per cent to 40 per cent (with cuts for the lower brackets, too). On that occasion, the young Alex Salmond was thrown out of the chamber after denouncing it as ‘an obscenity’. Mr Brown himself was shushed by the Speaker, so vocal was his pious indignation.

Yet paradoxically the 1988 Budget can be seen as the most redistributive taxation package in British postwar history, with consequences that ought to have suited any rational Labour politician looking for revenue to spend on public services. Then, the richest 1 per cent of households were contributing a handsome 14 per cent of all income tax collected. By 1997, this had soared to a staggering 21 per cent — given an incentive, the rich work more and declare more. The subsequent boom may have generated more unlovable Gordon Gekkos than it did popular Richard Bransons — but 40 per cent of the extra money they generated still accrued to the government.

The Lawson legacy was sound, its logic apparently unquashable. Never had the richest borne a greater share of the burden. As a nation we had — it seemed — reached a philosophical conclusion about a basic question of human economy and social organisation that had hitherto separated left and right. Was Britain’s problem that the rich had too much money? Or that there were too few such wealth-creators? Should we see the rich as antisocial hoarders of money, to be raided in hard times, or as cherished, job-creating taxpayers (often guests in this country)? Tony Blair was emphatic which side of the divide New Labour stood on. As Mr Blair understood, it is the expectation of tax rises to come, not just the experience of their practical impact, which sends the golden geese flying off to Singapore or Dubai. Indeed, this principle seemed well entrenched: top tax rates the world over have fallen for the last decade. Dubai established itself as a financial centre with no income tax and watched wealth spring forth from the desert. A new, invincible orthodoxy appeared to have arisen. But in politics, as in life, nothing is truly invincible unless it is properly protected, explained and justified.

In recessions, faith in the free enterprise system is naturally shaken. There is an economically illiterate but emotionally powerful temptation to return to the zero-sum logic of the Old Left: namely, that a £5 billion hole in the accounts can be filled by a £5 billion tax rise. But people respond to incentives and disincentives in recessions, too. Why work for the taxman? That is the crucial psychological question that all who are affected by the 50 per cent bracket — or fear they will be — ask themselves. In practice, a higher tax rate means the taxman will simply take a larger slice of a smaller pie.

All this perhaps explains why sales of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s classic novel, are rising once more. The under-40s have turned to fiction to find tales of what happens when governments are stupid and desperate enough to come after the job-creating entrepreneurs. The wealth creators behave rationally and slow down their efforts — and the economy collapses. Even Russia, Ms Rand’s motherland, has lowered its top rate of tax to 13 per cent in a hugely successful bid to claw more money from the oligarchs.

How quickly the lessons of history are ignored as each generation rises to take its place at the helm. To raise the top rate of tax to such high levels is to repeat the errors of the 1970s. This is why older Tories, the veterans of those economic wars, are looking on aghast. How can such a falsehood be so widely accepted? The answer, like so many of Mr Brown’s tricks, can be traced back to a false assumption in the Budget itself. The Treasury’s model, deployed in order to assert that the new 50p tax will raise £2.4 billion, makes the assumption that the richest will be no more able or inclined to avoid tax rises than a worker on the average wage. This is patent nonsense, contradicted by all the evidence.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has a different model, which assumes the 50p tax would inflict a net loss of about £800 million to the Exchequer. But even this calculation is based on 1980s data, and one would expect the super-rich to move much faster in the globalised world of the early 21st cent- ury, in which money can be moved across continents at the click of a mouse. The Centre for Economics and Business Research predicts that 25,000 will leave Britain, destroying 140,000 further jobs.

There is a good reason why Mr Brown does not intend to impose the tax until what will probably be the final four weeks of Labour’s 13 years in office. The tax is electorally popular, but economic lunacy. It is also one big gullibility test for the Conservatives.

So far, it is a test they are failing. David Cameron talks as if he will be able to do nothing about this new Labour tax. But from the moment he kisses hands with the Queen, as her new Prime Minister, he will be personally responsible for every measure used to extract money from the British public. No one now doubts that some taxes will have to rise. But the Tories have a responsibility — to use Cameron’s own favourite word — to work out which taxes will do the least harm: a responsibility that should transcend narrow calculations of popularity. If Mr Cameron thinks the 50p tax will raise money, let him make the case. If not, then he too will be imposing it for the same ‘cynical political purposes’ that Stephen Byers detected in Mr Brown.

So what is the Conservative alternative? The idea of challenging the 50p tax using words like ‘Laffer Curve’ is anathema to them: the last thing they want right now is to be seen as still in hock to the old Chicago school of economics and the ideologues of the New Right. But the irony is that there is no ideology here at all. Even Laffer admits that he did not invent anything: he was trying to teach Rumsfeld a lesson in basic economics that politicians seem to forget every 20 years. Even Keynes observed that ‘taxation may be so high as to defeat its object’. The futility of high tax bands is not a contestable doctrine, but a proven fact.

The Conservatives could certainly abolish the 50p tax if they had the guts to explain, calmly and methodically, that such a measure would raise revenues and lessen the tax burden all round. Such a message would initially contradict popular opinion — but great political leaders have not hesitated to act as teachers. ‘No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down,’ said John F. Kennedy in 1960, as he reduced the top income tax rate from 91 per cent to 70 per cent. Mrs Thatcher carried out privatisations in the face of ferocious public opposition: only later did these measures prove popular. The worst political leaders are those who go with the flow: think of Heath’s U-turn, or Hoover’s 1932 tax rise, which completed America’s conversion from Wall Street crash to Depression.

Internal Treasury documents justify its tax system on the basis that ‘Karl Marx’s progressive tax structure was designed so that the tax burden was heaviest on those who were most able to contribute’. It is remarkable that the Treasury still cites Marx when, to put it mildly, more recent studies are available for consultation. As JFK and Lord Lawson proved, the most ‘progressive’ tax rates lead to the least ‘progressive’ outcomes.

It is worth noting that, in a ghastly new mutation of equality of opportunity, the 50p tax would saddle the well-off with the same disincentives to work which Mr Brown has applied to the poor to such tragic effect. A single mother with two children is given more in benefits than the average female hairdresser or post office worker earns. Little wonder five million were on benefits throughout the boom. Rich or poor, humans respond to incentives. Rich or poor, they ask: why break your back if the government will take away most of your money?

This is why the 50p tax proposal should have been regarded as an utter irrelevance by the Tories, to be discarded with contempt in the first Osborne budget, rather than an unwelcome legacy over which they have no control. The tax itself is bad enough; the broader principle it enshrines is truly toxic and represents a serious impediment to recovery. It also represents a fundamental and wilful misrepresentation of how wealth and jobs are created. It is the dying act of a failed government, and Michael Caine’s threat to go to America will be carried out by thousands of others — software engineers, architects, etc.

Of course, Cameron will repeal it eventually. Every tax raid on the rich leads in time to a government on bended knee, pleading with the wealthy to come back from their economically rational exile. Even the Bolsheviks begged Russians to ‘enrich yourselves’ after the failure of their early economic policy. Lord Mandelson put it perhaps too crudely when he declared that New Labour was ‘seriously relaxed about people getting filthy rich’. All these formulations are polite versions of Gordon Gekko’s ‘greed is good’. Just ask the 85 out of 88 developed countries where the top income tax rate is lower than 50 per cent.

On this occasion, Mr Cameron walked into Gordon’s trap, which was not that the Tory leader would oppose the measure, but that he would accept it. The Prime Minister is bequeathing to a recession-struck nation the fourth-highest top tax rate on the planet, just for the devilish joy of watching a Conservative party too timid to state the simple truth: that high tax rates make everyone poorer. Economically, it is a poison pill. The tragedy is that so many of Britain’s entrepreneurs will not hang around long enough to see whether Cameron swallows it. They know that greed is still good — for everyone. But does the Conservative prime minister-in-waiting?

Labels: financial markets

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:30 AM

With profound simplicity, Coach John Wooden redefines success and urges us all to pursue the best in ourselves. In this inspiring talk he shares the advice he gave his players at UCLA, quotes poetry and remembers his father's wisdom.

Labels: TED

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:05 PM

So i was trying to prank someone at my office today and after much distraction i decided to rickroll my collegue every time they open a certain program...

Here is how

1. Create a text file called FunTimes.bat in notepad

2. Copy paste this code in  the notepad for the .bat file

"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Save this text file as a "All File Types" .bat file.

3. Go to your an icon in your collegues start bar, click Properties on the Icon, and alter the target to go to the batch file you just created...

When your collegue next opens whatever program you targeted, they will be rickrolled!

I promise i did 12 hours work today :P

Labels: fun

Posted by Nick HaC @ 6:34 AM

Why is programming fun? What delights may its practioner expect as his reward?

First is the sheer joy of making things. As the child delights in his mud pie, so the adult enjoys building things, especially things of his own design. I think this delight must be an image of God's delight in making things, a delight shown in the distinctness and newness of each leaf and each snowflake.

Second is the pleasure of making things that are useful to other people. Deep within, we want others to use our work and to find it helpful. In this respect the programming system is not essentially different from the child's first clay pencil holder "for Daddy's office."

Third is the fascination of fashioning complex puzzle-like objects of interlocking moving parts and watching them work in subtle cycles, playing out the consequences of principles built in from the beginning. The programmed computer has all the fascination of the pinball machine or the jukebox mechanism, carried to the ultimate.

Fourth is the joy of always learning, which springs from the nonrepeating nature of the task. In one way or another the problem is ever new, and its solver learns something: sometimes practical, sometimes theoretical, and sometimes both.

Finally, there is the delight of working in such a tractable medium. The programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination. Few media of creation are so flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so readily capable of realizing grand conceptual structures. (...)

Yet the program construct, unlike the poet's words, is real in the sense that it moves and works, producing visible outputs separately from the construct itself. It prints results, draws pictures, produces sounds, moves arms. The magic of myth and legend has come true in our time. One types the correct incantation on a keyboard, and a display screen comes to life, showing things that never were nor could be.

Programming then is fun because it gratifies creative longings built deep within us and delights sensibilities we have in common with all men.

Source: The Mythical Man-Month - Fred Brooks
http://www.grok2.com/progfun.html

Labels: technology

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:03 AM

1. Smile. Now, this is no shock, but studies do show that the amount of time you smile during a conversation has a direct impact on how friendly you’re perceived to be. Also, people mimic the expressions on the faces they see, so if you smile, you’re more likely to be smiled at. (Scientists have identified 19 types of smiles, by the way.)
2. Be easily impressed, entertained, and interested. Most people get more pleasure from wowing you with their humor and insight than from being wowed by your humor and insight.
3. Have a friendly, open, engaged demeanor. Lean toward people, nod, say “Uh-huh,” turn your body to face the other person’s body. Don’t turn your body away, cross your arms, answer in monosyllables, or scan the room (or look at your Blackberry! I have seen this happen!) as the other person talks.
4. Remember trait transfer. In “trait transfer,” whatever you say about other people influences how people see you. If you describe a co-worker as brilliant and charismatic, your acquaintance will tend to associate you with those qualities. Conversely, if you describe a co-worker as arrogant and obnoxious, those traits will stick to you. So watch what you say.
5. Laugh at yourself. Showing vulnerability and a sense of humor make you more likable and approachable. However, don’t push this too self-deprecation too far – keep it light. You’ll make others uncomfortable if you run yourself down too much. I met a guy who kept saying things like, "I'm an idiot," "I have the most boring job ever," etc. He was trying to be self-deprecating, but it was hard to know how to respond to that kind of comment from a stranger.
6. Radiate energy and good humor. Because of the phenomenon of “emotional contagion,” people catch the emotions of other people, and they prefer to catch an upbeat, energetic mood. Even if you pride yourself on your cynicism, biting humor, or general edginess, these qualities can be conveyed with warmth.
7. Show your liking for another person. We’re much more apt to like someone if we think that person likes us. Look for ways to signal that you enjoy a person’s company. When I call my daughters’ pediatrician with some health question, she always says “Hello!” as if she’s genuinely thrilled to hear from me, and I’ve really noticed what a difference it makes on my feelings of warmth toward her.
8. Try to remember the person’s name! If you can’t remember it, here are some tips for coping with the situation.
Studies suggest that we decide how close a relationship we’ll have with a new acquaintance within the first ten minutes of meeting that person, and that in evaluating people, we weigh early information more heavily than information acquired later. So make a big effort to be openly friendly the first time you meet someone.

Soure: The Happiness Project

Labels: education

Posted by Nick HaC @ 5:01 AM