RSS
 

The Mexican Mafia

21 Oct

The Mexican Mafia is a fairly small prison gang (perhaps 150-300 made members) and it has significant operational control only within prisons in Southern California yet the Mexican Mafia is extremely powerful. In fact, the MM taxes hundreds of often larger Southern California street gangs at rates of 10-30% of revenues. How can a prison gang tax street gangs? In Governance and Prison Gangs (also here), a new paper in the APSR, David Skarbek explains the structure, conduct and performance of the Mexican Mafia.

The key to the MM’s power is that most drug dealers will sooner or later, usually sooner, end up in prison. Thus, the MM can credibly threaten drug dealers outside of prison with punishment once they are inside prison. Moreover, prison is the only place where members of many different gangs congregate. Thus, by maintaining control of the prison bottleneck, the MM can tax hundreds of gangs.

One of the most interesting aspects of Skarbek’s analysis is that he shows–consistent with Mancur Olson’s stationary bandit theory–that as the MM grew in power it started to provide public goods, i.e. it became a kind of government. Thus, the MM protects taxpayers both in prison and on the street, it produces property rights by enforcing gang claims to territory and it adjudicates disputes, all to the extent that such actions increase tax revenue of course. The MM is so powerful that it often doesn’t even have to use its own enforcers; instead, the MM can issue what amounts to a letter of marque and reprisal, a signal that a non-taxpaying gang is no longer under its protection, and privateers will do the rest.

The MM even internalizes externalities:

In addition, the Mexican Mafia regulates drive-by shootings…because any particular street gang only suffers a portion of the increased attention of law enforcement from drive-by shootings, each street gang has an incentive to do too-many (Buchanan 1973). In 1992, Mexican Mafia members sent notes throughout the prison system and Sureño neighborhoods that any gang member participating in an unauthorized drive-by shooting would be killed. Shortly after the Mexican Mafia announced this rule, drive by shootings declined.

The Mexican Mafia has much to teach us about crime and governance.

 
 

Are You Reading Too Much?

20 Oct

I ran across and interesting quote by Albert Einstein the other day.

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
~ Albert Einstein

This isn’t exactly the best known quote by Einstein and I doubt many teachers quote this to their students. Reading is generally a good thing, but if it starts becoming a substitute for thinking on your own it can hold you back from reaching your potential.

This quote touches on a problem that holds many people back from actually accomplishing things. It is easy to spend so much time researching that you never actually execute.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read, do research and try to learn from others, but at some point you have to decide that you’ve gathered enough data and the time has come to do something. That may be starting your own business, writing a book or even repainting your living room.  You have a very finite lifespan. Some people spend their life preparing for what they want to do without ever actually doing what they want to do.

Sometimes the most helpful situations are the ones that force you to go ahead and do something by removing the option to try to collect more information.

Business minded? Subscribe to Mark Shead’s business consulting blog.

This article was useful when looking for:
  • reading too much (73)
  • too much reading (29)
  • read too much (18)
  • i read too much (12)
  • how much reading is too much (8)
  • can you read too much (6)
  • how much is too much reading (1)
  • too much reading time (1)

---
Related Articles at Productivity501:


 
 

Are You Reading Too Much?

20 Oct

I ran across and interesting quote by Albert Einstein the other day.

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
~ Albert Einstein

This isn’t exactly the best known quote by Einstein and I doubt many teachers quote this to their students. Reading is generally a good thing, but if it starts becoming a substitute for thinking on your own it can hold you back from reaching your potential.

This quote touches on a problem that holds many people back from actually accomplishing things. It is easy to spend so much time researching that you never actually execute.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read, do research and try to learn from others, but at some point you have to decide that you’ve gathered enough data and the time has come to do something. That may be starting your own business, writing a book or even repainting your living room.  You have a very finite lifespan. Some people spend their life preparing for what they want to do without ever actually doing what they want to do.

Sometimes the most helpful situations are the ones that force you to go ahead and do something by removing the option to try to collect more information.

Business minded? Subscribe to Mark Shead’s business consulting blog.

This article was useful when looking for:
  • reading too much (73)
  • too much reading (29)
  • read too much (18)
  • i read too much (12)
  • how much reading is too much (8)
  • can you read too much (6)
  • how much is too much reading (1)
  • too much reading time (1)

---
Related Articles at Productivity501:


 
 

Scientists are from Mars, the public is from Earth

19 Oct

The American Geophysical Union blog has a link up to a very interesting table, and I feel strongly enough about this topic that I want to share it with you. It’s a list of words scientists use when writing or otherwise communicating science, what the scientists mean when they use that word, and most importantly what the public hears.

[Click to enverbumnate.]

I’ll admit, when I read it I laughed. But then my chuckle dried up when I realized just how dead accurate this is. And the smile pretty much left my face when I read that this table is from an article called "Communicating the Science of Climate Change," by Richard C. J. Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol, from the October 2011 issue of Physics Today.

Yup. I think they have a pretty good point.

My career at the moment could pretty much be called "Science Communicator". I do it here on this blog, I do it on Blastr and in Discover magazine, and when I give talks. Before that (and I guess it’s an occupation that never really leaves you) I was a professional scientist for many years. My training ran deep: 4 years undergrad, 6-7 in grad school, then a decade or so of research after that. I could toss around the phrase "Don’t over-iterate the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution algorithm or else you’ll amplify the noise and get spurious data spikes" with the best of ‘em.

As a science writer, though, I can’t use that! I have to say, "Cleaning up a digital image means using sophisticated mathematical techniques that can sometimes mess the image up and fool you into thinking something’s there that really isn’t."

I hope you can appreciate the difference.

So when I write, I try pretty hard to make the science topic accessible without "dumbing it down". I assume my reader is intelligent, but unfamiliar with the concepts I might be discussing. I try to define words if a reader might not know them, or link to someplace they can get more info if they need it.

But as that table shows, there are plenty of words I use all the time that someone else might know, and think means something else. And this is incredibly important, especially if a science writer — as happens more and more often these days — needs to defuse some sort of political spin thrust upon a topic. A classic example in the wholly-manufactured Climategate "controversy". A lot of hot air was generated over the use of the word "trick" in the stolen emails — which most people interpreted as meaning the scientists did something underhanded and sneaky to hide something important. In reality, we use that word to just mean a method of doing something that’s clever. It’s like saying, "The trick in never losing your car keys is to always hang them on a hook by the door that leads outside." See the difference?

But over that, political battles are won or lost.

There are times I fret over a word in a post. It took me a while to start using the word "denier" instead of "skeptic", for example, but the difference is important. I’ve fought for years to teach people that skepticism is not cynicism or denial; it’s asking for and looking at evidence logically and rationally (in a nutshell). What’s funny is that now the media uses phrases like "climate skeptic" when talking about some people who are not skeptics, in that they are not looking at the evidence logically and rationally. They look at evidence so they can figure out how to spin it, cast doubt in the mind of the public over something that is actually a fact.

That’s why I call it "denial". The word fits, and I intend to continue using it when it does.

I could go on and on.

But here’s the point: communication isn’t simply casting out information from atop a tower. There are two parts to it: presenting an idea to someone, and them understanding it. Sometimes we have to change the way we word things to make that second half happen. Otherwise we’re shouting all the facts in the Universe to an empty room.

Tip o’ the thesaurus to Joanne Manaster.

 

Scientists are from Mars, the public is from Earth

19 Oct

The American Geophysical Union blog has a link up to a very interesting table, and I feel strongly enough about this topic that I want to share it with you. It’s a list of words scientists use when writing or otherwise communicating science, what the scientists mean when they use that word, and most importantly what the public hears.

[Click to enverbumnate.]

I’ll admit, when I read it I laughed. But then my chuckle dried up when I realized just how dead accurate this is. And the smile pretty much left my face when I read that this table is from an article called "Communicating the Science of Climate Change," by Richard C. J. Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol, from the October 2011 issue of Physics Today.

Yup. I think they have a pretty good point.

My career at the moment could pretty much be called "Science Communicator". I do it here on this blog, I do it on Blastr and in Discover magazine, and when I give talks. Before that (and I guess it’s an occupation that never really leaves you) I was a professional scientist for many years. My training ran deep: 4 years undergrad, 6-7 in grad school, then a decade or so of research after that. I could toss around the phrase "Don’t over-iterate the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution algorithm or else you’ll amplify the noise and get spurious data spikes" with the best of ‘em.

As a science writer, though, I can’t use that! I have to say, "Cleaning up a digital image means using sophisticated mathematical techniques that can sometimes mess the image up and fool you into thinking something’s there that really isn’t."

I hope you can appreciate the difference.

So when I write, I try pretty hard to make the science topic accessible without "dumbing it down". I assume my reader is intelligent, but unfamiliar with the concepts I might be discussing. I try to define words if a reader might not know them, or link to someplace they can get more info if they need it.

But as that table shows, there are plenty of words I use all the time that someone else might know, and think means something else. And this is incredibly important, especially if a science writer — as happens more and more often these days — needs to defuse some sort of political spin thrust upon a topic. A classic example in the wholly-manufactured Climategate "controversy". A lot of hot air was generated over the use of the word "trick" in the stolen emails — which most people interpreted as meaning the scientists did something underhanded and sneaky to hide something important. In reality, we use that word to just mean a method of doing something that’s clever. It’s like saying, "The trick in never losing your car keys is to always hang them on a hook by the door that leads outside." See the difference?

But over that, political battles are won or lost.

There are times I fret over a word in a post. It took me a while to start using the word "denier" instead of "skeptic", for example, but the difference is important. I’ve fought for years to teach people that skepticism is not cynicism or denial; it’s asking for and looking at evidence logically and rationally (in a nutshell). What’s funny is that now the media uses phrases like "climate skeptic" when talking about some people who are not skeptics, in that they are not looking at the evidence logically and rationally. They look at evidence so they can figure out how to spin it, cast doubt in the mind of the public over something that is actually a fact.

That’s why I call it "denial". The word fits, and I intend to continue using it when it does.

I could go on and on.

But here’s the point: communication isn’t simply casting out information from atop a tower. There are two parts to it: presenting an idea to someone, and them understanding it. Sometimes we have to change the way we word things to make that second half happen. Otherwise we’re shouting all the facts in the Universe to an empty room.

Tip o’ the thesaurus to Joanne Manaster.

 

Apple Steve Jobs The Crazy Ones – NEVER BEFORE AIRED 1997

10 Oct
I liked a YouTube video: Steve Jobs narrates the first Think different commercial "Here's to the Crazy Ones". It never aired. Richard Dreyfuss did the voice for spot however Steve's is much better 1997
 
 

Apple Steve Jobs The Crazy Ones – NEVER BEFORE AIRED 1997

10 Oct
I liked a YouTube video: Steve Jobs narrates the first Think different commercial "Here's to the Crazy Ones". It never aired. Richard Dreyfuss did the voice for spot however Steve's is much better 1997
 
 

Facebook Changes Present Interesting Business Dilemma

10 Oct

Facebook Changes Present Interesting Business Dilemma

This content from: Duct Tape Marketing

Initially there was the Facebook persona profile and, since that was all we had, businesses jumped in and made the best of using this not so ideal business tool.

Then came business pages and again businesses embraced them and in many cases tried to separate business and personal with this approach.

With the recent overhaul of the personal profiles another kind of use has been created – one that may have some business folks moving back to the personal profile.

Facebook subscribe to public

Public personal vs. Page

The subscribe function introduced recently allows Facebook profile owners to offer the ability for people who are not friends to subscribe to receive updates that are marked public. Now, couple this with the fact that Facebook has made it much easier to share with selected groups and you’ve got the makings of a nice business tool that is actually more suited for celebrities, authors, experts and independent business owners than a Facebook page.

How to manage the subscribe function

If you want people to subscribe to your public updates you must first turn this function on here. Once you do so you then must use the public setting to mark who can see an update. Of course, you’ll want to pay attention to that setting and make sure you only use it for things you want public.

Facebook claims that a tool, which would allow fan page owner to convert fans to subscribers of the personal profile is in the works. High profile Facebook employees, including founder Mark Zuckerberg appear to have done this migration already.

The new look is coming to all personal profiles this week

Facebook Cover

No matter which approach you take, get ready for an entirely new look on your personal profile. Facebook claims all profiles will be switched Oct 14th. (Want to switch yours today – here are the instructions)

Two big changes, the cover photo and the Time Line, offer the business user a better tool.

The cover photo is one dominating image that could be used very effectively by an expert wanting to showcase speaking for example.

The new view also presents the public information in a what I think is a more user friendly manner.

Get that cover image ready

Here is Facebook’s official information on the Cover image.

Expect designer types to have a blast hacking this image into some pretty cool things, but for now know that you need to look for an image with a width of 833px and a minimum height of 310px. Facebook makes it easy to position an existing image of most any size as well, but images that are already large in size will show better.

You can upload new photos or simply choose a photo in one of your Facebook albums to act as your cover photo.

MyFBCovers offers some simple ways to create custom cover images and cover collages made up of images of friends.

 
 

Facebook Changes Present Interesting Business Dilemma

10 Oct

Facebook Changes Present Interesting Business Dilemma

This content from: Duct Tape Marketing

Initially there was the Facebook persona profile and, since that was all we had, businesses jumped in and made the best of using this not so ideal business tool.

Then came business pages and again businesses embraced them and in many cases tried to separate business and personal with this approach.

With the recent overhaul of the personal profiles another kind of use has been created – one that may have some business folks moving back to the personal profile.

Facebook subscribe to public

Public personal vs. Page

The subscribe function introduced recently allows Facebook profile owners to offer the ability for people who are not friends to subscribe to receive updates that are marked public. Now, couple this with the fact that Facebook has made it much easier to share with selected groups and you’ve got the makings of a nice business tool that is actually more suited for celebrities, authors, experts and independent business owners than a Facebook page.

How to manage the subscribe function

If you want people to subscribe to your public updates you must first turn this function on here. Once you do so you then must use the public setting to mark who can see an update. Of course, you’ll want to pay attention to that setting and make sure you only use it for things you want public.

Facebook claims that a tool, which would allow fan page owner to convert fans to subscribers of the personal profile is in the works. High profile Facebook employees, including founder Mark Zuckerberg appear to have done this migration already.

The new look is coming to all personal profiles this week

Facebook Cover

No matter which approach you take, get ready for an entirely new look on your personal profile. Facebook claims all profiles will be switched Oct 14th. (Want to switch yours today – here are the instructions)

Two big changes, the cover photo and the Time Line, offer the business user a better tool.

The cover photo is one dominating image that could be used very effectively by an expert wanting to showcase speaking for example.

The new view also presents the public information in a what I think is a more user friendly manner.

Get that cover image ready

Here is Facebook’s official information on the Cover image.

Expect designer types to have a blast hacking this image into some pretty cool things, but for now know that you need to look for an image with a width of 833px and a minimum height of 310px. Facebook makes it easy to position an existing image of most any size as well, but images that are already large in size will show better.

You can upload new photos or simply choose a photo in one of your Facebook albums to act as your cover photo.

MyFBCovers offers some simple ways to create custom cover images and cover collages made up of images of friends.

 
 

Two men walk into a bar…

10 Oct