Scrapbook of Dragos Ilinca

Bailey and Geary found population density did indeed track closely with brain size, but in a surprising way. When population numbers were low, as was the case for most of our evolution, the cranium kept getting bigger. But as population went from sparse to dense in a given area, cranial size declined, highlighted by a sudden 3 to 4 percent drop in EQ starting around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. “We saw that trend in Europe, China, Africa, Malaysia—everywhere we looked,” Geary says.

The observation led the researchers to a radical conclusion: As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive. As Geary explains, individuals who would not have been able to survive by their wits alone could scrape by with the help of others—supported, as it were, by the first social safety nets.

— If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

Redefining Engagement to be More Engaging

It starts with redefining engagement as we know it today to ultimately improve experiences tomorrow. I spent some time exploring existing definitions and I was surprised to find a lack clarity around such an important word. Since we spent so much time talking about what engagement is not, I invested time in researching the best practices of brands that were clearly driving communities in a particular direction through digital, social, and mobile channels. Those companies include Virgin America, Dell, TOMS, Whole Foods, Giant Nerd, among others. As a result, a working definition for engagement came into view…

Engagement is defined by how a brand and consumer connect and interact within their networks of relevance.

Simple. But, it’s also incomplete. It’s not just about the moment or competing for attention, it’s about the aftereffect.

Engagement is measured by takeaway value, sentiment or feelings, and resulting actions following the exchange.

If we look at the nature of the community in which brands are investing today, editorial programming, contests, gimmicks, campaigns, etc. lend to only one of the multifaceted sides to customer engagement. Community is much more than belonging to something, it’s about doing something together that makes belonging matter. This is why businesses must think about investing engagement by defining experiences, journeys, feelings and outcomes. Without doing so, they by default introduce experience divides that disrupt flow, hinder sentiment, and obstruct clicks to action.

— Engagement Ain’t Nothing But A Number | PandoDaily

You’ll never win on features against a market leader

The other important part to remember is that for the most part, if there’s a winning product X on the market, you’re unlikely to win by creating the entire featureset of X 1 by adding more features. Here’s why:

First off, that’s crazy because you have to build a fully featured product right away, and that might already take years to match a market leader

Secondly, as described in the Innovator’s Dilemma, if you’re mostly copying the market leader and then adding features, those features are likely to be sustaining innovations that is likely on the incumbents roadmap already- by the time you’re done, they’ll either have it or just copy you

Instead, the idea is to have a simpler product that attacks the low-end of the market leader’s product by taking a completely different market positioning. That way, you don’t have to build a fully featured product and you can take a completely different design intention, which leads to a disruptive innovation.

— Don’t compete on features | Andrew Chen (@andrewchen)

few years ago, Isaac Kohane, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, published a study that looked at scientific research conducted by groups in an attempt to determine the effect that physical proximity had on the quality of the research. He analyzed more than thirty-five thousand peer-reviewed papers, mapping the precise location of co-authors. Then he assessed the quality of the research by counting the number of subsequent citations. The task, Kohane says, took a “small army of undergraduates” eighteen months to complete. Once the data was amassed, the correlation became clear: when coauthors were closer together, their papers tended to be of significantly higher quality. The best research was consistently produced when scientists were working within ten metres of each other; the least cited papers tended to emerge from collaborators who were a kilometre or more apart. “If you want people to work together effectively, these findings reinforce the need to create architectures that support frequent, physical, spontaneous interactions,” Kohane says. “Even in the era of big science, when researchers spend so much time on the Internet, it’s still so important to create intimate spaces.

— Brainstorming Doesn’t Really Work : The New Yorker

The best Broadway shows were produced by networks with an intermediate level of social intimacy. The ideal level of Q—which Uzzi and his colleague Jarrett Spiro called the “bliss point”—emerged as being between 2.4 and 2.6. A show produced by a team whose Q was within this range was three times more likely to be a commercial success than a musical produced by a team with a score below 1.4 or above 3.2. It was also three times more likely to be lauded by the critics. “The best Broadway teams, by far, were those with a mix of relationships,” Uzzi says. “These teams had some old friends, but they also had newbies. This mixture meant that the artists could interact efficiently—they had a familiar structure to fall back on—but they also managed to incorporate some new ideas. They were comfortable with each other, but they weren’t too comfortable.

— Brainstorming Doesn’t Really Work : The New Yorker

To get at the relation between amygdala size and social networks, researchers began by measuring the size and complexity of about 60 adults’ social networks. In terms of size, the researchers were interested in the total number of people who a person was in regular contact with. In terms of complexity, the researchers looked at the number of different groups these friends could be divided into (e.g., book club, childhood friends, running group, etc.). The size and complexity of each person’s social network was then related to the size of their amygdala. Sure enough, the bigger the amygdala, the larger and more complex a person’s social network tended to be.

— When It Comes to Our Social Networks, Brain Size Matters | Psychology Today