Kevin Vogelsang

Back in July of 2009, I published my friend Luis Fernandez’s essays on the five most important lessons to learn in life on the blog.  I wrote an introduction and some notes to supplement the essays.

This body of writing has now been published as a physical book.

As Luis pointed out, there is something different, and special, about publishing in book format, as opposed to digitally.  It feels immortalized, written in stone.  It feels like a bigger step.

The prospects of digital publishing are very exciting to me.  But, something special still exists for books.  People have said, “The same thing that happened to records will happen to books.  People will stay attached to them  for a while, but they’ll quickly move on.”  I’m not so sure it’s quite the same.

The publishing industry has become a big focus of mine. This represents my first foray into physical publishing. Exciting things are happening.  Books can now be printed on-demand.  Self-publishing platforms have matured.

Of course, Tim O’Reilly, founder of O’Reilly Media, maintains that there is no such thing as “self-publishing.”  People that self-publish, that keep doing it, and are good at it, just become publishers.  “I was a self-publisher once,” Tim said in an interview.

There’s a whole new set of tools out there now that can be used to spread and distribute information, ideas, and insights.  This is incredible.  These tools have brought Luis’s essays to the world in a new medium.

You can purchase a copy of “The 5 Things to Learn in this Life” here from CreateSpace. As far as the Author’s margins are concerned (and consequently Luis’s daughter’s college fund), this is the best place to purchase right now.

For added convenience, you can also purchase the book on Amazon.

Luis’s book is currently only available in paperback.  As I learn my way around the publishing world, it’ll become available in digital formats (ex. on the Kindle) and hardback.

I’ll be sharing what I’ve learned about the publishing world as I go through this process.

-Kevin
3.2.2010

Image by CyboRoZ via Flickr

Imagine you’re stuck on an island.  Just you, a few others, and the wilderness of the island.

You’re primary source of food is fish. You catch the fish by sticking them with a sharpened stick.  It takes a long time to catch fish this way.  You miss a lot.  It’s tough to hit them hard enough.

You have a few minutes a day that don’t have to be focused on getting food and water.  During this time, you look for rocks that you could use to make a pointed tip.  Eventually, you achieve this.  You then are able to find the right plants to attach it to your “fishing spear.”  Catching fish is a little more efficient now.

You now have more time to experiment with the plant fibers you discovered in search for a way to create the fishing spear.  Eventually, you learn to make a net.  Catching fish can now be done by anyone.  You’re now able to pass the fishing task off to someone that is less capable.

You can now spend your time surveying the island.  You find rocks that can be made sharper.  You discover deer on the island.  You learn how to kill the deer.  You have a new source of food and materials.  You’re now able to make canoes, which are much faster than wooden rafts.  You can now travel faster and go farther.

~

This is an example of the compounding returns of knowledge.

We observe it now, more often than ever.  Technology is created that enables non-specialists to perform a needed task on a larger scale (like the fishing net in the example.)  Technology also allows us to discover new technology.  We see this in fabrication, software, and soon, in brain-scanning preparation.

We also have empirical proof that it exists.  Ray Kurzweil has collected some incredibly interesting data on the exponential acceleration of technology. (You can find videos of Ray talking about this phenomena on Ted Talks.)

However, we tend to forget this phenomenon on the level of the individual level.  When we learn and gain new skills, we gain resources.  And resources can lead to more resources.  People think about this more in terms of monetary investing.  But it’s true elsewhere.

So what does this mean for us?

If you spend a little more time working, and study just a little harder each day, you’ll find yourself much further along.

-Kevin
2.25.2010

This post is part of a series on “Community-Driven Movements” , a mission that is taken forward by a large, connected group of people.  Here are links to the rest of the series:  People Focused on Their Sphere of Influence , Sphere of Influence

If a community-driven movement is a group of people focused on their Sphere of Influence, and if recognition from the community allows us to personally recognize our Sphere of Influence, how do these communities initially form and grow?

In the very beginning, it’s about a problem or  a passion.  Somebody starts doing something because they like doing it, need to accomplish something, or a mixture of both.  Other people that share this experience, eventually find this network of people.  They likely need help or want to learn more about the activity that the community focuses on.

This describes why an individual might seek out a community and get to the fringe of the community.  But what is the force that drives them to become a member?  This same force ultimately accelerates the activity and scope of the community.

It’s the Law of Reciprocity, a human social law that causes people to have a feeling of gratitude, or even obligation, and respond to this feeling.

To illustrate, I did a simple experiment on Aardvark.  Aardvark is a service that allows a user to ask a question.  Aardvark then finds other users that are best suited to answering your question.

My question: “Why do you answer questions on Aardvark?”

I got 6 responses.  5 of these responses directly cited reciprocation, a  feeling of gratitude toward the community and a desire to return the favor.  One response also acknowledge the enjoyment of the gratitude of other users.  I’ve posted the responses at the bottom of the post.

The process of personal need, reciprocation, recognition, Sphere of Influence describes how an individual goes from the fringe to the interior of a community-driven movement.  This is not the only means of this process, but it describes the most fundamental process.  The forces are so fundamental to the human condition that community-driven movements begin and gain momentum when their mission is irrational or even detrimental (ex. cults).

Through this process, communities create Spheres of Influence, allow people to recognize Spheres of Influence, and motivate action.  The positive feedback causes a community-driven movement to gain momentum.

-Kevin
2.22.2010

karma

I work in customer support and I was a teacher before, so I enjoy helping people when I can. Plus I learn a lot doing this. Sometimes people will ask a question I know nothing about, but it encourages me to go learn about it at a later time.

A little bit of altruism,
Curiosity to test the aardvark system,
gratefulness to the network “as a whole”
Making my time useful instead of playing flashgames

thats a give and take situation, I have received a few rather helpful replies to questions and I can offer some expertise for other questions

I’m excited to answer questions where I can share my own experiences. It’s just fun to share what you know, especially when it’s something you’re interested in and a lot of people on here are very grateful for the help

I feel grateful when I receive any answers to my questions. It’s only fair to reciprocate when I can.

This post is very important to me. It is the 2nd part of a set of posts that began with Our Sphere of Influence. A Sphere of Influence is our realm where we matter most.  Check out the post for further discussion.  These posts hinge on the concept. Do provide your input by commenting.

Technology gives us new capabilities.  Consequently, technology has an important side effect: it makes our Sphere of Influence more accessible to us.  And when a group of people gain access to their Sphere of Influence, communities form.

I don’t think people have thought of it this way, but this is the framework for most community-driven movements:  a group of people focused on their Sphere of Influence that connect with each other.

The initial motivator for getting involved in a community may vary (they may not even be aware of the community), but people recognize their Sphere of Influence within a community of people when they begin to be acknowledged for their work.  This recognition pushes them forward as they realize the importance of their work and realize their work matters.

In the open-source software movement, programmers needed better ways to use a computer, a piece of technology that was highly enabling for them.  They also wanted to have greater control over their tools, to make the tools better, and to learn.  The community pushes this forward as they recognize and appreciate each others work.  They know their work matters and they benefit from the work of others.

The Wikipedian community spends huge amounts of time contributing to Wikipedia.   They may begin by wanting to contribute to the project.  They’re pushed forward when they see the impact/appreciation of their work through recognition and gaining higher command of their realm within Wikipedia.

Technology has another side effect: it makes new Spheres of Influence available. New technologies eventually lead to social changes that cause new communities to form.  A given function becomes democratized and community-driven.

With rapid prototyping technologies becoming affordable, a much greater number of people can take part in designing and fabricating physical things: an open-source hardware community is forming.

The same is also happening with biology research.  There’s a Do-It-Yourself biology community forming completely outside of academia.

Gov 2.0 represents the true democratization of government.  Citizens don’t take part in government by voting for someone. They just implement functions themselves using government resources.

When new Spheres of Influence become available, we’re able to choose one that better suits us.   Entire industries and social constructs are being completely disrupted by technologies that allow  people to do it themselves.  Communities of people form that are willing to do it for free because it’s what they like to do, and its where they feel they matter most.  It’s tough for businesses to compete with, unless they daringly change their business models or create new ones.

But, it’s not impossible for businesses to cope.  The open-source software companies did it….

In the following posts, I’ll talk more about the application of these concepts.

Your comments are important and will help me refine these thoughts as I continue to write about them.  Give me your thoughts by emailing me at KVogelsang11@gmail.com or leaving a comment.

-Kevin
2.8.2010

A tool doesn’t just make implementing a solution easier or possible: the tool defines the solution.

You want to write.  You are given a choice as to what paper you are able to write on.  You can write on post-it notes that you carry in your pocket, a small notebook you can carry in your bag, or a large hard-bound notebook that resides on your desk.  How will this effect how often you write?  How much you write?  What kind of things you write?

It comes down to our perceived costs.  These perceived costs are defined by the tool. If a tool makes one solution easier than the other, you’ll gravitate to the ostensibly easier solution.  It has a lower cost, it takes less energy, to implement that solution.  And thus, the product of our work and desires is affected.

If you only write on post-it notes that you carry in your pocket, you’ll likely end up writing down quotes, limericks, and little thoughts.  If you have a big piece of writing paper on your desk, you’ll write big things, but only when you’re deeply inspired.

And if you want to write, but are never deeply inspired, you’re better off starting with post-it notes in your pocket.  Thus, the tool not only dictates the solution, but whether there is an outcome at all.

It also dictates our behavior.

The implications of this thought run far and wide.  But you and I should probably let it stew for a little while first.  But if you have thoughts on those implications, you should probably write them down in the comments, before you forget.  Unless of course you have some post-it notes in your pocket.  Those work too.

Kevin
1.25.2010

Over time, people adopt new rules regarding what is “socially acceptable.”   Some practices are discarded, while new ones are created.

So what are some of the new and “cutting edge” social blunders?  I’ll take a stab at a few (some serious, some not):

1. Insulting someone’s blog or Twitter stream.  (It’s essentially the same as saying “your thoughts/life suck.”)
2. Texting at the dinner table.
3. Breaking up with a significant other via text.
4. Canceling a date via text.
5. Tweeting “I’m talking to John Doe”, while you’re actually talking to John Doe.  (Yes, this happened to a friend of mine.)
6. Tweeting that your date sucks while on your date. (This is pretty hilarious, particularly if your date is following you on Twitter and has text updates enabled on their phone.  It has happened.)
7. Writing an inappropriate comment on Facebook that then comes up in your Mom/Aunt/Grandma’s Facebook feed or is viewable by them on Facebook.
8. Updating your relationship status on Facebook during your wedding.
9. Making a Facebook page for your school for the sake of bashing your school. (Apparently this is a problem, seems fine to me.)
10. Making a fake Facebook profile for a friend (or Twitter account), friending people (getting followers) in their name, then using it to make them look gay/racist/sexist, etc. (Ahem, Bryan…..)

Got some others that are either true blunders or are just funny?  Post them in the comments section.  (Note: if you can’t see the comments, you need to click on the title of the article to see the comments section.)

-Kevin
1.19.2010

Imitation is often frowned upon.  We seem to equate imitation to being unoriginal.  This is an immature frame of thought–imitation is a vital tool.

We study the masters of a craft to learn what they know.  By making use of actions/techniques/strategies/behaviors that resemble another’s, we aren’t being unoriginal, we’re making use of a Truth they’ve already discovered. And so long as we do this in a way that adds value, we should aim to imitate the masters: we should stand on the shoulders of giants.

This is progress.  Imitation is a part of learning and is often a precursor to innovation.

By masters I don’t mean only dead men you’ll find  in history books, these are masters that happen to be documented.  A master could be anyone that knows more about something than anyone. And with billions of skills and nuances to be mastered, we encounter masters every day.

Reaching for perfection is a perpetual process; we can only asymptotically approach an ideal.

Reaching for progress is also an evolutionary process.

With this in mind, if you’re really good at something, we should find shards of others skilled in the art–traces of past progress that persist, that is, until the next paradigm is reached.

-Kevin
12.27.09

Last Wednesday, the MIT Enterprise Forum hosted a talk by Ray Kurzweil that I was lucky enough to be able to attend (although, to my credit, it took a little cleverness to get into the talk).

In his talk, Ray discussed his theories and beliefs regarding the exponential increase in the power and price performance of technology.  The key point is that information technologies–such as computer processor speeds and the cost of DNA sequencing–don’t develop linearly, which is unintuitive and unnatural to the human brain when thinking about the future.

Ray and his ideas are very controversial, and he has many harsh critics.  However, nothing of value goes without criticisms and resistance.  Big ideas challenge people’s models of the world.

I had heard Ray talk about his theories several times before, although not in-person.  One thing that struck me was a sense of pragmatism characteristic of an entrepreneur that had solved real problems.  He was not someone who had sat in an ivory tower up in the clouds creating naive notions. He was also not defensive or dismissive of his critics opinions.  I’ve read descriptions that have claimed quite the opposite, even to go so far as to say that “Kurzweil has no sense of objective reality.”

The sense of pragmatism was perhaps better able to come across in this specific talk because Ray also spoke about more common issues such as building a team for a venture.

Ray’s combination of pragmatism, experience, and big ideas make him influential to me personally.   One quote from Ray that I’ll share, “You don’t want to start designing the solution when you have the problem. You want to have the solution ready when you have the problem.”

I’ve posted two links to videos that share more about Ray and his ideas.  Not all of Ray’s ideas are rooted in Data.  Some are more beliefs.  However, beliefs undoubtedly have their place in world, and Ray’s are among some of the most profoundly influential of our day.

TED Talk by Ray Kurzweil (~8 min)
The Singularity of Ray Kurzweil (~20 min)

Kevin
10.20.2009

In recent months, I’ve begun to spend more time thinking about and studying art and design. I don’t have a lot of time to do so, but it’s now actively on my mind.

When you begin to attempt to reconstruct the world, whether it be a   concrete or more abstract interpretation, you begin to look more closely.  You gain a heightened perception of the world’s form and function; you see the world as it actually is.

And whether you’re constructing a portrait or a caricature, the devil is in the details, and to see those details clearly, you need to look objectively.

You could say the brain is constructed to be biased. We walk around carrying models in our head.  We walk past a tree, and we generalize its form down to the essentials of a tree.  Never mind the fact that it’s likely one of a kind.  (We do the same for nearly all things in the world.)

And thank goodness that most people can do this to a minimal degree.  The world does need people who can “get on with it”, avoid being bogged down, and keep the machine running.  But when you need to build, reconstruct, or repair the machine, you need people enamored with all its subtle complexities.

And from this perspective, artists and engineers aren’t so different.  They’ve simply delved into the world with a different set of tools and mastered their realm.

And upon writing this, I’ve discovered two things:

First, if you want to build the machine, find the subtle complexities you’re enamored with, not the great goals you wish to accomplish.

And second, be wary of the models you hold in your head.

Kevin
10.10.2009

The Digital Space, I use the term frequently.  The Digital Space also gets a whole category on the VogelWorks blog.  I have yet to define the phrase, effectively ostracizing it to a land of murky phrases like “Web 2.0″ .

The Digital Space, as I use it, is simply a broad term referring to an amalgamation of digital technologies, and more importantly, how we interact with these digital technologies.

The Digital Space encompasses technologies and innovations within computation, data transfer, and data-enabled devices. The most direct examples being your computer, the internet, and mobile phones.

Beyond technological innovation, The Digital Space includes social innovation surrounding the adoption of digital technologies.  The technology necessary for blogging was widespread by the mid 90’s.  However, tools catering to the act of blogging, and the social behavior of blogging hadn’t yet fully developed.  You could say the same for most of the “Web 2.0″ developments such as social networks and Twitter.  These have largely come from a co-evolution of both the tools and social adoption of digital technologies.

The Digital Space is a moving target and is changing rapidly, so making the term crystal clear is an ongoing challenge.  However, the key understanding is that there are two sides to the coin: the technology and the interaction with the technology.

Technology is increasingly integrated into our lives.  The Digital Space was once more of an accessory, like a hat that we might put on from time to time.  Now, it’s so pervasive, it’s more like the air we breathe.  We’ve created a digital atmosphere that we rely on to navigate our lives.  And soon, as we continue to breathe in this digital atmosphere, the Digital Space will be closer to tissue, a part of our flesh and bone.

While it may sound like something of science fiction, it’s not.  And it’s important to think about how The Digital Space will continue to strikingly effect our lives.

Kevin
9.14.2009