Great summary page of Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", one of the greatest psychology books ever written.  If you haven't read it you need to run to your bookstore and get a copy.

3:19:34 PM  #  

For real "fair and balanced" news I read somethingawful.com:

Unbiased media at its finest...and funniest! :)

2:42:45 PM  #  

It's amazing how hard it is to find something on the Internet when you're searching for the wrong phrasing.  Typing the word "rational" instead of the word "normal" into Google is a fine way to get the wrong answer.  But I have found what I am looking for:  Richard Dawkins' eulogy to Douglas Adams.

1:14:37 PM  #  

I swear they handed this out to my math professors in college when they were hired. via [brainlog]

11:15:58 AM  #  

Apparently, holding the Shift key bypasses CD copyright protection and puts technology vendor's panties in a wad.
Buried in this article about corporate stupidity at its finest ("sure our products got bugs, but what were you doing using our product, anyway?!?") is a much deeper societal trend bubbling its way to the surface:

Somewhere along the line people have begun to use stock market fluctuations as a proxy for corporate reputation. The statement above was thrown out as a starting point for assessing reparatory legal rewards and that scares me. If you think I'm overblowing one statement and making it a trend you ought to think again. In the last few years companies have begun to see their "reputation" and "goodwill" within the community as a valuable asset of the business. And insurers, quick to take advantage of a money making opportunity, are rushing to create a coverage to protect this valuable asset. Already, several insurers are looking at ways to compensate companies for the fallout from a tarnished reputation.

Their proxy of choice? Market capitalization. Besides limiting this coverage to public companies, this proxy has the potential to work a significant amount of havoc on the financial markets as well as the average enterprise. There are a number of issues insurers face in putting together this coverage that they are well aware of. Do you compare the fall in value to an industry index or the market as a whole? What about companies like WD-40 that operate in a protected niche and don't have competitors? Do you base settlements on the date of loss or for several weeks of market fluctuations? How do you assess the related damages caused by weak market capitalization (availability of credit options, etc.)?

What I don't think they have considered is the fact that a myriad number of things play into market capitalization. What happens when a sell side analyst releases a report on behalf of a short selling investment firm, which drives the price down? Is that "reputational damage"? Sure it is. Is it illegal or unethical? I don't think so, as long as the analysis is based on facts and data. Should it be covered? Probably not.

But knowing the courts ability to expand insurance coverage and the perception by the public of the "deep pockets" of insurers, it is not inconceivable that it would.

What about a situation like Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol scare in the 80's? There are already product recall coverages available that pay for the expense of taking bad products off the market. But how much of the resulting market share decline do you pay? Though there was an immediate drop in the stock following announcement of the crisis, Johnson & Johnson's actions were a reputation enhancer over the long run. How do you recognize that when assessing claims damages?

The stock market is a mechanism to provide equity capital to corporations. It is a mechanism for the individual to fuel corporate growth and reap the rewards of that growth. For some reason we seem to be shifting our beliefs that the market is the creator of the value and the unbiased assessor as well. It is becoming the judge, jury, and executioner of fiscal health.  That somehow in the midst of all these stock swaps, and options, and derivatives, and other esoteric activities money is made. This is inherently untrue.

Money is shifted from one individual to another but it is not made. The market in aggregate is a zero-sum game. The only thing that causes the increase in value is the growth of the companies that it tracks. I think to use the market is an arbitrator of damages incurred, or assessment of corporate health is a dangerous game to play.

Link found via [drunkandretired.com]
10:23:03 AM  #  

Hotel Owner's Suit Accuses Marriott of Mismanagement. The owner of a Midtown Manhattan hotel operated by Marriott International filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection yesterday, contending that Marriott's hotel-management practices forced the move. via [New York Times: Business]
9:41:27 AM  #