Connecting online & spheres of intimacy

The questions of how, through which services and with whom to connect online are in many people's minds. The social media scene is developing rapidly and the social norms within it are still in their earlyish stages of development.

Here's a reply I sent to a friend of a friend (whom I've never met to my knowledge .. pardon my bad memory if I have!) that explains my thoughts on the issue for my part:

Hi,

I appreciate your friend request. The web is such a wonderful enabler for serendipitous connections - which often prove to be immensely valuable! I find it quite interesting to see & follow how the social media scene is in a turbulent phase of development, how practices to use different tools are evolving continuously and quite rapidly - and how different people use different tools and services so .. well, differently. As for me and connecting with people online: While I like to establish connections with new interesting people in many services I use -- I think that that's really the only way to allow the power of serendipity (The Long Tail, really) to kick in -- I realize that Facebook for me is essentially a place to foster connections I've created elsewhere (in the physical world, other social media services, FB groups, etc). For me it's a question of privacy and different spheres if intimacy. But as said, I'm always open to connecting with new interesting people. My preferred mode of connecting with new people is microblogging: I can be found at http://twitter.com/jaakkoh and http://identi.ca/jaakkoh & http://jaakkoh.jaiku.com (for opensource alternatives). Of these Twitter is my current "de facto standard" of online discussions. Other social media services I use can be found via my Google Profile. Cheers, -Jaakko

What's in a percentage?

 

The question of the day is:
What is X in X - 68% = 1%?
.. And how is this linked to presidential elections?

I came across this "puzzle" on the side of a milk carton that stated that the 1% fat containing milk has 68% less fat than whole milk. And it reminded me of the numerous times I've tried to help people understand percentage.

One reason this struck me was that I was nearly fooled for a fraction of a second. Reading the text one could think that whole milk has 69% of fat in it - which is obviously not the right answer. Whole milk has about 3% of fat and taking out 68%, about two thirds that is, leaves 1%.

The reason people get confused with percentages is that they are thinking adding and subtracting. And in percentages it's about dividing and multiplying (and some adding or subtracting). That is, unless you'd say: 1% reduced fat milk has two percentage points less fat than full milk.

And to wrap up this uninteresting windy blabber about percentages I wanna link this to the presidential elections - the reason I was probably open to think about this in the first place.

The thing is that people don't think about the difference between percentages and percentage points when they think about election results, which makes them misunderstand the vote differences between candidates.

See, for example in the Obama-McCain race Obama got some 52.5% of all votes and McCain got got 46.2% (reports Pollster.com my favorite poll site). And while the difference between the two was 6.3 percentage points Obama got 13.2% more votes than McCain [(52.5-46.2)/46.2]*100%.