Attitudes Towards Social Media Non-Users And Some Interesting Privacy Watchdog Sites

I have a team of students (very bright students, of course) who have been taking a hard look at social media and the risks of both being involved and the risks of not being involved.

They have come across lots of data (Key Finding:  It is highly likely that social media people LOVE to talk about social media (High confidence)), but we have not been able to find out one thing:  Do people who use social media sites (like Facebook and Twitter) think that people who don't use them are weird? I don't necessarily mean weird in a pejorative way (though I am certainly interested in that interpretation).  It could be just sort of a reaction, like when someone says, "Oh, I don't have a Facebook account" and someone else would automatically think, "That's weird."

So, before I talk more about it more, answer the Swayable below:


Here's what I think we'll see:  A small but significant percentage of those that answer the question will say, "Yeah, it's weird."  If I could gather details, I would guess that there would be a fairly strong correlation between those that think it is weird and age (with younger people thinking it is weirder, obviously).

What is really weird, though is that we can't seem to find anyone who has asked this question before.

Changing the subject a little (but not much), I also wanted to highlight two sites, one old and one new, that provide an interesting insight into the subject of privacy in the age of social media.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/

The first is the wonderful What They Know courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.  This site lets you explore the privacy settings of some of the most popular apps for IOS and Android phones.  You can see a screen shot of part of the site at the right but you owe it to yourself to visit the interactive and a bit disquieting site.

The other site, Privacyscore (See screenshot below), is new but seems like it would be particularly valuable to anyone who searches the web (i.e. everyone).  The site can tell you, based on its own rating system, on a scale 1-100 (where 1 is very bad and 100 is very good), how private your activities on that site really are.  So, for example, Google.com scores an 85 whereas Bing scores only a 74.   Of particular interest to heavy web users or researchers are the Firefox and Chrome add-ons that will display a site's privacy score in real time as you search.

http://www.privacyscore.com/

Mercyhurst Students, Faculty, Alums, Friends: IAI? Or IIS? Help Us Decide!

It is shaping up to be a heckuva year for intelligence studies at Mercyhurst.  This fall we are welcoming our largest freshman class ever (we now have over 400 students in the program!), next summer we will be celebrating our 20th anniversary and 12 months from September 1, we should be moving into a new building.

One other major development that could also occur impacts more than just our little slice of heaven, though -- Mercyhurst College could become Mercyhurst University (though the timeline for this is much more variable, obviously).

With all this happening, it occurred to several of the faculty that we ought to re-examine our name.  It started with the genuine naming problem presented by having an "MU" to deal with but expanded into a fairly deep (for us, that is) discussion of who and what we are.

With that in mind, I decided to see what our students, faculty, alumni and friends might think of our two current top choices.  Using the wonderful Swayable tool, I put it to you:  Which do you prefer, the more traditional "The Institute for Intelligence Studies at Mercyhurst University"? Or the alternative, "The Institute for Applied Intelligence at Mercyhurst University"?  Cast your vote below!

If you don't like either one, leave a comment below!

"We'll Return To Our Regularly Scheduled Programming In Just a Minute..." (Let's Kill The Intelligence Cycle).

My intent today was to jump right into my series on the intelligence cycle and why we should get rid of it (put a wooden stake through its heart were the exact words I think I used...).

However, over the weekend, I received a torrent of emails and the post received a number of comments and it occurred to me that, before I got started in earnest, it might be useful to do a little wholly unscientific sentiment analysis on this issue.

Using the Swayable tool (which many of you have already tested here and here), I intend to first test the underlying assumption behind this study and second to ask two related but independent questions about your perceptions of the intelligence cycle and its place in intelligence theory.

The Assumption Check

The first question is:  "Is the traditional intelligence cycle a perfect representation of the current intelligence process?  By "perfect" I mean perfect -- does the intelligence cycle accurately model the intelligence process as it is currently done?  Trivial issues count here (we will deal with them later).

Something A Bit More Substantial

The second question addresses the degree to which the cycle is imperfect (assuming you thought it was imperfect in the first place): "Do the benefits derived from continuing to use the intelligence cycle as a depiction of the intelligence process outweigh the costs?" I would ask you to think carefully about both the costs and the benefits before answering.

Finally, I want to get at your beliefs: "Without reference to perfection (or imperfection), costs or benefits, do you believe that a better general description of the modern intelligence process is possible?" (Note: Extra credit for guessing why I chose pictures of Leibniz and Voltaire and double secret extra credit for knowing which is which...)

That's it. Please do not hesitate to pass this post and the series on to anyone who might be interested. In addition, please do not hesitate to join in the discussion by dropping me an email or posting a comment (comments are better as they can be seen by all but I understand if that is not possible).

Next: The Disconnect Between Theory And Practice

Intel Deathmatch II: Who Will "Win" In Libya? (Swayable.com)

OK...so that was fun!

If you missed Wednesday's post, we (me and about 250 readers) have been playing around with a new web/iPhone gadget called Swayable here at SAM.

The simple but brilliantly executed idea behind this tool is to get people in your social network to help you decide between two competing options. While much of the action on the Swayable site seems to center on which picture of Justin Bieber is "cutest", I decided to test it out on something which might be of a bit more interest to intelligence professionals.

Specifically, I wanted to know which of two classic intel texts should I read first (assuming I only had time to read one), Lowenthal or Clark. As of a few minutes ago, it was a dead heat (though, to be fair, Lowenthal has led for most of the last 48 hours by a slight but noticeable margin).

Today, I thought I would push the outside of Swayable's envelope once again. Here are a few more substantial questions for you. First, I want to know who is going to "win" in Libya (you can define winning any way you want):





Second, I want to know, if the pro-Gaddafi forces win, what will be the primary reason for the victory:





Finally, I want to know, if the Anti-Gaddafi forces win, with whom will they primarily align themselves after the conflict is over:





A couple of questions and comments have also come up about the service that I think are worth noting here.

First, I can't see who voted which way. All I can see is what you can see. Second, it is possible to preview the results before you cast your vote only on the web-based version of the tool. On the iPhone version, this feature is disabled.

I have had a few very kind emails from the founder of Swayable, Lindsey Harper, and she intends to run some tests to see how hiding the results before the vote would work on the web app as well.

Finally, she indicated that she plans to have an Android version out by summer!

Intel Deathmatch: Who Do You Read First, Clark Or Lowenthal? (Swayable)

A new online service just came out called "Swayable". 

Given that its primary focus is as an iPhone app, it seems to be designed to help people answer those burning questions while on the move such as which shoes should I buy or which dish should I order off a Chinese menu.  

However, I can see some very interesting unconventional uses for something like this, particularly with respect to intelligence in business.

So ... let's try it out. Both of the books below are great and both are "must reads" for intel professionals.  However, imagine you only have time to read one of them. Which one do you choose first?