Raymond Fisman, Professor of Social Enterprise at Columbia Business School, discusses his latest book Economic Gangsters: Corruption, Violence, and the Poverty of Nations.
He explains how seemingly irrational atrocities around the world may have logical causes, as well as logical solutions.
Raymond Fisman is the Lambert Family Professor of Social Enterprise and Research Director of the Social Enterprise Program at the Columbia Business School. Professor Fisman received his Ph.D. in Business Economics at Harvard University.
He worked as a consultant in the Africa Division of the World Bank for a year before moving to Columbia in 1999. Professor Fisman's research focuses on corruption and more broadly on what makes people do bad things (he also sometimes thinks about why people do good things).
His work has been published in leading economics journals, including the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, and Quarterly Journal of Economics. He writes a monthly column for Slate Magazine. Economic Gangsters is his first book.
TreeLuvBurdpu - Nice point on the social networking and chats. DARPA would be proud at the ecommunication that is now possible. Even in realtime; twitter, friendfeed, facebook, myspace, etc. The one thing that is something new beyond all previous human forays into social normalcy and approval as such. The change is this, if a model has it's value undercut by such twelve year old "trolls" as you say, then at some point the "community" will either take action, or disperse into more valued other ways and circles. The underlying math exists with a new signal to noise ratio, that communication beyond face to face or yesteryears era, to even one way TV and radio, no the conversation is actually a conversation. Models to control that, moderate that, and sift out all the crap that is inane, or spam, or important to the broadcaster. Like walking through a crowd of people all yelling into the air. Ruled by committee gets expanded into the crowd. Google has tried, and is currently in the lead. but billions of voices amounts to trillions of conversations and interests. Do we seek to find better, or pass and put down the things which don't suit us? How does that work for the crowd...
Who wants to talk about climate change now... Such a rubix. eep.
The thumb-up/thumb-down motif reminded me how well our chat rooms or now social spaces have cleaned up. When social spaces such as chat rooms became popular there seemed to be a growing plague of people cussing, swearing, insulting, and just jabbering nonsense. It seemed that the social spaces concept itself could colapse under the weight of this nonsensical chatter and lose their value. I remember one incident where everyone was just telling this person to shut up and it didn't work. Finally I said to him, "Are you twelve? I know this might be the first time you've been allowed to cuss but we are trying to have a conversation here." To my shock he stopped. Instantly. I think he was embarrassed because he was actually thirteen. Now that most fora have features that make it SO EASY to negate someones messages by a thumb or something, and for them to see that you have, a seemingly insurmountable roadblock has been bypassed by observable popular disapproval. Julius Caesar would be proud.