• Follow Curiously Persistent on WordPress.com
  • About the blog

    This is the personal blog of Simon Kendrick and covers my interests in media, technology and popular culture. All opinions expressed are my own and may not be representative of past or present employers
  • Subscribe

  • Meta

Reading the wrong books

Bookshelf at the British Library

Towards the end of his (excellent) presentation at the Google #Firestarters 3 event, Martin Bailie said something along the lines of “It’s not enough to read the right books; you have to go out and do something”.

While I agree with his sentiment, it reminded me that I don’t really read books. In fact, this book is the only one I’ve finished this year. This isn’t a conscious choice; merely a result of prioritising other forms of media during the day, and making very slow progress with a fairly large book on the occasions I do read.

As a child, I was a voracious reader, and fondly remember my weekly trips to Tewkesbury Market to spend my pocket-money on the next Three Investigators book (It wasn’t until years later that, to my horror, I discovered that they weren’t actually written by Alfred Hitchcock). At school I diligently read the set texts in full for my various English assignments, while others were seemingly content to read to watch the film (though now I suspect that less engaged students suffice with reading the Wikipedia synopsis)

I wonder the extent to which I’m missing out by not reading more long-form, particularly when people such as Mitch Joel talk up the benefits of reading multiple books a week.

Because it is not as if I’m missing out on any revolutionary thinking; I’m simply consuming it in a different way.

For instance, I’ve read chapters from both Groundswell and Predictably Irrational this year, only to find that their (original) thinking and findings seem outdated as I’d listened to and read so many different people quote and build upon their arguments in the time since they were published. Even at the Firestarters event, the speakers quoted at length from books such as The Lean Start-Up and Creative Disruption.

Should I still read them? I’m not totally sure (particularly when factoring in opportunity cost) but I suspect I should still try to make the time. A second-hand précis isn’t as powerful as digesting the full, coherent text and experiencing the subsequent inspiration first-hand. While the core arguments of some titles may now be beyond familiar, there would be value in following the author step-by-step through his or her logic, rather than skipping to the end with only a superficial understanding.

Indeed, if anything, my experiences don’t suggest there is no value in reading books. Rather, it seems there is value to be had in reading different books. While I would gain additional understanding through reading a book that I’ve already seen widely quoted; this seems an inefficient means to simply catch-up with my peers. Instead, it would surely be better to augment my second-hand consumption with books that aren’t being regularly quoted elsewhere, so that I can move my thinking in a different direction to the crowd.

One way of doing this would be through “conflict reading” – forcing myself to read books containing ideas I expect to my be contrary to my own thoughts, in a similar way to how I read the Daily Mail as a student to know thy enemy. Rather than engaging in group-think, I would be forced to re-assess my own views in light of opposing theories with their own justifications. When successful, this can help add nuance to ideas since beliefs are placed in the context of what they aren’t, in addition to what they are.

Rather than reading the right books, it might be worth reading the wrong books.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/2868288357

Malcolm Tucker’s Guide on How to Use a Focus Group

Malcolm Tucker of The Thick of It/In the LoopI was recently given The Thick of It: The Missing DoSAC files – a book that is ostensibly the lost secret governmental files of one Malcolm Tucker, the political spin doctor featured in The Thick of It on TV and In The Loop in the cinema.

Among the many funny segments in the book is one particularly pertinent to this blog: a guide on how to use a focus group. He is referring primarily to political focus groups, but his points are applicable across the research spectrum.

Before dispensing his advice, Tucker makes it very clear (I’ve expunged most of the fruity language) that focus groups are not helpful. Among the reasons are

  • They are made up of members of the public who are intrinsically unreliable/ lop-sided/ racist/ mental
  • They are ‘run’ by marketing ‘people’
  • Putting a bunch of people with nothing better to do in an airless basement can’t end well – “At best, you’ll get a Downfall parody you can put on the net”

I think that is fair enough. Furthermore, his advice on getting the best from focus groups is better than some things I’ve heard from professional researchers:

  • Do not listen to one person in particular – one person is not representative of anything. Even if they agree with you.
  • If there is no consensus then ignore everything everyone says
  • If there is consensus, listen to it and then ask yourself if it is mad
  • If it isn’t mad, then give it serious consideration. After that, reject it out of hand as “the purpose of a focus group is to give the illusion that we are listening. It is not to form policy”. If it were, these people would be the Cabinet

Tucker also usefully identifies eleven types of people to beware of

  • Motorway Man – he spends a lot of time on the motorway so is, by definition, out of touch
  • Holby City Woman – “She watches Holby City. She is a human vacuum”
  • The Disillusioned Voter
  • The Young Person Who Went Straight From School To Working in a Key-Cutters – gets all his/her information from things mates have said in the pub
  • The Student – only there in the hope of getting free biscuits and red bull
  • The Woman Who Will Agree With Everything That Is Said Because That Is What She Thinks You Want
  • The Fucking Guardian Reader – “If you want to know what a Guardian reader thinks you can read the Guardian. Plus, that way, you get a crossword”
  • The Fucking Telegraph Reader – “A ruddy-faced village idiot who looks like he’s directly descended from Lord Melchett in Blackadder II
  • The Local Business Man – only interested in issues concerning him
  • Dot Cotton’s Younger, Less Glamorous Sister – only there for a bit of company
  • The Fucking Weirdo Who Says Stuff Either Too Quiet Or Too Loud Which Doesn’t Make Sense And Trails Off Into Nothing Or Ends Mid-Thought Thereby Making Everyone Feel Uncomfortable – ignore them. Unless they’re in charge of the focus group

The final points to bear in mind are:

  • The Under 30s are too young to know anything
  • People between the age of 30 and 40 are only interested in stuff that directly pertains to them/their children
  • “The Over 40s are losing their faculties and no longer able to absorb or process information properly”

“And remember: People talk shit. They talk even more shit when they are asked to manufacture opinions on subjects they are totally ignorant of and/or couldn’t give a gnat’s anus about”.

Sound advice. For more of his (along with Nicola, Olly, Glenn, Terri and Jamie’s) pearls of wisdom, go get the book

sk