<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hierachy of feeds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://usableinterfaces.com/2009/04/04/hierachy-of-feeds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://usableinterfaces.com/2009/04/04/hierachy-of-feeds/</link>
	<description>Observations on UE, strategy, digital trends and all that</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:23:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fredrik Matheson</title>
		<link>http://usableinterfaces.com/2009/04/04/hierachy-of-feeds/#comment-3824</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fredrik Matheson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://usableinterfaces.com/?p=828#comment-3824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for posting this humorous analogy!

There are many theories of human behavior that can be applied in this setting. Lawrence and Nohria&#039;s book &quot;Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices&quot; (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0787963852/) might be worth considering, too.

Their book considers four key drives at the root of our behavior:

* to acquire
* to bond
* to learn
* to defend

Transcribed into Twitterish, we could set it up as such

* to acquire – a following
* to bond – with one&#039;s brethren, find allies and bond with those more popular than oneself (the &quot;cool by association&quot; trick)
* to learn – it&#039;s hard to come up with a snarky comment about that
* to defend – &quot;staying in the loop&quot; might work here.

However, let&#039;s remember that human behavior is governed in part by physical laws (you can only be in one place at a time, etc) and the Dunbar number with relation to maximum group size (it&#039;s not precisely 150, of course). Tools such as Twitter (or, more precisely, interfaces such as Tweetdeck) affect some of these boundaries.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for posting this humorous analogy!</p>
<p>There are many theories of human behavior that can be applied in this setting. Lawrence and Nohria&#8217;s book &#8220;Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices&#8221; (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0787963852/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/dp/0787963852/</a>) might be worth considering, too.</p>
<p>Their book considers four key drives at the root of our behavior:</p>
<p>* to acquire<br />
* to bond<br />
* to learn<br />
* to defend</p>
<p>Transcribed into Twitterish, we could set it up as such</p>
<p>* to acquire – a following<br />
* to bond – with one&#8217;s brethren, find allies and bond with those more popular than oneself (the &#8220;cool by association&#8221; trick)<br />
* to learn – it&#8217;s hard to come up with a snarky comment about that<br />
* to defend – &#8220;staying in the loop&#8221; might work here.</p>
<p>However, let&#8217;s remember that human behavior is governed in part by physical laws (you can only be in one place at a time, etc) and the Dunbar number with relation to maximum group size (it&#8217;s not precisely 150, of course). Tools such as Twitter (or, more precisely, interfaces such as Tweetdeck) affect some of these boundaries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

