Thursday, December 4, 2008

Motive Imagery and The Spread of Ideas

A couple weeks ago I ran a quick survey on my website, Those Answers, in order to gather data about the affect (if any) that motive imagery may play on the spread of ideas. I was interested in finding out if there was one particular class of motive imagery that people are more or less likely to disseminate.

Motive imagery is a psychological phenomenon that is rooted in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), in which a person tells a fantastical story about anything or may be guided by the use of images, sounds, or ideas. Based on the language and tones that people use to elicit their thoughts, whether they are stern or sweet, hopeful or sad, angry or happy, can indeed tell you about the current psychological state of that individual.

Motive imagery is then broken down into three core categories (there is actually a fourth dimension to motive imagery, but that will not be explained in this post). The classifications of motive imagery are rather simple, but are phenomenally complex when one explores their intricacies and how they were originally determined.

There is achievement motive imagery, which is based on positive evaluations, a desire to do better, positive goal oriented performance, or unique acts performed. There is affiliation/intimacy motive imagery, which is based on the longing for togetherness, sad feelings about separation, or the desire to help in a genuine way. Finally, there is power motive imagery, which is based on force and regulation and a need to impress others.

Motive imagery was established in the early 1950's by a famed psychologist at Harvard named David McClelland. McClelland asserted that by categorizing and collecting data on these TAT tests, one could establish deep, underlying motivations that people possessed. His work has been built on further by David Winter at the University of Michigan and Richard Boyatzis at Case Western Reserve University.

I am currently conducting an in depth research study on the role motive imagery plays in the corporate world. As I go on this adventure, my mind wanders, and I felt like gathering some data on another aspect of human psychology that motive imagery may be responsible for, and that is the dissemination of ideas.

When people hear information, they need to interpret that information for themselves, process it, store it, and then if they engage in social activities in which they can share that information, disperse it if they decide it is worthy.

I think that the concept of the transfer of ideas is mind blowing. Essentially, an idea is birthed in someone's mind, is uttered in a usable form of language to another organism that can go through the process described above, and then that other organism, feeling so compelled by the information they received makes a conscious decision to seek out and share other organisms with which it can spread the idea or information further.

There is a great deal of relevance to this dissection. In today's world where information is readily available and accessible at all times almost anywhere on the planet (newspapers, phones, Internet, television, etc.), one ought to wonder how human's decide on which ideas are the most pertinent, important, and really, worthy of our own cognitive functioning.

As a result of this inundation of information and knowledge, advertisers and news media have started to rely more heavily on Word of Mouth Marketing (WOMM), which is considered the best form of sharing ideas because it has the greatest impact and lasting effect on the individual with whom the idea is being shared.

Thus, are there ways to ensure that this information is disseminated more frequently? How do you encourage your idea or information to be spread via Word of Mouth? Is there a way to improve the odds?

With these questions in mind, I conducted the following study which I explain here:
  • Idea Dissemination Study
Starting at 6:00 am on November, 19 2008 until 9:00 am November, 24 2008, a group of 36 individuals were randomly sampled and were asked to take a survey. The individuals were sampled from my current Friends list on my Facebook account.

I feel the sample is validly random just based on the mere nature of the demographics of my friends, but in order to further substantiate the validity, I cross checked the locations from which the survey was accessed via Google Analytics over the November 19 to November 24 time period, and there were 83 unique visits from 40 cities around the United States. A majority of the visits came from Ann Arbor, Michigan, but there were several from: Bloomington, New York, Ypsilanti, Chicago, Northbrook, Palo Alto, Ft. Collins, Greencastle, Manhattan, etc.


The 36 individuals who filled out the survey were given the following information when filling out the survey, "Provided are some 'News Headlines' pulled from the same news source. Please determine which one of the three options provided in each case you would most likely share with another person."

The news source (newspaper, television, magazine, etc.) was left up to the individual. Future studies may want to classify which news source the participant is reading the "News Headline" from because there may be some variability between sources.

Participants were then asked to select a single headline from a list of three options. The three options provided headlines in one of each of the three forms of motive imagery (achievement, affiliation, and power). News headlines varied and were on several different topics from energy, to the Big Three, to the Economic Crisis, to Shrimp and Picnics.

Individuals were then asked, "Why?" after each selection, in which they could write down anything they wanted. Most of them made comments relating to their choice in picking the headline. It was an optional field for all five questions, and some fields were indeed left blank.

The participants then submitted their answers and were taken to a screen that explained the nature of the study and further reading that they could do on the topic.

The information that the participants submitted was then collected in a database and then converted into an Excel document. The number of times each motive imagery category was then calculated as a proportion of the total amount of responses. There was one question left blank by the 36 participants, which means that there were 179 (instead of 180) responses.
  • Results
To analyze the data, I used a one-proportion z-test (equation seen below) in order to test each motive imagery category against the null hypothesis that there is an equal likelihood that each motive imagery category would be selected. Therefore, I expected each motive imagery category could be selected one-third or 33.3% of the time.


A z-score allows you to attain a standard score in which you can then determine the p-value, or the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, given that the null hypothesis is true. The p-value is defined by the area under the curve in a normal distribution, seen below. The maximum area of a normal distribution with a z-score is 1. The z-score is found on the x-axis of the graph. Based on this z-score table, the p-value is found by subtracting the z-score from 1, essentially subtracting the shaded area from the whole graph, which gives the probability of observing as extreme a result as the outcome observed.
In order for a result to be considered statistically significant, it ought be at least below 5%, which is quite a liberal p-value. In this experiment, I consider results below 5% to be statistically significant.

The results of the survey were:
  • Achievement Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 60/179 or 0.335 (33.5%)
  • Affiliation Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 73/179 or 0.408 (40.8%)
  • Power Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 46/179 or 0.257 (25.7%)
By doing the one-proportion z-test for each of the three motive imagery categories, I arrive at the following z-scores:
  • Achievement Motive Imagery: 0.05
  • Affiliation Motive Imagery: 2.11
  • Power Motive Imagery: -2.17
By using a z-score table, provided here, I find the p-values:
  • Achievement Motive Imagery: 0.5199 or 51.99%
  • Affiliation Motive Imagery: 0.9826 or 98.26%
  • Power Motive Imagery: 0.015 or 1.5%
These are very fascinating results that need a little further discussion.
  • Discussion
Based on the findings of this study, it appears as though there is a significant relationship between affiliation and power motive imagery and dissemination of ideas. This can be deduced by the relatively high and low p-value scores. The score of 98.26% indicates that in only 1.74% of the cases would I expect to find an equally extreme result as those found in this study. That is well under 5%. Additionally, the 1.5% from power motive imagery reveals that in only 1.5% of cases would I expect to find the results that I found for power motive imagery and idea dissemination, which is also below 5%. Unfortunately, achievement motive imagery cannot reject the null hypothesis that it would be equally distributed because of its p-value of 51.99%, well above 5%.

These results indicate to me that ideas that are framed with affiliation motive imagery in mind are most likely to be disseminated, while those ideas that are framed with power motive imagery are least likely to be disseminated.

There are several shortcomings of this research that counter these statistical findings. For instance, the survey just asked individuals which statements they "would most likely share" with another person, and doesn't test it practically. The actual act of telling has not yet occurred, and is thus just the best guess on the behalf of the participant.

Furthermore, and building on the previous idea, participants may have selected headlines that just interested them and not one's they would necessarily take the time to spread to others. Several people cited in their "why?" statements that the article interested them, however, many also made reference to the fact that the headline interested people they knew, which leads one to believe that the idea was generated with the other people in mind. These conflicting points are irreconcilable in the scope of this study, and I urge others to address this in the future.

It is counter-intuitive that ideas that are warm and fuzzy, the type that are common to affiliation motive imagery, would likely be disseminated. Studies have shown that the news is filled with violence and negative stories, and people are more likely to spread that kind of news (Source). These findings go against that notion, especially when power motive imagery headlines, more common for force, control, and regulation was least likely to be disseminated. Perhaps the issues and characters involved in the headline is more significant. That idea is beyond the research question of this study.
  • Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the three categories of motive imagery on the frequency in disseminating ideas. In order to evaluate this, a short survey was given to 36 randomly sampled individuals in which they selected headlines that they would most likely share with others.

The findings indicate a statistically significant result for affiliation motive imagery and power motive imagery. Affiliation motive imagery headlines were shown to be most likely to be disseminated while power motive imagery headlines were shown to be least likely to be disseminated. Both were statistical at the 5% level.

Deciding on which issues are most important to us may indeed be a function of motive imagery, but these findings need to be further substantiated with more testing. There are several alternative hypotheses that were not addressed in this study that may impact the validity of the results.

Maybe it is just all about the words we hear and how we hear them that makes a subconscious decision about what is most important to us and what we choose to tell others. These results are but a a first step in finding the answer.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Reciprocity of a Drinking Game

Yesterday evening, my friends played a drinking game before heading out to the bar. Because I wasn't planning on going out, but still wanted to enjoy their company, I decided to monitor the tendencies of their drinking game.

The rules of the game were pretty simple. It is a game that involves cards and decisions by the players. When cards are dealt, players will either have to "take," or drink for a specified amount of time based on the round, or "give" a specified amount of time to drink based on the round.

The first couple rounds go swiftly. Cards are dealt one-by-one to players in a counterclockwise order. The cards are dealt face up and in each round a player receives only one card.

During the first round, players are asked
 to guess whether the card is red or black. If they guess correctly, they can "give" the value associated with the first round (2 seconds) to another player, but if they are wrong, then they have to "take" those 2 seconds. In the second round, players are asked if their next card will be higher or lower than the card they already have. The same rules apply if they are right or wrong, except now it extends to 4 seconds. 

The third round asks players to determine whether the card will be inside or outside of the range of cards that they have. For instance, if a player has drawn a 7 of spades and an 8 of hearts, it is likely that the next card will be outside of the range, whereas, a player with a 2 of diamonds and a king of clubs would probably guess inside. The same rules apply for being right or wrong, except now it is 6 seconds. 

The fourth and final round of the preliminary rounds asks players to guess which suit their card will be. If players are correct, they can "give" 8 seconds, but have to "take" 8 seconds if they are wrong.

After the preliminary round, the game enters into a phase called, Fireworks. The picture above gives the breakdown of how Fireworks is setup. As you can see there are several cards used in Fireworks, all face down to begin with. There are two columns of cards, one "take" and one "give" that increase in their intensity from 2 seconds to 8 seconds, similar to the opening rounds (this is represented in the illustration by the number following the word Card). On the wings are four more cards that raise the level of intensity. On the left side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for half a beer. On the right side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for a whole beer. The order in which Fireworks occur is by starting with "Card 2" in the Take Column, and then "Card 2" in the Give Column. This continues through "Card 8" for both Take and Give. Then Take and Give is done for Half and then Full.

The way in which this portion of the game works, is if any of the four cards you received during the preliminary round match in value (8's, Kings, Jacks, 4's, etc.) to those that get flipped, you must "take" or "give" depending on the card's designation. 

It's a phenomenal game and a lot of fun to play or watch. 

I thought it would be interesting to map out some of the decisions that were made in terms of "giving" drinking quotas to other people. Though this is a friendly game, harsh decisions have to be made at times as to who has to drink. I've also considered that as the game progresses, participants are most likely becoming further inebbriated, which may effect their decision-making processes, but this effect is inherent to the system. I was interested if any patterns would emerge based on some sort of reciprocity, and as I expected, something quite concrete can be deduced from this very simple but telling game about social networks.
  • Explanation
Above is a visual representation of the decisions made by participants in their first game of play recorded. There were five total participants, each depicted as a "Smiling Face." The boxes either above, below, or to the side of the faces are how I will make reference to distinctive actions made by that player. The visual representation is supposed to give scope as to the actual seating arrangements of the individuals playing the game, which I assert makes significant impact on the decisions of the players. I was seated between JG and SS and was not participating in the game.

I propose that seating is the most important factor determining decisions in the game. Starting from the left side: ZS was sitting on a chair by himself. JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS were sitting on a couch together. MK and MB were sitting on a seperate couch perpendicular to JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS, facing ZS. There is a rectangular table between the groups.

There are clear trends that can be noticed from the outset. SS and ZS engaged in a "war" during the game, consistently being given decisions (which is based on luck), and consistently "giving" the designated value to one another. SS and ZS were also seated quite far away from one another, at least on opposite sides of the table. 

SS was given several opportunities to "give," but made them consistently towards ZS. He could have just as easily "spread the wealth" by "giving" to JG, MK, and MB, but chose to direct his efforts to a member farthest away from him.

There are several underlying causes of this. One consideration is mere comradary. ZS and SS may be good buddies and want to get each other "wasted" to have a fun night at the bar. However, all the individuals playing the game are all trying to get "wasted" and are equally good buddies. This is not a qualifying argument. 

Another cause could possibly be based on the Feedback effect. As SS makes more decisions to "give" to ZS, ZS comes back at SS and "gives" to him in order to "level the score." This argument has slightly more merit. However, one must realize that the players are all reasonable people and wouldn't intentionally engage in "war" with another if they had other options available. "War" is undesirable, and none of the players at the table would choose to wage it rationally.

This leaves us with the prevailing theory that decision making was based on seating arrangements. This is well evidenced by SS's decisions. While SS had 5 decisions to make, more than any other person, he directed his "giving" to only one person, and that person was farthest away. He did not "give" to MK, who was very close but on another couch, or MB, slightly farther away, but not the farthest, nor did he "give" to JG, a member of his same couch. SS clearly looked for a member of an outgroup in which he could get others to gang up on.

And they did. In closest proximity to SS was MK. MK, with only 3 decisions, decided to spend one of them on ZS, influenced by the actions of SS and feeling comfortable with the distance between them. 

The distance and seating argument is further evidenced by actions of MK and MB on JG. MK and MB are members of the same couch. MB, with only 1 decision, chose to spend it on JG, and MK spent 2 out of 3 of his decisions on JG. MB and MK were located equally as far away from JG as SS and ZS were. The fact that they were working together and the "extreme" distance between the parties made it okay to gang up on this one player.

MK and MB also attacked each other by "giving" one decision to each. However, once the decision was reciprocated, the two never "gave" to one another again, indicating a truce of sorts, and an understanding of using their strength elsewhere on farther targets.

The decision by JG may seem a little incongruous with the proposed theory of distance being the most important factor, but a brief analysis makes sense of his decision.

JG had no reason to "give" to SS. They are members of the same couch and SS had never targeted JG before. It is then likely that JG would attack either MK or MB, because they "gave" to him and JG would like his revenge. However, JG was only provided with 1 decision, and it would have been futile to "give" to either MK or MB. There are two reasons for this.

First, by "giving" to only one of the members, MK or MB, the revenge isn't sweet at all. JG can only make one of his attackers suffer. The full effect of the decision is thus inconsequential; there is no statement made by JG's decision. Second, JG, realizing that he was a target of attack, didn't want to further annoy or anger MK or MB by "giving" to them. JG was already being targeted for being far away from MB and MK, an attack on them would just motivate MK and MB to "give" to JG more frequently.

Thus, JG "gave" to ZS, a fellow member of attack. There are several reasons why this may be the case. JG could try to win support from SS or MK, so they would both view JG as an ally. JG does this for MK so that he would no longer attack him, based on their mutual agreement to attack ZS. JG does this for SS so that if ZS, MK, or MB "gives" to JG, SS may counterattack on behalf of JG, due to the fact that they have a mutual understanding of attacking ZS and because they are members of the same couch. 
  • Conclusion
The object of this study was to try and understand the decision making processes involved in playing a drinking game. 

After excluding alternative hypotheses, decision making during this drinking game can most accurately be attributed to the location in which someone sits relative to the other players.

ZS was thus a "sitting duck" from the start. He was farthest away from three of the four players, not including himself, and also sat in a chair with no other person. SS and JG were "members" of the same couch, just as MK and MB were "members" of a different couch. This team-like or shared experience as "members" of the same couch is remarkably strong in shifting decisions. Allegiances were tested, as MK and MB reveal, but ultimately, the majority of the decisions were based on how far someone was located away from the decision maker.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Word Frequency Measurement

I came across a fascinating product today that Google operates. The product is Google Trends and visually displays information relating to search queries that could be entered into a Google search. It's unbelievable comprehensive. Aside from providing a line graph of the relative search volume since 2004, it also provides you with the ability to narrow your search to particular regions of the world or even singular countries. For a person who wants to use Google as their advertising medium on the Internet, this feature is without doubt a must. Understanding where and why people are searching for the terms they are is a critical feature that sets Google apart from the rest.

You can also localize your search term trend for a particular span in time. So, if you are only interested in how people have been searching for these words within the past 30 days, you can set that option very easily. If you are particularly interested in how many times that search term was queried in a particular month since January 2004, Google Trends will allow you to set that.

The graph has an interesting dependent variable called Search Volume Index. On Google Trend's About page they define it as "how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time."

Just below the graph are three columns at are unbelievably helpful in understanding how exactly the search term you're looking at is used. There is a column for regions, which specifies the rank of usage by country. Then, next to that column is an even more specific look at where the search term is being queried by ranking the cities by usage. As you will see later, the city in which the search term is queried the most is quite intuitive. Finally, the last column is what language that term is most queried in. Most of the tests that I've performed have had the most usage in English, however, it is fascinating to see how the rest of the queries not in English relating to the search term rank by language.

Probably one of the coolest features about Google Trends is its pairing with relevant news articles. Below the primary graph that reveals search volume there is a another graph called New Reference Volume. "This graph shows you the number of times your topic appeared in Google News stories." When there are spikes in the search term volume, Google Trends automatically flags the occurrence and links the spike to an actual news article, which probably explains the spike in search term volume.

It's an amazing feat of computational engineering. When it comes to understanding how people are using the Internet in terms of what their searching, I cannot think of a better source than Google Trends. Google has approximately 60% market share of all search queries, and this data is contigent on that sample. Google Trends is comprehensive and provides the user with the relevant information that he or she is looking for.

In order to gain further understanding of Google Trends, I ran a quick study in order to familiarize myself with the options and processes available.
  • Google Trends Study
This study was conducted on November 8, 2008 at approximately 7:30pm. The purpose of the study was to gain familiarity with Google Trends and make comparisons of search term usage for a randomly sampled set of search terms across regions.

The study sampled three words from three randomly sampled individuals living in my house. Participants were asked to, "provide three words that could be possible search queries in a well known search engine, like Google." The individuals choosing the words sat together and were asked to recite them aloud. This would ensure that participants didn't provide duplicate words.

After the participants gave me three randomly selected words each, they were asked to, "provide a country somewhere in the world aside from the United States." Each participant then selected the country in the same fashion that they provided the words. Some participants took longer than others; one participant was still selecting words while another had already provided both their words and country. The time length in which the participants finish their selections is not terribly important, however, it should be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Participants were also asked to predict the relative search volume of their three words from highest to lowest across the world.

The following table summarizes each participant's selections and the order in which they expect their search volume to be from highest to lowest:
As you can see, there was a rich diversity in the words that were selected. Participant 2 focused on more Proper Nouns than regular nouns like the other participants involved, yet, still a sufficiently random sample.
  • Participant 1
[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Drugs, Cowboy, Cardboard]

Upon requesting search volumes for the three words provided by Participant 1 in Djibouti, Google Trends was unable to provide search volume information citing the following:
Your terms - ????? - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.
Suggestions:
  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
  • Try different keywords.
  • Try more general keywords.
  • Try fewer keywords.
  • Try viewing data for all years and all regions.
The subsequent 6 search terms provided by Participant 2 and 3 were then also searched for in the Djibouti database rendering the same message. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be sufficient search queries of these provided words from Djibouti to elicit graphs. This is an unfortunate finding based on our study. It appears as though Google Trends, while comprehensive, is indeed fallible.
After trying to insert search queries that I thought would have sufficient volume to represent graphically (United States, Barack Obama), I eventually input "Djibouti," which finally elicited results. The search term, "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for in Djibouti, Djibouti, when narrowing the results to just Djibouti results. The most common language that Djibouti is searched for in Djibouti is French. There was a spike in search volume for "Djibouti" in Djibouti on June 12, 2008 when an article was published entitled, "UN council condemns Eritrean attack."

This can be compared to search queries for the term "Djibouti"
from all regions around the world. "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for in Regions like Djibouti, United Arab Emirates, Morroco, and France. Some cities where "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for include Dubayy, UAE, Ottawa, Canada, and Rennes, France. French, English, Swedish, and Dutch are most common languages when searching for "Djibouti."

Participant 1 correctly predicted the order in which the search terms provided would be relative to one another across the world. It is interesting to note that the order the participant gave the words is the same order that was predicted for highes
t to lowest search volume. The graph visually depicts the relationship between Drugs, Cowboy, and Cardboard in terms of their worldwide search volume.
  • Participant 2
[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Synthesizer, Rex Grossman, Mr. Feeney]

Similar to the Participant 1, the words provided by Participant 2 did not have enough search volume in Malta for a graph to be displayed. This is again another unfortunate occurrence. The same technique was used for Participant 2 as was for Participant 1 in attempting to find some sort of graph. The other 6 search queries did not provide any sort of graphical depiction either.

In order to gather some results, I input the search query, "Malta" to elicit some sort of results within the Malta Google Trends database. Fortunately, this was able to provide some sort of graph with relevant news articles that coincided with spikes in the volume.

In Malta, the search term, "Malta" is most frequently searched for in Msida, San Gwann, and Valleta, all cities in Malta and in that order. The most common language "Malta" is searched for in Malta by frequency is German, English, and Maltese. One of the highest peaks in News Reference Volume within the Malta database when searching for the query "Malta" was on November 20, 2007, when an article entitled, "Queen to Celebrate in Malta," was published on News24.com.

Compare these results to worldwide trends for searching "Malta." Some of the most popular regions searching for "Malta" are Malta, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, and Austria. Some of the most popular cities are the three Maltese cities already mentioned, followed by, Poznan, Poland, Dublin, Ireland, and Thames Ditton, United Kingdom.

Participant 2 was correct in the predictions made about the order in which relative search volume would occur. Synthesizer has a higher relative search volume to that of Rex Grossman, and by virtue of there not being enough data on Mr. Feeney, one can deduce that Rex Grossman has a higher relative search volume than Mr. Feeney. This is visually represented below.
  • Participant 3
[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Arsenic, Stencil, Magician]

Similar to the past two participants, all word choices by Participant 3, arsenic, stencil, and magician elicited no graphical results in the Belgium Database of Google Trends. Upon further review, some words provided by Participant 1 (Drugs & Cowboy) elicited results, but for fairness to each participant, I will conduct the same analysis as I have done for the prior two.

Therefore, I will share results from quering the search term "Belgium" in the Belgium database. The most prominent subregions that query the search term "Belgium" are Flemish Brabant, East Flanders, Brussels, and Luxembourg. Major cities querying "Belgium" include Leuven, Gent, and Brussels. The language that "Belgium" is usually queried in is English, Dutch, and French (in that order).

Recently, there was a surge in the News Reference Volume relating to the search query of "Belgium" within Belgium that linked to a story entitled, "First Industrial to Invest in New State-of-the-Art Logistics Facilities in Belgium." The story was published on October 6, 2008 and led to the highest New Reference Volume in the Belgium Database of Google Trends for the search query "Belgium" ever.

Compare this to worldwide searches for the search query "Belgium." The major regions in which "Belgium" is searched for occur in Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Cities outside of the Belgium that most frequently query the search term "Belgium" include London, United Kingdom, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Syndey, Australia, and New York, New York. Around the world, the most commonly used language to query the search term "Belgium" is Dutch, French, English, German, and Italian (in that order).

Participant 3 incorrectly predicted the relative search volumes of the three randomly selected words provided. Based on worldwide Google Trends data, the relative search volumes of the words Arsenic, Stencil, and Magician are correctly ordered as Stencil, Magician, and Arsenic. Stencil is relatively searched for 2.65 times more than arsenic, and Magician is searched for approximately twice as much as arsenic. The graph below reveals this relationship.
  • Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to gain familiarity with the product Google Trends and make comparisons between the relative search volume of randomly selected words.

While Google Trends contains a wide breadth of data on search volumes, there is desperate need for its regional databases to contain more comprehensive data. Search queries in the Djibouti, Malta, and Belgium databases hardly provided any results when inputting some randomly selected words. Either these databases should not be provided to begin with, or they need to be more comprehensive in nature.

Two of the three participants in the study were correctly able to predict the relative search volume of their provided terms. This suggests that Google Trends provides intuitive knowledge. However, it is well evidenced by Participant 3 that the relative search volumes for particular words may be harder to predict.

Overall, Google Trends is a phenomenal resource that provides superb measurements of the relative search volumes of typical search queries performed on the Internet.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Sustainable Stadium

Everything is going green. Trying to conserve, harness, and make the most of our resources is the newest trend sweeping across the world. It was probably a long time coming, and I hope it doesn't turn out to be a fad, but figuring out ways to be self-sufficient and efficient are definitely the ways to go at the moment. A lot of the craze is fueled by fuel itself.

Seeking out alternative energies like wind power, solar power, coal, and my favorite, biodiesel (see Syntroleum), are pushing some of the greatest minds of our generation to the brink. The McKinsey Quarterly, a publication by McKinsey & Company exploring current and future market trends, has a really fascinating article on how money could be invested over the next decade to realistically establish sustainable energy.

A couple weeks back, a buddy and I were standing in the Big House, the appropriate name given to the Univeristy of Michigan's football stadium which has an overwhelming capacity of 107,501, and discussed how the sheer size and magnitude of the stadium could be used to produce something of worthwhile value.

We wondered why it wouldn't be possible for the stadium to essentially sustain itself with the energy necessary to power the lights, scoreboard, and loudspeaker. We figured that you put 110,000 people in one place, you're bound to be able to derive a little bit of energy (at least enough to power those elements).

Anyway, my friend and I were perplexed as to how to harness the energy of the stadium. We figured that the vibrations that people made when cheering would be enough to power some of the things used in the stadium, but how to harness this energy was the true question. At first we talked about turbines, as that is how most energy is harnessed, but didn't figure out a practical application for it. We were pretty much stumped and for some time have allowed our idea of creating a self-sustaining stadium to die.

But then, the New York Times came through (as it typically does), and revealed some of the incredible technological advances that are going on in our world every day.

In the October 23, 2008 Europe Edition of the New York Times, there was an article entitled, "Partying Helps Power a Dutch Nightclub," and seemingly our quest to power the Big House had some shimmering hope. We now had some sort of benchmark, which we could try and follow.

Apparently, a Dutch nightclub has just installed a revolutionary dance floor that utilizes a technology called piezoelect
ricity to help power the lighting in the facility. By harnessing the vibrations of people dancing on the floor, the nightclub is able to use the energy generated by the people dancing. This video shows how piezoelectricity works and its application in the nightclub in particular:


According to Wikipedia, the most elementary definition of piezoelectricity is, "the ability of some materials (notably crystals and certain ceramics, including bone) to generate an electric potential in response to applied mechanical stress. This may take the form of a separation of electric charge across the crystal lattice. If the material is not short-circuited, the applied charge induces a voltage across the material."

To understand this concept graphically, Wikipedia further presents this image which I think is quite intuitive and depicts the nature of piezoelectricity and why it would be useful in the context of a nightclub or in our case, the Big House.

As you can see there is some sort of crystalline structure that when compressed creates an electrical voltage.

I would love to calculate the potential energy that could be produced in the Big House on a football Saturday, but the Wikipedia article lost me in all of the complex algorithms and mathematical identities necessary to calculate strain, stress, and compliance. My friend who I was chatting with at the football game happens to be an actuarial mathematics major, and perhaps he will be better equipped to do that sort of arithmetic.

According to the New York Times article about the piezoelectric dance floor, the cost of installation was approximately $257,000 which the owner of the club does not believe will be recouped by energy savings due to the inefficiency of this relatively new technology. This is very unfortunate, and will make selling the University on this idea even harder.

Yet, like all technological progress, I assume that piezoelectricity and its applications will follow the guiding principles of Moore's Law, which suggests an exponential advance in the capabilities of a technological process and thus dramatic drops in price and spikes in efficiency.

Currently, the Big House at the University of Michigan is undergoing some major repairs that will increase the capacity of the stadium as well as intensity of the noise. According to the Michigan Stadium Renovation Website, "The expected cost of $226 million will be funded through private donations and Athletic Department resources, primarily the revenues generated by the new seating."

If the University of Michigan is truly still the "leaders and the best," as their fight song suggests, then they will take the steps necessary to make the Big House not only the largest stadium in the country, but the first ever self-sustaining stadium in the world.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Deeper Than South Park

The impetus for this blog post comes from an unlikely source in my opinion. I was watching an episode of South Park about a week ago. I have to admit I find South Park unbelievably entertaining and think that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have really developed quite a brilliant show. Anyway, the show that I was watching in particular was an episode called Tonsil Trouble. This episode debuted the 12th season of South Park, and my goodness, what a start to a season.

The plot of the episode is as follows. Cartman, the loud, obnoxious fat character on the show has to get his tonsils removed. During the procedure he is accidentally infected with HIV. The idea of this happening is utterly ridiculous. Throughout the show Cartman is then trying to gain sympathy from all the people around him, his classmates and his friends, but because Cartman is typically mean to everyone else, they find it hard to pity him.

The plot obviously gets far more ridiculous at this point as most South Park's usually do, but underneath it all is an amazing underlying message that we can all walk away with. The long and short of it is that they go to visit Magic Johnson, because Cartman is aware of how long he has lived with HIV but has not yet passed away, as is the unfortunate case with HIV patients.

While on the trip to Magic Johnson's home, there is a commentary on the state of HIV in today's society. Nobody appears to take HIV seriously anymore, and rather it's all about Cancer these days, HIV is a "retro" virus made popular in the 1980s. I'll explore why this is the case later.

When they get to Magic Johnson's they see that his room is filled with money. Magic Johnson claims that he sleeps with all of the money he has made in his room. Cartman therefore deduces that the reason that Magic Johnson was able to live so long with HIV is due to a chemical intrinsic to money.

Cartman and his friend Kyle, who Carman malliciously infected with HIV, then go back home and begin research on the effect of money on containing HIV. All the researchers are absolutely amazed when you take a large stack of money and blend it up into a liquid and inject it into the body that it is capable of suppressing HIV. Ultimately, they realize that all it takes to cure HIV is a "$180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream."

This brings a lot of ideas to mind that I think should be addressed. Therefore, I went out and did a little bit of digging around the Internet to see if there was any truth to what South Park was suggesting. I broke their claims down into two assertions:
  1. HIV is a "retro" virus. Today we are more concerned with Cancer.
  2. In order to control HIV, you would need around $180,000.
I'll tackle both of these assertions one at a time.
  • Findings
HIV and Cancer are equally scary illnesses and it is an absolutely horrendous thing to afflict anybody. Based on Avert.org, which has worldwide statistics on AIDS, I found out that the current trend in relation to HIV aids patients follows an increasing number but at a decreasing rate. The graph below summarizes the statistics relating to HIV since 1990.
Currently, there are an estimated 33 million people around the world who are suffering from HIV/AIDS. This has grown by a steady rate since 1990, but has slowed significantly in recent years. Along with the above graph, there is a trendline that expresses the rate of HIV infections worldwide. The equation for HIV infections worldwide can be summarized as: -0.0653x^2+2.7956x+4.2083, where x is equal to the amount of years after 1990. Under this assumption, I project that HIV/AIDS could be completely contained and eradicated by the year 2034. See graph below:
This is quite an idealist and optimistic perspective to take on the current state of HIV/AIDS, however, it is merely based on current trends. Furthermore, 2034 is 26 years from now in which there is ample time for education to take the forefront in combating this disease. Teaching people about contraception and means of avoiding this disease is truly the way that we can eradicate this disease. The most important region to focus on is sub-Saharan Africa, where 59% of all infected cases live. The world will most definitely be a different place in 2034, so why not make it a world free of HIV/AIDs.

In comparison to Cancer, however, HIV/AIDs has begun to take a backseat and therefore this verifies the claims made by South Park that HIV is perhaps a "retro" virus. According to the American Cancer Society, there have been 1,437,180 new cases of Cancer reported in 2008.

In 2006, there were only 36,187 new cases of HIV reported in the United States, barely 2.5% of the same number of new cases of Cancer. The peak of new HIV cases occurred in 1984-85 in which there were 130,000 cases reported. This really puts the magnitude of Cancer in perspective. South Park, while making a satire of this situation, is accurate in their assessment that Cancer is truly the big killer disease at the moment.

One of the things about Cancer is that there are so many different ways that it can get you. For men, it appears as though Prostate cancer is the most prevalent, affecting 25% of all cases, whereas for females it is Breast cancer, which infects 26%. However, it should be noted that for both genders, the number one killer is lung and bronchus cancer. Then behind this type of cancer the two most prevalent cases for each, prostate and breast, respectively, are the next most serious killers.

Cancer is definitely a very scary and looming disease. There is still a lot more that we need to figure out about this deadly disease and ways to avoid it. We have made huge strides with HIV/AIDs in a very short time and I feel similarly optimistic about humanity's ability to take on Cancer.

The second assertion that South Park made is that through the aid of $180,000 "injection" you could live with HIV. South Park was making the statement that if you have $180,000 to spend on antibiotics, medications, hospital visits, etc. in the amount of $180,000 you can live with HIV, not actually inject yourself with money.

I did some research about that. I found an article written on November 2, 2006 published by CBS News citing that people with HIV can get an extra 24 years of life on average using modern treatments that will cost $618,900, or $2,100 per month.

This is far higher than the estimate given in South Park. The findings are based on a "Cornell/Johns Hopkins/Harvard/Boston University research team that analyzed the costs and benefits of modern HIV treatment." These costs are made up of the 24 available drugs available on the market that in tandem with one another could add up to 24 years on a life.

The costs of keeping someone alive who is infected with HIV is astronomical. At the end of the South Park episode when they figured out that they could save someone by injecting them with money, the scene cuts to a poor village probably somewhere in Africa, and a man jumps out of a car and yells over to a gaunt looking native, "Hey! They found the cure to HIV! All you have to do is inject yourself with $180,000!" He jumps back in the car and drives off leaving the native with nothing.

That is one of the biggest issues with combating these diseases, especially HIV. A lot of people who are afflicted with the disease are very poor and can't pay for this sort of medical treatment. That is why education is truly the key to keeping the numbers of infections down.
  • Conclusion
HIV/AIDs and Cancer are two deadly diseases that infect millions of people around the world. The purpose of this blog post was to verify the assertions made by South Park in the season 12 opener, Tonsil Trouble.

Based on my findings, South Park is mostly accurate in their assertions.

South Park alleged that HIV was a "retro" virus that was prevalent mainly during the 1980s. This true based on the level on infection rates both worldwide and in the United States. However, millions of people still live with HIV everyday. Cancer, however, does afflict more people a year.

The second assertion related to the cost of maintaining life when one is infected with HIV. South Park suggested that this was $180,000, whereas evidence shows that it would cost more on the order of $618,000. Both of these sums of money are astronomical though, and the point was made in my opinion.

The key to fighting HIV/AIDs and Cancer is education. Knowing the signs, knowing the ways to avoid it, knowing anything that can help you stay away from these terrible diseases is the best thing one can do.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Have You Ever Wondered if Volume and Percent Stock Change Correlate?

I thought about an aspect of the stock market this evening that I thought I'd quickly decipher for myself, and my devoted blog readers. It appears as though every time I look at a stock that has a small volume, there also appears to be equally negligible movement in the stock. As a result, why would anyone want to invest in stocks that have volume of 10,000 or less; it wouldn't make sound sense. However, people invest in stocks regardless of volume. I wondered why nobody really cared about the particular volume of a stock and why this isn't a determining factor when firing off a trade.

By looking at the opening and closing prices of every single stock on the New York Stock Exchange on September 3rd, 2008 (3,243 current listings), I was able to determine the association that volume of a stock has with percentage change.

I had to locate every stock on the New York Stock Exchange for an assignment at school, and obviously with such a surplus of information, I did a lot of cool things with the Excel document that I found. One of them was to determine this correlation.

In order to figure this out, I merely performed the equation for percentage change, (New-Old)/Old. So in our case that would be (Closing Price - Opening Price)/Opening Price. By graphing these two variables on the X and Y axis accordingly, one is able to determine an association between the two variables.

The best association between two variables equals 1.00 after performing a regression analysis that Microsoft Excel takes care of when adding a trend line for a given data set. 1.00 represents that the X and Y coordinates create a perfect line together. On the other hand, a regression analysis of 0 indicates that there is absolutely no association between the variables and is typically seen as a haphazard cloud of points completely in disarray.

Based on this information, we can analyze just how close the relationship is between the two variables.
  • Results
As the graph above indicates, based on the data accumulated (courtesy of EOData.com), on September 3rd, 2008 the New York Stock Exchange had a 0.0322 r-squared value describing the association between volume and stock percent change.

This is a tiny number and unbelievably close to 0, which is indicative of little to no association between these two variables. As you can see, the points look like a cloud of information with some random outliers. If the correlation between these two were stronger, one would see the points follow the linear trend line inserted in the graph.
  • Conclusion
Although further sample days are probably needed, I think the association between volume and stock percentage change can be put to rest. While I may encounter stocks with low volume having low or no percentage change at all, there is absolutely no rule of thumb for these two variables.

A stock with high volume may have a low percentage change, while the exact opposite of a stock with low volume might have high percentage change. Both statements are unavoidably the case based on empirical research done on September 3rd, 2008 for the New York Stock Exchange.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The Flood on South Forest

Unfortunately, my first days back at the University of Michigan were tainted with some unfortunate occurrences. When I got back to Ann Arbor, I needed to turn my water back on. In order to do so, I had to go to the Ann Arbor City Council and pay them directly. Little to my knowledge, as soon as I paid for the water at the Ann Arbor City Council they turned it back on and the pressure forced all of the faucets in the house to open.

This ordinarily would not have been a problem, except for a single drain on the second floor that happened to be clogged. All of the other drains in the house were able to drain the water that was rushing into them fast enough so that it would not overflow. However, this one drain on the second floor obviously had some issues and therefore, water ended up overflowing from this drain and flooding the second floor.

If this wasn't enough, the water from the second floor then fell through to the first floor and then eventually to the basement below it. As a result, our house has had to undergo intense maintenance. They had to rip out the drywall and dry the inside of the house on the first floor due to concerns of potential warping of the wood in the interior of the house. Wood also takes a while to dry, so it has been a lengthy process, almost two weeks now.

However, what I was interested in, and the reason for me writing this post in the first place, was to explore the volume of water that caused all of this damage. It is really quite amazing to me that a job that will cost around $4,000 and has taken almost two weeks was the result of just a couple hours of not being at home. I wanted to know what volume of water created such damage.

Therefore, in this post, I intend to explore the amount of water that escaped the faucet on the second floor.
  • Results
In order to figure out the rate at which water was coming out the faucet, I went directly to the second floor bathroom and timed how quickly the water at full blast would fill a 2.2 liter container. I performed this task 11 times to get an average. I threw out the longest and shortest time that it took to fill the 2.2 liter container, which gave me 9 samples to average.

I found that the faucet at full blast takes 10.18889 seconds to fill a 2.2 liter container. In other words, the rate at which water leaves the faucet is equal to 0.21592 Liters per seconds. The rate is displayed graphically below.


The next step in the process was then to determine how long this occurred for. I went into the Ann Arbor City Council at around noon and then arrived home at 3pm. This means that three full hours passed before I got home.

Due to the fact that I won't ever truly know when they turned on the water, I'll assume that they did it as I paid for the bill, which was 11:49am and I'll assume I arrived home at 3:08pm, because I answered someone's text message at 3:03pm and said I would be back at the house "in five." This means that I was away from the house for 199 minutes total.

If we then understand that there are 60 seconds in a minute, all we have to do is multiply 199 minutes by 60 seconds, which equals 11,940 seconds total that passed.

With this information we can then find out the total volume of water that escaped the faucet in the 199 minutes (11,940 seconds).

If we take 11,940 and multiply this number by the rate of 0.21592 liters, we arrive at a total amount of 2,578.097 Liters (681.06 gallons). We can see the volume of water entering our house in Ann Arbor graphically by the graph below.


  • Conclusion
Overall, there was 2,578.097 liters that entered into my house on South Forest in Ann Arbor. This occurred over a span of 199 minutes and was the result of a single faucet that had a rate of 0.21592 liters per second.

To put this in perspective, however, at this rate, in order to fill up an Olympic-size swimming pool (2,500,000 liters), it would take 11,578,308 seconds which equates to 134 days.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The World in 2020

I recently ran a survey on my website, Those Answers, in which I intended to gain some insight into how people view various World issues and their potential status in the year 2020. The survey asked people about some of the most significant threats affecting the World, issues and people, the evolution of energy, corporate impact, and how to make a difference. I found the results extremely interesting.

The survey was taken by 47 individuals who ranged in age from 18 to 63. The average age of a respondent was 22.51 with a median of 21. Of those 47 individuals who chose to report their gender, 22 were male and 20 were female.

The rest of this post will be a graphical display of the results that I found, in addition to some of my thoughts as to why the results may appear as they are. I hope you enjoy.
  • Results
What is the greatest threat to humanity?
According to the results, Nuclear Weapons and Biological Warfare is the greatest threat to humanity and as we get closer to the year 2020, it will become a bigger problem. It was the only one of the choices available that had a higher percentage of respondents (40% vs. 49%) agreeing that it would be a greater threat in the year 2020.

I think that this choice is a rational one and most definitely something that needs to be addressed. Nuclear proliferation means that countries have the capacity to retaliate with weapons of mass destruction. At the push of a button cities can be destroyed.

Other threats to humanity that several respondents agreed upon were Poverty and Natural Disasters. Both of these issues show declining trends as the primary threat to humanity in the year 2020, which indicates an optimistic view of resolving the issues as well as confidence in the current measures in place.

Drugs and Alcoholism and Random Acts of Violence received a very small percentage of the total respondents primary threat to humanity. Additionally, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's) was only seen as the greatest threat to humanity by approximately 10% of respondents. STD's like HIV/AIDS, herpes, or gonorrhea affect millions of people around the World, and I found it surprising that people didn't consider this a very big threat, even when compared to Nuclear Weapons, because it impacts so many people already, whereas, the use of Nuclear Weapons is not even a reality aside from the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the conclusion of World War II.

63.8% of respondents maintained their choices from the year 2008 to 2020. This implies that some of the greatest challenges already facing the World today will still be of primary concern in the year 2020.

Who/What is the most dangerous force on the planet?
The most dangerous force on the planet was determined to be the US President. This was a surprising find in my opinion, and I can't really determine one thing in particular that would make this the case. I suppose the US president has enormous power militarily due to his (or her) ability to attack other countries and a massive collection of nuclear warheads. In many ways, the US President dictates World policy.

I was further suprised to see the low percentage of respondents that believed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian President) was the most dangerous force (18%). Further, the percentage of people who believe Osama Bin Laden (14%) and Kim Jong-Il (7%) combined was less than the percentage of people who believed the President of China was the most dangerous person in the World (23%).

What resource will be most depleted by 2020?
According to the results of this survey, the most depleted resource by 2020 will be Clean Air. This is by an overwhelming margin as well. Its closest competitor was Drinkable Water which lagged behind by 23%. This was followed by Arable land with 20% of the respondents votes and finally Agricultural Produce with 9%.

Clean air is becoming an enormous problem, especially as the World population continues to grow at an exponential rate and as cities around the World become more densely populated. A McKinsey Global Institute report on China in 2025 indicated that the air quality in several Chinese cities could become noxious and unbearable due to pollution.

According to the McIlvaine Company, the air pollution reduction market will grow by an approximate rate of 17% compounded annually through 2015, becoming a $20+ billion per year industry.

I think that our respondents are spot on with their assessment of this particular issue.

Between 2008 and 2020, what energy resource will be most utilized?
The energy resource most utilized by 2020 was spread out and indicates the uncertainty of the alternative energy market as it stands currently. There are several alternatives and based on the even spread by respondents, it appears as though there is no clear sign of which alternative energy resource will be used most.

Leading the charge was Solar Energy, Ethanol, and Coal. I think that all of these show significant benefit and means to channeling resources away from Petroleum. Coal will most definitely be used in greater excess, as the United States has the most significant World share at 27.1% (Source).

I was surprised about the low amount of respondents who chose Environmentally Friendly Biofuels, as I am a huge proponent of them. I think that this type of fuel uses resources most effectively while also being least harmful to the environment overall.

Which country will have the highest per capita GDP by 2020?
The country that is projected to have the highest per capita GDP by the year 2020 was China. They received 49% of the votes. China was followed by the United States with 28% and Japan with 15%.

The question asked was about per capita GDP, which gives an idea as to the personal wealth of an average individual in a particular country. This does not necessarily relate to total GDP, which can be massive for a country, but when looked at through the scope of each person, may become very small.

That is why the choice of China by such an overwhelming percentage is surprising. Accordining to the Wikipedia article of Per Capita GDP, China currently ranks 99th according to the IMF, and 105 according to the CIA. This essentially means that an individual in China compared to the rest of the World is poorer than around 100 nations. While China will probably have the highest overall GDP by the year 2020, their per capita results are dismal.

The United States is currently ranked 6th by the IMF and 8th by the CIA. This makes sense when you think about a common person in the United States versus a common person in China. The standard of living is far higher for the average individual in the United States.

Small percentages went to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates even though they are both ranked far higher than China (Saudi Arabia = 37 & UAE = 15).

What industry shows the greatest potential for growth through 2020?
By an overwhelming margin, the industry that shows the greatest potential for growth through 2020 was determined by the respondents to be Alternative Energy with 67% of respondents agreeing. This was followed next by Information Technology, 19%, and Financial Services and Energy tied at 6% each.

Even though it is the dawn of the information age, people are overwhelmingly agreeing with the fact that alternative energy will trump technologies rise in the coming decade. These results may be skewed by the current situation with oil prices, yet, they are not unfounded as these issues need to be addressed.

The need to seek out Alternative Energy goes hand-in-hand with the fact that people are conscientious about the environment.

Which of the following corporations will have the greatest impact through 2020?

There are two prominent corporations that were chosen by the respondents that will have the greatest impact through 2020, and the results relate to the emerging industries over the next decade. The highest percentage was given to Exxon, 40%, but was closely followed by Microsoft with 36%.

These two companies are metaphors for energy and information technology, and it makes sense that they would be most prominently chosen.

There were several companies that received no votes by respondents at all. McKinsey & Company received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about the value of service industries. Caterpiller received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about the value of construction, and 3M received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about innovation and development of newer technologies not only related to information.

How do you tackle complex World issues?
Finally, respondents were asked how to tackle complex World issues. This was intended to give insight into how people think some of the problems that were discussed in the survey are best dealt with. Most people, 36%, believe that tackling complex World issues are done by use of Grassroots Movements. This essentially means that things are started locally and expand from there. This was in stark contrast to Governmental Intervention that received 17% of the votes by respondents.

Following Grassroots Movements, respondents also believed that a Societal Paradigm Shift, 30%, was the most effective way of tackling complex World issues. This means thinking in a new way about issues, and in this context, it means an entire society agreeing to think a new way about something.

For instance, I can see this beginning with LED (light emitting diode) lights versus incandescent lights. People are all starting to change their light bulbs due to energy and environmental concerns. It just takes a long time, but it is very effective.

Thoughts?

There was a final area where respondents could write down their thoughts if they wanted. Some people wrote that they enjoyed the survey, which was very nice feedback. A lot of people made reference to how the survey was vague or too general, or that I left out certain "issues."

The fact is that I was just trying to take the temperature of perspectives on the year 2020, not necessarily make a full blown diagnosis. Additionally, the year 2020 is very far away, and it's hard to be specific about something that is so distant.
  • Conclusion
The results of the survey are compelling and interesting. I think one of the most interesting things to note about the first couple of questions asked relating to threats, both issues and individuals, is that most people worry about problems that aren't even a reality, and forget about those already afflicting us.

While Nuclear Weapons are scary, poverty, sexually transmitted diseases, and random acts of violence affect people every day, and impact most likely 2/3 of the World's population.

We need to keep perspective on issues that are already needing our resolve.

Alternative energies are springing off in so many directions at the moment that it is hard to tell which will be most utilized. The varied choices by respondents indicate the lack of direction.

While most people believed China to have the greatest per capita GDP by 2020, they will probably be alarmed to realize that China ranks 99th in the World when it comes to per capita GDP. Just because a country as a whole makes a lot of money by volume doesn't necessarily mean that its average inhabitant is reaping those benefits. With 1.3 billion people it would make sense for China to have the highest total GDP, but we have to remember how that wealth is spread amongst that enormous amount of people.

Finally, of the respondents surveyed, 23 of them believed that "The World will be a 'better' place than it is in 2020 than 2008." This represents exactly 50% of the responses for this question, revealing that the other 50% of respondents do not believe the world will be a "better" place in 2020.

This is unfortunate split, as most respondents were in their early 20's, and at the start of their independent lives. One would hope that the younger generation remains idealistic and optmisitc about the future, because in the year 2020, it is a majority of this survey's respondents who will be combatting and trying to contribute solutions to the various issues raised in this survey. There are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with over the coming decade; that is for certain.