1. The Dimensions of
Influence
I like using analogies because when material is hard to relate to, a well crafted
analogy can bridge the gap between two knowledge sets.
If I were to ask you to rate how influential Bill Clinton was, you’d likely say;
Bill
“He’s very influential”. The problem with that is simply this, you’ve already made
several assumptions in your conclusion that you may or may not realize. For
instance, I highly doubt that President Clinton is of any influence to the Swahili
influence
Tribe’s of the African Serengeti. Why? Nothing he says impacts them at all! Other
than a personal interest in the going’s on of a well known US politician, I highly
doubt anything he says or does can possibly influence their daily lives However,
lives.
what if you were a gubernatorial candidate for Arkansas? Well, he would be highly
influential.
This is the problem in essence, because the very nature of communication doesn’t
allow us to accurately define influence in a way that transcends perception and
perception
locality. That is why I propose we start evaluating influence via a framework of
measurement, that places the influencer categorically where they are heard the best
by listeners.
Objective
Subjectivity?

2. For instance, in music, a lot goes on in order to get a song mixed correctly. Many
who teach about how to mix properly have used tools and experience to try to
convey the process. One of the major challenges is our inability to divorce the
subjectivity of our own perception. For instance, in the Bohemian Rhapsody, there
we over 100 vocal overdubs, to tape no less, to get what sounds like one singer
with some backup harmonies. These takes can’t all be played at the same volume,
otherwise the dynamics of the song just become mud. Accordingly the problem
becomes translating or rather teaching a method of understanding the best way to
mix to others. The very best tool I’ve come across in In music is to visualize the
mix in a 3-dimensional room. Where pitch is the perceived tonal characteristic as
either high or low on the vertical axis; panning, which is the perceived placement
of the sound is left to right and volume is how loud something is, perceived as
front to back. The louder it is, the closer it seems to you.
Using The
Analogy
How do you think the 3 dimensions could be best ported to measuring influence?
Certainly volume is easy. The louder, or more present your message of influence
is, the more out-front you’ll appear. Does volume translate to influence though?
And what of the other dynamics of influence? In keeping with the music analogy,
higher pitched sounds do not need to be as loud to be heard as well as lower
pitched sounds. Then it follows that those who have the most piercing message,
who are also the loudest, will be heard the best. I believe panning can simply
define ideological root positions. It would be really interesting to gather some
feedback from you guys on if you think this analogy can be developed further.
Posted in: Influencer Formula