Charles Payet
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Iblis Bane holy moly.......it's going to take me a bit to read through and properly digest all that, so I'm kind of "marking" this to come back to later this evening. Looking forward to it for sure.
Iblis Bane
Shared publicly -The Dark Side Of Social Media?
I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time, never entirely sure of how to phrase (and frame) my thoughts on the matter. Then, as so often the case in this brave new medium, some serendipitous posts brought it to the front of my mind. (Damn it turned out long.)
I haven't put this on the blog, so I guess #gplusonly is appropriate. :D
So, a lot of people to thank for inspiring this post, most notably +David Amerland for his post, Permission To Misbehave, (https://plus.google.com/+DavidAmerland/posts/5CbcAsXTVrm), +todd l lebeauc for Welcome To The Revolution (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+toddllebeaucplus/posts/Qd5XS2ZEJK2) and +Imran Sq for both Mind's Eye (Permission To Manipulate) (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ImranSq/posts/KR4cd1pkW4r) and Social Media Influencer: Are Hidden Persuaders Compatible With G+ (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ImranSq/posts/KR4cd1pkW4r).
Honourable mentions also to +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales and +Owen Ellis whose comments on several of the above (and whose own later posts) made me think more, and especially again to +Imran Sq for inspiring my title. :D
[Edit: And special thanks to +todd l lebeauc who took pity on us and compiled the post and all comments into a (regularly updated) downloadable pdf here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115091224082668507135/posts/awfNmFvtsKd ]
So, with well deserved thanks (but none of the responsibility ;) ) given...
As I mentioned in discussions with all these people, this issue is something that we should not lose sight of, but which nonetheless should (I fervently hope) not affect the way in which we approach and use the medium, or this platform.
I also have to say straight off that I admire and respect the way that so many people have embraced the spirit of what I think the best of us are trying to achieve here, and done so in the most positive and encouraging of all ways.
Each of the posts above either prompted or directly addressed questions that really strike at the foundation of what this place is, and what we are all doing here. A corollary of that raises the original question of authenticity too.
Marketing Motives
We're here, and we make use of this medium with, I think, a very real enthusiasm for both it's capabilities, and its potential. But a vast majority of what I will call “professional” users of G+ arrived here for very specific reasons.
Marketing reasons.
And there's nothing wrong with that at all. We came to explore the potential of this new platform for marketing reasons, and I suspect that a lot of us, while finding it's value, (more on that later), also found a real enjoyment, and even excitement, in it that has, if anything, only underscored that worth.
Marketing Value
We found value all right. (See?) With a couple of caveats of course. In fact, what made it valuable was the fact that the old ways had started to fail. If a semantic web was the future, then content was the future, and the only way to get that content appreciated was to have an audience.
And it quickly became obvious that the old ways of getting and treating audiences didn't help in an engagement driven market. And that led inevitably to something quite new...people who understood the shift convinced companies to start treating their clients like human beings. To respond to them on a personal level. To be more human, in other words.
If search is looking for trustworthy, credible and authoritative connections as part of its evolution, then if we seek to use search, we must likewise evolve and develop those connections. And that in itself (regardless of motivation) is an admirable goal.
The Rise Of Influence
You see a lot of tips for G+ that talk about the value of influencers, even on how to approach them and become known by them, and perhaps even promoted by them.
And I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting (online) and talking with some who surely deserve the title, and one and all, they obtained it in the most natural (authentic) way possible...by being genuine, incredibly knowledgeable, approachable and highly engaged in their spheres.
Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, everything is right with it, and their “title” is, as I said, well deserved.
And clustered around them, very much like the visual representation of shares and +1's :D are the people they influence, who learn from them, and then in turn influence and teach others, etc. And many of those people are here and doing it for the same reason most of us arrived in the first place.
Marketing reasons.
Does that invalidate any of the connection and engagement? I don't necessarily think so. The point of it is that it is as real as any other “real” connection.
And like “real” connections, these connections are formed for any one (or many) of countless possible reasons, not excluding advantage in whatever field is important to the people involved at the time. Can (and do) these connections grow into less self-motivated ones? Without a doubt. Do they all? Of course not.
The Authenticity Conundrum
A fact that some of those people at the top brought up implied the question of how trustworthy or authentic can somebody be, when their motive is to sell you something. Even if not today, even if not tomorrow, but some time. Indeed, the implication continues, how authentic is a persona whose objective is to, ultimately, if not directly sell you something, then perhaps take advantage of your own audience to at least promote themselves or something?
In effect, does the social model take marketing motives into account?
To me though, that's only a secondary consideration. As I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter. (And I suspect it doesn't matter even more in the spirit of use I find in the majority. Are there exceptions? Of course. But they're remarkably few, even for a (relatively) fledgling platform, and education is probably key there (as everywhere).
If you are providing value, it will be to your benefit one way or another. If you're not, sooner or later people will figure it out and your stock will plummet. It will probably balance in the end.
But as I said...this isn't the real question for me...the real question is whether true authenticity is even possible. Or if we have to settle for as close as it is possible to get.
Honesty, Transparency, Trust, Credibility, Authority
The way I look at it, (and as I've mentioned before in other posts), we only get (and give) as much transparency as we are willing to risk.
That's perfectly understandable. But what it also means is that authenticity actually translates to “be your public self.” And that's fine too. Nobody wants to give their business or their employer a bad name, and the importance of this is being pushed so hard, the consequences of a misstep might be (or might be perceived to be) dire.
The more authentic you are, the less transparent you are likely to be. Because what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project.
No doubt the more perceptive amongst you will have suspected that I was not christened with this nom de plume. :D I use it partly because I'm here in a private capacity, partly because because I wouldn't want anybody tarred with my sometimes odd brush, and partly because I'm a rare sort of neo-luddite who distrusts the technology he uses every day, was raised to be anonymous online, and thinks it's none of the internet's damn business. :D
Two things...
The first is that this gives me (I believe) a freer rein to be authentic (including posting random musings like this). :D
The second is that although I don't promote any business, or myself really, I still arrived with marketing motives. I came to see what the fuss was about and I stuck around to learn. But I started engaging with people because I found so damn many smart people to talk to, debate with, and learn from, that I found a whole new mindset being formed.
Y'know, I started this post intending to doom and gloom about how authentic could things really be, and how peoples actions were underpinned by their motives, but it looks like I talked myself out of it. :D
Yes, authenticity is only authentic for a given value of it. But so what? It's the same value it has in any social setting, from your office to your supermarket.
We never know anybody truly. But it doesn't affect our ability to live and love and form a working society. As somebody who has been online a long time, I'm well acquainted with the authenticity that anonymity can bring to connections. I see no reason that transparency wouldn't make the same thing possible, at least to the same level that you would have in any F2F business transaction.
Ah, forget it. :D You're all authentic enough for me. Don't stop now. ;)
#authenticity
I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time, never entirely sure of how to phrase (and frame) my thoughts on the matter. Then, as so often the case in this brave new medium, some serendipitous posts brought it to the front of my mind. (Damn it turned out long.)
I haven't put this on the blog, so I guess #gplusonly is appropriate. :D
So, a lot of people to thank for inspiring this post, most notably +David Amerland for his post, Permission To Misbehave, (https://plus.google.com/+DavidAmerland/posts/5CbcAsXTVrm), +todd l lebeauc for Welcome To The Revolution (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+toddllebeaucplus/posts/Qd5XS2ZEJK2) and +Imran Sq for both Mind's Eye (Permission To Manipulate) (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ImranSq/posts/KR4cd1pkW4r) and Social Media Influencer: Are Hidden Persuaders Compatible With G+ (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ImranSq/posts/KR4cd1pkW4r).
Honourable mentions also to +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales and +Owen Ellis whose comments on several of the above (and whose own later posts) made me think more, and especially again to +Imran Sq for inspiring my title. :D
[Edit: And special thanks to +todd l lebeauc who took pity on us and compiled the post and all comments into a (regularly updated) downloadable pdf here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115091224082668507135/posts/awfNmFvtsKd ]
So, with well deserved thanks (but none of the responsibility ;) ) given...
As I mentioned in discussions with all these people, this issue is something that we should not lose sight of, but which nonetheless should (I fervently hope) not affect the way in which we approach and use the medium, or this platform.
I also have to say straight off that I admire and respect the way that so many people have embraced the spirit of what I think the best of us are trying to achieve here, and done so in the most positive and encouraging of all ways.
Each of the posts above either prompted or directly addressed questions that really strike at the foundation of what this place is, and what we are all doing here. A corollary of that raises the original question of authenticity too.
Marketing Motives
We're here, and we make use of this medium with, I think, a very real enthusiasm for both it's capabilities, and its potential. But a vast majority of what I will call “professional” users of G+ arrived here for very specific reasons.
Marketing reasons.
And there's nothing wrong with that at all. We came to explore the potential of this new platform for marketing reasons, and I suspect that a lot of us, while finding it's value, (more on that later), also found a real enjoyment, and even excitement, in it that has, if anything, only underscored that worth.
Marketing Value
We found value all right. (See?) With a couple of caveats of course. In fact, what made it valuable was the fact that the old ways had started to fail. If a semantic web was the future, then content was the future, and the only way to get that content appreciated was to have an audience.
And it quickly became obvious that the old ways of getting and treating audiences didn't help in an engagement driven market. And that led inevitably to something quite new...people who understood the shift convinced companies to start treating their clients like human beings. To respond to them on a personal level. To be more human, in other words.
If search is looking for trustworthy, credible and authoritative connections as part of its evolution, then if we seek to use search, we must likewise evolve and develop those connections. And that in itself (regardless of motivation) is an admirable goal.
The Rise Of Influence
You see a lot of tips for G+ that talk about the value of influencers, even on how to approach them and become known by them, and perhaps even promoted by them.
And I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting (online) and talking with some who surely deserve the title, and one and all, they obtained it in the most natural (authentic) way possible...by being genuine, incredibly knowledgeable, approachable and highly engaged in their spheres.
Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, everything is right with it, and their “title” is, as I said, well deserved.
And clustered around them, very much like the visual representation of shares and +1's :D are the people they influence, who learn from them, and then in turn influence and teach others, etc. And many of those people are here and doing it for the same reason most of us arrived in the first place.
Marketing reasons.
Does that invalidate any of the connection and engagement? I don't necessarily think so. The point of it is that it is as real as any other “real” connection.
And like “real” connections, these connections are formed for any one (or many) of countless possible reasons, not excluding advantage in whatever field is important to the people involved at the time. Can (and do) these connections grow into less self-motivated ones? Without a doubt. Do they all? Of course not.
The Authenticity Conundrum
A fact that some of those people at the top brought up implied the question of how trustworthy or authentic can somebody be, when their motive is to sell you something. Even if not today, even if not tomorrow, but some time. Indeed, the implication continues, how authentic is a persona whose objective is to, ultimately, if not directly sell you something, then perhaps take advantage of your own audience to at least promote themselves or something?
In effect, does the social model take marketing motives into account?
To me though, that's only a secondary consideration. As I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter. (And I suspect it doesn't matter even more in the spirit of use I find in the majority. Are there exceptions? Of course. But they're remarkably few, even for a (relatively) fledgling platform, and education is probably key there (as everywhere).
If you are providing value, it will be to your benefit one way or another. If you're not, sooner or later people will figure it out and your stock will plummet. It will probably balance in the end.
But as I said...this isn't the real question for me...the real question is whether true authenticity is even possible. Or if we have to settle for as close as it is possible to get.
Honesty, Transparency, Trust, Credibility, Authority
The way I look at it, (and as I've mentioned before in other posts), we only get (and give) as much transparency as we are willing to risk.
That's perfectly understandable. But what it also means is that authenticity actually translates to “be your public self.” And that's fine too. Nobody wants to give their business or their employer a bad name, and the importance of this is being pushed so hard, the consequences of a misstep might be (or might be perceived to be) dire.
The more authentic you are, the less transparent you are likely to be. Because what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project.
No doubt the more perceptive amongst you will have suspected that I was not christened with this nom de plume. :D I use it partly because I'm here in a private capacity, partly because because I wouldn't want anybody tarred with my sometimes odd brush, and partly because I'm a rare sort of neo-luddite who distrusts the technology he uses every day, was raised to be anonymous online, and thinks it's none of the internet's damn business. :D
Two things...
The first is that this gives me (I believe) a freer rein to be authentic (including posting random musings like this). :D
The second is that although I don't promote any business, or myself really, I still arrived with marketing motives. I came to see what the fuss was about and I stuck around to learn. But I started engaging with people because I found so damn many smart people to talk to, debate with, and learn from, that I found a whole new mindset being formed.
Y'know, I started this post intending to doom and gloom about how authentic could things really be, and how peoples actions were underpinned by their motives, but it looks like I talked myself out of it. :D
Yes, authenticity is only authentic for a given value of it. But so what? It's the same value it has in any social setting, from your office to your supermarket.
We never know anybody truly. But it doesn't affect our ability to live and love and form a working society. As somebody who has been online a long time, I'm well acquainted with the authenticity that anonymity can bring to connections. I see no reason that transparency wouldn't make the same thing possible, at least to the same level that you would have in any F2F business transaction.
Ah, forget it. :D You're all authentic enough for me. Don't stop now. ;)
#authenticity
23
8
201 comments
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Haha, thanks +Charles Payet. It sorta turned out longer than I intended. :D I shall look forward to your thoughts. :D
Imran Sq
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane good job! will read all of this in a short while but I think we can all safely point fingers at +David Amerland for starting this rather evolved way of thought. #mindseye
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, I frequently cast the blame at his feet +Imran Sq. :D He will have a lot to make up for in his next life for being so disruptive. ;)
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Oh everybody, if you go to the post instead of the notification pane, it doesn't have such an intimidating line count. ;)
Imran Sq
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Iblis Bane I understand. You will find you have an Iblis Bane at work, another at home and maybe another with friends. You will not often behave the same in every environment - your mind would usually be programmed with social norms. Same with G+, we kind of learn hidden rules on how to be online...
Applying known tactics to build an audience, strategically engaging with them, and smartly growing your popularity using taught methods for fun, is okay - doing it for commercial advantage is still okay (the first is for an intrinsic reward, the other is extrinsic) - the user will always gain something.
On both occasions a user will consciously be aware that whatever they type will be read by someone else. Letters and emails would usually work in the same way - so it's not fake - everyone is just human.
Influencers can use their persuasion skills for good (i.e. charity), business (i.e. customer retention, endorsements), social (i.e. get to know people online) - and so they should. Maybe at some point, the secrets of the trade influencers share for free today might have a monetary value tomorrow... is that the ultimate goal?
Applying known tactics to build an audience, strategically engaging with them, and smartly growing your popularity using taught methods for fun, is okay - doing it for commercial advantage is still okay (the first is for an intrinsic reward, the other is extrinsic) - the user will always gain something.
On both occasions a user will consciously be aware that whatever they type will be read by someone else. Letters and emails would usually work in the same way - so it's not fake - everyone is just human.
Influencers can use their persuasion skills for good (i.e. charity), business (i.e. customer retention, endorsements), social (i.e. get to know people online) - and so they should. Maybe at some point, the secrets of the trade influencers share for free today might have a monetary value tomorrow... is that the ultimate goal?
Iblis Bane
+
5
6
5
6
5
Damn that was a great comment +Imran Sq. If only I could be so succinct. ;)
Exactly, it's not fake, everyone is just human. We're all life doing it's best. :D
Perhaps the ultimate goal is that they have a monetary value, but it's not necessarily an internal value. It's more about how value can be accrued, and in itself turn into more value. It's not (I think) just about making money from it. At least, not about making money inside the platform.
The takeaway is how sharing that stuff helps others apply it to yet others. It's not a zero-sum game with a winner and lots of losers. "I make you like me, you give me money."
I'm starting to see it as a far more dynamic and holistic paradigm. Maybe (dare I say) a somewhat utopian one. ;) (Suspicious in and of itself. ;) )
And of course, by sharing and encouraging, we create the success of it ourselves, which we can then capitalise on, with nothing lost by anybody, and perhaps much gained.
Exactly, it's not fake, everyone is just human. We're all life doing it's best. :D
Perhaps the ultimate goal is that they have a monetary value, but it's not necessarily an internal value. It's more about how value can be accrued, and in itself turn into more value. It's not (I think) just about making money from it. At least, not about making money inside the platform.
The takeaway is how sharing that stuff helps others apply it to yet others. It's not a zero-sum game with a winner and lots of losers. "I make you like me, you give me money."
I'm starting to see it as a far more dynamic and holistic paradigm. Maybe (dare I say) a somewhat utopian one. ;) (Suspicious in and of itself. ;) )
And of course, by sharing and encouraging, we create the success of it ourselves, which we can then capitalise on, with nothing lost by anybody, and perhaps much gained.
Imran Sq
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane ha! if only I did not have to use Google to find definition of 'succinct'!
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
Ah, the writer's curse. In love with both words and the sound of our own voices. ;)
Oh +Iblis Bane... Where do I begin lol
Sherry Turkle in her 1995 novel Life on the Screen would interest you greatly... She argued that the anonymity of the web (this was the web in 1995 mind you) allows us to explore the components of ourselves that we aren't able to explore in real life. And she gave examples that demonstrated this exploration can end in one of two ways:
1) Think of the classic hero's journey. Sure, the journey is always interesting but in the classic novel, the journey always ends with the hero learning something about the self. Turkle argued something similar with those who act anonymously online. She said that there are those who explore certain parts of themselves and eventually reach a point in their exploration where they work through making that part of the self a part of reality or dismissing it and moving on.
2) Then there are those who get stuck in a loop. Rather than work through the issue they are reenacting online, the simply reenact the issue over and over and over again. They learn nothing from it and these are the individuals who get stuck in a life of anonymity and begin to remove themselves from reality in favor of remaining in virtual reality.
So when you say authenticity does not imply transparency I think you're right. I think anonymity can offer a more authentic self, but it is up to the anonymous individual what he or she does with the discoveries he or she makes in their moments of anonymity. With transparent individuals we are much more comfortable trusting them simply because they offer trust cues we are used to. While anonymous individuals could be more authentic, it takes us longer to trust that authenticity because we have less cues to go off of. If that makes sense.
Originally your post was meant to be about how authentic the platform allows us to be... But within your post itself I think you've come to agree with me (without realizing it). It's not really about the platform... It's about the person. And I calmly await +Owen Ellis's rebuttal here :D
Sherry Turkle in her 1995 novel Life on the Screen would interest you greatly... She argued that the anonymity of the web (this was the web in 1995 mind you) allows us to explore the components of ourselves that we aren't able to explore in real life. And she gave examples that demonstrated this exploration can end in one of two ways:
1) Think of the classic hero's journey. Sure, the journey is always interesting but in the classic novel, the journey always ends with the hero learning something about the self. Turkle argued something similar with those who act anonymously online. She said that there are those who explore certain parts of themselves and eventually reach a point in their exploration where they work through making that part of the self a part of reality or dismissing it and moving on.
2) Then there are those who get stuck in a loop. Rather than work through the issue they are reenacting online, the simply reenact the issue over and over and over again. They learn nothing from it and these are the individuals who get stuck in a life of anonymity and begin to remove themselves from reality in favor of remaining in virtual reality.
So when you say authenticity does not imply transparency I think you're right. I think anonymity can offer a more authentic self, but it is up to the anonymous individual what he or she does with the discoveries he or she makes in their moments of anonymity. With transparent individuals we are much more comfortable trusting them simply because they offer trust cues we are used to. While anonymous individuals could be more authentic, it takes us longer to trust that authenticity because we have less cues to go off of. If that makes sense.
Originally your post was meant to be about how authentic the platform allows us to be... But within your post itself I think you've come to agree with me (without realizing it). It's not really about the platform... It's about the person. And I calmly await +Owen Ellis's rebuttal here :D
Owen Ellis
+
8
9
8
9
8
Well, now I can see why this was a bit of a challenge to read on my smartphone +Iblis Bane, but certainly offers many an alley way navigate.
And I do actually appreciate that you make use of a nom de plume, having been recently asked (again) about a similar necessity and value of using a nom de guerre.
By the way - for true valuations (and perhaps insightful influence?) about psuedonyms, just head over to +The Huffington Post, and in particular the article "9 Reasons Why You Should Use A Pseudonym" (http://goo.gl/j3J82h).
I can certainly understand the conundrum you face in "...intending to doom and gloom about how authentic could things really be...," only to find oneself twisting in the wind by the rope of one's own making. Happens to me more than I really care to reveal at this point. :-D
Regarding your entire premise of authenticity (and the drivel associated by the masses in regards to other words of similar or correlated meanings), I applaud you in your statement "We never know anybody truly.
Of course, I would suspect than the horde will soon be banging on the gates of your castle, demanding recompense for such heresy. But, that is the role too of Protagonists. Antagonists (or anti-heroes) are often perceived as adversarial in their approach by the masses genuflecting in status quo and dogmatic chorales, but I would submit that an antagonist and their methods employed relate to the truer and more complex inspiration reflected in the maxim of "KNOW THYSELF" (nosce te ipsum ).
[to be continued - of course and rest assured +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales the dialogue will pertain to your insights as well :-D ]
And I do actually appreciate that you make use of a nom de plume, having been recently asked (again) about a similar necessity and value of using a nom de guerre.
By the way - for true valuations (and perhaps insightful influence?) about psuedonyms, just head over to +The Huffington Post, and in particular the article "9 Reasons Why You Should Use A Pseudonym" (http://goo.gl/j3J82h).
I can certainly understand the conundrum you face in "...intending to doom and gloom about how authentic could things really be...," only to find oneself twisting in the wind by the rope of one's own making. Happens to me more than I really care to reveal at this point. :-D
Regarding your entire premise of authenticity (and the drivel associated by the masses in regards to other words of similar or correlated meanings), I applaud you in your statement "We never know anybody truly.
Of course, I would suspect than the horde will soon be banging on the gates of your castle, demanding recompense for such heresy. But, that is the role too of Protagonists. Antagonists (or anti-heroes) are often perceived as adversarial in their approach by the masses genuflecting in status quo and dogmatic chorales, but I would submit that an antagonist and their methods employed relate to the truer and more complex inspiration reflected in the maxim of "KNOW THYSELF" (nosce te ipsum ).
[to be continued - of course and rest assured +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales the dialogue will pertain to your insights as well :-D ]
Owen Ellis
+
7
8
7
8
7
Continued Thoughts
Now, comes to something that +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales and I do probably and respectfully differ when it comes to Authenticity in a social environment. She ascribes (I think?) to a model that communciation, and the #authenticity ensuing is person-centric, when I would come to a position that a Platform based model of communication (and ensuing authenticity) is more appropriate.
I support this position on multiple levels, but obviously the works of Herbert Marshall McLuhan play a significant role (The Medium is the Message). I also further the support of this with a bit of recognition in the Agenda-Setting Theory (of communication). While still looking for exacting citations, it is my understanding that McCombs and Shaw (circa 1993) indicated that The Media not only tell people WHAT TO THINK in broad terms, but additionally HOW TO THINK about specific items and then what to think.
This then forms a media shaped top-of-mind presence (Influence) regarding issues. Please, I would solicit how this is not applied given the recent uproar coming from antagonist sources about Ghost Towns.
Those occurrences presented the greater power and influence of the media (or medium) than any singular voice, in the classic Us v Them battlement (or a Facebook v Google+ scenario). I would suggest that in an era long past, Gutenberg released a similar monster, and the ensuing carnage began then.
I am almost certain that individuals such as +David Amerland, +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales, or perhaps other notable and influential commentary from +Mark Traphagen, +John Kellden, and a long list of notables within G+ might disagree (with the above), and that dialogue again is worthy of exploration. However, of the long list of individuals within G+, I find a very short supply of communication experts with a sophisticated mathematics or algorithm programming background - and certainly those of an official capacity from Google or Facebook are even more scarce (and limited due to Confidentiality agreements). My point however, is that it is the SYSTEM ENGINEERING of the particular Medium which is of influence, and is doled out accordingly to a preset criteria. The user-base is then reflected accordingly.
To dismiss this level of influence, and the disparity then which ensues, makes me ponder the possibility of a SEMANTIC WEB reflecting true transparency ever being possible, as each smaller entity (or company) vies for the highest profit margins from a limited (7B) user-base. While +David Amerland is one I highly respect in his opinions and insights when it comes to Google's desire and intent to be "INCLUSIVE", I would say we (humanity as a whole) have a very long way to go in reaching this inclusion of data, valuations, and the attributes of true transparency and thoughts that are reflective of Authenticity.
(thoughts anyone?/to be continued...)
Now, comes to something that +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales and I do probably and respectfully differ when it comes to Authenticity in a social environment. She ascribes (I think?) to a model that communciation, and the #authenticity ensuing is person-centric, when I would come to a position that a Platform based model of communication (and ensuing authenticity) is more appropriate.
I support this position on multiple levels, but obviously the works of Herbert Marshall McLuhan play a significant role (The Medium is the Message). I also further the support of this with a bit of recognition in the Agenda-Setting Theory (of communication). While still looking for exacting citations, it is my understanding that McCombs and Shaw (circa 1993) indicated that The Media not only tell people WHAT TO THINK in broad terms, but additionally HOW TO THINK about specific items and then what to think.
This then forms a media shaped top-of-mind presence (Influence) regarding issues. Please, I would solicit how this is not applied given the recent uproar coming from antagonist sources about Ghost Towns.
Those occurrences presented the greater power and influence of the media (or medium) than any singular voice, in the classic Us v Them battlement (or a Facebook v Google+ scenario). I would suggest that in an era long past, Gutenberg released a similar monster, and the ensuing carnage began then.
I am almost certain that individuals such as +David Amerland, +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales, or perhaps other notable and influential commentary from +Mark Traphagen, +John Kellden, and a long list of notables within G+ might disagree (with the above), and that dialogue again is worthy of exploration. However, of the long list of individuals within G+, I find a very short supply of communication experts with a sophisticated mathematics or algorithm programming background - and certainly those of an official capacity from Google or Facebook are even more scarce (and limited due to Confidentiality agreements). My point however, is that it is the SYSTEM ENGINEERING of the particular Medium which is of influence, and is doled out accordingly to a preset criteria. The user-base is then reflected accordingly.
To dismiss this level of influence, and the disparity then which ensues, makes me ponder the possibility of a SEMANTIC WEB reflecting true transparency ever being possible, as each smaller entity (or company) vies for the highest profit margins from a limited (7B) user-base. While +David Amerland is one I highly respect in his opinions and insights when it comes to Google's desire and intent to be "INCLUSIVE", I would say we (humanity as a whole) have a very long way to go in reaching this inclusion of data, valuations, and the attributes of true transparency and thoughts that are reflective of Authenticity.
(thoughts anyone?/to be continued...)
Mark Traphagen
+
1
1
2
1
2
1
This made me twist and turn a bit +Iblis Bane - which is not always a bad thing. In this case, coming from you, a decidedly good thing.
I can only speak for myself. Yes, I am a marketer. (Cue twelve step group affirmation). And yes, I came into Google+ largely to explore (and let's say that other e-word, exploit ) it's marketing possibilities.
But I'd learned somewhere along my own hero's journey that the best way to sell to people is not to sell TO or AT them. I honestly don't look at anyone here as a prospect. Some may turn into that some day, and that would be fine, but it isn't the way I look at anyone I encounter here.
Instead, who they are is either people who enable me to be helpful (by being in need) with something I know how to do or fix, or they are people from whom I can learn a great deal. Or perhaps many are somewhere in between or a little of both.
In any case, in all of those relational encounters, where does the marketing happen? It happens as I as sincerely as I can interact in ways that create reputation, authority, and trust around me. And I trust that gets reflected on my brand. And then I trust that at some point, we reap a reward because all of that brings us to the attention of someone who needs what we sell.
But here's the paradox: All of that only works, really works, as I enter into all those relational moments as a full-engaged human being, not as a "marketer" here to sell you something.
It is the great paradox of modern marketing.
I can only speak for myself. Yes, I am a marketer. (Cue twelve step group affirmation). And yes, I came into Google+ largely to explore (and let's say that other e-word, exploit ) it's marketing possibilities.
But I'd learned somewhere along my own hero's journey that the best way to sell to people is not to sell TO or AT them. I honestly don't look at anyone here as a prospect. Some may turn into that some day, and that would be fine, but it isn't the way I look at anyone I encounter here.
Instead, who they are is either people who enable me to be helpful (by being in need) with something I know how to do or fix, or they are people from whom I can learn a great deal. Or perhaps many are somewhere in between or a little of both.
In any case, in all of those relational encounters, where does the marketing happen? It happens as I as sincerely as I can interact in ways that create reputation, authority, and trust around me. And I trust that gets reflected on my brand. And then I trust that at some point, we reap a reward because all of that brings us to the attention of someone who needs what we sell.
But here's the paradox: All of that only works, really works, as I enter into all those relational moments as a full-engaged human being, not as a "marketer" here to sell you something.
It is the great paradox of modern marketing.
Owen Ellis
+
6
7
6
7
6
+Imran Sq, you mentioned "Influencers can use their persuasion skills for good...." Absolutely.
An example of this is seen repeatedly in +Mark Traphagen's statement above. This is how he certainly has my utmost respect, as well as the fact that while considering a 12-step program (Sorry Mark - that was just hilarious). He also explores multiple platforms and venues of marketing - acting in INCLUSION. If transparency and authenticity are the Holy Grail of a Semantic Web, Mark aspires towards this.
One of the key points that Mark made, and +David Amerland has discussed elsewhere, is SINCERITY and the endeavors of being sincere. He then places (by his admission) his entire future (in my perception) both as a person, as well as a business person in people moving beyond petty misunderstandings and come to a level of trust in others and he in them. Yes, a true "Heroes Journey" does mean you face an antagonist (or Anti-hero). So, when Mark says "exploit", I appreciate the duality of that candor. No, I relish in it. And it serves as inspiration and strength when coming upon those that are just a "wee bit seedy or exclusionary".
An example of this is seen repeatedly in +Mark Traphagen's statement above. This is how he certainly has my utmost respect, as well as the fact that while considering a 12-step program (Sorry Mark - that was just hilarious). He also explores multiple platforms and venues of marketing - acting in INCLUSION. If transparency and authenticity are the Holy Grail of a Semantic Web, Mark aspires towards this.
One of the key points that Mark made, and +David Amerland has discussed elsewhere, is SINCERITY and the endeavors of being sincere. He then places (by his admission) his entire future (in my perception) both as a person, as well as a business person in people moving beyond petty misunderstandings and come to a level of trust in others and he in them. Yes, a true "Heroes Journey" does mean you face an antagonist (or Anti-hero). So, when Mark says "exploit", I appreciate the duality of that candor. No, I relish in it. And it serves as inspiration and strength when coming upon those that are just a "wee bit seedy or exclusionary".
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
Thanks +Mike Aargh, and perhaps the statement of "never know anybody truly" is in need of clarity and context (dare I say framing? ) :-D
I make this observation based on my experiences and understanding of the world I am a part of. I am not saying that judgement and valuations cannot be made, or measurements of intent cannot be discerned. These happen every day. However, there is that part of humanity, often seen as relationships develop (ie is my Fiance "seen the same" now as she was perceived 3 years ago, let alone 38 years ago? My answer is no.) Likewise, similar experiences when observing someone in their twilight years (as one considers a "Bucket List"). I have seen this personally in others, as well as myself (in a journey of self-discovery).
And I am aware of and make use of Wolfram Alpha app and services. :-)
I make this observation based on my experiences and understanding of the world I am a part of. I am not saying that judgement and valuations cannot be made, or measurements of intent cannot be discerned. These happen every day. However, there is that part of humanity, often seen as relationships develop (ie is my Fiance "seen the same" now as she was perceived 3 years ago, let alone 38 years ago? My answer is no.) Likewise, similar experiences when observing someone in their twilight years (as one considers a "Bucket List"). I have seen this personally in others, as well as myself (in a journey of self-discovery).
And I am aware of and make use of Wolfram Alpha app and services. :-)
Charles Payet
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane I have begun composing my response to a couple points, but am so tired that I can not finish tonight. I will simply leave these brief thoughts/questions here for the morrow, as I can not agree with you on this statement:
"_The more authentic you are, the less transparent you are likely to be. Because what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project_"
I'm struggling to compose a response to this, as it seems paradoxical in nature, and I hate arguing with a paradox - have to keep my points straight.
Does true authenticity not require genuine transparency? How can anyone possibly judge authenticity without the assurance of transparency? Without transparency, authenticity cannot IMO be determined.
And again: if what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project, is that not the definition of being INauthentic? That's where I'm struggling with that statement. And only by being OPAQUE can one hide the lack of authenticity.
Can you help me understand/resolve this paradox? I will look forward to your response (and the comments/suggestions of anyone else) when I wake up tomorrow. But for now, I bid you all a good night.
"_The more authentic you are, the less transparent you are likely to be. Because what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project_"
I'm struggling to compose a response to this, as it seems paradoxical in nature, and I hate arguing with a paradox - have to keep my points straight.
Does true authenticity not require genuine transparency? How can anyone possibly judge authenticity without the assurance of transparency? Without transparency, authenticity cannot IMO be determined.
And again: if what you really think or feel might not be something you think would be good to project, is that not the definition of being INauthentic? That's where I'm struggling with that statement. And only by being OPAQUE can one hide the lack of authenticity.
Can you help me understand/resolve this paradox? I will look forward to your response (and the comments/suggestions of anyone else) when I wake up tomorrow. But for now, I bid you all a good night.
David Amerland
+
7
8
7
8
7
Darn it guys I am due to speak at a breakfast meeting in half an hour and I have a workshop the rest of the day. And this rather than where I am is where the real conversation is happening. I am going to have to get back to this thread when the week is over. Meaty thoughts and BTW I will have much to tell you.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, so many great comments to explore, thanks guys. :D
+Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales, excellent points about the two possible endings of an anonymous journey. I have seen both scenarios play out many times online. And on the whole, I have found the first to be the more common of the two, perhaps contrary to popular expectation.
On the whole, I think the person is the critical component. But I'm not willing to discount the effect that the platform has on us either, although the effect may not be limited to a specific platform.
And yes, transparency does create cues that prompt trust...of course, those cues are only that...they do not by themselves mean trustworthiness, but they do cue us to assume it.
Thanks for the great addition to the conversation. If this is a topic you enjoy, you might be interested in something I wrote earlier, Anonymity And The Evolution Of Online Identity (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+IblisBane/posts/CjkMy4BB6ed)
+Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales, excellent points about the two possible endings of an anonymous journey. I have seen both scenarios play out many times online. And on the whole, I have found the first to be the more common of the two, perhaps contrary to popular expectation.
On the whole, I think the person is the critical component. But I'm not willing to discount the effect that the platform has on us either, although the effect may not be limited to a specific platform.
And yes, transparency does create cues that prompt trust...of course, those cues are only that...they do not by themselves mean trustworthiness, but they do cue us to assume it.
Thanks for the great addition to the conversation. If this is a topic you enjoy, you might be interested in something I wrote earlier, Anonymity And The Evolution Of Online Identity (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+IblisBane/posts/CjkMy4BB6ed)
+Mike Aargh, caveat venditor indeed. :D But I disagree about our ability to know people truly. Even the closest relationship possible does not put the participants in each others heads.
We can get close...we can get very close indeed, even to the point of sometimes being in their heads. But a part of all of us is known only to ourselves, (to greater or lesser extents), and I suspect a part is known not even to us.
We can get close...we can get very close indeed, even to the point of sometimes being in their heads. But a part of all of us is known only to ourselves, (to greater or lesser extents), and I suspect a part is known not even to us.
+Owen Ellis, a pleasure to read your lengthy comments. :D Certainly knowing yourself is crucial. In fact, as +Colin Walker suggested elsewhere, it may be that all of this is the process of self-discovery and experimentation that we must undertake in order to both do so, and to evolve this understanding.
I like to think I do know myself pretty well. But even then it's expression is something that can continue evolving, and technically therefore, changing us.
Actually, I think it might be possible to combine your own platform-based model, and the person-centric model of +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales.
One cannot function without the other, and nor is either free of the other's influence. The person who uses the platform is still the person. Their projection can be shaped by the medium, but all projections originate in the same place, and therefore must share some fundamental similarities.
First comes the person whose authenticity is being projected/created/whatever. then the platform on which they're participating. The norms of the latter inform the projection of the former.
It reminds me of the old Sufi parable about the man who, seeing riders in the distance and fearing bandits, fled and hid in a graveyard. The riders, who were his friends, saw him flee and followed. Upon finding him crouched behind a tombstone, they asked him what he was doing there. He replied, "It's more complicated than you think...I am here because of you, and you are here because of me."
We do have a long way to go, but perhaps not an insurmountable distance.
I like to think I do know myself pretty well. But even then it's expression is something that can continue evolving, and technically therefore, changing us.
Actually, I think it might be possible to combine your own platform-based model, and the person-centric model of +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales.
One cannot function without the other, and nor is either free of the other's influence. The person who uses the platform is still the person. Their projection can be shaped by the medium, but all projections originate in the same place, and therefore must share some fundamental similarities.
First comes the person whose authenticity is being projected/created/whatever. then the platform on which they're participating. The norms of the latter inform the projection of the former.
It reminds me of the old Sufi parable about the man who, seeing riders in the distance and fearing bandits, fled and hid in a graveyard. The riders, who were his friends, saw him flee and followed. Upon finding him crouched behind a tombstone, they asked him what he was doing there. He replied, "It's more complicated than you think...I am here because of you, and you are here because of me."
We do have a long way to go, but perhaps not an insurmountable distance.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Mark Traphagen, a pleasure to have your participation, and perhaps a little extra pleasure for having prompted some twisting...gods know you've done it to me. ;)
And huge props for being transparent enough to use the e-word. That's why you have credibility and authority...because honesty. :D
I think your approach, your mindset in fact, is the best way to view and use this platform, and indeed other social platforms, for marketing. The actual sale (and perhaps we are lucky enough to be in a position in which we can afford to think this way) is secondary.
This is why I refer to social now as a positioning medium, and not a sales medium, and (because make no mistake, I'm a marketer (of sorts) too) why I recommend that businesses look at it this way. Be in place to take advantages of opportunities that may arise because of your presence and positioning, but don't be fixated on pushing things.
And as you say yourself, by being sincere and authentic, you enable an environment in which those possibilities can and do arise, "organically" if you will. :D
And huge props for being transparent enough to use the e-word. That's why you have credibility and authority...because honesty. :D
I think your approach, your mindset in fact, is the best way to view and use this platform, and indeed other social platforms, for marketing. The actual sale (and perhaps we are lucky enough to be in a position in which we can afford to think this way) is secondary.
This is why I refer to social now as a positioning medium, and not a sales medium, and (because make no mistake, I'm a marketer (of sorts) too) why I recommend that businesses look at it this way. Be in place to take advantages of opportunities that may arise because of your presence and positioning, but don't be fixated on pushing things.
And as you say yourself, by being sincere and authentic, you enable an environment in which those possibilities can and do arise, "organically" if you will. :D
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Charles Payet, thanks for taking the time, and I look forward to seeing the rest of it. As to your question...
Say, for example, that I worked with an agency that dealt closely with Google. If I were "transparent" and disclosed the name of the agency and their relationship, I might be less inclined to criticise Google or point out shortcomings or abuses of its model or power. I might be less likely to discuss difficult or controversial topics maybe.
I am being transparent in disclosing my identity, but I am being inauthentic in communicating my true feelings about something that my career might depend on, because I might not want to create a negative perception of myself or my company.
In contrast, by being opaque I am free to be honest about my feelings/opinions, without fear of reprisal.
Now in which instance am I being authentic?
Is the real me the one who hides his true opinions but shows his face? Or the one who hides his face, but is honest?
As +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales said up there, transparency provides strong cues that imply authenticity. But it is not authenticity itself. One neither requires nor precludes the other.
And +Mike Aargh once said to me something along the lines of how he prefers the company of honest assholes to false bonhomie.
Do you find me less authentic because you do not know what I look like? (I won't be offended if you say yes, I promise.) ;)
Opacity can hide authenticity. But I think the nature of authenticity is independent of transparency. I have meaningful connections with many people I met online, many of whose names I did not learn for years, and some whose real names I still don't know.
Can I be sure of their authenticity? Probably not (although I am mostly). Would knowing their name is John Smith make me any less sure of how genuine they are? Not really no.
For me, authenticity and transparency are related, but independent concepts. Either can exist without the other and vice versa.
Say, for example, that I worked with an agency that dealt closely with Google. If I were "transparent" and disclosed the name of the agency and their relationship, I might be less inclined to criticise Google or point out shortcomings or abuses of its model or power. I might be less likely to discuss difficult or controversial topics maybe.
I am being transparent in disclosing my identity, but I am being inauthentic in communicating my true feelings about something that my career might depend on, because I might not want to create a negative perception of myself or my company.
In contrast, by being opaque I am free to be honest about my feelings/opinions, without fear of reprisal.
Now in which instance am I being authentic?
Is the real me the one who hides his true opinions but shows his face? Or the one who hides his face, but is honest?
As +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales said up there, transparency provides strong cues that imply authenticity. But it is not authenticity itself. One neither requires nor precludes the other.
And +Mike Aargh once said to me something along the lines of how he prefers the company of honest assholes to false bonhomie.
Do you find me less authentic because you do not know what I look like? (I won't be offended if you say yes, I promise.) ;)
Opacity can hide authenticity. But I think the nature of authenticity is independent of transparency. I have meaningful connections with many people I met online, many of whose names I did not learn for years, and some whose real names I still don't know.
Can I be sure of their authenticity? Probably not (although I am mostly). Would knowing their name is John Smith make me any less sure of how genuine they are? Not really no.
For me, authenticity and transparency are related, but independent concepts. Either can exist without the other and vice versa.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
And last, (for now), but never least, I shall look forward to +David Amerland's return and his views on both the original question, and the many new ones raised by everybodies participation. :D
Imran Sq
+
3
4
3
4
3
woah it's going to take me a while to catch up!
Colin Walker
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane yes, as I mentioned on +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales' post (and in my own extension) authenticity - as viewed by others - can be transient as we undertake our journey. The Hero's Journey is a great metaphor for self discovery and you just know I love talking about archetypes ;)
There is definitely a combination of person and platform at play here.
We can be swayed by the platform, by the tribes we join and pledge our allegiance to (Plus v Facebook v Twitter, Android v iOS, etc.) and this can impact our reactions and responses.
Something that fascinates me is how a platform can subtly modify our behaviour with a little tweak here or a button placement there. We bemoan change but then adapt and carry on as if nothing happened. If a platform decides it wants to get more visual we eventually start posting more pictures, and so on.
But we also have a personal responsibility for our actions that go beyond the platform. The medium is both the message and a conduit. We are able to navigate our own paths through the labyrinth and need not be guided by the flashing neon "this way" signs.
We can get perfectly lost on our own thank you very much! ;)
Anonymity can indeed allow for greater authenticity if the individual feels they are unable to speak in public for whatever reason but anonymity is its own facade.
As I have said elsewhere, even without anonymity social media allows me to explore parts of myself that offline life doesn't facilitate - work and even family life do not always allow us to explore interests in the same way that seeking out like minded individuals online does.
Does this mean we are inauthentic? Absolutely not but it is easy to see how it might look that way from the outside.
There is definitely a combination of person and platform at play here.
We can be swayed by the platform, by the tribes we join and pledge our allegiance to (Plus v Facebook v Twitter, Android v iOS, etc.) and this can impact our reactions and responses.
Something that fascinates me is how a platform can subtly modify our behaviour with a little tweak here or a button placement there. We bemoan change but then adapt and carry on as if nothing happened. If a platform decides it wants to get more visual we eventually start posting more pictures, and so on.
But we also have a personal responsibility for our actions that go beyond the platform. The medium is both the message and a conduit. We are able to navigate our own paths through the labyrinth and need not be guided by the flashing neon "this way" signs.
We can get perfectly lost on our own thank you very much! ;)
Anonymity can indeed allow for greater authenticity if the individual feels they are unable to speak in public for whatever reason but anonymity is its own facade.
As I have said elsewhere, even without anonymity social media allows me to explore parts of myself that offline life doesn't facilitate - work and even family life do not always allow us to explore interests in the same way that seeking out like minded individuals online does.
Does this mean we are inauthentic? Absolutely not but it is easy to see how it might look that way from the outside.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Great post there +Colin Walker. I particularly like the point about personal responsibility, but then that is an issue that has plagued us all for years...where do we draw the line?
And of course, again, the assumption (or acknowledgement) of that responsibility is also not dependent on transparency. We are ourselves regardless of platform, and everything that we project is merely one aspect or another of those selves. Transparent or not, we choose which parts to display, and indeed, which behaviours to feed, as per those two outcomes again.
+Mike Aargh, I love the idea that the asshole can be re-framed, if you have the correct context, and perhaps the correct feedback. Glad you're enjoying it. I certainly am. :D
And of course, again, the assumption (or acknowledgement) of that responsibility is also not dependent on transparency. We are ourselves regardless of platform, and everything that we project is merely one aspect or another of those selves. Transparent or not, we choose which parts to display, and indeed, which behaviours to feed, as per those two outcomes again.
+Mike Aargh, I love the idea that the asshole can be re-framed, if you have the correct context, and perhaps the correct feedback. Glad you're enjoying it. I certainly am. :D
If you have an interest in personal responsibility +Iblis Bane, how familiar are you with existentialism? Sartre's classic notion of existence precedes essence has always spoken to me (and I generally avoid philosophy like the plague). Sartre carries this notion of self responsibility forward to how a responsibility for the self is taking responsibility for others... It gets complicated so I won't go into the details but you might like it.
I completely recognize the influence of the medium (as I'm sure +Owen Ellis recognizes the the influence of the individual), we just differ in which we would personally focus on when studying phenomena like authenticity. If we both studied authenticity in Google+, I would focus on how the authenticity of the individual functions in reality and how that relates to their authenticity in Google+. Owen would focus on how the platform of Google+ is made to encourage or discourage authenticity. We're still studying the same thing, we're just framing it differently.
But we'd both I agree (I think?) that both the individual AND the medium are important considerations when studying a communication phenomenon.
I completely recognize the influence of the medium (as I'm sure +Owen Ellis recognizes the the influence of the individual), we just differ in which we would personally focus on when studying phenomena like authenticity. If we both studied authenticity in Google+, I would focus on how the authenticity of the individual functions in reality and how that relates to their authenticity in Google+. Owen would focus on how the platform of Google+ is made to encourage or discourage authenticity. We're still studying the same thing, we're just framing it differently.
But we'd both I agree (I think?) that both the individual AND the medium are important considerations when studying a communication phenomenon.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
I am indeed acquainted with Sartre +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales. :D I could in fact be considered something of an existentialist myself. In certain senses anyway, which is enough considering nobody really manages to define it definitively as it were. (I am unfortunately infected with philosophy. Even have a degree in it. ;) )
I really like how you've show the differing opinions of yourself and +Owen Ellis as different approaches to the same question.
I think both of those perspectives are deserving of further examination...both as a function of the platform, and as a function of "real life."
Although, I'm starting to suspect that all life is real. :D (Or at least, equally illusory.)
I really like how you've show the differing opinions of yourself and +Owen Ellis as different approaches to the same question.
I think both of those perspectives are deserving of further examination...both as a function of the platform, and as a function of "real life."
Although, I'm starting to suspect that all life is real. :D (Or at least, equally illusory.)
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
Welcome to the land of the living and the dead +Iblis Bane.
Or is it the Land of Confusion and Delusion? Either way, the time is limited to what we chose to make of it, or allow ourselves as sheep to a shepherd - to be molded to and directed towards, is it not?
Oh, and Thank You are the only two words I can express with the truest intent and gratitude - for the INSPIRATION you have brought to the table (or is it that bag of smuggled in popcorn see here: http://goo.gl/hJKPiq)
Shhh... the show is about to begin. :-)
Or is it the Land of Confusion and Delusion? Either way, the time is limited to what we chose to make of it, or allow ourselves as sheep to a shepherd - to be molded to and directed towards, is it not?
Oh, and Thank You are the only two words I can express with the truest intent and gratitude - for the INSPIRATION you have brought to the table (or is it that bag of smuggled in popcorn see here: http://goo.gl/hJKPiq)
Shhh... the show is about to begin. :-)
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
" The movie will begin in 5 minutes, the mindless voice announced. All those unseated must await the next show ..." :D
I saw your piece before I saw this comment +Owen Ellis. :D And all I can say is you're welcome. I'm honoured to have been able to generate some small particle of inspiration. And thoroughly enjoyed the read.
I saw your piece before I saw this comment +Owen Ellis. :D And all I can say is you're welcome. I'm honoured to have been able to generate some small particle of inspiration. And thoroughly enjoyed the read.
Colin Walker
+
3
4
3
4
3
Is this a Jim Morrison quote I see before me? Great extension!
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Haha, it is indeed +Colin Walker. :D
Alex Schleber
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Iblis Bane re:"The second is that although I don't promote any business, or myself really, I still arrived with marketing motives."
Compare: onthespiral.com/unifying-value-universe (by +Gregory Rader)
"...The key to unifying these disparate definitions is understanding that the attention economy as an inherently unstable domain. Both types of contributors use the same mechanism (attention) to parlay their contributions into interactions belonging to an adjacent quadrant.
In other words, everyone in the attention economy is marketing.
Traditional marketing is attention acquisition intended to motivate monetary transaction. Social media participation is attention acquisition intended to motivate movement into the relationship economy, for example by networking with potential collaborators.
Contributions to the attention economy are only rarely intended to motivate perpetual activity within the attention economy. Few people aggressively pursue the exchange of intangible value with weak ties as their ultimate goal."
---
Compare: onthespiral.com/unifying-value-universe (by +Gregory Rader)
"...The key to unifying these disparate definitions is understanding that the attention economy as an inherently unstable domain. Both types of contributors use the same mechanism (attention) to parlay their contributions into interactions belonging to an adjacent quadrant.
In other words, everyone in the attention economy is marketing.
Traditional marketing is attention acquisition intended to motivate monetary transaction. Social media participation is attention acquisition intended to motivate movement into the relationship economy, for example by networking with potential collaborators.
Contributions to the attention economy are only rarely intended to motivate perpetual activity within the attention economy. Few people aggressively pursue the exchange of intangible value with weak ties as their ultimate goal."
---
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Alex Schleber, more true than you may know in my case. :D I just didn't come here to promote myself or any business I am in. :D I still take what I learn here and advise other businesses to apply it for themselves. ;)
That said, you still have a good point there... any form of expression intended for (or permitting) public consumption must compete for attention.
Indeed, I'm loving the whole attention economy idea.
That said, you still have a good point there... any form of expression intended for (or permitting) public consumption must compete for attention.
Indeed, I'm loving the whole attention economy idea.
Grizwald Grim
+
2
3
2
3
2
Just going to /sub to this thread at this point :)
todd l lebeauc
+
1
2
1
2
1
Hmmm... Read and Re-read, and must read again.
So if authenticity and transparency are the metrics to measure (or contribute in measuring/placing supreme value on) in an Attention Economy then,
Is anyone convinced truly that this type of economy is STABLE? Or is it just another bubble about tobust BURST, spewing forth all sorts of foul after effects to be cleaned up???
+Iblis Bane, +Alex Schleber, +Imran Sq, Anybody???
So if authenticity and transparency are the metrics to measure (or contribute in measuring/placing supreme value on) in an Attention Economy then,
Is anyone convinced truly that this type of economy is STABLE? Or is it just another bubble about to
+Iblis Bane, +Alex Schleber, +Imran Sq, Anybody???
todd l lebeauc
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Mike Aargh so then the goals are to artificially inflate the value? Wow. Now that's what I call "Authenticity In Action!"
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
+todd l lebeauc, of course the economy of attention is unstable. But it doesn't matter. In fact, it's so fluid that it will probably ebb and flow. I think that the objective here is not to generate some sort of artificial high tide, (goodness, these metaphors ;) ), but to be adaptable to its rise and fall.
You can't capture everybodies attention and you can't keep it all the time when you do.
There probably is going to be some sort of bubble effect. But attention is not a finite resource, in the sense that people will always pay attention to something. There is a limit to how many things, but the very instability means they can easily be replaced with different things.
The more valuable / useful / relevant they perceive something, the more attention they will give it, and if it loses that perceived value, they will direct it elsewhere.
That seems like a downside, but it's also an up-side, because it means that you can catch somebodies attention again and again and again.
I don't believe that if you build it they will come. :D But I do believe that people can usually recognise quality when they encounter it.
I wonder if the idea of a bubble is part of what will become the old way of looking at things? My feeling is that it's not the shifting market we have to worry about, it's how we can adapt to or integrate with it.
Like +Mike Aargh suggests, we have to make it (and be) robust enough to manage the transition.
You can't capture everybodies attention and you can't keep it all the time when you do.
There probably is going to be some sort of bubble effect. But attention is not a finite resource, in the sense that people will always pay attention to something. There is a limit to how many things, but the very instability means they can easily be replaced with different things.
The more valuable / useful / relevant they perceive something, the more attention they will give it, and if it loses that perceived value, they will direct it elsewhere.
That seems like a downside, but it's also an up-side, because it means that you can catch somebodies attention again and again and again.
I don't believe that if you build it they will come. :D But I do believe that people can usually recognise quality when they encounter it.
I wonder if the idea of a bubble is part of what will become the old way of looking at things? My feeling is that it's not the shifting market we have to worry about, it's how we can adapt to or integrate with it.
Like +Mike Aargh suggests, we have to make it (and be) robust enough to manage the transition.
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Indeed, and while I don't do business here, I do use what I learn for business. But that just means that businesses have to change. And the ones that do so the best will prosper most.
Imran Sq
+
2
3
2
3
2
+todd l lebeauc I will respond later today, I have a lot to catch up on!
Gina Fiedel
+
6
7
6
7
6
Dang. I have to comment before I've read all the other comments - I'm only about half way through, but I have to get up off the morning couch and get moving. I got here via +Mick Sharpe's #bitingedgefridayfavorites and am sorry I missed this post when it was timely.
+Iblis Bane, great to get to know you some more with this post. It wasn't at all too long, btw.
Here's my tidbit for the time being. It's something I was saying to my husband earlier this morning. I'm not intending to be me me me, self-absorbed or self congratulatory by saying all this, it just occurs to me what a good illustration my own situation offers.
I came here to market. I came on behalf of our web development company and I'd imagined that if I were fortunate, I might build a small reputation based on what I do professionally and hopefully become known by a handful for being solid in my expertise and trustworthy, therefore, attractive for hire.
What I hadn't even begun to imagine was how by doing this, I would get to know myself even more than I already did. And even further from my imaginative thinking was that instead of becoming known for my professional "title", I would become known for who I am as a person.
You see, authenticity was unavoidable. it is my practice in life to always try to be myself, truthful [authentic] [for personal reasons] no matter where I am or what I'm doing, but there's way way more than that at play here. It's true that there is a lot we can't fake. And that the important, most valuable parts will surface no matter what. I believe that.
What hit me this morning is that I am actually getting known for things other than what I'd planned or anticipated (so-called marketing) and this, at first, made me feel a little disappointed but it may be even better when it comes right down to it, no strategy that I was smart enough to conceive would have led me knowingly towards what is actually happening.....because of showing up authentically (with the level of transparency I deem appropriate.)
Who I am as a person is PRECISELY the thing that makes me valuable in my line of work. It's the part that might differentiate us/me, the part that clients respond to especially and are attracted to when they come to us for help, direction, definition, communication support. Who we are authentically as people. It's a serendipitous improvisational benefit. you get to know me and via that you get to know us as a company. marketing.
+Iblis Bane, great to get to know you some more with this post. It wasn't at all too long, btw.
Here's my tidbit for the time being. It's something I was saying to my husband earlier this morning. I'm not intending to be me me me, self-absorbed or self congratulatory by saying all this, it just occurs to me what a good illustration my own situation offers.
I came here to market. I came on behalf of our web development company and I'd imagined that if I were fortunate, I might build a small reputation based on what I do professionally and hopefully become known by a handful for being solid in my expertise and trustworthy, therefore, attractive for hire.
What I hadn't even begun to imagine was how by doing this, I would get to know myself even more than I already did. And even further from my imaginative thinking was that instead of becoming known for my professional "title", I would become known for who I am as a person.
You see, authenticity was unavoidable. it is my practice in life to always try to be myself, truthful [authentic] [for personal reasons] no matter where I am or what I'm doing, but there's way way more than that at play here. It's true that there is a lot we can't fake. And that the important, most valuable parts will surface no matter what. I believe that.
What hit me this morning is that I am actually getting known for things other than what I'd planned or anticipated (so-called marketing) and this, at first, made me feel a little disappointed but it may be even better when it comes right down to it, no strategy that I was smart enough to conceive would have led me knowingly towards what is actually happening.....because of showing up authentically (with the level of transparency I deem appropriate.)
Who I am as a person is PRECISELY the thing that makes me valuable in my line of work. It's the part that might differentiate us/me, the part that clients respond to especially and are attracted to when they come to us for help, direction, definition, communication support. Who we are authentically as people. It's a serendipitous improvisational benefit. you get to know me and via that you get to know us as a company. marketing.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Nice to see you around +Gina Fiedel. And a great contribution. In short, we are who we are, because of who we are. :D I like it.
The trick is not to be known for what you do, but for who you are.
And I totally agree that for many of us, this platform turned our to be different from what we expected, in largely good ways. :D
The trick is not to be known for what you do, but for who you are.
And I totally agree that for many of us, this platform turned our to be different from what we expected, in largely good ways. :D
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
"The trick is not to be known for what you do, but who you are" -- +Iblis Bane
"I came here to market" as well as,
"...authenticity was unavoidable. it is my practice in life to always try to be myself, truthful [authentic]..." -- +Gina Fiedel
This is really an interesting weave of thoughts, when one looks (as I do) at specific words that are used repeatedly (with abandon?) within this environment, particularly;
au·then·tic adjective (http://goo.gl/oEZvbA)
1.not false or copied; genuine; real:
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy:
as well as,
trans·par·ent adjective (http://goo.gl/aIQnxA)
4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected:
5. manifest; obvious:
Both [above] being Adjectives (an adjective is that it is a word that describes or clarifies a noun. Adjectives describe nouns by giving some information about an object’s size, shape, age, color, origin or material.)
Again - questions arise
It strikes me that using these adjectives is an attempt to qualify ability, expertise/experience, trustworthiness, honesty - all of which focus on a positive portrayal of an individual, group, entity, or endeavor. AND YET,
When the word Marketing is used with these, all sorts of questions arise. Obviously, adjectives are use to apply attributes, or clarify a noun - which brings up a huge presence of socialized skepticism of anyone involved in marketing then (does it not?). If this wasn't the case, would there be so many people shouting from the street corners, building tops, on mountain sides?
Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but if people have a less than sterling experience elsewhere (IRL or on FB, or Amazon, or wherever) that tendency of _SOCIETY will certainly transfer across all social venues, REGARDLESS of algorithm engineering (which also comes into question/skepticism/critical analysis).
"I came here to market" as well as,
"...authenticity was unavoidable. it is my practice in life to always try to be myself, truthful [authentic]..." -- +Gina Fiedel
This is really an interesting weave of thoughts, when one looks (as I do) at specific words that are used repeatedly (with abandon?) within this environment, particularly;
au·then·tic adjective (http://goo.gl/oEZvbA)
1.not false or copied; genuine; real:
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy:
as well as,
trans·par·ent adjective (http://goo.gl/aIQnxA)
4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected:
5. manifest; obvious:
Both [above] being Adjectives (an adjective is that it is a word that describes or clarifies a noun. Adjectives describe nouns by giving some information about an object’s size, shape, age, color, origin or material.)
Again - questions arise
It strikes me that using these adjectives is an attempt to qualify ability, expertise/experience, trustworthiness, honesty - all of which focus on a positive portrayal of an individual, group, entity, or endeavor. AND YET,
When the word Marketing is used with these, all sorts of questions arise. Obviously, adjectives are use to apply attributes, or clarify a noun - which brings up a huge presence of socialized skepticism of anyone involved in marketing then (does it not?). If this wasn't the case, would there be so many people shouting from the street corners, building tops, on mountain sides?
Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but if people have a less than sterling experience elsewhere (IRL or on FB, or Amazon, or wherever) that tendency of _SOCIETY will certainly transfer across all social venues, REGARDLESS of algorithm engineering (which also comes into question/skepticism/critical analysis).
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Of course it will +Owen Ellis. Or across a reasonable percentage of them. The key there was people I think. By itself one bad experience may be negligible in the great scheme of things. If there are an aggregate of bad experiences though, that should be taken into account.
I think the incidence of critical analysis, both personally and in business is, on average growing. Indeed, it may be that analysis that drives these new directions to greater or lesser extents.
I think the incidence of critical analysis, both personally and in business is, on average growing. Indeed, it may be that analysis that drives these new directions to greater or lesser extents.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
It certainly can carry incredibly strong negative connotations +Mike Aargh, certainly socially speaking.
Odd how something so...intrinsic...to modern society, something that has probably participated for good or ill in many, if not most choices in our lives is viewed so poorly.
Perhaps it is that imbalance in relationship. Which can go either way. In your example, it's a case of "I want your money..." but that in itself shouldn't be particularly offensive, in theory at least. (Your example has more of the "betrayal of trust" aspect I think...whether through (deplorable) mis-representation, or honest misunderstanding.)
I wonder if some other aspect of that loathing may stem partly from the other side of that coin...when we want or need what's on offer, so we feel at their mercy, even if we technically have the power of having the money they need?
Odd how something so...intrinsic...to modern society, something that has probably participated for good or ill in many, if not most choices in our lives is viewed so poorly.
Perhaps it is that imbalance in relationship. Which can go either way. In your example, it's a case of "I want your money..." but that in itself shouldn't be particularly offensive, in theory at least. (Your example has more of the "betrayal of trust" aspect I think...whether through (deplorable) mis-representation, or honest misunderstanding.)
I wonder if some other aspect of that loathing may stem partly from the other side of that coin...when we want or need what's on offer, so we feel at their mercy, even if we technically have the power of having the money they need?
Grizwald Grim
+
5
6
5
6
5
The more valuable / useful / relevant they perceive something, the more attention they will give it, and if it loses that perceived value, they will direct it elsewhere.
I'd like to steer back in this direction for a moment - as some of the value I perceive is that in coming together to filter and share data that is attention worthy, we greatly enhance and (dare I say it) influence each other's standards with regard to perceived value. I think it may be of no small benefit that we direct some attention to this facet of our time and energy expenditure here, particularly with regard to developing and disseminating the protocols we develop to identity and create value - not only to benefit those we disseminate that information to, but in hopes of increasing the value of our resulting streams.
With regard to marketing, I'll say that despite the deluge of social media marketing information and tactics that pervade my stream, the only marketing I find myself exposed to is marketing of social media marketing products...
I'd like to steer back in this direction for a moment - as some of the value I perceive is that in coming together to filter and share data that is attention worthy, we greatly enhance and (dare I say it) influence each other's standards with regard to perceived value. I think it may be of no small benefit that we direct some attention to this facet of our time and energy expenditure here, particularly with regard to developing and disseminating the protocols we develop to identity and create value - not only to benefit those we disseminate that information to, but in hopes of increasing the value of our resulting streams.
With regard to marketing, I'll say that despite the deluge of social media marketing information and tactics that pervade my stream, the only marketing I find myself exposed to is marketing of social media marketing products...
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Mike Aargh and +Iblis Bane or to "coin" a phrase...
'The Double-Headed Coin (Janus) Effect'
Sorry, you guys set that pun up too perfectly to not make a play on it. :)
But your points are well made and directly related to the duality of mankind, (Yin and Yang). As a Piscean, it is something I recognize every day.
If these thougth processes aren't convincing enough, lessons afforded by our #caninecousins on a #carurday can be observed in the words of Cesar Millin;
“I'll believe it if I see it" for dogs translates to "I'll believe it if I smell it." So don't bother yelling at them; it's the energy and scent they pay attention to, not your words.”
'The Double-Headed Coin (Janus) Effect'
Sorry, you guys set that pun up too perfectly to not make a play on it. :)
But your points are well made and directly related to the duality of mankind, (Yin and Yang). As a Piscean, it is something I recognize every day.
If these thougth processes aren't convincing enough, lessons afforded by our #caninecousins on a #carurday can be observed in the words of Cesar Millin;
“I'll believe it if I see it" for dogs translates to "I'll believe it if I smell it." So don't bother yelling at them; it's the energy and scent they pay attention to, not your words.”
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Grizwald Grim re:
"...with regard to developing and disseminating the protocols we develop to identity and create value..."
GREAT POINT! All too often the focus is on the sliver in the finger with the reaction spurring a "cut off the arm" mentality.
The other well placed point (or observation?) is that of "...the only marketing I find myself exposed to is marketing of social media marketing products..."
So is that the complaint then of the current "State of the '+'" (until more get used the deeper exploration of globalized communication on a variety of subject matter?)
"...with regard to developing and disseminating the protocols we develop to identity and create value..."
GREAT POINT! All too often the focus is on the sliver in the finger with the reaction spurring a "cut off the arm" mentality.
The other well placed point (or observation?) is that of "...the only marketing I find myself exposed to is marketing of social media marketing products..."
So is that the complaint then of the current "State of the '+'" (until more get used the deeper exploration of globalized communication on a variety of subject matter?)
Grizwald Grim
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Owen Ellis it's certainly not a complaint of mine, as I don't think many come here to be marketed to - but it does indicate to me what the main market is on social media
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
There's no doubt that social media is trying to sell social media marketing at the moment +Grizwald Grim. :D Early adopters and all that. Plus, we have to figure out how it can apply to specific other fields. ;)
A lot of the business-oriented communities I sometimes visit suffer quite badly from link dump and advertising posts, done by social media advertisers who aren't getting it. (Especially bad in location-specific one's I've found.)
Luckily, it's also hell of an easy to mute or block stuff like that, so for many marketers, (and I can't pretend to be too unhappy), it will probably be a "useless" medium for some time to come.
An interesting point also about the quality-control aspect of collaboration and content-sharing. It really isn't necessarily a zero-sum game.
A lot of the business-oriented communities I sometimes visit suffer quite badly from link dump and advertising posts, done by social media advertisers who aren't getting it. (Especially bad in location-specific one's I've found.)
Luckily, it's also hell of an easy to mute or block stuff like that, so for many marketers, (and I can't pretend to be too unhappy), it will probably be a "useless" medium for some time to come.
An interesting point also about the quality-control aspect of collaboration and content-sharing. It really isn't necessarily a zero-sum game.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
As I suggested above +Owen Ellis, there is perhaps an unnatural weighting at the moment. :D It will either, increase, decrease, or balance out. ;) I'm interested to see which. :D
Owen Ellis
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Iblis Bane - that "unnatural weighting" seems only to be a balancing act right now with the whole "Let's come together and collaborate" idealism.
Obviously the whole "entrepreneur" spirit will be challenged (as it seems predicated on 'build a better mousetrap' practice). I still would say, expect casualties but do see hope in those who can actually work well together (lot's of unique tribes developing).
Obviously the whole "entrepreneur" spirit will be challenged (as it seems predicated on 'build a better mousetrap' practice). I still would say, expect casualties but do see hope in those who can actually work well together (lot's of unique tribes developing).
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
I expect casualties, misfits, outcasts and scapegoats, because that is the way society works +Owen Ellis. :D I hope what remains after passing through the crucible makes for something better than we have or have had before.
If it doesn't, well, we will experiment with something else. These are exciting times as I've said before. The changes we've experienced online in the last 20 years have, I think, laid the foundations for what may actually soon appear very rapid. What we've experienced in the last 10 has just been the fumbling to get to grips with it.
We dragged the old methods into a new medium and flogged them to death. It was inevitable (in hindsight ;) ) that as people adapted, they wouldn't work much more. Too based on what was rapidly becoming an out-dated mentality.
That's why I talked earlier about a paradigm shift. And I'm not talking about a commercial one, but an informational one. An interactive one. We're starting to realise that the old models of dissemination and persuasion and yes, even manipulation, are failing.
How many 419 scams still net victims? Some? Sure. But not as many as they used to. Because even as we learn to navigate, (and yes, exploit) these waters, so to does everybody else.
You're so right about the challenge. The model will evolve, I'm sure of that. I think we're already seeing the first results of that evolution in fact. There will be some duds. But that's the fact of evolution. Adapt or die. You talk about a balancing act, but I think that may be quite accurate. At least, in that what will ideally be achieved is a new equilibrium, surpassing the benefits of the old for all who can achieve it.
If it doesn't, well, we will experiment with something else. These are exciting times as I've said before. The changes we've experienced online in the last 20 years have, I think, laid the foundations for what may actually soon appear very rapid. What we've experienced in the last 10 has just been the fumbling to get to grips with it.
We dragged the old methods into a new medium and flogged them to death. It was inevitable (in hindsight ;) ) that as people adapted, they wouldn't work much more. Too based on what was rapidly becoming an out-dated mentality.
That's why I talked earlier about a paradigm shift. And I'm not talking about a commercial one, but an informational one. An interactive one. We're starting to realise that the old models of dissemination and persuasion and yes, even manipulation, are failing.
How many 419 scams still net victims? Some? Sure. But not as many as they used to. Because even as we learn to navigate, (and yes, exploit) these waters, so to does everybody else.
You're so right about the challenge. The model will evolve, I'm sure of that. I think we're already seeing the first results of that evolution in fact. There will be some duds. But that's the fact of evolution. Adapt or die. You talk about a balancing act, but I think that may be quite accurate. At least, in that what will ideally be achieved is a new equilibrium, surpassing the benefits of the old for all who can achieve it.
Again +Iblis Bane the stark realities rear their ugly hell-hound head(s).
The idea that "the wo/man with the most paperwork [data] wins" is essentially the model that Google is founded on (or build a better moustrap), and one I do not see outside of their organization as they compete with MSFT, Facebook, and others while promoting a different mentality within the neighborhood.
So win-win is not so easily digestible after all, is it? :-D
Ideals such as "equality" suddenly get modifiers such as "It's fair - considering ___" justifications.
The idea that "the wo/man with the most paperwork [data] wins" is essentially the model that Google is founded on (or build a better moustrap), and one I do not see outside of their organization as they compete with MSFT, Facebook, and others while promoting a different mentality within the neighborhood.
So win-win is not so easily digestible after all, is it? :-D
Ideals such as "equality" suddenly get modifiers such as "It's fair - considering ___" justifications.
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Doesn't matter which corporate wins. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss. :D It's about how we use what we have. ;)
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
Or make it Better (a considerable and driving force behind innovation and entrepreneur idealism). ;-D
As the voice of someone I hold in highest respect has said elsewhere, collaboration provides opportunity for those who are willing to see and do something with the opportunities presenting themselves.
As the voice of someone I hold in highest respect has said elsewhere, collaboration provides opportunity for those who are willing to see and do something with the opportunities presenting themselves.
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
Well, +Iblis Bane you're bringing it back around quite neatly to why and how the need for, the choice towards, the conversation about "authenticity" started in the first place, right?
"We" have discovered that no one buys it anymore. Straight out advertising misses a huge point. On the internet everything we do is visible, which is how/why we experience and begin the conversation about transparency. Two kinds: the unavoidable kind that it out of our hands and the kind we dictate by "personal" (or business culture) choice.
So now with that, our authenticity counts for so much more and that's where my own interest gets deeply piqued. I think it's pretty dang cool that authenticity has become valued over lying, faking, manipulating. And of course, because we do still happen to be the human race we will screw with it, try to fake it, talk about it until the moon disappears. And in the meantime, our authentic selves have that much more material within which to leak out of and present itself anyway.
Ps- loved your succinct translation of my million paragraphs.
"We" have discovered that no one buys it anymore. Straight out advertising misses a huge point. On the internet everything we do is visible, which is how/why we experience and begin the conversation about transparency. Two kinds: the unavoidable kind that it out of our hands and the kind we dictate by "personal" (or business culture) choice.
So now with that, our authenticity counts for so much more and that's where my own interest gets deeply piqued. I think it's pretty dang cool that authenticity has become valued over lying, faking, manipulating. And of course, because we do still happen to be the human race we will screw with it, try to fake it, talk about it until the moon disappears. And in the meantime, our authentic selves have that much more material within which to leak out of and present itself anyway.
Ps- loved your succinct translation of my million paragraphs.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Very well put indeed +Owen Ellis.
Haha, well +Gina Fiedel, I thought my brevity skills needed a bit of work...sadly I lack the self-discipline to keep it up. ;)
Your comment has highlighted a type of transparency I wasn't even thinking about...transparency enforced by public presence. I've been thinking of it more in terms of personal "you know who I am and what I do and for who and why" kind of ways. But you're right...even if [businesses] choose not to be transparent, their clients are.
And that brings us also back to +Mike Aargh's comments about the bad experience. To deal with a market that is transparent whether you want it to be or not, you have to be engaged and participate to provide an all-round good experience.
Haha, well +Gina Fiedel, I thought my brevity skills needed a bit of work...sadly I lack the self-discipline to keep it up. ;)
Your comment has highlighted a type of transparency I wasn't even thinking about...transparency enforced by public presence. I've been thinking of it more in terms of personal "you know who I am and what I do and for who and why" kind of ways. But you're right...even if [businesses] choose not to be transparent, their clients are.
And that brings us also back to +Mike Aargh's comments about the bad experience. To deal with a market that is transparent whether you want it to be or not, you have to be engaged and participate to provide an all-round good experience.
Gina Fiedel
+
1
2
1
2
1
....And you have to be true to who you really are as well, +Iblis Bane. Because we can't hide the snarky stuff [for long].
Yeah, that other kind of transparency is what brought us to this point here, really. The birth and origination of integrity-valued. Odd to think of it like that but it's kind of what excites me. Entities being somewhat "forced" to cut the crap and stop lying. Because the truth will come out.
Yeah, that other kind of transparency is what brought us to this point here, really. The birth and origination of integrity-valued. Odd to think of it like that but it's kind of what excites me. Entities being somewhat "forced" to cut the crap and stop lying. Because the truth will come out.
David Amerland
+
5
6
5
6
5
It's the first time in quite a while I come across a post that, while I am away, burrows its way into my subconscious and begins to find expressions in what I do in RL. +Iblis Bane I just spent a week talking to search marketers, businessmen and financiers about the 'miracle' of semantic search :). It was an intensive week that, as it usually happens, educated me just as it allowed me to help others.
It was a job. Just as my presence in G+ was driven by my awareness of its benefits to search. But that's not why I stayed nor why I engage across so many threads (like this one). In Poland I found myself listening carefully to issues that have more to do with life in a post-communist world still trying to find its way into the 21st century than search. I listened to businessmen running multi-million dollar companies there concerned with social and (given their background) the fact that now anonymity is something they need to shed in order to gain. I listened to concerns about any online authority becoming too powerful and acquiring too much data.
And all the while I was thinking, at the back of my mind, just how, for once the RL issues were echoing the online ones (and that's a relatively new thing in my line of work).
Are we being authentic here when we each came for so many different reasons? Are we being real when we stay for so many diverse ones? The fact that we're willing to discuss this so open and admit to it as +Mark Traphagen did, suggest yes.
We came here for something but we stayed for other things. +Owen Ellis is right to question some of the assumptions and certainly the platform dictates much of what we communicate and how (case in point, those who follow me just on Twitter perceive me differently) but it's people who exploit the platform functionality to communicate with other people as +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales points out.
So, are we being real? Are we being 'us'? Do I really know anyone here? Does anyone really know me? The fact that I so frequently do what I would never ever consider doing: leave myself vulnerable, suggests that I feel that i know you all sufficiently to take that chance.
It's in that sense of vulnerability. In our direct admissions and indirect hints that we truly connect. It is there that we really feel that behind the name, the picture, the sleek facade, the pseudonym, the avatar, is a living, breathing person whose ideas resonate, who thinks about the same things as we do, who wants to understand as we do.
That is the change we all feel. It's hard to articulate and harder still to come to terms with. One financier in Poland, after my talk at the Warsaw Stock Exchange, approached me and asked: "Is all this change coming now?" I explained that no. None of it is coming. The change we want to see has to be manufactured by us. By the many small things we do differently just as we carry on with our lives and jobs and daily concerns. The world is not going to change because someone decrees it. It is going to change only if we do. I know I have. In the distant past I would have focused on work. I would have shrugged off politics and living concerns with my "focus on success in business and all else will follow" theme. I left that mindset behind just over two years ago. Life and living, work and the world are all intertwined. It was wrong to ever compartmentalize things.
The moment we break free of silos, what we do, as different and diverse in every context, is informed by who we are. It was hard explaining to Poles that one of my friends whose journey I have shared is a "little red devil" whose face I have never seen and voice I have never heard but whose mind I often touch just as his touches me. Plus, given the Doors quote in the thread, I applaud his taste of music.
The fact that the majority of my audience got it has left me filled with more hope than ever before. :)
It was a job. Just as my presence in G+ was driven by my awareness of its benefits to search. But that's not why I stayed nor why I engage across so many threads (like this one). In Poland I found myself listening carefully to issues that have more to do with life in a post-communist world still trying to find its way into the 21st century than search. I listened to businessmen running multi-million dollar companies there concerned with social and (given their background) the fact that now anonymity is something they need to shed in order to gain. I listened to concerns about any online authority becoming too powerful and acquiring too much data.
And all the while I was thinking, at the back of my mind, just how, for once the RL issues were echoing the online ones (and that's a relatively new thing in my line of work).
Are we being authentic here when we each came for so many different reasons? Are we being real when we stay for so many diverse ones? The fact that we're willing to discuss this so open and admit to it as +Mark Traphagen did, suggest yes.
We came here for something but we stayed for other things. +Owen Ellis is right to question some of the assumptions and certainly the platform dictates much of what we communicate and how (case in point, those who follow me just on Twitter perceive me differently) but it's people who exploit the platform functionality to communicate with other people as +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales points out.
So, are we being real? Are we being 'us'? Do I really know anyone here? Does anyone really know me? The fact that I so frequently do what I would never ever consider doing: leave myself vulnerable, suggests that I feel that i know you all sufficiently to take that chance.
It's in that sense of vulnerability. In our direct admissions and indirect hints that we truly connect. It is there that we really feel that behind the name, the picture, the sleek facade, the pseudonym, the avatar, is a living, breathing person whose ideas resonate, who thinks about the same things as we do, who wants to understand as we do.
That is the change we all feel. It's hard to articulate and harder still to come to terms with. One financier in Poland, after my talk at the Warsaw Stock Exchange, approached me and asked: "Is all this change coming now?" I explained that no. None of it is coming. The change we want to see has to be manufactured by us. By the many small things we do differently just as we carry on with our lives and jobs and daily concerns. The world is not going to change because someone decrees it. It is going to change only if we do. I know I have. In the distant past I would have focused on work. I would have shrugged off politics and living concerns with my "focus on success in business and all else will follow" theme. I left that mindset behind just over two years ago. Life and living, work and the world are all intertwined. It was wrong to ever compartmentalize things.
The moment we break free of silos, what we do, as different and diverse in every context, is informed by who we are. It was hard explaining to Poles that one of my friends whose journey I have shared is a "little red devil" whose face I have never seen and voice I have never heard but whose mind I often touch just as his touches me. Plus, given the Doors quote in the thread, I applaud his taste of music.
The fact that the majority of my audience got it has left me filled with more hope than ever before. :)
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
We needed you +David Amerland, it seems (not surprisingly), to remind us that it's our vulnerability that tips the scales. Proves to us that we are truly getting to know each other and can be trusted in that. And the cherry on top is that each time we allow ourselves to be publicly vulnerable the response is overwhelmingly in support of it. My own experiences point to it over and over. But we can also applaud ourselves for being willing to receive said vulnerability and for co-creating an environment where that is not only accepted but welcomed and supported. We each have a lot of people watching our backs.
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
As you so aptly remind us +David Amerland, the question of trust must cut both ways. And that's another hard barrier to overcome. Trust is a commodity in short supply. But it's a cornerstone of transparency, and it's not enough to get the audience to trust you. We have to trust ourselves, each other, our clients, our employers, our employees. It's a long and fragile chain and prone to failure.
But when it works, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that it can be seen as a thing of beauty.
"None of it is coming."
That may be the most profound statement on the entire state of affairs. It's not going to happen despite us. It's going to happen because of us.
(And the best part is, we don't really have to do anything...we just have to facilitate things. It (the net, search, open communication, etc.) is reacting to us. We just have to carry on.)
After your opening line, I was going to feel well served at having perhaps offered a small taste of what you have done to me...but now I fear you have done it again. ;)
It's been a pleasure and a privilege to encounter you along this journey +David Amerland, and I look forward to many interesting discussions and experiences to come. (2 years huh? And here I thought you'd always been so Zen. ;) )
On a side note, I do tend to love the Polish. :D Eastern Europeans in general actually. I find the combination of grim fatalism, cynical pragmatism and black humour appealing.
But when it works, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that it can be seen as a thing of beauty.
"None of it is coming."
That may be the most profound statement on the entire state of affairs. It's not going to happen despite us. It's going to happen because of us.
(And the best part is, we don't really have to do anything...we just have to facilitate things. It (the net, search, open communication, etc.) is reacting to us. We just have to carry on.)
After your opening line, I was going to feel well served at having perhaps offered a small taste of what you have done to me...but now I fear you have done it again. ;)
It's been a pleasure and a privilege to encounter you along this journey +David Amerland, and I look forward to many interesting discussions and experiences to come. (2 years huh? And here I thought you'd always been so Zen. ;) )
On a side note, I do tend to love the Polish. :D Eastern Europeans in general actually. I find the combination of grim fatalism, cynical pragmatism and black humour appealing.
David Amerland
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Iblis Bane copy that on Eastern Europeans. I spent time in Russia and the Czech Republic. Poland is similar and yet so different. And hmmm, Zen has always been there with me but this is the first time I have been open about it, sharing thoughts and ideas openly. Corporate life, sometimes, serves us ever so badly.
Alex Schleber
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Iblis Bane I'll have to chime back to this thread, there are quite a few points made that I have thought a lot about, specifically around marketing, "The Friend" archetype in social media, and "caveat emptor" systemic imbalances. Am on mobile right now and will have to draw together some materials from old threads, so I'll have to leave this as a to do item for now.
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
Agreed +David Amerland. I had one big corporate experience and it soured me on the whole deal. I swore no corporates ever again, and was fortunate in being in the position to be able to pick and choose. (Your way is better...you get to tell them what to do. ;) )
I also really felt your comments about a country finding it's way into the 21st century. As I've said before, the impact of this on developing markets is quite different than in developed ones, and you'll find a similar situation in many countries in that position.
The "rules" if you like are being made in an environment that is quite different than exists in many of the places that find themselves having to "obey" them as it were. It's an issue I face daily, both internally and externally.
(Haha, I once commented on the variety of Polish food to a friend...he replied "We've spent the last 1,000 years being conquered back and forth by everybody who was anybody in Europe. We're still here, but we kept their best cooking." :D )
I also really felt your comments about a country finding it's way into the 21st century. As I've said before, the impact of this on developing markets is quite different than in developed ones, and you'll find a similar situation in many countries in that position.
The "rules" if you like are being made in an environment that is quite different than exists in many of the places that find themselves having to "obey" them as it were. It's an issue I face daily, both internally and externally.
(Haha, I once commented on the variety of Polish food to a friend...he replied "We've spent the last 1,000 years being conquered back and forth by everybody who was anybody in Europe. We're still here, but we kept their best cooking." :D )
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
I'll look forward to it +Alex Schleber. I'm really enjoying all the twists and turns we're taking here, as every input provides new fuel to countless thoughts. :D
Gina Fiedel
+
4
5
4
5
4
"None of it is coming." I agree +Iblis Bane about the profundity of that statement of +David Amerland's.
And hearing it, I hear in my mind, a related phrase from K. Pattabhi Jois "Practice and all is coming". I don't think I need to explain why that fits.
Your long and fragile chain starts with self. And this may be where things differ from just a few short years ago. It feels like consciousness is shifting all around us.
What used to be fringe is now mainstream and in developed countries at least, in many ways the ones who have stayed behind on matters spiritual, there have been big changes in what it's safe to be interested in, to reveal interest in.
Not to go all woo woo on you, but there feels to be an opening where there used to be only whispered exploration. Even the way the word Zen is so easily and commonly used is an example.
When we talk about trust, transparency, authenticity, knowing each other, feeling connection, understanding it's also an indication that we care about going deeper than before.
.
And hearing it, I hear in my mind, a related phrase from K. Pattabhi Jois "Practice and all is coming". I don't think I need to explain why that fits.
Your long and fragile chain starts with self. And this may be where things differ from just a few short years ago. It feels like consciousness is shifting all around us.
What used to be fringe is now mainstream and in developed countries at least, in many ways the ones who have stayed behind on matters spiritual, there have been big changes in what it's safe to be interested in, to reveal interest in.
Not to go all woo woo on you, but there feels to be an opening where there used to be only whispered exploration. Even the way the word Zen is so easily and commonly used is an example.
When we talk about trust, transparency, authenticity, knowing each other, feeling connection, understanding it's also an indication that we care about going deeper than before.
.
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Gina Fiedel I so totally agree. What has really changes is that we now connect with each other and the world at a much deeper level. That makes the connection itself different.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, I don't know whether to quote Harold MacMillan or Cat Stevens in response +Gina Fiedel. ;) Or maybe a little Dylan. :D
Yes, change is a-coming. I feel I have to inject a little caveat in there though, because change can be slow, difficult, uneven or all of the above.
We have to remember that just because it is coming doesn't mean it will be immediately effective or apparent.
Change has to be managed and integrated. It faces opposition, resistance, misinterpretation and so many more things. (And I should know...I'm often one of those resisting it. (Psychological issues. ;) ) )
As exciting as the times are, they are still early ones. But we're laying the foundations.
Yes, change is a-coming. I feel I have to inject a little caveat in there though, because change can be slow, difficult, uneven or all of the above.
We have to remember that just because it is coming doesn't mean it will be immediately effective or apparent.
Change has to be managed and integrated. It faces opposition, resistance, misinterpretation and so many more things. (And I should know...I'm often one of those resisting it. (Psychological issues. ;) ) )
As exciting as the times are, they are still early ones. But we're laying the foundations.
Imran Sq
+
4
5
4
5
4
+todd l lebeauc @ attention, are metrics of authenticity valuable?
After reading some of the responses on this thread and re-evaluating my thoughts on social manipulators/influencers - I thought about what kind of thoughts people experienced before responding...
How many people questioned... "am i typing the right answer? How will my response be read?"
Is it at that point social influencer tactics kick in? I don't think anyone is 100% genuine in any situation and everyone has the innate desire to be liked, accepted or looked up to.
Are you genuinely a likeable person or do you make yourself likeable?
Do you care if someone else acts or make themselves look genuine or will you follow your perception of what they are anyway?
Catch 22 - The more genuine and transparent you try to be, the more of an 'actor' you become... Not caring about what other people think is when I believe real genuine humans are born...
After reading some of the responses on this thread and re-evaluating my thoughts on social manipulators/influencers - I thought about what kind of thoughts people experienced before responding...
How many people questioned... "am i typing the right answer? How will my response be read?"
Is it at that point social influencer tactics kick in? I don't think anyone is 100% genuine in any situation and everyone has the innate desire to be liked, accepted or looked up to.
Are you genuinely a likeable person or do you make yourself likeable?
Do you care if someone else acts or make themselves look genuine or will you follow your perception of what they are anyway?
Catch 22 - The more genuine and transparent you try to be, the more of an 'actor' you become... Not caring about what other people think is when I believe real genuine humans are born...
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Imran Sq Or... not caring what other people think may simply make you some kind of misanthropic eccentric. :) There has to be a balance to everything.
Grizwald Grim
+
5
6
5
6
5
And the cherry on top is that each time we allow ourselves to be publicly vulnerable the response is overwhelmingly in support of it. +Gina Fiedel
I have to take issue with 'each time', unless your 'we' is exclusive to 'people who have built a sufficiently sized network'. Sometimes vulnerability is met with silence.
+David Amerland so what happens when a misanthropic eccentric or a sociopath tries to be authentic on social media? ;)
I have to take issue with 'each time', unless your 'we' is exclusive to 'people who have built a sufficiently sized network'. Sometimes vulnerability is met with silence.
+David Amerland so what happens when a misanthropic eccentric or a sociopath tries to be authentic on social media? ;)
Imran Sq
+
1
2
1
2
1
+David Amerland i love the concept (and post ideas that come from this thread alone), fearing what people think of us is a huge topic in my world of self-motivation and the minds eye and being unique. If everyone conforms to social norms and spend their life trying to be like a role model (parents, celebs, and now social influencers) - all we really have is clones of what other people want us to be or think how they want us to think...
Research on FB shows some people can feel extremely depressed if others don't engage with them, or if they don't get enough "likes" (restricting the room people have to be genuine/different). So the need to be liked effects social persona.
I don't think not caring about what people think is not a bad thing - if people have good intention then they have nothing to worry about right? Is that the right balance needed to be genuine?
Research on FB shows some people can feel extremely depressed if others don't engage with them, or if they don't get enough "likes" (restricting the room people have to be genuine/different). So the need to be liked effects social persona.
I don't think not caring about what people think is not a bad thing - if people have good intention then they have nothing to worry about right? Is that the right balance needed to be genuine?
todd l lebeauc
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Imran Sq About a decade back, I asked my pops why he was no longer showing interest or concern in [local] politics. His answer was simply "I have fought for bettering the future so you could assume the fight." He had, in many ways - faced his age and the futility that often comes later in life.
As I am now traversing that similar spiraling downhill, I look at things. And there is a very genuine level of discomfort in what I can see. I am of the generation afforded photos still being on film that decays, journals and diaries that age and become too brittle to handle (generally long subjected to decomposing in a forgotten landfill), and more. My daughters are seeing something different, and my grandchildren have a different world all together. And that is the rub.
All of the discussion of what authenticity, trust, transparency, and such will likely have a much smaller effect of my life than that of my grandchildren, as their lives ARE being recorded in digital form, even prior to birth.
With all of this recording that is already happening, the very issue that authenticity is still an ongoing debate/discussion is umm ___ (not necessarily adding to my level of comfort).
Likewise, there still is an affordance of standing in my own home, plugged into the Googol-sphere and saying "Hey, if you think I am an Asshole, then why are you trying to convert me?" (is that what you would refer to as a misanthropic eccentric +David Amerland?)
No. Now I am, at my age - fighting a fight that is truly an #epicbattle , of sorts. And it is that - A Fight that I do not (or try not to) candy coat in order to swallow. If someone says to me, "The road to authenticity is paved through exposure of 'vulnerability' in terms of revealing piecemeal parts of [my] every day life", my immediate (and defensive) question is then:
Can you give me an example of a SINGLE generation in the timeline of mankind where/when a "vulnerability" is NOT used to the advantage [manipulated] of an oppressor. or where "Vulnerability" is not construed to be seen as a competitive advantage by a corporate/governmental entity?
And to dismiss these questions, is in fact (in my mind) not only a disservice, but reflective of the disingenuous undertones still very much present today. Likewise, to have expressions that "Technology will be the answer, or some grand catalyst of change...," how can I do anything other than scoff of such hyperbole???
When a caveman came upon fire the first time, in all of the attempts to control it, how many lives have been lost in a fire? When automobiles first began rolling off an assembly line and homes were being equipped with electric power, where were the thoughts and discussions and actions that could have changed how much CO2 was going to be dumped into the atmosphere? Should we discuss the merit of nuclear power, without acknowledging the fact that a large supply is still available to wipe out the entire populace by select few are perceived as being threatened? Is not the global connectivity of data also not worthy of deep discussion?
Even with all of these thoughts however, I am a #relic of an age that felt and acted upon social change and empowerment. It sometime meant being looked at from the outside as being subversive; of having nefarious intent, at being (as David says) a misanthropic eccentric. YET HOPE STILL REMAINS, despite concerns.
But what do I know? In all reality, in two decades or less - my grandchildren will be int eh workplace, and I could easily find myself sitting on the porch of SOME HOME talking about #thegoodoldays while I await the delivery of my din-din and clean diaper. But that day is not here yet....
As I am now traversing that similar spiraling downhill, I look at things. And there is a very genuine level of discomfort in what I can see. I am of the generation afforded photos still being on film that decays, journals and diaries that age and become too brittle to handle (generally long subjected to decomposing in a forgotten landfill), and more. My daughters are seeing something different, and my grandchildren have a different world all together. And that is the rub.
All of the discussion of what authenticity, trust, transparency, and such will likely have a much smaller effect of my life than that of my grandchildren, as their lives ARE being recorded in digital form, even prior to birth.
With all of this recording that is already happening, the very issue that authenticity is still an ongoing debate/discussion is umm ___ (not necessarily adding to my level of comfort).
Likewise, there still is an affordance of standing in my own home, plugged into the Googol-sphere and saying "Hey, if you think I am an Asshole, then why are you trying to convert me?" (is that what you would refer to as a misanthropic eccentric +David Amerland?)
No. Now I am, at my age - fighting a fight that is truly an #epicbattle , of sorts. And it is that - A Fight that I do not (or try not to) candy coat in order to swallow. If someone says to me, "The road to authenticity is paved through exposure of 'vulnerability' in terms of revealing piecemeal parts of [my] every day life", my immediate (and defensive) question is then:
Can you give me an example of a SINGLE generation in the timeline of mankind where/when a "vulnerability" is NOT used to the advantage [manipulated] of an oppressor. or where "Vulnerability" is not construed to be seen as a competitive advantage by a corporate/governmental entity?
And to dismiss these questions, is in fact (in my mind) not only a disservice, but reflective of the disingenuous undertones still very much present today. Likewise, to have expressions that "Technology will be the answer, or some grand catalyst of change...," how can I do anything other than scoff of such hyperbole???
When a caveman came upon fire the first time, in all of the attempts to control it, how many lives have been lost in a fire? When automobiles first began rolling off an assembly line and homes were being equipped with electric power, where were the thoughts and discussions and actions that could have changed how much CO2 was going to be dumped into the atmosphere? Should we discuss the merit of nuclear power, without acknowledging the fact that a large supply is still available to wipe out the entire populace by select few are perceived as being threatened? Is not the global connectivity of data also not worthy of deep discussion?
Even with all of these thoughts however, I am a #relic of an age that felt and acted upon social change and empowerment. It sometime meant being looked at from the outside as being subversive; of having nefarious intent, at being (as David says) a misanthropic eccentric. YET HOPE STILL REMAINS, despite concerns.
But what do I know? In all reality, in two decades or less - my grandchildren will be int eh workplace, and I could easily find myself sitting on the porch of SOME HOME talking about #thegoodoldays while I await the delivery of my din-din and clean diaper. But that day is not here yet....
Grizwald Grim
+
2
3
2
3
2
+todd l lebeauc so tempting to go into our systemic abuse of the elderly while we use our medical advancement to drain their financials before we finally let them die... but let's not go there, it's a Sunday :)
Imran Sq
+
3
4
3
4
3
+todd l lebeauc your response. Guys it's getting too difficult to keep up with everyone's opinions for me, it's not easy to catch up at all. Can someone arrange a evening hangout so we can discuss everything again, go over the responses etc (even though I can not cam, I do have a mic)... it would make it far easier for me.
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Grizwald Grim, there are worse responses to vulnerability than silence, but I'll get to that in a minute. What will happen to the misanthrope is that we will misunderstand him, reinforce the reasoning behind the misanthropy and either shun or actively oppose him. The sociopath should fit in just fine...it's what they do. Then they'll sabotage it with effectively the same result.
Iblis Bane
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Imran Sq, I think that need for social approval is an even bigger factor than you appear to suggest. Indeed, I don't think any of us are wholly free of it. It's part of the biological hard-wiring that enabled the formation of society in the first place. I think it drives a lot of social media interaction too.
Our biology has not kept up with society by a long shot, and it causes and will continue to cause problems today and into the future.
The problem with intentions is that people almost always think they have good ones. The fanatical evangelist thinks he's saving your soul.
I don't think that we should care about what people think...I like to think that I tend not to.
However, that doesn't absolve us from the necessity of being aware of how our actions (and our intentions) can and do affect them.
Good intentions alone are insufficient. Consequences have to be taken into account.
Our biology has not kept up with society by a long shot, and it causes and will continue to cause problems today and into the future.
The problem with intentions is that people almost always think they have good ones. The fanatical evangelist thinks he's saving your soul.
I don't think that we should care about what people think...I like to think that I tend not to.
However, that doesn't absolve us from the necessity of being aware of how our actions (and our intentions) can and do affect them.
Good intentions alone are insufficient. Consequences have to be taken into account.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
+todd l lebeauc, I think that is a valuable perspective you bring there, and one that, to be honest, I struggle to understand.
I have no children, and want none, and am eternally fortunate that my GF of 16 years is of similar persuasion.
I like to think of the future implications of things, but I'm at liberty to do so from a perspective that doesn't include attachment.
I wish that I could tell you that you were wrong. And that these concerns were inconsequential. But they're not. Vulnerabilities are exploited. People will be taken advantage of and manipulated. There will, as +Owen Ellis said, be casualties.
It seems too easy and a bit facile to say that equilibrium will be reached at some point in the future when no issue of mine, or anything I could ever care about, will be one of those casualties.
I also wish I had a better answer for you. But I don't. All we can do is try to be vigilant. With all its perils, the global connectivity of data also presents opportunities to combat those perils, and enables ordinary people to take stands against them. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Just like everything else.
I have no children, and want none, and am eternally fortunate that my GF of 16 years is of similar persuasion.
I like to think of the future implications of things, but I'm at liberty to do so from a perspective that doesn't include attachment.
I wish that I could tell you that you were wrong. And that these concerns were inconsequential. But they're not. Vulnerabilities are exploited. People will be taken advantage of and manipulated. There will, as +Owen Ellis said, be casualties.
It seems too easy and a bit facile to say that equilibrium will be reached at some point in the future when no issue of mine, or anything I could ever care about, will be one of those casualties.
I also wish I had a better answer for you. But I don't. All we can do is try to be vigilant. With all its perils, the global connectivity of data also presents opportunities to combat those perils, and enables ordinary people to take stands against them. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Just like everything else.
David Amerland
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Grizwald Grim we are all challenged equally. :) Here's a true call for a connection being made. We cannot turn it down or turn away but the mode in which it is made is often brash, certainly uncomfortable. In most cases it becomes a true growth experience.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
It can be difficult though +David Amerland. In my experience, not many are willing to put in the effort required to answer that call. And many answers are rejected as well. It's easier to block or ignore eventually than to examine and try. I prefer your way, but I suspect that my outcome is sadly more likely. And for the sociopaths anyway, the only possible one.
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+David Amerland - My question would be then "Are we challenged equally?" or is influence (or the presence of Machiavellian Influence) more persistent?
Rather than just jumping right into the fray of "Technological Answers to Problems (paraphrasing +todd l lebeauc), what of the ability to transform a society, where society is in firm control of the minds of children, as their world view has yet to be formed. Is this happening; Or are parents just "broadcasting data streams" with utter disregard or even #faith in much larger institutions of the time?
How then will the latter ensure that future generations will have a thought background in the revolutionary and innovative principles, ethos, and logos - as well as an appreciation of the consequences?
Media (of all types - including social media) and those using have a responsibility that they provide a great control/influence over the opinions of the masses, and this must be utilized openly, allowed to repeat organically, and edify ALL VALUES and morals that are being disseminated throughout society - correct?
Is this actually done (rhetorically speaking); or is it an acceptance of the Devil we (THINK WE) Know?
Rather than just jumping right into the fray of "Technological Answers to Problems (paraphrasing +todd l lebeauc), what of the ability to transform a society, where society is in firm control of the minds of children, as their world view has yet to be formed. Is this happening; Or are parents just "broadcasting data streams" with utter disregard or even #faith in much larger institutions of the time?
How then will the latter ensure that future generations will have a thought background in the revolutionary and innovative principles, ethos, and logos - as well as an appreciation of the consequences?
Media (of all types - including social media) and those using have a responsibility that they provide a great control/influence over the opinions of the masses, and this must be utilized openly, allowed to repeat organically, and edify ALL VALUES and morals that are being disseminated throughout society - correct?
Is this actually done (rhetorically speaking); or is it an acceptance of the Devil we (THINK WE) Know?
Grizwald Grim
+
1
2
1
2
1
and this must be utilized openly, allowed to repeat organically, and edify ALL VALUES and morals that are being disseminated throughout society - correct?
+Owen Ellis
I see 'must' like a red-flag when you're taking an exam with true/false questions :)
+Owen Ellis
I see 'must' like a red-flag when you're taking an exam with true/false questions :)
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Grizwald Grim - yes - I did use the word "MUST"
MUST equating to free and open web (of all the people) or perhaps also synonymously referred to as the SEMANTIC WEB
[Funny how the inclusion of the MUST qualifier causes stress levels to rise, huh? Think of how governments and corporate entities feel then...]
MUST equating to free and open web (of all the people) or perhaps also synonymously referred to as the SEMANTIC WEB
[Funny how the inclusion of the MUST qualifier causes stress levels to rise, huh? Think of how governments and corporate entities feel then...]
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
I thought I was the devil you thought you knew +Owen Ellis? ;) One thing to think about maybe is that influence (and influencers) don't spring out of nowhere fully fledged and ready to persuade. We also have to take into account how they got that way. In that sense, everybody started out equal.
Grizwald Grim
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane the potential influence started out equal, but we start applying the label influencer quantitatively, perhaps as a measure of resonance.
Personally, my preference is to watch for my input in the future output of influencers, rather than to amass influencees directly - as I can only imagine the weight of responsibility to influencees as becoming restrictive and cumbersome.
Personally, my preference is to watch for my input in the future output of influencers, rather than to amass influencees directly - as I can only imagine the weight of responsibility to influencees as becoming restrictive and cumbersome.
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
Ah +Iblis Bane - you are indeed one of many.... sort of ツ
But I do not, respectfully, see things as being equal in this age. Influence and influencers do not spring out. What has presented itself is an odd mix currently, and even less are reflective of both arts and sciences (in my opinion of course). Nor are the corporate entities or governmental controls that make the #spacesforthough readily available, not without their targeted influence, or RESTRICTIVE chill (think N.D.A.)
To think otherwise just seems reflective of the folly of encapsulating a veil on all.
But I do not, respectfully, see things as being equal in this age. Influence and influencers do not spring out. What has presented itself is an odd mix currently, and even less are reflective of both arts and sciences (in my opinion of course). Nor are the corporate entities or governmental controls that make the #spacesforthough readily available, not without their targeted influence, or RESTRICTIVE chill (think N.D.A.)
To think otherwise just seems reflective of the folly of encapsulating a veil on all.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Indeed +Grizwald Grim. Not the sort of label I would really aspire to. I barely manage to be responsible for myself. ;) But even as a measure of resonance, (perhaps especially as a measure of resonance if I understand how you are using the term), it's not some magical transformation. It's a process in which investment can bring returns. Or nothing. (Yes, I know, :D raising some of those earlier questions all over again.)
Not entirely sure if I'm understanding you there +Owen Ellis. Are you saying access to the mediums is being hindered and that all are not equally capable of being here? If so, then yes. I was thinking more along the lines of the people who are here. (Although of course, it can be argued that there are other inequalities at play.)
In principle though, things ought to be. everybody starts off with the same reach and the same potential to grow and use it for whatever purpose.
Now that said, back to those earlier questions, I started to wonder today if it matters. The motives of the charitable don't diminish the practical benefits to the recipients.
If you provide value, people often won't care if it's because you hope they'll provide value in return, as long as you don't make it an obligation. (Or probably too overt.)
Not entirely sure if I'm understanding you there +Owen Ellis. Are you saying access to the mediums is being hindered and that all are not equally capable of being here? If so, then yes. I was thinking more along the lines of the people who are here. (Although of course, it can be argued that there are other inequalities at play.)
In principle though, things ought to be. everybody starts off with the same reach and the same potential to grow and use it for whatever purpose.
Now that said, back to those earlier questions, I started to wonder today if it matters. The motives of the charitable don't diminish the practical benefits to the recipients.
If you provide value, people often won't care if it's because you hope they'll provide value in return, as long as you don't make it an obligation. (Or probably too overt.)
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane it is hard I agree and, perversely perhaps, I have even taken the part in the odd discussion where a troll was in full flow. Yet, each time I have left having learned something about myself and the other person. No contact leaves us unchanged.
+Owen Ellis society is a true Hydra, It was Nero who wished Rome could have a single head ... I find a certain sense of assurance in plurality just as I almost certainly know I will find frustration there too. Nothing goes at the speed I want it too. No one does what they're "supposed to". Responsibility is more likely to be shirked than carried. And yet, and yet, once detached, I can see a fascinating beauty in that construct made up of dreams, desires, wishes and hopes.
Despite what we may think, (in a small paraphrase) we are children of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; we have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to us, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. :)
+Owen Ellis society is a true Hydra, It was Nero who wished Rome could have a single head ... I find a certain sense of assurance in plurality just as I almost certainly know I will find frustration there too. Nothing goes at the speed I want it too. No one does what they're "supposed to". Responsibility is more likely to be shirked than carried. And yet, and yet, once detached, I can see a fascinating beauty in that construct made up of dreams, desires, wishes and hopes.
Despite what we may think, (in a small paraphrase) we are children of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; we have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to us, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. :)
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane re: "access to the mediums is being hindered and that all are not equally capable of being here..."
At my last check, I do not believe the 7B+ global population is represented by an medium, or all combined for that matter. So how then with the voices change when it does (of it does) ever happen, and how will influence be felt?
That has yet to be seen, as we still face not only the infrastructure requirements, but also overcoming the Censorship/Prohibition of access by "less enlightened" or totalitarian regimes.
At my last check, I do not believe the 7B+ global population is represented by an medium, or all combined for that matter. So how then with the voices change when it does (of it does) ever happen, and how will influence be felt?
That has yet to be seen, as we still face not only the infrastructure requirements, but also overcoming the Censorship/Prohibition of access by "less enlightened" or totalitarian regimes.
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
I have to jump in way out of sequence here to respond to +Grizwald Grim about vulnerability being sometimes met with silence. Yes yes. Of course we are all sometimes met with silence both IRL and in social. But it has seemed to me that around here, there's an attraction to vulnerability. Maybe that just because i have an attraction to vulnerability. lol. (Lower case intended)
Gina Fiedel
+
5
6
5
6
5
Oh man, +David Amerland, you just totally stole my heart with your last comment.
I'm a little spacey from a too big breakfast, a million cups of tea, being away from home and all the rest so part of my mind keeps wandering as I'm reading these comments.......
....but in my own way I would also like to bring the 'influence' matter back down to some zero.
This actually also goes back to David's Sunday Read methinks. I don't see influencers and influence as the grand thing it's turned into for Marketing. It's not all that dissimilar to any of the popularized terms we debate. I find myself needing and wanting to go back down to the simpler form.
Each and every thing we do, every action, every move is an influence of sorts and effects something in our environment. Things, people, dogs, cats, cockroaches and mice.
It's not a hierarchy per se. It's not linear either. It's more complex, varied and filled with possibility than that. It's we are all connected even if we can't see where the connection lies. For me, the deepest meaning of influence comes in the form of accepting influence. Taking it, allowing it to be useful for growth and improvement. To aid in making me more than I was before.
AND we also need to have [admit to] some vulnerability in order to take influence.
I'm a little spacey from a too big breakfast, a million cups of tea, being away from home and all the rest so part of my mind keeps wandering as I'm reading these comments.......
....but in my own way I would also like to bring the 'influence' matter back down to some zero.
This actually also goes back to David's Sunday Read methinks. I don't see influencers and influence as the grand thing it's turned into for Marketing. It's not all that dissimilar to any of the popularized terms we debate. I find myself needing and wanting to go back down to the simpler form.
Each and every thing we do, every action, every move is an influence of sorts and effects something in our environment. Things, people, dogs, cats, cockroaches and mice.
It's not a hierarchy per se. It's not linear either. It's more complex, varied and filled with possibility than that. It's we are all connected even if we can't see where the connection lies. For me, the deepest meaning of influence comes in the form of accepting influence. Taking it, allowing it to be useful for growth and improvement. To aid in making me more than I was before.
AND we also need to have [admit to] some vulnerability in order to take influence.
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Gina Fiedel here's to vulnerability. I totally, totally agree. :)
Grizwald Grim
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Gina Fiedel but why?
Rephrased we could simply ask - why did Brene Brown go viral (there's probably a study somewhere if we look for it) - but I'll offhand guess that internally a lot of us were longing for that permission slip.
Rephrased we could simply ask - why did Brene Brown go viral (there's probably a study somewhere if we look for it) - but I'll offhand guess that internally a lot of us were longing for that permission slip.
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
I agree, +Grizwald Grim. Brene Brown gives us permission and makes space for us to realize how alike we are. Her message is deliciously nurturing to our deepest selves.
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Gina Fiedel, for some reason - what you are saying resembles that of the Butterfly Effect. ;-)
Iblis Bane
+
5
6
5
6
5
Agreed +David Amerland. I always loved Jung's phrasing: "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed." And you can't go wrong with Desiderata either. ;)
+Owen Ellis, indeed, although a respectable fraction of people are "connected" as it were, it's nowhere near everybody. Mobile device access is growing rapidly, and is going to be a real game-changer in this respect.
How will it change? Damned if I know. I only know it will. Although, perhaps in ways other than we might expect. To my mind, the infrastructure is a bigger issue than censorship or totalitarianism...there are ways around those.
+Gina Fiedel, it can be hard to be vulnerable, but, paradoxically, it can be easier online and with strangers. As I said somewhere, it's impossible to disappoint strangers because they have no expectations of you. You can reveal your weaknesses to them, because they don't have a preconceived idea of how you're supposed to be.
+Owen Ellis, indeed, although a respectable fraction of people are "connected" as it were, it's nowhere near everybody. Mobile device access is growing rapidly, and is going to be a real game-changer in this respect.
How will it change? Damned if I know. I only know it will. Although, perhaps in ways other than we might expect. To my mind, the infrastructure is a bigger issue than censorship or totalitarianism...there are ways around those.
+Gina Fiedel, it can be hard to be vulnerable, but, paradoxically, it can be easier online and with strangers. As I said somewhere, it's impossible to disappoint strangers because they have no expectations of you. You can reveal your weaknesses to them, because they don't have a preconceived idea of how you're supposed to be.
todd l lebeauc
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Gina Fiedel I too " find myself needing and wanting to go back down to the simpler form." The harsh reality respectfully however, is I do not see this happening any time soon.
What I do see (and of course, it is conjecture ツ ) is that the world populace will in face be contending with redefining itself many times over.
If one is to look at USC's Intitute for Creative Arts for example, there are practices being explored for cloning a digital representation in near pixel perfect representation. Sure, for now this is for entertainment, but the implications are much longer and deeper. "I would like to get myself digitized"
(reference: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/digital-cloning-replacing-actors-with-pixel-perfect-replicas/)
(see also reference: http://ict.usc.edu/)
I essence, one could effectively represent oneself digitally, without even being present. Think of it... You could have yourself appear on an HOA, in an office as the backdrop, while sunning yourself on the beaches of Aruba or wandering the cracks and crevices of Moab - and no one would know you were not there.
Is this disingenuous? Is this going to be reflective of representing oneself in an inauthentic manner? Some say yes - while other NO. It certainly presents itself as an exploration in behaving to a [possible] social norm while simultaneously misbehaving.
What I do see (and of course, it is conjecture ツ ) is that the world populace will in face be contending with redefining itself many times over.
If one is to look at USC's Intitute for Creative Arts for example, there are practices being explored for cloning a digital representation in near pixel perfect representation. Sure, for now this is for entertainment, but the implications are much longer and deeper. "I would like to get myself digitized"
(reference: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/digital-cloning-replacing-actors-with-pixel-perfect-replicas/)
(see also reference: http://ict.usc.edu/)
I essence, one could effectively represent oneself digitally, without even being present. Think of it... You could have yourself appear on an HOA, in an office as the backdrop, while sunning yourself on the beaches of Aruba or wandering the cracks and crevices of Moab - and no one would know you were not there.
Is this disingenuous? Is this going to be reflective of representing oneself in an inauthentic manner? Some say yes - while other NO. It certainly presents itself as an exploration in behaving to a [possible] social norm while simultaneously misbehaving.
todd l lebeauc
+
3
4
3
4
3
+David Amerland, +Gina Fiedel, +Grizwald Grim RE: Vulnerability
I am not (again) respectfully thinking that expressing myself in a vulnerable fashion has a merit that is being presented (or presumed) to be "all the rage" or nouveau.
Vulnerability (or authenticity exposed as vulnerability) is doled out in fractional, no Infinitesimally small amounts, and based solely on my perception of safe operations within a group (i.e. immediate family, close friends, distant friends, co-workers, the public). Saying this, I also am aware that the Larger the Group, the less important (personally). As +Grizwald Grim brought up the issue of silence;
"Silence" (and the interpretive nuances) from within the ranks of immediate family or closest of friends, is very different from that of a virtual community.
While technology advancements may bring a mindset to thinking about increasing speed of which things are brought to light, or presented, or even measured in the blink of an eye,.... That is not me.
There is a level of self-importance expressed by the reference to Brené Brown, is there not? Sure, the slogan (as that is what it is) of "Vulnerability sounds like truth and feels like courage. Truth and courage aren't always comfortable, but they’re never weakness" is inspirational. But that is the very first step, the first breath (if I may). Stories, Epic Stories are written over long periods, years, or even decades. And what I write today, or yesterday, or tomorrow (if afforded the opportunity) could be a subtle plot twist, or nothing at all in comparison to a lifespan. Conversely - it could have life changing attributes - not fully seen or even recognizable until much much later.
I am not (again) respectfully thinking that expressing myself in a vulnerable fashion has a merit that is being presented (or presumed) to be "all the rage" or nouveau.
Vulnerability (or authenticity exposed as vulnerability) is doled out in fractional, no Infinitesimally small amounts, and based solely on my perception of safe operations within a group (i.e. immediate family, close friends, distant friends, co-workers, the public). Saying this, I also am aware that the Larger the Group, the less important (personally). As +Grizwald Grim brought up the issue of silence;
"Silence" (and the interpretive nuances) from within the ranks of immediate family or closest of friends, is very different from that of a virtual community.
While technology advancements may bring a mindset to thinking about increasing speed of which things are brought to light, or presented, or even measured in the blink of an eye,.... That is not me.
There is a level of self-importance expressed by the reference to Brené Brown, is there not? Sure, the slogan (as that is what it is) of "Vulnerability sounds like truth and feels like courage. Truth and courage aren't always comfortable, but they’re never weakness" is inspirational. But that is the very first step, the first breath (if I may). Stories, Epic Stories are written over long periods, years, or even decades. And what I write today, or yesterday, or tomorrow (if afforded the opportunity) could be a subtle plot twist, or nothing at all in comparison to a lifespan. Conversely - it could have life changing attributes - not fully seen or even recognizable until much much later.
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+todd l lebeauc you're right. You can't fashion vulnerability (though we recognise it as an important ingredient). It is a personal decision governed by a myriad of factors, ordered by ever-shifting priorities. That's what makes it hard to use, hard to fake and really valuable. While the ingredients may be susceptible to analysis there really is no formula than can apply everywhere.
todd l lebeauc
+
5
6
5
6
5
The very last thought (for now?) as the other duites of the day are a callin' is this re: #influence and Influencers.
One only need to look at this: Attention without Trust Has No Value and then the reshare shown here: http://goo.gl/3wYyvZ
+David Amerland states " +Ryan Hanley is one of the 'good guys'. He has his head screwed on right and he understands exactly what it is that he has to do in order to help those he works for. This promises to be good.*
I for one, have witnessed firsthand how strong endorsements such as this can impact a presence within a social environment. Ryan's statement is bold to begin with (and one that I certainly agree with), but add it descriptors such as 'Good Guys', and "Head on Straight" or "This Promises to be good" and it can immediately be seen as a call to action to "Hey - I have to purchase this book NOW"
But. What if after I finish reading the book, I find it to be of little or no value? What if I feel that it was a waste of my time (which I will never get back). What this possibility says is that "Influence is a fleeting mystery ON A GOOD DAY, and the crowd can be a cantankerous and fickle group at best." Think about it: *Influences Today - Gone Tomorrow*
It truly then is all about the long term, and personal valuation of trust, and all the pot-holes encountered on a very long road trip.
One only need to look at this: Attention without Trust Has No Value and then the reshare shown here: http://goo.gl/3wYyvZ
+David Amerland states " +Ryan Hanley is one of the 'good guys'. He has his head screwed on right and he understands exactly what it is that he has to do in order to help those he works for. This promises to be good.*
I for one, have witnessed firsthand how strong endorsements such as this can impact a presence within a social environment. Ryan's statement is bold to begin with (and one that I certainly agree with), but add it descriptors such as 'Good Guys', and "Head on Straight" or "This Promises to be good" and it can immediately be seen as a call to action to "Hey - I have to purchase this book NOW"
But. What if after I finish reading the book, I find it to be of little or no value? What if I feel that it was a waste of my time (which I will never get back). What this possibility says is that "Influence is a fleeting mystery ON A GOOD DAY, and the crowd can be a cantankerous and fickle group at best." Think about it: *Influences Today - Gone Tomorrow*
It truly then is all about the long term, and personal valuation of trust, and all the pot-holes encountered on a very long road trip.
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+todd l lebeauc yep. Exactly. I saw Ryan's book post when I got back from Poland. Amidst great pressures I have been thinking about it for a few days. All of those things crossed my mind in a very detailed way. I know what I say (and how I say it) affects others. I know it will have an impact on Ryan's sales and then an impact on my reputation. I weighed everything against what I know about Ryan and my direct perception of him in the brief contact over one HOA I have had. I added in the fact that he is still building an audience, still looking to establish himself.
The safest thing for me to do is do nothing. Stand on the sidelines. Watch him succeed, in which case I can say, "hey, it was to be expected, I was in an HOA and he rocks" or watch him fail (in which case my saying nothing would be brilliantly prudent).
I am where I am because I was lucky enough for people, at some point in my life, to take a huge chance on me. I worked hard at those points to make sure they were not disappointed. I take chances with many of the people I meet. My way of squaring the [universal] debt. In this case it is a small chance. But yeah, I am taking it. :)
The safest thing for me to do is do nothing. Stand on the sidelines. Watch him succeed, in which case I can say, "hey, it was to be expected, I was in an HOA and he rocks" or watch him fail (in which case my saying nothing would be brilliantly prudent).
I am where I am because I was lucky enough for people, at some point in my life, to take a huge chance on me. I worked hard at those points to make sure they were not disappointed. I take chances with many of the people I meet. My way of squaring the [universal] debt. In this case it is a small chance. But yeah, I am taking it. :)
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
A great point +todd l lebeauc, and if I dare say so, and even better reply by +David Amerland. I must admit when I saw the share I did think that an endorsement like that would be a big boost for him.
I didn't however take it to it's logical conclusion...that it is risky to endorse things, and if it went wrong, that endorsement could reflect badly. As some of us were saying earlier, I don't think it's a responsibility I would relish myself. (Luckily very few people care what I think about things, which is the way I like it. ;) )
As you said +todd l lebeauc, this mindset has to be taken on with a very long term view, and an understanding of the risks. And because of those risks, we actually run the risk of some sort of paralysis setting in. Like with the recent in-bound and out-bound links issues, people may be too afraid to do anything, because of that risk.
Luckily people like +David Amerland are willing to assume it, but in general it's probably another factor we're going to have to take into account on social. Fear of action or reaction.
I didn't however take it to it's logical conclusion...that it is risky to endorse things, and if it went wrong, that endorsement could reflect badly. As some of us were saying earlier, I don't think it's a responsibility I would relish myself. (Luckily very few people care what I think about things, which is the way I like it. ;) )
As you said +todd l lebeauc, this mindset has to be taken on with a very long term view, and an understanding of the risks. And because of those risks, we actually run the risk of some sort of paralysis setting in. Like with the recent in-bound and out-bound links issues, people may be too afraid to do anything, because of that risk.
Luckily people like +David Amerland are willing to assume it, but in general it's probably another factor we're going to have to take into account on social. Fear of action or reaction.
David Amerland
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Iblis Bane The Litany Against Fear comes in handy ;)
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
Hahaha, better you than me mate. ;)
Ryan Hanley
+
5
6
5
6
5
+Iblis Bane, +todd l lebeauc and +David Amerland...
My first thought is that this conversation needs to be turned into a eBook or resource or something that others can benefit from. It's powerful and thoughtful and I appreciated it from genesis to my comment now.
Second... my personal opinion is it boils down to responsibility. David has a responsibility to his audience, just as we all do. Iblis, you joke that no one cares, but that's not true.
Some people take the responsibility of audience seriously. I know David does and it's why I was honored and humbled by his endorsement. It's also rocket fuel for my work turning this project into the most useful product I can... I now because of the respect I have for David feel responsibility to not disappoint him in his endorsement.
I am part of David's audience and he a part of mine. We have responsibility to provide value to each other and subsequently we each grow and do better, more meaningful work.
NOT EVERYONE HAS THIS FEELING OF RESPONSIBILITY.
These are the people who break down and corrupt the system.
There really isn't an answer. Just an understanding and hopefully a filter for the people that don't get it.
My first thought is that this conversation needs to be turned into a eBook or resource or something that others can benefit from. It's powerful and thoughtful and I appreciated it from genesis to my comment now.
Second... my personal opinion is it boils down to responsibility. David has a responsibility to his audience, just as we all do. Iblis, you joke that no one cares, but that's not true.
Some people take the responsibility of audience seriously. I know David does and it's why I was honored and humbled by his endorsement. It's also rocket fuel for my work turning this project into the most useful product I can... I now because of the respect I have for David feel responsibility to not disappoint him in his endorsement.
I am part of David's audience and he a part of mine. We have responsibility to provide value to each other and subsequently we each grow and do better, more meaningful work.
NOT EVERYONE HAS THIS FEELING OF RESPONSIBILITY.
These are the people who break down and corrupt the system.
There really isn't an answer. Just an understanding and hopefully a filter for the people that don't get it.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Haha, welcome to the mad-house +Ryan Hanley. My problem is that I'm all too aware of the seriousness of responsibility. That's why I do my best to avoid it at all costs. ;)
I'll get back to the rest of your comment in a moment, but this seems an auspicious place to mention something occurred to me today, between reading +David Amerland's comment above on risk, and +todd l lebeauc's latest post.
I talked up there about anonymity and authenticity. But it occurs to me that there is one key area where you ID's are better than the anon's. You're accepting the risk. (Hell, you're accepting that responsibility, which almost brings us back, but not yet...)
Me, I'm just playing here. It has it's advantages. But if nobody ever followed me or read a word that I wrote, I wouldn't suffer for it.
I might not have been so enthusiastic about the platform if I hadn't experienced its possibilities, but I would be no worse off than I am now. (Thankfully, instead I am immeasurably better off, intellectually at least.)
You, and most everybody on the thread and using the place for business, are really putting yourselves out there, and I can respect that, because I'm familiar with the risks.
But, to (actually) bring us full circle, the question to which there is no answer is something that we need to find, if not answers, at least working hypotheses for. Because it's going to be an issue. Filtering out the people who don't get it isn't going to help the people who want to.
I talk about self-correcting systems and equilibrium, but the way things look, we're going to be the system.
I don't have any answers either...but I think we have to think about it.
I'll get back to the rest of your comment in a moment, but this seems an auspicious place to mention something occurred to me today, between reading +David Amerland's comment above on risk, and +todd l lebeauc's latest post.
I talked up there about anonymity and authenticity. But it occurs to me that there is one key area where you ID's are better than the anon's. You're accepting the risk. (Hell, you're accepting that responsibility, which almost brings us back, but not yet...)
Me, I'm just playing here. It has it's advantages. But if nobody ever followed me or read a word that I wrote, I wouldn't suffer for it.
I might not have been so enthusiastic about the platform if I hadn't experienced its possibilities, but I would be no worse off than I am now. (Thankfully, instead I am immeasurably better off, intellectually at least.)
You, and most everybody on the thread and using the place for business, are really putting yourselves out there, and I can respect that, because I'm familiar with the risks.
But, to (actually) bring us full circle, the question to which there is no answer is something that we need to find, if not answers, at least working hypotheses for. Because it's going to be an issue. Filtering out the people who don't get it isn't going to help the people who want to.
I talk about self-correcting systems and equilibrium, but the way things look, we're going to be the system.
I don't have any answers either...but I think we have to think about it.
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Ryan Hanley - Yes, an eBook may be where this is heading.
The added chapter/sub-chapter of responsibility coming into being written (?)
I find it just as interesting that you say "not everybody has this feeling of responsibility" and then counter that thought with mention of people breaking down and corrupting the system (paraphrased).
So where/what path does that lead us to? One of growth? Or one with a somewhat pessimistic (or even pragmatic view)?
As all of us, barely a single generation really, is fully infused into this type of communication on such a grand scale, is it no wonder that some are still resorting to "just get it" vs "not getting it (still)" understanding?
And for the ones who don't - do we treat them with kindness and empathy, or cast them aside without allowing them to Learn the lessons that Come with learning about Responsibility
Or are some just forgetting the been there lessons along the way?
The added chapter/sub-chapter of responsibility coming into being written (?)
I find it just as interesting that you say "not everybody has this feeling of responsibility" and then counter that thought with mention of people breaking down and corrupting the system (paraphrased).
So where/what path does that lead us to? One of growth? Or one with a somewhat pessimistic (or even pragmatic view)?
As all of us, barely a single generation really, is fully infused into this type of communication on such a grand scale, is it no wonder that some are still resorting to "just get it" vs "not getting it (still)" understanding?
And for the ones who don't - do we treat them with kindness and empathy, or cast them aside without allowing them to Learn the lessons that Come with learning about Responsibility
Or are some just forgetting the been there lessons along the way?
Ryan Hanley
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Owen Ellis I would say that those of us who believe in responsibility and support that in each other will continue ascend. Those who do not will be filtered out much like Google is working to do in search results.
The best of the best here didn't do it was tactics like the "Best of the best" did it on other platforms and that distinction is what sets G+ apart.... in my humble opinion.
The best of the best here didn't do it was tactics like the "Best of the best" did it on other platforms and that distinction is what sets G+ apart.... in my humble opinion.
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Ryan Hanley Best of the Best here or elsewhere is of very little consequence really - to me personally as they are all integral of a much bigger way people approach things socially (+Eli Fennell sharing one such discovery here recently: http://goo.gl/ouz2Vb)
What is likewise disturbing for me and my personal use of G+ is discussions of inclusion by the likes of +David Amerland and others versus my own prior use and familiarity with terms such as warfare and battles (which would, as difficult as it may be, still be reflective of a 19th or 20C mindset). Is that want I desire for my children and grandchildren - Probably Not So Much (especially when it is my grandchildren who will likely be the first generation to fully feel the effect of proceeding generational challenges to actually "get it right").
MY internalized struggle perhaps is reflected by Anaïs Nin, who said:
"What we call our destiny is truly our character and that character can be altered. The knowledge that we are responsible for our actions and attitudes does not need to be discouraging, because it also means that we are free to changing our destiny. One is not in bondage to the past, which has shaped our feelings, to race, inheritance, background. ALL of this can be altered if we have the courage to EXAMINE HOW IT FORMED US. We can alter the chemistry provided we have the courage to dissect the elements."
What is likewise disturbing for me and my personal use of G+ is discussions of inclusion by the likes of +David Amerland and others versus my own prior use and familiarity with terms such as warfare and battles (which would, as difficult as it may be, still be reflective of a 19th or 20C mindset). Is that want I desire for my children and grandchildren - Probably Not So Much (especially when it is my grandchildren who will likely be the first generation to fully feel the effect of proceeding generational challenges to actually "get it right").
MY internalized struggle perhaps is reflected by Anaïs Nin, who said:
"What we call our destiny is truly our character and that character can be altered. The knowledge that we are responsible for our actions and attitudes does not need to be discouraging, because it also means that we are free to changing our destiny. One is not in bondage to the past, which has shaped our feelings, to race, inheritance, background. ALL of this can be altered if we have the courage to EXAMINE HOW IT FORMED US. We can alter the chemistry provided we have the courage to dissect the elements."
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
I like the quote +Owen Ellis, but while I can see the validity of the connotations of terms like warfare, I don't know if we can go as far as to ascribe them to the intentions of the people that may use them in less negatively aspected senses.
The business perspective can still (and will still and probably always) be a competitive one. But my feeling off the cuff is that it's dangers (in and of itself) are not as severe as they could be perceived as. (Hahaha, that's actually pretty funny, because I usually like to blow them out of proportion to justify my distrust...what's happening to me? LOL)
That's not to say that these won't be legitimate dangers, but rather that I think there are worse ones than just marketing-inspired. And as +Eli Fennell suggested in a different post, (https://plus.google.com/110619855408549015935/posts/SZ2Ny7ngMhr) perhaps the way that the technology (platform) gets used can help us identify who's "good" or not if you'll forgive the simplistic descriptor. (Sheesh, do you guys keep a URL shortener open in another tab? :D )
I love the bit about not being in bondage to the past. Let's not hold other stuff in bondage to it either.
The business perspective can still (and will still and probably always) be a competitive one. But my feeling off the cuff is that it's dangers (in and of itself) are not as severe as they could be perceived as. (Hahaha, that's actually pretty funny, because I usually like to blow them out of proportion to justify my distrust...what's happening to me? LOL)
That's not to say that these won't be legitimate dangers, but rather that I think there are worse ones than just marketing-inspired. And as +Eli Fennell suggested in a different post, (https://plus.google.com/110619855408549015935/posts/SZ2Ny7ngMhr) perhaps the way that the technology (platform) gets used can help us identify who's "good" or not if you'll forgive the simplistic descriptor. (Sheesh, do you guys keep a URL shortener open in another tab? :D )
I love the bit about not being in bondage to the past. Let's not hold other stuff in bondage to it either.
+Iblis Bane - Perhaps one of the biggest turning points on my perception of business as well as how communication can and does flow within a social setting came by the measured and hospitable guidance of +David Amerland in his article Business Is Not War (http://goo.gl/gqJ7uF). This singular article provided a turning point, as well as a reference point to return to many times over.
The summary statement of "Until we can begin to visualize business as a model that is not like war without sounding like heretics, we shall continue to remain incapable of creating anything more than game plans (dare I say strategies?) where we win and someone losses and the process is repeated all over again." still makes me hesitate, if only for a single second - "Is this not the same practices of US vs THEM" ? OR *Can I aspire for something better. TRULY BETTER!*
And yes, it is (Sorry David) a battle. Not for the hearts and minds of clients or perspective clients - but in myself, and my own evolution (and hopefully the [r]evolution of my children from my chains, and the Evolution of my Grandchildren)
The summary statement of "Until we can begin to visualize business as a model that is not like war without sounding like heretics, we shall continue to remain incapable of creating anything more than game plans (dare I say strategies?) where we win and someone losses and the process is repeated all over again." still makes me hesitate, if only for a single second - "Is this not the same practices of US vs THEM" ? OR *Can I aspire for something better. TRULY BETTER!*
And yes, it is (Sorry David) a battle. Not for the hearts and minds of clients or perspective clients - but in myself, and my own evolution (and hopefully the [r]evolution of my children from my chains, and the Evolution of my Grandchildren)
Grizwald Grim
+
2
3
2
3
2
Sheesh, do you guys keep a URL shortener open in another tab? :D - no, but the way chrome works all I have to do is type "g" and it suggests goo.gl for me :)
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
Ah +Ryan Hanley so many of these endless conversations are worthy of an ebook. I'm with you on that one. So happy to have you in on this one.
+Owen Ellis +todd l lebeauc, +Iblis Bane ...a few bits & pieces of responsiveness to your earlier comments:
What I meant when I say I sometimes want "to go back down to the simpler form" was different (and probably less interesting) than how I think you heard it. I was craving thinking about words in their pure form prior to how we embellish them for marketing lingo. Doesn't really matter at all for this convo but just wanted to say that.
And yep lol butterfly effect did flitted across my mind as I typed that earlier comment about accepting influence.
As +David Amerland said, we can't fashion vulnerability. We're either tightly wrapped up safe and unseen with no air getting through or we allow ourselves to show. What I suspect is that it actually takes some solid self-confidence on at least some level to be able to be vulnerable. Otherwise, it's probably overly risky to the psyche. We can't fashion it, but we do have choices as you said.
And as +Grizwald Grim said, sometimes it's met with silence. Personally, I find that much more challenging IRL than online.
Silence=silent treatment or stonewalling and that can cause some pretty hefty damage and should, in my humble opinion, be illegal - especially in personal relationships.
The thing about risk and endorsements....... I was also very aware of how much of a boost you, David, were giving to Ryan's book project. And it was thrilling to witness, frankly. And I am aware there is relationship there that it rests upon. I know and you know and Ryan knows that he will deliver and it is not much risk at all. But when you/we endorse less known entities/projects/people we do go out on a limb and I always think more than once before publicly connecting myself to someone that way. Not much different IRL, truthfully.
+Owen Ellis +todd l lebeauc, +Iblis Bane ...a few bits & pieces of responsiveness to your earlier comments:
What I meant when I say I sometimes want "to go back down to the simpler form" was different (and probably less interesting) than how I think you heard it. I was craving thinking about words in their pure form prior to how we embellish them for marketing lingo. Doesn't really matter at all for this convo but just wanted to say that.
And yep lol butterfly effect did flitted across my mind as I typed that earlier comment about accepting influence.
As +David Amerland said, we can't fashion vulnerability. We're either tightly wrapped up safe and unseen with no air getting through or we allow ourselves to show. What I suspect is that it actually takes some solid self-confidence on at least some level to be able to be vulnerable. Otherwise, it's probably overly risky to the psyche. We can't fashion it, but we do have choices as you said.
And as +Grizwald Grim said, sometimes it's met with silence. Personally, I find that much more challenging IRL than online.
Silence=silent treatment or stonewalling and that can cause some pretty hefty damage and should, in my humble opinion, be illegal - especially in personal relationships.
The thing about risk and endorsements....... I was also very aware of how much of a boost you, David, were giving to Ryan's book project. And it was thrilling to witness, frankly. And I am aware there is relationship there that it rests upon. I know and you know and Ryan knows that he will deliver and it is not much risk at all. But when you/we endorse less known entities/projects/people we do go out on a limb and I always think more than once before publicly connecting myself to someone that way. Not much different IRL, truthfully.
Gina Fiedel
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Owen Ellis: I love love love that by Anaïs Nin quote you included.
"What we call our destiny is truly our character and that character can be altered. The knowledge that we are responsible for our actions and attitudes does not need to be discouraging, because it also means that we are free to changing our destiny. One is not in bondage to the past, which has shaped our feelings, to race, inheritance, background. ALL of this can be altered if we have the courage to EXAMINE HOW IT FORMED US.
We can alter the chemistry provided we have the courage to dissect the elements."
Here we are back again (and again) to looking inward, to knowing who we are, self-discovery and inquiry. We just don't have much of anything without it. Or not for long, anyhow. Back to courage as well.
"What we call our destiny is truly our character and that character can be altered. The knowledge that we are responsible for our actions and attitudes does not need to be discouraging, because it also means that we are free to changing our destiny. One is not in bondage to the past, which has shaped our feelings, to race, inheritance, background. ALL of this can be altered if we have the courage to EXAMINE HOW IT FORMED US.
We can alter the chemistry provided we have the courage to dissect the elements."
Here we are back again (and again) to looking inward, to knowing who we are, self-discovery and inquiry. We just don't have much of anything without it. Or not for long, anyhow. Back to courage as well.
Owen Ellis
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Gina Fiedel when you mention "Here we are back again (and again) to looking inward, to knowing who we are, self-discovery and inquiry." I could not help but be distracted by one of those +Charles Payet "squirrel moments" (probably from spending time with my grandson);
♪ The wheels on the bus go round and round... ♪
All humour aside, the seemingly round n round discussion is annoying to some. But for me, it again resembles how +NOD3x tools show dots and spokes of varied and widely varying thoughts.
And thanks. There were times that reading things authored Anaïs Nin were a bit of a challenge, but most good writing - really good writing, is a challenge (IMO) (but also rewards that linger, as mentioned above ) ツ
♪ The wheels on the bus go round and round... ♪
All humour aside, the seemingly round n round discussion is annoying to some. But for me, it again resembles how +NOD3x tools show dots and spokes of varied and widely varying thoughts.
And thanks. There were times that reading things authored Anaïs Nin were a bit of a challenge, but most good writing - really good writing, is a challenge (IMO) (but also rewards that linger, as mentioned above ) ツ
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
Oh no! That song. It will be going around and around in my head now. I'd happily left that one behind when all the nieces and nephews grew up.
I totally get how it's not annoying. And sometimes, I do get annoyed. Or not annoyed, but frustrated because I want to know if we've reached any resting points or agreement and then go on from there. On the other hand, I love beating stuff to death. Or to life. Whichever it may be.
I haven't read much of Nin because I used to get lost. That was back in the old days when I would only read books written by women. (there's something about me I bet you didn't know). I should try her again, perhaps..?
I totally get how it's not annoying. And sometimes, I do get annoyed. Or not annoyed, but frustrated because I want to know if we've reached any resting points or agreement and then go on from there. On the other hand, I love beating stuff to death. Or to life. Whichever it may be.
I haven't read much of Nin because I used to get lost. That was back in the old days when I would only read books written by women. (there's something about me I bet you didn't know). I should try her again, perhaps..?
todd l lebeauc
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Gina Fiedel I used to think that Silence=silent treatment or stonewalling as well, and still have that lingering cancerous perception.
However, other views have provided insight as well, including "If you cannot say anything nice...," or even understanding that sometimes it is not as nefarious nor injurious as one might perceive.
The more I see and encounter deep and complex thoughts, I must (for myself at least) give way to to yielding to another the opportunity to respond with dialogue that is in fact well thought out and requiring time to ponder
Obviously this is in direct opposition to the MUST.RESPOND.NOW thing that happens here sometimes (of which I can admit have not provided my most clearly and concisely, nor considerate responses ).
However, other views have provided insight as well, including "If you cannot say anything nice...," or even understanding that sometimes it is not as nefarious nor injurious as one might perceive.
The more I see and encounter deep and complex thoughts, I must (for myself at least) give way to to yielding to another the opportunity to respond with dialogue that is in fact well thought out and requiring time to ponder
Obviously this is in direct opposition to the MUST.RESPOND.NOW thing that happens here sometimes (of which I can admit have not provided my most clearly and concisely, nor considerate responses ).
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
Silent treatment and/or stonewalling is different from taking your time to consider what makes the most sense in a response, +todd l lebeauc.
We can tell ourselves until the cows come home that a silence doesn't mean anything necessarily bad. But in interpersonal relationships, it's hardwired human nature to feel or sense a danger when we're on alert to the environment like that. So our minds will try to fill in the blanks and it will most likely go to bad things.
We can tell ourselves until the cows come home that a silence doesn't mean anything necessarily bad. But in interpersonal relationships, it's hardwired human nature to feel or sense a danger when we're on alert to the environment like that. So our minds will try to fill in the blanks and it will most likely go to bad things.
todd l lebeauc
+
3
4
3
4
3
+Gina Fiedel (insert segue to next chapter of eBook, titled Interpersonal Communication variables on Plus and ping +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales ) シ
I do understand what you are conveying though, and remember I still have that lingering cancerous perception issue that swims in my own head.
So then - how does one validate the measurement of "considerate" vs "stonewalling" time virtually?
It isn't like one can see the other person, or people from "across the room". And the presence the tools like MUTE, or turning on/off notifications adds to the complexity.
I do understand what you are conveying though, and remember I still have that lingering cancerous perception issue that swims in my own head.
So then - how does one validate the measurement of "considerate" vs "stonewalling" time virtually?
It isn't like one can see the other person, or people from "across the room". And the presence the tools like MUTE, or turning on/off notifications adds to the complexity.
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
I think it might just not transfer over as the same kind of issue online, +todd l lebeauc. That was why I made the distinction originally. Usually, it's a concept more tied to close, personal relationships like a marriage or romantic partnership, close friends, family..
Online, there are so many mitigating factors that can create a silence. However…….maybe I'm wrong about that:
For instance, today something happened to me that fits right into this conversation. Someone sent me a PM asking if I was mad at them. I had no idea why I would be mad or where it was coming from so I asked. It turned out this person had pinged me in a long, involved conversation and I hadn't responded. But it was only because I didn't get the notification and I'd moved on to other things. There was absolutely nothing to be angry about and I had no awareness that my behavior (or lack of) had caused anyone discomfort. But their reaction to my silence was very similar to RL in which they went to the worst possible scenario: that I was silent because I was mad.
Online, there are so many mitigating factors that can create a silence. However…….maybe I'm wrong about that:
For instance, today something happened to me that fits right into this conversation. Someone sent me a PM asking if I was mad at them. I had no idea why I would be mad or where it was coming from so I asked. It turned out this person had pinged me in a long, involved conversation and I hadn't responded. But it was only because I didn't get the notification and I'd moved on to other things. There was absolutely nothing to be angry about and I had no awareness that my behavior (or lack of) had caused anyone discomfort. But their reaction to my silence was very similar to RL in which they went to the worst possible scenario: that I was silent because I was mad.
todd l lebeauc
+
2
3
2
3
2
Funny how that sort of thing happens +Gina Fiedel - and how the attributes form "IRL" as you put it, transfer to an environment such as this.
Perhaps, there are many such attributes just now being touched on and/or addressed before things such as #authenticity or #trust can in fact be validated [?] - sure does impress upon one's psyche the phrase:
Can You Hear Me Now???
Perhaps, there are many such attributes just now being touched on and/or addressed before things such as #authenticity or #trust can in fact be validated [?] - sure does impress upon one's psyche the phrase:
Can You Hear Me Now???
Gina Fiedel
+
1
2
1
2
1
and, NOW?
Gina Fiedel
+
1
2
1
2
1
and, HOW!
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Great comments guys. +Gina Fiedel and +todd l lebeauc, I think that online, and in an attention economy, silence isn't necessarily the same as condemnation. I wrote something a while back that touched on this very point. Maybe nobody was paying attention (haha, paying) that day. Or maybe nobody had time, or it slipped off their radar before they got to it. Silence online is simply an occupational hazard.
Yes, it's hard to reveal something and nobody responds. It can be dispiriting. You might even think nobody cares enough to reply or whatever. But attention is shared out anew almost every day. The trick may be to start anew every day yourself. As with so many things, we may otherwise be creating issues that don't exist outside of our fears.
+Owen Ellis, I like the internal struggle idea. But while I accept that we shouldn't see it as "warfare" or a battle, I also know that people are going to carry on seeing it that way for a long time. The perceptual shift that results in the understanding that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game with winners and losers is going to be a challenge to foster.
But that also doesn't mean that there aren't people already realising it. And the more who do, the better the idea will spread.
(Hahaha, thanks +Grizwald Grim. Guess I never had much need to shorten them in the past. :D )
Yes, it's hard to reveal something and nobody responds. It can be dispiriting. You might even think nobody cares enough to reply or whatever. But attention is shared out anew almost every day. The trick may be to start anew every day yourself. As with so many things, we may otherwise be creating issues that don't exist outside of our fears.
+Owen Ellis, I like the internal struggle idea. But while I accept that we shouldn't see it as "warfare" or a battle, I also know that people are going to carry on seeing it that way for a long time. The perceptual shift that results in the understanding that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game with winners and losers is going to be a challenge to foster.
But that also doesn't mean that there aren't people already realising it. And the more who do, the better the idea will spread.
(Hahaha, thanks +Grizwald Grim. Guess I never had much need to shorten them in the past. :D )
Colin Walker
+
3
4
3
4
3
From my own experiences so far this year silence in response to exposing vulnerability need not be negative.
Sometimes just having the nerve to expose it in the first place, to actually run through it in your mind and then place it out there for the world to see (if not respond to) is enough.
Indeed +Iblis Bane, writing on the web does always risk a lack of response but if you get into the mindset that thus is not why you do it then there is no disappointment.
It's nice to get plusses and comments, it's awesome to receive validation but the mere act of writing and exposing those vulnerabilities through that writing can be therapy enough.
Sometimes just having the nerve to expose it in the first place, to actually run through it in your mind and then place it out there for the world to see (if not respond to) is enough.
Indeed +Iblis Bane, writing on the web does always risk a lack of response but if you get into the mindset that thus is not why you do it then there is no disappointment.
It's nice to get plusses and comments, it's awesome to receive validation but the mere act of writing and exposing those vulnerabilities through that writing can be therapy enough.
Grizwald Grim
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane why expect limitations to the possible rate of change? How does it benefit you to put faith in self-cast prophecy?
The shortening makes it prettier - though you'll have to ask an SEO guy if the click-counter on those shortened links adds to your authenticity or authorship :)
I do it out of respect for the reader, as I don't like looking at long reference URLs when I'm reading.
+Colin Walker 2 things re silence:
1. Why don't you take the time to slap a picture on your write365s? Is it one of those artistic form decisions?
2. My hope, as a content provider on G+ (through original and curation - [reference emotional regulators and identity markers here] is that I connect with at least some others deeply enough that if they haven't seen me in their stream for a while, they'll visit my profile page to see what they've missed. (or that they have a stream management strategy in place and I've earned my way into their notification circles) and that those connections will sort the wheat from the chaff.
However, silence then becomes feedback of both network connectivity and content quality assessment.
The shortening makes it prettier - though you'll have to ask an SEO guy if the click-counter on those shortened links adds to your authenticity or authorship :)
I do it out of respect for the reader, as I don't like looking at long reference URLs when I'm reading.
+Colin Walker 2 things re silence:
1. Why don't you take the time to slap a picture on your write365s? Is it one of those artistic form decisions?
2. My hope, as a content provider on G+ (through original and curation - [reference emotional regulators and identity markers here] is that I connect with at least some others deeply enough that if they haven't seen me in their stream for a while, they'll visit my profile page to see what they've missed. (or that they have a stream management strategy in place and I've earned my way into their notification circles) and that those connections will sort the wheat from the chaff.
However, silence then becomes feedback of both network connectivity and content quality assessment.
Colin Walker
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Grizwald Grim it is not an "artistic" decision but certainly a conscious one to let the words stand on their own without risk of an image skewing the interpretation of the reader.
I agree that continued silence does indicate issues of quality and connectivity - a failure to stick in the mind - so we have to set our thresholds on how much is acceptable. A couple of posts without response when most others receive some feedback is not a problem, no feedback on every post definitely is!
I agree that continued silence does indicate issues of quality and connectivity - a failure to stick in the mind - so we have to set our thresholds on how much is acceptable. A couple of posts without response when most others receive some feedback is not a problem, no feedback on every post definitely is!
Grizwald Grim
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Colin Walker you should at least do something like the image here though - the project deserves a graphical branding to make it more easily recognizable as it's floating down the stream.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Yeah, that's the only reason I put an image on them. :D It's also why my images are usually pretty basic. (Although they take longer to make than I would have expected. :D) (This one is actually a simple 3D render. Colour looks a bit off here though.) You could do a plain one that just says Write365 and use it for every one if you wanted. To return to topic though...
Not sure what you're getting at in your first para there +Grizwald Grim. Are you referring to the changing mind-set that will eventually replace the current zero-sum model? I think the rate of change is inherently limited by the wide-spread nature of the existing paradigm.
+Colin Walker, I agree about the prolonged silence, and I agree with +Grizwald Grim that it can easily speak to connectivity issues as to the quality of what one writes.
It's my one big dislike of social...no audience...no nothing. Luckily it seems that building an audience is not as daunting as I suspect many fear it might be.
Not sure what you're getting at in your first para there +Grizwald Grim. Are you referring to the changing mind-set that will eventually replace the current zero-sum model? I think the rate of change is inherently limited by the wide-spread nature of the existing paradigm.
+Colin Walker, I agree about the prolonged silence, and I agree with +Grizwald Grim that it can easily speak to connectivity issues as to the quality of what one writes.
It's my one big dislike of social...no audience...no nothing. Luckily it seems that building an audience is not as daunting as I suspect many fear it might be.
Gina Fiedel
+
3
4
3
4
3
I get what you're saying +Colin Walker about the process being therapy on its own. It's amazing how that is and I relish it too. But for me, it's also about communication. A few minutes ago, I posted something that fits in the vulnerability/exposure package. And you better believe it: I am hoping for response because I started the conversation and don't particularly wish to have it by myself.
todd l lebeauc
+
1
2
1
2
1
The Dark Side of Social Media?
Re-shared as Adobe™ PDF Here: http://goo.gl/nGjbjQ
Sorry +Gina Fiedel - your latest addition was not included in this chapter :)
Re-shared as Adobe™ PDF Here: http://goo.gl/nGjbjQ
Sorry +Gina Fiedel - your latest addition was not included in this chapter :)
Gina Fiedel
+
1
2
1
2
1
Cool and that's okay, +todd l lebeauc. :)
+Iblis Bane fixed it, the 'my' was supposed to be a 'why' :)
It was triggered by I also know that people are going to carry on seeing it that way for a long time.
I don't think you know, I think it's a guess - and I was curious how holding such an expectation benefits you - protects against potential disappointment?
It was triggered by I also know that people are going to carry on seeing it that way for a long time.
I don't think you know, I think it's a guess - and I was curious how holding such an expectation benefits you - protects against potential disappointment?
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Haha +todd l lebeauc, I'm relieved to hear you say "this chapter." ;) I feared for a second it meant the thread was dead. Great job, and thanks for the work...wow...I'm a little humbled.
+Grizwald Grim, aha, I'm with you now. Well, you know what they say...if you expect the worst, all your surprises are pleasant ones. ;)
And yes, of course you're right...I am guessing. Hell, somewhere I was talking about the relative speed with which a paradigm shift can actually occur...it doesn't have to be slow.
On the other hand, slow is relative on a global scale. For it to really mean something, it has to become the norm, and supplanting norms can be hard.
Sociologically, it may be occurring at an auspicious time in fact. (Or maybe it's happening because of the timing...yes...) Think about it...
Dunno about you, but I'm in my late 30's and I've been online since the early 90's. Coming up behind (and overtaking fast) is a generation entering business who have been online since they could read, probably, and some of the younger ones, even before.
At the same time, the people who are becoming the decision makers are people who, like us, have been witness to the rise of the internet, while the old guard of print marketing (and opaque business) are on the verge of starting to fade out of the picture. (I'm talking broad strokes obviously.)
The same change in behaviour that led to that rise (and incidentally produced the people who take it for granted already), is affecting the effectiveness of those old techniques, at the same time as the people most likely to respond to the new ways are reaching the point where they can take advantage of that response.
Now I believe in a cause and effect universe, but sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. It must be quantum. ;)
+Grizwald Grim, aha, I'm with you now. Well, you know what they say...if you expect the worst, all your surprises are pleasant ones. ;)
And yes, of course you're right...I am guessing. Hell, somewhere I was talking about the relative speed with which a paradigm shift can actually occur...it doesn't have to be slow.
On the other hand, slow is relative on a global scale. For it to really mean something, it has to become the norm, and supplanting norms can be hard.
Sociologically, it may be occurring at an auspicious time in fact. (Or maybe it's happening because of the timing...yes...) Think about it...
Dunno about you, but I'm in my late 30's and I've been online since the early 90's. Coming up behind (and overtaking fast) is a generation entering business who have been online since they could read, probably, and some of the younger ones, even before.
At the same time, the people who are becoming the decision makers are people who, like us, have been witness to the rise of the internet, while the old guard of print marketing (and opaque business) are on the verge of starting to fade out of the picture. (I'm talking broad strokes obviously.)
The same change in behaviour that led to that rise (and incidentally produced the people who take it for granted already), is affecting the effectiveness of those old techniques, at the same time as the people most likely to respond to the new ways are reaching the point where they can take advantage of that response.
Now I believe in a cause and effect universe, but sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. It must be quantum. ;)
Grizwald Grim
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Iblis Bane that's more like it :)
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
LOL It does my head in sometimes, I tell you. :D
That PDF is amazing +Owen Ellis. Uh, I mean +todd l lebeauc. Thanks for doing that!
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Oops, it was +todd l lebeauc, +Gina Fiedel. ;)
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
Oh god, I can never tell them apart, +Iblis Bane.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, I'm sure they don't begrudge it. ;)
Apologies +Iblis Bane as I have had a few "other items" to attend to, and it is certainly my hope that the discussions here do not just with way. :)
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, no worries +todd l lebeauc. In an evolving world, he who stands still moves backwards. :D If it fades out it doesn't matter. :D We'll just carry the conversation to other locations. ;)
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
I saw your comment +Iblis Bane regarding 'age' and "the people who are becoming the decision makers are people who, like us, have been witness to the rise of the internet,..." (I believe you also make mention of 'old guard').
There was another [short thus far] discussion regarding "Propaganda" by +Nicholas Cardot [http://goo.gl/9YcgZ2] and in this I used the following:
RE Organizing Chaos: The Invisible Government
and this particular statement of:
Google Plus: Thinking of Social Media, Google Plus in particular, we might consider Google Plus influencers to form the invisible government of this sphere. They influence the customs, courtesies and behaviors of large numbers of users. They are the ones promoting social media etiquette and best practices. And as people work to follow those promoted habits and guidelines, we see the true power of their influence.
My Response(s):
Sorry - but being a participant in "the grand experience what can be called 'dog whistle social networking" is not exactly one of benefit, is it? Not when inflencers in the description you provide (above) utter, by various means, words, phrases, sentences, and memes meant solely to induce masses of people to react, non-rationally, immediately, reflexively.
Plato’s Republic postulated a perfect aristocracy. It is divided into three castes; the commoners, the guardians, and the philosopher-kings. Their economics and ideologies fit their condition. The commoners compete in a Darwinian free-market environment, and thus produce the economic surplus needed to support the other two castes. The guardians are those who took, but did not pass, a ruling-class exam; they have police, army and executive duties. The philosopher-kings are the best and the brightest; they run the system, and profit from it.
So we get a spectacle that the emerging socio-influence pattern seems new, but it was described by this Ancient Greek Republican. Its most starling feature; Plato’s frank admission that the ruling class must rig the system in its favor, and lie about that to retain power. (Think about that one for a bit... )
Now for some reason and rationale, "social media experts" profess that it is [r]evolutionary to think clearly, act sensibly, and speak honestly. If reflection, prudence and honesty are natural (or at least habitual ) to you then you will be a [r]evolutionary.
The paradox is that this requires faith, hope and courage; Yet in a real world - people face pressure to conform to the community (line/ethos/rhetoric).
So where then is this paradigm shift? The 'old guard' is continuing to address the same issues of the ages, and the "new" fall right in line. Perhaps, the only thing New is that the Attention Span is much shorter, due to the sheer amount of data available(?).
I, for one, appreciate the efforts of those such as +Colin Walker, who has made a cognitive choice to step away from "Best Practices" (with the inclusion of powerful imagery) in what he writes - instead leaving it to ME, THE READER to not be distracted by #marketing or Propaganda of imagery, and USE MY MIND to actually form a valuation and comprehension.
A quick tangent to note as well. As much as I may make use of the "therapeutic value" of writing/sharing/engaging in this manner - with those of similar or opposing viewpoints, the therapeutic value is not really immediate nor is it measurable (as societal shifts take time, in spite of technology advancements).
With all of the info available to Influence deeply held beliefs, there still is a vast sociological embedding of racism, sexism, and whatever-ism that have been a scourge to humanity.
Again - where is the Paradigm Shift?
There was another [short thus far] discussion regarding "Propaganda" by +Nicholas Cardot [http://goo.gl/9YcgZ2] and in this I used the following:
RE Organizing Chaos: The Invisible Government
and this particular statement of:
Google Plus: Thinking of Social Media, Google Plus in particular, we might consider Google Plus influencers to form the invisible government of this sphere. They influence the customs, courtesies and behaviors of large numbers of users. They are the ones promoting social media etiquette and best practices. And as people work to follow those promoted habits and guidelines, we see the true power of their influence.
My Response(s):
Sorry - but being a participant in "the grand experience what can be called 'dog whistle social networking" is not exactly one of benefit, is it? Not when inflencers in the description you provide (above) utter, by various means, words, phrases, sentences, and memes meant solely to induce masses of people to react, non-rationally, immediately, reflexively.
Plato’s Republic postulated a perfect aristocracy. It is divided into three castes; the commoners, the guardians, and the philosopher-kings. Their economics and ideologies fit their condition. The commoners compete in a Darwinian free-market environment, and thus produce the economic surplus needed to support the other two castes. The guardians are those who took, but did not pass, a ruling-class exam; they have police, army and executive duties. The philosopher-kings are the best and the brightest; they run the system, and profit from it.
So we get a spectacle that the emerging socio-influence pattern seems new, but it was described by this Ancient Greek Republican. Its most starling feature; Plato’s frank admission that the ruling class must rig the system in its favor, and lie about that to retain power. (Think about that one for a bit... )
Now for some reason and rationale, "social media experts" profess that it is [r]evolutionary to think clearly, act sensibly, and speak honestly. If reflection, prudence and honesty are natural (or at least habitual ) to you then you will be a [r]evolutionary.
The paradox is that this requires faith, hope and courage; Yet in a real world - people face pressure to conform to the community (line/ethos/rhetoric).
So where then is this paradigm shift? The 'old guard' is continuing to address the same issues of the ages, and the "new" fall right in line. Perhaps, the only thing New is that the Attention Span is much shorter, due to the sheer amount of data available(?).
I, for one, appreciate the efforts of those such as +Colin Walker, who has made a cognitive choice to step away from "Best Practices" (with the inclusion of powerful imagery) in what he writes - instead leaving it to ME, THE READER to not be distracted by #marketing or Propaganda of imagery, and USE MY MIND to actually form a valuation and comprehension.
A quick tangent to note as well. As much as I may make use of the "therapeutic value" of writing/sharing/engaging in this manner - with those of similar or opposing viewpoints, the therapeutic value is not really immediate nor is it measurable (as societal shifts take time, in spite of technology advancements).
With all of the info available to Influence deeply held beliefs, there still is a vast sociological embedding of racism, sexism, and whatever-ism that have been a scourge to humanity.
Again - where is the Paradigm Shift?
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
The paradigm shift is in our heads +Owen Ellis. As +David Amerland said above, nothing is coming.
To be honest, I'm not sure which position you're arguing for. (Perhaps you are arguing against them all? ;) )
While influencers might be amused, flattered or horrified to be likened to Plato's philosopher-kings, I don't think it is a strictly analogous comparison, even within the limited confines of the platform.
Deeply held beliefs are not changed easily. Perhaps not ever. But on the other hand, that may be less the point than creating an environment in which they are not necessarily propagated by default.
Is that enough? Not yet. But I do think it's a start.
To be honest, I'm not sure which position you're arguing for. (Perhaps you are arguing against them all? ;) )
While influencers might be amused, flattered or horrified to be likened to Plato's philosopher-kings, I don't think it is a strictly analogous comparison, even within the limited confines of the platform.
Deeply held beliefs are not changed easily. Perhaps not ever. But on the other hand, that may be less the point than creating an environment in which they are not necessarily propagated by default.
Is that enough? Not yet. But I do think it's a start.
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
A start +Iblis Bane, or a continuation of the same? ヅ
To be clear, or clarify things - I am not arguing a specific postion[ing] as much as attempting to disclose and discover ALL. Is that what some might refer to as transparency? I would think so (personally).
Regarding +David Amerland recent Nothing Is Coming
I am still trying to wrap the ol' noggin around that one! I could speculate that this view, as it is presented, is reflective of personal growth and realization on his part. Likewise, I could also think that is a brilliantly crafted marketing position (or premise, as part of a long term strategy).
In the meantime - you +Iblis Bane - just added to the cerebral conundrum for envisioning an environment in which DEEPLY HELD (and possibly incapable of changing) beliefs are not necessarily propagated by default.
Thanks for that! ϡ
To be clear, or clarify things - I am not arguing a specific postion[ing] as much as attempting to disclose and discover ALL. Is that what some might refer to as transparency? I would think so (personally).
Regarding +David Amerland recent Nothing Is Coming
I am still trying to wrap the ol' noggin around that one! I could speculate that this view, as it is presented, is reflective of personal growth and realization on his part. Likewise, I could also think that is a brilliantly crafted marketing position (or premise, as part of a long term strategy).
In the meantime - you +Iblis Bane - just added to the cerebral conundrum for envisioning an environment in which DEEPLY HELD (and possibly incapable of changing) beliefs are not necessarily propagated by default.
Thanks for that! ϡ
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Hahaha, any time +Owen Ellis. We're free to ascribe any type of motivation to anything. The accuracy of our assumptions is usually dubious at best, because we just don't (can't?) know each other well enough.
Your claim to be seeking to understand all positions certainly appears transparent, if perhaps futile. ;) Of course, ignorant of any strategy or true motivations...
...Well...you see the problem immediately no doubt. ;)
Your claim to be seeking to understand all positions certainly appears transparent, if perhaps futile. ;) Of course, ignorant of any strategy or true motivations...
...Well...you see the problem immediately no doubt. ;)
David Amerland
+
3
4
3
4
3
This is such a real discussion guys. Athenian Democracy (and the flowering of thought) were founded on inequality (women and slaves) that allowed those lucky enough to be deemed "citizens" to enjoy an august life of sorts. I will take my chances with the crowd rather than provide a focal point of leadership that I know, logically, will lead (eventually) only to more of the same. The crowd, isolated, compartmentalized, can be manipulated into a mob mentality that will stone anyone who does not conform. Yet add a little cognizant power and the resulting discord creates a self-organizing entity whose alignment, along general lines is sufficient to create momentum. Hence we are all responsible.
Dig into my brain and you will perceive total chaos. Neurons firing in all directions at once. Input of different priorities being received from all senses, all the time. Yet, here I am, thinking (kinda) in a very specific direction, moving forward though perhaps at a less than optimum speed.
Whatever the inconsistencies we encounter at a micro level, the macro level picture is changing and we are each part of that change, regardless.
Dig into my brain and you will perceive total chaos. Neurons firing in all directions at once. Input of different priorities being received from all senses, all the time. Yet, here I am, thinking (kinda) in a very specific direction, moving forward though perhaps at a less than optimum speed.
Whatever the inconsistencies we encounter at a micro level, the macro level picture is changing and we are each part of that change, regardless.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
It's a fair point +David Amerland. Sometimes, perhaps often, we do not give the "crowd" enough credit. Yes, there is often terrible potential within it. But given the opportunity, there is potential for greatness and compassion and empathy and aid and all those things too.
Owen Ellis
+
3
4
3
4
3
I do see the problems and challenges and futility +Iblis Bane
and thanks to William Shakespeare, I have both the answer to futility as well as a better comprehension of what +David Amerland speaks of when he says Nothing is Coming
In Macbeth, "“Life ... is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
Thankfully, my iPad mini allows me to pull up Macbeth (housed in a repository on THE CLOUD ) with increasing speed and veracity! :-D
and thanks to William Shakespeare, I have both the answer to futility as well as a better comprehension of what +David Amerland speaks of when he says Nothing is Coming
In Macbeth, "“Life ... is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
Thankfully, my iPad mini allows me to pull up Macbeth (housed in a repository on THE CLOUD ) with increasing speed and veracity! :-D
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane yep, and the same seeds reside within us as individuals. The difference is that as individuals we tend to highlight the positive and conveniently minimize or overlook the negative. It has been a recurring theme with us for the past few centuries. We are now connected. We should be willing to do things differently.
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
And it seems that maybe we will, +David Amerland.... if the pockets of awareness driven groups outweigh the rest. where's the tipping point?
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
"Willing to do things differently?" +David Amerland That has been the dark undertone for (as you say) centuries- has it not?
The printing press or the Internet. Still subjugated to SPIN and hyperbole, as a technologically enhanced society ponders whether troops marching towards Baghdad are "Radicals", "Fundamentalists", or even perhaps "Freedom Fighters looking to establish their own Sovereign State (or tribe)" Which of these is seen as positive or negative?
Hard to say..., and perhaps being "connected" is not changing this (at least not in any measurable manner? ).
The printing press or the Internet. Still subjugated to SPIN and hyperbole, as a technologically enhanced society ponders whether troops marching towards Baghdad are "Radicals", "Fundamentalists", or even perhaps "Freedom Fighters looking to establish their own Sovereign State (or tribe)" Which of these is seen as positive or negative?
Hard to say..., and perhaps being "connected" is not changing this (at least not in any measurable manner? ).
David Amerland
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Gina Fiedel if G+ is any indication it lies in the numbers who engage in just this kind of conversation. But the real change will come because of commercial pressures. When work becomes as conversation and personal touch driven as what we do here, in this thread (and increasingly this is exactly where it is going) then we will see a real change globally without even realising what it is.
David Amerland
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Owen Ellis I don't think any of those examples are an indication of doing anything differently. Just more of the same with a slightly different slant because of the tech or a slightly different flavour because of the change of guard. Dpoing things differently requires a willingness to step onto terra incognita and dragons indeed may lie there. But maybe perhaps, also, the promised land. Doing things differently requires stepping back into the past with the full panoply of future tech. :) The industrial revolutions mores were an anomaly.
I would agree +David Amerland that the unknown land is not the one of an Industrial Revolution.
But then, will the Suit of Technological Armor produce better than a bygone era? Does it truly give the ability of dissenting opinion to be heard with the same veracity of the majority for the purpose of dialogue?
I guess you might have to ask a Governmental entity concerned about Oil Reserves (in the scenario above) vs that of a Mother or Father with concerns of their child or loved one being activated due to "Perceptions being brought via airwaves, bits, and bytes" vs the Corporate Entities who may see the whole instance as an opportunity to capitalize on current reserves in place.
But then, will the Suit of Technological Armor produce better than a bygone era? Does it truly give the ability of dissenting opinion to be heard with the same veracity of the majority for the purpose of dialogue?
I guess you might have to ask a Governmental entity concerned about Oil Reserves (in the scenario above) vs that of a Mother or Father with concerns of their child or loved one being activated due to "Perceptions being brought via airwaves, bits, and bytes" vs the Corporate Entities who may see the whole instance as an opportunity to capitalize on current reserves in place.
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
without even realizing what it is
So we sneak up on ourselves with what we dream of, +David Amerland. And with the dragon's fire steaming our throats and the groundless ground cracking open we drop down (or up as the case may be) into the land of our making.
So we sneak up on ourselves with what we dream of, +David Amerland. And with the dragon's fire steaming our throats and the groundless ground cracking open we drop down (or up as the case may be) into the land of our making.
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Gina Fiedel that's why I am so excited by it all. Change is coming while we strive to do "business as usual". :)
Gina Fiedel
+
2
3
2
3
2
Sometimes the most lasting thorough change can happen when we're not looking because that's when resistance is down +David Amerland.
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
Ah +Gina Fiedel, but be aware that Smaug was but a mere LIZARD in comparison to the likes of Saruman or Sauron - and each is not dealt with from a hole in the ground.
True that, +Owen Ellis.
And business as usual is operating while we try to change +David Amerland? ;)
A poignant quote from the bard there +Owen Ellis, and one I at least partially subscribe to. It signifies nothing, I agree. Personally I find that liberating, although I understand that some people don't.
I also find that accepting it's insignificance fills my existence with boundless possibilities which I am free to work toward or against as the whim takes me.
I chose, and believe me, it was a conscious choice, to try and be better, by my standards, and maybe make the world a little better in the process (by the same standards) if I am (or it is) lucky. ;)
The fact that the universe does not care and will not be changed, that the sun will still rise and everything die eventually regardless of my choice or it's outcomes bothers me not a bit. :D
I keep harping back to something you said yourself earlier or elsewhere...there will be casualties. And as the bard said, it signifies nothing.
But there's one part I don't agree with...it's not a tale told by fools. Just people. People everywhere doing their best, whatever they believe that best to be, and irrespective of how that best appears to others or may harm them. It's a terrible thing, but it's humanity. It's a wonderful thing too.
You seem to (justifiably) worry about things like voices being oppressed or marginalised, of people being taken advantage of, and you're right to. I worry about it myself. But we have to decide if we're operating on a macro-scale or a micro- one. In the long run, none of it signifies.
Look at the social ills that society has corrected in the last couple of centuries. Look at the ones it's working on correcting now? As our perception of what is right changes, so too does the environment that we shape around ourselves.
Over the course of this discussion, I've felt both that it could be imminent, and that it will take a long time. :D I'm going to skip the prediction. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not letting go of the hand-rail just yet. ;)
A poignant quote from the bard there +Owen Ellis, and one I at least partially subscribe to. It signifies nothing, I agree. Personally I find that liberating, although I understand that some people don't.
I also find that accepting it's insignificance fills my existence with boundless possibilities which I am free to work toward or against as the whim takes me.
I chose, and believe me, it was a conscious choice, to try and be better, by my standards, and maybe make the world a little better in the process (by the same standards) if I am (or it is) lucky. ;)
The fact that the universe does not care and will not be changed, that the sun will still rise and everything die eventually regardless of my choice or it's outcomes bothers me not a bit. :D
I keep harping back to something you said yourself earlier or elsewhere...there will be casualties. And as the bard said, it signifies nothing.
But there's one part I don't agree with...it's not a tale told by fools. Just people. People everywhere doing their best, whatever they believe that best to be, and irrespective of how that best appears to others or may harm them. It's a terrible thing, but it's humanity. It's a wonderful thing too.
You seem to (justifiably) worry about things like voices being oppressed or marginalised, of people being taken advantage of, and you're right to. I worry about it myself. But we have to decide if we're operating on a macro-scale or a micro- one. In the long run, none of it signifies.
Look at the social ills that society has corrected in the last couple of centuries. Look at the ones it's working on correcting now? As our perception of what is right changes, so too does the environment that we shape around ourselves.
Over the course of this discussion, I've felt both that it could be imminent, and that it will take a long time. :D I'm going to skip the prediction. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not letting go of the hand-rail just yet. ;)
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
It's a tough question +Gina Fiedel, and to be honest, I don't think anybody has any idea yet. There are too many variables, and too many people still offline. And not enough of the people who are online are participating yet.
I think we're in the middle of a huge zone of potential. It could potentially go either way. ;) (For now anyway...the tipping point could be either held back or accelerated, in the end I think it is inevitable. Too many sci-fi writers have imagined it for it to be anything but probable. ;) )
I think we're in the middle of a huge zone of potential. It could potentially go either way. ;) (For now anyway...the tipping point could be either held back or accelerated, in the end I think it is inevitable. Too many sci-fi writers have imagined it for it to be anything but probable. ;) )
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
A Zone of Potential +Iblis Bane? What an interesting precipice to be walking.
To clarify a few points;
Do I worry about the marginalized or the oppressed? Yes, and No. It is more a saddening acceptance that they (as a "tribe unto themselves") are there, and will always be. Imagine that fateful August day, and the gentleman who in an instant decided the fate of many to presumably save many more. That, is one of many, Many, MANY examples of things humanity must accept of itself (being the precipice it walks).
A Tale told by Fools: It is a tale oft repeated and seldom learned, and fewer still will openly accept their specific roles (where, as you say, on a macro or micro level). I certainly am one of such, and hope to aspire to much more (some days only minutely more successfully than other days). But I still do not see corrections of social ills... only brief pauses, hiccups, and errors in the codex washed over.
Humanity however, has this overwhelming ability to stare in the face of overwhelming and oppressive odds and say "Damnit - Not Today!" That in itself is a humbling inspiration enough. It does not in any which way, remove the "horse blinders" either. So while masses gather around their communal camp fires and war pyres, ingesting vast quantities of Googleberries, Microsoftening MandM's, Candied Apples, and assortment of other fruits and nuts....
Yes. Some people can thrive and bloom, living life in the living room. Others however, will and do recognize (as the thought of the day barely whispered elsewhere reflected) Progress depends on unreasonable people changing the world, not the other way around.
To clarify a few points;
Do I worry about the marginalized or the oppressed? Yes, and No. It is more a saddening acceptance that they (as a "tribe unto themselves") are there, and will always be. Imagine that fateful August day, and the gentleman who in an instant decided the fate of many to presumably save many more. That, is one of many, Many, MANY examples of things humanity must accept of itself (being the precipice it walks).
A Tale told by Fools: It is a tale oft repeated and seldom learned, and fewer still will openly accept their specific roles (where, as you say, on a macro or micro level). I certainly am one of such, and hope to aspire to much more (some days only minutely more successfully than other days). But I still do not see corrections of social ills... only brief pauses, hiccups, and errors in the codex washed over.
Humanity however, has this overwhelming ability to stare in the face of overwhelming and oppressive odds and say "Damnit - Not Today!" That in itself is a humbling inspiration enough. It does not in any which way, remove the "horse blinders" either. So while masses gather around their communal camp fires and war pyres, ingesting vast quantities of Googleberries, Microsoftening MandM's, Candied Apples, and assortment of other fruits and nuts....
Yes. Some people can thrive and bloom, living life in the living room. Others however, will and do recognize (as the thought of the day barely whispered elsewhere reflected) Progress depends on unreasonable people changing the world, not the other way around.
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Indeed it does +Owen Ellis. And a great turn of phrase there. Well, there are plenty of us, so it should only be a matter of time then. ;)
Jason T. Wiser
+
3
4
3
4
3
"If you are providing value, it will be to your benefit one way or another. If you're not, sooner or later people will figure it out and your stock will plummet." I am still processing this discussion. I want so badly to contribute, but I do not know where or how to start. I will return...
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Start anywhere you like +Jason T. Wiser. :D At this point, everything is fair game and no diversion is ever less valuable than the rest. ;)
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Jason T. Wiser re your pondering of "If you are providing value, it will be to your benefit one way or another. If you're not, sooner or later people will figure it out and your stock will plummet."
Ah yes - the joys of following Collaborative Endeavors. By the way, when you purchased the latest Top 10 Ways to Capitalize in Google Search book, did you get the Good version that actually discloses how to reach the pinnacle of No 1 status? Or are you still struggling to stay in the first page (as you know the #influencing author won't disclose that "secret sauce recipe" until the 3rd or 4th edition.)
But you knew that, right?
And for the sake of disclosure +Iblis Bane (and +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales ): Yes that IS a rhetorical and #snarky response. ϡ
Ah yes - the joys of following Collaborative Endeavors. By the way, when you purchased the latest Top 10 Ways to Capitalize in Google Search book, did you get the Good version that actually discloses how to reach the pinnacle of No 1 status? Or are you still struggling to stay in the first page (as you know the #influencing author won't disclose that "secret sauce recipe" until the 3rd or 4th edition.)
But you knew that, right?
And for the sake of disclosure +Iblis Bane (and +Alexandra Riecke-Gonzales ): Yes that IS a rhetorical and #snarky response. ϡ
Iblis Bane
+
4
5
4
5
4
The merit of a response can be dictated by the reaction thereto.
Jason T. Wiser
+
2
3
2
3
2
See that's what I'm talking about, You two lost me. haha
Dang it! I was wondering where that Ninja trick chapter was +Owen Ellis . And to think the book cost me $97. Ugh...
Dang it! I was wondering where that Ninja trick chapter was +Owen Ellis . And to think the book cost me $97. Ugh...
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
:D Good answer +Jason T. Wiser. ;)
Dave Auten
+
1
2
1
2
1
+Iblis Bane , thanks for the interesting read. I have recently pondered and blogged about anonymity but your perspective brings something new for me to consider.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Thanks +Dave Auten. It's a subject that frequently occupies me. If you've any interest in some of my past musings on the topic, you might care to take a look at this one too: http://goo.gl/GP8Ujd.
Dave Auten
+
2
3
2
3
2
Google is forcing business and stakeholders into new levels of transparency, identity and authenticity. As you say, it depends on your motives for being online. You seem (to me) a great example of someone who communicates on your own terms yet you are open to re-examining beliefs based on your own experiences.
Owen Ellis
+
1
2
1
2
1
Ah +Dave Auten, that's more of what the mass #hivemind would like you to believe in regards to transparency, identity, and the like. Once one discovers the truth to their own ideals and acts accordingly, one begins to realize the fallacies of to rhetorical and nonsensical absolutes these populist ideals represent.
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
Can't decide if you're saying that if you're true to yourself, you can only be authentic, +Owen Ellis, of if you're saying that you don't have to be. :D
+Dave Auten, (thanks, I try :) ), it might be that somebody has to do it. And you don't have to play along. But if you don't, you might end up wishing you had. It's a scary amount of power for anything to have...
+Dave Auten, (thanks, I try :) ), it might be that somebody has to do it. And you don't have to play along. But if you don't, you might end up wishing you had. It's a scary amount of power for anything to have...
Owen Ellis
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane, is it not true (true to yourself being authentic, I mean)?
There certainly seems to be some serious misconceptions of what authenticity and relationship to transparency is. On can be authentic - and yet very reserved and non-revealing. In addition, perceptions of a persona as an "authentic asshole" is not necessarily true, nor is it necessarily transparent.
These terms are just twisted and manipulated in a manner to establish a status within a societal framework. But when holes in that framework come under fire, the #hivemind witha vested interest becomes (or has the potential of becoming) defensive and acts once again, in a manner that independent thought and evaluation (or critical analysis) becomes comparable to (as +Colin Walker would/has indicated) sedition or a #thoughtcrime .
There certainly seems to be some serious misconceptions of what authenticity and relationship to transparency is. On can be authentic - and yet very reserved and non-revealing. In addition, perceptions of a persona as an "authentic asshole" is not necessarily true, nor is it necessarily transparent.
These terms are just twisted and manipulated in a manner to establish a status within a societal framework. But when holes in that framework come under fire, the #hivemind witha vested interest becomes (or has the potential of becoming) defensive and acts once again, in a manner that independent thought and evaluation (or critical analysis) becomes comparable to (as +Colin Walker would/has indicated) sedition or a #thoughtcrime .
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Well, I certainly agree that it is perfectly possible to be authentic without being transparent +Owen Ellis. ;)
Bernd Rubel
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Mark Vang linked to this post an hour ago and wrote "... read the comments too!". It was a trap, obviously.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahahaha, sneaky, very sneaky. :D I like it +Mark Vang. ;)
Mark Vang
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane remember, you promised to pay me a nickle for everyone I get trapped in you comment web. +Bernd Rubel is one!
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Hahaha, I've already put it aside +Mark Vang. :D
When there's a kilo or two's worth, I'll ship over the box of change. (You don't mind doing the exchanging, right? ;) )
When there's a kilo or two's worth, I'll ship over the box of change. (You don't mind doing the exchanging, right? ;) )
Anton Satorin
+
2
3
2
3
2
PRavda from +Iblis Bane !
Dear, +Iblis Bane , it is incredibly engaging for me now to be studying your article, which dates from the early June evoking those interesting flashbacks in my mind. By that time I'd been only for a short period present here on G+ and felt very much greenish and immature in terms of the clear direction to steer for.
I remember when you suddenly appeared out of nowhere in my life (now it is even hard to track back how it happened) with your casual, hints and veiled allusions.Those were never of that arbitrary nature and sort. Such fact might even feel slightly nagging at times as if something was left unspoken and clarified. Yet, to which I’m infinitely thankful today for coming as they were.
From them I rendered my realization that G+ was not your kindergarten playground at all where nurses flock in to direct and control your every action and verbalize the set of goals for us to pursue. Socialization process is tossed at the feet of our own ends and degree of our personal stature, private projections, twists and turns along the way…
Yes, it felt pretty dark sometimes, dark because you are forced to be on that side of yourself where you have to confront the demons of your own invention! I was compelled to face the void inside while struggling with a lot of my ego short circuit failures. I found it quite a strange feeling against my firm self-assurance that my corruptive ego had died long before thru non-social media means.
Now I was surprised to be discovering that a lot of dark ego particles were still contaminating my vital mycelium of the cherished internal freedom foundations.
In this regard I’m quite convinced that before approaching authenticity concept a person has to confront and uproot all possible weeds within, to prepare the soil. Authenticity never comes as anything like God given body limb or a guaranteed provision…no, it is a hard job to be done! It is a characteristic feature of something that you first have to conceive and deliver…develop in you, construct, spare your precious time on its upbringing and breeding!
Yet, there is a hope…as I said we don’t arrive in here without our ambitions and visions at all. Our life kindergarten has been passed by in many ways. So, here comes our internal shrink to consult on what we and who we in fact already are. So, transparency begins with being transparent before our daily survival therapist. It is a very crucial process in our everyday life, we are all aware of that.
Again and again we arrange those consultancy sessions inside. We strive for being apparent and genuine. We accumulate all personal resources only for one goal – to act 100% transparent like on the Judgment Day before The Lord.
Any deviation or an attempt to act insincere will amass the shrouds of darkness and incomprehension, schizophrenic two-mindedness, paranoid false obsessions and emotional stress.
This is where G+ becomes a true reflection of the brew boiling inside an individual. We scrupulously keep on deciding what it is all about and its relation to me and only me in the first place. Because otherwise I have to be something else not me, walk in someone else’s shoes and never possess my own ones.
Sometimes it may seem that authenticity is a matter of choice. Why not? Just copypaste someone’s behavior patterns into your matrix and go with its flow alright! Well, here comes a totalitarianism of indulgence, a conformism of a slave, a human bondage. Even though it is an old tale -- ignorance is bliss, nothing is amiss, never think twice, find your paradise…but what comes next?
Today you sacrifice your authenticity for a sake of getting rid of your current fears tomorrow you become a monster able to feel no pain at all…other people’s pain…a cold-blooded robot accepting the commands at the snap of somebody’s fingers! March on, march on! Left right, left, right! He who’s afraid to have his/he brain-map projected on the screen go and fill those ranks of the marching! This is the motto for those who is fearful to endeavor into the dark side!
Dear, +Iblis Bane , it is incredibly engaging for me now to be studying your article, which dates from the early June evoking those interesting flashbacks in my mind. By that time I'd been only for a short period present here on G+ and felt very much greenish and immature in terms of the clear direction to steer for.
I remember when you suddenly appeared out of nowhere in my life (now it is even hard to track back how it happened) with your casual, hints and veiled allusions.Those were never of that arbitrary nature and sort. Such fact might even feel slightly nagging at times as if something was left unspoken and clarified. Yet, to which I’m infinitely thankful today for coming as they were.
From them I rendered my realization that G+ was not your kindergarten playground at all where nurses flock in to direct and control your every action and verbalize the set of goals for us to pursue. Socialization process is tossed at the feet of our own ends and degree of our personal stature, private projections, twists and turns along the way…
Yes, it felt pretty dark sometimes, dark because you are forced to be on that side of yourself where you have to confront the demons of your own invention! I was compelled to face the void inside while struggling with a lot of my ego short circuit failures. I found it quite a strange feeling against my firm self-assurance that my corruptive ego had died long before thru non-social media means.
Now I was surprised to be discovering that a lot of dark ego particles were still contaminating my vital mycelium of the cherished internal freedom foundations.
In this regard I’m quite convinced that before approaching authenticity concept a person has to confront and uproot all possible weeds within, to prepare the soil. Authenticity never comes as anything like God given body limb or a guaranteed provision…no, it is a hard job to be done! It is a characteristic feature of something that you first have to conceive and deliver…develop in you, construct, spare your precious time on its upbringing and breeding!
Yet, there is a hope…as I said we don’t arrive in here without our ambitions and visions at all. Our life kindergarten has been passed by in many ways. So, here comes our internal shrink to consult on what we and who we in fact already are. So, transparency begins with being transparent before our daily survival therapist. It is a very crucial process in our everyday life, we are all aware of that.
Again and again we arrange those consultancy sessions inside. We strive for being apparent and genuine. We accumulate all personal resources only for one goal – to act 100% transparent like on the Judgment Day before The Lord.
Any deviation or an attempt to act insincere will amass the shrouds of darkness and incomprehension, schizophrenic two-mindedness, paranoid false obsessions and emotional stress.
This is where G+ becomes a true reflection of the brew boiling inside an individual. We scrupulously keep on deciding what it is all about and its relation to me and only me in the first place. Because otherwise I have to be something else not me, walk in someone else’s shoes and never possess my own ones.
Sometimes it may seem that authenticity is a matter of choice. Why not? Just copypaste someone’s behavior patterns into your matrix and go with its flow alright! Well, here comes a totalitarianism of indulgence, a conformism of a slave, a human bondage. Even though it is an old tale -- ignorance is bliss, nothing is amiss, never think twice, find your paradise…but what comes next?
Today you sacrifice your authenticity for a sake of getting rid of your current fears tomorrow you become a monster able to feel no pain at all…other people’s pain…a cold-blooded robot accepting the commands at the snap of somebody’s fingers! March on, march on! Left right, left, right! He who’s afraid to have his/he brain-map projected on the screen go and fill those ranks of the marching! This is the motto for those who is fearful to endeavor into the dark side!
Iblis Bane
+
1
2
1
2
1
It's always a pleasure when something you think manages to encourage more ideas in people +Anton Satorin and even more so when they share with you that it has indeed been meaningful after all. Not all manifestations of ego are bad y'know. ;) I'm pretty fond of mine. Thanks for coming back to it. ;) (And y'know, I can't remember where I met you either. ;) )
Anton Satorin
+
2
3
2
3
2
Thanks for your comment! I've recalled how we met, +Iblis Bane ! Don't like to leave any loose ends :) That was +Jessica Smith's post about the CIA online presence strategy...involving humor and stuff where we first exchanged some comments with you. :-D "No intelligence without humor-- no humor without intelligence!" we also agreed on then!
Well, our ego is surely a good thing if it helps our potential grow up rather than blow out our vanity and folly...
Well, our ego is surely a good thing if it helps our potential grow up rather than blow out our vanity and folly...
Alex Schleber
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Anton Satorin wow! The thread that won't die... in other news, can we buy you some whitespace perhaps? :)
Anton Satorin
+
1
2
1
2
1
haha, +Alex Schleber , well said! The great thread of the great post...deserves immortality! :) Yes, agree, only if it were some lack of your whitespace that could prevent me from getting engaged...so I do hope I'm good enough for your circles to be allocated with some! :)
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Haha, I suspect he's referring to the lack of paragraph breaks. ;)
David Amerland
+
4
5
4
5
4
+Iblis Bane a gap in the market. I have plenty of whitespace I can email anyone for just $9.99.
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahahaha, thanks +David Amerland, I have plenty of my own. Every time I open up a text editor I just stare at all that white space and wonder what to fill it with. ;)
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane whoa, your text editors come sans text? Amazing. ;)
Iblis Bane
+
2
3
2
3
2
Hahaha, what, you got one that fills up automatically do you? No wonder you're so damn prolific +David Amerland. ;)
+Iblis Bane , yeah the breaks somehow slipped off...now it looks better
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Iblis Bane All I have to do is open it up. If I do not like what I see, I just open up another file. Then I save it all to a folder. This tech stuff is just so awesome. :D
Anton Satorin
+
4
5
4
5
4
I like your humor, guys, about that white space! Let's keep it a proverbial joke! :)
todd l lebeauc
+
3
4
3
4
3
Ah +Iblis Bane, true irony at play in how The Light/Dark Side waxes and wanes in discovery, is it not?
Anton Satorin
+
3
4
3
4
3
I think it depends on a person, +todd l lebeauc ! Our attitude is the King! :)
"Due to the wrong attitude it's hard to muster your fortitude..."
"Due to the wrong attitude it's hard to muster your fortitude..."
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Anton Satorin what a perfect comment. You're right attitude (and intent) are actually everything.
Iblis Bane
+
3
4
3
4
3
Yes, agreed +David Amerland and +Anton Satorin. To a large extent, we make the world that we live in. It is our reactions (our attitude), that inform our perception, and by exerting some form of control over them, we can literally choose what form our approach will take, which in turn informs the perceptions of those around us. Nicely said indeed.
Interesting idea +todd l lebeauc. I might add to it the suggestion that whichever side we appear to be wallowing in at any given moment, the other one is always there too, just around the corner. (Or beyond the "terminator" as the case may be. ;) )
Interesting idea +todd l lebeauc. I might add to it the suggestion that whichever side we appear to be wallowing in at any given moment, the other one is always there too, just around the corner. (Or beyond the "terminator" as the case may be. ;) )
Anton Satorin
+
2
3
2
3
2
+David Amerland , thank you. I appreciate your observation! It was nice to realize "intent" in the same company :) Absolutely relevant addition! Because 'the road to hell is paved with our good intentions' too. The moral -- keep the balance right ( or maybe -- 'est modus in rebus'). Have a wonderful weekend!
David Amerland
+
2
3
2
3
2
+Anton Satorin you too and loved the conversation here.
Add a comment...