August 2016 - ₪ Headwind ₪

Share or show?

WORDS THAT WE USE CONSTANTLY DESERVE TO LOOKED AT MORE CAREFULLY.

I suspect that the word “share” is one of the most used words on the Internet.

What does it mean — and not mean? What do I do when I “share”?

I send a link to a friend or acquaintance, I post an article or picture in a newsgroup or Facebook.

How is that sharing, and not just sending, forwarding or showing?

These questions are useful if the word is to have a substantial meaning, or, if we are to use it with reflection and not just as a cloud-engendering pop euphemism.

I can share dinner with you if we sit at the same table. Sharing a picture of my dinner with you is showing you my dinner.

It is shown, not really shared. (And considering this particular dinner, you might be glad it isn’t .-)

We can really only share things and experiences IRL (“in real life”), at a short distance, with folks who are physically close to us. That doesn’t mean that sending, forwarding or showing has no value. That would be limiting.

But they ARE something different.

I am showing very many things to the world currently, and sharing very few. I wish it were the other way around. Ah well, at least I am not fooling myself into believing that I share when I show, and then wonder why my “sharing” gives so little IRL satisfaction.

What say Queen?

Looking forward to the song “The real sharing must go on”.

When “more” means less

WHAT LIES BEHIND THIS ADMONITION “READ MORE”? ARE WE REALLY INVITED TO READ MORE, OR PERHAPS LESS? PERHAPS NOTHING AT ALL?

The world is upside down. At least language is sometimes.

You have probably seen this advice, or admonition, many times on the Net. It means that in order to see the whole text you first have to click READ MORE.

Why hide the whole text to begin with? When I started blogging there was no “read more”. What you saw was what you got, there was no need to confirm that you wanted all of it. If you got bored, you could always stop reading.

There is statistics out here — as if you really needed it — that shows that people very seldom read articles or posts to the sweet end. (Some of the statistics here and here.)

Big surprise — not.

I believe people still read books. To the last page.

But the Net is not a book, it is a market where thousands and millions are competing for attention. Of course you are not going to read a longish article to the end! Why, you might miss something more fun, or sensational, or sexsational, if you do.

This is no surprise. Then how does this “read more” change the workings of Internet, this enormous marketplace of attention?

It gives us an opportunity, or chance — I would say inspiration — to not read at all. Cool! At least not more than what we see in the teaser.

Now that is another thing that makes me somewhat furious. Or made me, when my page still had this function.

The Read more-thing turned the beginning of my article into as teaser. I was actually asked to think like a female undresser!?!

Behind this Make a great teaser so people click on Read more-thing lies a sorry premise: People don´t REALLY want to read your text, are not really interested in hearing you out.

That´s sad.

I can accept it as a journalistic attitude, but we are not all journalists. I am not. So don´t ask me to write for people who are uninterested in reading. I put pride in writing well enough to be interesting, to the sweet or bitter end.

The end.

Look to the left!

WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES WE WOULD GET INTO IF WE ALWAYS HELD OUR HEAD TURNED TO ONE SIDE. LOOKING FORWARD, OR LOOKING BOTH WAYS, IS IMPORTANT. AND NOT ONLY IN TRAFFIC.

In my more experimental period I created a short-lived company called

? & Co

The aim of the company was not trying to find answers and solutions, but vice versa.

Motto: “Why look for answers when you haven´t even found a good question?” Which I think is a good question.

Look at this picture:

QUESTION >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> ANSWER

To the left of the question mark we have the question, to the right the answer.

We humans seem to have a very strong right leaning tendency, meaning that we sharpen our ears (relatively speaking) when an answer is forthcoming. We are not so bad at deciding whether an answer was poor or rich.

But this staring to the right make us half-blind to the other, left side. We are very quick to dismiss answers as bad, stupid or idiotic. But what about the questions?

How wise or intelligent was the question? Was it well formulated? Was it even a real question, or rather a statement masquerading as a question (which happens a lot)? Was it one question, or perhaps three or four in a confusing jumble?

These are some of the questions we could ask more, while turning our heads more to the left.

I am regularly surprised by the questions journalists — supposedly their job is to find, formulate and ask good questions — ask. It is very common to hear the jumble I just mentioned, 3-4 questions tied into a messy knot.

It is also common to hear the victim of this confused multi-question to answer it within blinking, with a sometimes less than brilliant answer. “Blinking” could be a counter-question:

I didn´t understand your question…?
Can you please clarify?
Which of your questions do you want answered first?

Due to some impulse to please or not complain the interviewee goes along with the charade, perhaps not even clarifying for himself that he didn´t understand the question, or that the question was actually a statement.

I have been interviewed a number of times and see my job (asking good questions) as related to that of the journalist. We will both succeed better with a more balanced, less right leaning stance.

Don´t lead, don´t follow

ON LINKEDIN THERE IS CONSTANT TALK ABOUT LEADERSHIP, ON FACEBOOK ABOUT FOLLOWING. LEAD AND FOLLOW, WHY ARE THESE THINGS SO IMPORTANT? OR ARE THEY?

I better understand the need to lead than to follow. If you are the head of a company or an orchestra conductor you need to lead.

I can also understand the impulse to follow — the pack if you are a wolf, a circle of good friends or kindred spirits going on a pilgrimage. (Let´s also mention the dictates of fashion.)

But what Facebook calls follow is not about joining a group of pilgrims with a common goal. It only means getting news about, perhaps spy upon, maybe even stalk.

Yes, sometimes I follow somebody on Twitter, lead a workshop or guide music tasting. But apart from that I want to be neither leader or follower. Just a mensch, trying to find and walk my path with heart.

That is why I neither follow nor can be followed on Facebook.

Companies hire orchestra conductors to hold workshops in leadership. As I see it a conductor is not so much a leader as an inspirer, a coordinator, telling the musicians how to conduct themselves in a certain piece of music.

Above all he creates unity in diversity, a shared interpretation of a symphony with perhaps hundred musicians of different ages, temperaments and shoe sizes.

But a CEO does the same, someone protests.

That may be, but what is the product of his company? Freedom or dependence? Another consumer article, app or gadget that “we cannot live without” — or a moment of serene, weightless freedom, perhaps even self-recognition when we see ourselves in the mirror of music?

A conductor is no CEO. He does not run a company. He writes beautiful words (in a strange language) in air!