Passionate Living

Trust by Joe Nangle

The title is borrowed from Pete Shannon’s post about social media [1]. Since I’ve entered and become part of the social media enthusiast community, I’ve noticed that there are many people who have taken it upon themselves to write their opinions and insights about social media and how it has introduced a significant cultural augmentation into our lives. The good side of the discussion happening online is that there is a wealth of knowledge to learn from; the bad side of it is it becomes a cheap, ubiquitous, almost abused topic of discussion – as if using the term “social media” makes you become sophisticated and updated person.

What I want to talk about isn’t the evolution and usage of social media by our society and how it changes the way we communicate. What I want to talk about is how this new channel of communication becomes a utility that we can use to build relationships and help develop the quality and quantity in our lives. In other words: how the advent of interactive internet – or Participation 2.0, as Mitch Joel says in his book “Six Pixels of Separation” [2] – becomes a natural system in which nobody can no longer abuse or manipulate information in order to obtain their self interests.

As Pete Shannon says, the people who are most successful in the new media landscape are the ones who understand that the No. 1 commodity online is now trust. It is the thought leaders [3] and prominent bloggers [4] who give outstanding value in an unrestricted manner who receive the most amount of trust from the online community – of which there are 1.5 billion, according to Mitch Joel. Imagine what this level of trust can bring to your business, if you can leverage these social media channels to bring you better relationships with your clients.

Building trust

Of course, that’s business talk, but this isn’t a business blog, is it? The idea I want to put forward is that trust has always been the No. 1 commodity – in all societies in all cultures throughout history [5]. Pete Shannon merely states that it is now apparent that trust is the most valuable commodity online – but all of us should understand that it has always been a base currency for every transaction we conduct in society.

It used to be what we learn in life can be applied online – but now that truth can be reversed: what we learn online can be applied to our physical life. This is what I have been feeling and applying in the context of my physical and digital life – what I do online gives me insights and inspiration to what I can do offline. Building trust as a part of building a personal brand, has brought me to understand better the method with which society makes transactions between the members, with trust as the currency.

The difference is, in the digital realm it is comparatively easy to sniff out the people who are unauthentic and only plan to abuse the trust given to them for their own plans and intentions. It isn’t as easy to do in our physical lives, for what reason I’m not so sure. But I do know that we can no longer say that what we do online doesn’t affect our real lives – it has become an interconnected world.

Trust and transactions

Being authentic is an essential part of providing value to our community, and if we are building an online business or authority then this is an important concept to practice. But even if we aren’t building a business or have a financial motivation behind it, being authentic is still an essential part of living. It is one of the principles with which we become a better person and achieve internal peace and happiness.

Perhaps the industrial age allowed us too much superficiality – so much that we became accustomed to it in an unhealthy way [6]. Since we lived almost a century in that fashion, it has become an integral part of our culture. Therefore it’s a good thing, that the digital revolution is breaking the sovereignty of centralized industrial systems, and return autonomy to the decentralized communities that act in an organic and natural way.

If you want to succeed in the digital arena – and also in the physical arena – being authentic is a principle to keep. We have lived with bureaucratic corporate hierarchy for long enough. It’s time to return to our authentic identities, time to return to trust as our transactions.

What’s your take in the cultural shift that’s happening right now?
—

[1] The ‘Alternative’ Social Media Top Ten List, by Pete Shannon
[2] Mitch Joel is a digital marketing expert, who runs the successful marketing blog Six Pixels of Separation
[3] Seth Godin, a marketing expert and one of the highly followed figures in the new media landscape
[4] Chris Brogan, community developer and expert blogger
[5] Again, a similar theme that I pointed out in the one image theory
[6] As opposed to superficiality in a healthy way
[7] Photograph by Joe Nangle. Because it says what is says

Couch Potato by Richard Summers

I thought I’d add one more post to the current theme of the week: convenience (or inconvenience, depending on how you see it). During the first post of the week [1], we talked about the responsibilities of an established company that controls a resource that affects the livelihoods of many, and for the second post [2] we talked about how the same degree of responsibility can be applied for the individual. This time I want to ask: what is our motivation for wanting society to be correct?

How many times have you heard people complain about the condition of society: maybe about traffic jams, about health care, about the general expectancy of other people’s behavior, and state of education? How many times have you complained to your spouse or friends about how tough the economy is right now or how corrupt the government leaders are? You would think from the prevalence of these questions in our community we can conclude that there is a common wish for society to be good, to be correct.

However, I think that we want society to be correct – to be educated and civilized and have integrity – only so that we can live our own lives conveniently. So on the surface we do say that the quality of life should increase, but not for the sake of human welfare progress per se. No, mostly so that it doesn’t bother us anymore.

The number one motivation

Why do I think this? Because even though you talk about it, doesn’t mean that you would actually do it, right? What you say in your conversations, and the expert opinions you agree on when you watch those television specials, doesn’t necessarily translate into real commitment from you.

Because your number one motivation is still convenience for yourself and your family. If to change the condition that you always complain about takes a commitment personally from you, if it takes a concrete physical consequence that you need to go through, then all those pretty words are just that: pretty – they have no substance when the time comes to prove their worth. You agree with the ideas and solutions, only when you can enjoy the results without leaving the comfort of your living room sofa.

Can you picture that: yourself holding the remote watching late night news after you come home from overtime at the office? The news reports about the current political climate and you agree that it takes an inside out approach to change the system since it’s too corrupt to continue. But what if to actually reach that change, then the news caster personally asks you to come over to a meeting on the topic this Saturday night? Oh, suddenly you have no time for that so important goal you felt so sophisticated agreeing on.

You don’t even need to say it, just do it

It’s not wrong to want to be convenient. As I said in the first post of the week, I do my best to stay convenient and not add any amount of inconvenience to other people. But it is important to realize there are inconveniences that are worth taking – and that complaining about these kinds of inconveniences does not show strength of character.

What is wrong is when you say you want something – a change for good – but then back out of it when it actually comes over to pick you up on your promise. It is wrong when you want to be sophisticated but you don’t want to be part of the process. It is wrong when you blame that the system is corrupt, but you don’t want to leave your comfort zone in the system itself.

So what is your true character? Do you want our community to change because you truly believe in growth and are willing to get down and dirty for it, or are you just a stander by watching and observing and giving worthless opinions as if you are involved in the actual work? Are you willing to take responsibility of the consequences?

Are you ready?

—

[1] This Is What We Call The State Candle Company, 2009
[2] We Apologize For The Inconvenience, 2009
[3] Photograph by Richard Summer. Because we already have enough couch potatoes.

Surrogate prototype model

Have you seen the movie “Surrogates” starring Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell [1]? Without spilling much of the plot line, the movie’s premise is set in a near future where robotics and cybernetics technology is so advanced that humans can buy “surrogates” – android counterparts of their real selves that they can control remotely using a certain device that transmits brainwaves. In the movie, the surrogates are used as proxies that completely replace direct human involvement in anything, from their jobs to their social activities to their marriages and families.

One plot point that’s set early in the movie is how humans have lost personal touch and connection now that they are using surrogates to do everything they used to have to do on their own. Bruce Willis’ character, Tom Greer, rarely sees his real wife and instead meets and talk with her surrogate in the kitchen in the morning. During one point in the movie, Greer’s surrogate is obliterated during a police chase and can’t be immediately replaced, therefore Greer has to go out in flesh and blood to continue the investigation on his own. This is when he starts to re-experience what it’s like being a real human.

The movie itself isn’t that fascinating for me but the idea of surrogates is very interesting. You see, in the movie Bruce Willis’ surrogate looks like a 30-year old version of the Bruce we see today. His partner, played by Radha Mitchell, is a beautiful woman in perfect health and shape (almost all the people in the movie are portrayed as perfect, gorgeous humans, both men and women). But the real people behind these perfect surrogates often look far different in real life. In one scene, a tall black sturdy surrogate with dark hair is in reality controlled by a skinny, curly haired weak looking white professor.

That made me wonder: what if we could choose what we look like, using technology to give actual physical shape and performance to our egos?

Real surrogates, fake identities

In one scene in the movie, Tom Greer talks to the legal team of the company that builds these surrogates. Because he was starting to get upset at the superficiality that has overtaken his society, when one of the legal team members, portrayed as a perfect black woman, said that “You don’t know what it is that we do”, Bruce’s character replied, “Honey, I don’t even know what you are. For all I know you could be some big fat dude in a stem chair with his d*ck hanging out.” Yippie kay-yay, m*therf*cker!

And he’s right. In our real society, there are more people that use “surrogates” instead of showing up in real flesh and blood (or “meat-bags” as they say in the movie when referring to humans who are actually real humans). There are more who show up with their egos and their artificial characters and talk and speak as lawyers, and doctors, and celebrities, and priests, make-up artists etc.

I’m not saying that we don’t need professions. Indeed beauty has it’s benefits [2]. But as the premise is in the movie, it becomes dangerous when those secondary identities become our primary identities. Because as I’ve said before, these identities can be stolen, destroyed, confiscated, and discarded. We lose personal touch and human connection in favor of superficial gratification.

Show up in real flesh

In the movie, when Bruce’s character comes out of the hospital in real flesh he experiences a sort of “surrogate-lag” as a result of having not going out in real flesh for a long time. But later on, he quickly regains control of his body and is able to drive cars with action-hero efficiency (well, it is Bruce Willis after all). His character’s main internal conflict is how he has lost human contact with his wife and is sick with how the use of surrogates has been turned into a perversion where people play fake and think they’re real.

Sometimes we don’t know when we’re real and when we’re fake. But as we grow more self-aware, our inner identities and our outer identities will be more congruent. The key is to dedicate time to exercise the use of both inner and outer identities.

Another lesson we learn from Bruce Willis: show up in real flesh. It’s okay to use your surrogate when you need for safety in your profession. But all value is always created in the flesh.

What would your surrogate look like? Would you choose one that only represents you with a slightly more attractive look? Or would you take the whole nine yards and make a truly alternate version of yourself? Why?

—

*Excuse me for swearing in this article. It is a Bruce Willis movie after all. To make you feel better, here’s a bunny with a pancake on it’s head

[1] Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell on the Internet Movie Database
[2] The Benefit of Beauty, 2009. Also look at Real Beauty, 2009
[3] Photograph by Jere Keys