Inception

I've been trying to rationalise my web presence but it's been a bit tricky.  I've stopped looking at FB as mentioned in the previous blog, in fact I went through the quite tearful departure as it begged and used emotional blackmail to get me to stay.  So and so will miss you, this person will not know where you are.  Eventually they reminded me that it all stays where it is.  Oh yes, I've granted them a perpetual licence.  

So now I've started building my own website, I registered my own domain name and I have tried to centralise all my bleating on the web.  Follow the link below, then select off the top menu and you will experience something akin to Inception.... 

http://www.soliloquy.me.uk/Soliloquy/Welcome.html

I haven't decided on a consistent theme and I'm just getting the hang of frames so bare with me.

Finally, I haven't managed to activate a comments section so you'll just have to google+ me, or at the very least twot me (not sure of the official present tense personal for "To Twitter", and I'm damn sure I'm not going to use the past participle that seems to fit!)

Networking (Social or other)

After a self imposed moratorium from the now ubiquitous facebook I have had pause to think about the phenomenon that gets termed social networking. I glanced at a link on google+ from +Robert Llewellyn, who I found from his @bobbyllew twitter account, about the perceived political motivations behind facebook. I need to read it more deeply but as I scanned the site, one of the throwaway comments that resonated with my view was "people's need to collect friends and be popular, in the sense of an American high-school teenager. "  I'm not sure why it needs to be an "American" teenager, perhaps they are better at it than the rest of the world.

This does appear to be borne out on all the sites I have seen, there are awards or rewards for becoming a super-user.   On the sites I am familiar with, they publicly display your number of contacts/followers/friends as some badge of honour.  We seem to actively feed that teenage need to be superficially popular. For many of us it doesn't matter if we have 500+ contacts of people who have very little real connection to us, the system is merely an address book that is maintained by your contact for you. Like Plaxo was before it became a virus.  I realise that calling it an address book is a massive over simplification of a more complex modern phenomenon.   As a society in the current era, we tend to be very distant from each other, not just physically but figuratively and online networking is probably feeding a need to feel part of a community, to feel connected to the lives of family and people with a shared interest.  Still for many people a badge like 500+ does seem to be a status symbol to be displayed.  Even in Google+ there are networks of people that seem to be collecting followers like trophies and are celebrating each others' apparent success in collecting vast numbers.  I'm not sure what value it has, I have found that my twitter feed and my facebook wall have become so clogged with casual comments from people I have "collected" that I am missing messages that are more important to me.  In theory G+ might provide an elegant way to handle this phenomenon with circles but I fear it may descend into the stream of chatter that I have found Facebook and Twitter have become. 

So is it really networking?  Networking itself is a fairly recent phrase, I remember being told I was a good networker and not having a clue what it meant. Obviously that may be more to do with my own knowledge but I do think it's a modern context for an older word.  Making friends, making acquaintances, being generally sociable are all traits that have served people well for generations.  These are skills we want our children to adopt as usually people fair better as a collectively supportive society (see comments on enlightened self interest).  So why do we fear them collecting online connections in what sometimes appears to be an automated and systematic process? It could be that we are simply technophobic and I do believe that many are, especially those who read mainstream media reports that are designed to provoke emotion not debate. But many are not, like myself, in fact I have experimented with quite a few of the so called networking sites, but I still have some concerns over the "collectors".  I think we need to teach new users the difference between a casual acquaintance who may be a useful contact in the future and who maintains their own contact details from a person who you merely wish to follow their views as they are expressed, to the vitally different "friend"; be that a close personal friend or a casual friend.

Communication

Not a communication you understand, but communication in general.  Which is a case in point.  A written exchange of information can be very literal, expert writers are able to craft their prose to gently convey a subtext or to imply a broader and often less direct meaning.  However, in the main we are pretty poor at this, especially if you compare our ability with the spoken word.  Here we have a replete armoury of weapons to aid the communication, conscious or subconscious.  Paralanguage has evolved over aeons to provide us with tools to inform and be informed by each member of our social group - a vital skill in survival.  It is thought that modern humans developed language around 200,000 years ago.  By contrast, the written language has arguably only been in existence since 3300BC.

This is a Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet from circa 5000 years ago and is one of the earliest known records of the written word.  It contains a schedule of payments to workers made in beer.  This is one of the podcast episodes in A History of the World.  It has triggered some of the thoughts I am currently sharing.

It is not surprising then that in our rapidly accelerating evolutionary environment as we approach the singularity; we are experiencing some difficulty in the transition from traditional methods of engaging in social discourse.  In my last blog I provoked an engaging discourse that suffered a little from not being face to face and also was diminished as it clearly wasn't a peer reviewed journal.  Its really worth reading the dialogue in the comments between Eric and myself if you get time.  I can't help thinking though that as we blunder and err our way through this proto-social-communication tool we are in some way chipping the cool wet Tigris and Euphrates clay.

Cultural Diversity

Qu: Has the environment that promotes cultural and thus genetic diversity subsided? And what will be the impact on society and human evolution?

Genetic similarity of breading partners has long been associated with deformity and poor mental health, from the decline of the Pharaohs to jokes about Norfolk, this appears to be a truism.  In order to ensure genetic diversity humanity has had to rely on a range of surrogate markers of "difference". You look different, or more specifically you come from a different migratory tribe or ever since civilizations have settled in particular location, you come from a different land. Often this desire for cultural distinctiveness, that I suggest is primarily to nurture the health of our species globally, has been misinterpreted as "apartheid" and we end up with the likes of Nick Griffin both socially and genetically. I believe the "Nick Griffin" effect is more to do with competition over resources. See previous blog about the tragedy of the commons and enlightened self interest.  This type of person sees the immediate self interest of cultural identity, usually based around resources such as jobs, land, power, valuables or food — as the primary motivator for remaining culturally distinct.  They do not see that identifying who you are is a way of advertising yourself to somone who is genetically different.  Trade and social interaction with the tribe next door is apparently important for short term tactical reasons such as politics or resources, but has been vital for the diversity needed for the evolution of humanity.  Professor Winston has produced some interesting documentaries looking at the reasons why humans subconsciously select a mate.

Living, as we do now, in the global village — where travel is cheap (albeit environmentally expensive), telecommunications are accessible and new media social interconnectedness is vast and growing, we have no need (or derive no competitive edge) to align ourselves to a tribe or locate ourselves permanently in a specific region.  Will this create homogeneity of heterogeneity?  So if competitive advantage is not a sufficient draw to keep us in culturally and genetically distinct groups, and technology is allowing as to interact socially over vast distances will we become more similar or more different?  I can see a utopian humanity where we are one pan global race, the human race, with significant genetic diversity distributed evenly, not clustered, across the population.  If this is our destiny, if cultural diversity will diminish and genetic diversity will become homogeneous what of society?  Will politics and social governance structures become more global?  I'll think I'll save that for the next post.

Sent from my iPhone

TINSTAAFL?

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The concept here could be, if someone pays for your lunch then there is an implied obligation to pay them back, clearly this is based upon the paradigm of value being some transferable commodity that can be encapsulated in notes or coinage of some sort or more accurately in today's world, digitised bank records and can be passed from one person to another.  But, couldn't I buy you lunch and not expect you to pay me money back in return?

The concept could be broader and the obligation could be to give some value back in another form (you scratch my back, I'll buy you lunch)  -- this mixed-metaphor still describes "no free lunch".  But I would still maintain that I could buy you lunch and not expect my back scratched.  I guess I should've put that in quotes!

It could be argued that nothing is free and that ultimately someone is paying for it, whoever pays me sufficient money such that I can make my magnanimous gesture of a free lunch, ultimately paid for your lunch.  I don't hold with this -- there are some natural resources that are in such abundance and are not (or should not) be under the control of an assumed authority to meter out.  Resources that could be considered to be free for all.  However this then brings us to The Tragedy of the commons, which argues that free access and unrestricted demand results in depleted resources through over exploitation, probably permanently.

The suggestion is that each individual realises that grabbing what they can for themselves, even when they know it will damage the whole supply, is in their personal best interest and so they cannot help themselves.  In the modern solutions section of the graffiti-pedia page it starts its description as "in the absence of enlightened self interest....".  This is the tragedy! Our default start position is,  "absence of enlightened self interest".  We assume that as individuals, governments, corporations and society we cannot take only what we need, we have to grab it all quick before it goes - bugger the rest of you.  We cannot see that if we take what we need, dare I say it - take nothing if we don't really need to and leave it for someone else, that this is actually in our own best interest.

No one owns the internet.  Ok, people charge us to get to it but eventually - as is starting to happen with telephone lines, that capital expenditure is written off and there is no need for the owner to generate income simply from using it.  There is a continuous hum about free internet sites starting to charge, that commercialisation of the internet is expected, we naturally assume it has to make money.  I don't.  I hope the components that are free,  remain free and that many other aspects become free.  That corporations, governments and society realise that there is a phenomenal possibility for enlightened self interest in the whole world creating and maintaining free and open global dialogue.

Your opinion counts

How much are we, or should we be, swayed by other people's opinion. There have always been opinion leaders.

In the Pharmaceutical industry we even have a TLA for them -- KOLs.

I think its part of the natural human condition to want to fit in, even if we are trying to fit into a remote tribe of geeks teetering on the edge of geekdom. No man, as they say, is an island. [A brief interlude and a search on the internet reveals] John Donne, the author of this poem, is "they".

So as much as we wish to form our own opinions it is inevitable that others influence them. The speed of that influence is noticeably quicker since the advent of social networking.

Many people are left stone cold by surrealist art - I find it quite liberating. Admittedly Fey Poem Coffee Break seems a strange title but this and the intriguing image gave me something to think about and pleased me. Is it art? Does anyone have a right to criticise it? or the artists right to create it? are you influenced by my opinion?

The following picture is one of my favourite pieces of my own art. Is it art? Possibly photography is just recording fact. I would maintain that in someway I orchestrated or composed it; some part of it is fortunate and "right place right time". I simply don't remember if I asked Ellie and the guys to stare in the water or if something had just caught their attention. I'm not sure if I was consciously aware of the striking juxtaposition of the weeping willow hanging soulfully into the Thames and the jagged stark tree jutting in menacingly from the side. I do know that I edited the photo, in my mind I can still see Will standing under the tree, I clipped him out, as he wasn't looking into the water. If you do like this picture, and I hope you do, were you influenced by my monologue?

So why all this bleating about "influenced by opinion"? Well, a mate of mine, Drew, put a very funny comment on Face book about "Dances with Smurfs" - a small amount of research identified this as a joke name for Avatar. Drew, whose opinion I respect, clearly thought that "Dances with Smurfs" is a less than edifying demonstration of James Cameron's artistic ability. His opinion was in polar opposition to my previous discussion on the subject. So should I allow my view to change, I must admit I stopped to think -- as I do respect Drew's judgement, and it has influenced me even though my feelings were clearly modified by the context of my viewing. 

Clearly this is not about if either of us is right or wrong, but more the nature of opinion and the age-old instinct to create a consensus and if this is enhanced or influenced via virtual networking.

I would say that opinion is not a solid fact; it is context and mood sensitive and will evolve and age as all things do. A gut reaction can be more visceral and true to base nature but a developed savoured opinion can be more lasting and give a balanced view.  So perhaps we are now more prone to circulating "gut feel" via networking sites and we will just have to get used to accommodating each other’s raw truth rather than considered opinion - my view was not considered I mean, I have no-way of knowing if Drew cogitated or evoked.  

On Avatar then, despite its obvious shortcomings in plot and blatant simplistic moralising that is to be expected from Hollywood, I still believe it was a visually and aurally outstanding experience and a fantastic movie to share with the kids. It provoked some fascinating philosophical discussions about spirit and the meaning of self from the scenes where consciousness transferred from one body to another. I would still recommend it - just don't go and watch it with Drew yet, until I've had time to work on him.

Work life balance

Ironically I've been struggling to write this work-life-balance blog all week, as I have been too busy.

This week work has taken me away from my wife, the kids, my home, my games, flash-forward, and blogging.  I'm sure there is more it's just my mind is so overloaded I cannot remember.

When did we stop being a profession and start having a profession?  Where our life was in balance, as we were what we did - that is you were a farmer, doctor, soldier.  You didn't leave your life and go and do these things, then when finished return to your life.  This was probably the time we started actually having leisure time - so I shouldn't complain, the fact that I had leisure time to loose is a bonus.  Somehow this doesn't quite feel right, perhaps we need a three-day weekend!

I once went to a meeting in London where, Sahar Hashemi, the founder of Coffee Republic was a guest speaker.  Her talk (and the book that she was selling in the lobby afterwards) were discussing the nature of entrepreneurs.  One comment that registered strongly with my perspective at that time was that entrepreneurs didn't "clock-off" at 5:30. If an idea came to you at 6am on Sunday, you worked on it.  Your passion for what you did meant that it pervaded your entire existence there was no boundary.  But don't we need a boundary?  The photo in this blog is me in 2003 on holiday in Ireland, the document in my hand I believe was the monthly management accounts and I was on the phone to Linda in accounts.  I was stood on the fence (not metaphorically this time) as the cottage was in a hollow with no phone reception.  Eventually I had to give up and have 2 weeks off.  It was great and I felt refreshed when I returned.  Lesson learned I think.

Recently with my foray into the virtual, social and professional networking arena with facebook/twitter/LinkedIn I am having the same issue of work/life balance.  Should I have a Chinese Wall between them, should I allow work to drift in to personal?  Should I leverage my contacts? or should I remain in this schizophrenic state of having two separate personalities?  Clearly, I haven't decided yet.  I think I'll just see what unfolds.

Also, I don't think it is wise to "collect" friends and contacts like some sort of trophy.  There seems to be a practice of adding everybody you've ever met, or in some cases just worked at the same place, to your collection of links/friends/followers.  I'm sure this practice will be self defeating as it undermines the  strength of your relationship with your real links/friends/followers.  I don't advocate a set of selection criteria for adding to your list, just use common sense - ask yourself, do I know this person?

Oh no, I've run out of time, must get back to work........