Cuene.com

Category: Culture

  • Passing the Torch vs Keeping the Flame Burning

    Passing the Torch vs Keeping the Flame Burning

    This post by Adam Singer has been in an open tab for a while.

    For one, it’s a relevant topic for me right now as I think about work and “my work” in whatever phase I’m in, careerwise.

    And, it’s also relevant because I’m re-reading some fiction by folks that were “late” in their career (viz Philip Roth).

    The post makes the argument that those that have reached “success” in their work – established elders (EE’s) who are creatives, corporates, sports – will hit a point where the impact of their work will no longer grow and may start declining. They might be “past their prime” or perhaps they’re trying too hard or just replaying the hits. They’re just sticking around for the money (e.g. Harrison Ford) or the attention or to stay relevant (e.g. Coppola). Maybe they’re still really good (Lebron), but a couple steps slower.

    When that happens, Singer argues, it’s better for those leaders to shift their focus, from trying to make work that really lands to building up those around them, to nurture the talent.

    At some point, the most meaningful thing you can do isn’t to create more but to help others create. To teach. To nurture. To invest. To build frameworks for a future that doesn’t need you at its center…. Because modernity continues to prop up the old at the cost of the young and pull the ladder up wherever possible, perhaps that’s all they feel they can do (sell the dream to others).

    Singer focuses on the creative industry for most of his EE examples: filmmakers, comedians, and the cultural icons that become symbols in our culture. His examples depend on creative “misses” (but I bet Seinfeld’s movie “worked” financially for Netflix) and artistic wins with mixed commercial impact (Coppola).

    Singer is a marketing guy talking to business folks; I think corporate is his real audience, and the creative examples are common reference points. We all know corporate world is much different than the creative industry, but this essay still prompts a good discussion about his key point: There’s a ton of value in EE’s leaning into mentorship and building the talent around themselves vs “clutching at the levers of power”.

    So why isn’t this happening more in corporate America?

    If you’re on your way “up” in your career, this will most likely resonate with you. You will have seen numerous examples of “established elders” sticking around too long, that should have retired or otherwise gotten out of the way a long time ago. Maybe they’re staying to pay for college for their kids, maybe they still love the corporate game. Maybe they can’t let go of the status (the travel perks, the deference, the parking spot, the doors that open). Practically, they’re taking up the spot you probably want. They probably aren’t investing in helping you build your skills and, in the worst case, they know you’re the competition and are working against you.

    If you’re one of the “Established Elders” yourself, you’ll be sensitive to the age bias inherent in this essay. You know you’re at the top of your game, maybe better than ever. Your experience is a differentiator and wisdom keeps you from making dumb mistakes. Your game has, as they say in pro sports, slowed down because you know it so well. You’re in the sweet spot between experience and performance. You’re the ringer they should call in a clutch situation.

    You’ll also recognize what he doesn’t acknowledge: These days, corporate America doesn’t really give a shit about mentoring and wisdom and talent cultivation. In more stable days, talent and leadership development was a strategic differentiator (e.g. “the GE way”). For the last 20 years though (roughly corresponding to the digital and globalization boom) corporate leaders are working in a much more dynamic, disrupted competitive battlefield as everyone tries to level up their skills while managing costs. Something has to give, and it’s probably talent development.

    There are no real incentives for leaders to build the talent around them anymore, it seams. Short term results will always take priority over culture and talent building. Spending too much time coaching, developing and nurturing talent means either taking their eye off of the “growth” and “impact” ball, or potentially arming their “competition”.

    When it comes time for promotions, the choice may come down to “experienced” culture-building leader who can still deliver “adequate” results OR a younger leader who can crush the results but isn’t great at team development or doesn’t have organizational savvy. You know which way corporate leaning. PE-backed firms? No question.

    The “Learning and Development” people will protest, but we all know it’s true. There isn’t an established staff role these days for experienced, wise leaders who are not crushing it, performance wise. If you’re not absolutely nailing the revenue and profit targets, if you’re not making highly visible, tangible impact to margins and customer satisfaction, if you’re not bringing genuine technical innovation, you’re going to be on the bubble.

    Singer implies EEs can be a part of an important effort to nurture the next generation of contributors and makers and company builders. He’s talking about entertainment and culture, but I read this as a plea to our corporate culture makers, too:

    We should normalize this transition: die helping and passing the torch, starting this process with generous amounts of time and energy left. Build something greater than yourself by letting it belong to someone else. We need a culture with enough wisdom to nurture what’s next, not languish in its own self-indulgent nostalgia.

    I got lucky. I worked in two organizations where it was clear, but never expressly acknowledged, that there were a handful of “established” leaders on the org chart to help guide and teach the next generation. They were good, maybe not great, at delivering results. But, they were superior in communicating the culture, advising rising talent, guiding folks through the organizational matrix and helping to share lore inside the corporate walls. They were kept around to help grow the talent around them.

    There are so many excellent talent builders that are getting churned out in the endless re-orgs, RIFs, and resets. I wish there was a role for leaders to step into when they stepped “down” or, as Singer hints at, “grow up”. How do corporations create roles for experienced leaders where they can be valued for supporting and developing the talent? Do those even exist anymore?

    Its happening in some organizations today. An interesting example was at AirBNB where Chip Conley was hired on as a “mentor” and OG in the hospitality business. He was there to build leadership talent, and impart wisdom. Not sure how it worked in practice, but it’s a hopeful case study.

    Meanwhile, there are a ton of folks exploring fractional / interim / contract / project roles. A lot of these leaders have deep wells of experience and wisdom to share. They are dabbling in “coaching” too. However, there isn’t a great pathway for the EE’s to interact with the “rising talent”.

  • America, It’s Time To Get Serious (again)

    America, It’s Time To Get Serious (again)

    America got the president it asked for. Even if you don’t like the candidate, there are no signs (as of now) that the democratic process itself broke down, so we will have to live with what’s slouching towards us.

    If you believe our leaders reflect the electorate, if you agree that the values, desires and norms of a society are represented in the leaders who guide it, then its time for some reflection as an American about what Trump really represents.

    America hired him again. What does his second presidency say about us? Did we get the candidate we deserve?

    Presidents and political leaders are part of the mythology of America, the stories we tell about ourselves, the symbols we retain from culture and society. The symbols and stories and myths are our way making meaning and perpetuate (or avoid) important values and norms, a shorthand for understanding what’s good and bad in our society.

    We lean on the myths and symbols without thinking twice about them, they’re so ingrained in our belief systems .

    As an American, do you take some sense of pride in Washington’s character, and see in his political career the best of the American revolutionary spirit? The courage, the moral clarity, the democratic aspirations. Do you look back and see Lincoln as an emblem of the inherent good in America’s people, an embodiment of the values that makes this country unique? Do you secretly believe you would have been part of the electorate that made the choice to vote for him in 1860, hoping his intelligence, deep wisdom and moral courage would guide us through the turbulence of the times? Do you see Truman as an example of the strength of the common American, and the inherent goodness of a working class striver (he ran a clothing store!) who represented accountability (“the buck stops here”), practicality and fairness in a time when the Atomic age and Pax Americana changed the world? Kennedy is seen fondly now, a symbol of hope and optimism and duty (“ask not what your country can do…”) during a time of growth and prosperity in the American system. What does Nixon’s presidency say about the values of the voters? What did the American people value the most when they voted in Obama?

    Trump is a profoundly flawed character, a deeply unserious man. He is a reflection of our times, now. He is the one chosen twice (!) by a majority of the voting population to represent them.

    We must respect the outcomes of our elections; The public voice means something, on multiple levels. But at the very least, his second presidency is an indicator of the values, beliefs, assumptions and desires of the voters that brought him back.

    His second presidency is now a part of the American mythology and the historians in the future will tell a story, using his return, about us, an unserious people who re-elected the worst leader in American history.

    Voters, Are You Serious?

    I’m sure if you asked most of his voters “why Trump again?” you’d get some thoughtful responses. Same for Harris.

    I don’t believe most Americans thoroughly analyzed the issues, fully considered both the candidates, and considered the long term effects of either a Democratic or Republican administration. I fear most Americans put more energy into understanding the lore of the Marvel cinematic universe or the Kardashians than their decision on the presidential vote.

    I fear the people voted on vibes. Or, they went with their gut.

    It’s clear that most of America have mixed emotions about our political system, but those emotions haven’t translated into thoughtful, critical reflection, I’m afraid. I doubt most voters (on both sides) have thought deeply or seriously about the voting choices they make. Or, if they do, it’s down to a single issue that is pressing, currently, on their minds (e.g. – “The economy”, “Immigration”, “women’s rights”).

    What percentage of voters truly considered the entirety of the factors in this, the most consequential election in our history? All the policies, the character of the candidates, the effects their policies would have on the broader society as a whole, on our international partners, on the global economy, on democracy in the world? Did they weigh the consequences of each candidate’s presidency? Did they give real thought to their own standards for the character of our leaders? Were they willing to trade out what they value to “own the libs” or “the economy”. Did they even think about where their line was?

    Did they really take the choice seriously? Are Americans serious people?

    Its hard to talk about virtues and character in America today. No one likes to be judged, and discussions of admirable personal values, what we humans “should” do, and what behaviors are “bad” always seem condescending, patriarchal, or like “man-splaining”. But, at the same time, Americans spent $13 Billion on self improvement stuff in 2022, so we must be open to elevating ourselves at least a bit?

    Let’s look in a mirror, America. When we say someone is serious, we can imply they have certain personality characteristics:

    • Sober
    • Rationale
    • Authentic
    • Disciplined
    • Critical thinking
    • Good judgement
    • Honesty
    • Consistent
    • Pragmatic
    • Courageous
    • Patient

    So, the anti-serious person is:

    • Frivolous
    • Ironic
    • Image obsessed
    • Distracted
    • Vibes first
    • Disengaged or passive
    • Self-centered
    • tribal

    Does that sound familiar? Does that sound like the America you see?

    Tom Nichols wrote about the lack of seriousness in America back in 2021. In his mind, America is no longer a serious country.

    But when it comes to seriousness—the invaluable discipline and maturity that allows us to discern matters that should transcend self-interest, to set aside churlish ego and emotionalism, and to act with prudence and self-restraint—we’re a weak, impoverished backwater.

    And, earlier that year he wrote:

    The collapse of seriousness is the greatest loss we have sustained under Trump, one of the least serious human beings ever to occupy a position of great power in America. What do I mean by seriousness? It is the burden of knowing that we own our decisions, that our actions have consequences. It is the sense of responsibility that helps us to act without being ordered to act, the instinct that tells us, even when we are alone, that we owe a duty to others and that our behavior affects them as much as it does ourselves.

    But, the country is it’s people, it’s leaders. We the voters are the country. We’re the ones that are self interested, churlishly ego-centric and lacking self restraint. We see a candidate like trump mimic oral sex on stage and we laugh at his “humor” and see in that something valuable? Do words and actions matter anymore?

    Katherine Boyle, former Washington Post reporter and now VC wrote about seriousness in the context of entrepreneurship:

    But the trait that is most meaningful is the hardest to describe. It is the fire in the eyes, the ferocity of speech and action that is the physical manifestation of seriousness. It is the belief that God or the universe has bestowed upon you an immense task that no one else can accomplish but you. It is a holy war waged against the laws of physics. It is the burden of having to upend sometimes hundreds of years of entrenched interests to accomplish a noble goal.

    I’m not a fan of all her politics (Boyle wrote that for Barry Weiss’s pretty conservative, right-leaning platform, the Free Press), but I am a fan of the idea that its time to build new movements and institutions (and rebuild old ones, and retire some others).

    She’s spending a lot of time with tech leaders and entrepreneurs, sure. But what she’s getting at is more important:

    • There’s a high level of intent to take real, legitimate action
    • They’re going after hard problems, with full commitment
    • There are few political considerations, most likely
    • These folks mean what they say, say what they mean

    Throughout the rest of the essay, she offers, as a counterpoint examples of unserious efforts. The examples highlight poor policy outcomes from institutional leaders, probably due to either political considerations (in a political system that is fatigued or failing or somehow not great) or changing cultural norms. 

    It is unserious to be led by a gerontocracy, where our elected officials had kids in college when the internet was invented. It is unserious when young people retreat from public service. We now have the oldest Congress of any Congress in the past two decades, with half of American senators over the age of 65.
    It is unserious to beg dictators in failed states to send America oil when we invented fracking. It is unserious to talk about renewables and not nuclear. It is unserious to attack the companies leading our electrification revolution because you don’t like their memes on Twitter.
    It is unserious when the most trusted men in news are stand-up comedians.

    In her essay, being serious implies strength, focus, will, competence . The stakes in a America are high, she implies, the quality of American lives depends on a more serious approach from leaders.

    Autocrats want to roll over the population. Those with fascistic tendancies will want to use the power of the state to change your personal values and behaviors, to limit your freedoms and bring you to heel.

    They can do that when the people don’t take them, or the democratic process seriously.

    Maybe it’s time to go back to the history books and understand when American progress was rebooted by concerned, serious leaders. Or, maybe we should look outside the US for examples of serious people changing their government through non-violent, impassioned efforts over time when voting wasn’t enough.

    It’s time to get serious, again, Americans. To go to work. With focus, integrity, clarity and a strong desire to get actual shit done to protect our freedoms and the institutions that make it possible to thrive in the US. It’s time to clock off TikTok, to put down the phone, and turn towards the real work of making our communities better.

  • Is it Time for Warning Labels on our Apps?

    Is it Time for Warning Labels on our Apps?

    I was talking with a good friend about TikTok last week, discussing the  incredible creativity being unleashed. It’s an expression machine, and the fast growth of the tools and templates means anyone can pursue their creative curiousity. But, of course, the result is oceans of distractions at our fingertips, billions of creators dying for us to watch for more than 1 second, a direct assault on our id and attention. 

    Semi-serious thought: Should we take more seriously the concept of labeling apps that are designed to keep you addicted? TikTok is not the the first app that should come with a warning label, like those aussie cigarette packs: “This might damage you.”

    I’ve used TikTok enough to know it’s dangerous to those of us that are easily distracted, who are hungry enough for the serotonin hit that we’ll lock into the app so the juices flow at a higher rate. Based on where the algorithm took my feed after seeding it with “Trout fishing videos” and “Japanese Joinery” I didn’t want to see where it would have ended up. Hint: TikTok knows that trout fisherman and woodworkers are probably men, and after fishing and woodwork, what do a lot of men like? I deleted it before the algorithm figured me out.

    But, I did download Artifact, the news app from Kevin Systrom (of Instagram). Its clear they’re trying to build a dynamic news app. I bet the pitch went like this: What if TikTok and Apple News had a baby? I’m a voracious news consumer, probably too much. So, I can’t imagine this is going to end well and I’ll have to delete it at some point because I’m compulsively tap tap tapping.

    I feel like my phone screen has become downtown tokyo at midnight, and I’m trying to get out of town.

    Warning labels could only help, even as a minimal reminder of what we’re doing to ourselves everytime we look at the screen. Labeling won’t solve the problems presented by the software and algorithms we’re now dealing with. But, the reminder (if we can see it) might be seen and it might start spark some reconsideration

  • The Synthetic, Infinite Conversation

    My whole life I’ve been a tech optimist. I’ve always believed that, over time, culture and society improve when the tools for learning, understanding, doing and making, improve.

    I’m not an optimist about synthetic, AI driven “content”. I’m very worried about the long-term cultural and societal impact of a never-ending stream of stuff to put into our eyes, ears, and bodies. When visuals, words, sounds and, soon, code and digital tools are being generated by algorithms, our attention will be frayed even more. We humans won’t be able to make meaning out the world because the inputs won’t be real.

    This project is a harbinger of what’s to come. It’s a toy of sorts, a provocative example of the synthetic content stream we’re going to be swimming in over the next 10 years. It sounds sort of real. The words almost makes sense, but the “uncanny valley” effect might trigger careful listeners to understand this is fake.

    For those of us who have lived through this first era of digital (i.e. from the late 90’s to now), what’s our responsibility to try to warn the rest of the culture about what’s coming at us? It’s going to seem fun at first, but then it’s going to be hell . Is it too late?

     

    Source: The Infinite Conversation

  • Liberal Arts is A SuperPower

    Liberal Arts is A SuperPower

    All day, everyday, I swim in “digital” alongside the coders, designers, and makers that create the internet. When we do our best work, we’re inventing and innovating.  You’d think I look to the scientists and coders to help me crack hard cases at work, but time after time, I find the best ideas come from non-engineers in the room.  When in doubt, I turn to the history majors and English lit nerds to guide me.  They have super powers.

    The press writes stories about the lack of workers with engineering, math and science skills. Those of us running  businesses that depend on digital know there is a legitimate need for all those STEM graduates. But, I am concerned about the decline in the number of Liberal Arts degrees being granted in the US. We need their skills as much as we need people that can design algorithms. America needs more poets!

    Liberal Arts degrees – English/literature, history, philosophy, etc. – create the thinkers and leaders we need to keep innovation happening. Beyond the domain knowledge that these degrees cultivate, they all build skills needed to create and shape innovative solutions. The insights that lead to new ideas come from the habits built doing liberal arts work:  Pattern matching, understanding and defining the contexts, making associations across domains.

    And, just as importantly, Liberal Arts work – reading, writing, creating, analyzing – gives us practice in the skills required to get new to ideas built. Creating new things and making them useful requires working with and translating  abstract concepts clearly enough that others want to invest, literally and figuratively (e.g try explaining what a “platform business model” is to someone that’s never heard that term before). Before the coders and engineers make the ideas real, the liberal arts folks make them understandable and applicable.

    I recently went to the retirement party for a business leader I’ve worked with over the years. She’s had tremendous success, building and selling technology companies worth millions, creating strong organizations where his employees flourished. An undergraduate degree in history pointed her in the direction of her first dream in life: A high school history teacher. But, tech, business and the startup life got in her way.

    I believe her success was partly due to her understanding of how history works. She saw patterns unfolding in the culture and in her industry, patterns she recognized from her study of culture and history, and knew there were openings for for innovators. She was able to communicate beautifully, probably due to her training as a teacher: Clearly, simply, and to everyone. She used anecdotes and stories from American History to make current business decisions relatable. She could explain the hard concepts in language anyone could understand, getting consensus and buy in for her recommendations. I doubt those skills would have been developed as well if she studied math and engineering.

    I’m a tech optimist. I know how important math, science and engineering are for the continued growth of our culture. I am  inspired by the the entrepreneurs who have built the culture-shaping, world-changing tools and platforms that we all use everyday. But, I also know those companies weren’t winners because of their tech. They won because the inventors and founders had folks around them – on their leadership teams, in the investor groups – that could translate the tech breakthroughs to everyone else. The non-techs – the language majors, the history wonks, the poet/writers on the leadership team – were just as important to the success.

    Are you struggling at work to get traction on your idea? Are you feeling a little aimless in your work and want a boost of creativity? Try writing some poetry, go read a little history. Crack open that primer on philosophy. See what happens when you come at those problems in a new way and find your own super powers.

  • Burnt out and Lonely? What We’re All Really Missing

    Burnt out and Lonely? What We’re All Really Missing

    Do you feel that heavy weight? Maybe you sense a fatigue that’s different, not in your muscles and bones, but in your brain and heart. Do you say “meh?” more than you should? Maybe we’re all burned out.

    I talk to people in digital every day. These are people that are doing the stuff at work that’s supposed to be fun: making new products, leading product teams in large enterprises, running marketing departments. It’s creative work, at its core, and that work is supposed to be energizing, right? But more and more, the folks I talk to are having a hard time reconnecting to the motivation they used to have.

    A couple recent articles might shed some light on what’s happening. Trish Warren at the New York Times normally writes about faith, religion and culture, but in a recent essay she took on burnout and she touched on some potential root causes. Look beyond the christian themes woven through the essay, but pay attention to the gist of the conversation she has with Curt Thompson. A couple key ideas:

    • We’re getting atomized – At work, at home, out in the world we’re moving away from each other. It’s easier than ever to isolate ourselves (via our phones, headphones, computers) on purpose, but the pandemic made it even worse.
    • American Individualism – America’s weird preoccupation with individual identity (note: My thesis was on “Song of Myself”) is running through us all right now, making it harder than ever to find commonality, making it harder to be part of something bigger than ourselves
    • Loneliness – No one wants to talk about this, but there’s a real crisis of loneliness happening in America right now. The irony in our tech saturated world is obvious (haha “we’ve never been more connected! haha), but it’s real. We’ve all been working in our basements too long.

    “We know that the brain can do a lot of really hard things for a long time, as long as it doesn’t have to do them by itself. We only develop greater resilience when we are deeply emotionally connected to other people.

    https://curtthompsonmd.com/

    In order to feel momentum in our lives, we need to move things forward. We need to make, we need to create and we need to help others. But, it’s harder than ever right now and the work of trying has burned a lot of us out. It’s not just you.

    How good can work be, when most of the people in your group or on your team are feeling the same way you are, when everyone is sort of fatigued. When everyone is “over” the idea of work in general?

    The Opposite of Quiet Quitting

    Its easy for me to sound like an old-timer, talking about the good old days. But, I found myself nodding along as I read the first half of Brie Wolfson’s piece on her early days at Stripe. She wrote nostalgically about the high commitment, highly intention, quality-focused culture that everyone was working to build at Stripe. “Big Mood”, she calls it. “… and we were all in. On all of it.” Its the exact opposite of “quiet quitting”, and for a lot of workers, it built a sense of belonging, purpose and focus. I think a lot of people are missing that right now.

    “I can say with confidence that nothing great in this town is built without the whole team linking arms to build it together. And, that true collaboration makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. And, that getting there requires working your butt off to do work you’re proud of and leaning on and supporting your colleagues to do the same. At Stripe, we had all that pulsing through our veins. “

    Brie Wolfson

    She goes on to lament what seems to be a passed era, a time when everyone she knew felt fully committed to their work. And, while acknowledging the many, many negative aspects of a demanding, go-go, “hustle bro” culture, she’s eloquent about missing that shared commitment, that shared sense of purpose, the faith that the team was building something that would make a difference in the world.

    I hate the effect, but I like the term she introduces: “lgtm culture.” Looks Good To Me is a mode where “good enough” is what you’re aiming for, a mode where your colleagues aren’t holding you to a higher standard and are ok with letting things go out the door that are “fine”. It’s hard to do your best work, to feel the sense of satisfaction when your team puts out “fine” work, but your ambitions point higher. But, conversely, it’s hard to feel isolated and alone when your whole team is expecting you to help them deliver something truly great.

    I’m not sure what business leaders can do to address this stuff. But, as team mates, as co-workers we can do two things.

    1) Make an effort to connect and draw people out of their isolation. Maybe it’s just a quick convo after the zoom, maybe it’s coffee. But, make a point to find some shared interests.

    2) Help each other lift the work. Make supportive, actionable, constructive feedback. Help your team aim a little higher, so they can build something they’re proud of.

  • Complicit in the Chaos Machine

    I’ve been an advocate of technology, the internet and social media throughout my career. I’ve been a tech optimist my whole life and I’ve spent pretty much the entirety of my career helping organizations do more with digital tech to invent or grow their businesses. I’ve seen it as creative work, a mostly positive project. It’s been fascinating, grueling, thrilling and rewarding on a number of levels.

    But what if the work I’ve been doing has, in a teeny tiny way, been part of the rewiring of America’s brain? What has been my little role in driving America nuts?

    I’ve listened to this episode of the Rich Roll podcast, twice now. There’s a lot of conjecture going on, some smart, but hipshot analyzing. At the core, though, the Max Fischer argument resonates with my own experience.

    Fisher argues social media is at the core of the divide in the US. It’s eroding our brains and attention, creating (indirectly and directly) polarization and undermines the sense of community (in the IRL sense) we need to keep functioning. I don’t really want to read this book, but I think I have to. And, I have to take it seriously enough that it might force a rethink of the work I do for the rest of my career.

    The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World 
    via Amazon

    I can’t help but think about how I’ve been a small part of this. In my role as an agency leader, on the client side, as an investor. More importantly, now that I’ve got a deeper understanding, what can I do? And, can I keep doing my current work?

  • Company Creeds?

    Read this post today via Hacker News, about the power (and need) for writing and documentation in distributed orgs. Thoughtful post, and a good reminder for us at work.

    Meanwhile, really curious about Automatic’s company creed. It’s their values, but in the style of a creed. It’s a little over the top for me, a recovering Catholic, but it’s a powerful idea.

    And, happily, it reminded me of the Non-Conformist Oath, too.

  • Stick Together: Staying Balanced When Everything is Up in the Air

    If you spend a lot of time online, (or at least paying attention to the news) you’re probably feeling overwhelmed. On one hand, the news is terrible: Ecological nightmares happening in slow motion, wars across the globe, economy in turmoil, inflation, infowars, 30% of the population in the US duped into thinking the election was stolen, your neighbors fighting over science and vaccines, etc. On the other hand, your Instagram feed is a steady stream of gauzy filters, happy overload, best lives, extreme positivity, hope, hustle, ambition.

    Yet, we’re stuck in the middle trying to get through the day, and figure out post-pandemic norms. We’re languishing.

    American culture seems to be driven by extrinsic validation. We like nice cars (because they signal success), expensive clothes (because they signal taste, style), big job titles, the right zip code, the vacations, the right causes, etc. We love likes, so we perform online to get the validation.

    But, when the world is going nuts, when chaos seems right around the corner, when your planned path isn’t an option anymore, how do we stay balanced, centered, tethered, steady?

    I’m struggling with this right now. I don’t have good answers, but i’m compulsively clicking on the links in twitter hoping to find an article to help me. I’m getting distracted by alerts from the folks barking for my attention. This guru wants me to take a class. That other one wants me to go to their seminar. No app will ever really help me get clear, despite what the ads say.

    There are days when I feel like a Kurtz, who went up the river, leaving with optimism, now stuck in the wild, overwhelmed at what the Internet has done to us all. The horror. What has replaced all that hope?

    So, I’m working at staying upright. A little yoga, a little meditation. More exercise, better sleep. You know its bad when i’m taking advice from Radiohead: 

    Fitter happier
    More productive
    Comfortable
    Not drinking too much

    I’m one of those guys that always put their head down and tried hard to do the work. I was never the smartest, I have been lazy, but i thought i could endure more work than others.

    That approach is making this period of languishing worse, this acedia harder.

    I want to be centered, I want to be still. But, my reptile brain is winning and I’m pretty sure my dopamine receptors are burned out.

    I think the answer is pretty obvious, but hard for me to see sometimes: Stick together. Find your people, listen carefully, be of service, offer support, ideas and generosity. Be useful. Seek ways to help move something forward. Find ways to connect, even over zoom.

    I was listening to the Ezra Klein podcast and the guest was talking about the way profound loneliness – feeling apart, being isolated emotionally, not necessarily just being physically apart – drives people crazy and makes them susceptible to crazy ideas (like QAnon, the Big Lie, conspiracy theories about vaccines, etc). This recalls the book Vivek Murthy wrote a couple years ago, where he made the argument there’s an epidemic of loneliness. Of course we’re all lonely. It’s part of what’s making us nuts.

    So, let’s try to stick together. Let’s help each other get out of this bog of ennui and listlessness. Let’s help each other find a sense of balance in a destabilizing world. Let’s hang onto each other when everything seems up in the air.

  • Forget Section 230, We Need To Think Bigger

    This take from Benedict Evans on the challenges of Section 230 and regulating social media is, as typical, really thoughtful. The key takeaway is that a fight over Section 230 is sort of aiming low, at this point. Trying to make regulations around social media based on old forms (newspapers, radio, TV, phone companies) works if you assume those old forms and the new things work the same way-ish. And, clearly they dont. The size, the scale the speed, the targeting, the volume of makers and consumers – all those are different than radio or TV or magazines or pamphlets or telegraphs or phones or whatever. We need some new, imaginative thinking to address a future media/comms tools. Keep 230, but get some new laws in place to regulate.

    Meanwhile, here’s a useful take from Joan Donovan at Harvard Business Review on the fundamental difference between current social media platforms and the media of the past. Key point: A system that incentivizes and rewards items (content, features, mechanics) that produce high engagement at scale, with no limits on the bad actors in the system, will inevitably produce disinformation.

    Deep in her essay, she gets to the heart of the issue, something that’s not being discussed at all (emphasis mine):

    In every instance leading up to January 6, the moral duty was to reduce the scale and pay more attention to the quality of viral content. We saw the cost of failing to do so.

    So, do corporations have a moral duty to do anything? Is there a moral and ethical dimension to the working models of companies? Do we hold them to a different standard?