Football: Chad Johnson of the Cincinnati Bengals has just changed is name (legally) to Chad Ocho Cinqo. His jersey number is 85, and fans have called him Ocho Cinqo for a while now. However, I think there is a certain level at which some level of mental illness is involved here. I have heard of him and questionable decision making in the past. But I think this is the case of a lot of money, lot of ego and people around them that will not say ‘No’.
I’m not sure how we could do it, but it seems to me that some level of accountability and responsibility should be involved here. I suppose that we as a society are largely to blame. We give these guys a lot of money to entertain us, and then do not put in place needed elements to make sure that they can understand the context of what they have.
People are telling them that they are great for most of their lives, and then give them money and the keys to the kingdom. So if there is mental illness involved it can get exaggerated and unchecked. I am not sure if Chad “Ocho Cinqo” has any mental illness but the fact remains that this behavior is exaggerated. Mike Tyson is probably one of the biggest examples of this out of control. Also, one of the saddest.
Is there a way to help this situation without denying civil rights?
This article from Knowledge@Wharton: Leadership and Change talks about the need for 4-way integration of Work, Home, Community and Self. Stewart Friedman talking about his book, Total Change argues for this integration. I really believe that this is crucial — I have tended to argue that one should integrate their personal or home with their institution of greatest influence (work, church, politics, etc.) But the integration of these four areas resonates with me. Given my work in values, the personal is essentially implied here. And I have kind of merged Work and Community.
I think the key issue here is integration. While you may have some different “preferences” many of the common values will be the same just the order may change. The danger that I see people getting themselves is that they believe that the values and the institutions in which they interact are somehow separate. The priorities will can and often change but the core values stat the same.
First, it is very difficult to separate or compartmentalize like this. And if one is able to do it, it will likely create a high level of internal conflict. It creates a kind of institutionally enforced schizophrenia. Moving between these compartments can create tension and conflict. This frustration can, of course, come out in ways that do not create the best environment for those areas.
I am going to be looking at how values and language can impact how we interact. Particularly on the Internet. All is not what it seems.
Trust has become more about transaction than is has become about anything else. Social media is definitely looking at this a little. And some forms are showing promise. But on the internet it is all too often being treated as a transaction. It is about “trusting” the transaction. But trust is relational, not transactional. Tokens are exchanged after the relationship reaches trust, not (usually) as a way of establishing it.
“Hacker Safe” or “Trust Verified” (these are meant to be fictional and are not in anyway meant to disparage any people / products / processes real or imagined) are taking the place of what trust is, or at least has meant to be. Products that give confidence in a transaction are absolutely important particularly in this day and age. (I spent a few hours the other day researching PGP and RSA security issues for a potential project.) But this is still not trust. It is more about secure transactions.
Trust in the online world is a notion of security, particularly security in the transaction. And yes, you want to feel secure in the ability to make transactions with someone you trust. But trust is really about something more. It is a higher level concept that is being reduced to a sound bite or something that is easily consumed.
Let’s use a definition here where we could attach the name of Trust:
the capacity to actively and accurately hear another’s thoughts and feelings and to express one’s own thoughts and feelings in a climate of mutual confidence in each other’s integrity.
All too often this is not what I am experiencing when trust is being used relative to a relationship in the online environment (this by no means is restricting this discussion to the internet). Adding the concept of integrity, a possible “Trust” equation might look like:
This equation is at least a start. Trust definitely needs to be more than security. Trust assumes that there is a transfer of values. And that there is a minimum amount of commonality. Certain types of interactions in certain types of environments will allow one to identify some commonality with the other. Talking, enjoying activities or even networking can help with this. While this does not ensure trust, it creates the likelihood that a person will take a leap and take the relationship to another level.
Trust is about exchanging tokens or symbols and that there is a belief in the in the veracity of them. The words that we say, the behavior or actions we engage in go along way to establishing values and faith. All too often there are substitutes meant to the take the place of establishing trust. This is where the (potential) perversion comes in. There is a sense of faith that comes with trust. Apparent sincerity during a transaction does not replace the extended equation.
Amazing how the security industry is growing in leaps and bounds, just ensuring that parts of the equation is working is half the battle. In many ways it is sad because there is a large industry that exists just to ensure that a basic building block of trust. But a very difficult one. Phishing and junk mail scams prey upon the fact that for a long time e-mail messages had a sense of authenticity that went along with them (and presumably the people sending them).
And to enough people that is still there (trust in e-mail, etc). Since we are using this dummied down version of trust, it is easier for people to fall for these activities. Many people are looking for the higher level of trust in which they have experienced in their lives, and get fooled when presented with something that looks like trust but is only partially there. The worst part of it, is that it the perversion of trust often preys on people that have lived their life where faith in relationships as a big part of trust. It has taken a rather authenticate form of communication and made it inauthentic. Those that had a high level of trust in people in the classic sense, become jaded. This is where much of the perversion comes in.
One thing about all this that I want to explore is how we can work on trust, and values and still create an environment where faith plays an integral part. Remembering to look at all parts of the definition is part of it. We want so badly to trust and make a connection that we we short circuit looking at the all the components that make up trust.
Trust is not perverted it is the people that prey on it that are. Revisiting the basics will help us to maintain some faith while protecting ourselves.
It seems that there is a mini-storm, particularly in Social Media circles in the area of microblogging. Microblogging is essentially small updates for readers that fit in a relatively short space (read: words or characters). Twitter, Pownce, Plaxo and Facebook are all examples of microblogging platforms or have them as part of their web app or service.
One might say, “why don’t I just have a lot of short posts”. And one could do this. However, micorblogs offer something more, a kind of community where one can interact with friends, etc. I would liken it to a town square or maybe coffee house or diner. You may run into people you know or strike up a conversation. And people may drift in and out. It is not IM, but you can do it from anywhere — yet it is dynamic.
It is a unique way for people to transmit their values in real time. And to a group of people…Maybe you could think of it as a mob values aggregator!
It was 10 years this month when I successfully defended my Ph.D. dissertation. Wow, I remember almost killing myself about 1/2 hour later. I defended the thesis in Hull (UK (Univeristy of Linconshire and Humberside)) (which later became the University of Lincolnshire). I and another woman were doing our defence (defense ;-)) at the same time. We were to meet with the others at a pub across the street. I looked the wrong way (for England) as I started to cross the street and nearly got smacked by a car coming the other way. Talk about getting your nerves going again!
It is definitiely interesting how the Kindle seems to be peaking the interest of bloggers, and usually in a positive sense. See this video.
Anil Dash has written a pretty good piece on his thoughts about the Kindle and some of its potential impact. I think what has struck me is that how much it is similar to the iPhone/iPod touch/Starbucks product bundle. Obviuosly they are looking at somewhat different markets, but the distribution model is similar and it is does not take a rocket scientist to see the cross-over and possible competition.
I marvel how something like Twitter is like (micro-) blogging. The social side is quite a bit more heightned. You do not need to read all the RSS feeds to keep up with people (you still do but Twitter seems to give you the essence.
Facebook seems to either sparking a trend or is at least on the beginning of one. It is the creation of a framework for apps. I suppose Ning and some others; the gadget frameworks (Google, Yahoo, Mac, Vista); and the start pages (Netvibes, Pageflakes) might be the beginning of this. However, Facebook has really seemed to spark some energy. Thomas Power of Ecademy made a comment (on Facebook) that it was kind of like a videogame for adults. It at least seems to be more of an adult version of MySpace. I cannot tell if Facebook is just the darling of the moment or whether it has legs. But for the moment it is definitely capitalizing on a trend.
Interesting how there is a mathematical relationship between how the more a verb is used, the less likely it will change. Or at least it will change at a much smaller pace. I had not really thought about this as much but if you are going to do document analysis of documents over time, there will be differing degrees to which they will change. You get wedded before you get thinked. When doing values analysis it makes me wonder if nouns change at a similar rate. The article that I linked above suggests that there is a mathematical relationship to the degree to which something decays. Some thing that is used 100 times less frequently will decay or change 10 times as fast. Quite fascinating.
