adamyntium

Category: people and relationships

  • On being being universally loved… or not.

    One of the hardest things I’ve had to face is the fact that it’s very difficult — and perhaps not necessarily optimal — to be liked, much less loved by everyone, all the time.

    This may seem like an especially obvious notion, but hear me out 😉

    There’s this one fellow I know who is pretty prominent in one of my social circles who is universally loved. I’m not exaggerating.

    I’ve heard a lot of gossip in my day, but I’ve heard not one single iota of negativity in conjunction with this fellow’s name.

    His colleagues adore him. Women adore him. Guys worship him.

    He’s revered in person and given standing ovations. He’s consistently praised and admired in online communities as well.

    He has, seemingly, achieved the impossible — he’s universally loved.

    —

    I, on the other hand, have both my fans and my detractors. I’ve been lauded as a friendly, giving person… and also vilified as a “fucking idiot” and “immensely annoying.”

    Some of the negativity stems from my penchant for taking stands, for speaking my mind regularly and on a broad array of topics. By nature of being vocally opinionated, I’ve managed to aggravate and occasionally alienate those who strongly hold opposing views.

    And that’s what’s particularly fascinating about the Universally Loved fellow. He keeps his mouth shut. Undoubtedly he shares his opinions and his feelings with those close to him, but for the rest of the populace, he smiles, asidiously avoids getting involved in any controversies or debates, and thus continues living and loving unscathed and unencumbered by negativity.

    What a brilliant man.

    And if I could go back and live my life over again, perhaps I’d choose his path. Would you?

    In the meantime, I have at least resigned myself to the reality that it is too late for me to be universally loved. I must instead just appreciate the friendships and admiration I’ve cultivated and earned, and gracefully accept the controversies and disdain I’ve brought upon myself through my outspokenness.

    In the meantime, I’m working to develop thicker skin… while still not dulling my sensitivity and positive outlook on the world. Alas, that’s not always easy, is it?

  • Haunted by words

    Yesterday evening, I was reading an emotional and heartfelt apology from a woman who was literarily sobbing her regrets. She had posted nasty thoughts about a (former) friend in an online forum, and she wishes she could take it all back.

    Two thoughts immediately came to mind:
    1) Why the heck is she posting this in a movie forum?
    2) What a moron!

    I’ve done some pretty dumb things, but I’d never be that stupid, I chuckled to myself.

    —

    This afternoon I was chatting with an old acquaintance over instant messages, and he asked if I had contact info for a fellow dancer.

    Sure, I said, I know Lolli and I have her e-mail address. I don’t know her well, but yeah, she seems nice and all, yadda yadda.

    “Uh, Adam,” he wrote, after a long pause, “She’s not exactly one of your fans.”

    It took a reminder from my acquaintance and several minutes for stuff to sink in to recall exactly why this woman was not particularly fond of me.

    About a year ago, I had posted a public note about a clique’ish group of friends who met at a venue I used to frequent. Though not scathingly nasty, I wasn’t exactly kind, either. I pride myself on being honest, after all!

    But what did it matter? I knew everyone posting on this particular online message board, and they were either my friends or generally people I couldn’t care less about.

    That was the rub, of course. As any person with half-a-megabyte of brain power knows… for every one person who posts on a board, there are at least twenty lurkers. Lolli is one of those lurkers. So are her friends. So are some of my acquaintances that were now all-too-aware of my petty side.

    Let’s just say that I’m sure not to be very welcomed back at that “clique’ish” venue, even a year later.

    “Women have long memories,” I grumbled to my instant messenger acquaintance.

    “It’s not about women,” he corrected. “The Internet has a long memory, Adam.”

    That it does.

    And what a painful lesson to have hit home.

  • Where do kids fit on the Internet?

    Earlier today, I got an Instant Message out of the blue… from someone who had visited my SmileZone site and noticed the IM address on my contact page.

    After brief introductions, I learned that she’s nine years old! And surprisingly articulate for such a young kid, too.

    She was looking to make friends and have a chat but I, alas, didn’t have much time for bantering this afternoon… and at 32, I felt a bit awkward chatting with a nine-year-old anyway.

    As politely as I could, I wished her a good day and good luck… but I wasn’t prepared for what came next.

    “So where can I find people, then? To chat with… make some friends” she asked.

    I drew a blank.

    The few online chats I’ve seen tend to be a bit more, ahem, risque than I’d ever want to recommend for a young kid.

    And for that matter, I don’t think Web sites in the U.S. can even legally collect contact info from under-14-year-olds, and hence I can’t imagine there being any pen pal-type sites out there for this girl.

    So, aside from just impersonally browsing for information, what does the Internet hold for young kids?

    With so many of us adults enjoying the personal aspects of the Internet… networking, sharing ideas, making friends… I’m guessing most of us (at least those of us without kids) never stopped to think about how limited young people are.

    I know when I was a young teen and likely even earlier, I didn’t have many friends in school. I was too smart… and my social skills hadn’t kept pace with my intellect. Back then, there was no grand Internet to connect with, well, nerds like me for commiseration and learning and befriending.

    Of course, the Internet today is filled with people of all interests and ages. But where can the kids go? Our American society has been so paranoid about walling them AWAY from any possible scandalous or controversial tidbit (oh no, a breast… oh no, a bad word!) that I don’t think we’ve given much thought to creating places where kids can interact thoughtfully and more-or-less freely.

    Perhaps I’m wrong, however, and I’d be delighted to be pointed in the right direction for kid-friendly resources on the Internet.

    Do you know of any good sites for young kids?

    And what do you think about this situation in general?

  • A "friend"ly misunderstanding

    As I’ve blogged about in the past, I’ve recently become a member of several social/business networks online in an effort to expand my social circle, learn about new areas, see and be seen, and yeah, get a cool job.

    One of the most useful aspects of these sites, especially Ryze, is the “friends” and “friends of friends” features. Specifically, you can delineate which fellow contacts online are your friends, and this designation is disclosed to others viewing your profile.

    To better understand how this all works, let’s take the hypothetical networker Alan, who happens to be interested in learning about the work environment at Acme corporation. One day, via a “friends of friends” list on Ryze, he notes that his friend Betty is friends with Cara, a Program Manager at Acme!

    Alan knows he has a conversational hook (besides just wanting info) with Cara. and — highly respecting Betty and anyone she’d choose as a friend — he also understandably assumes that Cara’s likely to be a a smart and helpful person rather than a intellectually-challenged jerk.

    This example highlights two strongly rewarding aspects of ‘friend identification’ online:

    – The opportunity to expand one’s network based upon trusted personal sources.
    – The ability to enter into a conversation with a reasonably enhanced sense of respect and trust.

    Unfortunately, the prolific (albeit likely unintentional) misuse of this Friends system has resulted in an almost complete devaluation of its worth.

    * * *

    Nowadays, people seem to be marking others as “friends” not as an indication of current status, but rather as either a compliment (“Hey you seem like a fun person!”) or an indication of wished status or result (hmm… maybe if I ‘friend’ him, he’ll look at my resume). In just the last few weeks, in fact, I’ve had a half-a-dozen folks link to my online profiles as a “friend” when in fact I’ve never spoken with them, much less ever met them in person. When I politely asked one of the linkers whether we had met earlier, she responded with seemingly a tinge of annoyance and desperation, “No, but did you get my e-mail about the charity benefit? I’m trying to spread the word as much as possible. Can you make it?”

    * * *

    I’m unclear as to whether behavior is due to a lack of fundamental understanding that a friend online should be measured by the same standards as a friend offline, or — perhaps more alarmingly — whether the whole concept of friendship has simply been subjected to the equivalent of grade inflation.

    Perhaps I’m in the minority, but at least in my networking and socializing, I make a clear distinction amongst friends, acquaintances, and people I’d simply like to get to know. I don’t consider someone a friend until we’ve gotten to know each other over the course of many hours together in a social context and have enjoyed each others’ company.

    A friend is not just someone you like and admire, IMHO. The key here is the mutuality of give and take and interest.

    * * *

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure how this problem can be solved. Greater education of online networkers would be a good place to start, however, perhaps with a text something like this:


    Please refrain from linking to others as friends unless you do indeed already enjoy a substantial friendship with each other. Ask yourself: Would I happily go on a weekend camping trip with this person? Would I feel comfortable having this person babysit one of my kids?

    Additionally, please do not feel compelled to link back to someone as a friend simply because they linked to you. Peer pressure is a bad thing with regards to smoking, dating, cliff diving, and yes, online networking.

    Remember that by being true to yourself and others online, you’ll be improving the network and its effectiveness for you and the tens of thousands of others who rely upon ‘friend’ declarations in their placement of trust.

    Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

    * * *

    What do you think about all of this? Am I overreacting? Or is this indeed a real problem in need of tackling?

  • Anonymity in online communities

    What role should identity privacy play in online communities?

    In some Internet message forums, participants are expected or even required to use their full names on their posts. However, there are likely far more boards online in which privacy is more highly prized, and often for understandable reasons (sensitive issues discussed, and so on).

    Here are benefits and disadvantages of name disclosure as I see it:

    Benefits of name disclosure:
    1) Accountability: When someone’s name is attached to every post, there’s a heightened sense that what one says will truly affect how others perceive him or her.
    2) Civility: People are less apt to engage in destructive or libelous antics when their name is on the line.
    3) Familiarity: For online communities with an offline component (e.g., a local hobbyist group), being able to match online and offline personas is often gratifying and reassuring… and a good way for introverts to get to know people without having to make that initial meeting in person.

    Disadvantages of name disclosure:
    1) Lack of frankness: People are certainly less likely to be frank and direct in some contexts when they fear embarrassment or reprisals. This can stifle or even prevent the occurence of some valuable discussions.
    2) Negative pre-judging: Due to stereotyping and preconceived notions of people and groups, the postings of some may be filtered inappropriately in some peoples’ minds because of the poster’s looks, gender, age, etc. With pseudo-anonymity online, all that counts is your words — and sometimes that’s a good thing.
    3) Privacy implications: Knowing someone’s full name, unscrupulous or jerky people can sometimes “connect the dots,” leading to offline harrassment and intimidation.

    —

    Have you participated in both types of online communities (ones that do and do not expect people to use their full names)? And regardless of your experience in this area, what are your preferences, philosophical viewpoints, and observations on the issue of privacy and anonymity online?

  • Knowing someone

    Can you really know someone without ever having met them?

    Thousands of people — perhaps millions — might say yes.

    In contrast, I emphatically believe that it is not possible to truly know someone until you have spent time physically in their presence.

    Before the advent of e-mail and online dating services and chat rooms, of course, some people actually used those archaic objects called Pen and Paper and wrote real “letters” to people… often folks they had never met in person and perhaps never would meet.

    Certainly many friendships and romances were kindled, even marriages arranged.

    However, if we are to believe modern science (and in this case, I do), over ninety percent of communication is non-verbal. Posture, facial expressions, even the way we curl our fingers or the usually-imperceptible smell of bare skin… all play a tremendous role in the way others perceive and understand us.

    There is no substitute for in-person interactions, and I daresay, no potential for really knowing someone without such presence.

    Of course, this doesn’t stop people from trying, hoping, and believing (including, quite frankly, yours truly in the distant past). Certainly millions of ‘normal’ individuals seek and often find people to interact with via the Internet. Many, who have later solidified friendships or romances in person, would thus stick out a virtual tongue at me and defiantly argue, “See?! You CAN really get to know people over the ‘net!”

    Ah, mais non! Sure, you can establish contact virtually and learn about someone… even an enormous amount… but I still firmly believe that you cannot truly understand someone until you literally gaze into his or her eyes.
    —

    This isn’t to say that conversing with or meeting people via the Internet is wrong or even useless. Far from it. I’ve had some wonderfully informative, entertaining, and even occasionally reassuring conversations with people online. And less than a year ago, I had the pleasure of meeting in person for the first time a fellow that I had conversed with online for FIFTEEN YEARS! (he was just as warm and interesting as I had assumed, incidentally). In fact, I’ve met quite a few people face-to-face that I originally met via the ‘net, thankfully usually (though not always) with pleasant results.

    However, I still get freaked out by those who assume or try to convince me that they “know” me just via my online presence. There’s one fellow with whom I’ve conversed a small handful of times (about mostly superficial matters, in fact) who has recently gushed about how meaningful I am in his life and how he considers me a good friend.

    My goodness! He knows my taste in Asian cuisine, the location of my last Europe trip, and the fact that I had a cold a couple of months ago. He doesn’t know anything about my family, my hopes or dreams, my fears, my quirks, my eccentricities. He doesn’t really know me at all!

    I’m guessing such mistaken ‘familiarity’ is quite common on the Internet. We see pictures of someone, we see their emoticon smiles :-D, we assume the best of them. We don’t see their angry frowns, we don’t hear them curse out loud, we don’t see their faults. We see a sliver, and a tiny, even subconsciously self-selected one at that.

    I was inspired to write this this late evening / early morning by an interesting entry I read from fellow blogger Anders. And for the record, I do not really know him, but I like his writing and I thank him for spurring me to articulate what I’ve been thinking about in this context for quite a while.

  • Women blogging, women in journalism

    In the comments of this post on Geekdom, Jennifer raised the interesting point about the prevalence of females in the blogging world.

    I HAVE noticed that there are many women bloggers, and I’m wondering if this has anything to do with the presence or lack thereof of women in ‘real’ journalism.

    What do you think about blogging and gender? And do you think there is a correlation between this issue and paper-based journalism?

    Oh, and why do women bloggers seem to get so many more comments than male bloggers? Not that I’m sore about that or anything… 😀

  • I am a geek, and it ain’t that bad

    Back in high school, I was a nerd.
    Now I’m a geek.

    There’s a big difference, at least in my humble opinion.

    Nerds are:

    • Generally very socially inept
    • Usually quite unfit and also not good at sports
    • Totally lacking in interest in and/or awareness of popular culture
    • Singlehandedly focused on and often very talented in academics
    • Not very well respected outside of nerd circles nowadays

    Geeks are:

    • Fascinated by technology, but often in how it connects people and organizations
    • Intellectual but not at the expense of being able to make smalltalk
    • Generally comfortable with machines AND people
    • Often fascinated by science and technology, but not necessarily ‘experts’
    • Typically engaged in popular culture, but feeling more passionate about ‘alternative’ entertainment (e.g., “They Might Be Giants,” “Monty Python,” etc.
    • Often figuring out how to tie technology in with useful and or social endeavors (e.g., using a Palm Pilot to look up a restaurant review)
    • Probably seen as “the norm” in many places, including various cities (San Francisco) and demographics (Ivy League colleges).

    What are your thoughts on this?
    Do you think my ad hoc definitions fit the bill?
    Would you consider yourself a geek or a nerd?
    Do you have friends who are geeks or nerds?
    And can someone really change, as I’ve suggested that I have? 🙂

  • Cell phone ban, schmell phone ban… I have BETTER ideas!

    Last week, the New York City Council took the brave and apparently necessary step of legislating common courtesy by passing a resolution to ban cell phone conversations in public places such as theatres and restaurants.

    Surely we’ve all wanted to throttle clueless morons blathering stuff like “Hey, you wouldn’t believe what quiet and tender romantic scene is on the screen now, honey!” and since we’re incapable of actually asking the clueless twit to shut up ourselves, it’s so nice that we have the force of law to help!

    However, I feel that the New York City Council didn’t go far enough. If *I* were in charge, I’d tackle the following more pressing problems:

    Everything but the Kitchen Stink:
    All those who fail to bathe, or who put on enough cologne or perfume to mask their apparent non-bathing should be fumigated and then fined. Especially if they’re sitting next to me on a plane.

    Stupid Rude Americanism:
    Whether in the U.S. or abroad, Americans should be flatly prohibited from treating service staff like maggots, obnoxiously shouting with friends on public transportation, or complaining loudly, “This isn’t like we got at home!”

    Advertising by Half:
    “Fares starting at $99!” (round trip purchase is required, taxes and fees likely to increase fare by more than 50%). What idiocy. Do we see this in any other sector? “Delicious Pizza! Just $5” (includes half the pizza, full pizza purchase required, crust safety-and-stability fee extra, pizza oven taxes also additional). Or how about “Full body massage… just $25!” (includes only right half of body… left side of body massage must be purchased as part of this special).

    I would praise American gas station managers for at least their honesty and completeness in advertising since they include taxes in the price listed on their signs… but they’re also the idiots who price stuff at TENTHS of cents. Gimme a break — and I don’t mean the one penny windfall I get when I buy ten gallons!

    —

    When it comes down to it, actually, I think the issues I tackle above are a lot more important than the wimpy cell phone concern. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to grab and stomp on someone’s infernal mobile than it is to de-stink the person, or make them less provincial (though being bigger than they are helps, too).

    On a more serious note… our apparent need to legislate good manners — along with common sense driving tips re: driving-while-yacking — is rather alarming to me. America is already the Laughingstock of Labels (Warning: Do not change lawn mower blades while motor is on); it’s not a huge leap before we’re seen as the village idiots who can’t wipe our own posteriors unless we’re legally compelled to do so.

  • I can breathe clearly now, the smoke is gone

    In a shock to smokers and anti-smoking advocates alike, Ireland’s government has announced a ban on smoking in pubs, effective January 2004.

    This is, from what I understand, a first throughout all of Europe. Indeed, I selfishly wish other European countries that I frequent (such as Germany and Sweden) would join Ireland in banning smoking in public places, because I’m sick of having to deal with it while having a pint with friends. The sustained ickiness of eating in a smoker-friendly restaurant was made all the more clear to me when I had a scrumptious six course meal in Paris with friends last summer. I was surrounded by historic ambience and beautiful women… only to have the experience largely tainted by the intense smell and taste of smoke over the course of an otherwise pleasant three hours.

    Of course, I’m rather spoiled here in California, which banned smoking in all public places (including bars and restaurants) years ago. But to me, the restrictions — whether mandated by law or by the establishment owners themselves — make perfect sense.

    Can you imagine a world in which it was legal for people to walk by and spit in your food? Or for someone to grab you by the neck and stick your face 10 inches from their car exhaust pipe (while the car was running)? Didn’t think so.

    Why, then, do people find it a violation of THEIR rights when they’re required not to smoke in public? I realize that there’s a long history associated with smoking, but hey… folks didn’t think anything ill of slavery for many centuries either. Luckily, we evolved.

    Beyond the whole public-courtesy and legal issues, I still am perplexed as to how — in a modern country like Ireland — 30% of the people still smoke! Indeed, throughout my European travels, I’ve been both amazed and saddened to meet so many amazingly articulate, intelligent, and attractive people… who think nothing of lighting up a cigarette. True, a few did at least grimly acknowledge or even apologize for their “nasty habit,” but others smoked with a nonchalance that one might have while straightening a tie or looking at a watch. Just part of everyday life for them, ho hum.

    I consider myself libertarian on many issues and ultimately, I would have preferred for the free market to stomp out smoking… making it inconvenient, unwanted, uncool. Sometimes, however, the free market is apparently impervious to common sense, common decency, and even critical behavioral changes that would add billions of dollars to the nation’s GNP. It is times like those in which I must reluctantly but appreciatively applaud lawmakers for making choices that society is too short-sighted to make itself.