jakelacaze.com

I would like to dedicate this post to Melissa Cooley. You may know her on Twitter as @TheJobQuest. Although I would not label Melissa a devil’s advocate, she is someone who sometimes disagrees with what I blog about, but she does so in a way that offers insight and adds value to the conversation. I treasure her comments and truly wish that she would disagree with me more often.

How often do you analyze your friendships and relationships? Do you ever sit back and ask yourself why you’re friends with a certain person? There may be instances when you can’t exactly put your finger on it, but chances are there are also times when you know exactly why you’re friends.

Maybe you work together. Or you share the same political or religious views. You like the same arts and entertainment. You’re both dog lovers. Or dog haters.

There are so many ways in which people can connect with each other. And often, when we connect with someone, it’s due to similar interests.

How often do you befriend someone who often disagrees with you? How often do you befriend someone who challenges everything you believe, someone who’s willing to challenge the world as you know it, even if he does so only with words? Do you openly allow others to contest your assumptions?

Some people choose to challenge messages even though they agree with them. They like to take the other side, just to see what kind of conversation can stir up. You may know these people as devil’s advocates.

Some of us shy away from devil’s advocates. Why? One reason may be that we simply don’t like to be challenged. After all, most of us surround ourselves with like-minded people. People who believe the same. People who won’t cause any friction. People who are less likely to piss us off. If this reminds you of yourself, you likely don’t have many devil’s advocates that you call “friend”.

Another reason we may avoid devil’s advocates is because sometimes they have good points. Sometimes they expose the weaknesses in our ideas or plans and reveal what they truly are — underdeveloped and doomed to fail. Many of us see this scenario as a threat, rather than seeing the positive in this situation. If your devil’s advocate has shown the weakness in your idea or plan, chances are that someone else will see the weakness as well. And then another person will. And another, until virtually everyone sees it and refuses to accept whatever it is you’re trying to sell or change.

Also, a devil’s advocate who is willing to look at the other side of an argument can show you angles and points of view that you never imagined. And people who share your worldview and agree with everything you say are not very likely to see these angles either.

Of course, there’s a civil way to go about disagreeing. Yelling and cursing and name-calling is not the most effective way to get a message across. But if you can find someone who can calmly debate with you, I see no harm in befriending him. In fact, I see a great opportunity. I see benefit.

There are so many social networks floating about on the Internet. I am currently a member of Twitter, Facebook, Brazen Careerist, YouTube, and BrightFuse. I might be a member of more networks, but those are all that I can remember at the moment. And there are so many more that I am completely clueless about. But it’s safe to say that they all have one thing in common — they all expect you to have a profile.

A profile has a purpose. It is meant to be a summary of you, a little snippet that gives people an idea of who you are. Your profile is supposed to make you interesting and attractive. In the social networking world, your profile is one of the most basic marketing tools you have.

However, I hate making online profiles. The only exception is Twitter, because I just throw in a few keywords and interests and wait for people to connect with me. But on those other networks, I struggle to build a proper profile. Why? Because whatever I say sounds silly to me.

One reason is because, as I’ve said previously, some people wrongly perceive certain aspects of their personalities. Because of this, certain words and identifiers have been bastardized and sound desperate when used. Think of a term such as perfectionist. There are so many perfectionists out there, yet there are so few. My best friend, a graphic designer, truly is a perfectionist. However, if he identifies himself as such, everyone would laugh at him. Who isn’t a perfectionist? Isn’t everyone? Yeah. And no.

I recently ranted about this to an old friend, and he said he’d define me as truly being “outside of the box”. Even if I wanted to, I could never use such a statement. Who doesn’t think he’s outside of the box? Who doesn’t think he’s brilliant and creative? Who doesn’t want others to think that about himself? And so that phrase means nothing.

When I see a profile that says something like I have a fun personality or I’m really easy to get along with, I wonder if such statements are true. Such statements are greatly overplayed and don’t truly add any value to your profile. They don’t tell me anything about you.

And there are those phrases that pretty much apply to everyone.

Phrases like I’m a really nice person until you piss me off. Sure, there are some people who are assholes 100% of the time. But such people are few, and even fewer of them would actually admit it.

Or phrases like I get pissed off at people who hurt my friends. Yeah, most of us do. And even if we won’t rush to defend their honor, we’re likely not going to admit otherwise.

To me, it’s just like the person who says: “If you ever need anything, give me a call. If you go to the bar and get drunk — I don’t care if it’s 3 o’clock in the morning – call me, I’ll come pick you up.” I’ve never uttered such a sentence because the truth is that I’m not that guy. If you call me in such a situation, I might have the intention of hopping out of bed and coming to your rescue. But the reality is that I’m more likely to go back to sleep and forget you ever called. And I’m probably more likely to be pissed that you disturbed me during my beauty rest, especially if I have something to do the next morning (like work).

I know such a statement is absurd, so I don’t even try to fake it. I don’t want to paint myself as something I am not.

But how are people supposed to get to know you? How will they ever know who you are?

I’d prefer that people observe my interactions on these networks.

Don’t worry about what I say about myself. Worry about my actions, because they speak louder than words. What kind of content do I share? Do I interact with others? That will tell you so much more than a paragraph or two in my profile section.

And do this with others. And also, do this offline.

People can tell you whatever they want. And sometimes they may tell you how they’d like to be perceived, rather than tell who they actually are. I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to insult your intelligence.

I am what I am, not what I say I am. And the sooner I allow you to see that, the sooner you can accept me for me.

I’ve realized something about my blogging. On both my personal blog and BrightFuse, I tend to ask a lot of questions. Questions that I don’t have the answers to. And it’s not necessarily that I expect you to have the answers (I do not mean that to discourage you from commenting and trying to give answers; in fact, quite opposite!) They’re just questions that surface in my mind and questions that I feel need to be asked. They’re questions that might change the way people think about certain issues.

When this realization hit me, I thought of this quote that has found its way to me on multiple occasions:

“Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” — Tony Robbins

I am in no way endorsing Tony Robbins; frankly, I have no idea who he is. But that doesn’t make that quote any less true.

Questions need to be asked, even if they’re completely rhetorical and theoretical and can never have one true answer.

How can we provide solutions if we’re never aware of the problems?

It seems that, at some point, many of us stop asking questions. Is it because when we ask too many questions as kids, our parents say “Because I said so”? Is it because when we question the fairness of a situation or judgment, people tell us not to worry about it and that it is what it is?

This is another question that I don’t have the answer for.

But that won’t stop me from asking. And I hope it won’t stop you either.

Having read and enjoyed Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith, I decided to try to find some videos of the authors talking more about their philosophies on social media. During the Q&A section of this (50-minute) video, an audience member made a great point. To paraphrase, the audience member made the point that when the Internet was first catching on, the great thing about it was that it was private. People could browse and engage via the Internet while maintaining a level of anonymity. Now, the Internet is becoming more and more transparent. Many of our activities on the Internet are forever — it’s there for all to see, thanks to our friend Google. And it’s no secret that Facebook is doing all that it can to become more open every single day. Think of your interactions on the Web as your “permanent record” now.

After the audience member made up great point, he followed with this question: How do you make people move from that privacy-mindset about the Internet to the open mindset that we’re now moving toward?

Brogan eventually concluded that that’s a tough issue and was unable to give a straight-forward answer to the issue. That’s because you can’t make someone accept it. People don’t like change; some are always going to cling to the way things were.

But they need to accept it. Because the Internet’s opening up, whether we like it or not. There’s no use in talking about whether it’s fair or unfair. This is one of those cases where you’re better off forgetting about “fair” and worrying about what is and what is not.

It is what it is.

I understand the concerns with the open Web. It’s not just about security and identity issues. It’s also about having the freedom to express ourselves without consequences. If someone wants to learn about you, chances are that he’s going to research you through Google, Facebook, or Twitter first. The problem with this transparency is that you never know what will turn someone off. How personal should you be? If someone gets a chance to discover your religious or political views before getting a chance to know you, will he even give you a chance? What if you’re profane or vulgar in an intimate setting but know how to flip the switch over when in a corporate setting? Will someone get the wrong impression about you? By the way, if you think having different personas in these scenarios is simply being two-faced, I’d argue that all of us act differently in different settings with different people. You likely do the same thing; perhaps you’re not aware of it.

As I said, I understand these concerns because they’re some of the same concerns that I have. However, I feel that these fears cause us to be less human. Some of us may tend to hide certain parts of ourselves that we may not hide so much in offline interactions. If I unintentionally say something insensitive or politically incorrect among my friends in an offline setting, word of my slip-up might stop at that group of friends. Or maybe we’ll tell our significant others or some friends outside of the group, but chances are that the whole world won’t be notified. But if I make the same mistake on Facebook or Twitter or somewhere else online, it’s chronicled for all to see, and concrete proof of my slip-up is readily available for distribution.

So we hold back. We reserve. We make sure to conduct ourselves in a corporate-friendly manner, and as a result, we dehumanize ourselves and our networks.

But when the Web opens all of us up to everyone, can that humanity be restored? When everyone is under the same microscope and living under the same fear, can a simple slip-up or differences of philosophy be forgiven and forgotten? Could it teach us to be more tolerant? Or will the open Web only feed our ignorance and prejudices?

This is all just thought with no definite answer. Obviously, I hope that the open Web can add a degree of humanity to our online interactions. But I can’t predict one way or the other.

If there were only one thing that I took away from reading Trust Agents, it would be this: the fundamentals of communication and building trust have not changed. The world of TV, newspaper, and radio advertising that we grew up with were actually quite brief when you look at the history of business and mankind. The best way to build trust now is to get back to basics, to treat people like people and remember that they are people. (Remember, they are not perfect; neither are you).

I’ve accepted that my friends are not perfect offline. Why should I expect them to be perfect online? Why should we expect anyone to be such?

What are your thoughts on this? Could the open Web bring a fundamental shift, or am I just daydreaming?

These days, you really have to watch what you say. Online and offline. Let your guard down for a few seconds. Let your tongue slip. Say one little thing that rubs someone just the wrong way.

And you’ll have hell to pay.

With all of this scrutiny — with every single word thoroughly examined for any hint of offense — is it any wonder that speeches and responses to questions all start to sound the same?

Not really sure what I’m talking about? Okay, let’s look at sports. (Again? I know, I can’t help it lately.)

Think about the Heisman trophy winners. The Heisman trophy is awarded every year to college football’s best player. Of course, when a player wins the Heisman, he usually says something along the lines of: “This award isn’t just about me. It’s been a team effort, and I could never have done it without these guys.”

And the sports commentators act surprised. They say: “Wow, look at the maturity of this kid. He’s so young yet he’s so humble.”

Come on, is he really? He used a typical textbook answer! Maybe that is how he truly feels, but I’ll never know because many before him uttered the same line.

What about when Matthew Stafford was taken #1 overall in the NFL draft and found out that he would have to start his NFL career with the Detroit Lions, a team that had a record of 0-16 the year before. The Lions were winless. So, what does Stafford say? He says that he’s happy and excited to be a Detroit Lion. Man, I wonder if that was a hard line to spew.

One day a couple of years ago, I was listening to ESPN Radio and an NFL Hall of Fame quarterback was being interviewed. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the quarterback’s name, but the point that he never won a Super Bowl came up. When asked if he would trade his Hall of Fame honor for a Super Bowl, the quarterback said no. He felt that the Hall of Fame was a more prestigious honor and he was happy with his induction.

That comment caught me off-guard. Nobody says that.

No, that’s not right. He’s supposed to say: “Although I feel that the Hall of Fame is a tremendous honor, nothing would have honored me more than leading my team to a championship and sharing that Lombardi trophy with my coaches and teammates.”

But he spoke the truth, not what he was expect to say. And so the question: Why do we give people so much credit for saying what’s expected?

Why do we give the Heisman trophy winner credit for including his teammates? Why would we be upset if he stood up, pounded himself on the chest, and said: “All my hard work finally paid off. Y’all better recognize!”

Why do we say that Matthew Stafford is humble and is a team player when he says he’s excited to be a Detroit Lion and he’s ready to contribute right now? What if he sighed heavily and said: “I’m glad they’re paying me as much as they are, because I ain’t gonna be having no fun in Detroit this year.”

Why do we give Terrell Owens so much hell for saying “I love me some me”? Is he egotistical? Yes. Is he troubled? Possibly. Is he insane? I wouldn’t go that far, but I get what you’re thinking. But as far as I’m concerned, at least I know he is being honest. His comment is totally unscripted and original. It’s straight from the heart. You might say that Owens’s heart is tainted, but at least he’s not covering up his true feelings.

In some ways, this post is hypocritical of me since I wrote a post about what Dan Gilbert’s letter about LeBron James’s departure should have said. Maybe Gilbert shouldn’t have gotten so much flak. Maybe he should be allowed to say what he truly feels, to have a human response.

Speaking of the LeBron madness, my wife said she’d heard somewhere that Cavs fans felt betrayed because in the past LeBron had said he wasn’t going to chase a championship, he was going to bring a championship to Cleveland. And then he leaves for Miami with the intention of chasing a championship. Well, when he was in Cleveland, he said what he was supposed to say. What he was expected to say. What if he had said: “Well, I’m going to give this a chance, but if it hasn’t worked in a few years, I’m going to bail ship”? And also, maybe it wasn’t his intention to leave at the time he said that. You and I will never know, unless you’re LeBron, in which case I’d like to thank you for stopping by, LeBron.

It’s just like when that certain little girl or guy you’ve just started getting serious with looks you in the eye and says: “Wow, you’re so awesome. I’ve never felt this way.” That is such a cliche phrase, but I bet you that most of us have fallen for it!

Why do we take safe and textbook comments and think that they’re special because they apply to our immediate situations? And by putting so much value in scripted and prepared statements, are we turning others and ourselves into robots? While we’d all like to think that we have the freedom to express ourselves, are we as a whole making it difficult for individuals to do so?

Wanna know what happens when you take it to the extreme and say what is truly on your mind regardless of people’s feeling and expectations? Just ask Mel Gibson.

We’ve made the journey out of the Industrial Age and straight into the Information Age. The world is at our fingertips. We no longer have to rely on the traditional media sources. We can bypass TV and radio completely and simply plug in online. If we want to know anything — anything at all — we need only to ask Google. On the World Wide Web, no one is an outcast. If you have an interest in something, chances are that you can find a group or forum related to it. Feeling a little lonely and need some human activity? Jump on your social networks. Bored and need to waste your time away with some mindless entertainment? Jump on YouTube. There is no doubt that the Internet has forever changed the way we communicate and spend our time.

And it’s also changed the way we get our news and information. Newspapers are dying, fighting to savor their final breath. Honestly, who uses them anymore, and why would anyone want to, for reasons other than nostalgia? Now, anyone can become a news source. Start a blog, build a trust, break a few stories — BAM! You’re a reporter.

There is something both cool and disturbing about this. It’s easier than ever for some idiot to spread fallacies, whether intentional or unintentional. There are so many methods for doing so: blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. You can easily find outlets online that match your worldview. Sometimes it seems that rather than tell the truth, some people are telling what others want to hear.

For a great example, look at politics. Every time a new bill is presented, there are so many conflicting stories about the consequences of its passage. One side tells you this, while the other side tells you that. For every bit of information, there are thousands of bits of misinformation. So while we are in the Information Age, we are also in the (Mis)Information Age.

Just look at healthcare reform. No one could agree on what its passage would mean for everyday American citizens. And people still can’t. To call ourselves responsible citizens, we should read the reform and make up our own minds. But let’s be honest, that ain’t gonna happen. Sure, this stuff was going on well before the popularity of the Internet, but there’s no doubt that the evolution of the Internet has intensified it.

Who can you trust with information today? More and more, it’s feeling as if you can trust no one. I hate to sound skeptical, but I am. And I think we all should be.