by Diane Tate

What will it take, indeed?

The spate of gun massacres in the U.S. has triggered renewed controversy and outrage. Rightly so. A friend recently wrote a nice post, “What Will It Take?” Indeed. What will it take to meaningfully address this unthinkable problem of mass violence when a ridiculously absurd amount of evidence shows a correlation to the presence of guns and gun-related deaths (of humans, not hunting game)?

Given the contentious nature of rationally-ensuing discussions on gun control (see evidence and mortal impact of gun ownership cited above), many instead appeal to mental health reforms. Given it’s easier to get a gun than to get mental health care (note a widely-circulating post by a mother calling herself “Adam Lanza’s mother”), once again the evidence calls for a different answer. In fact, the mental health conditions cited by the gunman at Sandy Hook have in fact no correlation to increased violence. In fact, mental health seems to have zero impact on violence. Out, then, go the arguments for mental health reform…at least, as it pertains to reducing these inconceivable acts of violence.

Ok, perhaps humanizing the problem will work? After all, a central principle of those seeking to educate people about the holocaust is to communicate the horrors not by raw statistics or clinical facts, but rather through the lens of individual stories. These custodians of history seek to illuminate the horror through photos, letters, and testimonials rather than theoretical, abstract facts. I’ve witnessed this at Holocaust museums in Washington, D.C. and Jerusalem, as well as the Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Archive devoted to sharing and extending these stories through the generations

The thinking is that no amount of facts or theory will impact people meaningfully; it is only through personal stories that people can begin to grasp the most dark and absurd turns of human behavior.

Alas, and tragically so, hoping that this insane pattern of outrage followed by inaction have cause to be concerned. Incredulously, public opinion remains unmoved by such tragedies. Studies by the Pew Research Center show that even violent public gun massacres such as the ones in Aurora, CO and Tucson, AZ have had no impact on public opinions towards how guns are obtained or regulated. And some are even calling for the press to refrain from reporting the names of the perpetrators, keeping the issue more abstract and nameless.

Thus, despite all the facts above which demonstrate our only lever to reduce such violence is gun control, the public remains wed to its antiquated notion of personal rights and loves the theory of the 2nd amendment more than the reality of the bloody impact that its anacrhonistic implementation has in today’s society.

So if not facts, if not humanity…then what, what will cause us to change this insane holding pattern of death, outrage yielding no change? Didn’t Einstein call insanity the act of doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting different results? Isn’t there a reason the rest of the world thinks we are on another planet on this issue? (If someone told me there was a society that allowed any citizen to own a weapon of scalable destruction, I would think they were crazy too…and then I realized, it’s us).

Those who fearfully clutch at freedoms crafted in an era of escape from armed militia  in today’s world — when civil liberties, due process and judiciary checks abound (as do the firearms and bloodshed they propogate) — mystify me. Now we live in fear that the person on the bus may have a bad day and whip out a rifle. Is this fear and death worth the “freedom” to personally own a death stick?

I’m too exhausted to play this out anymore, though. so I’m just appealing to what Joe did in the movie that keeps me relatively sane as the world grows more insane. I’ve decided to talk to plants. Please join me.

 

plants

by Diane Tate

The Yin-Yang Bang

It’s that time of year again. Yes, the decorations and trees and sales abound…but what I really mean is…it’s that time of year when we hear 2 familiar ballads.

Of course, I’m talking about “Happy XMas (War Is Over)” and “Wonderful Christmastime.” Both Christmas songs, both written in the 70s, both written by Beatles, and both tunes that stick to you like a snowflake on a Chrysler.

That’s where all the similarity stops. As a die-hard Beatles maniac growing up, I became enamored myself with the characters behind the music, and if anything could describe Lennon-McCartney, it would be “yin/yang.” The former raised largely by a single parent and a rebellious child of social services; the latter formed by prestigious education and organized religion. The former cheating on his first wife to marry a modern artist, the latter living 30 monogamous (so we think) years married to an establishment debutante.

For me, however, their differences are most poignantly illustrated by these two songs. The first is brooding, political, and social in significance and unpleasant to ponder (as was its writer in 1971, the year it was written). And the second? A jingle: catchy, light and easy on the ears…precisely like its writer the year it was written.

And despite all these juxtapositions, when they collaborated, these two musicians penned perhaps some of the greatest tunes of all time. It’s a nice reminder to me when my yin is countered by a yang. Rather than dissect what is “wrong” with that yang, I have instead learned to intentionally study the strengths that can be had when these forces combine.

All that said, don’t you think it’s sort of hard to take this dude seriously?

by Diane Tate

Killing The Network Effect

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Traditionally I’ve been a huge LinkedIn fan. I opened an account its first year, and my unique identifier attests that I was actually the 148th account (you’ll see “1348” buried in it, and the first 1200 were test accounts, my executive friend assured me).*  I felt so strongly about the value of the service that I agreed to participate in the “Friends of LinkedIn” group that the management uses to highlight testimonials of the success that the network has brought; they even featured me among 100 users when they reached 100 million members in 2011.

My role has never been self-serving insofar as I don’t run a recruiting agency or a consulting firm advising people how to use the site (etc. etc.). I took up the LinkedIn banner because I’ve truly believed in the service’s ability to accelerate connections and transactions in unprecedented ways.

Sadly, however, I think its value is rapidly diminishing as it fills the site with so much noise that the signal is being drowned out.

It started with the ability to list Tweets in the feed, which itself was clearly a simple adaptation of Facebook’s feed, as are the ability to “Like” people’s developments and posts. In fact, I haven’t seen many features that were innovative by LinkedIn. Soon so many Tweets by hyperactive users of the service clogged my feed it became useless. Mercifully Twitter put an end to that this year — and while LinkedIn tried to put a happy face on it, it was a hardly a product or user experience decision initiated or made by LinkedIn. Additional ads, features and solicitations have been stuffed into the same UI. It’s a busy, crowded and quite unpleasant experience driven by the public markets rather than the users.

Then this September, after years of simply cluttering up the same user interface (and by years, I mean 9…which by most brand standards is insanely long…and thus in the web world is an eternity) with features swiped from other services, came the coup de grace: “endorsements.”  They serve as the ultimate proof that LinkedIn is no longer about its users, but about patrons, real and potential. Rather than a true recommendation which requires thought and context on the part of the recommender, “endorsements” (quotes not to go away) consist of a series of pre-suggested categories placed in front of your contacts who are asked to react with a click and voila, you are “endorsed”! The result? An endless stream of clicks and “endorsements,” resembling a game of roulette which entails simply seeing, reactively clicking, and immediately getting more suggested categories from other contacts to reactively click through.

So sadly, the LinkedIn experience has now degenerated into a meaningless, endless cacophony of “endorsements” (quotes will not go away). I now enter the site with trepidation, typically only in response to a “real” desire to connect and search for specific information I’ve pre-determined I need. In short, it’s become the same morass that I felt whenever I clicked on MySpace: go in quickly and surgically, and exit as quickly as possible.

The motive, of course, is to “build your social capital” by touting the numbers of endorsements you have. Here’s the lamentable elaboration on this rationale I received when I raised my concerns in the Friends of LinkedIn group:

Someone I would consider to be of “social media influence” brought up a good point regarding endorsements. She believes LinkedIn will eventually have data indicating who received the most endorsements for certain skills in specific industries industry and live in specific geographical areas.

Do you see where I’m going with this? She thinks LinkedIn is building lots of data with our endoresement <sic> clicks that will be used in the future.

If that’s the case, than I encourage everyone to endorse me for LinkedIn, as I am the most influential LinkedIn trainer in the hospitality industry, and I would love for the LinkedIn data to show just that.

In short, this HR (surprise) professional advises us to react to this thoughtless and irritating experience by…using it MORE (and, of course, endorse his too ;). Not because it provides us value, but because we can feed some entity-to-be-named-later with “data” that somehow will serve to our advantage.

Of course, this is ultimately unfortunate as the original intent and function of LinkedIn was quite good. But its decline makes me yearn for an alternative. I hope that soon its network effect power will be countered by real value.

*2021 POSTSCRIPT: whoa my friend’s original URL that I’d linked to 8+yrs ago in the start of the above post now redirects to a person not even three degrees from me overseas. Unsettling.