On the topic of being able to fly

It was supposedly Ray Bradbury, who once said that

Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.

It reminds me of an incident I was involved in recently, when a person present felt that the initiative we had started out to set the rules for could be compared to cutting the branch on which we were sitting.
As it happened, I did not quite share the point of view, which led me to the other extreme, stating that "Well, let's see. I do not think that we are cutting our own branch. But if we are - who knows, maybe we'll find that we can fly?"
The outcome is still undecided, as the points of view unchanged. Until the moment when at high speed I simply hit the ground, I am in the - for me quite uncharacteristical - situation that I am foolhardily convinced that I'm right.
(Translated from Noget om at kunne flyve, originally posted June 26, 2016)

Honestly, did you even read it yourself?

I came across some scary statistics the other day - Washington Post brought some recent research from Columbia University and INRIA, the French national institute for research in computer science. According to the article 59 percent of the links shared on social media are passed, without the person who shares them has ever clicked on them - in other words: we make things viral without ever having read what it is all about.
It is basically the old point made by Nicholas G. Carr proven once again: the internet does not do any good to the way in which we get informed.
There'll be those people who find that their time is too valuable to read something that happens to be of interest to other people - but on the other hand, if it is important enough to contaminate others social media feed with, the forwarder should probably also be able to find time for it.
I will not pretend to be holier-than-thou. Occasionally, I forward something after having only skimmed it - but then it is only to individuals, and only after having skimmed it thoroughly enough to be reasonably sure that the recipient will be able to use it for something. I am simply too old to fancy the thought of answering the question: "Honestly, did you even read it yourself?" with a "uh, no ..."

(Translated from Helt ærligt, har du overhovedet læst det selv?)

Internet makes stupid - unless you're careful

...what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

This is the American author Nicholas G. Carr's interpretation of, what Google, Facebook and other of the marvels of the internet do to us - we become zappers, constantly chasing new bites of information, without being able to dive into anything. Our power of concentration disappears, and we barely register the title of one article before we are in search of the next, which we do not have time to dive into.
I have thought about it before: that I myself was about to be hit by it, news and general information junkie as I am, but I do think, however, that I will be able to escape.
Or rather, my eternal quest to know everything about everything, not just keywords about everything will save me. For instance, it was not enough for me just to read on the front page of a news paper that "Facebook and Google will change your mind."
First, I had read the article in the paper, then the original piece from The Atlantic, and finally I had to find out who Nicholas G. Carr was. Fortunately I think that is more reminiscent of scuba than jet skis, and that's how I intend to continue to operate. But then again, I know all too well that I am reactionary and old-fashioned.
(Translated from Internet gør dum - hvis man ikke passer på, originally posted December 15, 2008)

On the topic of having the time to sit here

In an edition of the Danish newspaper Politiken dated a few weeks ago, I saw a couple of thought-provoking pages. On the left page, a text - on the right page, a photo, both by Daniel Hjorth. The photo showed a location in Copenhagen with two benches, one in the foreground, one in the background. On each of the benches an elderly gentleman was sitting alone, and the text said (in my translation):

A simple thought.
What would happen,
If I asked:
'May I sit here?'
Although the next bench was vacant. 

It is, perhaps, a simple thought. But isn't it so that we are not good enough to seek the company of other people? It is far from certain that other people sit alone due to an active choice. What if we gave each other the opportunity to meet each other? Perhaps even the opportunity of conversation?
I think I'll ask next time.
Perhaps even though I do not really need to sit down.
Perhaps even though I do not really have the time to sit down.
Because: what does it actually mean - "to have the time"?
Maybe the world would become a better place if more people asked, "May I sit here?", although the next bench was vacant?
(Translated from Noget om at have tid til at sætte sig her)

On the topic of big dreams

In relation to the death of Muhammad Ali a couple of weeks ago, I ran into a quote which might (or might not) be a Muhammad Ali-quote. I have seen it attributed to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, president of Liberia, as well; she said it in a speech to the graduating class from Harvard in 2011. Deep down, however, it is of less importance who originally said that:

If your dreams do not scare you, they are not big enough.

- I am certain that it is true. Because if our dreams become so small and unambitious that they are mostly there for cosiness, then we have dragged them so far into the comfort zone that we should have been living them long ago, while starting to dream more ambitiously. Otherwise we have just arrived in a situation, where we do not dream. We have simply fallen asleep. (Translated from Noget om store drømme)

On the topics of trust, care and inflation

Recently, I read at the website of the Danish newspaper Berlingske a blog post written by Jonathan Løw, who is characterized by the beautiful title "serial entrepreneur". Løw writes about how important trust is, between people and between companies, but also highlights the dilemma that trust is necessary to cooperate, but you can not know in advance whether the recipient of your trust will abuse it. And he also writes: "Trust is not just something we share. Trust is the currency of the future!"

Image courtesy of pixabay / Myriams-Fotos

I think that is very precisely observed. And as a result of this, I must conclude that the best, any of us can do at any time, is to show to as many people as possible that we are worthy of their trust. For it may well happen that trust is the future currency. But if you spread it with care, you can spread virtually unlimited amounts without no risk of inflation.
(Translated from Noget om tillid, omhu og inflation)

On the topic of being authentic and natural

I have in recent times grown into somewhat of a fan of psychology professor Adam Grant, and therefore, I am paradoxically pleased , when I manage to find something written by him, with which I disagree - as it shows me that I still carefully consider the impressions I take in, rather than just blindly accepting them and passing them on because they are rubber-stamped by the trust (very much in line with yesterday's post), I have in the person from whom I have gotten the impression.
Thus, I read over the weekend in the Sunday Review of the New York Times a post by Mr. Grant under the heading "Unless You're Oprah, 'Be Yourself' Is Terrible Advice". In this, he concludes that "Next time people say, “just be yourself,” stop them in their tracks. No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. They just want you to live up to what comes out of your mouth."
Initially, it made somewhat of an impression with me - partly because a few weeks ago I stood in front of a couple of dozen people and made a speech with the main conclusion: "Be yourself. Act naturally." - and is Adam Grant not opposed to this?
The more I read Grant's post, I think that the question lies in what you put into "being yourself". For if it means to be yourself, without filters, right down to the level where you release all your innermost thoughts - well, then I completely agree with Grant that it is not the best advice; who may well disagree with that? Then we would go all the way to the level where I need to tell people if I prefer cats to dogs, and at this level you can go terribly wrong, even though it has no relevance at all to the relationship, one has the people to whom it is disclosed. But on the other hand, I think that the second part of Grant's conclusion with advantage can be reversed to support my point. "No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. And they do not want anything to come out of your mouth, if you are not able to live up to it."
So yes: Be yourself and act naturally - to the extent applicable within the framework set by the relationships you have to the people in front of whom you should be yourself and act naturally . It is relevant for the boss to know that you are not a dog person, if you apply for a job in a kennel. Not if you apply for a job at a factory where the boss happens to have dogs as a hobby.
Interesting enough, later on, Brené Brown - another person, I am somewhat of a fan of - wrote a piece defending autenticity and vulnerability, and Adam Grant replied to it; when the last word is said between them, I am pretty sure they have ended up in an agreement on how one can apply authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability to become one's best self. I will follow the debate with great interest.
(Translated from Noget om autencitet og naturlighed)