More on the topic of selfishness, generosity and symbiosis

The other day I looked at the view point that content consumers can be said to be generous, whereas those who produce the content on the opposite can be regarded as selfish, and I did this very much with my focus on the selfish creators.
But it is at least as interesting to look at the generous consumers - because is it true: are the consumers always so generous?
In a sense, yes. All people who consume the content that I have created, I have to at least acknowledge that they generously spend their time on me. That's why I like to return to the story of Adam Grant and Daniel Pink in the backyard: in this world, where time is often considered our most precious resource, we waste people's resources if anything we have created makes them spend time that they could have used better elsewhere. (And if I let people's resources go to waste in that way, I have to consider any wish I have that they read my creations to be selfish).
But of course there are more or less generous consumers. As soon as the consumer begins to relate to the content and provide feedback, the level of generosity increases. I agree that the generosity of the keyboard warriors (who just use the creators' posts as a starting point to bring forward their own more or less off-topic conspiratory assumptions) is of such a limited extend that we would be better off without it. But the closer to the subject the given feedback is - and the more constructive inspiration, the creator can get out of it - the more generously the consumer acts towards the creator. This is perfectly obvious in situations where sequences of comments develop into mutually inspiring conversations, but even a single click on a Like-button can be seen as generosity - as the consumer hereby gives an expression of the type "more of the same kind, please".
For the same reason, I prefer five dedicated readers than 5000 that I hardly notice are there - because I, along with the five dedicated ones, can share much more symbiotic generosity in our common interest.
(Translated from Mere om egoisme, generøsitet og symbiose)

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)

Promises made to readers

Image courtesy of pixabay / MiraDeShazer

I saw a very interesting video the other day, where professor Adam Grant visits author Daniel Pink in the latter's backyard, and they speak on the topic of "writing books". A particularly exciting sequence comes towards the end, where Daniel Pink talks about an editor who had commented a passage of 4-5,000 words that do not quite work, by asking Pink consider what promise he actually makes to his readers.
And then it becomes interesting how Pink reflects on the question:

I'm asking the reader to say: oh, no matter, what you are doing in your life, just stop. Please stop, spend how ever long it takes, 20 minutes, half an hour, with me, because it is more important than anything else you're doing - more important than doing your work, more important than exercising, more important than spending time with your family - just spend that time with me, and it will be a better use of your time. And you're like "whoa, wait a second, I'm actually making the promise that that's the case, I better deliver on that promise."

It is very beautifully and accurately put. Because that's what it's all about: in this world where time is often regarded as our most precious resource, we are wasting people's resources if we make them read something for a span of time they could have used for something better.

It is one thing that all those of us who carry an unhatched author inside, should think carefully about.
As well as, for that matter, something that one as a blogger should keep in mind. If we haven't got something important to say, we should remain silent. Alternatively refrain from wondering why no one reads what we write.
(Translated from Løftet til læserne)

Choose Must, Originals!

I have recently held two fascinating books in my hands: Elle Luna's "The Crossroads of Should and Must" and Adam Grants "Originals".

 
And eventhough I have not yet finished reading Originals, I can tell that central to both books is the idea of ​​doing something original, and how one does not have to throw everything overboard and puts one's standard of living at risk simply because there is something that one feels one must do - there is nothing wrong in abstaining from throwing everything overboard and burning all bridges in the process just because of an urge to live out an original idea - still, there are enough available hours every day to do things like that.
And hence, I became fascinated by the thought: "Gee, if I do not have to give up my standard of living, my daytime job and my way of life to do something original - why must I have to do it for an original idea that I can earn money from? Why don't I simply find something other people could enjoy and benefit from, now that I do not have to worry about the money, it might bring?
It is a tempting thought indeed - and the very moment you have accepted it, it sets you off on creative thinking about the best ways to do something that other people can enjoy and benefit from - not just what everyone else do, but something original, exiting and challenging? Or, combining the words of the two authors who inspired me, into the summoning I felt: Choose Must, Originals!
It is a path that I have only just begun to tread, and most likely I will become increasingly inspired while reading Originals. But already I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards Adam Grant and Elle Luna for having inspired the thought in me. And if more people joins in, this might become a revelation in the service of the common good.
(Translated from Overskriften, der ikke ville oversættes)