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)

The Most Important Task

Not many days ago, I used almost one and a half minutes on Daniel Pink and his Pinkcast - now I did it again. This time his talked over a topic he picked up from the writer Leo Babauta - a topic, abbreviated into MIT (no, not that MIT, but rather): the Most Important Task: if you want to get the right things done, start the day by picking out the Most Important Task of the day, and without hesitation get on with it: allowing no outside disturbance such as e-mail, Twitter or other procrastination to get in the way until the MIT is completed.
It is, as Pink also indicates, somewhat of a revelation, because it is so obvious, when you think about it. Just get on with it.
And, well, just hope for the stakeholders of your Second-most Important Task being unable to physically place themselves between you and your MIT...
(Translated from Den mest betydningsfulde arbejdsopgave)

On the topic of decisiveness

Recently, I saw an interesting video, where Daniel Pink in a "Pinkcast" in less than one and half minutes gave some good advice on how to make better decisions on your own.
The recommendation originally came from Chip and Dan Heath's book "Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work", and I found it so interesting that it immediately drew me towards an internet bookstore.
In all simplicity: if you need a good decision, one should simply think: what advice would I give a good friend, if he came to me and asked me for advice in relation to the same dilemma?
It turns out that in this way, if one is able to free oneself from the tangle of emotions that often accompany the big decisions, one is messing with, it is possible to make better decisions.
Much good can be achieved if one can get away with cheating oneself with a laudable purpose.
(Translated from Noget om beslutsomhed)

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)