How often do you notice inconsistencies? We are human, so we are all inconsistent at times. But the more often I see these inconsistencies, the more they confuse me or make little sense to me. In fact, they confuse me so much, that this is my fourth attempt to write this post. Sigh.
I suspect that part of what confuses me or makes little sense is how we have allowed social media to reframe our actions and thinking.
Let’s start with people who want to attract a following. They call themselves “thought leaders.” (Crazy me, I thought other people had to call you a thought leader to be one. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, not just confused.) But when I look at these thought leaders, I see that they highlight their certifications or affiliation with “standard” frameworks and methodologies.
If they’re following a standard, how are they a thought leader? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Worse, many of these people post first on social media because they want the likes or acclaim from the algorithm. They think that makes them a thought leader.
But social media is ephemeral. Each media site uses algorithms to decide what to show each and every person. Yes, the algorithm is the ruler. We have no control over who can see our current or historical work.
That confuses me and makes no sense to me.
I take a contrarian stance. While I do want people to appreciate my work, I prefer to be a thought provoker, not a “thought leader.” That’s why I write on my sites and then share on the various socials.
In my experience, chasing algorithms rarely works. Instead of allowing the algorithm to rule my choices, I build my thinking and—by extension—my audience, one post at a time.
Algorithms Might Change How We Think
Because algorithms rule the short-term, the algorithms focus our attention on the short term. My most recent newsletter, How Often Do You Change How You Act Based on New Information? discussed a few ideas about thinking.
That short-term thinking decreases our empathy with others. Often because we don’t get to see “everything.”
It’s even worse with our upcoming US election.
I read a lot, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post. Yes, conservative to liberal. Since I read “both” sides (there are actually many sides), I often discover slants to what I read.
Those slants show who we empathize with and who we don’t.
That empathy—or lack thereof—explains our culture. Who should get a say in our medical choices? Who decides where we, as a society, spend money? How proactive or reactive do we want to be, especially on the climate?
All of these are important questions. I wish we could discuss those in this election. However, none of those questions mean anything if our votes don’t count. And some of the people in this election want to rule over us, instead of discuss what we value as a culture.
That confuses me and makes little or no sense to me. Empathy might offer us a clue.
How Does Empathy Drive Your Actions and Thinking?
Almost everyone I know says they have empathy with others. Talk is cheap—instead, it’s what we do and how we think that matters.
Yes, we are not always consistent. Since I admit I am not always consistent, that does not confuse me. We are messy humans!
When we consider empathy as a guideline—not an algorithm—we can recognize this election is about one big idea: Who gets to decide about our democracy? Which votes count? Will we allow ourselves to be ruled? Or will we vote for the messiness of democracy?
Even if we allow algorithms to rule our professional lives like those thought leaders, we don’t have to allow the algorithm to rule our society. Instead, we can choose to lead with empathy. That might lead to fewer inconsistencies for all of us. And much less confusion.
While I hope you agree with me, please plan how you will vote. I vote for the messiness of democracy, because I don’t want rulers to decide how I can live. I want to make my own choices, even if I am inconsistent.