Language Is Mental Health In Action

Language is thought in action. What does that mean, Tom? I'm glad you asked.

I don't want to crawl too far down a rabbit hole, but almost all of us subvocalise our thoughts. Subvocalisation is that inner monologue we hear when we read or think - you're likely subvocalising right now, reading this sentence. Yes, it's all very meta.

One of the ways we confuse ourselves is to skip the thought bit and think language is action. It isn't. It's just a thought, an idea. Communism the idea didn't kill 100 million people directly, those acting in its name did. (That said, it's still a bad idea.)

When we humans confuse thought with action, we do silly things like compose text messages in our head and forget to actually send them or have arguments against our colleagues in the shower (which we inevitably win.)

The problem with this is our nervous system often doesn't know the difference between what's perceived and what's real. We can think our way into anxiety and depression, aided by complex and repetitive trauma that's located in our viscera - our gut feelings, as it turns out, play a big role in our moods and emotional wellbeing.

This poses a problem for the "talking cure." According to trauma researcher Bessel van der Kolk, responding to trauma through medication and talking alone doesn't always work in isolation. I've been on mild anti-depressants/anxiety medication since high school. I can definitely attest to Dr. van der Kolk's assessment. In everyday situations, especially when we're feeling low, it can be attributed to the narrative we spin about ourselves.

Your brain will believe what you tell it is true. The root of depression, as put in a meme, is the result of nasty rumours you tell about yourself. So how can you flip the script, or at least try to?

What I Do

The first act is to open up and own what you say. If something doesn't feel right, ask someone you trust and talk it out. No, they might not understand. But at least you will get it off your chest. Join a support group, see a counsellor, do whatever suits you best. Always use the "I" statement. Not "you know" or "you know when..." No, I don't know. Own what you say and often the solution will become clear.

Second, journal. Keep a daily (or near enough) journal. Opening up by writing things down is not only good for tracking your own progress but getting clarity on your thoughts.

Truth isn't a convenience, it's a winner's mindset.

Third, tell the truth. Tell it to yourself, tell it to your loved ones, tell it to everyone around you, as hard as it seems. If you say "Oh, I tell the truth 90% of the time..." Well, how do I know I'm getting the 90% or the 10% that's BS? Truth is the currency of business. Hiding things, being dishonest, pretending everything's alright...reality always kicks down the door of fantasy. Always. Truth isn't a convenience, it's a winner's mindset.

All three elements are explained much better in the following books, which I recommend every businessperson read:

A Rational Guide To Living by Drs. Albert Ellis & Robert Harper, Ph.D
The Situation Is Hopeless, But Not Serious by Dr. Paul Wazlawick, Ph.D.
The Obstacle is The Way by Ryan Holiday
Daring Greatly by Dr. Brene Brown, PhD.

It doesn't always work, but it works much better than the alternative.

Up Hayakawa's Ladder

According to the great media ecologist Neil Postman, “the dictionary definition is not the end of an argument on its meaning, it is the beginning of one.”

Alfred Korzybski, a Polish engineer, thought so too. Coming out of the horror of the First World War, he asked: We as humans have progressed past Euclidian geometry and Newtonian physics, why do we still adhere to a language system dominated by Aristotle?

In short, Aristotelian language systems are built on the law of the excluded middle. A is A and cannot be B. Something is, in its totality. Grass is green. But look at it from the reverse perspective: Is Green grass in all cases? Something is amiss here.

Non-Aristotelian language systems are “fuzzier” - they do not deal in absolutes. Instead, they look at probabilities, offering different meanings resting upon how we deal with abstractions.

Language is thought in action. The sounds we make, the letters we write, the way we move our hands and faces is our way of making our inner thoughts come alive in the real world. We then interpret those signals and process them as thoughts of our own.

In this process, some of the “true” meaning is lost. The signal is interrupted by noise. Sometimes that noise is of our own making.

In the 19th Century we hit the limits of Euclidian geometry; in the early 20th we hit the limits of Newtonian physics. In the 21st, we are seeing us hit the limits of Aristotelian language.

Non-Aristotelian language systems ask this question: what is going on? The language must shape the observations and be conscious that our words do not cover every single aspect of whatever is described.

S. I. Hayakawa’s Abstraction Ladder.

Look at Hayakawa’s Ladder. Samuel I. Hayakawa was a US Senator and General Semanticist that borrowed from Korzybski’s ideas. We as humans confuse logical levels all the time. The abstract concept of “wealth” could mean almost anything lower on the ladder. “Bessie” the cow, one particular cow among many, is lost amongst that “wealth.”

One could argue the art of political communication is pitching high abstract concepts at as many people as possible and moving up and down the ladder depending on the political objective.

Not only that, but words can have different meanings depending on context. The phenomenon of “fake news” is often a deliberate confusion between more abstract terms and concrete terms. Concrete being what we see or hear directly; abstract in the sense of what we can infer; and “defined” by what we judge to be true. For example:

Observation: My neighbour Joe hasn’t returned the hammer he borrowed from me a month ago.
Inference: Joe is lazy and careless about other people’s belongings.
Judgement: Joe is a bad and untrustworthy person.

Now let’s observe this further and get more information.

Observation: My neighbour Joe hasn’t returned the hammer he borrowed from me a month ago.
Inference (based on further observation): Joe is a widower. He’s under lockdown with three kids and has been laid off, he must have his hands full at the moment.
Judgement: Joe is likely depressed and anxious. I won’t bother him with such trivial things at the moment.

I write this because I’m tutoring a friend of mine in writing university essays. I explained this concept to him, and he threw his hands up in the air. “Was I away when they taught this in school?”

I told him they don’t teach this in school.

He was shocked.

I thought about it for a tick. I was shocked too.

What if next to no one is taught this at any level? Why are we running around using inventions based on current science and using a language built for primitives?

Is this not a recipe for disaster?

Or are we living in the oven already?

Let’s hope not.

If You Can Interview, You Can Negotiate

Up until earlier this year, I worked as a music journalist and editor. I spent about nine years at Hysteria Mag, the last few of which as an Editor of some kind. One of the most enjoyable aspects of the job was the rock star interview.

I’d done about 300+ interviews in my time for a range of publications. I conducted about 95% of these interviews over the phone. These interviews are given out in “slots.”

Journalists and broadcasters are invited to join a one to two-hour block of interviews, with each interviewer given a 15 to 20-minute allocation to talk to the muso.

This was all an exercise in PR and promotion for a new album or tour. About 90% of interviews were about an upcoming album, tour, or both. It was rare to interview a subject “just because.” It had to be during “promotion season” or not at all.

As a greenhorn, I would ask obvious questions. How was it recording this time around? Are you excited to go on tour? Did the new member contribute well? Are you going to have X and Y on the set list?

Woe betide the scribe who hit their subject with generic questions like this at the end of a two hour block. At best you’d get annoyed, one- or two-word answers as they’d been asked the question about six times already.

Sometimes, musos just didn’t much care for doing media. They were strongarmed into it by their PR or record company. At the end of the day, it was like they were being treated like a sponge, each interviewer wringing more and more out of them, even though their mental bandwidth had long since evaporated.

“With apologies to Joel Saltzman who said “if you can talk you can write,” it would seem “if you can interview, you can negotiate.”

In computing, Garbage In Garbage Out means that if you put in erroneous data you’ll get unreliable results. The same goes for interviewing. Ask boring questions, get boring answers. I wanted to make this my career one day (my advice for kids doing it now: don’t) so I had to up my game.

Through trial and error, I hit upon the magic words that signalled a great interview. The interviewer either had to respond with something like:

“That’s a great question.”

Or

“Yes, you’re right.”

The setup to these questions is usually closed, not open ended. For example, interviewing one of my favourite subjects; multi-instrumentalist, and wide-eyed dreamer Devin Townsend, I asked:

“Would you say that you’re a person that sort of craves varied stimulation? I mean this in a creative sense, where doing that same thing will lead to an inevitable inertia, stagnation.”

He replied with “a hundred percent, a hundred percent.” Devin is not a particularly hard subject to interview. The fact that I connected with him on a level that made him heard, not just a resource, allowed me to probe further and ask more personal questions than if I didn’t have him on side.

Not everyone is an interviewer by trade, but we do communicate with people in the same way. In business, we use the euphemism “job interview” as part of the selection process for an open position. In other terms, a person negotiates their way to getting the job. He or she must convince the boss or hiring manager that they are the right person.

Reading and watching videos on Never Split The Difference: How To Negotiate As If Your Life Depended On It by Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator, finding an empathetic common ground often leads to a successful negotiation where you concede little, perhaps none, of your position.

He calls this “tactical empathy.” I used to call it “good interview technique.”

With apologies to Joel Saltzman who said “if you can talk you can write,” it would seem “if you can interview, you can negotiate.”

In an interview, the subject has information that a journalist wants to gain. Some interviewees, especially in general news or politics, do not want to give up that information so easily. Gaining the trust of a subject can be a tricky business, especially if they are survivors of a traumatic event.

We all know what it feels like to be heard and empathised with. We all know how it feels to have a conversation where both parties get to know one another. Most things in life are negotiated in a broad sense; a romantic date is a negotiation in some respects, as both parties put their best qualities forward to find love or companionship.

It would seem that “Getting to Yes” (a great book on negotiation) is as important to achieving the empathetic “Getting to ‘You’re Right.’”

Interviewing is a learned skill, like writing is a learned skill. Mathematics is too (still working on that, let me tell you.) It would seem the calculus of a successful negotiation is simply applied listening and empathising.

It might lead to less stress and a greater understanding of our needs. I think it’s definitely something we’re all craving at the moment.

If You Want To Be Heard, Start Listening

Kids of my generation, perhaps the one before, would scratch their heads wondering why grandma kept all those rubber bands. We’d look askew when she turned off the stove before things were heated through; why she used the same tattered sponge over and over, even though its once bright yellow pad had turned a sickly brown.

The polite answer is she lived through the Great Depression and World War II.

The more accurate answer is she had a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

During the Coronavirus disease pandemic, we too are experiencing something life-altering. The economic fallout and curtailment of our movements aside, I mean. For the first time in our lives, we are not experiencing a global event through a medium of television or print; we are living through it, all of us, at the same time. The COVID-19 pandemic is not something that happens to “those poor people” on another continent.

It is happening to me. It is happening to you. It’s happening to your partner. It’s happening to your children. It’s happening to your friends. It’s happening to your parents. It’s happening to their parents.

Everyone.

Your children, or your children’s children, will wonder why Grandma is so “anal” about sanitising her hands every time she comes home from the shop; they’ll scratch their heads when she insists they wear a mask when having a cough; why they’re reluctant to leave the house when “some kind of bug is going around.”

The polite answer is that she lived through the COVID-19 pandemic.

The more accurate answer – the answer we know to be true – is that she has some form of PTSD.

That she is “we.”

A dear friend of mine was upset that she couldn’t “fix” herself and stop being “paranoid” about COVID-19 and germs in general. How could one be “fixed” when every day – hour even - we see images of body bags, death counts, and big scary red spiky balls on TV (they’re supposed to be an image of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes the disease. I can assure you, it doesn’t look like that.) The best we can hope for is recovery.

Marketing and communication during this time has been annoying at best and predatory at worst. I’ve been inundated with spam email for hand sanitiser, toilet paper, deferred business loans, and everything I don’t really need. It’s because they’re set to the modern default: I’m going to shout at you like a petulant child until you hear me. Just hop on Twitter at any given moment to see what I mean.

Organising a support group for men with anxiety and depression issues for the last decade, I can tell you from my own experience that the most powerful tool for any type of recovery – emotional and economic – is to listen.

My red-coloured rubber physiotherapy ball, definitely not a scale model of SARS-CoV-2.

Lend that ear. Take in what the other person is saying. Empathise with them. Don’t mull over what you’re going to say in response. Just become the receiver for a brief few moments. Let go of any expectation of reciprocation. Be that “rock.”

The psychologist Sam Vaknin says our society is a narcissistic one. I tend to agree. When I first got into journalism, I was expecting publications I didn’t read nor buy pay me money for my writing. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. On the macro level, we transform ourselves into “content” for a currency of attention, though many people do not return the favour. It’s not hypocrisy. It’s just Instagram.

If you’re admonishing yourself for washing your hands obsessively, don’t. Right now, with no cure or vaccine, it’s better to be safe than sorry. “You do you,” as the saying goes. Like in twelve-step programs, there is a reasonable expectation you will relapse a week, a month, a year, a decade from now. It’s fine.

Don’t beat yourself up about it.

What can we do to recover from it all? In my view?

The first step toward recovery is simple.

We just have to listen.

---

If you or anyone you know is in need of help, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or BeyondBlue 1300 22 4636. Just want to talk? Call me on 0417 120 749.

Machines Using Humans To Make Better Machines

While browsing social media, have you ever encountered something that made you just so angry you couldn't stand it? Well, that's a feature, not a bug. As media theorist Douglas Rushkoff states:

“Researchers have found, for example, that the algorithms running social media platforms tend to show pictures of ex-lovers having fun. No, users don’t want to see such images. But, through trial and error, algorithms have discovered showing pictures of our exes having fun increases our engagement. We are drawn to click on those pictures and see what our exes are up to, and we’re more likely to do it if we’re jealous they’ve found a new partner. The algorithms don’t know why it works, and they don’t care. They’re only maximise whatever metric we’ve instructed them to pursue.”

- Douglas Rushkoff, Team Human

It struck me how far we've come from the 1950s, when Norbert Weiner's theory of cybernetics - humans using machines to improve humans - has turned itself on its head. We're now using machines to exploit humans to refine the machines. We can either program (the insidious "learn to code" meme) or be programmed.

The machines are trying their best to remove us from the human equation. We have metrics, dashboards, bounce rates, pageviews, conversions; some of us talk in this machine language that would've made Dr. Weiner's head spin. We're trying to be like computers, but we can't. A computer has perfect memory, perfect algorithms, perfect recall. It can know you better than you know yourself.

Unfortunately we cannot go back to a previous time; you can't cut smartphones or the Internet out from our culture; no more than you can remove your liver or lungs. It's transformed our entire society, whether we like it or not.

In French sociologist Jacques Ellul’s view, the bargain we make with new technology is Faustian; what problems new technology solves seems to take something away at the same time.

I remember a time when I used to (well, still do) blow up innocent pixels in flight simulators and first person shooters. My Dad couldn't understand the unrestrained glee I was having, using (simulated) weapons of mass destruction.

I said these disintegrated people weren't "real." Instead, "they" were computer-generated characters programmed to fight me and die trying. We can obviously distinguish between what's real and what's not (though deepfakes and other misinformation might muddy those already hazardous waters), but when we end up serving machines, we often lose sight of the human element.

Often, clients become folders, deadlines, and metrics. They're no longer people with struggles of their own, reaching out to me for help with something. I think in the PPC, CPC, "machine" algorithm age, many of us don't take the time to value a client for who he or she is.

A computer can't really recognise the value of something unless we tell it to.

We can.

It's hard, but I think it's worth doing.

Leaders Are Not Our Masters

“A man who follows someone else not only does not find anything, he is not even looking. But surely you are going to walk in your predecessors footsteps? Yes indeed, I shall use the old road, but if I find a shorter and easier one I shall open it up. The men who pioneered the old routes are leaders, not our masters. Truth lies open to everyone. There has yet to be a monopoly of truth. And there is plenty of it left for future generations too.”

— Seneca, Letters from a Stoic

The world of words we inhabit is so continuous and ever-changing, it is near inseparable from the world of non-words, or things. Sometimes we call this reality. Reality, as author Philip K. Dick defines it, is the “part of life that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” It was this I was pondering when reading Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic the other day. Leaders are made, not born. They are believed in, which gives them their power.

Mastery over others can follow leadership, this is true. The charisma and cunning of leaders throughout history have moved nations into greatness; others have led them straight into a firing line. Once we have accepted someone as leader and master, is there any resolve left to carve our own path? Can we all be leaders? Can we be leaders without being masters?

In my previous blog on mastery, I talked about mastery as the command of a subject or process to it’s highest degree, not mastery as a person having dominion over others. The dominion is a voluntary process; there is no natural law that decrees one person having control over another, at least not in this day and age. Leaders as Masters may use rhetoric, “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” and other tricks to get others under their thumb. Living in a “post-truth” world, they purport to have a monopoly on truth, the same monopoly Seneca denies to any one person.

In business, some think of “leadership” as “mastery” - that they are the boss, they know better, and others should do what they say. This is not leadership, let alone mastery. Mastery, as I discussed earlier, is the attitude that one has achieved so much that there is nothing more to be learned. This too is folly.

I think that leaders can be learned from. Leaders who have both succeeded and failed in their pursuits are excellent learning tools. They led the way into a new market, a new field of study, a new path; and right now is the time we push the frontier of what’s unknown back a little more.

As humans, we are the only creatures we know of that bind time; that is, project our knowledge into the future through our children and (hopefully) build upon it. This is what Seneca means by “there is plenty left for future generations.” Their chase for wisdom has only just begun, and may teach us something in the process.

When I see “thought leaders” and “business leaders” in print, my mind turns to the “mastery” definition of leaders - that they must have followers to be leaders. I don’t think that definition, at least for me, cuts it any more. Perhaps we should think of leaders as those who got their first, or those who are trying something new, or those who speak truth when it falls on deaf ears. Leaders need not be sitting atop piles of riches to be leaders. Military leaders can charge into battle and be forced to retreat. In the absence of anyone willing, leadership appears when someone says “I’ll do it.”

All can be leaders, if we live in accordance with nature; that is, seek truth and concern ourselves with “what is going on” instead of “what’s inside our heads.” Following the majority will lead to mediocrity after all, as Seneca once wrote in his Letters.

Leaders only have mastery over us if we give it to them.

Was Obi-Wan ever a "Master?"

If you haven't seen Star Wars by now, I have to question your parents' devotion to you and whether you had a childhood at all. (This is my way of telling you there's spoilers.)

Anyway...

In the first Star Wars film (I refuse to retroactively call it A New Hope), Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrifices himself facing former pupil Darth Vader, allowing Luke Skywalker and his friends to escape the Death Star. In Star Wars lore, the master in Jedi master owes more to a Jedi Knight taking on an apprentice and showing him or her the ways of the light side of the Force.

The word mastery denotes control and supreme knowledge. It connotes having a thorough command of a subject or process, something "one could do in their sleep."

Last month, I had some time with a good friend Earl Livings, who himself is a writing teacher and fiction author. I had shown him the fourth draft of a short story I'd written back in January. He gave me some praise; however the markings, corrections, and suggestions told me I was a long way from "mastering" anything.

Was Obi-Wan really a master? Or was he in the process of learning too? He made a few blunders by withholding from Luke the true nature of his father.

Of course, failure is always feedback. Each red line through my prose is another step towards "mastery," though attainment of such a state may always be another step ahead, no matter how far I travel. I don't feel that the skills that comprise one's profession requires complete "mastery" as there is always more to learn.

I always fear the person who says they are complete in their knowledge; as this is rarely mastery at all.

Do you feel like you need to "master" subjects or skills? Or are you always a work in progress, like me?

Let me know in the comments below.

Default - The two bitterest words in the English language

Last year, I was pitted against a client turned enemy - someone I’d trusted until one day…he simply refused to pay.

Until a business owner is faced with a bad debtor, it’s hard figuring out what to do. Thanks to some help from friends, family, and the good people over at Flying Solo, I tried my hardest to recover what was owed to me.

Enter Client X

Client X, as I’ll describe him, was something of an entrepreneur himself. He had a few fingers in more than a few pies. He dabbled in marketing, lead generation, and sales of parts in the construction industry. He hired me to bolster his personal brand. This was in August of last year.

I wrote some blogs based on his opinions, which he supplied to me. He also asked me to come up with some “inspirational quotes” for his Instagram. The type successful people never post on Instagram, because they’re too busy chasing the next opportunity. I digress.

As usual, I sent my invoices out with 14 day terms.

As the 14th day arrived, I sent out a reminder. Then an overdue reminder. And another. Then another.

After about a week or two, Client X confessed he was having trouble with his own debtors. I sympathised, and suggested we work out a payment plan. He paid about 20% of the invoice and promised to pay the rest off over the next four weeks.

The payments never came.

What to do? My only real recourse was to send him a Letter of Demand. This came back “return to sender” and “no such address.” Something I didn’t expect, since I gained the details from an ASIC extract.

So I had to go down the legal route. I told Client X by way of my assistant I’d take the case before VCAT.

I did.

I won (plus the VCAT fee.)

It wasn’t enough.

He came back with a laundry list of excuses as to why he wouldn’t pay. He said the company had no assets, and all he’d be willing to give me was another 20% of what I was owed.

I told him that was unacceptable.

Enter CreditorWatch

The drama dragged on into December. I was at a wits’s end. I turned to the Flying Solo forums. Many offered a bit of camraderie, but similar head scratching. Until Tracy Fowler replied:

There are a couple of things you can do. You can list a default against him with a credit reporting agency... this will affect his credit rating for a period of 5 years whenever he goes for finance, as he is a director, it will affect his personal rating as well. You must give adequate notice of your intent to list a default... I usually send 3 emails or letters giving 7 days to respond, with the fourth contact 3 days later, and the fifth and final notice on the day I intend on listing the default. For the default, I would recommend using Creditorwatch, there is a $20 or $30 monthly fee for joining, but it gives you up to 5 credit reports, (which everyone should use prior to giving credit terms) and listing defaults are free. Creditorwatch are only for B2B transactions and the debt has to be over $150.00…
I have had debtors come back 2 years after a default and pay the debt and costs to have the default amended to paid, so that they can obtain finance. There are no guarantees, but at least it is a warning to others.
The other thing you can do is take yourself off to the local magistrates court and use the VCAT order to obtain judgement. This also stays on their credit file for 5 years, and affects their ability to obtain finance in the future.

I knew about filing defaults against individuals from my finance copywriting, but not about companies - this was golden advice.

Once I wielded the word default aloft like Excalibur, the fur started to fly.

“I’ll Sue for Deformation”

Client X was dogged in his determination to hold on to his money. When I said I’d lodge a default against his company through CreditorWatch, he was furious.

He ranted and raved that he’d sue me for “deformation” (I think he meant defamation) even though I’d dotted every “i” when it came to getting what I was owed. He said he’d get my default “removed within a day”. I retorted (perhaps cheekily) that if he had enough money to pay for a lawyer, he had enough money to pay me the full amount.

December rolled into January 2019, and I did indeed register a default against his company. This company is now in voluntary administration. Will I ever see the money? I doubt I have a Cuba Gooding, Jr. like confidence to shout it at anyone in particular.

The Lesson

Some friends asked why I just didn’t take the money and settle it. At one point, I tried. He wasn’t acting in good faith, and I rescinded the offer. He was trying to get this monkey off his back by any way possible.

What Client X owed me wasn’t a massive amount (less than $500), but it was significant. Either way, it was the principle of the thing. If I allow myself to get fleeced, have my boundaries violated, then who else might take advantage? As a solo business owner, I value my time, which is why I dare make a living off it.

I think as a professional communicator, the meta-communication in this says “If you value my product, you must also value my time - and I trade my time for money.” I hope other soloists and small business owners can learn from my experience. As frustrating as they were.

Paul from the FS forums summed it up best: “Order work, then pay for it.”

Special thanks to Tracy at BDM Credit Management for all her help and advice!

Everybody's Doing It, Why Not You?

If you've stepped outside since October, it's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas.

What that actually means to you is as various as people in general. It could mean dragging plastic trees around the house; spending up big and forgetting it until your statement arrives; or you could be of a faith that only observes this bizarre ritual at a distance.

The language of Christmas - and likewise the language of anti-consumerist sentiments in opposition to it - are quite similar. They both try to persuade people into adopting a tradition that only dates back a couple of generations. Christmas as the gift-swapping, Turkey-engorged ritual we observe every 25th of December is as "made up" as Halloween; though detractors of the former will happily embrace the latter.

Many "traditions" are what we'd refer to today as "viral marketing campaigns"; the DeBeers diamond cartel insisting men save up at least 'three months salary' to buy their fiance an engagement ring with a diamond encrusted on top. That was dreamed up by the N.W. Ayer ad agency in the 1900s, to prop up what was once an abundant and intrinsically worthless gemstone.

We as humans (seem to) need ritual, repetition. It feels safe, and it feels predictable. If we arrived home after work each night and our keys worked one time in ten, we'd feel pretty out of sorts. Marketing and advertising around Christmas often depicts the familiar and cozy - even though a snow-driven Christmas is largely a product of the American imagination. Our drink containers, wrapping paper - even Christmas crackers - all show us images of Snowmen, candy canes, and hot cups of cocoa. All this in the middle of blazing summer, on a continent far removed from the frosted-over driveways of Europe or the United States.

Even as absurd as it sounds, this holiday has near universal support. Is that a good thing? Like most decisions we make in life, that's up to us and us alone. It's a weird one, when you think about it!

Why every soloist should journal

Dear Diary, I feel a bit nervous telling everyone about writing in you. What if they laugh at me? What if they think I’m being precious? Worst of all, what if they ignore me?!

Well, at least I got it out there. I tried my best. That’s all that matters.

Journalling is a time-honoured tradition. So many people that shaped the world jotted down their thoughts for the day, every day (or close enough to it.): Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Alexis de Toqueville, George S. Patton, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, George Lucas, Alfred Deakin, Teddy Roosevelt. That’s some great company, there. Research even tells us that outstanding leadership requires insight, and writing a journal can help achieve that.

That’s not to say journalling will spur you to instant success, of course. But it does give you pause to reflect, analyse, and process where you are and where you’d like to go.

Read the entire post on Flying Solo.

Vero: The Social Media Bluff

When the railroad and the automobile came on the scene, those who wanted could still travel by horseback. But now there is no choice. A businessman cannot acquire a computer just because he likes progress. The computer brings a whole system with it…the technical system has become strongly integrated…offices, means of distribution, personnel must all be adapted to it. - Jacques Ellul, The Technological Bluff

---

If you've flicked through Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat over the last 48 hours you've likely seen users flocking to a new social medium called Vero. Vero's tag is "true social," which Forbes says enables one to "share what you want to share with who you want to share it with, unencumbered by the crush of third party posts that show up with ever-increasing frequency in other social networks."

This is a boon to brands and advertisers (some of which are bedroom guitarists showing off mediocre covers on Instagram) - no algorithm? No advertising? It sounds like a dream come true.

The media scholar in me says - not so fast. As a student of Neil Postman, media ecology, and everything else that goes with it, my mind tends to this maxim by the late, great Professor:

"New technology is a kind of Faustian bargain. It always gives us something, but it always takes away something important. That’s true of the alphabet, and the printing press, and telegraph, right up through the computer."

So what makes Vero so different? Why could it prevail over other networks such as the now defunct App.net, Mastodon, and even Google+, which had the search behemoth behind it despite dismal take up?

Well, right now, we have a pronounced network effect. This is the increased perception of usefulness due to a rapid surge of new subscribers. The more people seen to use it, the more useful it looks, and eventually becomes.

But success is not assured. As you can see, Twitter and Facebook, for example, were true "new" technologies. They were as revolutionary to media as a culture as the printing press or television. They both had a transformative effect.

Twenty years ago, we could not conceive of a public official communicating directly with his or her constituencies in near-real time, using a common platform. I am of course talking about the rise of Presidents Obama and Trump using Twitter.

Whether the network effect peaks and deflates, much like the Pokemon Go phenomenon (how many tweens do you see in parks catching electronic monsters these days?), remains to be seen. This is the major stumbling block: Vero is not offering an automobile in the age of horseback. They are just offering an alternative automobile, a Chevrolet Series C Classic to Ford's Model T.

Vero offers many of the same features Google+ did when introduced in June 2011. You can share with pre-defined circles of friends, share limitless text, links, images, and video, and also does not rank content according to algorithms or advertising. Even though G+ is baked into every Google account on the planet (boasting 540 million monthly active users at one point) those users only engaged with it for 3-7 minutes on average, compared to 7.5 hours for Facebook.

Enter Mephistopheles

Of course, there's a dark side - the fine print. Uploading content to Vero grants them a:

limited, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, list information regarding, translate, distribute, syndicate, publicly perform, publicly display, make derivative works of, or otherwise use your User Content...

Which basically hands over your moral and copyrights over to the service. Forever. It still affords effortless social interaction (like Facebook) but takes away the nuance and depth of face-to-face communication (also like Facebook.)

Vero's success will owe more to human behaviour than any other media theory I could reference: habit. Social media isn't just where everyone "is", it's also a daily (hourly?) ritual giving us a little rush of dopamine. If likes and strokes (in the Eric Berne sense of the word) are few and far between on Vero, people will cling to what they know.

What do you think? Will Vero take off, or will it too end up a "digital ghost town" like so many "Facebook-killers" that have passed before it?

More on the network effect, by TechAltar

How To Make Your Writing Out Of This World

Originally posted under the title "How To Make Your Writing Effective" at SavvySME

The iconic space station, Deep Space Nine.

One of my favourite TV shows is Star Trek. My favourite spin-off is Deep Space Nine. My least favourite is Voyager. Let me tell you a story about both of these shows. (Be prepared for a journey through time and space until we land back on Planet Earth!)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a bold effort in television at the time. (Not as bold as its rival Babylon 5, but that’s another story.) This was a science fiction show using their abundant technology to stay still. Star Trek was, and is, about exploring strange new worlds. Deep Space Nine was set on a space station. Things interacted with it, not the other way around.

Star Trek: Voyager put a twist on what had come before, however. The premise of “exploring strange new worlds” was still the pillar of the show. However, this time the crew of the titular USS Voyager finds themselves stranded in the Delta Quadrant, 70.000 light years from Earth. Even with the futuristic faster-than-light tech that Star Trek relies on for storytelling, this means a 75-year journey back.

During season two of their epic seven-season run, Deep Space Nine began serialising their stories. They introduced a chilling antagonist in the Dominion, bent on destroying the peaceful Federation and her allies. For a show that was set on a space station, their adventures and conflicts took place between people and tough moral situations. This was an age where binge watching and catch-ups weren’t an option (1993-1999). If you missed a week, you missed a vital part. The final season wrapped up narrative threads artfully set up in the preceding five seasons.

Voyager was the opposite. In comparison, Voyager was a cartoon. Anything that blew up the ship, imperilled the crew, or caused mischief in the Holodeck reset the next week. Voyager was indestructible, from a narrative point of view.

Deep Space Nine was created with no endgame in mind. Voyager had an endgame – get back to Earth. In fact, production staff titled the last episode Endgame. As predicted, they returned to Earth. They had to, right?

So what does this have to do with writing and communication?

Back To Earth - Communication with Purpose

Screenwriting is a form of communication – to directors, actors, prop masters, designers, costumers and so on. So is your writing – to managers, customers, distributors, suppliers, and so on.

Every piece of writing you set to create must have an endgame. There has to be a reason for it, and a set of outcomes you want to achieve. If you lose sight of that endgame, people will tell. It’s why fans pilloried Voyager at the time (and still do to this day.)

Some pieces of writing such as an annual report or a request for comment have an endgame baked into it. A request for comment is defined by its title - it’s asking for requests for comment! But the endgame is not enough. It has to reach out and touch someone. This is the basis for all types of writing. Sharing our wants, needs, and experience using the medium of words.

Connecting With Humanity - Communication with Passion

Once you’ve established an endgame, Deep Space Nine, unlike Voyager, had vulnerability. This vulnerability served a purpose. If your message has no heart, it is pushing uphill to connect with people. If you write without exposing yourself as a vulnerable individual with conflicts and feelings of your own, it falls flat.

Vulnerability is how we connect with readers - the Ancient Greeks called it “pathos”, a critical part of rhetoric, or the art of persuasion. You can connect with readers in a book, an essay, or even a simple email. Vulnerability expert, author, and TED sensation Dr. Brene Brown says vulnerability is the beginning of courage, and courage helps us belong in the world. She says:

“Because true belonging only happens when we present our authentic, imperfect selves to the world, our sense of belonging can never be greater than our level of self-acceptance.”

Perennial business cliche (and he’s a cliche for 74.8 billion reasons) and Berkshire Hathaway founder Warren Buffett always has an endgame and a vulnerability. As he says himself:

“Whenever I sit down to write the annual report, I pretend I am writing it to one of my sisters. Though highly intelligent, they are not experts on accounting or finance. They will understand plain English, but jargon may puzzle them. My goal is simply to give the information I would wish them to supply me if our positions are reversed. To succeed, I don’t need to be Shakespeare; I must have a sincere desire to inform.”

When you reveal yourself as a real person through your writing, you make every instalment an unmissable piece of your story. It must have passion, and it must have purpose.

So in your writing, what will you be? Deep Space Nine, or Voyager?

---

Want copywriting that's out this world for your business?

Do you have once-a-year books?

Philip K. Dick.

In the writing game, I feel that you need to consume more than you produce. That is, writers should really read more than they write. Busy lifestyles command more of our time in ever thinning slices, but reading should be a top priority for anyone who communicates in a professional setting. How you divide that time is up to you: some prefer magazines, others prefer non-fiction. I maintain that a variety of styles and sources is best for a well-rounded “education” on writing. I think reading deeply is as important as reading widely. The path to mastery is not one, but many. I try to read the most pertinent in my collection at least once a year, to remind myself of certain facts and certain perspectives.

Non-fiction

Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

I’ve mentioned this book on the blog before, but it’s more relevant than ever. Those scratching their heads at how the US populace could elect a Reality TV president, this book written 30 years prior gives insight other commentators merely skirt around. I mean, we already had the Reality TV war (Iraq) and the Reality TV terror attack (September 11), was a Reality TV leader of the free world that far-fetched? Postman shows us a media culture obsessed with “feel-good” over “facts,” and the biases of our mediums that conspire to keep it that way.

Language in Thought and Action by Samuel I. Hayakawa

The “popular” text on General Semantics and language studies, a must for those who want to discover their own semantic biases and the biases of others. It too delves into logic games, multi-valued orientations vs. two-valued “absolutisms”, poetry and the advertiser, what words really “mean”, and much more. An essential book for those working in communications.

Fiction

Nineteen-Eighty Four by George Orwell

This book was one of the first I’d read in high school and has stuck with me ever since. I think I’m attracted to the linguistic element of the book, Newspeak, and the narrowing of our experience as Big Brother eliminates complex ideas. “You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words,” says Parsons, our protagonist Winston Smith’s co-worker in the Ministry of Truth. Reading it sends a chill down my spine each time. Compare “Ministry of Truth” to “Social Justice” or “Fake news.”

Ubik by Philip K. Dick

One of the first ever books I’d read of Philip K. Dick, and one that demonstrates the power of words to craft an alternate reality. The mention or non-mention of certain phrases and passages turns a world on our head, as does the revelation and suppression of certain bits of information. It’s a philosophical tome, a book about running out of time, and much more.

Do you have once-a-year-books?

A Word Sparking Star Wars and Real Wars

Star Wars: The Force Awakens drowned us this summer, with merchandising ranging from mascara to oranges on store shelves. Once I saw the new film, I wanted to see the original theatrical versions, undiluted by George Lucas’ meddling. Lucasfilm insists they no longer exist. Of course, legions of fans took it upon themselves to reconstruct the films using a variety of sources. The most controversial change in the first film takes place in the Mos Eisley cantina scene. (spoiler alert – but really, you should’ve seen Star Wars by now!) Green gilled and bug-eyed Greedo corners smuggler Han Solo. Han’s a marked man and Greedo’s itching to collect. In the original version, (after stalling and Han drawing his blaster) Han shoots Greedo “in cold blood.” Here’s what the shooting script says:

“Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light.  Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patrons look on in bemused amazement.”

Later revisions show Greedo shooting first, then Han and Greedo shooting at the same time. “So what?” you might think. This visually insignificant change is one that contains multitudes.

It’s supposed to inform viewers that Solo isn’t so trustworthy. Ben and Luke have put in their lot with this low-life braggart. We’re supposed to feel uneasy about this hasty alliance. It changes the tenor of the film. Han could have sold Ben and Luke if captured by the Imperials, left them for dead at any time, etc.

Another far more tragic example of subtle changes having long reaching effects was during the last gasp of World War II. Japan, threatened by invasion from the United States and fast running out of resources, was determined to fight until the last man. The “Big Three” (United Kingdom, Soviet Union and the US) issued an ultimatum for surrender to the Japanese. The Japanese responded in the negative, but suffered from mistranslation. A word – mokusatsu – has two meanings in Japanese. The first being “ignore” and the other, “refrain from comment.” It was the difference between “let us think about it” and “We refuse!” If the message was translated as “no comment,” the Japanese and US may have arrived at a surrender deal, preventing the twin atomic horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This misinterpretation struck consequences far beyond the imaginations of its writers and readers.

It’s a chilling lesson for clarity and precision in communication. We may think that subtle differences make no difference, although we're proven wrong time and time again. If you believe that words are your ally, do – keep in mind words might turn on you without provocation. Remember always: "Expect to misunderstand and expect to be misunderstood."

The Pointy End Podcast now up!

Tom Valcanis is a journalist, copywriter and political scientist. He believes that words can explode! Well, only if you get the right words. If you can, they won’t just explode once, they'll go on exploding forever.

A month or so ago, I was humbled to be a guest on Active Elements Radio The Pointy End podcast, hosted by Dr. Leslie Fisher. Dr. Fisher is a good friend and colleague of mine, and we've had many long conversations about a variety of topics during our meetings at the NAB Village. The Pointy End is his podcast series looking at "the pointy end" of what people in small business do, in probing and insightful detail. It's a relaxed but no less informative talk...I hope!

It was a great privilege to guest "star" on the podcast, which you can hear above. We talked about the "pointy end" of copywriting, its relation to journalism and media culture as a whole. About 40 minutes - let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Write a Book? You probably have already

I've been copywriting for one of my dearest clients, Savvy Finance, for over a year and a half. Like every business reliant on technology, I back up. Everything. Once to the cloud and again on an external hard drive. Looking all the content I've written for Savvy, I've chalked up 330 articles at the time of writing. Without giving too much away, that's 138,600 words. That's over ten times as long as my master's thesis. The U.S. National Novel Writing Month sets a 50,000 word benchmark - and that's an entire novel. In essence, I've written 2 and a bit books' worth for that great company, and I'm happy to have done it.

So why can't we all write that book? Or at least, something of equal or greater length. It seems that I've already written a few "books" since I started my business all those months ago. Speaking from my own perspective...well, it's all about perspective.

Writing isn't a "supertask" but it can sure feel like it

Writing a book or a long-form piece can feel like a task that will take the better part of your life to complete. It's a supertask - a task which takes infinite time to complete. Sort of like writing down the history of your life in pinpoint detail. It can't be done.

Writing a book can, especially if you break it down into chunks. Or, don't even think about it like a book. A book I'm currently reading, Empire of the Sun by J.G. Ballard.  It's based on his boyhood, growing up amid World War II in Shanghai. Delving deeper, it reads like a series of vignettes tied together by a common theme. Unconventional, but it works. It won him the James Tait Memorial Prize and a Man Booker Prize shortlisting for his efforts, too.

In your mind, talking is a form of action

Have you ever caught yourself thinking about sending a reply text to someone only to realise you haven't actually done it? Talking about doing things is a form of action in and of itself, although it produces nothing of value. Even subvocalising is a form of "action" for some people. A little less conversation and more action. In fact, this blog post is a product of that - I didn't just think about writing this blog post - I actually did it!

Writing long pieces is what other people do

What's the difference between you and a novel writer? The novel writer was once in your position, now they're published.

Writing isn't it's own reward

If you're writing for the celebrity and the riches, don't. Writing creatively is one of my "rewards" for a day's job well done. It's up there with exercising, cooking a tasty meal and hanging out with friends. Writing should be its own reward. Doing it for others seldom yields good results.

What is your experience with these sorts of writing tasks?

Authentic Authenticity

It's been a whirlwind few months at ISW, with plenty of new projects coming in. One aspect they all share in common is authenticity.

Authenticity is hard to come by in this day and age. The paragon of "authentic" media in the face of "stodgy old fossils" is the VICE brand. VICE was founded in Montreal in 1994. VICE was and still is printing a free "edgy" and in your face magazine, satirising and promoting new trends, music and underground culture. By the end of the decade, they had local editions in the US, UK, Australia.

In the late 2000s, they moved into new media, producing documentaries on topics the "old media" found unprofitable. Now they have a weekly documentary series screened on premium cable channel HBO. They're also launching a half-hour daily news bulletin. It was transformed from a locally funded zine into a $915 million (US) digital media empire. Though they've reined in their brash and often controversial style, they've made a killing by staying true to their authentic roots - even if their success is underpinned by commercialism.

Businesses, like individuals, believe they can achieve greatness by "faking it" until they make it. For VICE, being who they are without apology launched them to unsurpassed heights while comparable media companies fell.

Do you strive for authenticity? Do you know a business or company that might benefit from a dose of authenticity? Let me know! I'd love to have a conversation with them.

Meditations of a Copywriter

Ever since high school, I've turned to the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius lived almost 2,000 years ago. He was a great Emperor, general and statesman of the Roman Empire.

Whether at governing home or locked in the horns of battle, he wrote little reminders to himself based on the stoic philosophy.

So profound were these aphorisms they were bound up into twelve books known as the Meditations. I recently "upgraded" my dog-eared floppy of the Meditations for a hardbound book.

It's been the companion of many high-flyers since their wider publication centuries ago. I too have some meditations on copywriting i've inked over the past year and a bit, and I'd like to post them here for my own and others' reference.

Meditations of a Copywriter

1. This isn't God's work. You're not a "word wizard," a "verb herder," or anything remotely like it. You're a copywriter and you seek to improve your craft every day. There is no end to your apprenticeship. Total mastery is sailing on a ship of fools.

2. Passion sells. I find myself enlivened talking about my work unlike ever before. I talk for hours about it with clients and colleagues. This is your advantage. Use it.

3. If you can't help, add or improve, walk away. Some people turn to me for advice and new words when they don't need them. It is not my place to sell people words they don't need.

4. Cut always. There's rarely a good piece of work that could be great with a few choice edits. Edit always; cruelly and judiciously.

5. Best is the enemy of truly good. If you find you could've phrased something better or wittier months after the fact, let it be. If you didn't slouch about with the time allowed and did the best you could do, take comfort.

6. Let things settle. Words don't improve with age, but an editor's eye does. Take the time to embrace the process. Draft, draft again and finish the journey.

7. Improve yourself when distracted. Sometimes the mental tank will empty. That's fine. Don't read rehashed listicles, faff about on twitter or endlessly scroll Tumblr. If you need a distraction, read or do something of substance.

8. Rhetoric is eternal. Rhetoric and persuasion has been around since the time of Marcus Aurelius himself, even before. Don't be fooled by newfangled "silver bullets," and "super sales words," because they aren't. You and your clients will be left wanting.

9. Miracles don't happen behind a desk. Get out of the house and expand your route. You'll be surprised at what you can find. The world will enrich you in one way or another.

10. Simplicity is key. No one cares if you rattle off $10 words in $100 lots. People aren't impressed. People are impressed when you flip the mundane into something profound.

11. Look at the bright side. You're doing what you love, every day. When things get tough, push harder. Persistence will pay.

Do you have meditations? What are they?