Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

1 anno fa Β· 2 min. di lettura Β· visibility ~10 Β·

chat Contatta l'autore

thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare

The Problem with Codependent Relationships in Business

The Problem with Codependent Relationships in Business

At a recent comment, Harvey Lloyd of all these science-defying individuals who still maintain a medieval view of our planet. Since the cracks of this social network have started to become evident to more people, there has been a rise of alternative platforms that have privacy at their core. So, their codependent relationship scam doesn’t seem to pass the test of time. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it more eloquently, β€œyou can fool some people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.” Cheers.


You can fool some people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln

thumb_up Rilevante message Commentare
Commenti
CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

1 anno fa #20

#19
This brings us back to the role of influencers - and why Milos Djukic gets mad with them the same way I do. Every single day I see this lowering of the reading age in posts that we know are designed as eye candy, making it easy for an audience sucked in by simple ideas to feel like they are a part of the conversation. This agreement with things that we already know is perplexing and more so is the sycophantic responses, as if the often simplistic words of the influencer is like the second coming of Plato and Socrates. The more eye candy of a simple quote gets in the way of what we would deem as informed, the more we create an etiquette of easy pleasing thinking. The social media guns come out the moment we begin to point this out, and the defensive reactions against calling this out is astonishing in its insecure defense.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #19

#14
I struggle with words like trust and informed public. In a very information soaked environment these words take on different meanings for everyone. One key point of evolution is that behavior has now become the leading input into these two words. Not actions. A=True + B true=Then C must be true also. The world is largely water (A) + Humans need air to breath (B)=, therefore everyone should wear a life jacket all the time (C). A simple example but given the human dynamic is a story waiting to be written by someone. Trust and informed is at the individual level. If i were to become a part of your social circle, locally, we could build trust and be informed about each other. Beyond that i am stuck with a narrative that is presented through social media. Bullet points of another human.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #18

#14
What is the "Job Description" of a human? A entity that exists with independent thought, within a group that shares risk in community success. How you answer this question determines the focus/purpose of storytelling. I want to grow my own wisdom so that i can support my community in their growth, i want to bring value within my story. Or; What can i take from the community by means of diverting assets in my direction via story telling. When i look at branding the very fundamental aspect of every story, is for me to act in a way that is advantageous to the brand story. This is the purpose. But this also applies to every story told. The story has purpose or in my world behavior. If the human job description includes me loving my neighbor then the purpose of my story is built around that axiom. Second to that is my need for customers, social groups or community. My story should promote, encourage and engage my neighbor in dialogue that causes them to consider perspectives beyond their own story. Not agreement but rather discourse that each can learn and gain wisdom. Every story has a purpose. Stories of old were targeted at growing human wisdom, where today it is for manipulation of emotions and divisive towards a desired action.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#16
Indeed. That's why for topics that are overly technical, like Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), I prefer to write novels to tackle them...

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

1 anno fa #16

#15
Rather than focusing on an inability to separate fact from fiction, we need to get better fact and even better at fiction. In the age of reason we have focused as a society on trying to get better at facts. Yet storytelling is a much deeper social form, and it behooves us to reconnect to the lost arts of storytelling or expressed in a different way "fiction that matters". I have placed quotation marks around that because I think it is a really key insight. The damage weaponization does is not something we control but understanding storytelling can - and it really is up to us whether this understanding makes us wiser citizens of the 21st Century or whether the skills we learn turn us into the very problem we have identified, i.e. nuclear power can be used to create clean energy or it can be used to destroy. We might not individually be able to tame the narrative that is weaponized but we can emerge out of this wiser. The important point for me of recognizing either the weaponization of marketing or the weaponization of narrative (hence media) is to move in a direction that seems counter-intuitive. This direction is away rather than towards the fires these acts of weaponization create. Instead my own response is to find more people who can explain the mythos and function of story. One example I just found is a piece from Liberty Nation called "Weaponized Narrative And The Gilgamesh Epic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKJWG85jnc - this video is not adding to the fire, it is telling us how this fire can get started and that it has been burning a very long time and that the abject reality of modern political narrative is not new to history, it simply reminds us that we get so sidetracked by the fire of present weaponization, that we end up thinking fiction is the enemy of fact. Both prose and the poetic are worthy of appreciation because they underpin the superior skills of narrative.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#14
An independent journalist, James Corbett, talked about this on his podcast (Corbet Report). He used the term "weaponization of narrative" which although more generic, it drives home the point. Perhaps the problem is not with FB or any other digital dictatorship but our inability to discern fact from fiction. That's why we have the divide you mentioned between the informed and the mass population, or the thinks and think-nots dichotomy. Cheers

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

1 anno fa #14

The key word for me is not co-dependency but what Harvey used in comment #4, which is weaponized. A weaponized marketer is exemplified by one of my favourite movie clips from "How to get ahead in Advertising" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQc-zD7WrzA If branding lulls us into a relationship that cannot possibly exist it is because we are unaware of the illusion. The movie clip link above is not just a well-written movie script, it is based on individual talent. I don't have anything against highly talented opportunists, my disdain is the awareness of my own weakness to live in an environment where we have a dependency on the same systems. Advertising gurus work on a segment of the population that then consequently define the way marketing gets weaponized, and there isn't a darn lot we can do with it right now when we can only surface scratch those who control this. When it comes to Facebook, it comes down to the informed public and the mass population. Here it is a stranger relationship where the mass population according to Edelman's Trust barometer are less trusting and the informed public is more trusting https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/2016/03/edelmans-latest-trust-barometer-finds-major-gaps.html and yet the question is where is the distrust flowing that Edleman's survey reveals with the mass population fall into the hands of people the informed public would trust the least ! It is a shame that we have reached a state today where we need to distinguished between informed and the masses. That distinction is problematic because it is a symptom rather than the cause. The weaponizing of marketing/media plays its hand in creating distrust - but unfortunately it does not create awareness and profits from confusion. We continue to live in a weaponized media/full propaganda world - it is 2020 isn't it?

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #13

#11
Yes, i am in agreement. I want to hear all opinions. (Everything has limits at the extreme) Unfortunately any real news is now on the second and third tier of resources. All mainstream media is less fact and more opinion. Great discussion. Would love to sit a table with a couple of beers and go at these topics, fascinating.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #12

#7
If you really wish to consider the troubles with branding you have nailed it with this comment. Branding presents dichotomy's of belief. This on the surface is not bad, but what makes it bad is when a single entity has control over the narrative. We see almost all media has a liberal bent. The tenants of their concerns are valid, the expense of what they seek to achieve the goal is the concern. Who or what, considering AI, should have point in our final decisions concerning moral issues. Sciences/politics are coming to their conclusive ends. They knock at the door of morality to present their cause. We are seeing this unfold within the current shutdown of whole countries. The dichotomy presented by the powers that be vs the dichotomy of decisions john q citizens are left with in their self reliance. Doesn't matter the side one finds themselves, we can all admit the choice is being presented from this perspective. A choice is fomenting between two very disparate groups. Who is right? Well history will answer that question.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#8
Just to clarify, the "medieval view of our planet" was a reference to the Flat Earth movement. Apparently, Facebook is fine with that. Try saying anything on that SM about even the possibility that Covid-19 is greatly exaggerated and that other, more effective measures to counter-act it should be in place and your posts will vanish in thin air. I don't know that first-hand since I've given up on FB a long time ago, but I've heard such stories from various sources. Cheers

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#9
Interesting if you would explain more your very interesting comment

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#6
I have a feeling that this post-based discourse is what Javier \ud83d\udc1d CR and his team had in mind when they designed this SM! :-)

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #8

"The same platform is more than happy to exhibit the posts of all these science-defying individuals who still maintain a medieval view of our planet." Your point was taken concerning relativism. A single individual holding authority based on what they think is relative is dangerous territory. This level of control should be made by the individual and not the "State", and it is my belief that social media has sided with the "State". Please except this comment for its probative value in seeking an understanding of medieval thinking. Clearly something is happening in our world as populations grow. From social to environmental we are evolving as a society. My issue with social and environmental sciences is branding. The reality of the environmental sciences, the narrative seems to contain a one way street. Sitting at my keyboard and no formal education in the sciences discussed, i can only read, view and understand what is available. One key observation has always served me well. Greed. From stock markets to high end capital projects you can always know that greed is at the center of activity. I am not referring to the psychopathic greed. When i apply this to environmental science i always come to grants, political narratives and never any real supportive greed of change. I also regulatory administrative power and taxes being applied. But none of these taxes or assessments based on science end up ameliorating the problem presented. Yes our future generations are depending on us to make good choices. But current science seems to be self supporting rather than promoting generational change. My county has now installed 5 solar farms where it used to be farms. The power company doesn't care about the electricity, they are selling carbon credits, created by the science. A nebulous market created out of thin air.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#5
Perhaps not any given brand on its own is harmful. However, I can think of one exception. The fact that I don't call it by name goes on to show that 1) that would be unwise, at least on a personal level, and 2) I may have a codependent relationship with that brand. Still, I firmly believe that a big chunk of the world's problems would be eradicated if that brand seized to exist. Cheers

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

I said that every comment of yours is a basis for a new post. I published today a post on LinkedIn that I intend to expand on and republish on beBee. Your comment here shall be given due attention in the post dear Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #5

#1
The codependency is subtle. Any given brand it is not really so harmful. But what happens in the mind of a human when multiple brands are placed on our emotional catalog and they begin to compete against each other? Keep in mind what portion of the brain we are competing in, monkey brain. Given a big enough catalog and a fire storm of confirmation bias appears only to stabilize ourselves into a clear concise focus. Unfortunately the confirmation is all about various brands that have placed competing thoughts about various deep emotional topics within our psych. Will giving the world a Coke really bring about world peace? Will i really die in any other automobile other than a Subaru? Right now our emotions are being pulled in every direction from branding and politics. We can give in and choose a path based on this barrage of branding or................We can stand up and say that i am an economy of one, a father/mother, a leader and i must choose from the facts i know, the right direction. Write your own narrative. Lets just say my narrative does not include a Subaru and both of my children got home from the hospital just fine.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

1 anno fa #4

Now that is a response to comment. Thanks for your insights and thoughts. Marketing/branding is a repeating cycle. The experiential narrative is built, providing us with a dilemma that only the brand can fix, and finally supplying us with a dose of cognitive dissonance. Displaying to us that our friends, science or other social groupings have made the "right" choice. Subaru had one of the more demanding emotional appeals. Would you trust just any car to bring your first new born home from the hospital? (Paraphrased) The first cycle of this narrative and maybe the second are innocent enough. Repeated cycles of this narrative within the company and to the public, BS becomes science. Once you see what the marketing is doing to you emotionally you cant un-see it. My wife has bought me headphones so i can watch my preferred medium and not argue with the media and its branding. Bose headphones saved our marriage, might be some branding in that statement. Experiencing cognitive dissonance is a process of humans shedding long held beliefs that dont measure up to the environment we find ourselves. This has been weaponized by marketing and in a more sinister review, politics. During the virus and politics we have recognized the shifting sands of branding anyone not within narrative as "killing" my grandmother. We have seen this at the highest levels of elected officials. Planting the seeds of cognitive dissonance that i may be a grandmother killer because i asked a different question.

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#2
It is an obligation to share posts that speaks to the minds my friend.

Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

#1
You are right, my friend. I like the prey-predator metaphor. It's quite accurate. Also, thank you for the share. Much appreciated!

Ali 🐝 Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris I am not surprised that you write a post triggered by a comment of Harvey Lloyd. I wrote few posts that were triggered by Harvey. This man is a gem. Codependent relationships as you describe them in your post dear friend by examples is more like a prey-predator relationship.. Soon there shall be no more enough preys for the predator. Your example of Facebook is the evidence. In this case, the shortage of preys is because customers sign out. The losing business will start searching for new preys to fall in the same trap. Codependency that bases itself on exploitation is built on sandy foundation.

Altri articoli da Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Visualizza il blog
4 giorni fa Β· 3 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Facebook's Recent Issues and the Need for More Privacy

Source: pixabay.com Β· Brief Overview of What's Hap ...

1 mese fa Β· 3 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Can We Transcend Binary Thinking?

Source: pixabay.com Β· β€œWhile binary behaviour is s ...

2 mesi fa Β· 2 min. di lettura
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris

Facing the Heat (a Raspberry Pi article)

Source: pixabay.com Β· Lately, I've been working wi ...