communication. community. cognition.
Language
Three Essences of Writing
Jan 31st
Good writing sometimes happens by accident — but writing well is a function of discipline and purpose. Know what you want to say, know what you don’t want to say, and get there with minimum delay.
My Kung Fu background introduced me to a conscious outlook: that every person exists in three realms, the physical, mental, and spiritual. I say “conscious” outlook because deep down I already felt that way, just never expressed it as such. Our connection to those realms involves the three parts of our person: body, mind, and spirit. Perhaps no single spiritual or religious tradition can “own” that thought, as it exists in so many cultures and histories.
Extending the notion to the process of writing, we have three planes of comparison, three axes by which we can measure improvement.
Physical writing: More than just the layout of the words on the page, the physical aspect of writing is revealed in the way it sounds as you were to read it. Short sentences set tone. Punctuation dictates. Rhyme, rhythm, and meter matter. Even unspoken, the visceral nature of the written word may echo in the mind of the reader.
Mental writing: Beyond mere words, this is the exercise of deciding which concepts must introduce your grand conceit – which ones bridge as evidence – and which ought to close the argument. The selection of individual words for both denotation and connotation is part of the mental realm.
Spiritual writing: Good writing informs, great writing elevates. Often, it does so through the use of analogy and metaphor. The introduction of a concept through the prior understanding of something else builds up the reader instead of tearing him down. It also stretches the most out of communication – like teaching a child about a parallelogram by showing a rectangle that leans.
Good writing stands out. Great writing sneaks up on you; it makes you smarter and wiser, it inspires without calling attention to how. Great writing pleases the ear, the brain, and the soul.
(Thanks to Rich Becker for the post that got me thinking…)
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, writing, Kung Fu, language[/tags]
I’m no longer a blogger
Jan 30th
I’ve had it. I’m done. Don’t want to deal with it any longer.
As of this day, I am no longer a blogger.
I’m tired of the hassles of “coming up with something for the blog.”
I’m tired of explaining to people what a “blog” is.
I’m tired of others jumping to conclusions about what I write, or how it should be written, or whether I should have comments, or a list of pretty blogroll links.
So today forward, I’m no longer blogging.
I am Isaac Pigott, but you can call me Ike. Lots of people do.
I am a communicator who likes to figure things out, and share what I’ve learned. Sometimes, that involves “writing.” But I am not a professional writer.
I will continue writing for a website called “Occam’s RazR”. Just for fun, I will also be the site administrator. But I will not be a “blogger.” Not sure what that word means anymore, because it either has no relevant context or too much baggage. I will also continue contributing regular essays over at a website called “Now Is Gone,” at least as long as they will have me. I may write about blogging sometimes, but I’m not a blogger. (I spend more of my day sending e-mails, but that doesn’t make me an eMailer now, does it?)
Because I am open to ideas and opinions, I will allow some of you to contribute to this website. You can comment on the various essays I write here. I will be happy to facilitate the publishing of most of them.
What I won’t do is continue using the word “blogger” as a noun. A “blogger” is a writer. Well, some are. The standard isn’t necessarily a high one. I also won’t use the word “blogger” as an adjective. “Blogger” ethics, “blogger” relations; most of the time, it is a useless modifier that either demeans, demotes, or lowers the expectations thereof. Like people with websites are somehow in need of a different set of ethics than anyone else. It’s a little condescending, if you ask me.
There. I feel better. I hope that clears away any lingering expectations you might have as to what this website is, who I am, or why I write.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, blogging, writing, communication, language[/tags]
Invisible Music
Jan 18th
I drop the kids off at school each morning. It’s a short drive, no more than three minutes, but they can be demanding about what they want. Usually it is a song.
The exact song varies from time to time, but one will stick for a month or two as the favorite. Past requests include Peter Gabriel’s In Your Eyes (the 11-minute live version, for when the commute was longer); Johnny Cash’s cover of Rusty Cage (complete with child-seat head-banging); and now, Show Don’t Tell by Rush. You could make the argument that my little girl just wants to please her daddy, but hey — you’ve got to foster an early appreciation for the classics.
My son isn’t out of this equation. He likes almost all of the songs, provided I can cue his participation in the chorus with hand puppets that sing along.
So that’s the setup. This morning, after getting parked and past the chorus, I opened the car door and the music stopped. My daughter was still jamming along, and I asked her what she was listening to. “My invisible music,” she said.
I’m a fan of instruction by analogy, and she gave me a perfect setup. I don’t expect her to immediately walk around using “inaudible” in her conversations, but language is learned in context – and that goes for the languages and jargons of business and science. If she can connect the “in” in the words as meaning “not,” then she can cross over and catch the “aud” part as a Latin root. From there, it’s another puzzle piece she can use to ferret out new words on her own.
It reminds me of the need to be accessible without being too basic. There’s a fine line between talking down to your audience and talking over their head. If you do it right, they learn a new vocabulary through context, and feel smarter instead of dumber.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, language, communication[/tags]
Tact
Jan 4th
“There is a big difference between the right thing to say and the correct thing to say; I know there is a difference, but have no idea what it is.”
Filter Folly
Jan 2nd
Filtering is a delicate balance — an craft, moreso than an art.
Publishing to the internet carries a degree of responsibility. You are accountable for what appears on your site, even the comments made by others.
This is the 800,000 pound elephant-shaped obstacle in the room for big businesses that are considering a foray into new media. When you buy into the conversation, you may get more than you bargained for. The more people involved in your community, the more risk you carry about what they say. You do have options:
- Require registration
onerous to new users, the paranoid, and those who want to stay anonymous - Hire many moderators
whether professional or assigned, an expensive proposition - Employ content filters
a low-cost solution, but they are still rather dumb and can lead to “reverse embarrassment” - Lower expectations
Context is King
It’s not enough to throw in a list of obvious profanities and slurs. Smart filters need to be able to judge the context. Here’s the example that caught my eye from the discussion page of Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, posted December 31st:
ESPN – Conversations: Do the Patriots need to run more to win it all? via kwout
(I would have linked directly to the comment itself, but that feature is not enabled on the comment threads – another necessary tweak for another rant someday.)
Here’s the “offensive” language in action:
ONCE AGAIN, TMQ STARTS WITH HIS PREFERRED CONCLUSION AND THEN COMES UP WITH THE STATS
TMQ is clearly looking for the #### in New England’s armor (so are 11 other playoff teams). But does he have to be so baldy dishonest?
The word blanked out is “chink.” The “chink in the armor.” Yes, in the past “chink” has been a slur word referring to Asians. Somehow, I don’t think the word “slant” has been redacted out of descriptions of the routes run by slot receivers, even though “slant” is also a derogatory reference to Asians.
Your Hidden Prejudices
Some filters are even more dumb. My friend Rob tried to register his blog with Meebo, and got blocked. His blog is named Stuffleufagus. If you look very carefully, you can see the letters f-a-g toward the end of the word. It’s obvious that Rob is secretly trying to promote smoking. God forbid he would ever create a tribute sites to athletes like C###ius Clay or ###lord Perry; or films such as Octo#####, ####tail, or Fun with #### and Jane.
The technology is available to parse these differences. In the Meebo example, it’s an easy fix. In the ESPN situation, you’re looking at a more hefty expenditure in either software, programming, fuzzy-logic training, or just plain-old human moderators. Even then, the creatively profane will find ways to turn the filter into a parody of itself, using characters that look like letters to get around that stupid $#!t.
Lowering the Bar
I’ve deliberately not talked about the last suggestion: lowering expectations. It’s the cheapest and least insulting of the bunch. You simply tell the members of the community – up front and on the way in – that they run the risk of getting their feelings hurt. Which is the grown-up thing to do, even if it isn’t the “marketing” answer. The marketing/PR people will have a conniption if they discovered that a few people allowed a “bad word” on the website to forever tarnish brand equity. There’s no telling, after all, how many real potential clients that represents. (“Real potential.” That’s a good one!)
At the end of the day, corporate sites and communities have a different set of priorities and fears than average idiots like myself. They have shareholders and investors with money on the line. I don’t have a monetary stake. They’ve got massive intangible assets built within “the brand.” The only intangibles I have are the inherent pressures of having my wife (seldom), my mom (likely), or my preacher buddy Drew peeking in from time to time (religiously). And it’s not like I’ve got overwhelming site traffic to deal with here.
Yet – the average person sees roughly the same comment interface on a political forum, on this blog, on ESPN.com, and on his local newspaper website. He is invited to participate and the tools look darn similar. And I’m not so sure he’s willing to cut big business sites the same sort of slack – whether they insult his emotions with the lack of moderation and the leakage of a “non-PC” term – or they insult his intelligence with senseless nanny-state word-blocking. It’s not in our nature to give businesses the benefit of the doubt.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, language, censorship, social media, marketing, community[/tags]
Time is Money
Dec 29th
(My last big post of 2007. Thanks for making Year One of Occam’s RazR such a fun ride. Please subscribe, if you haven’t already. Welcome Digg users!)
Time to channel my inner Grinch.
I was recently given a piece of chocolate, lovingly wrapped in homily. Inside the foil was written:
“Spending time is a greater gift than spending money.”
Well, isn’t that a wonderful sentiment? Too bad I can’t agree with it. I understand the intent, that spending time with loved ones around the holidays is important, and means more than any paltry gift. But it turns out that not every gift is paltry.
For instance, if I offered you $100,000 to skip Christmas with your family, you’d probably do it. Some might not, if that sum wasn’t significant to them, or they knew a relative was dying and wouldn’t be around. The value of “time” is as fluid as the circumstances surrounding you.
Utility belt
This is actually an application of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who explored many of the same areas as John Stuart Mill, and the principles of Utilitarianism. If you know enough of the variables and can string together a formula, you can calculate just about anything. If we step things down, I’m pretty sure we can find a number, “X”, that is less than $100,000 and more than zero. Your X will fluctuate, but there will be an X.
Actually, the way to think about the formula is:
[{(amount of time spent) * (value of time)} - convenience] – $amount-offered = Z.
Are we talking about an hour, or a day?
What is that time worth to you?
Is spending that time convenient, or are there hidden costs (like travel)?
- If Z > 0, turn down the offer.
- If Z < 0, take the money and run.
This sums up why some people work through the holidays when they’d rather be doing something else. But that’s just one symptom of a common problem.
Ideal chatter
The example I cite above also serves as a warning about the power of flowery language. The fact that something sounds nice doesn’t make it true. We want to believe such statements, because they serve as a badge of honor. They are a way to wear our core values on our sleeves, and earn the nodding approval of others for having our priorities aligned.
You can find examples in any realm, and it’s just as dangerous. Within the world of politics, we see ideologues who stump for votes on policies that are justified because it is “for the children,” or “for the environment.” They elevate those justifications as representing things that a priceless — yet in doing so, they strip away all value. If the environment is truly “priceless,” then any and every means is morally required to protect it. If every life is “priceless,” then you must walk on eggshells so as not to step on an ant. Oops, maybe you can’t walk on the eggshells either.
Make an omelette
You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs — and you can’t make complex life without splitting them. Repeatedly. Life is messy. We consume. We live. We stop consuming. We die. It’s the nature of being.
There are those who can’t abide scrambled eggs. Those who cling to precious tenets and ideologies as though they were sacred writ. They tend to focus their energies around that one gravitational point. Everything is about abortion, or drug legalization, or racism, or the environment, or smaller government, or what name you should call God while praying in a classroom. Elections used to come down to the moderate swing voters. Now it seems as though elections are decided by which camp of wild and fanatic ideologues shows up in numbers. They answer the bell not like prizefighters coming out for the next round, but the way Dr. Pavlov trained them to.
Theory gone cold
Ideology is merely a theory that’s gone cold. Theory is about science. It is open to question, experimentation, refinement, and outright rejection. Theories can be supplanted by other theories. 
Not so with ideology – which is the calcified carcass of a theory that isn’t advancing. An ideology is not scientific, in that it can never be proven wrong. Anything and everything is proof of truth – anything that is not is rejected. An ideology is tautological – a circle of illogic that feeds on itself.
We have them in the realm of Social Media, too. They sanctify certain words, and sterilize their meaning in the process. Transparency. Authenticity. Community. A herd of sacred cows that promise a lot of beef, but provide nothing in their pristine state but a load of fertilizer.
An ideal is just that — an ideal — a target — something worth shooting for. It is not the sole prism through which one examines the sum of the universe. That’s when an ideal becomes twisted into an ideology. That’s when it becomes meaningless, because it colors everything in the same way, and leaves no place for error-correction.
Flailing at straw
The ideologues do provide a perverse form of entertainment. With a vision that is monocular and monochrome (no perspective, all black-and-white), they see any criticism as polar opposite. If you are not totally with me, you are totally against me. They develop the worst-possible and easily-swattable arguments they can conjure for the enemy, and attribute them to any who aren’t in the protective fold.
You’d think the arguments could bet explosive and nasty, but no. The zealot ideologue is too busy setting up straw men in enemy territory to worry about storming the castle. I’ve seen this play out in a number of ugly disagreements this past year. Participants are talking right past each other, because they have demonized the enemy, and there’s no sense talking Buddha-nature to a dog now, is there?
I wish I had an easy solution. I wish I had an easy formula, that could even help me diagnose my own shortcomings when it comes to ideology. The old philosophers weren’t necessarily right about the way you should calculate happiness and pain. That’s a narrow mindset in and of itself, that places the inherent value of a thing along only one axis. 
But at the very least, pretending that one could assign a value to something previously considered “priceless” would break the rut in our thinking and get us back on stable intellectual footing.
It’s all just grist for Mill.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, utility, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, communication[/tags]
RIP: Serendipity
Dec 21st
Valeria Maltoni is a very smart woman. She speaks fifteen different languages, and holds patents on two new ones. (Okay, I made that part up.) Being the multi-lingual diva that she is, she’s known as “The Conversation Agent.” I would suppose that being able to analyze situations through several languages at once opens a different set of perspectives on the matter. And, of course, supposition is all that might be, as I am a naturally-born United States citizen and am prohibited by the Constitution from learning another language. (Okay, I made that part up too.)
She’s got a very smart analysis about the fracturing of the marketplace, and what the Blitz of Choices will mean for marketers. Go ahead and read that so you can be smart, then come back and allow me the indulgence to wax poetic on what it will mean for individuals.
Heir of Error
I am an Heir of Error. The process of evolution, at the molecular level of DNA, is nothing more than a Comedy of Errors. Over time, those errors that don’t kill me make me better.
Errors also make life more interesting. For instance, I love Black Cherry Fresca. Even though I have no taste for cherries, and every other cherry-flavored soda is repugnant to me. Tastes like petroleum. (I’m talking about you, Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper.) The only reason I tried BCF is the labeling was too similar to regular Fresca, and my wife bought it for my office. I tried it, out of spite, and liked it!
More than a Beverage
Now, imagine a life where your personal shopper (sorry Hon) never makes a mistake. Better yet – imagine a life where your personal assistant knows your preferences and tastes so well that what you want is served directly to you, without being asked?
In some respects, we are right there. We are about to see the rise of web services that pull and pluck the information we want, and the stuff we didn’t even know we wanted. By analyzing keywords and content, they will be able to suggest news and information from sources you never imagined existed – and suggest news about topics that you really would have wanted if you knew about them!
This poses a scary future. One in which the initial choices we make will have a profound impact on the final direction of our information flow. Choosing a single different news source at the outset can set you on a different path entirely. And once the system “learns” your patterns, you will be inundated with so much personalized information that you’ll not have time to choose outside of your algorithm. You might try, but why bother when you’re so comfortable with all of the content right there in front of you?
The Exercise of Choice
Once we’re cocooned in our comfort zone, “choice” really has little meaning. We’ve ceded “choice” to a formula — or worse yet, a “web” of preferences based on other people just like us. How easy will it be to game those formulae? Take away choice and error, and say goodbye to serendipity.
If it weren’t for “choice” and “error,” I wouldn’t be sipping the last of a delicious Black Cherry Fresca as I finish this post. And I wouldn’t have stumbled upon the writings of Valeria Maltoni. And you most likely wouldn’t be reading this. In fact, I know you wouldn’t. Because my subject matter and format — while maintaining a somewhat uniform tone and theme — doesn’t fit an easy stencil template. If you had a preference for commentary on communication, you’d get something that did nothing but that, and miss out on my Venn diagrams and Demotivationals. You wouldn’t learn about the connection between the rhythm of the cicadas, hair mousse, Avatar, the Hook-and-Lateral, and Jimmie Lee Sudduth. (They all made the complex simple.)
We’d miss out on the really interesting things that happen at the intersections. It’s the crumbs that fall into the cracks between disciplines that make for the most original thinking, the most important science. It’s the ability to carry a concept from the language of one tribe into the cant of another.
Right, Valeria?
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Valeria Maltoni, Conversation Agent, fuzzy logic, marketing, choice[/tags]
