The Missing Wink
Scientists have been looking for “the missing link” for years.
Me? I’m looking for something more rare and probably more important, especially when it comes to improving human relations. I’m looking for the missing wink.
That’s right. The missing wink. Or to be more accurate, I’m looking for other people who have found the missing wink.
According to Wikipedia, a wink is “a form of semi-formal communication, which indicates shared, unspoken knowledge.”
And what is this shared, unspoken knowledge I’m looking for? The recognition that most of us take ourselves far too seriously and that it is almost always better to err on the side of playfulness than seriousness.
When this understanding is communicated via a wink - which may be a literal wink of the eye or a figurative “wink” through playful language and attitude in the written word - even the most serious topics can be discussed with less risk of things turning ugly. Not “no” risk, mind you. Just less risk.
If one is going to talk about deep subjects, I have found it to be very wise to show a little humility and playfulness along the way. Not only for the sake of the reader, but also for the sanity of the writer.
Clearly, not everyone “gets” what I’m trying to do on this blog. But many do. And from what I can tell, those that do all have one thing in common: each has found the missing wink and understands the importance of passing it along to others.
But then, I don’t have to tell them that. After all, it goes without saying. By definition.
Get it?
Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM
(2) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Tags: miscellaneousShare Blair:
Pop quiz
Here are a few questions I’ve been pondering lately. I know what my answers are. I’d love to hear yours.
1. If you give people a strong incentive to do something you want them to do, do you think they will be more inclined to do it, or less inclined to do it?
2. If you remove a strong incentive for people to do something you want them to do, do you think they will be more inclined to do it, or less inclined to do it?
I realize there will always be exceptions where “people” are concerned, but in general, how would you answer the questions above?
If anyone thinks that removing an incentive is likely to lead to more of the desired behavior, please explain.
Now let’s get a little more specific.
3. If a person’s physical, financial and emotional well-being becomes more dependent upon the people with whom he/she interacts on a daily basis, do you think that person is going to be more motivated to be tolerant of these people, or less?
4. If a person’s physical, financial and emotional well-being becomes less dependent on the people with whom he/she interacts on a daily basis, do you think that person is going to be more motivated to be tolerant of these people, or less?
Again, there will always be exceptions, especially when dealing with individuals, but overall, what do you think about questions 3 and 4?
Okay, let’s move on.
5. Do you think that being able to provide for oneself and one’s family is important to one’s physical, financial and emotional well-being?
I hope your answer is yes. If not, don’t bother explaining; you are reading the wrong blog.
Final question.
6. Given your answers to questions 1 through 5, do you think that people whose physical, financial and emotional well-being are guaranteed by their government have more incentive to “come together as a people” or less?
You can put your pencils down now.
Call me crazy, but if I truly wanted to bring a group of people together, I would let them know that their well-being is not going to be guaranteed by their government.
In fact, I would let them know that their well-being is not and, in fact, cannot be guaranteed by anyone. At best, their well-being is a matter of probability and the best way to improve their odds is to build strong social relationships.
From my perspective, knowing this would be the ultimate incentive for people to truly come together, tolerate one another, take care of one another, and perhaps even learn to love and respect one another.
This seems beyond obvious to me.
If you want to bring a community of people together, make the people of that community aware that their very survival depends on their coming together. Likewise, if you want to drive a community of people apart, tell the people of that community that the government will take care of each of them and thus remove their strongest incentive to come together, to work together, or even just tolerate one another.
Make sense? If so, would someone please explain this to Barack and Hillary? If they truly want to bring us together, I’m sure they’d want to know.
Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 01:10 AM
(4) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
Book recommendation: Sissy Nation
I am not going to write a detailed review because I now have better things to do than sit around typing like a sissy. But I will say this…
I don’t care if you’re a guy, a gal, or still undecided, forget getting a tattoo, forget riding that mechanical bull, and for godsake leave that sheep alone. If you want to toughen up and stop being such a sissy, grab a copy of John Strausbaugh’s Sissy Nation
Careful though, the pages are sharp. I found out the hard way with a nasty paper cut on my pinky. But did I go crying to my wife like I used to do? Hell no. I kept reading and just let it bleed. In fact, it’s still bleeding now. But I’m not complaining. What do you think I am, a sissy?
Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at 03:01 PM
(5) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
How to silence the opposition without really trying
Like many people, I’m a fan of Seth Godin’s writings.
Few people know how to craft a message as well as he does.
For example, see this short post.
On the face of it, it seems like little more than a powerful insight. And yet, intentional or not, it serves another purpose altogether. Namely, it serves to silence anyone with the gall to ask questions.
When someone preaches a message of hope, who dares to ask for specifics? Who dares to ask if the message is realistic or even desirable? Cynics. That’s who. And who wants to be labeled a cynic?
Of course it is just as plausible to call these people realists. Or maybe concerned citizens. But those labels don’t serve to shame others into silence. So cynics they are. And probably despicable ones at that.
As I said, it’s a brilliant message. And unfortunately, it works because in today’s social climate it’s too easy to disparage critical thinking.
Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 05:40 PM
(13) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
Where do you draw the line?
I’ve been doing a lot of research for an upcoming book project about spin.
One of the ideas I’m exploring is what philosophers call social construction. That is, the assertion that reality isn’t something we discover but something we create.
Though I believe there is a lot of truth and value to this idea, I’m very clear that there is a point where it breaks down. Consider this recent Denny’s commercial:
Why is this funny? Is it because the customer is being absurd trying to pay with fake money? Or is it because he has a point claiming it shouldn’t matter since the breakfast itself isn’t real?
Seriously, while it may be true in some sense that we each create our own reality, does that mean that we are obligated to accept each other’s version of reality?
If you listen to many “New Agers” this is exactly what it means. You don’t question my “reality” and I won’t question yours.
Live and let live is fine and dandy, but what happens when two “realities” collide as in the commercial above?
Where do we draw the line? Or, do we draw a line at all?
Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 10:26 PM
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer friendly
Share Blair:
