A really good example is Neil deGrasse Tyson. I had to go find it, so here it is. Why is Tyson the guy we know about regarding science? Why is he the guy who's always on TV, who reporters will...
Exemplary
A really good example is Neil deGrasse Tyson. I had to go find it, so here it is. Why is Tyson the guy we know about regarding science? Why is he the guy who's always on TV, who reporters will chase down and put on camera, quote in the story, when anything happens in science?
Because he sat down and figured out what the media wants. And what they want is soundbites. Which is just a fancy modern way of saying "condensed charisma." You say something interesting, but in an amusing, pithy, concise and charismatic way.
Tyson figured this out, and then figured out -- taught himself -- how to do it. He's a doctor of astrophysics. He had, still has, a perfectly stable academic career. But he's known worldwide as Neil deGrasse Tyson because he employed charisma. He can write books that sell, run podcasts that collect viewers (and sponsors), be asked to host shows and programs, all of that. Because he figured out charisma.
He was already a kind of gregarious, charismatic guy; but he figured out how to focus it in the way modern media wants. And that became his stepping stone to wide success. How many scientists are there in the world? Hell, how many astrophysicists are there? Is Tyson really the best, the most knowledgeable, most intelligent, most insightful, most groundbreaking astrophysicist on the planet?
Maybe, but the odds are he's not. And whoever is, any of the ones who are "better" than him on those scales ... we don't know who that person is. No one really cares who that person is. Why would we? We've got Tyson, who we like listening to. Tyson makes us smile, is entertaining, he's easy to be with.
It sucks, but the reality is success has remarkably less to do with skills and knowledge than we like to think. Unless you're talking about skill and knowledge in influencing humans. Then success has a lot to do with skill.
People want to feel comfortable, even attracted (non-romantically) to those around them. They don't want to feel out of sorts, or uncomfortable, strange. Any of that is right out if you want to succeed. Because success hinges on people, since people are above you, and control money and assignments and resources.
When it comes to hiring, picking teams, selecting promotions, they will always default to the people they like. They'll dress it up in other words, lie about it most of the time, but that's the truth.
You can be the most knowledgeable (insert your field here) in history, capable of pushing the technological and skill boundaries of (your field) beyond belief ... but the promotion will go to the team member who's able to glad hand all the higher ups. The one who tells jokes they laugh at, who can fall into casual and entertaining conversations with them in the blink of an eye. The one they react to fondly, favorably, with delight and ease. That's who moves up, whether it's in power, or money, or whatever.
It's not what you know. It's not how good you are at it. What matters is manipulation of people. We like to think that word is negative, evil, wrong. But it's just what's happening. You can say "hi, good morning" in passing, or you can say it with that extra layer of charisma and magnetic draw that pulls them into favorable reactions. And the same goes for every single interaction you have with coworkers, bosses, whoever.
The people who succeed are those who are charismatic. Who are good at making nice with others.
Is it fair? Of course not! Is it how things work? Yup. Someone brilliant but unremarkable socially will struggle. Someone average, but who's great at the water cooler, will flourish.
The secret to people is people. Figure out people and you have a greater grasp on your future. More of the strings that need pulling will be in your fingers, will be directly under your control. The obstacles will be fewer, and you'll have help clearing them, and any bobbles or problems are more likely to be forgiven.
Because people like people, right or wrong. Probably wrong, but the ones who get along with others are the ones in charge. The others put them in charge, and are happy to leave them there. Advancing means they have to like you too, or you're going nowhere.
You're right and I hate it. But I think there are other tactics that work beyond being "the face" or rather different ways of being "the face." I absolutely do not like "charismatic" people much...
You're right and I hate it. But I think there are other tactics that work beyond being "the face" or rather different ways of being "the face."
I absolutely do not like "charismatic" people much (unless that's their job then whatever.) Probably because I have a knee-jerk contrarian response but also some (unfair) part of me assumes a charismatic person skates by without deeper skill.
I'm also very bad at self-promotion. So my tactic has been finding the quiet competent people. Get to know them, work with them, promote them. It's easier for me to connect with them because I am pretty dang good at my job too and we can talk shop. And soon enough, you have an army. The important piece is not using your army to do your work, but to use your army to give your people a voice.
Of course not... ...but he might very well be the very best astrophysicist at communicating to the general public. Does that suck? We aren't talking about a NASA research project here, it's...
Is Tyson really the best, the most knowledgeable, most intelligent, most insightful, most groundbreaking astrophysicist on the planet?
Of course not...
Maybe, but the odds are he's not. And whoever is, any of the ones who are "better" than him on those scales ... we don't know who that person is. No one really cares who that person is. Why would we? We've got Tyson, who we like listening to. Tyson makes us smile, is entertaining, he's easy to be with.
...but he might very well be the very best astrophysicist at communicating to the general public.
It sucks, but the reality is success has remarkably less to do with skills and knowledge than we like to think.
Does that suck?
We aren't talking about a NASA research project here, it's science as educational entertainment. And by all accounts he is a perfectly good scientist. Yes, there's no doubt that a more cutting edge astrophysicist exists, but if he doesn't know how to package that information he's not going to educate the public the way that Tyson does.
Tyson's pop culture success is the result of being an excellent communicator, not a marketing campaign. And communication is perhaps the most important skill of all. Why does his success suck?
Your response is spot on and I'm tickled you mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson because he's one of those influencers who I've grown to not like. Similar to @Notcoffeetable, these highly charismatic...
Your response is spot on and I'm tickled you mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson because he's one of those influencers who I've grown to not like. Similar to @Notcoffeetable, these highly charismatic people put me off. It's almost as if they have an aura of narcissism that can be felt and every interaction with them is calculated. I immediately want to leave the conversation when dealing with these folks; almost like a perceive them as a threat to my own wellbeing.
I've been able to network well amongst those that have been great mentors and colleagues. I honestly don't mind talking to them in that capacity when it's amongst ourselves. But the moment it breaches outside that group such as upper leadership and executives, it feels like such a dog and pony dance to garner their attention.
I greatly dislike getting into back-and-forth exchanges, but you said one thing I feel compelled to comment on. Because Tyson often gets dinged for what you're talking about. And I'm no Tyson...
I greatly dislike getting into back-and-forth exchanges, but you said one thing I feel compelled to comment on. Because Tyson often gets dinged for what you're talking about. And I'm no Tyson superfan, at all.
Tyson strikes me as intelligent. Not learned, not educated (though he's those things as well). Intelligent. He thinks quickly, and he has a deep and agile mind it appears. One of the ways this manifests is he doesn't build pauses and delays into his mannerisms. When he speaks, it's quickly because his thoughts are organized enough to use for communication. He doesn't have to stare blankly waiting for the order to coalesce out of his neurons so he can respond.
A lot of people don't do that. They need time to think. They're deliberate, they're slower. They have to consider.
One of my theories is people really hate smarts. They consider it threatening. Not without cause; smarter people are more likely to be able to spot weaknesses, spot advantages, and so on. Which would logically mean they can seize upon them sooner. I think more than a small percentage of folks know this, even if they can't articulate it. They just "feel" that someone with a ready mind could be problematic if that mind got turned on them. And they react negatively as a result.
It's always pissed me the fuck off. That intelligence is punished. I fucking hate that people who have smarts have to play it down just to fit in, or to be accepted. I just can't say it plainer, and really don't want to flounce around looking for wishy-washy polite words that downplay my feelings about it.
I think we should celebrate intelligence. It's intelligence that's brought us to where we are now. Smartphones, electricity, modern medicine, anything you can name. Right down to the wheel and the wedge and the lever. Some smart motherfucker figured that out, experimented and developed it, and shared.
And they're usually treated poorly, because the people who dragged their (non-wheeled) sledges or sweated and panted to move rocks without a lever felt like the one who figured out a better way might be dangerous.
Tyson seems to like celebrity. I don't, and I find it weird that anyone would. But he's him and I'm me. I do know that when he speaks, he often has something interesting to say. In the same fashion Henry Rollins often has something interesting to say. Among many others. I wish we had more like them, and fewer Kardashians (among many others) taking up bandwidth that could be otherwise occupied by someone with something useful and impactful to say.
However, intelligence isn't charisma. And charisma is what wins people. It's why the fucking Kardashians have multi-million dollar empires built on absolutely nothing of consequence or substance whatsoever. They're just that damn charismatic, apparently. Enough so that it doesn't matter they have nothing of consequence to contribute to the world. They're still being rewarded, while millions of smart motherfuckers are eating lunch alone in breakrooms the world over.
Tangentially, this is why I hate requirements akin to "you can't teach a college course unless you've published a research paper under that topic". (I'm sure this isn't a requirement everyehere,...
Tangentially, this is why I hate requirements akin to "you can't teach a college course unless you've published a research paper under that topic". (I'm sure this isn't a requirement everyehere, but my college had it) In my opinion, it was what led to so many frustrating experiences with professors that were clearly knowledgeable in the subject, but had no idea how to communicate their knowledge to a group of people
I hate this goddamn self-promotion culture so much. Not all of us are extrovert hustler narcissists who get their thrills by talking about ourselves. When our daughter was 12 she really wanted to...
I hate this goddamn self-promotion culture so much. Not all of us are extrovert hustler narcissists who get their thrills by talking about ourselves.
When our daughter was 12 she really wanted to be an actor. Wanted me to call in all my Hollywood favors and get her on a Disney show. Reluctantly, I took her to the agencies here in San Francisco and they told her that she didn’t have a chance. Without having 10,000 followers on social media nobody would sign her. Hearing that from an agent is pretty rich. Isn’t that your job? Like your only job?
I run a YouTube channel and promote my writing and acting online. But I’m just so bad at it. I actually think it’s toxic and harmful for a person to be good at selling themselves in almost every case. You make of yourself a commodity that is shaped by market forces to be the most appealing version of you possible. There’s no way that is healthy.
My wife and I talk about perhaps hiring some young go-getter from Pakistan or the Philippines for $600/month who will do all our SEO and social media and promotion for us. Has anyone done anything like that? Is it even ethical?
I think if anything it's healthier to pay someone else to do it than stew in the continual awareness of the marketability of everything you do. If you can just be yourself and then pay someone...
I think if anything it's healthier to pay someone else to do it than stew in the continual awareness of the marketability of everything you do. If you can just be yourself and then pay someone else to, with your guidance, polish it into something that catches the attention of your target market, you'll be more able to focus on the parts you like and are good at.
Practically, there will always be parts of running a business that you hate. Those are the prime bits to have someone else do. And I say that as a business owner myself. I've done contract bookkeeping and business consulting for a decade, and telling other business owners they don't have to do the finance work they hate is always an effective sales pitch. ;)
Thanks. It’s good advice. It reminds me of my old friend who discovered the utility of the phrase “I was terrible at that so I fired myself.” He ended up applying it to many parts of his life.
Thanks. It’s good advice. It reminds me of my old friend who discovered the utility of the phrase “I was terrible at that so I fired myself.” He ended up applying it to many parts of his life.
I relate to this so much as a fellow introvert; I hate attention because it demands so much perfection. I've been told I'm an excellent interviewee and sell myself well, but everytime I am put in...
I relate to this so much as a fellow introvert; I hate attention because it demands so much perfection. I've been told I'm an excellent interviewee and sell myself well, but everytime I am put in that position it feels weird to act gloaty in those ways. My field of work is based off of that premise, but I've seen it idolize lying and supporting it all to make a sell.
I'm more so troubled that these expectations are falling on children given your daughters experience! In fact that feels disturbing and opens the door for creeps to enter her domain all in the name of followers! Straight up yuck! I would also be deeply concerned how curating that type of following while dealing with going through puberty as pre-teen would impact her mentally and effect her self-esteem. There's a trend of pre-teens filling Sephoras and buying up premium beauty products because they feel they need to in order to keep up with their peers.
I had a meme I made go viral within a group I associated with on Twitter and seeing it get 10k+ impressions made me want to become a hermit. My brain could not handle having that many people come across my profile despite it being under an anonymous handle. While some would get a thrill from that type of exposure it filled me with anxiety.
Our daughter is in college now. One of her closest friends is a wildly popular TikTok influencer. In high school, this poor girl had multiple stalkers, even in her own high school. My daughter and...
Our daughter is in college now. One of her closest friends is a wildly popular TikTok influencer. In high school, this poor girl had multiple stalkers, even in her own high school. My daughter and her friend ordered and read aloud the 300 page book one of her stalkers had written about her and was selling on Amazon. It was all made up, including her height and weight. None of it was true.
And yes this girl has major anxiety and safety issues now.
While the article focuses a lot from the perspective of those in creative fields, it does bring up that those in white-collar office jobs are starting to be expected to self-promote in some way....
While the article focuses a lot from the perspective of those in creative fields, it does bring up that those in white-collar office jobs are starting to be expected to self-promote in some way. Think building your own brand on LinkedIn even if you are a run of the mill developer or accountant.
I stumbled across this article after seeing my supervisor post several self-promoting posts on his personal LinkedIn and it filling me with dread that will be an expectation of myself in the near future should I be promoted. To me it comes off as so fake and meaningless. I genuinely don't have a passion for developmental topics nor do I desire to write about them as if I am a romanticist. If my company came to me stating I need to make X amount of promotional posts on LinkedIn about Y tool or else my performance review would be impacted, my stomach would be churning over an additional task that feels influencer like. It just seems like more work beyond my initial list of responsibilities that only bolsters the company I work for, and gives them free advertising without additional compensation for me.
For those who partake in these type of networking activities on job boards such as LinkedIn, what are your thoughts? Is there a practicality to actually self-promoting in this way or is it another form of corporations offloading that task onto its workers? If you have shirked these duties, has it had a negative impact on your career growth?
I absolutely hate influencer culture, but I understand why some feel compelled to do it inorder to make it. It's a case of me not hating the players, but hating the game. I absolutely want to avoid having to do such a thing for myself because it feels like additional work outside my 40 hours. There's also an element that I prefer being anonymous in an online space that has been freeing after scrubbing and dumping other social media platforms. But there's also a fear that this avoidance puts me behind my peers and will eventually catch up to me.
Because it is fake and meaningless. Then tell them: No. And tell them if it does impact your review then you will walk away. There are a million other companies you can work for without having to...
I stumbled across this article after seeing my supervisor post several self-promoting posts on his personal LinkedIn and it filling me with dread that will be an expectation of myself in the near future should I be promoted. To me it comes off as so fake and meaningless.
Because it is fake and meaningless.
I genuinely don't have a passion for developmental topics nor do I desire to write about them as if I am a romanticist. If my company came to me stating I need to make X amount of promotional posts on LinkedIn about Y tool or else my performance review would be impacted, my stomach would be churning over an additional task that feels influencer like. It just seems like more work beyond my initial list of responsibilities that only bolsters the company I work for, and gives them free advertising without additional compensation for me.
Then tell them: No.
And tell them if it does impact your review then you will walk away. There are a million other companies you can work for without having to be walked over or deal with this bullshit. If they want marketing, then they should pay the marketers to do so.
I absolutely hate influencer culture, but I understand why some feel compelled to do it inorder to make it. It's a case of me not hating the players, but hating the game. I absolutely want to avoid having to do such a thing for myself because it feels like additional work outside my 40 hours. There's also an element that I prefer being anonymous in an online space that has been freeing after scrubbing and dumping other social media platforms.
Nah, hate the players and the game. The game doesn't exist without them and it's not required to "make it".
But there's also a fear that this avoidance puts me behind my peers and will eventually catch up to me.
Determine how you wish to measure your own success, because it sounds like you're deciding your own self measurement by someone else's ruler. For me I don't give a rat's ass in hell about my alleged "peers" nor any perceived relative position to them. A job is a means to an end, the means being me being paid adequately for my skills and labor, the end being the enjoyment of my time outside that spent on means.
Disagree, with specialization comes desirability. No headhunters are looking for a generalist. The more specialized you become the more difficult it is to replace you. Any business that requires...
The more specialised you become, the fewer opportunities for employment exists, so that's not a given in many fields - especially if you've become settled in the area.
Disagree, with specialization comes desirability. No headhunters are looking for a generalist. The more specialized you become the more difficult it is to replace you. Any business that requires such specialization is (or at least should be) well aware of this and understand that trying to put bullshit entry-level marketing tasks on a specialist is a such a waste of time and money that the person suggesting it should be updating their resume and looking for a new job.
It's expensive to sell your house, move to a new city, and buy a new house. There's no guarantee your spouse would agree to it as they'd have to find a new job too, or that your children would be happy about having to move to a new school and make new friends. You're suddenly alone too, away from family that helps take care of the children when they're sick, so you can turn up for work.
Who said anything about moving? Especially in this day and age of remote work, there are very few (even highly specialized) positions in the modern world require relocation or even being on site in the context of OP's statements.
Especially as we grow older we often can't refuse to play the game, even if the game sucks, as our loved ones depend on us.
As one of the older people here; sure you can. Agreeing to play the game (read: giving into this bullshit and being walked over) is what has allowed it to propagate and intrude so far into your daily life. Everyone has responsibilities and people that depend on them, playing this game directly and negatively impacts those people and responsibilities more than refusing to do so.
Not everyone wants to work remotely, you know. Having to WFH regularly would certainly not be a plus for me, at any rate. If I'm settled in a good job with a good boss and good coworkers, it'd...
Not everyone wants to work remotely, you know. Having to WFH regularly would certainly not be a plus for me, at any rate. If I'm settled in a good job with a good boss and good coworkers, it'd take a lot to get me to quit.
While LinkedIn is "the game", hasn't there always been a connection hustle in basically every business ever? As long as I can remember, I've been told to make lasting connections that could help...
While LinkedIn is "the game", hasn't there always been a connection hustle in basically every business ever? As long as I can remember, I've been told to make lasting connections that could help me find a job later. That first internship or resume review often comes from knowing someone. There have been books written about this topic since forever (How to Win Friends and Influence People); networking predates capitalism.
I’m of the belief LinkedIn is all fake, no real human is actually engaging with these posts beyond superficial comments. You can fake having a presence just by resharing articles written in your...
I’m of the belief LinkedIn is all fake, no real human is actually engaging with these posts beyond superficial comments.
You can fake having a presence just by resharing articles written in your field.
Out of curiosity was this for a company that was dependent on selling some type of service? I'm not quite at the level that demands such, but once I reach a certain tier of management I must...
Out of curiosity was this for a company that was dependent on selling some type of service? I'm not quite at the level that demands such, but once I reach a certain tier of management I must contribute to helping sell X amount in deals. If I don't reach that target, I could be passed on being promoted despite doing well in all other categories.
I worked as a waitress prior to getting my degree and upselling was pushed heavily by managers in some of the restaurants I worked in. If a customer wanted a glass of cabernet, I was pressured to sell a whole bottle. My skin would crawl when having to put on that sales spiel to someone who clearly only wanted one glass if wine with their dinner. I think it even hurt my tips sometimes because I came across as less genuine.
Our experiences sounds similar and more and more I see myself wanting to leave my company once I reach that level.
A really good example is Neil deGrasse Tyson. I had to go find it, so here it is. Why is Tyson the guy we know about regarding science? Why is he the guy who's always on TV, who reporters will chase down and put on camera, quote in the story, when anything happens in science?
Because he sat down and figured out what the media wants. And what they want is soundbites. Which is just a fancy modern way of saying "condensed charisma." You say something interesting, but in an amusing, pithy, concise and charismatic way.
Tyson figured this out, and then figured out -- taught himself -- how to do it. He's a doctor of astrophysics. He had, still has, a perfectly stable academic career. But he's known worldwide as Neil deGrasse Tyson because he employed charisma. He can write books that sell, run podcasts that collect viewers (and sponsors), be asked to host shows and programs, all of that. Because he figured out charisma.
He was already a kind of gregarious, charismatic guy; but he figured out how to focus it in the way modern media wants. And that became his stepping stone to wide success. How many scientists are there in the world? Hell, how many astrophysicists are there? Is Tyson really the best, the most knowledgeable, most intelligent, most insightful, most groundbreaking astrophysicist on the planet?
Maybe, but the odds are he's not. And whoever is, any of the ones who are "better" than him on those scales ... we don't know who that person is. No one really cares who that person is. Why would we? We've got Tyson, who we like listening to. Tyson makes us smile, is entertaining, he's easy to be with.
It sucks, but the reality is success has remarkably less to do with skills and knowledge than we like to think. Unless you're talking about skill and knowledge in influencing humans. Then success has a lot to do with skill.
People want to feel comfortable, even attracted (non-romantically) to those around them. They don't want to feel out of sorts, or uncomfortable, strange. Any of that is right out if you want to succeed. Because success hinges on people, since people are above you, and control money and assignments and resources.
When it comes to hiring, picking teams, selecting promotions, they will always default to the people they like. They'll dress it up in other words, lie about it most of the time, but that's the truth.
You can be the most knowledgeable (insert your field here) in history, capable of pushing the technological and skill boundaries of (your field) beyond belief ... but the promotion will go to the team member who's able to glad hand all the higher ups. The one who tells jokes they laugh at, who can fall into casual and entertaining conversations with them in the blink of an eye. The one they react to fondly, favorably, with delight and ease. That's who moves up, whether it's in power, or money, or whatever.
It's not what you know. It's not how good you are at it. What matters is manipulation of people. We like to think that word is negative, evil, wrong. But it's just what's happening. You can say "hi, good morning" in passing, or you can say it with that extra layer of charisma and magnetic draw that pulls them into favorable reactions. And the same goes for every single interaction you have with coworkers, bosses, whoever.
The people who succeed are those who are charismatic. Who are good at making nice with others.
Is it fair? Of course not! Is it how things work? Yup. Someone brilliant but unremarkable socially will struggle. Someone average, but who's great at the water cooler, will flourish.
The secret to people is people. Figure out people and you have a greater grasp on your future. More of the strings that need pulling will be in your fingers, will be directly under your control. The obstacles will be fewer, and you'll have help clearing them, and any bobbles or problems are more likely to be forgiven.
Because people like people, right or wrong. Probably wrong, but the ones who get along with others are the ones in charge. The others put them in charge, and are happy to leave them there. Advancing means they have to like you too, or you're going nowhere.
You're right and I hate it. But I think there are other tactics that work beyond being "the face" or rather different ways of being "the face."
I absolutely do not like "charismatic" people much (unless that's their job then whatever.) Probably because I have a knee-jerk contrarian response but also some (unfair) part of me assumes a charismatic person skates by without deeper skill.
I'm also very bad at self-promotion. So my tactic has been finding the quiet competent people. Get to know them, work with them, promote them. It's easier for me to connect with them because I am pretty dang good at my job too and we can talk shop. And soon enough, you have an army. The important piece is not using your army to do your work, but to use your army to give your people a voice.
Of course not...
...but he might very well be the very best astrophysicist at communicating to the general public.
Does that suck?
We aren't talking about a NASA research project here, it's science as educational entertainment. And by all accounts he is a perfectly good scientist. Yes, there's no doubt that a more cutting edge astrophysicist exists, but if he doesn't know how to package that information he's not going to educate the public the way that Tyson does.
Tyson's pop culture success is the result of being an excellent communicator, not a marketing campaign. And communication is perhaps the most important skill of all. Why does his success suck?
Your response is spot on and I'm tickled you mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson because he's one of those influencers who I've grown to not like. Similar to @Notcoffeetable, these highly charismatic people put me off. It's almost as if they have an aura of narcissism that can be felt and every interaction with them is calculated. I immediately want to leave the conversation when dealing with these folks; almost like a perceive them as a threat to my own wellbeing.
I've been able to network well amongst those that have been great mentors and colleagues. I honestly don't mind talking to them in that capacity when it's amongst ourselves. But the moment it breaches outside that group such as upper leadership and executives, it feels like such a dog and pony dance to garner their attention.
I greatly dislike getting into back-and-forth exchanges, but you said one thing I feel compelled to comment on. Because Tyson often gets dinged for what you're talking about. And I'm no Tyson superfan, at all.
Tyson strikes me as intelligent. Not learned, not educated (though he's those things as well). Intelligent. He thinks quickly, and he has a deep and agile mind it appears. One of the ways this manifests is he doesn't build pauses and delays into his mannerisms. When he speaks, it's quickly because his thoughts are organized enough to use for communication. He doesn't have to stare blankly waiting for the order to coalesce out of his neurons so he can respond.
A lot of people don't do that. They need time to think. They're deliberate, they're slower. They have to consider.
One of my theories is people really hate smarts. They consider it threatening. Not without cause; smarter people are more likely to be able to spot weaknesses, spot advantages, and so on. Which would logically mean they can seize upon them sooner. I think more than a small percentage of folks know this, even if they can't articulate it. They just "feel" that someone with a ready mind could be problematic if that mind got turned on them. And they react negatively as a result.
It's always pissed me the fuck off. That intelligence is punished. I fucking hate that people who have smarts have to play it down just to fit in, or to be accepted. I just can't say it plainer, and really don't want to flounce around looking for wishy-washy polite words that downplay my feelings about it.
I think we should celebrate intelligence. It's intelligence that's brought us to where we are now. Smartphones, electricity, modern medicine, anything you can name. Right down to the wheel and the wedge and the lever. Some smart motherfucker figured that out, experimented and developed it, and shared.
And they're usually treated poorly, because the people who dragged their (non-wheeled) sledges or sweated and panted to move rocks without a lever felt like the one who figured out a better way might be dangerous.
Tyson seems to like celebrity. I don't, and I find it weird that anyone would. But he's him and I'm me. I do know that when he speaks, he often has something interesting to say. In the same fashion Henry Rollins often has something interesting to say. Among many others. I wish we had more like them, and fewer Kardashians (among many others) taking up bandwidth that could be otherwise occupied by someone with something useful and impactful to say.
However, intelligence isn't charisma. And charisma is what wins people. It's why the fucking Kardashians have multi-million dollar empires built on absolutely nothing of consequence or substance whatsoever. They're just that damn charismatic, apparently. Enough so that it doesn't matter they have nothing of consequence to contribute to the world. They're still being rewarded, while millions of smart motherfuckers are eating lunch alone in breakrooms the world over.
Tangentially, this is why I hate requirements akin to "you can't teach a college course unless you've published a research paper under that topic". (I'm sure this isn't a requirement everyehere, but my college had it) In my opinion, it was what led to so many frustrating experiences with professors that were clearly knowledgeable in the subject, but had no idea how to communicate their knowledge to a group of people
I hate this goddamn self-promotion culture so much. Not all of us are extrovert hustler narcissists who get their thrills by talking about ourselves.
When our daughter was 12 she really wanted to be an actor. Wanted me to call in all my Hollywood favors and get her on a Disney show. Reluctantly, I took her to the agencies here in San Francisco and they told her that she didn’t have a chance. Without having 10,000 followers on social media nobody would sign her. Hearing that from an agent is pretty rich. Isn’t that your job? Like your only job?
I run a YouTube channel and promote my writing and acting online. But I’m just so bad at it. I actually think it’s toxic and harmful for a person to be good at selling themselves in almost every case. You make of yourself a commodity that is shaped by market forces to be the most appealing version of you possible. There’s no way that is healthy.
My wife and I talk about perhaps hiring some young go-getter from Pakistan or the Philippines for $600/month who will do all our SEO and social media and promotion for us. Has anyone done anything like that? Is it even ethical?
I think if anything it's healthier to pay someone else to do it than stew in the continual awareness of the marketability of everything you do. If you can just be yourself and then pay someone else to, with your guidance, polish it into something that catches the attention of your target market, you'll be more able to focus on the parts you like and are good at.
Practically, there will always be parts of running a business that you hate. Those are the prime bits to have someone else do. And I say that as a business owner myself. I've done contract bookkeeping and business consulting for a decade, and telling other business owners they don't have to do the finance work they hate is always an effective sales pitch. ;)
Thanks. It’s good advice. It reminds me of my old friend who discovered the utility of the phrase “I was terrible at that so I fired myself.” He ended up applying it to many parts of his life.
I relate to this so much as a fellow introvert; I hate attention because it demands so much perfection. I've been told I'm an excellent interviewee and sell myself well, but everytime I am put in that position it feels weird to act gloaty in those ways. My field of work is based off of that premise, but I've seen it idolize lying and supporting it all to make a sell.
I'm more so troubled that these expectations are falling on children given your daughters experience! In fact that feels disturbing and opens the door for creeps to enter her domain all in the name of followers! Straight up yuck! I would also be deeply concerned how curating that type of following while dealing with going through puberty as pre-teen would impact her mentally and effect her self-esteem. There's a trend of pre-teens filling Sephoras and buying up premium beauty products because they feel they need to in order to keep up with their peers.
I had a meme I made go viral within a group I associated with on Twitter and seeing it get 10k+ impressions made me want to become a hermit. My brain could not handle having that many people come across my profile despite it being under an anonymous handle. While some would get a thrill from that type of exposure it filled me with anxiety.
Our daughter is in college now. One of her closest friends is a wildly popular TikTok influencer. In high school, this poor girl had multiple stalkers, even in her own high school. My daughter and her friend ordered and read aloud the 300 page book one of her stalkers had written about her and was selling on Amazon. It was all made up, including her height and weight. None of it was true.
And yes this girl has major anxiety and safety issues now.
While the article focuses a lot from the perspective of those in creative fields, it does bring up that those in white-collar office jobs are starting to be expected to self-promote in some way. Think building your own brand on LinkedIn even if you are a run of the mill developer or accountant.
I stumbled across this article after seeing my supervisor post several self-promoting posts on his personal LinkedIn and it filling me with dread that will be an expectation of myself in the near future should I be promoted. To me it comes off as so fake and meaningless. I genuinely don't have a passion for developmental topics nor do I desire to write about them as if I am a romanticist. If my company came to me stating I need to make X amount of promotional posts on LinkedIn about Y tool or else my performance review would be impacted, my stomach would be churning over an additional task that feels influencer like. It just seems like more work beyond my initial list of responsibilities that only bolsters the company I work for, and gives them free advertising without additional compensation for me.
For those who partake in these type of networking activities on job boards such as LinkedIn, what are your thoughts? Is there a practicality to actually self-promoting in this way or is it another form of corporations offloading that task onto its workers? If you have shirked these duties, has it had a negative impact on your career growth?
I absolutely hate influencer culture, but I understand why some feel compelled to do it inorder to make it. It's a case of me not hating the players, but hating the game. I absolutely want to avoid having to do such a thing for myself because it feels like additional work outside my 40 hours. There's also an element that I prefer being anonymous in an online space that has been freeing after scrubbing and dumping other social media platforms. But there's also a fear that this avoidance puts me behind my peers and will eventually catch up to me.
Because it is fake and meaningless.
Then tell them: No.
And tell them if it does impact your review then you will walk away. There are a million other companies you can work for without having to be walked over or deal with this bullshit. If they want marketing, then they should pay the marketers to do so.
Nah, hate the players and the game. The game doesn't exist without them and it's not required to "make it".
Determine how you wish to measure your own success, because it sounds like you're deciding your own self measurement by someone else's ruler. For me I don't give a rat's ass in hell about my alleged "peers" nor any perceived relative position to them. A job is a means to an end, the means being me being paid adequately for my skills and labor, the end being the enjoyment of my time outside that spent on means.
Disagree, with specialization comes desirability. No headhunters are looking for a generalist. The more specialized you become the more difficult it is to replace you. Any business that requires such specialization is (or at least should be) well aware of this and understand that trying to put bullshit entry-level marketing tasks on a specialist is a such a waste of time and money that the person suggesting it should be updating their resume and looking for a new job.
Who said anything about moving? Especially in this day and age of remote work, there are very few (even highly specialized) positions in the modern world require relocation or even being on site in the context of OP's statements.
As one of the older people here; sure you can. Agreeing to play the game (read: giving into this bullshit and being walked over) is what has allowed it to propagate and intrude so far into your daily life. Everyone has responsibilities and people that depend on them, playing this game directly and negatively impacts those people and responsibilities more than refusing to do so.
Not everyone wants to work remotely, you know. Having to WFH regularly would certainly not be a plus for me, at any rate. If I'm settled in a good job with a good boss and good coworkers, it'd take a lot to get me to quit.
Of course, but not every job requires relocation either. The point made was response to the extreme example given: having to relocate to find a job.
While LinkedIn is "the game", hasn't there always been a connection hustle in basically every business ever? As long as I can remember, I've been told to make lasting connections that could help me find a job later. That first internship or resume review often comes from knowing someone. There have been books written about this topic since forever (How to Win Friends and Influence People); networking predates capitalism.
I’m of the belief LinkedIn is all fake, no real human is actually engaging with these posts beyond superficial comments.
You can fake having a presence just by resharing articles written in your field.
Out of curiosity was this for a company that was dependent on selling some type of service? I'm not quite at the level that demands such, but once I reach a certain tier of management I must contribute to helping sell X amount in deals. If I don't reach that target, I could be passed on being promoted despite doing well in all other categories.
I worked as a waitress prior to getting my degree and upselling was pushed heavily by managers in some of the restaurants I worked in. If a customer wanted a glass of cabernet, I was pressured to sell a whole bottle. My skin would crawl when having to put on that sales spiel to someone who clearly only wanted one glass if wine with their dinner. I think it even hurt my tips sometimes because I came across as less genuine.
Our experiences sounds similar and more and more I see myself wanting to leave my company once I reach that level.