Reasonably Stupid

Something happened to me just now. An interaction between me and a couple of strangers, two young girls. It was the sort of shit that most people pay no mind to, in fact they most likely just get pissed off and then let it go. In short: it was something and nothing. Except that it typified a lot of the interactions I have, even with people I know. 

I was driving my car down a road narrowed by a line of parked cars on one side. The road had a gradual curve to it, meaning you couldn't see oncoming cars that far ahead. I'd stopped before the line of cars, to let a car I could see have priority. Before I could restart, I saw another approaching car and gave way to that car too. Then I set off only to see two oncoming cars, I was now level with the obstacle and it was difficult for cars to pass. The first of the two cars saw that I'd moved closer to one side and there was a gap to pass and passed. The second car didn't advance. The driver and her friend both gestured to suggest I needed to resolve the issue. So, I crept forward and put as much of my car as I could into a small gap between two of the parked cars. The girls drove their car at mine, to pull close along side so they could wind down their window to talk to me. Even though I knew they would just bark angry nonsense at me, I too wound down my window - as I didn't want to ignore their obvious overture. The driver using heavy sarcasm pointed out that she couldn't pass me where I was originally and that she felt she had the right of way, and didn't want to mount the pavement to travel past. 

I listened to all of that. Then I said: I understood what she was saying but...whereupon she drove off. 

I felt horrible. I wanted to point out that I couldn't have seen her car or stopped earlier and that I had twice, in the end, moved to make way for her and another car had managed to pass by. What did she expect I could have done better? And what point is made by belittling anyone when the situation has been easily remedied. 

Why did I care? Why couldn't I just ignore her or brush it off as a silliness or arrogant person who needs to correct everyone else's behaviour?

In the first instance it's an inbuilt thing in me: I feel I must allow all questioning, to not to do so would be an arrogant act saying: you can teach me nothing. Allied to this is the fact that I want to be reasonable and been seen to be reasonable. To do that I must listen, and respond only when I feel my motives had some virtue to them that in part or whole justified my action. Accept wrong when no reply can be offered, accept wrong when motive is fair but doesn't cover the resulting action or receive acceptance when the reply satisfies the original query or complaint. 

The trouble is this invariably leads me into encounters where I'm unreasonably attacked, I respond giving the attack legitimacy of sort, only to be ignored or accused of not being able to accept when I'm in the wrong. Accused of the opposite of what's allowed me to accept the discussion moving towards what many might consider ad hominem attack and not proper discussion and just angrily reject it. 

These girls felt they could tell me off. In the end I allowed them to do just that. And was left feeling wrong and wronged. Hurt and embarrassed. Feeling guilty because i couldn't see if my motives were good because those I'd offended, hadn't accepted them - leaving me to implicitly accept that I was wrong. 

Other peoples perception is always more important than mine. If I think I'm reasonable that is meaningless if others don't. If I can't appeal to reason and find out what if any case I need to answer, I'm left feeling unreasonable but unable to fix it. 

Social Media is it worth it

Recently, Twitter’s share price fell 23% following announcements that the take-up of new accounts had slowed down, and engagement with the social network had dropped. The social network makes huge losses year on year which investors happily overlook while more users are caught in the network’s dragnet. The hope is that they will find a way to monetise the service but if use of the service is in decline, and the trend suggests it is (ever so slightly) the investors run scared.

Given the prevailing wisdom that all software should be free, I wonder how Twitter can make more money for its investors – if they can't hope to get its users to pay for its services. Of course saying that social media is free is a delusion and one that all users subconsciously are happy to subscribe too. After all, we know that these services aren't really free; they let us natter over peer to peer networks, while they mine our personal information for advertising revenue.

While users consciously decry their information being sold-on without their explicit permission, they are also happy to implicitly give their permission for it to be used by logging on for free, knowing as they click-in that their information will be exploited by the service; exploited in ever expanding ways if these companies are ever to make up their losses and provide a real return on their investment.

So what value do we place on social media services, and what value do we place on our personal information?

It would appear that we place a low value on our personal information because, it would seem, we don't value the social media services enough to want to pay for them – so the hidden cost of selling our personal information must mean less to us than whatever annual fee we fear might be levied.

Put another way: many people say they would stop using Facebook or Twitter if they required an upfront fee. So, they’re not worth actual money – so our personal information must mean less to us than money because we will tacitly exchange that for the service.

I suspect that a fee would turn off users less than it would the vendors, as a fee would probably generate less revenue than advertising solicits. Yet, it would be a more honest transaction – pay for the software that enables the services, as that’s the real commodity these companies offer you. It’s a different proposition viewed from the providers’ side, where the users are their commodity and corporations are their real customers.

If social media giants got paid only to provide users with peer-to-peer gossip sharing software they'd not be super-rich. They'd maybe have fewer users too, as a few would keep to their threat and cease to logon. I wouldn't overstate the user drop-off, though, as it’s like a crack addiction, I doubt the buzz wears off after the free sample runs out.

Would it not be better to pay for the service and keep your personal information private, doing away with the pretence that you were ever getting something for nothing?

Slipping Away

I hold views that nobody else shares. It does make me question them. Be arrogant not too. Trouble is some of them are central to who I am. Core beliefs, if you will. So, if you doubt your core beliefs then you doubt yourself. 

Most of what I feel about my past, myself in total, is only my perspective. That counts for nothing in the face of other peoples perspectives. Particularly of those closest to you. Further self doubt.