Took a German break

Honestly, I haven't actively studied German until recently. I pretty much took a break after I got back from Germany last fall, and wasn't really motivated to do anything with it.

Before my break, I had already watched several Easy German videos and was a member, so I got access to transcripts and exercises. Then I went to Germany with their German-learning and activity program, came back, joined a Discord group with some wonderful people from that trip, and eventually stopped going because of the time difference; they were seven hours ahead of me and while it was Sunday or Wednesday night for them, it was daytime for me, when I was doing things IRL. I cancelled my Easy German membership because I needed to take a break. And since I was back in the USA, there weren't any in-person classes near me, and though I met a couple Germans or heard German on the street, it was so minimal here, I just didn't feel it. 

And I wanted to get back to focusing on French, since I'm taking classes, and Japanese, which I study on my own and by watching some NHK shows (with subtitles). And even Spanish, which my ESL students and coworkers speak, and is pretty much the second language here. It also helps that the Spanish-speakers here are very friendly and will speak Spanish with you, even if you're not that great. If you're interested in languages, learning Spanish is the best experience and is practical, as well. 

I've been watching Easy Italian before going to Italian class and was thinking, wow, what a friendly culture with a beautiful language. So different and seemingly easier than German. Then it hit me: other than reading and sometimes translating tweets on Twitter/X, I hadn't studied German nor looked at Easy German videos for four months. I think it was because some of the people in the Easy German videos were more like media talent than educators offline (and I've worked in both media and education, so I know the difference), and I didn't really want to see them in videos for a while, and I didn't really want to deal with the difficulties with German for a while, either. I just didn't expect that "while" to last more than a few months.

Now I'm over my disillusionment and dread of complex and wordy German challenges, and I'm definitely motivated to keep trying. Earlier this week I had a couple hours before I had to go outside, so I watched 1.5 hours of Easy German videos. Today I plan to read some entries in Meyers Kinderlexicon and probably do stuff in my textbook from GLS (where I studied in Berlin).

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site. 

Faux French: the accent aigu

I wonder if French speakers living in the U.S. have noticed how some businesses don't use the accent aigu (é) correctly. I've seen it mistakenly used on various signs and surfaces over the years, and saw one the other day (unfortunately, I didn't take a picture; I'll post it when I have it).

Many years ago, I bought a dress at Gigi's Closette. The sign has been fixed since then, but when I first went there, they had an accent aigu on the final "e." I knew enough French to know that wasn't correct and wondered why they did it. Sometimes I theorize that people are trying to be "fancy" or sophisticated or worldly by using the é unnecessarily.

Amazingly, I was able to find an image with that old spelling at an online seller:

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

I'm not a loner

A few days ago, I had the best day because I interacted with cool people all day. First, I went to an online writing group with friendly people. Then I went to an online training by someone who works with people, who actually likes people (which I've written about before): he always starts the meetings by acknowledging every person in the "room," then as he lectures, he often pauses for questions and comments, and looks at the chat as well. He speaks in a warm, knowledgeable, communicative way; even though it's online, I feel like I'm in a supportive offline environment. 

Then, after I texted back and forth with a coworker/friend of mine, we ended up having an hour-plus phone call. She's one of those rare people who not only likes people, but helps people and is honest; she's a sincere, accepting person, sans superficiality. After that, a friend from the online writing group told me that she was dining at a restaurant across the street, so we went out for coffee in an upscale milieu on the Mag Mile and talked for a while. When she caught her bus back home, I walked through the Gold Coast and called another friend, who I talked to for over an hour. He also gave me some really good advice for my livestream. I had a pretty weird/toxic conversation with someone that night, but it was offset by having a drink with yet another friend at a place in River North, where we met the manager of a steak restaurant that we're definitely going to try out; she even told us to contact her before we go.

So the day was fantastic, and for an extrovert like me, all days should be like this. This is what energizes people with my personality type, rather than sitting silently in front a computer. And I didn't just socialize, but I socialized with decent people who like people. That's the key. (The reason why I'm mentioning extroversion is because I've written about faking introversion before, and how the world seems to be constructed for introverts.) 

So what does this all have to do with the title? Well I've obviously demonstrated that I am not a loner, but also, this is in response to a belittling person I met at a baby shower a while ago. When I think of people who are on the level, I contrast it with people who aren't. And I had such an experience at that baby shower. I knew no one but the expectant mother, so no matter where I sat, I had to strike up a conversation, or else I'd sit there in silence. I was kicked out of the family table, even though I'd been talking to the grandmother, so I went to another table, where I sat next to a religious, smug woman who spoke disparagingly about the people there with her daughter, in addition to gossiping about people who weren't there.

I made huge mistake that has been a cautionary tale ever since. I talked to her because I'm not introverted, thinking that she'd be cool or at least gracious since she was proud of being religious, and what I got were questions and accusations about my lifestyle. I was also going through some heavy stuff due to grief and increased responsibilities, so my life wasn't all happy and social and busy according to a church-lady's expectations. She was appalled that I didn't have kids, and I think she had 5, and had already moved from the city to the burbs. For some reason, I felt like I wanted to keep talking to her, because, again, I'm not a wallflower, but I should've just changed tables, because it never got any better. We were talking about other stuff, and then she said reproachingly, "So you're a loner." I was like, no, but she didn't believe me, so I assumed it probably appeared that way to her because I didn't have her kind of lifestyle. She was so judgmental and not encouraging, even after I told her about the loss I'd experienced, I felt even more deflated, but I didn't want to tell her off or be rude; I just concluded that she is into righteousness by appearance only.

But I'm not making the assumption that religiosity leads to ostracism. I had an incredible conversation today with a religious person that lasted for more than a couple of hours, where we had downtime while volunteering. Today's person clearly likes people and connecting with people. The other person doesn't. So it matters. Just filling time with people doesn't.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

Work-life balance as a screener

A while ago, I applied for a job that I was totally qualified for. But the first part of the online application had a list of words and phrases that we had to click. The question was: "What words describe you, and what's important to you?" This was their way of screening, like lawyers trying to choose a jury. Who knows what that organization was searching for; I felt like whatever I answered would be wrong, and I didn't make it past that initial online application anyway.

The phrase that stuck out to me was "work-life balance is important." By clicking that and some other related words, it would paint a picture, and the decision-makers could decide if they want to talk to the applicant. I felt like clicking incongruous words to confuse them, but I predictably clicked certain words that probably gave my intensity away. Maybe it signaled my age or something else, like I was too serious, not ready to laugh at a silly joke at the water cooler.

All the phrases seemed trite, like the organization was trying to put people into categories and slots based on their answers: "Oh, this applicant clicked these words; that means they're such-and-such age, they'll aware, they're sensitive, they need meaning," etc. 

I walk by that organization often (I live nearby, and thought that would be a selling point, but they didn't care), and sometimes I want to ask someone coming out of there what the deal is. Did they hire someone for the role? What kinds of people are they looking for? Why do they ask such questions? Do applicants have to create a brand in order to be accepted, then have to maintain it once they're hired? What if they understand the organization's game, play it well, then get in and feel stressed that they have to keep pretending?

Since work-life balance has been a trend in recent years, maybe that organization is screening people based on that, determining that if anyone clicks that phrase, they're "current" and "modern." The organization has lots of buzzwords on their website, so it seems like it's trying to appear hip.

Here's my work-life balance: I want work that is honest, in a place that is healthy and drama-free. Then my life will be more balanced.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

It's easy for people to say they don't care about money, etc. when they already have it

One time I was in a person's house that was so large, I forgot the way back to the room where I was staying, and that was one of their two homes; they had another one in another state. The person also drove a luxury car, wore fine jewelry, went to upscale grocery stores, took amazing vacations, and could enroll their kids in whatever activities they wanted. They also didn't have to work, so they went to the gym, tried different diets, maintained their fit figure, and was in charge of managing their family's life. They told me that they didn't really need all that (the houses, money, cars, jewelry), didn't care about it all, and could live without it, which made me wonder: why did they purchase it? Why didn't they protest against it? And if they lost it all, how would they feel? What if they had to work to support the family, could not send their kids to tutors or good schools, and had to shop at discount stores and Goodwill? Would that really be okay with them? 

I doubt it. One famous speaker said that her husband had "made up his mind" that if he couldn't play golf anymore, he'd be fine with it. But he is still golfing and hasn't lost the ability to play. So what they're talking about is just a theory; the reality could be a lot more depressing. Why not make some kind of pronouncement once the golf goes away? Then that would be more believable. But until then, it's a nice message to deliver to people who would love to be able to play golf, or be able to have the time and money to do any hobby. There's nothing noble in saying you don't need something when you clearly have it.

There are many people in history who had a lot and through political upheaval, war, or just a bad economy, lost what they had and had to start over. Then they really found out what they need or want. We can be inspired by such people. But I don't really believe people who say things that are hypothetical. If you really don't need that wealth, give some to me. I know what I would do with more money, even though I technically don't need it.

I think that sometimes people say things to distract us from what we don't have. So if someone is being interviewed and they downplay what they have, or talk about how they love what they're doing so much, they can't believe they're getting paid for it, then fire the agent that got you that huge contract, and give some of that money away. Losing a job, prestige, support, friends, respect, money is not fun. It's much better to be able to afford things, shop for food without budgeting, live in a safer neighborhood, and not starve. It is much better. 

When I see people talking about not needing something, that their earlier struggling days were better, they're saying that because many people are struggling, and they're trying to connect with people. But I seriously doubt that they want to go back to the struggle, when they weren't sure if they could pay their rent or eat three meals or go out for dinner or drinks with friends. Even going on vacation seems like a luxury to a lot of people. The posers are nostalgic for "simpler" times while their bellies are now full and they can shop wherever they want. But if they lose it, they'll want the richer times much more.

p.s. Amazon Kindle book and print book at the Eckhartz Press site.

Taking success for granted?

I saw a documentary about a very successful author, and they were talking about how difficult it became to write, because there were a lot of expectations placed upon them, and it caused stress and anxiety. I don't know what fame and wealth are like, and probably never will, but I could understand how it could cause problems. 

However, it also made me think about the various people who pursued their craft, then became famous and wealthy, only to eventually say, "All I want to do is write/perform/play" etc., complaining about the demands of the business or being exposed to the public.

So let's break this down: they worked on their craft, dreaming of an audience, then they got the audience while also becoming wealthy, and then they're complaining about the situation. If they really only cared about their craft, or working in isolation, why didn't they stay there? When someone creates something special, and an agent or manager approaches them, signs them to a lucrative deal, perhaps after a bidding war, what do they think they're getting into? There are many examples and lots of information out there about the business, but it seems like they totally ignore it, assuming that contracts and commitments don't matter, especially if an organization has paid big bucks for their work. 

Even the first step, when an agent or manager wants to represent them, is a signal that they're getting into a business and will acquire an audience and an industry that want something and will continue to give them contracts and deadlines, especially if they've been successful. I talk to many writers who are having a hard time getting their work done because no one is waiting for their work; they have to motivate themselves to get it done. But some successful writers lament those contracts and deadlines, which would be a dream situation for the aspiring, struggling authors. The extrinsic motivation creates the momentum, but it's like the successful pros take it for granted.

Another thing I've noticed is that they sit in their large home, perhaps one of a few, and they talk about wanting a simpler life. But their success has opened all kinds of doors, not just the ability to buy what they want, travel where they want, and pursue the hobbies they are most passionate about; they are invited to the best events, are in demand as a speaker, develop friendships with some of the most talented people on the planet, and have access that most of the world doesn't have.

There are plenty of successful people who are enjoying the fruits of their labor. I recently read Irving Fein's biography of Jack Benny, and it is clear that he worked hard in show business to achieve an amazing level of success and fame. He seemed to totally enjoy it, and was aware of how wonderful and productive his career was, including hanging out with cool people he met because of his high cultural standing. His wife also seemed to love the luxurious lifestyle, and they had lots of friends and went to fun parties and lived life to the fullest. He obviously knew what he was getting into, and wasn't perplexed or disappointed by the demands of the business. 

Meanwhile, there are pros who are perplexed, stressed, or disappointed about the biz, whose success has put them in what people would consider a privileged position. Maybe they should help others out to achieve the same dream, or give them access to the dynamic opportunities and events when they don't want to show up.

p.s. My novel, Wicker Park Wishes, will be published by Eckhartz Press. Pre-order here.

Better to underestimate and over-deliver than promise something you can't do

I almost had this post done, when I decided to delete what I wrote and start over, because it sounded like I was being way too critical of:

1) people who promise to meet you at a certain time and are late, even after promising they'd be there "soon," which sometimes could mean a half hour to a full hour
2) workers who promise to show up within a window of time, then show up after the window has closed, after not even bothering to call, and you have to call the company to find out what's going on, while they apathetically promise that they'll be there "soon"
3) tradesmen who promise they'll show up early, i.e., "you're the first in line, then you can get out of here when we're done," then don't show up until about two hours later, with no explanation or phone call, not even bothering to answer phone calls or emails to verify that they're even coming
4) companies that promise services that will arrive in "less than half an hour" and keep promising mere minutes but show up in three hours
5) shipping companies that promise to deliver a package by a certain day, then lie about not being able to deliver said package, even though there's always someone there to receive it
6) people who say they'll call back "right away," and the call never comes, or comes some days later 

And, of course, people who basically ghost you. 

Instead of saying something just to cause hope in someone else, they should just be honest. Why try to be a certain way, just to let people down? And people want to look like they have their act together, or appear like they are caring in order to string others along. 

I could go on and on and bore people with details of people and companies that promise on-time something, and rarely live up to what they say. It would be much easier and more polite and honest to simply say what they really mean. If people aren't able to be somewhere, promising the impossible doesn't make us feel better; it makes us feel duped and annoyed if we're tight for time. The next time someone promises me something, I'm going to ask them what they really mean. Are they really going to be there in a few minutes, or are they going to be quite late? Are they really going to show up by 2:00, or are they not going to be able to make it because they have a lot of things lined up before me?

The other day, I figured traffic would be bad, so I told someone I might be 15 minutes late. Instead, I was 5 minutes late. I told someone else I'd get something done by the morning. Instead, I got it done that night. It's a lesson I learned from Scotty: better to surprise people by getting something done faster than they expected. 

Spam conversation

A while ago (not too long ago but long enough that I don't remember the exact date...maybe a few months ago), I was at an event (I remember where but don't want to be specific in case the person sees this and knows it's them...because it definitely is) and was talking to someone who seemed interesting. They had come to the event alone and I was surprised that they were so talkative, because usually people seem more shy when they go to something alone. Maybe they spoke more to me because I was volunteering and was in a more central location, which meant that people could easily walk up and ask where the restroom was or just chat a bit before they moved on. But this person really took the time to talk, and since I like talking to people (because I'm merely a fake introvert), I went along. We talked about the suburb they live in and other things that I can't remember.

And it's not unintentional that I pretty much wiped the specifics of the conversation from my mind, because it ended up as spam. Spam is usually encountered via email and social media, when someone hacks your account or when a sleazy person or group gets your email and bombards you with unwanted messages. Well spam conversation is similar. It's where a person is talking to you for a purpose that has nothing to do with you but what you can do for them--more blatantly, to sell you something.

In my case, that person was talking to me because they wanted me to sign up for their services (again, I won't be specific, but trust me, I remember what it is, that it's a service that requires clients). The person was with a reputable company and it wasn't a scam, as spam email often is, but it really blindsided me and annoyed me to the point that I abruptly stopped the conversation. When they continued to try to convince me to at least meet with them to discuss stuff, I bluntly said I'm not interested, and felt like I had been duped. Of course, they gave me their card (which I think I still have as a spam-conversation souvenir) even after I said I wasn't interested.

Basically, people who go to a benign function and use it to get more sales seem like they're there to use people, not to enjoy the function. And having a friendly conversation that masks their true intention--to get a sale--is manipulative and deceptive. So I'm calling that spam, and I'm surprised that I didn't see it coming, probably because the person didn't seem like a salesperson. But that's their skill, I suppose, and why they can afford to live in the nice burbs (assuming that they have a nice house there).

If you're in the people business, like people

There are many jobs that don't involve people much, or at all, yet I see people who should be working in those industries working with people instead, and I think it's not a good fit.

Recently I met someone who I thought would be a people-oriented person since they (I won't say "he" or "she" because I don't want people to try to figure out who I'm talking about) have written lots of books to help people, talk about meeting various people, and are in different media communicating with people. They even travel around the country to talk to people while promoting their books, so I figured since they were in my area, I'd go see them.

Since they've been promoting themselves as a people-helper, I felt like I could talk to them freely, but I noticed they seemed sort of uncomfortable that I had tried to converse with them. When I saw them again, other people were attempting to chat, but they weren't encouraged to elaborate. By the end of the experience, the supposed people-person was busy doing required tasks and pretty much shut the door on any spontaneity or one-to-one human interaction.

It's just one example, but I've met other people like that in a people-oriented communication industry, where it's good to give lectures and network, or teachers, who need to interact with students as a group or individually. Why are they working with people? There are plenty of jobs where they can plant themselves in front of a computer or in a lab, where it would be detrimental to talk to or even think about other human beings, because it would impede progress. But there they are, making a living while being squeamish about human interaction, wincing when an individual has questions or wants to talk with them further about a topic or basically socialize. People who are not into people don't like small talk or words that have no function other than to connect people. They only like to talk to people about things that are relevant to their job or purpose. Otherwise, they're drained and even complain about it. Newsflash: get another career and leave those jobs to people who really want to interact.

Just off the top of my head, there are a couple of guys who I've worked with who have people-oriented jobs, and they really like people. One guy teaches all day and night, does a lot of community and organizational work, has a family, and is pretty busy. Yet he always makes time for people. He could lead a meeting of about 100 people, and after lecturing and back-and-forth discussions and challenges from the group, he'll make the time to meet with anyone who walks up to him. Even after teaching a four-hour class, he'll meet with students who need extra help, talk with me and other co-workers, and even take phone calls from various people. He's energized by people and has a passion and love for them.

Contrast that with the person I met recently, and the difference is stark. The person was only there to talk to the group, and seemed squeamish when people approached them. They looked drained and uncomfortable, thus were really only playing the role of a speaker. "Only watch, don't come any closer," was the vibe the person gave off. I can imagine them retreating to wherever they live with relief that the dreaded people interaction was over, and they can continue to write about how much they care and want to share. Whatever.

Another guy who exemplifies true appreciation of people spent many years in the hospitality industry. He had to talk to people for his job, but even after it was over, he'd continue talking to people wherever they were, really engaging and asking how they were doing. Like the other guy, he wasn't drained but energized by people. Like the other guy, he was in an industry that fit his personality. I'm sure if he did work in the introverted world that I'm in, he would greatly suffer. So like the other guy, he found a good fit.

So please, if you're squeamish about people, don't work with them. And if you've written a book, don't do a book tour or lectures. Or maybe you shouldn't get a book published because in today's environment, writers have to promote themselves and if they really make it big, have to get their appearance broadcast on Book TV. I would love to write a book and be asked to talk about it in front of people. I'm not scared; I've been teaching for years and have done workshops. No big deal. Plus, when people walk up to me to chat or ask questions, no problem. I'm not drained by them but welcome them, and feel excited to interact. Save such space and opportunities for people like me and other people-oriented folks because that's what we enjoy a lot more than pretending to be introverts to survive the computer-oriented world that we live in. The world that you'd probably be happier in.

Merely being born on the South Side doesn't make you a Southsider

Greetings from the South Side...more specifically, Hyde Park, which is a neighborhood that people mention instead of saying the "South Side." What I mean by that is this: certain kinds of people will say they're from the South Side, then specifically mention Hyde Park when asked (as I said in my previous post, which this is a continuation of). But then there are other kinds of people (whom I won't define to avoid stereotypes, so you just have to experience it for yourself) who will skip the "South Side" part and just say that they're from Hyde Park. Example:

Me: Where do you live?
Person: Hyde Park.
[Me skipping over any follow-up questions because everyone knows Hyde Park and don't/doesn't think it's that "other" South Side]

Then there's another kind of person who was probably born and raised in the area, before it became more upscale and relatively yuppified compared to other areas of the South Side (there are nice areas, but fewer yuppie-type places than the North Side):

Me: Where do you live?
Person: the South Side.
Me: Are you from there originally?
Person: Oh yeah, I grew up in Hyde Park and still live there.
Me: It's become a lot nicer.
Person: Which is a good thing.

That is the kind of conversation I just had with a true South Sider. Not only was he born on the South Side, but he still lives here and is happy about it. Which is my point: he wasn't just *born* on the South Side, but he stayed, which makes him a South Sider.

This is in contrast with other people who say they're from the South Side but moved out right after they were born, or moved early enough to avoid going to the schools; i.e., their family moved to the suburbs or other areas of the city with access to better schools, better infrastructure, better services, etc., or their parents got a job far away. I know that there are some good schools on the South Side, but for several people it seemed like a no-brainer to move to a more low-maintenance place, where they didn't have to hope their kids would get into a magnet school, charter school, or pay lots of money for a private school. Many people move to the burbs to get decent schools for their taxes and less perceived headaches than urban life.

And I'm not talking about people who got older, past school age, then moved out. Those people have their own lives to lead, and maybe they don't want to stay on the South Side or circumstances changed and they can't live there anymore. I'm talking about people whose lives were barely a blip on the South Side radar before their families yanked them out. It's not like they left the South Side as children or babies, then kept going back. These people left and didn't look back. They were gone. Yet they'll say they're from the South Side. Nope.

A mildly related example is from an interview with WFMT host Carl Grapentine (who is one of the few people on the planet who has lived the dream and has gotten paid for what he loves, has met lots of cool people, used his talents, etc; yes, I'm envious and wishful). At one point the interviewer calls him a "Chicago native." Grapentine is from Evergreen Park, which is not Chicago. But who cares--the interviewer meant the area, so that's okay. But even Grapentine seems to dispute the "native" label because he and his family moved to Michigan when he was six. Thus he barely lived here as a boy. And in the interview, it's obvious he is really into Michigan; he grew up there, went to college there, continued to work there even while he was working in Chicago, and is retiring there. He might have spent a good chunk of his life in Chicago, but he's not a native.

Even though it doesn't totally exemplify my theory, it demonstrates how the "native" label is thrown around. And back to the South Side "native" claim that people make: being born in a neighborhood does not equal citizenship. I have a student from Mexico, but he was born in the U.S. He is an American citizen, even though he grew up in Mexico. It's not the same as merely being born on the South Side; you are not a citizen of the South Side just because you were born in Gresham or wherever.

Interview with Grapentine below, who is one of the luckiest people on earth...I would trade any "native" label for such an awesome life he's had.

If you're from the burbs, you're not from the South Side

Sometimes I talk to people about where they're from, and some will say "the South Side." So of course I assume they're from the South Side--literally. People don't refer to neighborhoods on the South Side like they do the North Side (a trend that evolved as real estate took off and more yuppies, hipsters, bros, trixies, etc. moved in and marketing certain areas became more important). So this is how a typical conversation will go with a so-called "South Sider":

Me: Are you from Chicago originally?
SSS (supposed south sider): Yeah.
Me: Where?
SSS: The South Side.
Me (thinking about streets in the 50s, 80s, even 110s): Oh, where? I've been teaching down there for a while.
SSS: Oak Lawn/Evergreen Park/Burbank/Palos/Tinley/etc.
Me: Oh, you mean the southern suburbs.
SSS: Well, I guess so.

Um, no, there's no guessing...they really *are* suburbs; they have their own territory, schools, police, fire, parks, etc. The South Side is very different from the suburbs, even if the burbs border it. When you cross the city line, you can already feel the relative stability and the different system. There's usually not as much chaos nor as much lurking below. This is not to knock the South Side, and there are some suburbs that are quite gritty, but they're not urban gritty. There's more space in the suburbs and birds and stars at night. Those are hard to spot in the city.

I grew up in a burb (technically a city) just north of Chicago's northern border, and I *never* said I was from the "North Side." I said where I was actually from...no big deal. And since the South Side doesn't have the best reputation, I'm surprised that people claim they're from there. Is it because it shows that they're tough in some way, not soft dough that's kneaded in comfort and trees? Have they ever been to the South Side? Maybe they ventured to Beverly or Hyde Park or Bridgeport, some of the few South Side areas that have neighborhood names, as opposed to most of the South Side where people just give coordinates, such as "I stay at 67th and Kostner," which really is the southwest side (because there's the general South Side, which is then divided up into near, southeast, southwest, and other areas that people deny are the South Side but really are).

Actually, I should've done some more research to find out why people claim they're from the South Side but really aren't. One person explained that their burb had a similar zip code as Chicago, thus the intended misleading statement. But really, it sounds wannabe to me. Meanwhile, there are lots of northern, northwest suburban folks who would never say they're from the North Side. But they do say they're from "Chicago," which is hardly the case, unless that's a way to explain to people in other states or countries where they're generally from. But drill down and you'll discover they barely know the city anyway.

When "we" is really "I"

I recently went to an event at a professional organization to hear a specialist speak about a technical issue, and before I went, I looked at the speaker's website (I won't link to it here or mention the specifics because I'm not being complimentary and don't want the person to know I'm being critical). All over the website, it used the pronoun "we," as in "we provide," "we train," "we deliver," and even the title "Who we are" on the About page. So I assumed there were at least a few trainers/consultants working for the company. But when I asked the speaker how many employees he had, or if he used freelancers instead, he said, "I'm the only one who works there." I was surprised, but when I really thought about it, I realized he's not the only business person who puts "we" on his website. Earlier this year, I was looking at an acquaintance's website, and since "we" was all over it, I naturally asked how many people worked for the company. But I got the same answer: "I work by myself."

I think it is misleading and even untruthful to put "we" on a business website when there is really just one person working there. Are people seriously impressed (and do they believe it) when a business *appears* to be more than just a one-man show? It ends up being hype and can even affect the person's reputation because other people might find out that he/she is putting misinformation on the official site. It also seems like individual business people are trying to puff themselves up to attract attention. I know of an established company that hired someone who implied that they were larger than they actually were, and when they were given a large project, they couldn't handle it, because their "we" was really "I." So the large company had to find an alternative when the single person couldn't deliver on time (he was totally overwhelmed, though I don't know if he scrambled to find some freelance help). People don't always end up being exposed like that, but they're still taking a gamble when they claim to be something they're not.

Some people seemed talented and professional, but when their website ends up being hyperbole, it's not only insincere but not respectable. Plus, some people create a website with "we" all over it, and they haven't even bothered to create a proper business (ie, registering with the Secretary of State, paying the fees, creating an LLC or incorporating). It's better to be honest and say you're a freelancer rather than create a fancy website and pretending to be more than you actually are.

So I commend those people who are truthful in the representation of their business and services. One such person is language fan/pro Sarah Dillon. When she only had her translation/interpretation business, she was totally upfront on her website about working by herself (I've never met her, so I'm just summarizing her approach based on what I saw). Now she's become a consultant, but she still makes it clear that she's alone. There's nothing wrong with that, and she doesn't seem to be a wannabe. So I'm assuming the way she works is ethical, as well.

An extrovert in an introverted world

I've been thinking about this for a while and have searched online for blog posts or articles about extroverts dealing with an introverted culture, but have barely seen anything. Some articles tend to be about the characteristics of extroverts vs introverts, or how extroverts are misunderstood. But in my case, I've had to submerge my more extroverted qualities to survive in the introverted world.

First of all, I'm not struggling as much as I was several months ago when I was doing a lot of work that didn't require much talking because I've been teaching, which requires talking and the ability to connect with people. Plus, my coworkers are extroverts and are truly interested in people, so I feel like I've been liberated from the introverted shackles that surround people like me who just want to be ourselves. When I first returned to teaching after a couple semesters off, my boss asked me what was wrong because I was so quiet. I told her that I had been silenced and limited for months, and had to act a certain way to survive and be tolerated. It seems like a weird concept in a place of extroverts, but I eventually adjusted to that more open environment and have felt satisfied. And in my non-teaching work, I don't deal with people directly but I work with people who like to chat, so it's a good balance. Still, it shouldn't be so rare that I have to write about the exceptions.

I'm married to an introvert, so I know very well what they're like. They're drained by people, they need alone time, they feel pressure to talk, etc. There are several articles and blog posts about introverts' trials and tribulations, especially since Susan Cain wrote the book Quiet, which I read with amazement. What world is she talking about?! In many workplaces, it seems that only certain people are allowed to talk or even attend meetings and conventions. But I see those people as part of the elite, or in highly paid jobs that are hard to get. When a meeting is required, usually the managers are the ones that go, and if more people are invited, the lower level employees aren't really allowed to give feedback or show their personality (especially if they work in a hierarchy of personality), so they have to stay quiet. Yet Cain was talking about meetings, social functions, group work...she was a highly paid attorney in a high-powered job. The average worker doesn't have such opportunities. And it's more apparent when an extrovert has to deal with such a situation. A lot of work has to be done on a computer, and that has nothing to do with people interaction. I'm sure she had to work on a computer too, but she was in a privileged position that allowed her to walk away from the screen to attend the extroverted functions she abhorred. Hey Susan Cain, if you have a Google alert activated and see this blog post, please contact me and explain how I can get a piece of your extroverted chores. I will gladly take on speaking engagements (she's become so successful, that she has expanded the opportunities from her extroverted-oriented jobs to having to do speeches, including the impossible-to-score Ted Talk), social activities, and other tasks in a life that seems far from the usual drudgery that people have to put up with.

For an extrovert, jobs shouldn't have to be totally people-oriented to be satisfying (like nursing, teaching, customer service, retail). I don't want to always work with people because I like to write, research, read, take care of website content, and do other introverted things. But hey, people like me who like to do such work also want people contact and to laugh and socialize. We want social interaction to break up the silence. We don't mind being interrupted. We want to use our minds but occasionally use our mouths, too, and we want a lively atmosphere because we like people-oriented stimulation. But I've noticed that in situations where computers are a necessary tool and there's a certain power structure in place, the ones who are in the special segment get to do more than just stare at a screen. They get to go to functions and conduct training sessions and socialize with others in the upper echelon.

And it's not just attaining such access to those more extroverted activities, but being able to be ourselves. That in itself should be a blog post, because I think it is very difficult to be yourself, even if "experts" in American culture say that's the ideal goal. Actually, being yourself can be detrimental whether you're an extrovert or not. One time I talked to someone who loved acting, loved becoming someone else, loved becoming a character. I've always maintained that I would love to be...me. We're too busy trying to survive by not being who we are, that becoming someone else seems to be superfluous. However, even if it is rare, it is possible to be who you are if you're working or circulating in social/extracurricular circles where such tolerance to authenticity exists.

Then there's the changing workplace, where work isn't done at a company with other people. I often hear about the great economy that existed after World War II and for several years after that, where people got jobs...somewhere physical. Now companies are fractured and people freelance or work alone. What a perfect economy for an introvert but a nightmare for an extrovert. Even if someone has a job at a place, they may not be able to stay there long or establish relationships with their coworkers due to downsizing, layoffs, dysfunction that results from paranoia and restrictions, etc. But in Cain's baffling world, people have jobs, they work with others, they have to survive a workplace where collaboration and communication are required. What a great concept...can you hook me up with your nightmare?

Anyway, other than work is just the world that we live in--it's more introverted because technology has created walls. A lot of interaction is online or through other digital tools, and people don't know how to communicate offline so well. That's another reason why I find Cain's book puzzling. She talked about the school culture, which is very well suited to my needs, since there are lots of social opportunities and clubs to join. But once we leave school, we're faced with a hyper-individualistic culture where people use their phones more for texting than talking, and where people like to stick to small talk, if they talk at all, because they haven't been socialized too well to actually deal with people. Everyone says introverts don't like small talk, and guess what...extroverts like me don't like it either. We like to communicate with live people and have fun, but that doesn't mean we want to talk about nothing all day. Also, people assume that extroverts like talking to just anyone, but I really clam up when I encounter phony people. That's when I do seem like an introvert.

In fact, I've worked or been in so many situations that were restraining, thus were better suited for introverts, that I've learned how to be more introverted myself. I've gone days without talking, and inside my head I was suffering, but outside I seemed like a bland, quiet person who didn't have much to say. People have even told me I'm introverted and have been surprised when I've said I really am not. I'm just not a shallow extrovert (and there's nothing wrong with those kinds of people--at least they're excited to live) but rather someone who really is energized by people--as long as they're interesting and not phony :) So to those introverts who feel like they have to be extroverted: I have had to be like you to survive as well. In fact, if Cain did hire me to work for her introverted empire, I'd fit in well because I not only could take on her extroverted tasks, but I would be able to conform to her introversion because I've already been doing it for years.

I did work in a situation that required both introverted and extroverted characteristics, and I had a great time because I worked on a computer for hours, but sometimes salespeople or other extroverts would come in to ask questions, request certain projects, or just chat. It was fantastic because I could use my mind and analytical abilities but could also socialize once in a while. On the flip side, I worked in a situation where there was no extraneous talking tolerated, and I wasn't allowed to ask questions until the end of the day. Or I had to gather up the questions to ask them all at once sometime during the day. So if an extroverted person were to blend work talk with social talk, we'd get in trouble.

Introverts are lucky that they have technology and air conditioning and other things that take them indoors away from people. If you're suffering in a world of extroverts, think about how many times you have to work on a computer, or when you have the option of a computer and phone over live people. There are many opportunities to not socialize with people, especially if you have a quiet job instead of a people-oriented one, and you don't have to go out after work, either. There's TV, Internet, books, a solitary walk, and lots of other things introverts can do. But if you're an extrovert and want to score an invite to a cool social event where there are people you can click with, or want to have a job where talking breaks up silent tasks or a top-heavy structure, then good luck! Maybe my short tale of struggle will cause other extroverts to share their stories, thus counter the abundance of pro-introvert stuff online, which is where introverts seem to love to hang out.

Calm down introverts: you don't have to act extroverted

Even though I've done a good job of hiding it, I'm more extroverted than introverted. In fact, I'd say I rarely get to express that aspect of my personality (a rant that I'll get into in another post), but when I do get a chance to act how I really am, ie, talkative and extroverted, I'm quite happy.

But sometimes I meet people who are *too* extroverted, like they're trying too hard to act that way. I really like talking to outgoing people, but the folks I'm talking about seem to try too hard. Sometimes those people will tell me that they're really introverted, and I say I'm surprised. But upon further reflection, I'm really not because they seem to be over-compensating for their introversion. It's the forced behavior that makes me become more quiet, and those faux-extroverts will ask me why I'm like that, or they might make some snide remark to someone--or even me--about my deficiencies.

More than once I've talked to people who go out of their way to be really talkative and cheerful...like *too* cheerful, and I'll pretty much clam up and not say much because I'm not into phony conversation. I really am excited about stuff, but I don't want to have to manufacture such an attitude to match their hyped-up one. So what's happened is they'll say something disparaging to a common acquaintance about me. Some people might be appalled I didn't say much, or I seem cold and distant. Well if they would just take a breather, then I would say something, but they seem to go on to the next thing and want me to follow along. Basically, I'm the real deal, they're not, and they seem to be so wrapped up in creating their extroverted persona that they don't bother to discern my true one. Or sometimes they'll ask questions and we'll "talk" but they'll be so hopped-up they'll over-ask or over-talk and I feel like we're not connecting. Which probably also annoys them. I just want to say, "Calm down...be who you are. Then I'll talk more and you won't be annoyed with my reaction."

On the other hand, I've talked to people who are truly outgoing and are energized by people. I had a job where I'd sometimes have to talk to salespeople and other talkative folks, and I had a fantastic time. It was much easier to talk to them because they were sincere in their communication and were ready to interact with the world. Since I'm basically the same but didn't have as much chance to show that side of my personality, I was ready to participate and I think they enjoyed my side of the conversation, too.

So here's some advice to introverts: use your analytical powers to judge people, then talk to them accordingly. I don't know about what other true extroverts think, but being hyper and over-talkative and aggressive does not impress me; it makes me clam up and wonder what's up with you. There is nothing wrong with introversion, unless you are socially inept and don't know how to have a conversation with someone. Then you need training. But talking a bunch because you think that's what you're supposed to do makes you seem oblivious to social rules, and the resulting judgement when I don't respond how you want makes you seem super small-minded.

A while ago I worked with someone who talked a lot and barely listened...he seemed to talk too much to the point where another more extroverted coworker asked if he was dull-witted, or what was going on. I just said, "He's introverted," and the coworker understood: overcompensation.

If you act like yourself, a lot of people would probably appreciate you. And you don't have to smile all the time either. Calm down. There are all kinds of people in the world, and the more mature of us appreciate diversity.

The Help

Yesterday I did a post about The Hierarchy of Personality. This is part two:

I'm talking about radio, but I'm sure the entertainment business and TV news also have talent who treat people like The Help. Some people who are on the air haven't gotten the memo about the democratization of the media. They think they are the most important figures in the culture and think people are there to serve them, whether they're producers, interns, sales people, or even station management. They are the performers, they seem to think, they're the ones disseminating information, and it doesn't seem to occur to them that they are human beings who are equal in worth to other human beings.

Talent who see others as The Help express such an attitude in various ways. When sales people go to talk to them, they see it as a waste of their time and might grant an audience for a brief moment before they say they have to leave. They think sales is not supposed to be in the vicinity of their craft. After all, they are the talent, and the sales people are "over there"; why would they want to spend time with them? They're part of the bean counter class; they don't get it. And when station management wants the talent to participate in a meeting, they don't see it as necessary because meetings are for regular workers who have to do what they're told. They think management doesn't understand how hard it is to talk into that microphone every day, to come up with something witty and compelling. They're just a bunch of suits that don't get it either. And producers: who are they? They're supposed to have everything ready and do everything, even when the talent change their minds. It's as if the talent are lying on a divan and are being fanned by large feathers which The Help hold. If the talent want the fanning to go faster, they end up complaining that it's too fast, even though they requested it. They'll keep changing their speed requests and are never satisfied and complain that The Help are inept because they're not able to deliver what they want. Or it's as if the producers are holding buckets that must catch every drop of liquid that spills over from the talent's cup, wherever the talent go and however they're holding the cup, even if it's not correct or structurally sound.

Sometimes the talent will appear really nice, but they're really being condescendingly benevolent because if they don't treat The Help graciously, they won't get what they want. But behind closed doors, when they're talking to what they perceive as their equals, they'll complain about The Help, no matter how small the perceived infraction is. They'll smile and speak in a seemingly professional way because they need a technical issue resolved, which makes The Help feel like they're interacting with talent who are really "cool". But once The Help walk away when equipment is working again, the Talent will roll their eyes to those in their inner circle and nitpick about other problems that are always, in the end, The Help's fault.

But woe to the talent who are confronted with talent who are greater than they are. All of a sudden, they are faced with someone more important, more powerful, more beloved than they are. They get upset when those bigger stars don't respond to them or treat them as The Help. They have no condescension as they do for the lesser people who usually surround them, but aspire to be like that greater talent and even envy them. They look for approval and become disgruntled if they're not considered equal to those higher beings. But it doesn't occur to them to take their negative experience and apply it to those people they treat as The Help. They just resume their attitude and continue their status quo.

But not all hope is lost, because there are talent who understand that the media is no longer the monolith it once was, that they're merely human beings in a business who are interacting with other human beings in the same business. The talent that do not treat others like The Help speak to people respectfully, without condescension. If they're rude, they apologize to those they've yelled at or whom they've been overly demanding towards. They realize that if someone were to behave towards them in such a negative way, they wouldn't like it, which is why they have the humility to recognize they were out of line. They also don't see the people around them as in a caste system, who reside in a lower tier. They see everyone as part of the team, whether it's the intern, producer, management, or janitor. But even if the media weren't in meltdown mode, no talent should treat anyone as The Help, no matter how much power they think they have.

How blogs used to be

I came across a blog that was linked from Twitter, and it really reminds me of what blogs were like before Fakebook became popular. It's called Random Thoughts from an Info Junkie by David Eppley, and what strikes me is how personal it seems [update: it seems to be a pop culture list now, so it's changed]. I've been reading blogs for several years (mine is going to be 10 years old next year), so I remember when blogs were the way people communicated with each other, discussed issues, shared feelings, and even became friends.

Then social media became more mainstream, and people started sharing more there. I can understand why, because you get a more immediate response, you have a closed system of friends, and essentially a captive, engaged audience. Uninformed "analysts" claim that social media has made blogs obsolete, but I disagree because information can be shared in different ways online.

But what's emerged are a lot of informational blogs, blogs built for business, marketing, and other pragmatic functions, and it seems like it's becoming harder to find the more organic, honest, and non-commercial blogs.

I sort of miss those blog-dominant days because a network grew that allowed a variety of voices and styles to be read outside the mainstream media. It came to a point where I stopped reading some established columnists because their observations seemed inane, and they seemed arrogant. I remember the "media elite" dissing blogs and other online expression, and I even wrote a post about it around seven years ago. So as they hunkered down in judgement of "us", I alternatively found lots of great writing and thoughts from people who had a passion to express themselves but hadn't had a vehicle before.

Even I started posting at Fakebook more than here (as you can see from the dwindling post numbers over the years), but it sort of backfired. I assumed Fakebook was a briefer version of blogs, thus thought there was nothing weird about posting my feelings and struggles about challenging pursuits. But when someone said I appeared unhappy and some others showed concern that I was posting such stuff online, I looked around and realized the bloggy aesthetic had morphed into a shallow, vain expression that sets out to impress rather than share. I didn't think my FB posts were a big deal and not that revealing or pitiful, either, but I wasn't successfully conforming to the environment the FB bosses had created (as described in the book I read), so I seemed "unhappy", that "something was wrong."

So yes, count me as someone who's sort of lamenting the loss of the blog world as it used to be, though I'm sure those blogs can still be found in a few corners of the Web.

Executive producer

I see the title "executive producer" thrown around the radio biz, but most of those people are "just" producers (I put "just" in quotes because there's nothing wrong with being a producer without the "executive" in front of it). I've stayed silent about this embellished title, but I've seen it so often, I can't help but talk about it now.

It seems that the TV and film industries have lots of executive producers, and there are several sources of the definition out there. One site says "an executive producer is someone who is either financing a film, or is representing a studio or party that is financing a film." And other sites mention films and TV too, but I don't see any definitions for radio executive producers. Even Wikipedia doesn't mention radio in their list of types of executive producers.

I know a very successful producer of a top morning show who doesn't call himself "executive producer," even though he has a few people working below him. He just says "producer". I think because he cares more about the quality of work he does than the title. But I've noticed that people who have *no* people working for them will call themselves "executive producers" on their resume, in their voicemails, and wherever else they can broadcast their importance.

So if you see that title, ask them what they're executive of, and who they supervised. Chances are that very few of them actually called the shots on the show or worked alone, except for the occasional intern.

Overkill

Companies have really gone crazy with the "gourmet" concept, but I've found proof of overkill: the combination of "premium" and "gourmet".

The example I found was a "Premium Gourmet Syrup" which seems so unappetizing, they're probably using "premium gourmet" to convince us that it's palatable. It's pumpkin flavored, and what's pitiful is that it's been out on the counter for months--ie, it's not fresh for the current fall season.

There's also French on the label to assure us that it is truly "gourmet", but the company is located in Florida. And here are the "gourmet" ingredients: sugar, water, pumpkin flavor, spice flavors, and salt. When I see "flavor", I assume it's artificial, because if it were real, they'd make a point to state that.

Yet another desperate attempt at hyping up quality.

Trying to sound fancy

I was at the Art Institute, listening to someone talk about Leon Battista Alberti. He was Italian, so his last name should be pronounced "Albertee". It's quite straightforward.

But the person lecturing, who I've heard speak before, is the type who wants to appear "sophisticated", almost to the point of being sort of snobby and pretentious. So I shouldn't have been surprised when she went from pronouncing Alberti's name the right way, "Albertee" to the wrong way, "Albertay," but I was. After all, she knows a lot about art and culture, and it's very hard to get such a job at the Art Institute--it requires lots of knowledge and education. I don't know why she changed the pronunciation of his name, but it sounded ludicrous, and obviously incorrect. I think she was trying to sound fancy, but she ended up sounding wrong. She was trying to puff herself up while letting people know that she was important, but it made her look silly.

I don't know if other people recognized the mistake, but I did, and I'm not impressed.

"Nationally known"

I was listening to an interview recently, and the interviewee was introduced as "Nationally known author and speaker...". I don't like to post names of people I don't particularly respect, but in this case, I totally forgot who that "nationally known" person was.

Which helps support my main point: often, "nationally known" does not mean what it is meant to be. If someone truly is "nationally known," then many of us would know who the person is. Even if we haven't read their "bestselling" books or haven't attended their "nationally known" seminars, we would at least recognize their first or last name, or we would know what they do, at least vaguely. As in, "He's that guy who gives car advice," or "She's that goofy baker."

That would be funny if some "nationally known" person was at a well-publicized function, introduced as such, and no one knew who the heck they were.