eudajmonia

I'm from New Zealand, but work in Europe. Recently I started working remotely for an American firm part-time. Those few hours I work for the Americans equates to about 3x the amount of stress from my EU job but with absolutely no protection (at-will clauses). There is such a palpable difference in culture, management style that I am fairly certain I would never work for an American firm again.

If you are going to make such claims, then at least try and be objective about it. Let's start with the toxic hellfire that is Twitter, I'm sure no credible death threats exist there, right?

I am reminded of my experience working for a German medical equipment company. We have distributed shared service centres around the world. Policy, best-practices, etc are formulated in the head office. For some reason we have continual problems with colleagues from one South American region who never follow best-practices and cause a lot of additional work for other teams who have to clean-up after them. I believe this is exactly what we talk about when we discuss cultural issues. We also have problems with giving these colleagues additional training and mentorship because they prefer to start a lot later in the morning, so our working hour overlap is very minimal.

Generally, people can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they consume; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they consume and form their judgments accordingly. Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion of the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation but only into grades of intelligence. Under this category come all those who have not been born to think for themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything that is set before them in print. To these we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs everything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to have been thoroughly done. The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read. They will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only with a certain amount of reservation. Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little danger much less of importance to the members of the third group of readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous. It is an all-important interest of the State and a national duty to prevent these people from falling into the hands of false, ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the State to supervise their education and prevent every form of offence in this respect. Particular attention should be paid to the Press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all; since its effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching.

Recognizing Propaganda Propaganda appears in a variety of forms and uses common techniques to successfully influence people, including:

Activating strong emotions Responding to audience needs & values Simplifying information & ideas Attacking opponents Technique: Activate Strong Emotions Technique: Activate Strong Emotions Propaganda plays on human emotions—fear, hope, anger, frustration, sympathy—to direct audiences toward the desired goal. In the deepest sense, propaganda is a mind game—the skilful propagandist exploits people’s fears and prejudices. Successful propagandists understand how to psychologically tailor messages to people’s emotions in order to create a sense of excitement and arousal that suppresses critical thinking.

By activating emotions, the recipient is emotionally moved by the message of the propagandist. Labelling is another weapon of choice for the propagandist. What emotions are important for those who create propaganda? Fear, pity, anger, arousal, compassion, hatred, resentment - all these emotions can be intensified by using the right labels.

Technique: Simplify Information & Ideas Technique: Simplify Information & Ideas Propaganda may use accurate and truthful information, or half-truths, opinions, lies and falsehoods. Successful propaganda tells simple stories that are familiar and trusted, often using metaphors, imagery and repetition to make them seem natural or "true."

Oversimplification is effective when catchy and memorable short phrases become a substitute for critical thinking. Oversimplifying information does not contribute to knowledge or understanding, but because people naturally seek to reduce complexity, this form of propaganda can be effective.

Technique: Respond to Audience Needs & Values Technique: Respond to Audience Needs & Values Effective propaganda conveys messages, themes, and language that appeal directly, and many times exclusively, to specific and distinct groups within a population. Propagandists may appeal to you as a member of a family, or your racial or ethnic identity, or even your hobbies, your favourite celebrities, your beliefs and values, or even your personal aspirations and hopes for the future.

Sometimes, universal values are activated, as when our deepest human values—the need to love and be loved, to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of place—are activated by propaganda. By creating messages that appeal directly to the needs, hopes, and fears of specific groups, propaganda becomes personal and relevant. When messages are personally relevant, people pay attention and absorb key information and ideas.

Technique: Attack Opponents Technique: Attack Opponents Propaganda can serve as a form of political and social warfare to identify and vilify opponents. It can call into question the legitimacy, credibility, accuracy, and even the character of one’s opponents and their ideas.

Because people are naturally attracted to conflict, a propagandist can make strategic use of controversy to get attention. Attacking opponents also encourages "either-or" or "us-them" thinking which suppresses the consideration of more complex information and ideas.

Propaganda can also be used to discredit individuals, destroy their reputation, exclude specific groups of people, incite hatred or cultivate indifference.

If we are counting actual working hours, it is also 7 hours a day in Poland. (8hr/day inclusive of 30 minutes lunch plus cumulative 30 minute break from staring at a screen).

It is similar in Poland. Here most colleagues can start between 6-9am and finish between 14-17. This is inclusive of a formal 30 minute lunch break and 10 minute breaks every 1 hour. (In practice most people just take 1 hour lunch instead). I enjoy this because I have much more time outside of the office to enjoy my life.

More troubling is that'under-represented' groups continue use Facebook as their news source.

My personal experience using video conferencing software was always a feeling of heightened anxiety. I now default to either hiding the view of the other participants with another window (maybe only making visible one participant at a time) or completely minimise the window, so I can focus only on the audio. If I don't do that, I cannot concentrate and spend more staring at faces rather than actively listening.

Glad I am not the only one.

Why do people take themselves - so seriously. There was a lot of subtlety in this work and I interpreted it as part fiction. Thanks for sharing it, some of his other work was equally good.

I like it. Some of the best ideas are the simple ones.

I've been happy to switch back to a BlackBerry Q20.

1) I find the use of the BlackBerry hub to really help with decreasing the intermittent reward that having to switch between applications to see your messages gives. 2) It is refreshing to use a device that is more purely focused on its intended purpose. (Communication) 3) I can still sideload most Android APKs if necessary.

In an internet ruled world, were mass communication was now possible, existed a company who became so powerful that the product in which they developed was treated as important as a telephone, electricity, or the internet itself. As its power and influence grew, it aligned itself politically and ideologically. Those influences meant that individuals who expressed beliefs contrarian to those aligned with the organisation were met with digital ostracism. At first it was just normal individuals, but as time went on even world leaders were having their communications silenced or interfered with.

Those who were on the receiving end of this censorship were often forced to form alternative means of communication, but often it was the case that these powerful groups colluded to ensure this was not possible.

What does it mean when the only objective voice to comment on matters originating within the borders of the USA comes from outside of those borders.

Silicon Valley has become so powerful and moneyed that they believe they are supra government.

Tristan Harris comments that the laws that are designed to protect us, don't exist within the realms of social media.

The find the whole narrative of dehumanising Trump supporters to be sick.

The memory of all the pathological mob like violence that occurred during the BLM movement which occurred worldwide should still be fresh in all of our memories. If only the actors who incited that violence were held to this same standard.