I’d probably describe myself as a façade that lingers between the purgatory of introversion and extroversion , unrivalled candour with an appetite for disguised honesty where context manipulates the moment. Articulate to the point of growing adjectives in a purple field of surreal imagination. I tend to observe passionately and when the opportunity presents itself , I’d participate to either influence a coercive thought or disrupt the collective bias , mostly for my own beguiled amusement.
Or, I speak a lot, am moody at times and I’m quite a fun bloke to hang out with.
Now where did all of that come from? I was thinking about the nature of communication and I guess there are broadly two classifications to sort them out.
1. We communicate to be understood
2. We communicate to establish a status quo
While the former banks on the parties’ capacity to understand one another, the latter deals with building a personal brand. Everybody goes through multiple iterations of introducing oneself and if you keenly observe, how we choose to introduce ourselves, what we want the audience to perceive about us, is all a conscious choice and effort to fuel the masks that we wear. One could arguably also say that not wanting to have a mask is a mask by itself. That, I guess, is a simple contradiction that arises because what we are is always different from how we are perceived. There are those who are victims because of that disconnect and then there are those who coast through the skies because of the very same.
My mom was a bit worried about blatant persecution here in the UK. She had never steered our conversations towards the racism that is prevalent in this world. In fact, her choice of wanting to talk about racism got me in a state of surprise. I had never imagined that word featuring in her world. To her, everybody was the same.
A few lines of exchange later, the culprit was easily identified. NEWS and media. News channels had created a sense of panic and it was but obviously that my mom was worried about the current affairs of sorts.
The things that we hear, listen, watch and see, borrow and eventually propagate, they all are bound by the rules of intent. If you think about it, it’s the intent that sets the context to most information that gets passed around. Under the filter of intent, truth and lies are the same and are usually an object of convenience.
As a species, as one spends a life learning and adapting to social morals and perceived framework of right and wrong, one does tend to ignore the intent and one skims along the peripheral logistics of truth and false. Intent is a simpler measure to assess information.
While the filtration mechanism is simpler, intent itself is a byproduct of personal bias. We express our intent in the way we perceive the world around us. There is no absolute true north in viewing other’s intent. Fortunately, on most days, true north is an redundant luxury.
Classic examples of intent include any assessment of circumstances where the line of thought is to follow the money trail. Intent is money and the flow of it unravels the road it takes.
Skepticism is a wonderful ally to this method of information assimilation. Asking your whys, asking who benefits and how, what one stands to gain and what one stands to lose, the answers do take us a step closer to the big motivation behind any information exchange.
A simple news channel, a worried mother, her son, a die hard skeptic, and a train of thoughts along intent. This connects us back to the first few lines of the blog.
How we introduce ourselves is a tell tale sign of the intent that we carry. Want to stay understood, we use the simplest of words that breed no ambiguity. Want to impress, the adjectives flow seamlessly.
So, how do you introduce yourself? What motivates your introduction. Are you eager to establish a common ground or do you fear exposure and possible ridicule and hence restrict the words that can help you break ice?
A simple introduction sure can be complicated by a thought process 🙂