Natty Chatter

In this climate of economic downturn, it's very likely that many folks may find themselves applying for new positions for various reasons. Whether its within their own companies or to external organizations in the professional fields or even in social groupings, it is inevitable that rejection occurs.

Now in nearly all cases, rejection is painful because at the bottom line in a rejection is that you don't fit the position (whether professional or social) based on the qualification criteria that was used to determine your compatibility. Moreover, there are wounds that a rejection can cause on your psyche as you mull over the events leading up to rejection and the rejection itself.

At some point, there are a numerous set of clearly defined responses that we reach for immediately. For some it's anger at either oneself for not doing more or perhaps anger directed at the interviewer for not recognizing your compatibility. For others, it may be confusion as why they were found lacking in relation to the position being sought. And yet others will try to brush off the rejection by not responding back at all, thinking that a "tough cold shoulder" approach is best.

However, these approaches seem to "burn bridges" as it were to the position you were rejected for. Now granted, it might be sweet vengeance to get back at the people who hurt you by their rejection, but it also would probably seal their future consideration of you in the future. After all, if you are as qualified as you claim to be, then these people may wish to reconsider their choice after sometime spent with their initial choice.

Thus, a gracious response, a response thanking these interviewers for their time and consideration of you for that position would leave a positive impact in the event that their choice fails to achieve their expectations.

In the professional world, it is common to see companies select one candidate or vendor over another only to switch later down the road as their original selection was a poor choice. And typically the problem lies in the selection criteria that the company used in the first place. For instance, saving money by the selection of a cheaper vendor may turn out to be a poor choice if said vendor suffers from horrible quality or delivery commitments.

Conversely, in social circles, a rejection from a lady or a man could be a horrible mistake as their selection criteria may be the wrong set of qualities that they were attempting to fill. Or alternatively, they could have overlooked certain qualities of you (the rejected person) which are only illuminated by the person they originally selected. Therefore, by taking a gracious exit, that positive uplifting response may very well lead to a return call once their candidate fails to impress.

-C

A disturbing trend has emerged in our modern society and that trend is the far reaching extent of our ability to intercommunicate with each other. From e-mails to txt msgs to twitters to myspace to facebook to blackberrys crackberrys, we are now more connected to each other yet we are still so far apart.

Now I'll be the first one to admit to using these forms of communication because they are convenient and easier for the less confrontational meek, but the problem is that these forms lack the personality humanity of a good face to face or even a decent phone call. Why the lack of humanity in these technological gadgetry?

My answer is that as a species, humanity was designed to be a social creature. We have thrived as a civilization through our interactions with each other and the achievements/disasters we've made because of those interactions. Would Trojan War have happened if it wasn't for Helen? Or the inspiration of the divine for Michelangelo's rendering of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Could generations of men swept women off their feet without the help of romantic language comparing their love ones to the beauty of a rose or of a perfect sunset?

According to certain research, 55% of all human communication is based on body language, 38% is based on your tone of voice and that only 7% is based on what you have to say. Granted this particular set of statistics only apply to experiments dealing in the communication of feelings and attitudes. Thus, expression of human emotion or feelings by modern technological methods means that 93% gets displaced or lost in its translation. Now one might say that it's hard to misunderstand the three simple words that "all significant others" want to hear every now and then, but even that phrase can mean different things by its presentation.

Take a second and consider that simple phrase and deliver it with passion, then again with sarcasm, or how about with anger, or with boundless joy, or utter depression. Then try delivering that line while fighting the toilet with a plunger, or shaking your head in a no (side to side) manner, or throwing that long pass in football. Granted, you probably stopped at the second or third version, but surely anyone can agree that the what, when and how the words are presented can make a profound difference.

And the problem is that technology strips that away. The subtleties of the our language are stripped away to the lowest common denominator which is the mere words. Thus, resolve today at this very moment to stop and instead of e-mail, texting, facebooking, or myspacing someone, go find them and say what you have to say. Above all remember that your nonverbal language will be say so much more than your words could ever say by themselves.

-C

In these times, the world wants to convince us that perception is better than reality. It is better to be perceived as cool, hip, trendy, and wealthy than set out to achieve those attributes because it is easier and faster. In fact, the world even goes as far to eliminate the real for reality is based perception. A quick browse through the media shows all these "shortcuts" to the dreams and goals we have.

However, the problem lies in the fact that perception only holds on for the short term. For instance, getting that brand new luxury car or Armani suit gives the perception of wealth and perhaps status but only for a while unless one continues the trend. That is to say once it becomes perceived that the luxury car or suit becomes your sole possession then reality is revealed.

Another more practical model is the way we present ourselves to and act towards others in both professional and social settings. In professional settings, giving the perception of leadership maybe inspiring but it is lacking to an actual leader. Or in the instance of having the actual skill set is preferable to being perceived to have that same skill set. After all, the perception of a skill can not accomplish the objective if one does not have the skill. For instance, having the perception of being a good negotiator does not help if one can not actually negotiate deals. If anything the result of a false perception is more likely to bring misfortune and stress.

Meanwhile in social settings for men, the perception of being charming and gentlemanly is lacking in comparison to being truly charming and gentlemanly. Sure it is easier to act and give the perception of these qualities but eventually one's true nature, that is reality, sets in and conflict arises. Similarly, darker colors may give the perception of being slimmer but lacks in comparison with being slim.

Given that perception is fleeting and reality always around the corner, the world responds with that you should continually monitor and maintain the momentum of the perception that you have created. Essentially, perpetuating a falsehood continually which only increases in difficulty compared to setting out to achieve the reality in the first place.

Going back to the perception of being wealthy, the cost of maintaining the image requires considerable resources which will inevitably cause strife, misery, and ultimately shame for the non-wealthy. Equally, the perception of being charming requires constant acting which becomes a burden of itself compared to one being really charming.

Therefore, what we should advocate for is the reality of ourselves and others. Now I realize that reality is quite an eye opener compared to the fairy tale perception we enjoy. But considering the liberating freedom of reality, it would be wiser to err on the side of being real in interactions than acting.

In closing, let me do say this, being real may be the ultimate goal but there is a time and place for the reality to be expressed. The when, where, and how much reality is presented is just as important as the reality itself. The proportioning of reality is also of paramount but that is a topic for another day.

As with every generation, the media of the era can vastly affect the behaviors of children and its always amusing to see who gets the blame. For example, prior to 1989 when Tobacco companies voluntarily agreed to halt their product placement, the usage of tobacco products was very commonplace.

In a sense, a character smoking on screen was depicted as cool or glamorous which at the time convinced entire generations to light up. However, today its been ingrained to us how bad smoking is. For a quick glance, a simple search on Youtube brings up numerous ads against smoking and the end result of a life spent smoking.

However, in our era, the focus has now been shifted to violent video games and their effects on youngsters. Hits like Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 4, and SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals stand accused of inflicting great psychological harm on children.

As Dr. Phil puts it, "If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way — you get extra points!". But the problem here is not that children are being rewarded for shooting people. Instead the problem is how these children have access to these games. In each case of the aforementioned games, the ESRB rates all those games as M for Mature, as in to be enjoyed by folks who are 17+ or older. As in adults who probably can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

So the real question is where are the parents? Is it not the parents who purchase these games (as retailers are supposed to only sell said games to adults and not kids)? Where is the parental oversight for these children?

Thus instead of focusing on the real problem (bad parenting), we have our media whipped up in a firestorm to go after the makers of these games. Whether its in the form of protests or lawsuits, it just seems so misguided and wasted. A more effective approach would be to find all those bad parents and punish them by having their children take their violent tendencies on them. Seriously, when are parents going to do their due diligence before buying whatever it is their child nags them about.

What happened to parents instilling their children with the differences of right and wrong and what is real as opposed to what is fantasy? That is to say, the TV or the internet is not a valid replacement for parenting.

Allowing such bad parenting to continue will lead to more problems than violent video games could ever cause.

-C

With the recent news of Bernard Madoff and his great Ponzi scheme, it behoves me to mention one of the greatest Ponzi schemes that exists still for Americans today, Social Security program.

Now according to historical records, the Social Security act was drafted by President Roosevelt (Franklin not Theodore) as a part of the New Deal. The original goal of the act was to "encourage older workers to retire" and create jobs for the younger generation. Oddly enough, the earliest age which benefits could be collected, although it would be at a reduce rate, was 62.

Regardless, in the past few decades, several amendments have been passed affecting the system, but in general the overall plan remains the same. Those who are employed have payroll taxes collected into the system which then disburses it to those who are retired and quality for Social security. However, this system is dependent upon having more people pay into the system than those who are being paid out.

In a fashion, this requirement is very similar to a Ponzi scheme were early investors are paid off with the infusion of capital by later investors. And in order to pay the later investors, more investors are required. At some point, the disbursements will be greater than the collections and the scheme falls apart.

To relate the Ponzi scheme to social security consider that the Baby Boomers (those born during the post-World War II baby boom of 1946-1964) will reach full eligibility age at 2012 through 2031. However, this demographic could start collecting social security which puts the eligibility years at 2008 through 2026.

Now granted of the supposed 79 million people which belong to this demographic, not every one of them will be collecting social security. Whether it's due to an early death or maybe due to their sizable fortunes, they won't collect social security. But even so, if only say 60% collect, that would still be over 47 million people collecting social security. In terms of dollars, we start with the average annual "benefit" of Social security which the Social Security Administration estimates to be about $15,000 for the year 2008.

However even if we kept the assumption that the $15,000 would not increase (or decrease) in the years to come, that would calculate out to nearly $711 billion dollars required per year to pay all 47.4 million retirees. That is well over double the amount that our government just spent to "bailout" banks and various other institutions due to the instability of the market.

Now I realize that folks would comment that surely not each of the over 47 million retirees would be collecting at the same time. Surely a few of them would have passed on by the time all the retirees are eligible. But even then, let say that a roughly 30% of 47.4 million don't make it all the way to 2031, that would leave still leave over 33 million retirees with an annual cost of $497 billion dollars. And that's assuming that the annual benefit still remains at $15,000 for the year 2031 which would be closer to $21,000 assuming a 3% increase every other year. This increase would reflect an additional cost of $198 billion dollars per year.

What solutions are there to this monumental problem? First, our current government needs to address this issue today and not wait for the piper to come knocking. Next, legislation needs to decide on either(or both) increasing collections or postponing eligibility ages. Both are going to be
very unpopular but necessary to correct this Titanic before it hits its iceberg. Following that, there needs to be a correction within the system itself. Sure retirement would create more jobs by allowing the younger generation to fill jobs that are vacated by an older generation but its my opinion that a better health care system would be more enticing that a meager government check.

In fact, looking at the biggest expense for the elderly, health care ranks as the top cost. But that is for another blog entry.

-C

Life, as we know, is full of possibilities and the permutations of life are nearly infinite. However, a lot of opportunities in our lives are mainly dictated by our own willingness to agree (or disagree) to a path. That is to say, by being a yes, doors (whether good or bad) are opened and you become exposed to experiences that you would have deprived yourself had you been a no.

For instance, most people consider that jumping out of a perfectly functional plane and plummeting towards the ground at terminal velocity is a reckless "sport" and quite foolish. Yet it's one of the most thrilling and exciting experiences that I've ever had. In a similar fashion, the first experience I had of riding/driving a moped (it was not powerful enough to qualify as a motorcycle) on steep grades of a particular cliffy road in Ko Samui, Thailand was terrifying yet satisfying on a personal level of having fun and of achieving something you've never done before.

Moreover, there's something to be said about the confidence a yes brings over a no. In the simplest of terms, a yes is a risk and thus would put you as a risk taker. Now it is safe to say that not all risks are equal but as the idiom goes: nothing ventured, nothing gained.

And while this idiom is used many times in business, it seems to apply equally well to social interactions as well. Specifically, in regards to my fellow men, our perspective is that we need to step up and be a Yes instead of a No. We need to collectively discard our reservations about rejections and initiate interaction. There's no doubt that things can go horribly wrong but by the same token there is no guarantee that by waiting things will ever come to be.

Furthermore, there are very few exceptions when the "timing is not right" excuse is valid. In fact, let's throw out all the excuses we make for ourselves and move forward. For the worst scenario is that she becomes the one is the No instead of a Yes and that is her lost, not yours. Whereas the best scenario? Two "Yesses" is a world of possibilities waiting to be discovered.

-C

Welcome to the Natty Chatter, I suppose that a vision or mission statement is fitting for an introduction, but in pondering a purpose for this blog I came to the realization of two truths. First, there are many blogs (with more created ever day) which can be as general or as specific to any given topic. And second, that blogs are, by their very own nature, fleeting in their existence.

As any simple search will show the numerous variety of blogs currently in existence, the fleeting nature of blogs bears further examination. As a generalization, blogs are lively when they have a following which is typical of what information is offered by said blog. While a post may bring readers to a blog, a following would indicate that other posts must also be added so that readers continue to return to said blog. This would indicate that fresh material delivered in a timely fashion keeps the masses interest in a particular blog.

However, fresh material alone can not be the sole factor. After all, one could post their activities constantly throughout the day (e.g., using Twitter to show folks what you might be doing from one moment to the next) and still not have a following (unless of course said person was already a celebrity of some sort). Thus postings to a blog must be at the very least interesting in some way. Whether it a captivating narrative or an informative insight or just plain entertaining, at some level sufficient interest must be generated so that readers are directed to blog rather than that blog.

Thus the goal for every successful blog (including this one) should to be frequently updated and to have captivating posts. Unfortunately, this still leaves the purpose of this blog unanswered. So for the time being enjoy my future ramblings which should be frequent and hopefully captivating.

-C