Yesterday I was watching my Twitter feed and noticed that John McCain was offering advice to the Romney campaign on what they need to do to win the Presidential election in November.
It got me to start wondering and reflecting on the learning process and how we should screen and filter ourselves from all the possible information that we have around us.
Should we listen to losers?
Should we listen to winners?
Are we aware of the biased viewpoints from the sources we are listening to?
First, let’s delve into the political world.
As far as I know, President Barack Obama did not seek the advice of John Kerry or Al Gore on how to run a successful presidential campaign as a Democrat.
I wonder if the Romney campaign is taking advice from John McCain on how to run a successful presidential campaign as a Republican.
But just because someone was not the ultimate winner, should we dismiss what they have to say because of their “loser status”?
Not so fast.
Hindsight is often an excellent teacher.
Especially if it someone else’s “hind” that we can learn from.
Now, be careful of the advice from both winners and losers. There could be some blaming going on by the losers and inflated egos from the winners that distort reality.
But if we can learn from others mistakes and insights it can help us to avoid their history.
One of my favorite questions to ask someone is “how did you become successful?” or a similar variation.
Listen carefully.
Pull out the timeless truths that you can apply to your life.
Be willing to have your own beliefs challenged, but hang onto your values.
Now in my 25th year of working in the radio broadcasting industry with a few breaks in between, I value continually learning from others and most of the advice I offer others has its roots based on a combination of lessons learned by both myself and others.
Every Friday I’m posting the video’s from that day:
LAUREN ZUBER
Giving yourself permission to be fluid, to try things, to test what you want to do and where you excel makes a case for the five-year anti-plan: RETHINK entry level.
Yesterday my friend Brian Gallagher posted a comment on Facebook and tagged me in a comment along with another friend, Andy Welfle.
Before I had a chance to see what Brian was up to, Andy hopped on Twitter and sent a few tweets about the article that also mentioned another friend Doug Karr and Amy L Bishop whom I don’t know.
Turns out a Tweet that mentioned myself and all of the others above was used as an example of what not to do.
Here’s the quote:
3. Your tweets are in English, but I still can’t understand them.
Consider this tweet from earlier today: “RT @ScLoHo: RT @awelfle: @AmyL_Bishop @douglaskarr and what about @scloho? #solomo #yolo #BIN2012 //Yeah Doug? What cha think of @ScLoHo ?”
The article continues:
I’m sure that means something to someone, but not to me. I don’t mean to pick on @ScLoHo–I looked up his timeline, and the rest of his tweets are considerably less cryptic and more appealing. But if all or most of your tweets are full of abbreviations and inside messages, only insiders are likely to follow you. Of course, that may be what you want.
Thanks for the rest of your explanation Minda.
There is a special language that sometimes pops up when reading someones tweets. I don’t use cryptic language most of the time but this deserves an explanation.
(I find text messages more cryptic than most tweets).
RT is shorthand for Retweet. A Retweet is like a Share on Facebook. Twitter allows us to retweet what someone else has tweeted and give credit to the original Tweet author. (If you modify the tweet, then change the RT to MT).
From looking at this tweet, I believe it was Andy Welfle who originally wrote this tweet which I retweeted. And it is all out of context.
I don’t even know the entire context because this message that was part of a conversation inspired by a conference that Andy, Amy and Doug were all attending 100 miles away from me on August 10th. The conference was Blog Indiana 2012. I know that because of the hashtag in the tweet #BIN2012.
My guess is that Andy joined a conversation between Doug and Amy about acronyms due to a comment that a Blog Indiana speaker had just made. Andy added my Twitter handle (ScLoHo) and that’s how I got involved.
But it’s not really as mysterious as it sounds.
Let’s take this out of the social media world and imagine it in the face to face social world.
Doug and Amy are talking about something they just heard and Andy happens to walk over and hear their conversation and add his 2 cents and drops my name. Normally that would be about it.
But because this conversation is happening online via Twitter, it is more public than the original closed room. I get an alert that my name was mentioned and I decided to retweet to others who follow me.
I really don’t mind being mentioned in an article titled, “5 Reasons People Unfollow You on Twitter“, especially since Minda mentioned that the rest of the tweets she saw on my timeline were appealing.
And thanks for the inclusion in an Inc Mag column. I’ve been quoted previously by the online versions on the Wall Street Journal and Fast Company along with a few lessor known publications.
Minda’s article is pretty good and I suggest you check it out by going here.
The C version of Clout has been around a lot longer than K version of Klout.
Klout was launched in 2009 as a tool to measure your social media influence. Wikipedia says:
Klout scrapes social network data and creates profiles on individuals and assigns them a “Klout score.” Klout currently claims to have built more than 100 million profiles.
They have been criticized for their methods of measurement and not revealing exactly how they come up with a persons Klout score.
Every once in awhile they revise their methodology and scores either drop or rise due to these changes. Last week mine jumped several points upward.
Those who are more highly involved in these metrics of social media than I want to be are often comparing their numbers and figuring out how to game the system.
It’s silly.
Actually it’s stupid.
While I pay a little attention to the metrics and methods, I am more focused on the real relationship values.
Clout has been a word for several hundred years and refers to power and influence that a person has and can’t be measured with metrics because one persons clout is different with each person they know.
Last week I had a brief interaction with my friend Joe Noorthoek. Joe is the marketing guy behind a local lawn care service. Joe uses the Twitter handle @LawnBoyGreen and has established himself as a humble, knowledgeable, and involved member of our city.
Joe is not from Fort Wayne. Joe moved his wife and family here from Michigan a couple of years ago and somehow became involved.
I believe it was Twitter and the relationships built via those conversations that got Joe connected. We have a monthly Social Media Breakfast on the last Tuesday of each month and Joe like myself, is one of the alumni that have been invited to speak during a panel discussion. Just that achievement in my mind launches Joe into a local celeb.
But even though his business is lawn care and his twitter handle refers to that part of his life, that is not the focus of what he says online or face to face.
A quick review of about 3 weeks of tweets and not once was there a promotional tweet attempting to sell his services. Yet if you ask Joe about the value of Social Media and his work, he’ll tell you how valuable the relationships built via Twitter have become.
I know about Joe’s family, his ambitions and his beliefs. And because of that, he’s on my short list of lawn care pros to recommend to others.
Klout vs. Clout. Be sure you are striving for the right type of influence.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
TuneIn
Deezer
CastBox