Schulz starts with one underlying question: Why do we love being right? Is it for sport or some other deep seated need, she writes, “unlike many of life’s other delights — chocolate, surfing, kissing — it does not enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, our swoony hearts.” but that’s not quite the case she continues, “we can’t enjoy kissing just anyone, but we can relish being right about almost anything,” including that which we’d rather be wrong about, like “the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend’s relationship or the fact that at our spouse’s insistence, we just spent 15 minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.”
When the internet really got going the ability to be anonymous was really the natural state of interaction. As the web has matured this ability has slowly eroded. For social scientists, social anthropologists, and just plain old people watchers this is a burgeoning market.
I would argue that we used to be able to classify people in three parts. The person you are at home, the person you are at work, and the person you are online. These different persona’s are quickly coming to an end. As we take our real world connections and connect online suddenly this opens up the ability to build out a full 360 degree person.
There is a lot of conversation about what this means for people, transparency, the future of the workplace, and that it will foster a better society. The more open we are the more likely we are all going to act responsibly. That’s great but I just don’t find that interesting. Here’s what I find interesting…