Keynote Talk for HighEdWeb NE 2016 - "Sharing Matters"
•
1 j'aime•545 vues
I was honored to give the keynote talk at HEWebNE16 to share some of my thoughts on the innate human need to share our lives, and how we can share better as individuals and organizations. Please note that some slides are only effective within the context of how they are presented and have not been included in this version. These are provided as a reference for those who attended my talk on March 18, and you can read a summary of that here: http://link.highedweb.org/2016/03/sharing-matters/
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (15)
Similaire à Keynote Talk for HighEdWeb NE 2016 - "Sharing Matters"
Similaire à Keynote Talk for HighEdWeb NE 2016 - "Sharing Matters" (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Keynote Talk for HighEdWeb NE 2016 - "Sharing Matters"
- 1. HighEdWeb New England March 18, 2016 - Mount Holyoke College DISCLAIMER: The speaker, David Cameron, is the sole author of the content presented herein, and takes full responsibility for its content. It has been manufactured in facilities that also process nuts, gluten, meats, and beverages containing alcohol, but only in moderation. This David Cameron is a higher education web recruitment marketing professional currently residing in the "gorges" city of Ithaca, NY. Yes, that’s a pun, because there are a lot of gorges in Ithaca, NY. It’s part of what makes it a special place to live and frankly it’s a beautiful part of the country. You should come visit some time if you’ve never been. Be aware that this David ("Dave") Cameron is NOT currently, nor has he been. any of the following: the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head coach of the Ottawa Senators hockey team, the managing editor of FanGraphs baseball, or team captain at West Indies Cricket Board. He is also not the talented young, blonde Disney actress known as Dove Cameron—that’s Dove with an "o" not Dave with an "a"—so please, we beg you, learn to spell and stop accidentally tagging him on Instagram with messages of how beautiful he is and how much you love him because it used to be funny trying to explain to his wife why he’s getting "like" notifications from teenage girls but now it’s just exhausting every time it happens. And if you came to this presentation because you were really excited to see a keynote address from any of the David or Dave (or Dove) Camerons previously listed instead of the pale and gangly human here before you today, please accept his apologies. This Dave Cameron agrees that any of those other Dave Camerons would probably have had an awesome keynote to share and this Dave Cameron would totally love to see that too. But if it’s any consolation, the Dave Cameron who is here to talk with you today has worked really, really, really hard on this talk, staying up late and giving up most of the last few weekends to sit down and put together something just for you and he really, seriously believes the result will be worth your time and attention, or frankly he wouldn’t have accepted this opportunity to speak here in front of all you wonderful, intelligent, and beautiful people here today. Seriously, have you looked at yourselves? You’re looking good! Have you lost weight? Thought so—well done! Oh, and before this type gets any smaller, this Dave Cameron would like to give a big shout out and thank you to the conference planning committee—Sven, Sarah, and Ebru—for making this event happen and for offering him this unique opportunity, and to all their volunteers for doing an amazing job — please give them high fives all day long! Also a big thank you to the HighEdWeb Association for their unwavering support of this Dave Cameron and all their members and conference attendees, for always making everyone feel welcome and respected and worthy of attention—this Dave Cameron is honored and proud to be part of their extended professional family and grateful for the opportunity they have given him to share extended, ramblings slides like this one that don’t seem to serve any real purpose other than to see if people will really read the entire thing. Finally, this Dave Cameron owes his biggest debt of thanks, gratitude, admiration, and love to his amazing wife, Andrea, who patiently put up with his feverish ramblings about this presentation for many weeks, and who helps him succeed as a better human every day. He owes her big time, and probably always will. So there. #hewebNE #nekeynote
- 2. SHARING MATTERS HighEdWeb New England March 18, 2016 - Mount Holyoke College SHARING MATTERS #hewebNE | #nekeynote Dave Cameron @davecameron www.ithaca.edu BEING HUMAN IN THE AGE OF AUTHENTICITY
- 5. Age: 42 years Sign: Sagittarius Place of Origin: Deerfield, NH Handedness: Right Handed Myers-Briggs: ENFP Alignment: Lawful Good Special Skills: Slight of hand card magic, drums, cooking, cocktails, puzzles, reading. "I’m a lover not a fighter." Personal Space: www.dave-cameron.com HUMAN INFORMATION
- 6. HOW DID I GET HERE ? http://bit.ly/21NkONH
- 7. HIGH ED WEB 2014
- 10. WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY?
- 13. 4242
- 14. THE ANSWER TO LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING
- 16. THE ONE THING WE ARE EACH PUT ON THE PLANET TO DO AS HUMANS
- 17. ONE SIMPLE WORD
- 18. SHARESHARE
- 21. WE ONLY GET SO MANY TOMORROWS
- 22. WE HAVE TO SHARE WHILE WE CAN
- 23. SHARING IS THE BEST PART OF LIVING
- 24. SHARING IS THE PURPOSE OF LIVING
- 30. printing press ink magazines newspapers books telegraphy photography motion pictures televisionmirrors telephones wikipedia utility grids coffee houses facebook twitter instagram snapchat periscope bit torrent git hubnapster TCP/IP powerpoint public libraries universities pencils postal service e-mail museums postcards churches group therapy IRC languages RSS youtubealphabets blackboards maps magnetic tape dropbox radio theaters lithography VCR broadcasting personal computers compact discs instant film buses see-saws music the internet conferences film national parks "family size"
- 31. WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS INDIVIDUALS
- 32. WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS ORGANIZATIONS
- 34. "WE CAN SHARE WHATEVER WE WANT BUT IT HAS TO BE AUTHENTIC."
- 35. AUTHENTIC
- 40. ACT TWO LESSONS IN AUTHENTICITY: THE MAGICIAN, THE MUSICIANS, AND THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING
- 46. LESSON: PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE …EVEN IF THEY’RE WRONG
- 50. " 'Here, I'm going to make you a big star ... and you don't have to pay any dues. ... For that, you're going to get no respect from your contemporaries.' ... To me, that was the cruelest thing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees Phil Spector, 1968 Pop Chronicles interview.
- 51. LESSON: "FAKING" AUTHENTICITY CAN STILL LEAD TO SOMETHING AUTHENTIC
- 52. http://n.pr/1U94mmJ THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING
- 54. "THE FRENCH CHEF" DEBUTS ON PBS 1963
- 55. "THE FRENCH CHEF" DEBUTS ON PBS 1963 http://bit.ly/255ZxOb MAKES PROFESSIONAL TECHNIQUES AND INGREDIENTS ACCESSIBLE TO HOME COOKS AND CHANGES HOW WE THINK ABOUT FOOD ON TV
- 59. ACT THREE WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AUTHENTICITY
- 61. https://books.google.com/ngrams/ Frequency of [ Authentic * ] Phrases in Books Published 1860 - 2008 (American English)
- 62. "authentic information" + "authentic account" https://books.google.com/ngrams/
- 63. "self" + "voice" + "experience" + "life" https://books.google.com/ngrams/
- 64. https://books.google.com/ngrams/ "self" + "voice" + "experience" + "life" "authentic information" + "authentic account"
- 67. Photo by Adam Baker / Ithaca College
- 71. Sincerity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made. - George Burns, 1952
- 72. AUTHENTICITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
- 73. YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS AUTHENTIC ONLY YOUR AUDIENCE DOES
- 75. http://bit.ly/1RcconF BIGGER ON THE INSIDE
- 76. EVOLVING AND CHANGING OVER TIME http://bit.ly/1RjGDJy
- 77. EVOLVING AND CHANGING OVER TIME http://bit.ly/1RjGDJy
- 80. ACT FOUR HOW TO SHARE LIKE A HUMAN
- 81. "FIVE GOALS FOR BEING PRODUCTIVE AT WORK"
- 84. HHonest
- 85. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. - Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii
- 86. Hiding personal information reveals the worst Leslie K. John a,1 , Kate Barasza , and Michael I. Nortona a Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163 Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 7, 2015 (received for review August 24, 2015) Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to share or withhold personal information, and the wisdom of such decisions. When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others (experiment 1). These negative judgments emerge when hiding is volitional (experiments 2A and 2B) and are driven by decreases in trustworthiness engen- dered by decisions to hide (experiments 3A and 3B). Moreover, hiders do not intuit these negative consequences: given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even question- able behavior more positively (experiments 4A and 4B). The neg- ative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across de- cisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. When faced with decisions about disclosure, decision-makers should be aware not just of the risk of revealing, but of what hiding reveals. disclosure | transparency | trust | policy making | privacy Imagine being asked about your recreational drug habits on a job application and realizing that to be truthful you must admit to the occasional indulgence. Would you lie, come clean, or avoid answering the question all together? When faced with the choice between revealing (“I smoked marijuana once”) and withholding (“I choose not to answer”), we suggest that people often choose the latter, a strategy that can lead observers to make unsavory character judgments. Indeed, hiding is viewed as so untrustworthy that it produces character judgments even more negative than those arising from divulgence of extremely unsavory information. Examples abound of situations in everyday life in which peo- ple’s unwillingness to divulge personal information is conspicuous. Recent newspaper headlines have highlighted the unwillingness of public figures to reveal personal communications to authorities. Some dating websites explicitly indicate whether love-seekers have chosen not to answer personal questions (for example about their smoking or drinking habits). In addition, on countless forms and applications, people are asked to provide information about at- tributes like gender, race, ethnicity, and household income level— and are given the option to “choose not to answer.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that these “hiders” are judged negatively: observers seem to react as if withholding information is indicative of underlying character flaws. As one columnist noted, “both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about what it means if a job candidate doesn’t have a Facebook ac- count. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red flags? Are they hiding something?” (1). In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, one news outlet claimed that, before college, perpetrator Adam Lanza “was already appearing odd and at odds with society” (2). Evidence? He had selected “Choose not to answer” in response to two questions on a college application: “Gender?” and “How do you describe yourself?” In the political realm, despite Hillary Clinton’s sur- render of over 55,000 pages of email correspondence to the State Department, commentators characterized her insistence on keeping some communications private as the work of a “brazenly dishonest cover-up specialist” (3). Similar insinuations arose following football superstar (and heartthrob) Tom Brady’s refusal to provide authorities with access to his email and phone records in the wake of the “deflategate” scandal (4). Although it is possible that these cases represent actual con- cealment of illicit activities and objectionable attitudes, it is also reasonable that decisions to withhold simply reflect desires for privacy and control over one’s public portrayal. Nonetheless, contempt appears to be the common reaction toward individuals who choose not to reveal. We examine two central aspects of the psychology of hiding, isolating two related phenomena by using controlled laboratory experiments. First, we examine how peo- ple’s unwillingness to divulge affects others’ views of them. Second, we explore whether actors anticipate how choosing not to disclose impacts the impression they make on others. In short, we ask and answer the question: when faced with the decision of whether to reveal or withhold, do people make decisions that enhance or detract from others’ impressions of them? Previous research has examined how firms’ decisions to omit information from product descriptions affects—or does not affect— consumers’ evaluations of the product. Although it may be rea- sonable to think incomplete descriptions would arouse suspicion or pique curiosity, people are often insensitive to missing or un- known product attributes (5). Consistent with seminal research on basic human judgment, this insensitivity arises out of a failure to notice that information is missing in the first place (6, 7). However, what happens when people are made aware of the incompleteness of the available information? Research in applied psychology and allied fields has found that in such cases, people tend to be appropriately skeptical of incompletely described products (8). However, in contrast to the research on products, we suggest a richer psychology underlying withholding of information by humans: when observers are made to realize that a person has failed to reveal information, they will be quick to make disposi- tional inferences about that person’s character. Indeed, previous research has documented that people readily draw personality Significance Disclosure is a critical element of social life, especially given Internet media that afford many opportunities (and demands from friends, partners, and even employers) to share personal information—making withholding anomalous, conspicuous, and therefore suspect. Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to withhold or disclose personal information—and the wisdom of such decisions. Declining a request to disclose often makes a worse impression even than divulging unsavory personal information. Moreover, those who withhold fail to intuit this negative consequence: people withhold even when they would make a better impression by “coming clean.” In short, people should be aware not just of the risk of revealing, but the risk of hiding. Author contributions: L.K.J. generated the idea; L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. designed research; L.K.J. and K.B. performed research; L.K.J. and K.B. analyzed data; and L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: ljohn@hbs.edu. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1516868113/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516868113 PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 6 SOCIALSCIENCES WE TRUST FLAWS • When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others • Given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even questionable behavior more positively • The negative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across decisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. "Hiding personal information reveals the worst" by Leslie K. Johna, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) January 26, 2016 vol. 113 no. 4 954-959 http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/05/1516868113.DCSupplemental
- 87. Hiding personal information reveals the worst Leslie K. John a,1 , Kate Barasza , and Michael I. Nortona a Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163 Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 7, 2015 (received for review August 24, 2015) Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to share or withhold personal information, and the wisdom of such decisions. When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others (experiment 1). These negative judgments emerge when hiding is volitional (experiments 2A and 2B) and are driven by decreases in trustworthiness engen- dered by decisions to hide (experiments 3A and 3B). Moreover, hiders do not intuit these negative consequences: given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even question- able behavior more positively (experiments 4A and 4B). The neg- ative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across de- cisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. When faced with decisions about disclosure, decision-makers should be aware not just of the risk of revealing, but of what hiding reveals. disclosure | transparency | trust | policy making | privacy Imagine being asked about your recreational drug habits on a job application and realizing that to be truthful you must admit to the occasional indulgence. Would you lie, come clean, or avoid answering the question all together? When faced with the choice between revealing (“I smoked marijuana once”) and withholding (“I choose not to answer”), we suggest that people often choose the latter, a strategy that can lead observers to make unsavory character judgments. Indeed, hiding is viewed as so untrustworthy that it produces character judgments even more negative than those arising from divulgence of extremely unsavory information. Examples abound of situations in everyday life in which peo- ple’s unwillingness to divulge personal information is conspicuous. Recent newspaper headlines have highlighted the unwillingness of public figures to reveal personal communications to authorities. Some dating websites explicitly indicate whether love-seekers have chosen not to answer personal questions (for example about their smoking or drinking habits). In addition, on countless forms and applications, people are asked to provide information about at- tributes like gender, race, ethnicity, and household income level— and are given the option to “choose not to answer.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that these “hiders” are judged negatively: observers seem to react as if withholding information is indicative of underlying character flaws. As one columnist noted, “both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about what it means if a job candidate doesn’t have a Facebook ac- count. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red flags? Are they hiding something?” (1). In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, one news outlet claimed that, before college, perpetrator Adam Lanza “was already appearing odd and at odds with society” (2). Evidence? He had selected “Choose not to answer” in response to two questions on a college application: “Gender?” and “How do you describe yourself?” In the political realm, despite Hillary Clinton’s sur- render of over 55,000 pages of email correspondence to the State Department, commentators characterized her insistence on keeping some communications private as the work of a “brazenly dishonest cover-up specialist” (3). Similar insinuations arose following football superstar (and heartthrob) Tom Brady’s refusal to provide authorities with access to his email and phone records in the wake of the “deflategate” scandal (4). Although it is possible that these cases represent actual con- cealment of illicit activities and objectionable attitudes, it is also reasonable that decisions to withhold simply reflect desires for privacy and control over one’s public portrayal. Nonetheless, contempt appears to be the common reaction toward individuals who choose not to reveal. We examine two central aspects of the psychology of hiding, isolating two related phenomena by using controlled laboratory experiments. First, we examine how peo- ple’s unwillingness to divulge affects others’ views of them. Second, we explore whether actors anticipate how choosing not to disclose impacts the impression they make on others. In short, we ask and answer the question: when faced with the decision of whether to reveal or withhold, do people make decisions that enhance or detract from others’ impressions of them? Previous research has examined how firms’ decisions to omit information from product descriptions affects—or does not affect— consumers’ evaluations of the product. Although it may be rea- sonable to think incomplete descriptions would arouse suspicion or pique curiosity, people are often insensitive to missing or un- known product attributes (5). Consistent with seminal research on basic human judgment, this insensitivity arises out of a failure to notice that information is missing in the first place (6, 7). However, what happens when people are made aware of the incompleteness of the available information? Research in applied psychology and allied fields has found that in such cases, people tend to be appropriately skeptical of incompletely described products (8). However, in contrast to the research on products, we suggest a richer psychology underlying withholding of information by humans: when observers are made to realize that a person has failed to reveal information, they will be quick to make disposi- tional inferences about that person’s character. Indeed, previous research has documented that people readily draw personality Significance Disclosure is a critical element of social life, especially given Internet media that afford many opportunities (and demands from friends, partners, and even employers) to share personal information—making withholding anomalous, conspicuous, and therefore suspect. Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to withhold or disclose personal information—and the wisdom of such decisions. Declining a request to disclose often makes a worse impression even than divulging unsavory personal information. Moreover, those who withhold fail to intuit this negative consequence: people withhold even when they would make a better impression by “coming clean.” In short, people should be aware not just of the risk of revealing, but the risk of hiding. Author contributions: L.K.J. generated the idea; L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. designed research; L.K.J. and K.B. performed research; L.K.J. and K.B. analyzed data; and L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: ljohn@hbs.edu. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1516868113/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516868113 PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 6 SOCIALSCIENCES WE TRUST FLAWS • When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others • Given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even questionable behavior more positively • The negative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across decisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. "Hiding personal information reveals the worst" by Leslie K. Johna, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) January 26, 2016 vol. 113 no. 4 954-959 http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/05/1516868113.DCSupplemental
- 88. UUnafraid
- 89. There’s no longer enough time to have a dumb opinion and change your mind. You have to be pro or con right out of the gate, have abject certainty all the time. We’re left with a manufactured middle ground between reactionary extremes. - My Smart and Beautiful Wife
- 91. "Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what's inside you, to make your soul grow. Seriously! I mean starting right now, do art and do it for the rest of your lives." — Kurt Vonneguthttp://bit.ly/1U4PoNV
- 92. MMindful
- 93. It's got something to do with love. With having the discipline to talk out of the part of yourself that can love instead of the part that just wants to be loved… All the attention and engagement and work you need to get from the reader can't be for your benefit; it's got to be for hers. - David Foster Wallace on the purpose behind good art from an interview by Larry McCaffery The Review of Contemporary Fiction. 13.2 (Summer 1993): p127
- 94. DAFT PUNK
- 95. DAFT PUNK Random Access Memories "Giorgio by Moroder"
- 96. AActive
- 103. NNice
- 105. SHARE TO DO GOOD
- 112. IN THE END, WHAT WILL YOU REGRET MORE? THE THINGS YOU NEVER DID? OR THE THINGS YOU NEVER FOUND TIME TO SHARE?
- 114. Follow his continuing story at http://facebook.com/groups/ TeamTrevor Watch the full video of transplant recipient Trevor Sullivan: http://bit.ly/TrevorVidFull
- 115. WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS INDIVIDUALS
- 116. F.O.M.O. "FEAR OF MISSING OUT" "FEAR OF NOT SHARING ENOUGH" F.O.N.S.E.
- 117. F.O.M.O. "FEAR OF MISSING OUT" "FEAR OF NOT SHARING ENOUGH" F.O.N.S.E.
- 120. WHAT WE SHARE LIVES ON AFTER US
- 135. "... some have spoken eloquently, some have spoken inarticulately, some haltingly, some have been almost mute. Yet among all the variety of human expression a thread of connection, a common mark, can be seen: that urge to look into oneself and out at the world and say, 'this is what I am, I am unique, I am here. I am.' " - Saul Bass short film "Why Man Creates" (1968)
- 136. SHARESHARE
- 137. WE ALL HAVE AN ENDING. THIS IS MINE.
- 138. SHARE YOURSELF. SHARE YOUR WORK SHARE YOUR STORIES
- 139. START A BLOG START A CLUB START A DANCE CRAZE
- 140. SHARE TO MAKE YOUR WORK BETTER SHARE TO MAKE YOUR TEAM BETTER SHARE TO MAKE YOUR ORGANIZATION BETTER
- 146. • 121,510 people are waiting for an organ • 22 people will die each day waiting for an organ • 1 organ donor can save up to 8 lives WWW.ORGANDONOR.GOV