Comment from Heidi Fischbach
Time September 11, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Whoa! Forcing oneself to be a certain way? Thank goodness everyone is different.

I have been feeling more and more exhausted by what seems to be lots of people sounding a whole lot like everybody else. Maybe that is part of what you mean. I know I’m guilty of that. On insecure days, especially, I know I’ve asked myself: how would ___ word this? Sometimes that question feels like sweet training wheels to me, but sometimes it crosses into feeling like I’m trying too hard to be like someone I admire.

But now I’ve turned a leaf. I am all about admiring badasses who don’t give a shit what people think. I know, aspiring to be badass is so not badass, but in some way it helps me get comfortable with being myself. If someone unsubscribes? Good. (Remind me of that when I freak out about what ppl think, which is lots of times too!)

I don’t know how to answer your questions. I think I just get a sense of put-on from some people and a sense of honest-to-goodness from others. And i don’t come back so much to the former. It doesn’t much matter to me if they’re the real deal or not: if what they are saying doesn’t float for me, I move along. I guess I just trust what I trust.

Comment from Heidi Fischbach
Time September 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm

OK. If I were truly an authentic badass I wouldn’t care that I can’t edit my post, right? Oh, I do crack myself up.

Comment from Grace
Time September 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Heidi – Yes, that “echoing” thing is absolutely part of what I mean. And along the same lines, I’m baffled by how it seems that everyone in the blogosphere all seems to post on the same topic at the same time. It seems a tad overly coincidental to me!

Trusting what you trust has to be the way to go. So, yes – what you implied here is that I’m over-thinking things. That would be me, for sure.

Thank you for pointing that out.

And for the record, your blog is one of my favourites, and I never even dream of questioning your authenticity!

Comment from Victoria Brouhard
Time September 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Wow – those are some seriously hearty questions.

Questions for which I’m not sure I have answers, but I’ll try anyway.

My idealistic side wants to say that nobody can manufacture authenticity and trust for very long without cognitive dissonance creeping in.

Somehow, you can just tell when things aren’t real. Over time, you can just tell.

Is that absolutely true? I don’t know. I *want* it to be true, because if it’s not true, that would be sad. I don’t want to think that the folks who are trying to appear “authentic” strictly for the purpose of making more sales will be rewarded.

But then my cynical side says, “Even if you’re being authentic in a sincere way (as opposed to manufacturing it), aren’t you still choosing to do that to sell more? And if you’re doing it to sell more, by definition, isn’t the authenticity manufactured?”

Not sure I believe that, but it really starts to trigger my fears of becoming and icky marketer.

I agree with you – the question makes me uncomfortable, but it is definitely worth discussing.

Comment from Grace
Time September 11, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Victoria – Oooh. Cognitive dissonance. I love that term! how cool that you used it.

And silliness aside (sorry, it’s Friday night and I’m kinda toasted), I think you’re right. It goes back to what Heidi said about getting that sense of “put-on.” And trusting your instincts.

On the other hand, I think you may be falling into a syllogism (is that what I mean? faulty logic, in any case) when you ask if being sincerely authentic in order to sell means the authenticity is actually manufactured. I don’t think it loops-the-loop like that. I don’t think it can, almost by definition.

For one thing, someone who’s sincerely authentic isn’t “choosing” to do it. At that point, it just is. As a friend said to me once, after a while speaking from the heart is no longer an option; you can’t not do it.

It’s slippery, to be sure, and I’m pretty sure that over-thinking it may lead to more struggle than is necessary. I know that every time I think I “get” it, I realize – whoops – it’s slipped away again!

Comment from Ben Waxman
Time September 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Heavy stuff at the start there Seth. That you are open to sharing that on the www is a bit extroverted of you. It also show far more guts than I have.

I am intrigued by the concept of manufactured authenticity. I’m not uncomfortable with the question at all. In fact, I think it is exactly where marketers who understand this medium have already gone. And more will follow. Yet in a medium where your tracks cannot be erased, motives will ultimately show. Manufacured authenticity will be revealed for what it is.

We’ll evolve…with this medium of communication…for better and worse.

Comment from Ben Waxman
Time September 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Ooops – my mistake. I found your blog through a retweet by Seth Simmonds and in my haste didn’t realize it was a retweet. I thought that it was in fact a post by Seth. My apologies for not realizing it was you with those significant relections Grace.

Comment from Victoria Brouhard
Time September 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm

I think you’re absolutely right about my logic being faulty. For which I’m really glad, actually.

And what your friend said about it no longer being an option to not speak from the heart totally rings true to me.

This coming from the girl whose 2nd grade teacher wrote on her report card, “There is never any question what Victoria thinks about an activity or assignment.” Ha!

Comment from Grace
Time September 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Ben – No harm, no foul. Seth is a prolific bogger – and I’m honoured that he retweeted my post.

I like your point about evolution. Yes. It’s an evolutionary path, and I think you’re reflecting what Heidi and Victoria have said: that ultimately, the manufactured authenticity will stand revealed as what it is – and likewise, the real authenticity.

Victoria – Phew! I tend to dive into philosophical discussions with my focus on the topic … and then I thought about what I wrote, and I was a tad concerned, to say the least, that you wouldn’t appreciate my saying your logic was faulty. I’m SO glad you weren’t offended.

Yes. Ultimately, when you really tune into what’s true, there’s just no choice left. And I find that amazingly freeing, actually.

A freedom you apparently found a lot earlier in life than I!

Comment from Shelagh
Time September 11, 2009 at 9:57 pm

I wonder if the struggle isn’t inherent in the medium?

Blogs, and all this nifty internet communication that I don’t quite grasp – facebook, twitter – help trick us into feeling as though we’ve had an authentic exchange. Or experience, if it’s simply reading a post. We have, but.

And the but is important.

The but is what folks who have grown up with AIM do not understand – are they called Gen Yers? – an AIM exchange is not a coversation.

It is not the same as sitting face to face with a person LIVE and in COLOR and experiencing all the subtle communication that comes with human presence and face to face interaction.

AIM/social media removes a significant layer of authenticity…like a massage through terrycloth. Or perhaps, more accurately, it’s like a massage via Skype.

Isn’t marketing manipulation? Think of the live manipulation you experience everyday? Is the person trying to manipulate you disingenuous? Inauthentic? Self-serving? Trying to have a need met? Exercising personal power? Doing what they think is best for you? Or just for themselves?

Really? Are we so sure about the authenticity of folks we see every day? Or is it consistency?

Hmmmm…thanks for letting me think out loud. Authentically.

Comment from Grace
Time September 12, 2009 at 11:14 am

Shelagh – Ah, yes, the question of manipulation!

I teach a class on politics in the workplace, and manipulation is one of the things that always comes up, especially when I talk about how to pick language that helps you achieve your goals – essentially, helps you get what you want.

As you say, manipulation happens in every conversation or encounter you have (with yourself, too!). So the question of manipulation becomes another very slippery slope.

I also think that the face-to-face versus electronic (whether online or phone or whatever) interaction is one of those cases where different people have different needs, expectations, and experiences. I have several very good friends – some of whom I’d call my best and most reliable friends – whom I’ve either met in person only once or twice, or in one case, not at all. And yet I know that I can call on these people for pretty much any sort of help or support I might need.

Yes, there’s a richness to the face-to-face contact, but it’s not everyone’s experience that it’s necessary to have a deep, authentic connection.

What a great conversation! Thank you all for joining in.

Comment from Shelagh
Time September 13, 2009 at 12:20 pm

I ran across this and thought it related to this discussion somehow…

http://calacanis.com/2009/01/29/we-live-in-public-and-the-end-of-empathy/

Comment from Grace
Time September 14, 2009 at 9:05 am

Shelagh – Ouch! That’s quite an article you link to.

I think the first comment on the article sums up a lot of my thoughts and feelings.

Hate and nastiness are, unfortunately, part of human experience. AND, so are generosity, empathy, and kindness.

While it’s true I’ve seen flame wars erupt in various online venues, I’ve also seen the equivalent erupt in face-to-face encounters.

And I’ve seen plenty of real support show up online as well. Not just empathetic support, but actual financial support as well, offered in a spirit of generosity to and by people who will probably never meet face-to-face.

I think it comes down to what each of us individually feels most comfortable with. You know?

Thanks for your thoughts! It’s definitely an intriguing conversation.

Comment from Jennifer Hofmann
Time September 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Great discussions so far! The question you ask, “How do we know someone is being authentic?” is the one I want to reply to.

I usually know within the first paragraph or two if the writer is in touch with who they are and feel confident about what they’re offering. I get a gut sense of it. It’s not a superpower or anything, I can just feel the “yes” or “no” in my abdomen.

The “yes” opens me up and makes me feel curious. The “no” shuts me down and I click away to something else. I’ve known people in life who are an absolute “yes”, but their website is a huge “no.”

Not that there’s something wrong with inauthenticity – sometimes we have to try things on to decide if they fit. For myself, though, I’m most comfortable working with folks who like who they are and are unapologetic about being that person – warts and all. And I like working with people who’ve gone through the process to get to that place.

So I check in with my gut.

Comment from Grace
Time September 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Jennifer – Ah! You’ve brought a couple of interesting points into this discussion.

First off, thanks for pointing out that authenticity has, in part at least, to do with how in touch someone is with who they are and – if they’re selling/marketing something – how confident they are about their product or service. Yes, indeed. As someone I knew a while ago used to say, “certainty sells.” (And that’s not a bad thing at all.)

I also appreciate your point about trying things on to see if they fit. Actually, I can absolutely say “yes!” to that point, because I seem to have gone down several different paths, thinking that they were the right ones, but then realizing that they weren’t really what was calling to me.

Thanks, Jennifer!