July 25, 2016

Making Book on, Like, Facebook

Categories: Collaborative Law

blog picI was thinking about the incredibly wide range of preferences we humans have. Wow. But see what I’ve done? I’ve selected an amazingly large category from which to choose. It’s like, lets talk about the ocean.

How about we men; or we Americans; or we Minnesotan’s or we people, to zero in a little. We people is good – it includes all genders and orientations, which is even better as a target audience.

People have a very wide range of preferences for the things they like. It seems pretty reasonable to consider that our likes and preferences are determined, to some extent, by the family and era we were born into, the place or places we grew up, and our education beyond high school. I get that.

All of those things impact my lack of affinity for Facebook. I leapt into the computer age and quickly adapted to email, which became my preferred way to communicate with friends and acquaintances, rather than by phone. Talking face to face is ideal, but opportunities to be face to face are limited in so many ways.

While talking by phone with those I love and care about is very important, I do not prefer the telephone, generally, in conducting business. When conducting business it is usually important to be exchanging information, which means that part of the conversation requires taking notes. Trying to remember exactly what was talked about a week or more later is a recipe for disaster.

Don’t get me wrong. It is both important and critical to connect face to face at the time we start working together. That face to face contact is essential to establishing the rapport necessary to trust who we are in the process in which we are engaged.

When someone calls when I am unable to answer the phone, I have a marvelous device to record their voice message, which can be saved and reviewed as often as I like. I do not have the capacity to record phone conversations in the same way. Email, however, provides the opportunity to communicate directly with another person, and provides a written record of what was discussed that can be both saved and printed out.

Some people though do not have a preference for email – it requires typing messages and being aware of misspellings and screaming CAPS, skills many people do not have. As a result, they do not handle email messages of much length very well, which in turn becomes an upset for me. It is frustrating to send out a three paragraph email, making several points and requesting specific information, and receive a three word response that does not address all, or any, of the questions raised.

Facebook has become a rage for many people. I have not become fond of Facebook. It thrives in the realm of three word communications, usually to more than one person at a time. When someone I haven’t seen for some time contacts me on Facebook with a cute picture of their new puppy peeing on their petunias it just feels too impersonal to me. Most of the communication occurs on one way streets.

Because I seldom use Facebook to communicate, I neither fully understand nor appreciate the value of ‘Liking” something. The whole experience occurs more like window peeking on each other’s lives instead of sharing life.

I make no judgment of one’s right to their choice of communication, rather than accommodating my style. But, looking at this from a few hundred feet above, it does reveal the sad reality that there are so many things to get in the way of ever connecting meaningfully with others that it is amazing we are able to communicate at all.

Come on, Google! Create an App for us that will translate everyone’s preferred way of communicating with others into the preferred way in which those others wish to communicate. I know you can do it with the right algorhiMaking Book on, Like, Facebook

I was thinking about the incredibly wide range of preferences we humans have. Wow. But see what I’ve done? I’ve selected an amazingly large category from which to choose. It’s like, lets talk about the ocean.

How about we men; or we Americans; or we Minnesotan’s or we people, to zero in a little. We people is good – it includes all genders and orientations, which is even better as a target audience.

People have a very wide range of preferences for the things they like. It seems pretty reasonable to consider that our likes and preferences are determined, to some extent, by the family and era we were born into, the place or places we grew up, and our education beyond high school. I get that.

All of those things impact my lack of affinity for Facebook. I leapt into the computer age and quickly adapted to email, which became my preferred way to communicate with friends and acquaintances, rather than by phone. Talking face to face is ideal, but opportunities to be face to face are limited in so many ways.

While talking by phone with those I love and care about is very important, I do not prefer the telephone, generally, in conducting business. When conducting business it is usually important to be exchanging information, which means that part of the conversation requires taking notes. Trying to remember exactly what was talked about a week or more later is a recipe for disaster.

Don’t get me wrong. It is both important and critical to connect face to face at the time we start working together. That face to face contact is essential to establishing the rapport necessary to trust who we are in the process in which we are engaged.

When someone calls when I am unable to answer the phone, I have a marvelous device to record their voice message, which can be saved and reviewed as often as I like. I do not have the capacity to record phone conversations in the same way. Email, however, provides the opportunity to communicate directly with another person, and provides a written record of what was discussed that can be both saved and printed out.

Some people though do not have a preference for email – it requires typing messages and being aware of misspellings and screaming CAPS, skills many people do not have. As a result, they do not handle email messages of much length very well, which in turn becomes an upset for me. It is frustrating to send out a three paragraph email, making several points and requesting specific information, and receive a three word response that does not address all, or any, of the questions raised.

Facebook has become a rage for many people. I have not become fond of Facebook. It thrives in the realm of three word communications, usually to more than one person at a time. When someone I haven’t seen for some time contacts me on Facebook with a cute picture of their new puppy peeing on their petunias it just feels too impersonal to me. Most of the communication occurs on one way streets.

Because I seldom use Facebook to communicate, I neither fully understand nor appreciate the value of ‘Liking” something. The whole experience occurs more like window peeking on each other’s lives instead of sharing life.

I make no judgment of one’s right to their choice of communication, rather than accommodating my style. But, looking at this from a few hundred feet above, it does reveal the sad reality that there are so many things to get in the way of ever connecting meaningfully with others that it is amazing we are able to communicate at all.

Come on, Google! Create an App for us that will translate everyone’s preferred way of communicating with others into the preferred way in which those others wish to communicate. I know you can do it with the right algorithm. And by now Facebook has probably gathered enough information to discern every users communication preference.

That brings me to the point of this story – communication is one of the central issues that drive couples into divorce. Collaborative Law has a really good App for helping you navigate through these difficult times.

To learn more about how we can help, please contact any trained collaborative professional. And by now Facebook has probably gathered enough information to discern every users communication preference.

That brings me to the point of this story – communication is one of the central issues that drive couples into divorce. Collaborative Law has a really good App for helping you navigate through these difficult times.

Bruce PeckABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bruce Peck
Attorney

Bruce is one of the founding members of the Collaborative Law Institute.
Back in the Wonder Years, this small group was trying to figure out what a new way of practicing family law might look like. Today the collaborative law concept has exploded, not just throughout the United States, but also internationally. For over thirty years Bruce has continued to hone his skills to provide the highest quality of services to family law clients. He helps good people make tough choices during difficult times.

Bruce is a laid back and easy going person who listens well to others. He is a shameless optimist who can always see possibility and opportunity. Being very curious by nature, he is a voracious reader. His love for words has drawn him into being an avid poet.

Bruce’s skills supports clients interests without alienating their spouse. When the parties reach agreement, it is not under duress. They have the time to discuss all decisions with their attorneys before signing the agreement. Once completed, the stipulated divorce is filed with the court for a default hearing in which neither party, nor their attorneys, ever have to set foot inside a courthouse. Learn more at www.BrucePeckLawOffice.com

Tagged with:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>