Author: Patrick Rhone

Here is an idea for a social networking app. I’m sure it is not new. It is based upon my own personal needs and desires so it may not appeal to anyone else. I’m not a developer and have the programming skills of a slightly evolved banana so I will never be able to make this myself. I don’t care if it’s a dedicated desktop or mobile app. It could be cloud based. The point here is that if anyone wants to take this idea and run with it you are more than welcome to and please consider me with my hand fully raised with credit card in it to purchase a copy. Plus, I’m an introvert so what do I know about “Being social”? With this in mind, here we go…
The problem with current social networking and communication apps for me is that these tools may help one meet new people and form new relationships but they hardly can replace real face to face communication. I believe this is by design. Facebook can only make money and thrive by keeping you on Facebook. Same with Twitter. They do this by fostering the feeling that you are “keeping up” with others while not truly encouraging interaction beyond the service.
Words mean things. I believe emotionally charged words like “Friend” and “Follower” are designed to make you form a tighter bond within, and by extension with, the service. Furthermore, things like Foursquare and Facebook’s Places seem to me just another way to keep you interacting with the service even when you are supposed to be interacting with the real world.
Even tools like Skype and Facetime can help to give one the illusion of this sort of connection but it is still just as virtual in nature. It is not the same as sharing a meal, a conversation over coffee, or a hug (I like hugs) with nary a computer or smartphone seen.
The app I want would help you take these relationships that you have started to form on the service, or have neglected because of same, and suggest ways to take them to the next level.
It would do things like look at your social networking contacts and suggest ways fro you to meet based on location:
“Hey. I see you and this person you follow both live in Saint Paul and trade replies all the time. Would you like to send them a message proposing lunch?”
It would suggest people you have not had a “conversation” with in a while:
“Hey. I see you and this person have not traded replies or direct messages in a while. Want to send one now just to say hi?”
It would even suggest ways for you to meet those folks whom you follow that are not local:
“Hey. I bet you and this person who you converse with have never met. Flights from MSP to BOS are fairly cheap right now . Want to investigate further?”
Basically, it would help you use these services to make real, lasting, face-to-face connections and gently remind you when you are letting the tool supplant them and suggest ways to help.
I don’t need another Twitter app. I don’t need more suggestions of who to “follow” or “friend”. I don’t need an app that ties all of these services together to make it even harder for me to find the signals within the noise. What I need is a way, and the occasional nudge, to reach out and make real connections.

After years of this searching for the holy grail of productivity, I have found that what works best for me is simplicity. As long as I have a basic system that is easy to maintain I stick with it. My current system is a testament to that. It is completely paper based and designed to take as much of the “thinking” out of the way of the “doing” as possible.
Here it is:
* I always have pen and paper with me for capturing all the random bits of stuff that pops into my flighty little head. I generally use my Levenger Pocket Briefcase loaded with their 3×5 cards. That being said, it is not unusual for me to use Simplenote on my iPhone or (tisk, tisk) send myself an email from same. The point is not the tool. The point is to get that thought captured somewhere before it leaves my brain forever.
* I have a master list of all of my tasks and next actions for projects in my Levenger Junior Circa notebook. This is just one big dump of stuff culled from all of the input sources I capture to. I have a “trigger list” with all of these sources listed so I remember to look there. I create one big list, no contexts, no projects, no order. Just a big pile of stuff. I use my dash/plus system to track the status of items on the list. Also, the Cornell Ruled style of the Levenger pages allow me to keep notes in the margin (especially for “waiting for” and “delegated to”) if needed.
* Now, at this point I know you GTD purist types are shaking your head in disbelief. “What about contexts?” – I don’t need them really. I am a tech consultant by trade so I am either in my home office, where I can work on my master list, or at a client’s, where I am working on their list. The closest I get to ever using a context based list is writing down errands I have to take care of on an index card and sticking it in my pocket briefcase. “What about projects?” – If I have a project that requires breaking down into actions, I will do that on a separate page. Then, I put the next action on the big list.
* Every day I take out a 3×5 card and write the date at the top of it. I then pick three things off of the big list I would like to get done that day. I then place this card next to my computer and focus in on getting these things done. That does not mean I might not do anything else on the master list. It also does not mean that I wont get distracted by other “firefighting” that comes up during the day. That being said, I have found that having just three items on there makes it possible to clear that card every day. This makes me feel like I am moving the master list forward little by little despite the fact that for every one thing done, two may be added.
I admit that this system may not scale well if you have a lot of stuff coming your way. With that said, perhaps the larger lesson to take away is to always look for ways to simplify your system to the basics of what it really needs to be. Far too many people feel the need to build in complication that is unnecessary. This system is simple and, more importantly, it works for me.

Just like their creators, computers are notorious for being pretty socially inept. Yet, with sociable media, computers take on a social role or become a mediators between people engaged in social interaction. Their position in social life does not inherently make technology any more sociable; their functions are intimately entwined with what people enable them to do. Thus, the onus is on the programmers to empower technology to operate in social life.

From “Autistic Social Software” :: Supernova 2004

This is a link to a crib from a talk given in 2004 by Danah Boyd. In it, she frames a relationship between the social networks of that time – Friendster, Orkut, Tribe – and the social stuntedness, perhaps even disorders, of the people who create them. Basically, it proposes that these networks are built the way that they are because ordering social interaction is the only way the creators of such can have it.

This is one of the things that struck me about the film The Social Network. Even if one assumes it was largely fictionalized, it was clear in many instances that the filmmakers went out of their way to point out Mark Zuckerburg’s likely Asperger’s Syndrome. For instance, his cringing and look of sheer terror when Sean Parker goes to give him a celebratory hug. Also, his extremely singleminded, programatic, and ordered approach to acceptance in social clubs. His motivation not for friendship but as a means to a specific end.

I think there is something to this for sure. I think the general approach towards most social networks not understanding the very case by case specific and nuanced approach most of us have towards privacy in our daily life is a key indicator. It’s an idea that has been resonating with me for days since it was presented to me by my friend Garrick. It’s also something that will be at the forefront of my having online interactions going forward.

My friend Jamie responded to my Final Choices post from last week with a very thoughtful addendum. One I failed to cover but certainly agree with. It’s a very close relative to the idea and reasons behind making final choices. He calls this idea “Sensible Defaults”. He explains it thusly:

While Patrick is spot on about final choices, I would add that it also goes for things you buy on a more frequent basis as well. For instance, I never think about what pencil I’m going to buy and use. I know I use Uniball Kuru Toga pencils. (Thanks to Patrick for turning me on to these as well.) If I lose, break, or for some other reason find myself needing to buy a pencil, I don’t go to Staples and gawk for an hour at the wall of mechanical pencils. I hop on the Amazon app on my iPhone while I’m waiting in line at Starbucks and order a couple to show up at my door step in two days.

I too, have many sensible defaults (including the Kuru Toga). And while final choices usually apply to items one purchases, sensible defaults can apply in a much wider range of circumstances. For instance, for writing on the Mac, TextEdit is a sensible default for me. It is the first thing I reach for when the need arrises to write anything when I sit down at my computer. I don’t even have to think about it. Launching it is essentially a reflex action. Anything else generally has to make a strong use case for me to choose it for the task at hand over TextEdit.
I also think of my friend Michael who is so steadfast in which restaurants he frequents, on which days and times, and what menu items he orders, the staff often just starts preparing it when they see him enter and it is delivered to his table with no words between he and the server exchanged. No need to even waste the time or mental energy of making an order. One may find this extreme, but if you know what you want, why waste unnecessary motions.
Of course, there are the more famous adherents of sensible defaults. Steve Jobs rarely has to think about what he is going to wear. Anyone who has seen any photos or videos of him taken in the last 10 years knows what he is going to be wearing – A black mock turtleneck, Levis 501 jeans, New Balance sneakers. By having such a sensible default, he never has to stand in his closet looking for the right thing for the right occasion. What he has chosen will work for practically any occasion he may find himself in.
Sensible defaults can reduce friction and provide simplicity anywhere one can think to apply them. They are the bedrock of minimalist practice and a quiet mind.

When you make buying choices, does the longevity and lasting impact of what you are buying enter into the equation? Obviously, some things don’t lend themselves to this (food for example) but many things do. I find that the longevity of some items and the alleviation of future choice are key motivating factors for me.
My desired goal is this. Anywhere I can make a buying choice that I, with proper care and maintenance, will never have to make again for the rest of my life, I do. In those cases, I’m willing to pay far more for an item if I know it will last a lifetime and, even more importantly to me, I will never have to spend the mental energy making a choice again. Especially because making final choices often requires far more time and research then making regular ones. In fact, I would argue that the more final the choice, the longer it should take to make it. Also, what you spend on the front end usually repays exponentially, and in many more ways, on the back end.
For me, such final choices are huge wins because the less choice I have to make and because I am well satisfied with what I have, the happier I am. I believe that want, desire, longing and need are at the root of suffering. I also believe that such things, while part of the human condition, can be alleviated. One of the ways to alleviate these is to put long thought and consideration into the things that matter to you and making the one choice you will be satisfied with and never have to want for that item again.

I would like for you to indulge me a bit on a little exercise I would like to lead you through. It will only take a couple of minutes of your valuable time. Having a timer with alarm may help but is not essential.
At the end of reading this paragraph, I would like you to close your eyes for a minute or two and try to pay attention to all of your remaining senses. What do you smell? What to you hear? Touch? Taste? Try to pick out each detail of every noise you hear. Listen to your breath. Can you feel your heartbeat? Can you hear it even? Spend a minute or two in quiet and full attention to everything going on around you. Then open your eyes.
Now, while you stare at your computer screen all day paying attention to other things, at least you will know part of what you are missing.

Here in America, we live in live in a culture that is obsessed with doing. The forty (Fifty? Sixty? Eighty?) hour workweek. The two weeks of “vacation”. When we meet strangers, one of the first questions asked is “What do you do?”. When we mention that we have a vacation coming, we are asked “What are you going to do?”. I would argue that our current obsession with having a constant connection to technology is largely driven by the need to always have something to do. But does all of this doing actually make us who we are? Our essence? Our being?
I don’t think so. I think the more we fill our lives with more and more things we have to do, the less and less time we are spending on who we have to be. Being is what happens when you stop doing. Doing, in a life of balance, should driven out of who you have decided to be.
Before you look down at the next task on your list, or answer that call from your coworker, or answer that next email, or compose that next status update for Facebook or Twitter, take a moment to stop what you are doing. Decide first, to simply be.