not who we think we are

my job consists largely of sifting through the noise of the interweb to discover and interpret the discussions surrounding my clients. one might call it digital anthropology. one of the highlights of such a job is that i am able to tell a client what the world 2.0 thinks of them, whether they like it or not, and i have data to back it up. it's not unusual for the client to perceive their brand differently (always better) than the rest of us (somehow we're wrong). while this may be expected, the same cloud creating this value discrepancy is the same that affects us all: ego.


as far as we know, we are who we believe ourselves to be, and we live according to that perspective. the problem is that this is in no way an honest assessment. attempts to obtain such a perspective can be summarized in these two websites. on one hand, we have those who think the outside is all that matters. on the other hand, we have those who think how "popular" ("friends" are perhaps the worst. indication of actual popularity. ever.) one is is all that matters. note that these two hands are often holding each other dearly. what happens though, is that these measures of self imply that they are all that need to be measured. hotness only matters. friends only matter.

it's impossible for me to step outside the box and look at the way i treat people, what i think about people and the ways they think about and treat me. somehow there's so much that i overlook so easily. i imagine, though, that if i had my very own digital anthropologist, i would find that i'm not all that similar to the tyler i think i am. sadly, though not unpredictably, i am no better than the clients whom i scoff for their misappropriation of identity.