Apathy: The Longest Addiction

     Once upon a time, in a galaxy very close to us all, I gave a Salutatorian speech for my high school (50th graduation anniversary this year). The topic was “Apathy”. The best that I can say about it was that I didn’t spot anyone sleeping during the speech. The worst that I can say is that I could give the exact same speech today, with the same reactions, and the same results.

     Between many moves and changes of technology (my speech was recorded on a cassette tape), I don’t seem to have the text of my speech anymore. But, as I said, I could give the same speech — or write the same speech — today without much change. The one addition I would make would be an advisory that apathy includes not taking the time or energy to research and factcheck the information with which you are presented. I don’t believe that the word factcheck existed in 1975.

     Apathy and procrastination are similar. Both are delays but procrastination is expected to have an end. Also, apathy is supposed to be based out of lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Procrastination says that you kind-of want to do it but not now, after something, or when there are two moons in the sky.

     Recentering on apathy. Why would a person lack interest/enthusiasm/concern in something? It might not be important. It might not be important to them. The second is more likely since, if no one felt it was important, apathy would not even be considered to be applied as a description. Once again, apathy is likely to be used only if they “should” care. Everyone should care about climate change, right? Women should control their own bodies, right? Everyone’s life is important, right?

    Let’s proceed as if there is some issue about which people should care — some issue that affects them or those they care about. Why don’t they have any interest/enthusiasm/concern?

• It’s not their problem. Possibly not — at the moment — but many problems tend to grow over time. Social injustices, for example, have a tendency to keep expanding to include more and more subgroups of people. Pollution in one area tends to encourage corporations to feel it is okay to pollute anywhere and it may start affecting you. Air pollution will depend on the direction of the wind. If you recognize that it is A problem, then deciding that it is irrelevant to you is not a good excuse.
  

• Their efforts won’t make a difference. So, now you’re all-knowing (omniscient)? You never know. By being brave and confronting injustice, and supporting someone, you might be preventing a murder or a suicide. You just don’t know the effects of your own efforts. And the multiplier effect can change things considerably. Sociologists talk about how small percentages (sometimes as low as 3 or 4%) can become “contagious” and change the behavior of the larger group. You really, truly, never know if your personal effort will make a difference. And you can be pretty sure that your effort, in combination with others’ similar effort, CAN bring about change.
  

• They have other things in my life that are more important. This is hard to argue against. We all have many things we need to do that are important to ourselves, or those we care about. But, it may be a matter of just examining our priorities a bit closer. Will watching five more minutes of anime be more important, in your life, than placing a call to your legislator to ask them to do the right thing? (Legislators primarily pay attention to contributors but some also pay attention to the interests of those they are supposed to represent.) Will it change your ability to live out your day if you pick up a stray piece of litter as you are walking along the street — how much time did that really take?
  

• They have personal issues that manifest in decreased energy and activity levels. Depression, burnout, addictions, diseases, medications, and other items of life can make everything “else” seem not worth doing. Yes, you need to take care of yourself before you can attend to the needs of others. However, it is not a cliché to say that helping others can lead to helping yourself. Twelve-step programs often incorporate reaching outward to make your inward self more supportable. All I can truly say in this area is that you can only do what you can do. Blessed be.
  

• They are opposed to the item. You hate being around those who have challenges in their lives and would prefer them to just “go away” rather than try to do something for them. You hate that other state and are glad that their citizens are getting cancer from corporate pollution. That “other” group should be treated badly because they aren’t as valuable as others. In such situations, you aren’t actually expressing apathy — though it could appear that way to outside observers. This is an expression of a wounded soul and I can only pray that you heal from your ills.

     Apathy is looked at from the outside as a lack of action. The causes of apathy can be manifold but it is as true today as it was true 50 years ago that we could really “change the world” if we can treat this societal illness.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Meetings & Presentations: They aren't the same thing

 

     During my last couple of years of work, I was in 30 hours of meetings per week. Of those thirty hours, I was an active participant in perhaps six hours. I may have taken notes in another four hours of the meetings because information was presented that I did not know and which was not available from other sources. For the other 20 hours I was an additional number in the head count.

     Is this typical? I cannot really say as I have not had a wide enough spread of work within various companies. Is it unusual? Personally, I suspect that it is not unusual. Is it useful? That depends a lot on the purpose of the meetings. If it was to gather information, then 2/3 of my meetings were not useful. If it was to be seen then I guess they were useful -- including remote situations if the cameras are all on. If it was to raise the perceived status of the presenter, then I feel it was a lot less useful than the presenter thought it was. After all, would it raise your opinion of someone if you listened to them for an hour or two of your life and did not learn anything new nor felt that your presence was useful?

     Most companies have meetings that do not need to exist. The percentage may vary depending on the processes of the company and their priorities but there are usually those that exist just to exist.

     We come, therefore, to a distinction -- the distinction between a presentation and a meeting. A presentation can have "questions and answers" during, or at the end, of the gathering. During this Q&A period, information can be clarified and additional information can be obtained. The information flow is almost completely unidirectional. The presenter is passing information along to the audience.

     Within a useful meeting, information flow should be omnidirectional. There may be a moderator who makes sure everyone has a chance to provide input. There may be a recorder who keeps track of what is said, any commitments made, and any work items to be assigned. The moderator and the recorder may be the same person. If so, that will slow down the flow of the meeting which could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. It will depend on the initial purpose of the meeting. In a "brainstorming" meeting, I would suggest that it would be useful to have the two roles fulfilled by two different people in order to not put obstacles in the way of information flow. Have you ever had something you wanted to say and, following a relatively short interruption, no longer know quite what it was? I certainly have.

     The reason that I had so many meetings at which I was unneeded was that the presenter did not understand as to whether it was a presentation or a meeting. Thus, it was put forth as a meeting and there were people required to be present. As a presentation, it could have been put into a document or into a video presentation to be watched at a more convenient time. (A video also has the advantage of being able to be fast-forwarded past known information.) Questions and answers can still occur -- and can be distributed to the list of people who are sent, or notified of, the presentation.

     When you are setting up a gathering, first decide upon information flow. Is it unidirectional or omnidirectional? Even if multiple people are presenting information during the session, it can still be unidirectional. If it is unidirectional, is it something you want to enforce watching/listening with a specific audience? A "captive" audience still may not understand/listen to the information but they lack excuses for not knowing the information. If it is omnidirectional, then a gathering will likely be useful -- but it could be remote or in-person.

     If it is static information -- all is known and it is meant to flow in one direction (though possibly from multiple people) then do people need to receive it at the same time? Are you aware of the exact people who should know the information? If people other than invitees may need/want to know the information then live presentations should be recorded but it may also be an argument for the lack of need for a gathering.

     In summary, meetings should be gatherings of people with omnidirectional information flow (everyone potentially has information to give as well as to receive). Presentations involve unidirectional (perhaps from more than one person) information flow. It is possible to have a presentation as part of a meeting but, in such cases, it should primarily be a meeting with information exchanged. Meetings are often useful to have as gatherings. Presentations may be more useful as documents or video recordings to allow an indeterminate group of people access to the information, allow rewatching/rereading the information, or to take in the information at a more convenient time.