Feuerfest

Photo by Kaique Rocha: https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-walking-on-pedestrian-lane-during-daytime-109919/

Nowadays, it feels like everyone of us uses at least five different social networks. Mastodon, Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc. Even messaging apps like Whatsapp and Telegram try more and more to become social networks of their own. Allowing you to follow channels of your favorite brand, celebrity, topic, etc. And even technical sites like GitHub are slowly getting new social features. Following the age-old mantra, "User retention and engagement are key."

Unfortunately, I have a basic problem with all these social networks. See, a human being is not a single-interest individual. Each one of us has multiple interests. And those can vary widely. Additionally, they overlap in different parts of our lives. Sure, your kids are your most valued and precious interest, and you love sharing your experiences with them. What about professional or job-related experiences? Or your leisure time crafts like gardening or cooking? Do you fancy some videogaming to relax? Are you politically active? Help out in your community? All of these are good examples.

Unfortunately, I have a basic problem with all these social networks.

But.. What, and forgive me my ignorance, what if I'm only interested in your job-related experiences? Or your experiences as a developer of some open-source software I use, and I simply wish to be a little ahead on the information flow. And not rely on some IT news site but instead get it directly from the developer?

I don't know your kids. So why should I care? Surely some stories are nice and sweet. Alas I have the same limited time each day as everyone else. Therefore, for me, information reduction is key. I don't want to be constantly bombarded with bits of knowledge I don't want and don't need to know. Each single social network out there forces me to swallow every single drop that comes out of the "digital information water tap".

Each single social network out there forces me to swallow every single drop that comes out of the "digital information water tap".

Yes, you can unfollow. Or block people entirely. Maybe blacklist some channels. Click the "show me less of this" button. But again, these are partially incomplete features. What if I am interested in only some aspects of a person's life? Not their garden, not their kids, not their political views. How do I filter that? Or those "lovely contacts" that set up automatic content generation and spill 3-5 posts into your feed every single day. Do these features help in such a situation? No, they don't. And that is the problem I have with social networks in general.

Currently, I feel the only option offered to me is a rather ultimate one. Block, unfollow, unfriend, or mute. And while the unfollow feature is somewhat usable, it still doesn't solve my problem.

The solution, or: What Google+ did right

The main feature of Google+ was that the content creator was able to group his contacts into circles, for example, a circle called "family" for family members and a circle called "coworkers" for work-related postings. And then he or she could share content only with that circle (or both). Or decide to share publicly for everyone. The follower or friend, of course, was able to group his or her friend into different circles. But the key point was: It was possible to choose which content stream to display by clicking on the button for each circle on the left of Google+.

Yes, that leaves room for improvement. I can't control with which circle(s) the creator associated me. But for me, it was a step in the right direction. One, which sadly was shut down by Google.

One step further

How about a social network where each profile of a person has several feeds (or streams)? Several. Not just one. And of course, we are allowed to define, create, and delete as many feeds (or streams) as we like. And every follower can choose to just follow one stream (or none at all) or the whole profile with all feeds. Sounds a bit like (Hash-)Tags? Yes! Exactly! As hashtags in themselves are nothing different than key words. Each post can be linked to any number of feeds. Like a post about budgeting your new hobby can be shared in your streams labeled "Finance Tips" and "Gardening".

Then the burden of information sorting and reduction is shifted from the followers to the creators. Giving them the burden of choosing what to post where. But in return they should get users who are more engaged, as they are actually only consuming content they are interested in. Well, in theory. The whole psychology and market behavior regarding social networks is not my strong point. And I fear that most people just don't care. They just scroll past that content that is not interesting to them and never think about whether they should be forced to scroll that much, let alone how to fix that problem.

Google+ was social media for me. Forget every other network.

But I remember that Google+ was social media for me. Forget every other network. There, I engaged the most. I posted the most. I commented the most. And I actually learned more than in any other social network I've been or am still active in.

Yes, Twitter has lists, Mastodon too, and so on. But these networks weren't designed around that feature! It wasn't displayed prominently on the start page. Always hidden 2-3 layers deep in some sub-section of some rarely used menu.

I still miss Google+.
(Does this count as an "Old man yells at cloud"-post? 😅 )

Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/email-blocks-on-gray-surface-1591062/

Some rather fun stories revolve around my usage of mail addresses. Like many IT people, I like to use identifiable email addresses. In my case, it means I always use companyname-DDMMYYYY@my-domain.tld or website-domain-DDMMYYYY@my-domain.tld when I need to specify a mail address.

This has the advantage that I can verify if the sender matches the recipient address. Obviously, Paypal won't send mail to some-webshop05072024@my-domain.tld. And it is a good pointer when some customer database was leaked or if sites are selling customer data. I experienced it like 10 times already: the mail associated with a certain website or shop got spam right after I deleted my account there. Truly unsuspicious...

And in the few cases where a company's customer database was leaked several times, I can easily change the mail address and still track if the new address is being spammed or not.

The unexpected benefit of unique mail addresses

The first real surprise came to me some years ago when I bought new furniture for my new flat. When the furniture was being delivered and built up one of the people setting them up said to me: "Ah, I see we work at the same company."

I was confused and replied: "Uh, no. I'm not working for (that furniture company's name). Why do you think I do?"
"Well, according to the receipt you got the employee discount.", the man replied. I was dumbfounded. I definitely didn't lie, and when I was in the store and purchased the furniture the employee also said nothing regarding this topic.

Then it dawned on me: My mailaddress! It was companyname@my-domain.tld! But.. I thought in disbelief, "It's only in the local-part!" Well.. Looks like the employee doesn't understand the structure of mail addresses and that everyone is free to choose the part before the @-sign (the so-called local-part or username). And thought I do work for the company, and gave me the discount without saying a single word. Wow.

Basic IT-Security in the banking industry?

And today? The same happened. With my bank. I needed an appointment and called them. As I didn't provide a mail address to them in all these years they asked for one to set up the online calendar entry. I told the customer rep to use bankname2024@my-domain.tld. The representative immediately asked in surprise: "Oh! You work for one of our branches?"

Well.. I was a bit shocked as, until that point, I thought that bank employees were at least minimally trained to properly read mail. In order to detect at least the most obvious phishing attempts. It seems I was wrong.

I gave the rep a quick run-down on the structure of mail addresses and said that basically everything in front of the @ is irrelevant (or at least should be treated as such). And that was it. On to the next adventure with mail addresses!

Photo by Tara Winstead https://www.pexels.com/photo/motivational-phrases-for-mental-health-8378735/

Recently, I had a conversation with a recruiter on LinkedIn. It started pretty normal, but for some reason I mentioned I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder (Wikipedia)). The recruiter replied that this could be used as an advantage. "How so?" I asked.
And immediately after stating my question, the recruiter said something that made me angry in a rather rapid way.

The recruiter elaborated that I can be presented as way more productive due to my hyperfocus (Wikipedia), and that this has the potential to give my future employer a huge benefit.

I was speechless. I didn't reply for 2 minutes. Only thinking: "WHAT!?"
It certainly didn't help that the way in which my hyperfocus was portrayed reminded me of how slaves were marketed in human history. Pointing out the benefits of their bodily features for the profit of their future masters. Nope. Definitely not helping.
But the main reason for my anger stirred from the fact that my hyperfocus is not some kind of fancy addon. Not some kind of trait I voluntarily learned.
My brain works differently. The chemicals that my brain produces are produced in different amounts than in people without ADD. Science has proved this again and again. This is directly tied to different behavioral patterns. Which can cause problems with people who are not on the neurodiversity spectrum of brains.
Many of us ADD'ers only learn of this in our late 30s or even later. After decades of struggling. Trying to find out, "What is wrong with me? Why am I so different than anybody else?" After all, diagnosis was bad in the previous decades. Going even so far as: "ADD is only present in children. It will go away with time." That those children simply learned to hide their ADD and suffered silently as adults? That many adults with undiagnosed ADD develop a depression because of this? Yeah.. This is only understood since a mere decade or two.
I would happily trade my hyperfocus for a normal brain. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate myself for having ADD. It's just the way that I am. And since I got my diagnosis, I have learned more and more about myself and how to deal with all that accompanies ADD.
Fortunately, diagnosis, help, and treatment get better and better, especially for children. Well, at least here in Europe.
But if you are already an adult? It kind of sucks.

(TL;DR: Money. Here in Germany, doctors can send bills to healthcare providers if the ADD patient is a child. But NOT if the patient is already an adult. Yes, a flaw in the law. But an annoying one. This effectively means: Trainings, Coaches, behavioral therapy, medicaments.. All paid for if you are a child. As an adult? Here, take your pills with Methylphenidate (Wikipedia) (like: Elvanse, Medikinet, Ritalin, Concerta, etc.) and that's it. If you want more, search and pay for it yourself.)

But utilizing my hyperfocus in a way to improve my chances of getting hired?
That's NOT the way it's going to work. That's not the way it should be E-V-E-R. That's just a twisted and perverted way of exploiting oneself.
Personally, I have the following approach: If it kicks, it kicks. Sometimes I enjoy it. Using it to deep-dive fast into the topic and learn so much in so little time. Sometimes it's annoying as hell, as I know I can't give in to the hyperfocus as there are other pressing matters more relevant to me or the lives of others.
Most importantly: My hyperfocus is not something I can control.
Yes, there are situations/techniques, etc. that can help. And I've read my fair share of ADD'ers saying they are able to control it.
I always immediately question myself: "Can they, though? And, if they can, should they?"
While being hyperfocused, I feel great. Time feels stopped, yet I can see how rapidly I advance. Which is an awesome feeling for someone with ADD who, more often than not, feels things are too slow to be enjoyable.
But right after the rush of hyperfocus ends? Yeah, better spend some quality leisure time to recharge those internal batteries of yours. If not. Or you simply can't? Things tend to get messy. Missed appointments, forgotten tasks, household chores being left undone, and so on.
And now I imagine ADD'ers who constantly push themselves into that rush just to "prove their worth to their employer." After all, they were sold with that advantage, right?
Why not just hand out free cocaine to non-ADD employees then? Sounds stupid? Dangerous? Yep, now you understand my point.

Back to the recruiter. I told the person all this. That my hyperfocus is a part of me. And it's not a reliable one. Or rather: One on which I wouldn't rely on to get the job done. That I just want to be treated normally. And not be "our newest hyperfocus hire.".
The answer I got was: Well, sadly, not much at all. The recruiter got that I wasn't interested in a job. Well, I said so before. It's just that our conversation switched to this topic then. And therefore, the recruiter seemed to not bother answering any of the ethical questions I imposed.
I mean, I get it. What the recruiter said was, most likely, only meant to uplift me. To make me feel good. To give me the impression that I have good chances of being hired.

But still: I'm not owing you my hyperfocus!

Addendum

Some days have passed since I published this post and there is something which I want to add. It's about the whole topic: "Due to your hyperfocus you are more productive!"

Personally I think this is not true. All imponderabilities aside: You need to recover after a hyperfocus. You cannot be constantly in hyperfocus. Like you can't constantly be in a state of flow, something which everyone of us has experienced at one time or another. But hyperfocus, in my personal experience, is way more intense. And I can't say how long it will last.

Likewise I can't tell how long I need to properly recover, but here the logic comes in. Do I need longer to recover (and are maybe less productive during this period) and therefore eliminate the benefits of the time spent in hyperfocus? Or not?

Do hyperfocus and recovery-time always cancel themselves out? Or not? Or like in 70% of all cases? What is the right number here? Is there any at all?

I don't really want answers to these questions. They are simply not needed.

And is there a guarantee that someone in hyperfocus won't make mistakes? Of course not! My advise to employeers would be: "Be happy and thankful when an employee does way more work in a considerable short amount of time. But don't make it the new standard or take it for granted. That won't neither last nor help."

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/cheerful-young-woman-screaming-into-megaphone-3761509/

When you work in IT you are in the privileged situation that people are actively offering you positions. If I wanted, I wouldn't have needed to search for a single one of my jobs. I got plenty of offerings on Xing or LinkedIn, via email or sometimes even through Twitter direct messages or Google Hangouts.

So, as the question just recently arised from a recruiter on Xing: "Why didn't I accept the request to become connected?"
Well, short answer: My starting page feed and too much clutter.

In fact, I did tend to accept those requests years ago. Quickly, this had a rather unpleasant side-effect: My feed was full of job advertisements for various positions in far too many industries. Jobs which were absolutely not relevant for me. For which I did have no skills, no training, no interest, no passion. And.. 99,9% of the time I'm not searching for a job. So why should I be forced to read job ad after job ad and - sorry for the wording - waste my time with it? Especially when it is not a one-time occurrence but a constant stream of non-interesting content.

Additionally, because of all that clutter, I sometimes didn't notice crucial personal updates from old colleagues & friends. As sadly nowadays it's the standard to just have one single feed where all postings show up. Not sorted into categories or whatever. Therefore I am more or less forced to read every article (and advertisement...) even if I'm not interested in it. Feel free to read my post The problem with social networks - and why I still miss Google+ if you want to know more.

Thais is the sole reason why I stopped doing that.
It is really nothing personal. It's just that 99,9% of the time your content is irrelevant to me - as I'm simply not on the lookout for a new challenge. And on top of that: In the short time frames when it is relevant to me, 99% of the content is - again - irrelevant to me - because the jobs don't fit what I'm searching for.

I like my feed/stream to be about stuff I'm interesting in. I don't like it when I constantly have to read stuff which is neither interesting nor relevant for me.

If, for example, LinkedIn changes the way their feed works, then my position could change. But until things stay as they are I sadly have to be a bit more rigid in who I accept as a contact.