#me wanting to interact vs dreading being perceived

[a-zif]

hello bottoms

[moonlightonice]

and if i may add to your wonderful observations with something else

besides all the interactions in the foreground with the tkachuk Father and SonsTM vs the wunderkind like you so apptly called him, and the warmth and ease of the one vs the distance and almost stiltedness of the other there were two other things that really stood out to me surrounding that

the comparisson and sharp contrast within that comparisson of both of them being raised in hockey, both of them openly talking about how it's their happy place but the very very sharp diference in how they both occupied that environment growing up. In one you have connor and leon and his family talking about the preasure and the horror of the media and the stress and being perceived and on the other hand you have matthew basically living in the rinks, being babysat by the trainers and the staff and following his dad around, also being perceived by thousands, both of them having left home at 15. i just found it so fascinating how connor and leon talk about that aspect of it as something they absolutely wish they could remove -keep the sport leave the entertainment idustry/ spectacle aspect of it, because the only relationship they have with it is being put under a microscope and having immense preasure put on you with a spotlight that burns you. while on the other hand you have matthew who to quote someone on it "hasn't met a camera he doesn't love" and which to be completely honest hasn't met a camera who hasn't loved him back who doesn't just accept the spectacle or simply thrive on it but actively persues or even often invites and instigates it in a "growing the sport" mentality that also grew up with media and in crowds but with a very very keen difference of having that spotlight shine and love on his dad and 100% approaching it as something he absolutely wants for himself preasures and expectations be damned

to tie that in with the growing up and also your very very keen food/family atmosphere observation what stuck out to me where the throwback kid videos. you got connor at rinks being very small playing with bigger kids only being shown in competitions or in intense training or talking to the media throwing the occasional smile but mostly showing dread or playing at home alone vs matthew tkachuk's goddamn baby home videos cuddled up on daddy's chest being fed and pet and held, being the big kid pushing his baby brother to play as hard as him, watching dad's games and playing with the staff who are trying desperately to wrangle him in the stands or held by his mama or having his dad and actual baby brother by his side while he's getting ready to go out there all smiling and excited

i mean if their intention was to depict the man the myth the legend and the isolation that surrounds that with his number two having his back and his parents being caring and proud but not necessarily knowing how to actively you know, support the kid vs the family legacy of the Father, the Sons and the Holy goddamn Stanley Cup who not only know how to show up for each other but the very active support can verge on overbearing they did a great job

i just felt a little bit like for how big a segment they focused on the relationship with the media and the being preceived by it and how tough and hard and hurtful it is to be labeled boring and a robot for connor, to the point of like joking about it in the locker room, if the goal was to like, make him more warm or approachable or open him up to the general public who doesn't know a lot about hockey, well. It kinda maybe missed the mark a little??? what with the personal chef and cmon everybody say thank you chef yes miss thank you cheeeeef of that meal vs the DON'T LIGHT MY HOUSE ON FIRE OLD MAN/ SHUT UP WHILE I FEED YOU YOU LITTLE BASTARDS of kieth tkachuk living with his son to the point of chirping and videos of bottlefeeding the guy

also the parallel coincidence that aboslutely murdered me was the injurieswith the abdominal injury being treated with accupuncture in a sterile environment litterally being hooked on electric wires connor being told to give himself a hug vs matthew teasing and being teased and being groped and manhandled everywhich way and brady saying i gave him a bear hug to lift him up and aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

you can't make this shit up, the narratives and the invincible lines and the parallels where giving it their all and feeding us sooooooo well

What I found very interesting after letting "faceoff" a little sink in are the choices they made regarding food & relationships.

On the one side we have Keith grilling outside for Matthew, super chill atmosphere, Keith and Matthew chirp each other, Brady and Matthew chirp each other - all around it conveys a warm atmosphere.

On the other side we have a professional chef prepairing something (we try to avoid dairy), seated dinner with his fiancee and friends, the ketchup phobia (honestly why throw him unser the bus like that?), it all feels a lot less warm and a lot more stilted. Also the interactions with Leon seemed a lot more uptight than the Tkachuks (though I think they're really each others ride and die and just can't bring it across that well).

Bet they did that very intentional too - family legacy vs wunderkind legacy who is more alone.

Just strange that they didn't even mention Matthew's fiancee ones or let a Panther speak, like Sam or Sasha or literally everyone.

[greaterlandscapes]

My Dean Blunt Rotation aka High Fidelity Left A Bad Taste in My Mouth

For the past 2 to 3 months, my listening habits were teetering to an end; mostly via burnout by spontaneously listening to local artists daily and less likely of a musical discovery drought, whereas my interests of a certain artist or genre hasn't found its, sort of, "eureka", moment per se. I've been feeling less enthusiastic over the things i listen to since my friends have gradually lost their flare when it comes to discovering/exploring untapped parts of the music realm. Thus, in return, my enthusiasm not being reciprocated. It leaves an empty feeling from someone who has been yearning social interaction, may it be media being latched on the topic - it's a feeling that's been guilt-tripping me ever since I was stranded in the other end of the metro. I feel closed off, exposed to the crippling loneliness the lockdown has punished us: a defacto solitary confinement in a national level. Our act of staying online is also an act of staying alive outside.

To be fair though, it's a valid move to not boomerang compliments/gripes over an art you haven't consumed due to someone's autonomy. Your able body being to consume the art you wish to finish with free time is a luxury in of itself. The art is then failed to serve its purpose to reach its goal: You have squiggly lines heading straight to oblivion rather than swirling in the earlobes of a wandering cyber nomad. We, eventually, need to find something that could help us exit, rather than escape, from capital. We, in return, do not shut ourselves from the outside. Instead, we then tend to avoid the stress of protocols and outdoor fascism; Not avoid the indoor liberalism that is eating us alive and online. It's a capital punishment we never knew we signed up for ever since the onslaught of the virus and the state. Art for art's sake is nonexistent now, always has been, it seizes to ever since we went inside. Feeding off of a holographic meatloaf coming from a glowing screen. We have a real-life Karen acting as a nightlight in our rooms.

The COVID lockdown made us listen to music — both for better, for worse. For one, it made us pass most days. You could say the same for any sort of media: film, mixed media art, or whatever pre-Covid activity that sprung up during our time in isolation. For music, however, there was an uptick of new listeners that made others Wheel-of-Fortune the fuck out of their music discoveries in sites like RateYourMusic, Bandcamp, or even Sophie's Floorboard. We've continued to expand and became more open change of opinions and be less of a jackass towards someone else's opinions. On second thought, our opinions have been catalogued, leaving more notes than actual footprints of our previous listens. Our new discoveries made new bands and re-emerging bands, bands who faded to obscurity, crawl back in the surface with newfound interest from younger listeners (ie Panchiko, Jai Paul, and Dean Blunt) and this glowing, previously unseen and unexpected overwhelming support from fans of departed artists (ie SOPHIE, MF DOOM)

For the other, we've hogged gratuitous amounts of media, resulting into losing our primary direction as to how we want to consume our media based on the preconceived notions of what we want in our art. There is goodness in becoming directionless when you think about it, but there comes a cost to our identity as music listeners. Instead, we end up widening our tangents, falling in endless rabbit holes, having zero chances to emerge from the surface. In fact, i refuse to call it a "rabbit hole" instead i'd rather call it a "pipeline" of sorts — transitioning casual music fans into a full on, different, unique versions of themselves that would define them when laws and protocols have eased in the outside world. Our act of staying online has either made most of us break our character or enliven our past selves. The music pipeline is now more apparent, stretching the norms of what was once alienated by a silent majority, but now accepted as an acceptable form of expression. The more music we are exposed to has made casual listeners stranged out or react in ways that our personality have betrayed us or deemed not as acceptable to them. Still, not changing anything that was prominent pre-pandemic. Liberal cop behavior is stronger, now more dangerous than it ever was once perceived by the outside world.

HIGH FIDELITY? NO, THANK YOU.

Imagine a situation inside of a record, pre-pandemic of course, where you do not feel like lifting a record out from the shelf, instead, you window shop just for the sake of windowshopping. Capital and media made us think that going to record shops is a semi-productive activity. The age of discovery has died ever since High Fidelity romanticized and normalized the incelage of horny record diggers. Does this movie age well, yeah sure it does, for old 90s nerds at least. But did it translate well over in the past 20 or more years of events and tragedies that unfolded in pre-9/11 America? No it didn't. It was an age of free expression, only liberals would dream of whenever they take a sip of Guinness beer in their favorite dive bar.

Mind you, over a couple of months ago, it was my only chance in seeing why this movie was the talk of the town back when it was released. There's music, yeah, and attractive leading leadies, yeah, it has everything a 90s kid would love to salivate and drop their gonads over while they watch this movie. I obviously did not live to see the movie on opening day but i could imagine the scent that came out of that movie theater with attendees donning windbreakers and The Who shirts with popcorn dressing stains on their plastic cups. If there was a Filipino counterpart to this movie, i'd bet corporate champions Eraserheads and Rivermaya would soundtrack their music over and have either Tado or have Boy 2 Quizon, but i sense it to age like milk more than it could age like fine wine due to the senseless jokes one can execute in a Cubao or Cartimar record store.

John Cusack is obviously the incel in question here: a damaged, vengeful ex who constantly fails to live his partner's expectations and weaponizes his personality over the situations that has nothing to do with his interests. I spent the entire time being absolutely disgusted over the spineless responses of John Cusack's leading character. The movie then treads on flashbacks with John Cusack's failed relationships and what he could do to move on from each and one of them. If i could stand a SONA for 3 hours then I can't stand John Cusack being the dull entry point to incel, making more reasons why you should hate record store clerks who don't give an iota of shits to someone's inviting rapport. High Fidelity is opium for massive music circle jerks who can't take a single breathe of fresh air or a single quota of touching grass. There's more targeting weak and inferior guys and hot women who dump dumb overconfident dudebros more than the actual "music recs" in the entire movie. The more I think about this movie, the more I realize how our personality is in line towards Dick, the record store being unmercifully dunked on by the movie's two leading characters. He's an angel in the world of cynical bastards, witnessing both demons pitchforking record store customers in the ass while they're purchasing the latest Sonic Youth album.

I believe that Jack Black, the dark horse of High Fidelity, has a pleasing personality more than an irritating demeanor due to this behavior in the record store. In fact, outside of the record store, Jack Black doesn't seem to take the business is your pleasure act pretty seriously. Unlike John Cusack's character he brought his obsession over involving a record in an important memory/point of his life. There is so much stuff that has happened outside of the record store, so much for Rolling Stone and NME being the bible of music at the time, endlessly christening and shilling artists that believe to become the second coming of the Beatles. The music references here however are treated as fluff than it is a mechanism that would drive the senseless plot forward. If anything, there are events pointed out in the event that doesn't have anything to do with the life of the characters.

If anything, this movie did a great job at capturing the feeling of music bros being dumped on the wayside by a mature set of characters and how their current conditions aren't perfumed by the studios' liking of having to Cinderella story the shit out of a bunch of normal record store owners. The reality is in the reaction of one's social capital being invaded and we're here to witness how those reactions panned out in 2021. This is a villainous depiction of music nerds being the salt of the earth, the bane of all media discussion, still reflective of the insufferable salt of cyberspace found in music forums like 4chan and RYM. High Fidelity is a pipeline of 90s musicology, a dreaded fever dream of an owner waiting for the decade to end, trends ossifying and re-emerged by the hands of nostalgia-savvy individuals. It was, at its time, every music-movie nerd's excuse equivalent of Scott Pilgrim VS. The World. There are memories worth remembering and cherishing, and this movie isn't one of them.

DEAN BLUNT, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

In the past two weeks I've been fancying myself into sitting down and listening to different projects from the ever elusive, UK-based sound artist Dean Blunt. The first time i chanced upon his music wasn't too long ago - albeit a recent one in the time of COVID - was when I randomly stumbled upon his records at a Spotify recommendations section under John Maus (yeah lol i know the implications whenever his name is mentioned) - but then i was enamored by his online presence so quickly I put everything down and dedicated an hour or two researching about this man's music.

Other than the fact that his album "The Redeemer" wasn't the best record to start off in journeying through his discography: ending up disgusted and borderline bored even and I was more likely to lambast this record's aimless, pretentious art-pop inflections. By the end of the day, it was a preference long solidified by his undying fanbase. According to his hardcore fans, the music isn't really music, evaluating it as a free form of sound art, rather than sticking to a structured and conventional cues; the genre is nullified by most analysts of the arts. The growing interest of the general public towards Dean Blunt's pranks and antics have long appealed to my tastes as a chaotic neutral individual. Pranks that are well executed to piss off UK gallery connoisseurs and entertain ironic attendees who'd shit on the art piece rather than participate in it.

More of the resources I've found about Dean Blunt online: numerous aliases and collaborations that lasted around almost 2 decades. The most notable of all them, at least for my money, are either Hype Williams, a duo consisting of Dean and frequent collaborator Inga Copeland, and Babyfather, an art performance parodizing the pirate radio culture in the UK. I have not delved enough in Blunt's body of work to evaluate everything and what i could synthesize from it. For now, I enjoyed it as a form of entertainment. Well, color me impressed because Dean Blunt isn't clowning around, he, in fact, makes blissful and transcendental music from left to right.

Dean Blunt was the only few artists that made me want to binge on their discography. His movements in his music has attracted this pesky listener who thinks that being mysterious is a plus. I mean, look at me who thinks The Paul Institute, Panchiko, and Burial are the greatest artists that have walked the face of the earth.

The most I've enjoyed from Dean Blunt's discography are his mixtapes and collaborations: preferably his Soul Fire and ZUSHI, both of which were packaged as B-sides or supplemental releases rather than major releases such as the Babyfather project or the Black Metal releases. His knack for blurring the lines between genres still fascinate me as of this writing, and it continues to amaze me how he doesn't seize to compromise his art, he's here to prove a point and it sells quite well despite the lack of direction in his music. Blunt's music has more aggressive and hazy texture than the hollow, wide, soulless structure of art-pop/hypnagogic pop released today. He creates terrains from the rubble of his country's current shortcomings. The music overlaps the actual intentions with abstract concepts, becoming deconstructed down the line. In Babyfather, noise music coincides with Blunt's amateurish rapping. In Black Metal, Blunt isolates himself along with the assisted skeletal guitar playing. Both projects throwing all tropes in a vaccum alongside Blunt, who he himself would sought to become a personification of a musical void.

--

(Excerpt from the Babyfather album review in TinyMixtapes)

--

Dean Blunt is an entity that wishes to become one person, but no, this isn't a figure in a specific art form; this isn't Banksy, this isn't Bob Ong, this is made by one person, clearly it is if you listen closely, and it's been entrancing me ever since his presence was felt on the horizons of the internet. Dean Blunt, what the actual fuck.

[everydayanth]

Question re: cultural appropriation: I am Vampirically WhiteTM (I combust/evaporate if exposed to sunlight over 5 seconds), but I sometimes do *all* my hair in tiny, uneven plaits that don't hug my scalp. Answers on various forums seem to only distinguish between big/sparse braids & Black hairstyles, so there isn't a nuanced answer for, "This style isn't Cornrows but I *do* use all my hair." [1/2]

The intention *isn't* to cuddle up as closely to traditionally African styles as possible, but rather so I can take the braids out 3 days later to poof up like a lion/Princess Merida. Humans are a braiding, weaving species, I really do like doing this thing, & I'm not always of the mindset that just b/c something *might* be problematic, I should just bend to my anxieties/White Guilt. Am I still sending the wrong message with my style? [2/2]

Honestly, I have to start by saying I’m a white female, so the action/consequence of this process holds no harm over me and therefore my answer cannot speak for the people (black, specifically women) being potentially appropriated. I can only speak of my own development and understanding of appropriating black culture, specifically with hair.

I grew up in a “black neighborhood” (a problematic concept in itself) and in school, we sat in a train-line of girls during read-aloud and braided each others’ hair. I learned to braid black hair by 2nd grade. We were kids, we saw the differences in our phenotypic traits, but we adapted and didn’t mind much. One time a friend tried oiling my hair and it did not end well, lol, I was a greasy mop the whole day. Braiding was culturally relevant to us as friends, but also to me as an individual: my mom would braid my hair on her good days. In the summer, she would put my hair in many tiny loose braids, similar to what you described, not cornrows, but small braids because it was hot and we didn’t have ac and it was an easy solution. We were judged accordingly based on uniform and size and I distinctly remember the day I learned about the use of a long pinky nail, lol. I didn’t think about it much until I got to high school, then college and studied social science and talked to POC friends there and really began to understand the problems. 

It’s not the act of wearing your hair in a particular style, we humans learn from each other, we copy, we reproduce, we recreate, and we do it for decoration and efficiency or usefulness. Every culture plays with hair and braids and for every example of appropriation, someone has a counter example perceived to be “their ancestors” or some sort of genetic heritage (”I’m 1/32 Native”) giving them rights to partake in a specific kind of decoration or practice. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that when black people, specifically black women, wear their hair in braids, they are treated disrespectfully by our society, while when white people, specifically women, wear locs or braids, they are often rewarded for being worldly or exotic or interesting. 

There is not a common consensus; “black people” are not made of a uniform opinion, and whether something is problematic or offensive varies from one person to another. Appropriation, however, is a little easier to spot because it comes with a reward to some but with a punishment to the people who owned, initiated, or historically created or utilized a thing in the same way.

Black hair and hairstyles have been historically degraded, and its easy to think we live in a better world, but when Kim Kardashian wears “boxer braids” it becomes a trend, while Sasha Obama’s braids were criticized or attributed to past trends rather than her own rich ancestry. When Zendaya shows up in beautiful dreads and dressed to the nines, she is met with racist remarks, while Christina Aguilera’s were considered an “urban” phase.

Appropriation comes from capitalizing off something that isn’t yours, or that you can remove from your identity should the oppressor challenge you (thus why “white-passing” is often part of the conversation). Actively fighting against it means educating yourself on histories of oppression and abuse, modern social perspectives of white privilege, and what we do with all those pieces. 

Black girls are sent home from school or suspended all the time for wearing their hair naturally, in traditional styles, or in styles like weaves that make black hair easier to manage in a non-African climate. Loose braids worn by black girls are still condemned in schools today, while white girls back from Jamaica go unpunished and their braids and beads remain a symbol of money, experience, and privilege. Black men, as well as black LGBTQ+ individuals, are also judged harshly by different (often white-dominated) groups for their own styles and are definitely part of the conversation. 

Understanding the role of hair in culture and seeing the ongoing inequality is the most important thing we can do. Ideally, someday, we live in a world where we can all do what we want so long as it doesn’t harm another person, but we do not live there, and BIPOC are much more subjected to policing of their images, bodies, and especially hair than white people. 

Hair dressers learn white hair by default, not both, most kids never learn about different hair textures or the evolutionary purpose for the differences, they simply learn that one majority group can do whatever they like without negative reinforcement, while the other must adhere to strict rules to emulate the look of the majority with chemicals, expensive tools, and treatments, or be mocked, judged, degraded, and not able to participate in society without fear or ridicule of their personhood, their bodies, their natural selves, as well as the potential loss of job security, violence, or harsher social punishments, like ostracization, being jailed, or murdered by police without consequence. How a majority identifies an “other” has historically included hair texture and style as well as skin color.

Personally, I think intent matters. I don’t braid my hair anymore as a public style. Sure, I braid clumps of it while watching TV or hanging out around the house if I want something of a uniform wave (my mom has type 3 and my dad has type 2 and I got a franken-head of both lol), but I don’t wear many braids as a style out in public. Wearing braids as a young kid made me look like the girls in my class, it connected me to the people around me, and I was subjected to judgement by the black moms based on quality (at least those who spoke up, again, I was a child). I was blending, but when I got to high school, I realized that wearing braids brought an attention with it - oh, you’re interesting, or pretentious, but for my POC friends, employers made them remove braids. They heard condescending things like “your hair is too ghetto” while I began to hear that I was the “ghetto friend, wow so cool and cultured and street smart.” It was always insulting, but one is shittier (you know which one) because it is only condescending, and seeks to erase culture and judges based on racist biases.

If we normalize black hairstyles through popular trends, that seems like a good thing, right? But if white people are the ones normalizing it, then the agency of black people has been taken away from the black communities and restored through a white-savior complex. Not free will or choice, but through the appropriation of their own culture which then replaces the act of demonstrating culture (like wearing braids) as an act of the oppressor mocking and being praised. 

I know or plenty of white girls who wore braids or dreads or black hairstyles as a counter-culture identifier, in the way of popular artists and celebrities, but also activists and stoners appropriating Rastafarian culture. This makes black culture a counter-culture instead of an aspect of American culture or black culture within America that is respected and valued inherently. It otherizes, fetishizes, and tokenizes black culture, takes advantage of the current racist system and white privilege/bias, and gains an aesthetic. That is an intent to appropriate for social gains, and it’s all over the music industry and Hollywood. 

At the end of the day, I don’t think my opinion here can matter, I’m not harmed by your action. Braids are braids and I have a... not-normal history of exposure and love of black hair that most white girls don’t, but even then, I had to grow and listen and understand the nuances of my environment and the society around it. Is it different wearing styles in the middle of nowhere with no social interactions vs. posting on social media or interacting in society? Yeah, I think it is.

So I suppose the sum of the parts is:

Are you benefitting socially from wearing your hair this way? If so, then yeah, that’s sucky for the BIPOC people being pushed down for doing the same and is harmful appropriation. How you measure that seems to depend on intent, so the bias of wanting to keep doing something you like has to be accounted for. 

Is your intent to fit an aesthetic? If so, yeah, definitely a problem. 

Reflect on why you like doing this, what is it you gain or feel or imbibe or get out of the experience in the first place? I’d say at the end of the day, know the history of oppression that exists in America and around the world. Being aware and able to identify appropriation in media, pop culture, and everyday life, as well as the history of it, allows you to be an ally.

And finally, do you listen to what people are saying?

If/when people say things about your hair, understand that you are a social exception to the style and address it. I do think there is a responsibility to engage in these conversations when we ride the line of these grey areas, like when culture is shared with us, to what extent we participate and own it is 100% dependent on that relationship. Be willing to hear black people if they say it is uncomfortable, listen to what they mean, have a conversation about it and be willing to let go of a thing you want if that is the feedback you get.

I think a lot of appropriation comes from the denial of history and the ignorance of oppression. If Kim K made a statement that said “these aren’t boxer braids, they are cornrows, worn by African American women for centuries, mocked and ridiculed by white culture, but have been an efficient way to manage African textured hair in the new climate environment of the Americas when forced here as slaves. Many were forcibly shaven, but for those who were allowed to express themselves in small subtle ways as slaves, through jim crow, and even today, the decoration and design of cornrows was and is incredibly meaningful.” That’s a different conversation about appropriation, that’s using privilege and platform without placating or denying the experiences of others to educate and address appropriation, rather than solely profiting off the attention and claiming to create a “trend.” Black hair is beautiful and should be appreciated and allowed to be as bold or big as an individual wants it to be. 

Hair is one of the coolest, most useful phenotypic traits of thermoregulation in humans/primates, and science still has a few questions yet to research regarding the evolution of different textures and colors. Your own hair texture can change over time, as you grow, especially in women, depending on hormones, especially through pregnancy, nutrition, and chemical treatments like chemotherapy, as well as genetics, and even environmental changes in water hardness, haircare routine and treatment materials. 

With slavery, migrations, immigrations, and other historic and contemporary movements of humans comes the issues of adaption and change to fit the new environment, fighting forced assimilation, colonization, denial of cultural expression, and active racism. We need to be able to talk about these aspects of race in society and listen if and when people say what we are doing is harmful. I think the most important thing to do is educate ourselves on the purpose, history, and meaning of a thing, particularly if we are gaining positive attention from it while others suffer for it. Talk to people of color around you who are willing to offer an opinion, and listen to them. Research the history and speak up when you see the double standard in practice. 

My line is here: if I can find evidence of a POC being criticized for a style (and it’s not my natural hair), I’m not going to wear that style in public or on social media, but I am going to praise it, and criticize those racist comments degrading or demeaning it, I will champion it and demand schools do away with discriminating hair policies, and ask my library to spend money on children’s books about black hair, and do the work of finding black people voicing their opinions, or having a vulnerable and authentic conversation with a friend, then listen and make a judgement from there. If the consensus is that the style is harmful and you continue to wear it, then yeah I’d say that’s a pretty bad message that says: I just don’t care, I want to do this so I will. 

This follows a moral judgement for me: if you love someone and they tell you a thing you do is actively harming them and show you evidence of the harm (as in: it’s not just annoying, but actually harmful to them), but you continue to participate in the thing, that’s not love. I can’t fully picture the specific style, and I don’t know your intent or if/how you gain from the style, so I’m having a hard time forming a full opinion. Is this a style that has been addressed by black communities as harmful? Is it a few different styles put together? Are you in a diverse place, are you criticized for the look, is it even a look to you? 

Personally, I’d say it rides too close to the line for my own comfort and I wouldn’t be wearing a multi-braid style in public (as in more than two, I rock the french-braid pigtails while hiking because its easier to find ticks), but again, I’m not someone who would be being harmed by it. I often try to resist judgement of strangers’ hair unless I know them and their background or platform, because I don’t know their culture, ancestry, or heritage, so I don’t hold others in society to the same standard as myself.

I’d love to hear other peoples’, particularly POC, opinions and experiences with hair and appropriation. 

If there are a few un-uniform braids, is it different than many uniform loose braids, what about compared to cornrows, where is your personal line? Is it different from your social line? How would you judge or hold people accountable in society?

P.s. Thanks for asking and trying to learn more about the potential social impact you are having. I think that’s a great step toward a more equal world that can appreciate culture without taking advantage of others. It sounds like you’re trying to do your research to learn more about whether your action is having a negative consequence, and I appreciate you taking the time to be vulnerable and research and question yourself. I think that also has to be rewarded.

[f-nodragonart]

Alphas and Hive Minds

HTTYD and now Godzilla:KOM have done me too dirty on this topic, I HAVE to rectify this

so let’s break this down

“alphas” are a very human-centric concept (and more arguably, a specifically capitalistic concept), and aren’t typically present in nature in the ways we expect them to be, if at ALL

“dominance” is at best a fluid concept that can sometimes help map out relationships b/t individuals under certain contexts, but it’s NOT an inherent trait. here’s a quote from an excellent article on the subject, PLEASE go read the whole thing:

You can’t really say ‘an animal is dominant’ in the same way that you can’t say ‘an animal is chasing.’ Who is that animal chasing, and who is that animal dominant in relation to?

While there are many hazy definitions of the word dominance in the current scientific literature, the most accepted one that I have seen is that dominance is a factor of a relationship between two individuals regarding control of resources. In this relationship, the submissive individual will allow the dominant individual to have the resource. Theoretically.

What dominance is NOT is a character trait. No animal is born “the alpha.” Studies of wolves in captivity and in the wild have shown that the fact that an individual is the highest-ranking member of one pack has little to no bearing on the animal’s rank if it moves to a new pack. Similarly, studies of parent-raised canids have found that no stable hierarchy forms in litters of pups. And finally, dominance relationships are often based off of the result of a single fight; if two individuals are evenly matched it can be a more or less random conclusion.

as this article goes on to explain, wild wolves typically live in “nuclear families”, so what we perceive as the “alpha couple” is actually just the parental unit to the kids who have yet to leave the nest and start their own families. anything approaching “Alpha/Beta/Omega” among wolves has mostly been observed in captive situations, where a bunch of random wolves are thrown together and forced to navigate their environment together-- it’s uncomfortable for everyone involved

now this isn’t to say that wild animals are NEVER hierarchical-- ranking is useful when dealing with large groups of individuals. however, these hierarchies are generally more complicated than a simple “perfect ladder” concept (again, from the same article):

Figure redrawn from Bradshaw, Blackwell, and Casey, 2009. Dashed lines between pairs indicate no clear dominant individual despite multiple interactions. No line between a pair indicates that the pair rarely interacted.

(while not necessarily an example of wild animal hierarchy since this is mapping out relationships within a group of shelter dogs, it’s a good example of the complexities of larger group relationships)

and one last important quote from that article, relating to submission (seriously, read the whole thing):

So much of the literature focuses on agonistic behavior, yet agonistic behavior is far, far rarer in wild canids than submissive behavior is. In nuclear wolf families, aggression is almost nonexistent.

The word ‘submissive’ has a negative connotation. It suggests a loss of power, a humbling, a subjugation. It might be better to remove it as a label for certain types of canid behavior, in that case. Canids don’t demand submissive behavior from one another, they offer it. Muzzle-biting in wolves, which seems fierce, is usually solicited from the animal being bitten- several times in a row. Far from the popularized “alpha roll,” canids rarely force each other to roll over- they use rolling over as an invitation to play or a plea for affection. This type of affiliative, cohesive behavior makes up the vast majority of all social behavior in canid groups.

A wag of the tail and an open, panting mouth is called submissive by the literature, but in that case, so is a human smile.

while this article focuses on canids, there are plenty of examples of wild groups of animals w/ some sort of ranking/hierarchy (including non-predatory animals!), just be mindful of the sources u look into. even scientific sources could have a bias based on the researcher’s personal social background

even if we ARE treating dominance as an actual trait, or creating a ‘perfect ladder’ hierarchy, there’s a BIG difference between asserting dominance via size/strength/pheromones/etc. vs. straight-up mind-controlling a group to do ur bidding. however, mind-control is unfortunately how most “alpha” media seems to frame dominance, which is simply not even POSSIBLE in nature, as far as we know

this is where we see botched attempts at “hivemind”, which isn’t even present in the hives we associate it with. here’s a post that breaks down social insects RLY well (which I recommend reading in full), but for the sake of this post, I’ll just quote some important sections:

If you think of a social insect colony as a superorganism, which it’s useful to do in many cases, different groups of insects within the colony act like organs. One caste protects the colony from invaders, which is like an immune system. One caste scouts for new places to forage, which is like a sensory system. Generally, science fiction has a good grip on this idea. Where sci-fi authors fail is that they think the queen is the brain of this superorganism. She is not. She is the reproductive system. The queen does not control what happens in the hive any more than your reproductive system controls what happens in your body. (Which is to say, she has some influence, but she is not the brains of the operation.)

~~~

Now, I’ve already told you that the queen is not the brain of the hive. So where is the brain? Well, that is exactly the point of swarm intelligence. The brain does not reside in one particular animal. It’s an emergent property of many animals working together. A colony is not like your body, where your brain sends an impulse to your mouth telling it to move, and it moves. It’s more like when two big groups of people are walking toward each other, and they spontaneously organize themselves into lanes so no one has a collision (x). There’s no leader telling them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Much of the efficiency of social insect colonies comes from very simple behavioral rules (x). Hymenopterans, the group of insects that includes ants, bees, and wasps, have a behavioral rule: work on a task until it is completed, and when it is done, switch to a different task.

~~~

The existential terror of the hive mind in science fiction comes from the loss of the self. The idea is that in a social insect colony, there is no individual, but one whole, united to one purpose. No dissent, disagreement, or conflicting interests occur, just total lockstep. I totally get why that’s scary.

The thing is, it’s just not true of real social insects. There is conflict within colonies all the time, up to and including civil war.

~~~

Here’s what I find weird about depictions of social insects in science fiction. They are portrayed as utterly alien, Other, and horrifying. Yet humans and social insects are very, very similar. The famous sociobiologists E.O. Wilson and Bernard Crespi have both described humans as chimpanzees that took on the lifestyle of ants.

and even worse than a false attempt at hivemind among just one species, “hivemind alphas” in popular media are often shown to control an array of completely separate species! as if all these diverse, uniquely-evolved creatures answer to the same, single power!

"but what if I want to KEEP alphas/hivemind? is there a way to do it ‘right?’”

well, there might just be! here are a few ways I’ve thought of

1) integrate “dominance as a trait” into reasonable caste systems and/or hierarchies

sure, something like “dominance” could theoretically be an inherent trait under certain circumstances, but what would that MEAN for the species this occurs in? this sort of system would evolve for a REASON, so what purpose do castes with different levels of “dominance” serve to the overall community?

does dominance correlate to a certain set of tasks (IE-- alphas fight and protect, omegas gather/grow/prepare food)? or is this simply a way to better keep the peace among a huge group of individuals that would otherwise in-fight too much if there weren’t any genetically-predetermined parameters in place (and if this is the case, what kind of tumultuous relationships must this species have that they wouldn’t be able to solve these issues thru social interaction)? or maybe this is a purely reproductive strategy, and there are either several different sexes based around dominance, or different castes within sexes that perform different sexual/social roles depending on population and breeding season (and if so, how does dominance factor into these reproductive strategies)?

for as much flack as the genre gets, there are a lot of ABO/omegaverse fics that actually do rly cool worldbuilding w/ the concept of “dominance as a trait” and/or genetically-predetermined castes, so I know it can work lmao

2) lean HEAVY into exploring autonomy/individuality and mind control

if u want an alpha that can override the autonomy of others, then don’t shy away from the full implications of that

what does it mean for this society if one single creature can override individual autonomy? what does this level of control mean for individuality-- if that’s even a concept that exists for these creatures? do individuals feel any particular way about their lack of true autonomy-- are they relieved to not be under the pressure of having to making decisions themselves? maybe they even feel that individuality is a psychological death-sentence-- after all, what is anxiety if not the existential dread of individuality?

are alphas born into this position of mental control, or do mentally strong individuals battle for it? if this is the case, are alphas the only ones that could be considered truly autonomous individuals? or perhaps alphas are more of the mouthpiece for the collective consciousness of their community, so their opinions and feelings shift to reflect the average consensus of their community?

if a single creature can control individuals across a wide area (such as across an entire planet), how do they do it? do they have far-spreading pheromones, a loud call, or do they use second-tier individuals to exert their control? or are all individual members of the community connected into a complex neural network? is this network so intimate as to connect all individuals in a mental web that can be tapped into at any moment, despite distance? what can transfer across this network-- complex thoughts/language, visuals, or just emotional suggestions?

also, please think deeply about how far-reaching an alpha’s control is in your world. sure, perhaps a complex neural network evolved early on enough that all of a planet’s species fall under the control of this neural umbrella, but that’s prettyyyy unlikely. a much smaller taxa level makes more sense, like just a species. this species may still be the dominant species of a given planet, but their alphas aren’t controlling EVERYTHING on that planet-- it would be FAR too much effort to control every little ecological system. or at the very least, the control exerted beyond an alpha’s own species would be very weak compared to the full control they exert over their own-- perhaps they can only implant suggestions or telepathically communicate w/ other species?

though just because the alpha’s community consists of a single species doesn’t mean there can’t be diversity-- social insects like ants and bees are a great example of specialized tasks leading to diverse morphology among a species’ castes

3) the society is actually a TRUE superorganism of systems with a leading “brain”

are there even any separate individuals in this world, or is the “alpha” in fact the ‘brain’, and all other ‘individuals’ are their various limbs and organs? real-life hives/colonies without a “brain” allow for highly-efficient, decentralized coordination among as many as thousands of individuals, so what is the advantage of a ‘single’-organism society setup with a single “brain”?

this is a great route to go if u rly RLY want a multi-species hivemind, b/c u could make the base organism a parasite-- cordyceps fungi, anyone? parasites still tend to be species/clade-specific, but at least this physical conduit makes more sense for a multi-species hivemind

-Mod Spiral

[desertdragon]

8. Is your character suspicious of new people?

@captainkurosolaire ty for the ask feel free to send more and that goes for all my followers too- I know this blog is first and foremost Me Time but asks are always open cuz I don't mind being poked

TWs in regards to discussions of rape, abuse, and mental health not in explicit detail but still brought up in some sections for context

-----

Oof I say it depends on the context of their meeting AND any emotions that built up before they meet too, there's so much to consider that I can't give a blanket statement so I'll try being as flexible as I can

In terms of context if she's meeting someone for help/a service ala when she and Weyd first met then she's very respectful in order to make a good impression, because that was the custom back home alongside deference to elders- if you need the help of an outside person then they're wiser in matters you aren't and therefore you're at their mercy so what else could that demand but being humble (because you're acknowledging that all the answers can't come from yourself)? Even if she's eased on a once unbending stance regarding automatic unquestioning trust in elders, she still holds the lesson that it's stupid to think you know everything and that you don't need to listen to anyone no matter their experience and that others aren't dumb for not experiencing things exactly the way you did- that's just arrogance to believe otherwise

Another contextual example would be Scions/people who recognize her to her face, VS people who don't know her at all

With the Scions she is never going to be happy or expressive beyond two emotions, dread and anger. Back when she was new to their organization she was very anxious because she was confronted with breaking the U Tribe sensibility to evaluate others not family before ever trusting them- its a cardinal sin among the U especially to entrust important matters or your life to someone you don't know or vouch for personally (U'odh Nunh repeatedly stresses this when you talk to him for quests)

So imagine with this in mind that you've just had a very rape-like experience happen to you and never in your life have you even considered this and what to do about it as being something to prepare for; you're desperate for anything that can make sense of it or to just give you comfort and understanding and a safe place to cry, while at the same time feeling torn from seeking help beyond people you willingly gave up because you didn't feel secure enough there already- and then when you do hit Fuck It and break a part of your heritage, apologizing inside for feeling you've just betrayed your family again, you end up with a group that sees you as exploitable, a group dangling the proverbial carrots of answers and aid so they'll entice you to submit to any number of tortures and whims as you seek being heard and cared for, realizing that acceptance will never come because the status of your spiritual rapist prevents them being held to question- that is evil

I don't want to turn the ask into full Scion Backstory Time so I'll break off it with this: meeting them for the first time tainted a lot of how she perceived being praised or honored in any way- like you have to understand its not enough that she ended up doing evil things over time and rationalizing it, what opened her to that is the way they abused her, because that abuse affirmed the suspicion she already had that she is worthless therefore she deserves to stay and suffer more at the hands of her abusers, and if she's a piece of shit who has to stay with them then why shouldn't she do bad things too? Its a vicious self sustained cycle I've suffered and seen in the real world, and as of recently she's only beginning to snap out of it as I had to

*I wanna add that this shared trauma helps her bond with C'taya as their rapes provide deeper context for how they understand one another alongside their casual interactions or other things they trust one another with, I have a drabble on my list to do where they just talk and open up and cry in each other's arms because the last thing C'taya ever wants is for anyone to have known anything like the pain she has to live with and as Ursula K Le Guin proposed in The Dispossessed following Buddhism, the truest brotherhood is not merely love but born from understanding shared pain

Which leads into her meeting those who recognize who she is, wherein in earlier days she was highly suspicious of that person's intentions because of what she got from the Scions mixing praise followed by harsh punishment. Her suspicion then triggered her anxiety which led to paranoia, which led to wanting to flee at the first signs of anyone cooing and aweing at her because she reflexively anticipates pain next. Over time she lowered her flighty instinct and rather braces herself mentally for when she's inevitably asked about the deeds that made her famous, and she wants to scream out that none of it is heroic or worthy of imitation and can anyone shut up for five seconds and listen to her side of the story and so on

If its a kid doing this however she does feel that same helplessness but she understands a child fundamentally doesn't know better and is still learning how to question the world and others actions, so she does the mature thing and reins in her turmoil to answer them on their level as best she can with empathy at the fore

For those who don't recognize her it's much the same anticipation and hypervigilance waiting for the chance when they do realize who she is. However a person truly ignorant who will then treat her the way they treat others is a huge relief allowing her to drop more of the dread for her considerate and sociable side- although I can't say the dread 100% goes away unless they become friends or really keep the charade up for a long time. If someone knows but doesn't care about who she is and treats her with honesty and authenticity anyway, she's head over heels, she feels seen.

Finally there's the emotional context for meeting a new person that has to be considered. I think what I've already explained sort of fills this in if you think about it- but for the sake of clarity here's a rule of thumb. The kind of response you get depends on how she's feeling and what she's going through at that moment and it also depends on what era of her life she's meeting them in.

Is she the nervous but trying to be friendly tribal who left home and wants to fit in? Is she the traumatized, battered soldier who's giving up on life and slipping to apathy as protection and defined by her sins? Is she the recovering abused, determined warrior ready to carry her actions and become better? Is she the retired parent humbled and becoming one with herself and the world? What about when she's been all of those people and can still become someone else while still being them?

Whatever part of her life someone finds her in I wanna say bottomline she just wants love. It's not in her deepest nature to conform to shutting out others. That's part of the reason she left home in the first place because her soul lay counter to people who told her who she has to be to have value. It's why she left and betrayed the Scions when they did the same at the core. It's why she has her friends and why she cares for her neighbor or a stranger and why she thinks deeply of the world.

She wants to live and all the good that entails; I think the way I understand her now she's not another frankly static, edgy bruised and rough asshole in denial who thinks any vulnerability is weakness, who'd rather die than so much as reflect and be accountable never mind change. That's not the person I am even when I thought I was. So that's not the kind of character I want to love. I want to overcome my lowest points rather than put it on a pedestal.

[olivettheory]

The Conundrum of Doing vs. Being

I’m constantly tempted by the lure of performing at robotic levels. Should I podcast? Should I write six blog posts a day? Seven if I skip a meal or two? How many blog posts can I publish if I miss out on sleep? Can I possibly finish writing the first draft for my first book in ninety days? Maybe I should give up writing altogether and become an underground chill-pop rapper. A poet? Perhaps, I’m better off creating a social media account by which I thrive and flourish from displaying a lifestyle that is inconsistent with my lived reality.

At the same time, perhaps I should produce seven categories by which to denounce the latest theological heresy, and in the same process, seven more by which to denounce my own sins in the lives of others. I’m good at that. Too good actually.

How should I interact with others on matters of disagreement? Is there a correct approach or is hostility the best avenue I can travel on to tell someone that mayonnaise is the devils’ spittle in a bottle?

I’m pressured to better my writing so that it is lauded by the intelligentsia but I also want it to be read and understood by children. Mind you, I’m no grad or undergrad so I’m pushing a rock up a hill that will never reach the top, my grip giving every now and then, and then I’m chasing this boulder back down the hill.

I’m a greek mythology story in a western modern scope where pragmatism and meritocracy are the ruling tenets of my time. Does it work? Overdo it. Can I derive capital from this? Then do it as much as possible. No matter the cost to my mental, emotional, familial, or financial stability. Just capitalize on it.

Always over-performing leads to underperformance which leads to thinking that one needs to perform even more.

Until all that is left is flesh and bones; and fat, plenty of it as of late.

So I want to write when I read great material from wonderful authors. I want to sing when I hear singers sing well. I want to edit because I am all too aware of someone else’s written errors but all too ignorant about my own. I want to act but I’m ugly and if I weren’t I could not act to save my life. Should I take up comedy? I’m funny but in passing. Like the jokes passed between a doorman and a tenant. It’s something enjoyable only for a moment because should the interaction last any longer it becomes a dreadful experience, a chore.

Am I funny? To whom? Myself, of course. I laugh at my own jokes plenty and I think that’s enough.

But what next? The pressure to perform and produce can be overwhelming when I admire and applaud the success of others.

If I venture to throw a ball well enough as an athlete does in one sphere or wave a baton timely so as a conductor does in another, someone may see and perceive, falsely so, that I’m an athlete or a conductor.

And if the rhetoric is repeated often enough, if I throw the ball far enough, accurately enough, lead an ensemble well enough, an amateur group of musicians long enough, I too, will begin to believe the notion that I am these things.

Maybe I am an athlete, albeit one undiscovered.

Perhaps I’ll take up composing from now on. I’ll start with the violin and work my way to the clarinet.

Therefore, through repetition of a false success story under false pretense, I lead myself and others to believe that I am that which I am not.

Therefore, not only am I not qualified for said positions but my knowledge and experience within said areas of work and performance are nascent and lacking.

Should I pastor? Maybe I’ll take up the mantel of a shepherd. A priest, perhaps. I’ll become a theologian! All I need is a heart for people. A degree. A parish. Right?

I mean, I’ve opened the bible in the past. Managed to regurgitate intelligible and digestible information by which the clergy and laity could put into practice. I’ve conducted the introduction, body, illustration, and lastly the conclusion of plenty of sermons. So, by definition I’m a preacher, no? I’ve counseled youth members in the past therefore I must be a youth counselor, no? I’ve assisted in the collections of offerings and tithes and later the appropriate allocation of said funds therefore I must be treasurer, no? I’ve prayed for the sick and the sick have gotten better, so I’m a healer, no? I’ve sat people in services and directed services from start to finish, therefore, I’m a deacon, am I not?

I’ve done most things, somewhat well, well enough to make others believe that I have done the same things for some time. Perhaps because that which was done was done so differently or by a different personality so unique that the work accomplished was considered good but perhaps it was just a distraction from the status quo. We normally think distractions are good when we’re bored.

Have I been working and growing, garnishing respect on the basis of being a distraction from the status quo?

Is that why there is such immense pressure to perform?

The pressure is consistent, at times it grows, as the demand is there to throw the ball further. To land it on more difficult targets accurately so. To go from conducting Debussy to Beethoven and later Faure. I’m in a place where I have to or at least I’m made to believe that I have to perform to feel accomplished but under this line of thinking, I never will.

Because in this pragmatic nightmare my ideal of what works is only temporary so my pleasure is fleeting and temporal.

In a meritocratic worldview, I am but the sum of my production. So how much is enough? How much can I accomplish to say, feel accomplished?

And who determines my work ethic or the value of that which I produce? Me?

Is that which I do, is it done for me? For you?

Why am I so anxious about doing things instead of finding comfort in being me.

Introspection advises me that there is greater comfort in being than there is in retrospective doing.

Not that doing things is bad but if life becomes a thing by which we determine value and worth by what one accomplishes instead of what one is then there is no hope.

In that, I wage war against my own mindset that is rigged to function within a different world.

What, then, should I do? I ask myself when the question should render: Who should I be?

So the conversation on this crisis is between what’s and who’s more so than where’s and when’s.

The how is undetermined because our ways of thinking originated long before I was born, possibly, with the inception of our individualistic society.

I derive pleasure and comfort from stopping, clearing, distancing, and breathing.

If I stop to admire the clouds and the creatures that live and move and have their being under them, I am content.

But if I stop there, under the sky, and reach for my phone I rob myself of an experience I then lose the authenticity of that moment thus robbing myself and the scene of contentment.

I could look at clouds and make myself bothered by the need to make the same seen by others.

Or I can gaze at creation and allow creation to gaze back at me.

Knowing that this current state is finite I must, in this temporal form, understand that I must stop to admire things and people and just be.

This gentle stance is ancient but has long been forgotten because our desire to constantly share and immerse others in our perception of reality is disastrous.

Does it work? We ask.

Can I benefit from it? We inquire.

It is such a trap. Such an existential trap from which we seldom escape.

But these are thoughts of the wealthy and financially stable.

Because I am neither I must retort to the old ways. I’ll rescind from these greater thoughts by continually seeking the practice of perpetual production and the lucrative nature and success of that which I produce.

One day I won’t have to. None of us will. But until then, back to the machine I go.

This post is a product of this same machine.

Your reading of this post is a sign that you, too, are within this machine.

We’re reading the next article, next post, next blog, or person to see which of them work best for us.

And from there we share, comment, critique, and elaborate further upon it to profit, either financially or socially from the same.

My writing and your reading, it is all part of it.

We are cogs in a machine subconsciously begging for a systems failure warning.

Maybe a flat tire so we have enough time to realize that we’re part of it in the first place.

Either way, my next step is probably a step back.

A step toward being.

As I have been created to be. For we are human beings, not human doings.

Too often, I have gone against the grain, the fiber of who I am. Who we all are.

Maybe I’ll become a chef.

Written with an anxious heart,

Olivet Theory

[nerdrvt]

Eliminating the “Us vs. Them” Rhetoric in Lab Animal Science

This is a topic I have been debating on writing about for some time. I feel like this has been a little thing in the back of my mind, eating away at me for almost my entire career in lab animal science. It is very hard to talk about, given that this field is the target of so much misleading, incorrect information already. We have a real problem, and what suffers because of it is the animals. So frequently I have heard complaints from my colleagues in science about how their respective animal care or veterinary departments have caused them issues with their work. I used to just brush it off, as it has been long-ingrained in me by my colleagues in the lab animal care end of things that these science folks are “the enemy” or “the dark side” (both of these terms have been said to me by lab animal folks, verbatim), and that they don’t have the best interest of the animals in mind.

I have worked on both “sides”, in facilities where the researchers and the animal care folks got along and collaborated amazingly well. I have worked in some where this was absolutely not the case. Animal research cannot continue to foster an “us vs. them” culture. We cannot continue to be at odds with the researchers we support. I have thought about this for some time, and I feel there are some key things that we need to improve upon, or consider at length, in our daily work. I know, I can hear the scoffing on both sides already. In a perfect world, everything would be rainbows and unicorns. p-values would always be significant, etc. I admit that some of the things I suggest may sound silly, but I just want people to think about how their actions can have a real impact on science.

Collaborate

Animal care staff and researchers should work together as a team. When there are unknowns about some animal work, don’t just say “no”. Offer to use your health and welfare expertise to try your best to help support the researchers and maybe you’ll learn something new, develop a new method, or make a scientific breakthrough. It won’t always work, but keeping a dialogue open and not shutting down every single new thing that comes across your desk/change station/procedure room will only serve to strengthen your relationship with the folks just trying to do science.

More support staff, less office staff

What’s one of the best ways to get your researchers to lose trust and faith in your operation? Start filling your head office with desk jockeys, and gut the staffing on the floor. The people working on the floor are your service’s daily face that the researchers interact with almost constantly. The office folks are often perceived as unnecessary, impersonal bureaucracy and barriers to the work the researchers are trying to do. Empower the animal care staff working in the facilities to perform some of the tasks normally assigned to office staff, and watch as the researchers feel like the tasks are much more approachable and accessible. That being said, an understaffed, overworked floor staff won’t be willing or able to take on these tasks, so make sure your staffing levels are appropriate for the work load.

Question the 3 Rs, and regulatory burden

The 3 Rs are touted as an excellent message for the public about all of the good we try to do in improving animal research work being done. However, are they really compatible with doing good science, all the time? Are they really always the best option when it comes to ensuring the welfare of animals in research? The same goes for the ever-growing regulatory burden that folks in science must face. Listen to concerns that your research colleagues may have about the concepts within the 3Rs. Think big picture. Think about what makes for good science. Don’t just blindly follow because the 3Rs are the “right thing to do”. Nothing is ever that simple. Look for the nuance.

Update your practices

Encourage and support staff that want to better themselves in the field. Keep up to date with the latest literature on lab animal science. All too often I see people on both sides very stuck in their ways. Always strive to do things in a better way.

Attend lab meetings

What better way to improve cooperation than to have more in-depth knowledge of the protocols being run in your facility? Ask to have staff involved with specific protocol animals sit in on some lab meetings. Staff may be able to provide valuable insight into animal work. This may also be a more informal means for animal users to suggest changes, or inform staff about what is working well. Show interest in the research being done. Be there to celebrate the successes, and provide support for situations where things did not go as hoped.

Be consistent

Don’t play favourites, or let some things slide for some labs, but not others. Think about why this may happen. Is there work you can do, to get every lab on board at a certain level? Try to implement your facility policies the same way for all users. If not possible, be frank and honest about why this is a challenge for your department.

Compromise

Sometimes, in the bigger picture, what we impose on the research being done in our facilities can actually be detrimental to animal welfare. It may mean that more animals get used in the long run, or the results don’t work out due to our interference with the study. Plan for this. Speak openly with the researchers. Be prepared to make compromises that benefit the bigger picture.

Trust

If you are working in an environment where you cannot trust your researchers to adhere to agreed-upon, or regulated procedures, something is wrong. Placing trust in your researchers will help to foster stronger working relationships. This may take some time, and may require incremental changes to get the animal care and research teams on the same page.

Small steps

This is something I have been guilty of. Come into a facility as a new employee, have grand ideas about how I can improve things, start attempting to implement wholesale change. This is one of the fastest ways to sour your relationship with any animal users. Smaller changes, and proving them out as successful to the animal users can help to keep them open minded to additional, larger changes.

Pick your battles

Not every little thing done “wrong” by every animal user is truly worth your time. Are there serial offenders? Sure. However, constantly picking at people who are doing things you don’t like may not help to resolve the issue, especially if a larger issue is at hand. Maybe a sit down chat in an office, away from other people may help?

Lay off the snark

Guilty as charged. I am so snarky. About everything. In some ways I think it can be a coping mechanism. Animal care folks become stressed and can suffer compassion fatigue. It is extremely, extremely important that this does not “leak” from your offices into the wider world of animal research. I have been present for so many meetings and conferences which just become major complaining sessions, feeding this growing snark-fest, and not doing anything to actually prevent the reason for the snark in the first place.  Try to be kinder, and more patient. It will make your work life better overall.

Alright, researchers, if you thought I was going to let you off the hook on this- wrong! Here are some things that you can do, to improve relationships with the animal care team at your institution. This is for you, researchers:

Respect animal care staff

Many of us animal care folks work really hard, and are quite possibly overworked. Also, we really like animals, and some days in a research facility can be hard on us. Compassion fatigue is a real thing. Please be kind and treat all of the animal care staff with respect, and not like your personal maid, or a piece of trash. I promise you that a little kindness and a sympathetic ear can go a long way to fostering a really positive relationship. I’d be lying if I said that I haven’t felt that the way some researchers have treated me has made me dread going into work, or have made me feel like a worthless human being. Oh, and don’t even get me started on how you’ll make our day if you bring us snacks! Just not into the animal facility, please. But that’s a story for another time.

Be reliable

You’ll lose a lot of respect from the animal care staff if you can’t be relied upon, for even the simplest of things. Make a booking? Keep it, or give ample notice if you can’t. Show up on time. Don’t suddenly demand things with very little notice, as the staff are probably already very busy. If the staff ask you to do something, please follow through. If you demonstrate that you can be relied upon, you’ll have a much easier time working with your animal care staff.

Listen

Some of us have been doing this for a really long time. We can spot an unwell animal from across a room. We can place a catheter or a cannula with our eyes closed. We may know the natural history and physiology of your model organism better than you do. So please, lend us your ears. We may have some valuable pearls of wisdom to share.

Get off your high horse

We get it, we really do. You are smart. You have, or are pursuing, an advanced degree. Well, my friend, many of us have advanced training as well, just in a different field than you. Many of us have Bachelor’s degrees, and we have attended specialized college programs, or attended vet school to become experts in the field of lab animal health and welfare. We have continuing education to maintain, and standards to uphold for our national and provincial organizations. So please, don’t talk down to us, or patronize us. We may not be experts in your field, but I can almost guarantee you that you know little about ours. So let’s work together and share knowledge, yeah?

Ask questions

Again, we know. You are very smart. However, working with animals can be unusual and unconventional at times. Ask questions if you aren’t sure. Don’t just do a thing when you are unsure. You can put others, and the animals, at risk. There are no stupid questions, and trust me when I say we’ve heard it all before.

There are so many reasons why working with animals in research can be challenging for all involved. However, let us all remember why we are truly here: we love science. We want to be a part of scientific discovery in one way or another. We should want to shout to the rooftops about how cool science is, and the privilege we all have, in being a part of it. Let’s commit to working together, in collaboration, and not at odds, in order to do what is best for animals, and for science. There has to be a balance.

[kitten1618x]

I loved your analysis of Jonsa's Battlements convo! It definitely helped reassure me after watching the first episode. My question is, how do you distinguish between shots/actions being intentionally done for romance rather than having friendship or familial undertones? People interpret things differently and someone who sees it being romantic is just as right as someone seeing it platonically. There's been times where I viewed things platonically until a meta changes my mind and vice versa.

Hi Nonny! Sorry I’m slow on the reply, it’s been a busy day, and I wanted to sit down and be able to give you a good reply vs. a quick one. 😉

For starters, thank you so much! I’m really glad that my Battlements meta was able to ease your mind a bit (as well as so many others). Honestly, I kinda think I suck at writing meta (I’m more of a fanfic writer), and was actually surprised it was such a hit among the fandom -but hey, whatever helps the Jonsa fam! ❤️

WARNING: This is going to get long and also contain *possible* spoilers!(I’d put a cut, but I’m on mobile -sorry guys).

Okay, so let’s get down to the nitty gritty …. you’re completely right -there are a lot of facets of the show that they purposely leave ambiguous to be left for the viewer to interpret on their own. Perception is in the eye of the beholder, and as I mentioned before in a previous ask, it’s not uncommon for shippers to twist the narrative to support their ship (we all do it). There is of course, very obvious ways to show a romance is in the works -like kissing, sex, etc., and then there’s the more subtle way (my favorite) -which can also be referred to as the “slow burn”.

Let’s address the elephant in the room -Jon and Sansa believe themselves to be siblings. We the audience know differently, but they do not. I think sometimes when we get all wrapped up in our ship, we forget that. They aren’t going to fall into each others arms because despite what they may be feeling, they know it’s wrong. So they’ll stuff it down, try to keep each other at arms length, maybe act belligerent (in a very OOC way) to disguise/mask their feelings (does that sound familiar?).

When their guard falls away or they just aren’t being very guarded at all, seemingly normal interactions will be laced with undertones of sexual tension -which can manifest themselves in longing looks (Kit has mastered this) or commonly referred to here as “heart eyes”, lingering touches (the forehead kiss is a great example of this), standing much closer to one another than necessary, awkwardness that can possibly be perceived as flirting (the dress compliment/cloak scene) -you get the point. Basically anything to skew our perception enough to say “hey wait a minute …what’s with that look they just gave each other when Sansa grabbed Jon’s hand at the dinner table?” and what’s with the camera focusing in on it -it’s almost like they want to make sure we saw that and know that little detail is probably important to the narrative going forward. 😉

Then there’s the romance tropes aspect -which I probably pick up on a bit easier because I write romance and use quite a few of them. They have been troping (not sure that’s an actual word, but I’m going with it) the shit out of Jon and Sansa since they’ve reunited in s6 -some way more blatant than others. I’d link you to some good trope sites so you can read up on it, but I’m on mobile, so maybe someone else who sees this can add a good link if they have one? Or a simple google search should pull some up for you if it’s something you’d like to read up on.

The slow burn setup works perfect for Jonsa because of the underlying fact that they currently think they’re siblings. Prepare for angst-galore (also my favorite) if you’re sailing this ship, my friend. However, it’s also perfect timing for a slow burn romance as we are approaching the end of the show. “Will they or won’t they” is a pretty popular romance trope, and fans tend to lose interest once the “will they” actually happens -so IMO it makes perfect sense to do this now, as it won’t become a boring romance plot that will drag on for years.

With Dany now in Westeros, and the leaks and speculation pointing to a sexual tryst between her and Jon, this also brings forth the possibility of the dreaded love triangle trope -which could also delve into the “Betty and Veronica” trope -wherein we have the sweet and loving girl next door type (Sansa) vs. the exotic and usually cold and more material girl type (Dany), in which the hero usually chooses to go with the sweet girl that he can make a family with (which is what book Jon always secretly wanted -to be the Lord of Winterfell and have sons he’d name after his brothers). *ironically, book Sansa has always wanted this too*

And while we’re on the subject of the books -I feel like it’s important to mention that GRRM had plotted a Jon/Arya romance endgame in his original outline. Well, actually a triangle- Jon/Arya/Tyrion. Beings that they’ve taken both Arya and Sansa’s show arcs in a slightly different direction than the books, it’s not a far stretch to think they might be giving this arc to the older Stark girl. Which from a personal perspective, makes much more sense -because Jon and Sansa weren’t very close as siblings and Sansa is no longer the spoiled and naive girl who used to turn her nose up at her bastard half brother -whereas Jon and Arya WERE close siblings -so it’s much less of a squick factor for the general audience once Jon’s true parentage is revealed to all involved.

Whew! This is getting long! I could probably go on forever and feel like I’m leaving something out, but I hope this answered your question, Nonny. If not, feel free to drop another ask! 😘

[imeugene]

I think it’s crazy how the culture of a certain time shapes who we are and how perceive the world and interact with it. Like culture itself is a bizarre notion, one of those things where if you stop really think about it gets more bizarre as your dissect it. A group of people who hold similar customs and beliefs, act upon those thoughts and create some sort of social unity to strengthen one another’s bonds. People are naturally social creatures so it’s probably a byproduct of all that. You’d think something like that would be a constant and unchanging but it’s proving to be not. Even though what we need now is no different than what the first homo sapiens and what everyone in the world needs, how we develop to face those changes in our world seems like how a lot culture develops.

This piece from 20 years ago has the same type of disenfranchised youth that populate a lot of BMX today but how they perceive with their world is different as night and day. Back then the youth of BMX was populated by kids who listened to a lot of punk music. The particular flavor would be hardcore and post hardcore. Music dominated by angry kids who were fed up with the problems created by the generations before. Even though we’d like to think times prior to us as easier times, there was a very dark cloud that loomed above kids of that generation. The threat of nuclear annihilation. It was something very real. That no matter what we as civilization accomplished seemed so meaningless when all of it could be destroyed within a day. The youth rejected the idea of being part of what they perceived as a hypocritical sick system where taking the world hostage was an acceptable foreign policy. The idea that since the that they were part of a country that created a situation that seems like a plan out of a evil mastermind’s handbook. This planted the seeds of doubt in the system. Soon everything else they learned was up for reevaluation. They wanted determined for themselves their own values instead of the common thoughts of the time. It created a nihilistic attitude that dominated a lot of the youth culture of the time. I think a lot of people believe nihilism is having a dismal outlook on life cause it is meaningless but in the original concept it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be viewed as just that. It was an opportunity to create new meaning in the world where the old ones seem to have failed.

Joe Rich and a lot of riders, musicians, and cultural taste makers understood this. Here he talks a lot about riding for himself and not some big company when the American Dream would be make yourself as useful as you can be to the system and acquire money as reward. I think something like this would be easier to relate to back then. Financial inequality was less, people were forced to view the world as simpler as most people were only aware of what was happening directly around them. Remember the internet was in it’s early stages wasn’t quite the dominating aspect of a civilization at the time. People weren’t bombarded with images and videos of pockets of people who have that much more. It was ok to just have enough. The idea of more social and financial capita wasn’t mainstream belief. To rebel against having more was just rebelling against the corporations and government and to larger extent the values of the generations before who they held responsible. Even something like Joe Rich’s opinion on contests are an extension of that. Reinterpreting what it means to win and lose in the post modern world vs what traditionally were. The times were a breeding ground for this kind of newer thought to spread. There was less expectation to have so much new things and those things you did get costed less and went further. Jobs paid more proportionally. Robert who is general manager somewhere down the street who is the richest guy in the town where everything you know exists, is only richer cause he has a bigger truck. That kind of difference most people can shrug off and the kids of the time certainly did. It was ripe for new ideas cause the standard of living were met fairly easily.

Today’s world is much different though. The standard we place on ourselves are much higher. Sure the thought of nuclear annihilation really doesn’t exist but we’ve replaced it with the feelings of not being enough. We’re bombarded with images of people with more constantly. Our social circles have grown exponentially to a near impossibilty. We can peer into glimpses of other  people’s lives realize now that Robert who you thought was the richest in the town actually has a cousin who lives in the other side of town has a sport car and lives the life or at least seems to. Not only him but he has a whole group of 200 friends who do the same. someone of someone is always few button clicks away from living the life we wished. We mask those insecurity and any type of deficiency we feel about ourselves cause who we our online persona’s are put out 24/7. We’re judged even before we open our mouthes. We don’t really know how to handle to hyper social world of today. We’re the first generation to really undertake it. We unnecessarily placed a lot in the importance on the internet, something that was mocked in the early days but now it accepted to be serious cause it became serious. We all created our own persona as easy as we did our homepage. Probably why people seem to value real these days and equate it with the old. Where being honest can’t be twisted into some type of social weapon against one another in today’s loud culture of blaming. Today’s society is increasingly becoming the avatar we created for ourselves. All this would be laughable in Joe Rich’s time but quite obviously is accepted today. Joe Rich and them still lingered the values of the world created before them but as time goes by and this post modern world stays those values eroded. It’s ok to sell out. It’s ok to promote yourself. It’s ok to do anything really to get ahead. Life is meaningless and ultimately everything is about the now and me. The T1 motto of “GOD BLE$$ THIS ME$$” is becoming increasingly prophetic. 

I don’t believe in revolution as a outcome to anything really. Not even in just a raise the pitchforks type of way but any type of drastic change. I don’t think people at large are capable of accepting change in such a quick basis. Sure how we dress our pants or the type of bike we ride can change very quickly but who we are how we think is much more different. I think this is the cause of a lot of problems today. That change is expected to occur immediately and anything short of that is a human rights abuse. In most instances of drastic change in history the host civilization has always had a hard time adjusting. Either the change is forgotten or mended or the people have a bit social unrest for a while which is truly more problematic. Change is natural and the most normal thing. People sometimes equate never changing to being real and I think those people are idiots. Adaptation is change and to survive in the world that is also changing we have to change too. If you never change, you never really grew. Which is understandable cause those people who equate never changing to being real are all a bunch of whiny babies. The internet changed everything and for the first time it’s instant, I think it’ll be interesting in long term how we adapt to it. Just cause we adapt doesn’t mean it’ll  makes us stronger or smarter I should also mention, just means there is a large presence and we came to terms with it somehow. If that means everyone turns slowly autistic than that is what it is. Which is also a theory that floats around.

But yea Joe Rich’s time was something else and watching this was a glimpse into it. 1999 seems like yesterday for me but seeing this put it into scope of how different then was. The vignette on the fisheye and the simple clothes of a guy in dreads. The most anything like this can ever hope for is to inspire a few people of the coming generation to understand the wisdom of the time and to use it help create something new for the coming world. The progress what was already learned and make sure it’s not forgotten. 

Props - Issue 34 (1999)

Edited by Chris Rye & Stew Johnson

[nathandgibsca]

Beyond BuzzFeed: How I used quizzes to generate 10,000+ qualified leads

“Mom, can I have $5 to buy a comic book and some chips?”

And by “comic book” I meant unwholesome magazines filled with smutty novel excerpts, make-out tips and, QUIZZES.

Oh my, the quizzes.

They’re the REAL reason I bought magazines (before BuzzFeed took over the quiz universe).

Tell me…

… do you remember taking any of these quizzes from Seventeen Magazine?

Are You Paranoid? (ummm, yes, I’m fourteen – the whole world is out to get me)

Is It Really Over? (Pretty sure it never even began, except in my head)

Do You Play Mind Games? (That’s how I bought this magazine, so heck yeah)

The power of a quiz has not tarnished since the late 1990’s.

Lots of marketers make this big mistake: assuming leads from a quiz are unqualified.

They don’t have to be – if you create your quiz right.

Like the one quiz I ran that brought in 172 additional course sales, resulting in an extra $25k in just two weeks. That’s not counting lifetime customer value, BTW.

It’s basic human nature to want to know ourselves better.

Even if it’s just for fun.

Sherry Turkle, MIT psychologist and cultural analyst, explains the popularity of modern quizzes as a way of dealing with our existential dread and altering how others perceive us. It’s not so much taking the quiz that people enjoy – it’s sharing the results.

Here’s how she put this phenomenon:  

“They’re specifically for performance. Here, part of the point is to share it, to feel ‘who you are’ by how you share who you are. [It’s] the conflation of who you are and who thinks you’re okay.”

  I know what you’re thinking:

How can quizzes help me to grow my bottom line?

‘Cuz we’ve got businesses to run and serious goals. But quizzes will help you achieve your ambitions. Specifically in terms of lead generation.

According to LeadQuizzes, the average quiz has a 33.6% lead capture rate – though in the quizzes I run, I typically see much higher conversions.

Plus, interactive content is far more powerful than a regular ol’ guide. According to a CMI survey in 2016, 81% of respondents agreed that interactive content grabs attention more effectively than static content.

Dang, that means more than 3 out of every 4 people is hooked by a quiz.

If you’re not impressed yet, that’s cool – but consider these additional points:

They’re fun. When scrolling through social media, you’re more likely to click on something with entertainment value. (Helloooo, Facebook time suck.)

The average quiz is shared 1900 times. No more forking over handfuls of cash for Facebook ads – quizzes are your new BFF.

Ideal lead magnet to attract people in the first stage of the buyer’s journey / TOFU.

You may think you’re being approachable with your 25-page free guide. But a total newcomer isn’t going to invest their time or energy in reading that. They’re in the wrong stage of awareness. What they will invest in is a quiz.

Take a look at this chart:

    Quizzes for lead generation… and beyond!

Quizzes are NOT going away. If you think they’re below you or too hard to make, you’d be wise to reconsider. Here’s why.

1. A quiz (aka interactive content) is the future

According to BuzzSumo, the average quiz gets shared 1,900 times. Compared to the average number of shares on an article, you’re entering an entirely new dimension of social media sharing stats. Interactive content is the nectar of the conversion gods.

A CMI Survey from 2016 stated that:

75% of marketing participants said they anticipated that their company or organization would increase their utilization of interactive content marketing.

As you can see from this chart, the future is already here, my friends:

BuzzFeed’s top stories just a few months ago were ALL quizzes:

2. You get more insight into your target audience

I spy with my little quiz a marketer that just hit the jackpot. 

Quizzes rock because you get to exercise your super spy powers to better understand your ideal client’s needs and desires. This sounds creepy – I know – but it helps you offer more value.

Here’s why:

You get to see the quiz’s results. Often, one result out of 4 or 5 outnumbers the others. Talk about some powerful insight to guide your future content and copy that your audience will resonate with.

It’s like asking people to fill out a survey… except it’s actually fun for them.

As Coy Whittier of Qzzr said:

“Relevant data allows you to offer a personalized content experience. Quizzes provide a way for you to get that data in a way that people like.” 

3. Segment your list the easy way

Contrary to popular belief, email marketing isn’t dead. In fact, it’s getting more and more sophisticated. You have the power to craft targeted marketing messages for specific segments of your audience – as long as they’ve told you where they belong. 

For example, you run an online business that teaches entrepreneurs how to start and grow their business. Someone just starting out needs an entirely different approach vs. someone who’s already successful.

But finding out who your audience is and getting them on the right list isn’t always straightforward.

Sure, you can send a survey or use the ASK method right off the bat. Without an incentive, who really wants to fill out a survey? I know, I know – micro-commitments are legit, but what if there was something a smidge easier?

Lucky for you there is.

It’s a quiz.

Quizzes make segmenting your list fun for your audience AND they’re just as effective as a survey. Talk about a win-win.

Here’s how you do it: Create your quiz results based on your different audience segments.

Set up tags for each one. Automatically place quiz takers in the most-appropriate funnel. 

K, I see your cocked eyebrow and objections forming on your lips, like:

Are quizzes effective for E-VERY niche?

Are all quizzes going to be a home run?

And lastly, the humdinger of them all:

What makes a truly killer quiz?

Y’know, a quiz that people can’t help but want to click-through and invest 5 minutes on? That’s what I’m about to show you.

How I attracted 10,000+ new leads with just quizzes

You might be surprised at how much work goes into creating a high-converting quiz. One that makes people fall in love with you like you’re Leo on Seventeen’s July ‘98 cover.

Coming up with a great quiz idea is easy. Things get mucky in creating relevant questions and juicy outcomes. Mucky enough to make most people throw in the towel.

Writing highly compelling quizzes – ones that people want to share – is both an art and a science.

Just like any piece of content, your quiz needs to be engaging. You don’t want to make your audience feel like they’re answering questions on a government survey.

Your questions and results have to connect back to your bottom line. In other words, the data you’re collecting needs to be relevant. And the quiz results you create should loop back to the solution your brand provides. It’s all a little mind-boggling.

Writing a quiz doesn’t have to be a struggle. Just follow the blueprint I’m about to outline for you and you’re well on your way to the Quiz Hall of Fame.

Step 1: You create a quiz topic based on who you want to attract

The title and description for your quiz have to capture your target audience’s pain point and solution. It should be inspired by the question: What keeps them up at night? 

My mom started menopause a few years ago. She’s always talking about hot flashes and mood swings and all the annoying stuff that goes along with it.

One day I stumbled upon Dr. Sara Gottfried’s quiz and immediately sent my mom the link.

She loved it. Because it spoke to exactly what she was experiencing and the outcome she desired.  When your message is on point, getting ideal clients to convert is not a challenge.

Here’s an example of Dr. Sara’s quiz.

  Step 2: “The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge”

Thomas Berger said it best:

Ask the right questions and you’ll be swimming in data that can help you refine your messaging and strengthen your value props.

Quizzes are good for more than just leads… and telling your friends which Game of Thrones character you are.

Questions help us understand our prospects and get to the root of how we can help them.

So, how do you come up with your quiz questions? Formulate your questions around what you ultimately want to sell.

For example, if you’re selling business coaching services, sse your questions to prequalify potential leads.

Like this question from a quiz “Should You Hire a Business Coach?”

Because of that question, you know this biz offers customer feedback analysis services. Now, with these quiz responses, they’ve got data about how ready their TOFU prospects are to engage in the sales funnel.

Selling products? Use your quiz questions to help your potential customer understand all the possibilities you can offer them.

To make your quiz creating process easier, I put together some example questions: 

How often do you _______? (ex. Work out, review your quarterly goals, get mad at your kids, etc.)

On a scale of 1-10, how ______ are you? (ex. Happy with your relationship, satisfied with your job, etc.)

A genie grants you one wish. What do you choose?

How likely are you to ________? (stop eating meat, stick to your budget, not check your email for a day, etc.)

Which image best describes your ________? (perfect living space, business, wedding style, etc.)

You should start with these questions in your brainstorming, methinks.

Or check out The Conversation Starters World – my go-to resource for creating outstanding questions that people will want to answer. (Psst, it also boasts a great collection of q’s for those of us who hate small talk.)

Step 3: Write outcomes that give a glimpse of the solution

Creating shareable outcomes that provide value and offer a peek at the solution you provide is an art.

But THIS is what differentiates your quiz from yet another brainless Buzzfeed post.

A major benefit of using quizzes for lead generation is that people share their results. (That’s why you’re reading this, right??)

Overwhelmed by all this juicy info? Grab my free email course and learn how to create a compelling quiz in 6 bite-sized lessons (plus steal my successful quiz swipe file) 

The copy you create for your outcomes should offer insight AND a few actionable strategies. Offer real value. The last thing you want is for people to feel like you wasted their time.

Step 4: You test a few copy variations

This step loops back to the first one: know your target audience.

Understand how they speak, what Facebook pages they like, their age, demographic, and beyond. Set up a few targeted Facebook ad campaigns.

Test a few variations of your quiz title and description against each other to see which performs best.

Step 5: You follow up with welcome emails 

A welcome sequence will warm up your cold leads. Which is exactly what you want.

Long story short: it helps them get to know you. Because odds are they took your quiz for fun. If you don’t follow up, they’ll forget you exist.

Or worse, they won’t ever have known how you could’ve potentially helped them.

You want to get those new leads into a funnel designed to:

Help you learn more about them and where they’re at in the buyer’s journey

Introduce them to you and your values, so that they can start to know, like, and trust you (before any selling happens)

Provide value and depth that far exceeds anything a little quiz can deliver

Enter the ever-gentle Welcome Email Sequence

A welcome email sequence is akin to the build-up towards intimacy in a new relationship. It’s your chance to make new subscribers in the awareness stage happy – nay, thrilled – to have you in their inbox.

When it comes to lead magnets that involve minimal commitment from the subscriber – like a quiz – a welcome sequence is more vital.

Otherwise, there’s no real reason your new leads should remain on your list when you start sending them emails appropriate for other stages of the buyer’s journey.

Cover these key items in your welcome sequence before selling anything:

Offer your new subscribers a clear overview of who you are, what you do, how you do it and why.

Establish understanding and connection. Set the scene and let people get a really good idea of your brand voice and overall tone.

How can you learn more about your new subscribers? Give them a reason to hit reply and tell you something about themselves.

Build trust and offer value. You can offer a free discovery session, send other free resources, PDFs, videos and links to popular blog posts, give them your best stuff right off the bat – they just might love you forever.

Tell your story and share why you give a damn.

A carefully crafted welcome sequence is a key ingredient for a leak-free funnel and essential to make sure those new leads stick around.

How you attract qualified leads from a quiz

It’s possible – you can create quizzes just as clickable as the ones you see on BuzzFeed. The caveat is they must have a purpose beyond mere entertainment.

What I’ve learned – through much trial and error – is quizzes come in two flavors:

BuzzFeed-style quiz where you capture a ton of leads (that aren’t really qualified)

Quiz like one stolen from Seventeen Magazine’s pages where you offer a solution to your ideal client’s real or perceived problem

Both of these outlets have very different purposes. BuzzFeed operates primarily on a traffic generation revenue model. The content itself doesn’t really matter as long as it gets the click.

You want to copy Seventeen’s purpose which is aligned with a business goal: sell magazines. Their alluringly corny quizzes help them do that.

You have something to sell, right? Make sure your quiz relates back to your overarching purpose: to sell your product, service, or course.

Will a quiz work for my niche?

The short answer is yes. From my experience, quizzes work for just about every niche.

However, they work exceptionally well in these niches:

Health and wellness

Personal and spiritual development

e-Commerce

But if you’re creative, the options of a quiz can work for all types of industries, like:

SaaS

Online service providers

Real estate

Non-profits

… and the list goes on

One thing to keep in mind is that personality quizzes tend to perform best. According to popular quiz platform, Playbuzz, 77% of quizzes that have been shared 100,000 times or more are personality quizzes. So, if you’re gunning for the fences, create a personality quiz.

For example, Dr. Kelly Ann Petrucci – whose bone broth obsession instantly makes me love her – brought in over 40,000 leads with her Gluten Intolerance Quiz.

Or discover the best facemask is for your personality, compliments of the ever-popular Birch Box:

The quiz fun doesn’t stop there. If you sell services like graphic design or photography, create a quiz that gives you better insight into your client’s needs.

Take a look at this quiz by Eight Three Five Creative, a boutique digital marketing and graphic design business:

Even realtors and other professional service-based businesses can benefit from quizzes. Check out this quiz from MyDomaine … now, honestly, tell me you wouldn’t take this quiz if you were house-hunting?

In your quiz, use you can use images, ask questions you might normally be embarrassed to ask, and gain a ton of insight into what the market wants.

“Naw, quizzes wouldn’t work in B2B or marketing… right?”

Neil Patel saw a 500% increase in leads after implementing quizzes. This is coming from someone who already has everything optimized for conversion to a degree far greater than 99% of online businesses.

Check out a few more of these client case studies that LeadQuizzes put together:

Or these ones from Interact:

If these folks can do it, so can you.

To recap, here’s your seamless system for creating quizzes that convert:

Know your audience

Ask quiz questions to lead back to what you sell

Quiz outcomes give glimpse of solution

Test quiz copy variations

Use welcome email series to warm up leads

Now let’s play a game. Drop your best quiz title ideas in the comments below. Funny, serious, business-driven or downright ridonculous—let’s get quizzical!

~Chanti

The post Beyond BuzzFeed: How I used quizzes to generate 10,000+ qualified leads appeared first on Copywriting for startups and marketers.

from SEO Tips https://copyhackers.com/2018/02/beyond-buzzfeed-used-quizzes-generate-10000-qualified-leads/