Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HighEdWeb New England March 18, 2016 - Mount Holyoke College
DISCLAIMER: The speaker, David Cameron, is the sole author of the content presented herein, and takes full responsibility for its content. It has been manufactured in facilities that also process nuts, gluten, meats, and beverages containing alcohol, but only in moderation. This David Cameron is a higher education web recruitment marketing professional currently residing in the "gorges" city of Ithaca, NY. Yes, that’s a pun, because there are a lot of gorges in Ithaca, NY. It’s part of what makes it a special place to live and frankly it’s a beautiful part of the country. You should come visit some time if you’ve never been. Be aware that this David ("Dave") Cameron is NOT currently, nor has he been. any of the following: the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the head coach of the Ottawa Senators hockey team, the managing editor of FanGraphs baseball, or team captain at West Indies Cricket Board. He is also not the talented young, blonde Disney actress known as Dove Cameron—that’s Dove with an "o" not Dave with an "a"—so please, we beg you, learn to spell and stop accidentally tagging him on Instagram with messages of how beautiful he is and how much you love him because it used to be funny trying to explain to his wife why he’s getting "like" notifications from teenage girls but now it’s just exhausting every time it happens. And if you came to this presentation because you were really excited to see a keynote address from any of the David or Dave (or Dove) Camerons previously listed instead of the pale and gangly human here before you today, please accept his apologies. This Dave Cameron agrees that any of those other Dave Camerons would probably have had an awesome keynote to share and this Dave Cameron would totally love to see that too. But if it’s any consolation, the Dave Cameron who is here to talk with you today has worked really, really, really hard on this talk, staying up late and giving up most of the last few weekends to sit down and put together something just for you and he really, seriously believes the result will be worth your time and attention, or frankly he wouldn’t have accepted this opportunity to speak here in front of all you wonderful, intelligent, and beautiful people here today. Seriously, have you looked at yourselves? You’re looking good! Have you lost weight? Thought so—well done! Oh, and before this type gets any smaller, this Dave Cameron would like to give a big shout out and thank you to the conference planning committee—Sven, Sarah, and Ebru—for making this event happen and for offering him this unique opportunity, and to all their volunteers for doing an amazing job — please give them high fives all day long! Also a big thank you to the HighEdWeb Association for their unwavering support of this Dave Cameron and all their members and conference attendees, for always making everyone feel welcome and respected and worthy of attention—this Dave Cameron is honored and proud to be part of their extended professional family and grateful for the opportunity they have given him to share extended, ramblings slides like this one that don’t seem to serve any real purpose other than to see if people will really read the entire thing. Finally, this Dave Cameron owes his biggest debt of thanks, gratitude, admiration, and love to his amazing wife, Andrea, who patiently put up with his feverish ramblings about this presentation for many weeks, and who helps him succeed as a better human every day. He owes her big time, and probably always will. So there.
#hewebNE #nekeynote
SHARING MATTERS
HighEdWeb New England March 18, 2016 - Mount Holyoke College
SHARING MATTERS
#hewebNE | #nekeynote
Dave Cameron @davecameron
www.ithaca.edu
BEING HUMAN IN THE AGE OF AUTHENTICITY
PROLOGUE
WHO IS THIS GUY?
PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION
@davecameron
Age: 42 years Sign: Sagittarius
Place of Origin: Deerfield, NH
Handedness: Right Handed
Myers-Briggs: ENFP
Alignment: Lawful Good
Special Skills: Slight of hand card magic, drums, cooking, cocktails, puzzles, reading. "I’m a lover not a fighter."
Personal Space: www.dave-cameron.com
HUMAN INFORMATION
HOW DID I GET HERE ?
http://bit.ly/21NkONH
HIGH ED WEB 2014
WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY?
KEYNOTES ARE FOR
BIG IDEAS
4242
THE ANSWER TO LIFE,
THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING
THE REASON WE EXIST
THE ONE THING WE ARE EACH PUT ON THE PLANET TO DO
AS HUMANS
ONE SIMPLE WORD
SHARESHARE
WE ONLY GET SO MANY
TOMORROWS
WE HAVE TO SHARE WHILE
WE CAN
SHARING IS THE BEST PART
OF LIVING
SHARING IS THE PURPOSE
OF LIVING
ACT ONE
WHY WE SHARE
http://bit.ly/1SYL5E1
9,000-13,000 YEARS OLD
http://bit.ly/1XEw3lB
12,500 YEARS OLD
http://bit.ly/1XEzwAH
30,000 YEARS OLD
http://bit.ly/1XEB91o
40,000 YEARS OLD
printing press inkmagazines
newspapers
books
telegraphy photography motion picturestelevisionmirrors
telephoneswikipedia
utility grids
coffee housesfacebook
twitter instagramsnapchat
periscope
bit torrent
git hubnapster
TCP/IP
powerpoint
public libraries universities
pencils
postal service
e-mailmuseums
postcards
churchesgroup therapy
IRC
languagesRSS
youtubealphabets
blackboards
mapsmagnetic tape
dropbox
radio
theaterslithography
VCRbroadcasting
personal computers
compact discs
instant film
buses
see-saws
music
the internet
conferences
film
national parks
"family size"
WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS INDIVIDUALS
WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS
ORGANIZATIONS
ORGANIZATIONSINSTITUTIONS
BRANDSTEAMS
"WE CAN SHARE WHATEVER WE
WANT BUT IT HAS TO BE AUTHENTIC."
AUTHENTIC
WHAT IS AUTHENTIC?
http://nyti.ms/1RgJetU
http://bit.ly/1U6ZZbC
AUTHENTIC
AUTHENTIC
#nofilter
ACT TWO
LESSONS IN AUTHENTICITY:THE MAGICIAN, THE MUSICIANS, AND THE ART OF
FRENCH COOKING
http://bit.ly/1p7s70J
THE MAGICIAN
HARRY HOUDINI
http://bit.ly/1p7s70J
HARRY HOUDINI
http://bit.ly/1p7s70J
http://exm.nr/1LgIX7Q
HARRY HOUDINI
http://bit.ly/1p7s70J
http://exm.nr/1LgIX7Q
LESSON: PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE
…EVEN IF THEY’RE WRONG
htt
p:/
/bit.
ly/1
LQR
kHp
THE MUSICIANS
THE MONKEES
aka "The Pre-Fab Four"
THE MONKEES
aka "The Pre-Fab Four"MAY
1967
" 'Here, I'm going to make you a big star ... and you don't have to pay any dues. ... For that, you're going to get no respect from your contemporaries.' ... To me, that was the cruelest thing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkees
Phil Spector, 1968 Pop Chronicles interview.
LESSON: "FAKING" AUTHENTICITY
CAN STILL LEAD TO SOMETHING AUTHENTIC
http://n.pr/1U94mmJ
THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING
http://n.pr/1U94mmJ
F*** YEAH JULIA CHILD!
"THE FRENCH CHEF" DEBUTS ON PBS 1963
"THE FRENCH CHEF" DEBUTS ON PBS 1963
htt
p:/
/bit.
ly/2
55Zx
Ob
MAKES PROFESSIONAL TECHNIQUES AND INGREDIENTS ACCESSIBLE TO HOME COOKS AND CHANGES HOW WE THINK ABOUT FOOD ON TV
https://blog.twitch.tv/
LESSON: AUTHENTICITY
CAN BE TAUGHT
SO WHAT IS AUTHENTIC?
ACT THREE
WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT AUTHENTICITY
LET’S LOOK AT
DATA!
https://books.google.com/ngrams/
Frequency of [ Authentic * ] Phrases in Books Published 1860 - 2008 (American English)
"authentic information" + "authentic account"
https://books.google.com/ngrams/
"self" + "voice" + "experience" + "life"
https://books.google.com/ngrams/
https://books.google.com/ngrams/
"self" + "voice" + "experience" + "life""authentic information" + "authentic account"
https://books.google.com/ngrams/
2008
2007!
2006
2010
2020??
Photo by Adam Baker / Ithaca College
Sincerity
– if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
- George Burns, 1952
AUTHENTICITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHAT
IS AUTHENTICONLY YOUR
AUDIENCE DOES
http://bit.ly/1UU22Pe
THE TARDIS
TimeAnd Relative DimensionInSpaceBBC - Doctor Who
http://bit.ly/1RcconF
BIGGER ON THE INSIDE
EVOLVING AND CHANGING OVER TIME
http://bit.ly/1RjGDJy
EVOLVING AND CHANGING OVER TIME
http://bit.ly/1RjGDJy
ORGANIZATIONSINSTITUTIONS
BRANDSTEAMS
HUMANHUMANSHARE LIKE A
ACT FOUR
HOW TO SHARE LIKE A HUMAN
"FIVE GOALS FOR BEING PRODUCTIVE AT WORK"
HUMAN
UnafraidMindfulActiveNice
Honest
HHonest
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
- Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii
Hiding personal information reveals the worst
Leslie K. Johna,1, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona
aHarvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163
Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 7, 2015 (received for review August 24, 2015)
Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to share or withhold
personal information, and the wisdom of such decisions. When
people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they
are judged negatively by others (experiment 1). These negative
judgments emerge when hiding is volitional (experiments 2A
and 2B) and are driven by decreases in trustworthiness engen-
dered by decisions to hide (experiments 3A and 3B). Moreover,
hiders do not intuit these negative consequences: given the choice
to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose
to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even question-
able behavior more positively (experiments 4A and 4B). The neg-
ative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose
unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis-
eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across de-
cisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. When faced
with decisions about disclosure, decision-makers should be aware
not just of the risk of revealing, but of what hiding reveals.
disclosure | transparency | trust | policy making | privacy
Imagine being asked about your recreational drug habits on a
job application and realizing that to be truthful you must admit
to the occasional indulgence. Would you lie, come clean, or avoid
answering the question all together? When faced with the choice
between revealing (“I smoked marijuana once”) and withholding
(“I choose not to answer”), we suggest that people often choose
the latter, a strategy that can lead observers to make unsavory
character judgments. Indeed, hiding is viewed as so untrustworthy
that it produces character judgments even more negative than
those arising from divulgence of extremely unsavory information.
Examples abound of situations in everyday life in which peo-
ple’s unwillingness to divulge personal information is conspicuous.
Recent newspaper headlines have highlighted the unwillingness of
public figures to reveal personal communications to authorities.
Some dating websites explicitly indicate whetherlove-seekers have
chosen not to answer personal questions (for example about their
smoking or drinking habits). In addition, on countless forms and
applications, people are asked to provide information about at-
tributes like gender, race, ethnicity, and household income level—
and are given the option to “choose not to answer.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests that these “hiders” are judged
negatively: observers seem to react as if withholding information
is indicative of underlying character flaws. As one columnist
noted, “both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about
what it means if a job candidate doesn’t have a Facebook ac-
count. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red
flags? Are they hiding something?” (1). In the wake of the Sandy
Hook Elementary School shootings, one news outlet claimed
that, before college, perpetrator Adam Lanza “was already
appearing odd and at odds with society” (2). Evidence? He had
selected “Choose not to answer” in response to two questions on
a college application: “Gender?” and “How do you describe
yourself?” In the political realm, despite Hillary Clinton’s sur-
render of over 55,000 pages of email correspondence to the State
Department, commentators characterized her insistence on
keeping some communications private as the work of a “brazenly
dishonest cover-up specialist” (3). Similar insinuations arose
following football superstar (and heartthrob) Tom Brady’s
refusal to provide authorities with access to his email and
phone records in the wake of the “deflategate” scandal (4).
Although it is possible that these cases represent actual con-
cealment of illicit activities and objectionable attitudes, it is also
reasonable that decisions to withhold simply reflect desires for
privacy and control over one’s public portrayal. Nonetheless,
contempt appears to be the common reaction toward individuals
who choose not to reveal. We examine two central aspects of the
psychology of hiding, isolating two related phenomena by using
controlled laboratory experiments. First, we examine how peo-
ple’s unwillingness to divulge affects others’ views of them.
Second, we explore whether actors anticipate how choosing not
to disclose impacts the impression they make on others. In short,
we ask and answer the question: when faced with the decision of
whether to reveal or withhold, do people make decisions that
enhance or detract from others’ impressions of them?
Previous research has examined how firms’ decisions to omit
information from product descriptions affects—or does not affect—
consumers’ evaluations of the product. Although it may be rea-
sonable to think incomplete descriptions would arouse suspicion
or pique curiosity, people are often insensitive to missing or un-
known product attributes (5). Consistent with seminal research on
basic human judgment, this insensitivity arises out of a failure to
notice that information is missing in the first place (6, 7).
However, what happens when people are made aware of the
incompleteness of the available information? Research in applied
psychology and allied fields has found that in such cases, people
tend to be appropriately skeptical of incompletely described
products (8). However, in contrast to the research on products, we
suggest a richer psychology underlying withholding ofinformation
by humans: when observers are made to realize that a person has
failed to reveal information, they will be quick to make disposi-
tional inferences about that person’s character. Indeed, previous
research has documented that people readily draw personality
Significance
Disclosure is a critical element of social life, especially given
Internet media that afford many opportunities (and demands
from friends, partners, and even employers) to share personal
information—making withholding anomalous, conspicuous,
and therefore suspect. Seven experiments explore people’s
decisions to withhold or disclose personal information—and
the wisdom of such decisions. Declining a request to disclose
often makes a worse impression even than divulging unsavory
personal information. Moreover, those who withhold fail to
intuit this negative consequence: people withhold even when
they would make a better impression by “coming clean.” In
short, people should be aware not just of the risk of revealing,
but the risk of hiding.
Author contributions: L.K.J. generatedthe idea; L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. designed research;
L.K.J. and K.B. performed research; L.K.J. and K.B. analyzed data; and L.K.J., K.B., and
M.I.N. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1516868113/-/DCSupplemental.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516868113
PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 6
SOCIALSC
IENCE
S
WE TRUST FLAWS
• When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others
• Given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even questionable behavior more positively
• The negative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across decisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire.
"Hiding personal information reveals the worst" by Leslie K. Johna, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) January 26, 2016 vol. 113 no. 4 954-959http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/05/1516868113.DCSupplemental
Hiding personal information reveals the worst
Leslie K. Johna,1, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona
aHarvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02163
Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 7, 2015 (received for review August 24, 2015)
Seven experiments explore people’s decisions to share or withhold
personal information, and the wisdom of such decisions. When
people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they
are judged negatively by others (experiment 1). These negative
judgments emerge when hiding is volitional (experiments 2A
and 2B) and are driven by decreases in trustworthiness engen-
dered by decisions to hide (experiments 3A and 3B). Moreover,
hiders do not intuit these negative consequences: given the choice
to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose
to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even question-
able behavior more positively (experiments 4A and 4B). The neg-
ative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose
unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis-
eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across de-
cisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire. When faced
with decisions about disclosure, decision-makers should be aware
not just of the risk of revealing, but of what hiding reveals.
disclosure | transparency | trust | policy making | privacy
Imagine being asked about your recreational drug habits on a
job application and realizing that to be truthful you must admit
to the occasional indulgence. Would you lie, come clean, or avoid
answering the question all together? When faced with the choice
between revealing (“I smoked marijuana once”) and withholding
(“I choose not to answer”), we suggest that people often choose
the latter, a strategy that can lead observers to make unsavory
character judgments. Indeed, hiding is viewed as so untrustworthy
that it produces character judgments even more negative than
those arising from divulgence of extremely unsavory information.
Examples abound of situations in everyday life in which peo-
ple’s unwillingness to divulge personal information is conspicuous.
Recent newspaper headlines have highlighted the unwillingness of
public figures to reveal personal communications to authorities.
Some dating websites explicitly indicate whetherlove-seekers have
chosen not to answer personal questions (for example about their
smoking or drinking habits). In addition, on countless forms and
applications, people are asked to provide information about at-
tributes like gender, race, ethnicity, and household income level—
and are given the option to “choose not to answer.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests that these “hiders” are judged
negatively: observers seem to react as if withholding information
is indicative of underlying character flaws. As one columnist
noted, “both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about
what it means if a job candidate doesn’t have a Facebook ac-
count. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red
flags? Are they hiding something?” (1). In the wake of the Sandy
Hook Elementary School shootings, one news outlet claimed
that, before college, perpetrator Adam Lanza “was already
appearing odd and at odds with society” (2). Evidence? He had
selected “Choose not to answer” in response to two questions on
a college application: “Gender?” and “How do you describe
yourself?” In the political realm, despite Hillary Clinton’s sur-
render of over 55,000 pages of email correspondence to the State
Department, commentators characterized her insistence on
keeping some communications private as the work of a “brazenly
dishonest cover-up specialist” (3). Similar insinuations arose
following football superstar (and heartthrob) Tom Brady’s
refusal to provide authorities with access to his email and
phone records in the wake of the “deflategate” scandal (4).
Although it is possible that these cases represent actual con-
cealment of illicit activities and objectionable attitudes, it is also
reasonable that decisions to withhold simply reflect desires for
privacy and control over one’s public portrayal. Nonetheless,
contempt appears to be the common reaction toward individuals
who choose not to reveal. We examine two central aspects of the
psychology of hiding, isolating two related phenomena by using
controlled laboratory experiments. First, we examine how peo-
ple’s unwillingness to divulge affects others’ views of them.
Second, we explore whether actors anticipate how choosing not
to disclose impacts the impression they make on others. In short,
we ask and answer the question: when faced with the decision of
whether to reveal or withhold, do people make decisions that
enhance or detract from others’ impressions of them?
Previous research has examined how firms’ decisions to omit
information from product descriptions affects—or does not affect—
consumers’ evaluations of the product. Although it may be rea-
sonable to think incomplete descriptions would arouse suspicion
or pique curiosity, people are often insensitive to missing or un-
known product attributes (5). Consistent with seminal research on
basic human judgment, this insensitivity arises out of a failure to
notice that information is missing in the first place (6, 7).
However, what happens when people are made aware of the
incompleteness of the available information? Research in applied
psychology and allied fields has found that in such cases, people
tend to be appropriately skeptical of incompletely described
products (8). However, in contrast to the research on products, we
suggest a richer psychology underlying withholding ofinformation
by humans: when observers are made to realize that a person has
failed to reveal information, they will be quick to make disposi-
tional inferences about that person’s character. Indeed, previous
research has documented that people readily draw personality
Significance
Disclosure is a critical element of social life, especially given
Internet media that afford many opportunities (and demands
from friends, partners, and even employers) to share personal
information—making withholding anomalous, conspicuous,
and therefore suspect. Seven experiments explore people’s
decisions to withhold or disclose personal information—and
the wisdom of such decisions. Declining a request to disclose
often makes a worse impression even than divulging unsavory
personal information. Moreover, those who withhold fail to
intuit this negative consequence: people withhold even when
they would make a better impression by “coming clean.” In
short, people should be aware not just of the risk of revealing,
but the risk of hiding.
Author contributions: L.K.J. generatedthe idea; L.K.J., K.B., and M.I.N. designed research;
L.K.J. and K.B. performed research; L.K.J. and K.B. analyzed data; and L.K.J., K.B., and
M.I.N. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1516868113/-/DCSupplemental.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1516868113
PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 6
SOCIALSC
IENCE
S
WE TRUST FLAWS
• When people choose not to reveal information—to be “hiders”—they are judged negatively by others
• Given the choice to withhold or reveal unsavory information, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even questionable behavior more positively
• The negative impact of hiding holds whether opting not to disclose unflattering (drug use, poor grades, and sexually transmitted dis- eases) or flattering (blood donations) information, and across decisions ranging from whom to date to whom to hire.
"Hiding personal information reveals the worst" by Leslie K. Johna, Kate Barasza, and Michael I. Nortona Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) January 26, 2016 vol. 113 no. 4 954-959http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/05/1516868113.DCSupplemental
UUnafraid
There’s no longer enough time to have a dumb opinion and change your mind. You have to be pro or con right out of the gate, have abject certainty all the time. We’re
left with a manufactured middle ground between reactionary extremes.
- My Smart and Beautiful Wife
www.austinkleon.com
"Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what's inside you, to make your soul grow. Seriously! I mean starting right now, do art and do it for the rest of your lives."
— Kurt Vonneguthttp://bit.ly/1U4PoNV
MMindful
It's got something to do with love. With having the discipline to talk out of the part of yourself that can love instead of the part that just wants to be loved…
All the attention and engagement and work you need to get from the reader can't be for your benefit; it's got to be for hers.
- David Foster Wallace on the purpose behind good artfrom an interview by Larry McCaffery
The Review of Contemporary Fiction. 13.2 (Summer 1993): p127
DAFT PUNK
DAFT PUNK
Random Access Memories
"Giorgio by Moroder"
AActive
SHARE
DISCOVER
OBSERVE INQUIRE
dave-cameron.com/share-human/
ithaca.edu/marcom/blogs/work_in_progress/
LAUNCHING
SOON!
medium
tumblr
/developers
medium
tumblr
twitter.com
.com
.com
.com
NNice
SHARE WHERE IT COUNTS
MOST
SHARE TO DO GOOD
http://humanlibrary.org/
http://tinyletter.com/elevateyourfriends
HUMAN
UnafraidMindfulActiveNice
Honest
EVEN SMALL PEBBLES
MAKE BIG RIPPLES
IN THE END, WHAT WILL YOU REGRET MORE?
THE THINGS YOU NEVER DID?
OR THE THINGS YOU NEVER FOUND TIME TO SHARE?
Follow his continuing story at http://facebook.com/groups/
TeamTrevor
Watch the full video of transplant recipient Trevor Sullivan:
http://bit.ly/TrevorVidFull
WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE AS INDIVIDUALS
F.O.M.O."FEAR OF MISSING OUT"
"FEAR OF NOT SHARING ENOUGH"
F.O.N.S.E.
F.O.M.O."FEAR OF MISSING OUT"
"FEAR OF NOT SHARING ENOUGH"
F.O.N.S.E.
STOP WORRYING ABOUT BEING
AUTHENTIC
HUMANHUMANSHARE LIKE A
WHAT WE SHARE LIVES
ON AFTER US
"I was here."
http://bit.ly/1XEw3lB
http://bit.ly/1SYL5E1
http://bit.ly/1XEC41C
http://bit.ly/1XEBQHS
http://bit.ly/1nxY7tR
http://bit.ly/1M7TDQY
http://bit.ly/1R8vVf3
http://bit.ly/1LSqJtu
http://bit.ly/1nxZ2dT
http://bit.ly/1SB7JRu
"... some have spoken eloquently, some have spoken inarticulately, some haltingly, some have been almost mute.
Yet among all the variety of human expression a thread of connection, a common mark, can be seen: that urge to look into oneself and out at the world and say, 'this is what I am, I am unique, I am here. I am.' "
- Saul Bass short film"Why Man Creates" (1968)
SHARESHARE
WE ALL HAVE AN ENDING.
THIS IS MINE.
SHARE YOURSELF.SHARE YOUR WORKSHARE YOUR STORIES
START A BLOGSTART A CLUB
START A DANCE CRAZE
SHARE TO MAKE YOUR WORK BETTER
SHARE TO MAKE YOUR TEAM BETTER
SHARE TO MAKE YOUR ORGANIZATION BETTER
SHARE BETTERSHARE BETTER
SHARE HUMANSHARE
HUMAN
http://bit.ly/1YzzlqE
HUMAN
UnafraidMindfulActiveNice
Honest
STARTSTART#sharehuman
• 121,510 people are waiting for an organ • 22 people will die each day waiting for an organ • 1 organ donor can save up to 8 lives
WWW.ORGANDONOR.GOV
#sharehumandave-cameron.com/share-human
