03 Aug '18 — If you knew, would you laugh?
When I watch a video on Youtube, I’m bombarded afterwards with similar videos. If I watch a comedian, a list of videos with the comic will autoplay after. If I watch a talk featuring a public intellectual, the same thing.
While it is annoying, Youtube opened a different understanding of stories and ideas.
Now it’s common to see the same comedian telling the same story in exactly the same way to another audience. Public intellectuals often go through the same steps, same examples to make a case on their ‘unique perspective’ years after they originally made their point.
When I’m into the perspective of the joke or the intellectual conversation, I don’t mind. ‘More people need to hear this!’ I agree with their repetition. I don’t judge them for being stuck in a particular time in their life.
But I’m beginning to question their ‘professionalism’. A lot of pre-rehearsing is required to deliver messages in a way that engages an audience.
I’m choosing to listen to ‘professional’ stories and ideas over non-professional perspectives. It’s easier to absorb an idea when it’s delivered in a way that keeps me awake. But I’m missing out on stories that are delivered in a genuine manner–those spoken from mediocre storytellers who, like most real people, are inconsistent and paradoxical.
While the art of telling a story or deducting theory takes skill, it lacks the authentic quality of imperfection. The intellectuals who talk about things over and over again seem to be the least intellectually curious having ironed out their ideas. Could you empathize with a story told by a comedian who rehearsed his facial expression in the mirror?
With this ‘Youtube awareness’, things might be changing. Maybe it’s time for imperfect stories with no definitive answers, no focus, no takeaways, and no ulterior motives.