Some time ago my wife was suffering from a persistent abdominal pain. A kind neighbor who learned that medical science had failed us for years came over to lay hands on my missus and pray with the family.
Our apostolic neighbor got to work and in no time was possessed. She began uttering some unknown prayer that was only coherent to God and herself.
While it seemed quite possible that everyone else in the room was being transported to a higher place, I found myself being teleported to the Appalachian foothills where one imagines spirits of a different sort give voice to an equally unintelligible, if not distilled, form of incantation.
Somehow, in my befuddled Hebraic interpretation of what was going on I confused the “charismatic church” with the “charismatic me” and foolishly decided to apply the lessons of the day to some healing of my own.
Without going in to the pathetic details of my amorous overtures — or my completely missing the point with the snake metaphor — suffice it to say, getting lickered up, and my own very clumsy “laying on of hands,” resulted in my waking up the next day with a thick head and a lip to match. Go figure.
Steve Levy recently posted Learn Boolean, Start a Business. In a catholic defense of modern day mediums he says:
In the 10+ years that I’ve been part of the online recruiting community, I’ve never seen a time when it was possible to learn a rudimentary skill and then pawn oneself off as an expert. Shally and G-Man have been internet search wonks for this period and have the experience to bolster their skills teaching with a range of specific examples; El Dave isn’t too far behind…
Alas during the past year, I’ve seen several neophytes learn to write a Boolean - or more precisely, to copy one that the true experts freely share - and suddenly they’re self-appointed experts selling themselves as Internet search gurus.
Oh dearie, dearie me. Let’s apply my befuddled Hebraic interpretation to this one now, shall we?
First, it occurs to me that nothing could be easier than passing oneself off as “an expert” when the skill is “rudimentary.” I mean, honestly: AND, OR, and NOT — how much simpler could it be?
Next, as one of the neophytes let me clarify a couple of things…
One (NOT first): If the experts “freely share” why can’t I freely copy, share in kind? Of course, “if” covers a multitude of sins, doesn’t it? In reality if most of what is being “freely shared” has been available in the public domain since, well, before googling, who’s copying who; where’s the hanky-panky? Maybe the question here is one of attribution, maybe that’s it.
Two (NEAR:One): “…and then pawn oneself off as an expert” — golly! And, “..suddenly they’re self-appointed experts selling themselves as Internet search gurus” — that’s a bit strong, don’t you think?
I might consider myself a neophyte in the esteemed company of the liturgical high-priests of cybersleuthing — unworthy even — but in the company of lay folk my bible-thumping is enough to save a few sinners with the sacrament of sourcing know-how. Sure, the cacophony of hand-clappin,’ foot-stoppin’ music is a far cry from a reverential Latin Mass but for the recruiting riff-raff it’s an experience worth the price of admission.
Three (-wise.men) Just to be clear, only a fool would suggest that the 12 Apostles of George: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, [no, no, no -- that was John The Baptist!] and the rest of them, have not enabled a few scruffy-looking lay-preachers like me to schlep from one congregation to another but, Mr. Levy, gimme a break! Am I the one to be weighed in the balance, found wanting?
This week another hillbilly church has sprung up, this time on the slopes of RecruitingBlogs.com. I wonder if the Apostles will come down to share in a snake-whoopie-woo or two, sip a little poison at the Congregation of Boolean Strings. Whatever…
One of the things that has been interesting to me for some time is the codification of language and the subsequent value placed on its interpretation by a litany of coders and their assigns. Historically, all that has been a source of power so, why not now?
In some convoluted way I think the communication of Boolean syntax for surfacing leads and resumes is like bottling water. We have to contain it, brand it, sell it and defend our share of it to give it value despite the fact that, like water, the means to quench our thirst exists everywhere. Maybe Steve Levy see’s it slightly differently.
Experts, priests, shamans and snake-charmers all hold a special place in our communities because they [purportedly] hold the key to unlocking the knowledge we seek, and it’s practical application for a better life.
Is it any wonder that when the status quo gets “status skewed” those with the most to loose get shirty? Can I get an “Amen!” Brother?
Several days after our neighbors visit and my wife’s miraculous healing her pain returned, this time with a vengeance. When I tried lightening things up with a drooling “I’ll be darn’d!” she told me to “Put a sock in it!” Hmmm…maybe in our house if we’re not speaking in tongues were talking at cross purposes? Nah, that’s just too obtuse, isn’t it? I don’t know, maybe not…
Ami,
wow. One could spend all day looking through the links contained here. How long did it take to find those sites and hyperlink them all? It’s interesting just to roll over each link to see what you are referencing.
I posted something similar the other day, albeit much shorter, with less linky goodness. http://find-attract.com/caveat-lector
I’m sensing a theme in the recruit-o sphere. The “what makes one an expert vs. a poseur.” I’m not sure I can answer that myself. All I can do is look at the merit of what’s being said, regardless of who is saying it. Hopefully whatever is being “copied and pasted” is being attributed to the original source.
Otherwise, 2 principles are in play for me.
1. Caveat Lector - Reader Beware. Healthy, balanced cynicism at all times.
2. Make it your own. Any technique you apply but can’t modify yourself isn’t a technique you understand. Its mimicry, and only works if your situation has exactly the same set of conditions and factors as the original poster/creator. Since conditions and factors are rarely exactly the same, you still have to be your own teacher if you want to improve.
Nice post Ami.
Josh
Hmmm. Fascinating discussion! I read Jason Gorham’s original email 3 days ago and remember asking myself, “Who is he referring to?” Who are the people who have offended him so? Then I archived the message and moved on. This morning @researchgoddess twittered about Ami’s blog and I read his entertaining piece and the accompanying comments. Curiouser and curiouser. Do we listen to experts to get filled up with knowledge that we don’t already have? Do we value one expert over another by the amount of knowledge and experience they have that we don’t? Do we require an expert to be senior to ourselves to see them as valuable? Some do. I don’t. I think of recruitment as one large conversation. Inspiration comes from everywhere and sometimes from the most unlikely sources. I read what interests me and ignore the rest.
Oh! Earlier today I twittered this: Expert: someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything there is to know about nothing.
Simon, thanks for the comment. Here is a link to Jason Gorham’s post Choose Your Recruitment Idols Wisely.
I’m old and I’m a geek. I was a philosophy major and boolean search is just symbolic logic. I learned boolean search 25 years ago in law school when Lexis and Westlaw were new and hot. I still think it’s the best method to get to where you want to go without a lot of other stuff. But sometimes the other stuff leads to intuitive leaps that are actually a better or more interesting path to somewhere you didn’t intend to go but is worth visiting. There are some wizards of search out there and it’s good stuff. But the seeker is the most important part of any search– way more important than either the tools or what is sought.
Heather - “But the seeker is the most important part of any search– way more important than either the tools or what is sought,” so true, so true.
Oh Ami, Ami…if only most blog readers actually clicked through all the links and read all the posts (I do but that’s an OCD-like thang). The last paragraph of my missive was:
No begrudging an entrepreneur but when you select an expert, dig deeper into their experience rather than stopping at the pretty red door. If you miss out on delving into the creative thinking of the true experts, all you’ll receive back are average results. Why pay for average?
The mechanical aspect of booleaning is easy as pie - copy and find a resume; anyone can do it and then hang out a shingle and teach the Mad Libs approach to Internet recruiting. But the creative part - ah, the spark that results in the epiphanic “let’s try something new!” - is missing. The shamans know the difference between * * * OR * * OR … but the experts? It is the shamans as Heather put it who are behind the intuitive leaps that shake the foundation.
After the first bottled water, thousands eventually popped by - some even came to market. Most failed. Now people are drinking generics because the flash of the new models has worn off.
Now it’s vitamin water. What will be next? The shamans will know…
Dear Amitai,
I ran across this post - pretty amazing - but am not exactly sure, what did you mean by “hillbilly church”? I have a good guess but I wanted to hear from you. Please feel free to email me.
Thanks,
Irina
Irina — you should watch the whole video but if you’re looking for a quick answer fast forward to 2 minutes 30 secs into the clip: Pentecostal Snake Handlers in Appalachia.
See you on Sunday. I’ll be in the front pew.