Untrustworthy People of Unmerited Ubiquity

Or, how we were very, very, very wrong about quantity over quality

Normally, I would edit the prescriptive out of my writing. Today is an exception.

Stop contributing to the ubiquity of people who harm us and fail to contribute good to people and the planet.

What metric do we want to live by in every category of life? Quantity or quality?

Do we really want to live in a world where qualities such as beauty, goodness, mercy, and imagination have little to no value compared to quantity metrics such as followers, likes, impressions, subscribes, clicks, sales, ratings, charts, fame, influence, celebrity, and ubiquity for no other reason than repetition of appearance and impression?

Famous for Being Famous

Not long ago, there was a saying, "famous for being famous." Fame without a reason except ubiquity.

From sociologists to comedians, this idea was considered absurd and universally mocked. Then, branding specialists taught us in real time that a ubiquitous name could be converted into wealth. The more we saw it done. The less we cared. Who were we to judge how people got rich? No one takes them seriously anyway.

Obviously, we were very, very wrong. In one epistemic framework, they are the only people taken seriously. What is the fruit of this divergence? The collapse of shared reality.

We're at a point now where we don't give a damn, though. We have stopped pronouncing damnation on that which is life-destroying—that which is a framework for disorder.

Quantity or Quality? Empire or Ethos?

Taking a breath is good. Stay alive.

But if it's quality we want (and I suspect it is for most people), we must change our language and behavior. We must turn back to the mark, the telos, the end for which we are alive—the pattern and fulfillment of trustworthy human vocation. Dare we name what it is and isn’t? Refresh our memories? Imagine as big as the cosmos?

We need a tune-up bringing our truest values, cares, and commitments rooted in love into alignment with our most explicit behaviors and endorsements.

We must stop rewarding people who are in the ubiquity formula business for no purpose other than ego and empire. Whenever we value quantity over quality, or speak their names, we throw another log on their proverbial fire.

How do we stop and start again?

Here's my first draft of what I'm thinking for myself. If you believe we can change and shift back to a quality metric let me, let us, hear your thoughts.

1. As much as possible, I will cease naming the names of the ubiquitous who harm people and the planet. I will critique their ideas and offer hope and specifics in creating the world I want to live in. But I'm committed to learning how to do this in a way that doesn't simply bet on my clever reasoning winning the argument. As my friend Fred Smith suggested today, these untrustworthy people of unmerited ubiquity have enchanted a large part of the populace. Engaging the enchanted as though they are people searching for better evidence has limited effect. We need, as C.S. Lewis wrote, "the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from our evil enchantment."

2. I will remove the word influencer from my vocabulary and refuse to give it any validity. It's not a vocation. Influence is imparted to people and organizations by their communities. It is, when healthy, an effect of vocation well done.

3. I pledge to myself to continue working on my mental health and identity. I have a 50-year career receiving affirmation for monetization, quantity, charting, and impressions made. #1 is existentially better than #47. Or is it? Is it only better because charting is a construct to aid monetization, the ubiquity formula, and, ultimately, empire? I will continue to work on myself and this personal problem, accepting that all solutions are proximate for now. But never giving up hope to do better and live better. For myself and my neighbor.

4. I will pay more attention to how I admire quantity or tacitly use it in my language and work. Where is the quantity and ubiquity metric using me? Gotta keep asking this question. Wasn't it just last week that I started listening to an artist's music, saw that they had a couple hundred followers, and paused, thinking I wouldn't bother. I take responsibility for my bias and actions. But this is indoctrination, too. When I signed Switchfoot and helped launch The Civil Wars, there were no metrics to look at. You had to listen. It was all gut and blink. Has this changed? I don't think so. In thousands of situations, we have stopped listening, feeling, hearing, touching, and tasting. This can be reversed. We can unlearn our insensitivity. Of course, we want to look and see, but not to the abandonment of our humanity and the whole of our senses.

5. I will do my tiny bit to work against unmerited ubiquity by championing the merited whose quality ideas and work I want family, friends, and neighbors to know about—to be truly enriched by. If I want a world governed by a quality metric over a quantity metric, I must contribute. I have to tell stories of the kind that I want to hear—and then not watch for how many likes or comments they receive. I will not let the unmerited ubiquitous few define the Cosmic narrative for me or my neighbor, or love, the law, mercy, or who wins and loses.

Books from Andi and CP . . .

Note: Amazon has these both as a discounted bundle now as “Frequently bought together.” Click one or both to see.

Nashville, Saturday Feb. 22 — We’ll be there cheering the band on!