Christianity, too, has its own form of Karma (“reaping what you sow”). The idea of Karma, reaping what you sow, or whatever you want to call it- as it relates to a moral dictate that governs one’s way of life- is innately selfish, imho. The zen-like approach of balance and appropriation makes sense conceptually, but there is no logical argument to substantiate it. And, no matter how secular we want to keep the idea of Karma, it is attached to the hip of morality. I don’t think there is a such a thing as “universal morality”, so where does that leave us? As Rob pointed out in other words, what’s good for the goose may be good for the gander, but it’s not always good for the people walking below getting s**t on.

Anyway, Social Karma is the Los Angeles approach to success, whereas Social Capital walks the streets of NYC. And, while Social Karma may indeed be the path to Social Capital, is there anything wrong with saying, “Screw it… I’m going to skip Social Karma and get straight to the point.” Don’t we live in a world where constructive brazenness and transparency are commodities?

While I agree with Social Karma being one path to Social Capital, I say there are two more: the one of blatant Social Capital, and one of Social Utilitarianism.

After all, if we do good solely in the name of the whole, instead of what cosmic rewards we might receive in the future, doesn’t everyone win? To me, that’s how genuine Social Capital is built. It’s about as close to altruism as you can get, but you’re undoubtedly reaping the benefits of your own actions.

Anyway, that’s my .02… I fell like I ranted a bit there. Originally, all I wanted to do was mention a cool new site called Listia.com, in which things are bought with points instead of money It’s pretty cool, and it hovers around the whole “Social Capital” idea.

Thanks for commenting – expected a “lively” comment back from you.

And you make some great points. As I said I don’t think it’s a bad thing to engage and add to others with the idea of benefits down the road. I was simply intending to point out that there are few that acknowledge this like @ines does.

Allow me to make something clear however. I am very comfortable in my current position and although ” as a coach these things increase your brand and therefore your potential earning power” this may be true, this is not the final goal of my efforts. I think you can attest from our conversations that my efforts come from being a giver and a lovecat .

As you bring up in your comment as well, part of the confusion comes from the referring to “withdrawl and deposit” mentality, which (regardless of the historical briefing by my friend Mr. Hahn) is why I believe that Karma is a better choice of words.

Thanks again,
Matt

Ines: You are always zen-like (or is that goddess like?) But I agree with you when you say its time to get back to the Dharma (defined by Wikipedia as “one’s righteous duty or any virtuous path in the common sense of the term”) since Dharma is the key to social capital. Its about doing things to benefit the coomunity without regard for your own agenda- something you do all the time.

Joe: No matter what you call it, I think that being genuine is key to being successful in any online efforts. If you aren’t the person your community thinks you are when you meet f2f all of your social media efforts have been wasted.

Audrey: IMHO being popular doesn’t give you social capital – however sometimes doing things which build social capital can lead to being liked by others – but its not the function of building social capital, its a possible side effect. People just tend to like people who do good things.

Matt;
A great post, and an interesting twist on the concept of social capital, but I get a little confused when you say “Social Capital is what you seek
(influence, reach, positive or not)”. Social Capital is what you build when you contribute to others – in a genuine way. Pretending to be charitable, gracious, networked or helpful doesn’t build social capital, BEING charitable, gracious, networked, or helpful builds social capital. People just aren’t that easily fooled as – is evidenced by the skepticism that “talking the talk” evinces when you don’t “walk the walk”.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing good because it makes you feel good. Even Mother Theresa must have had a moment of pride or satisfaction when she helped someone, and I think that’s just fine. And I think you make that point yourself when you say “I’m not looking for any kind of financial gain through my online contributions, but like anyone else I enjoy being quoted, tweeted, asked to speak at an event, etc. It benefits my self-esteem, my self-worth, and makes me feel good by doing it.” And that is still a return to you for your efforts. No one says that the benefit received for doing good has to be financial (though I would point out that as a coach these things increase your brand and therefore your potential earning power) and these types of benefits are really important returns for people that have reached the point in their lives where self-actualization is important.

Even more important, a financial benefit is not in and of itself a negative, its more about why you did what you did. If you’re a phony, pretending to be a valuable member of the community without really being a participatory member, I think you’ve done the wrong thing even if you get no financial return. Conversely, if you do things for the right reasons, and make genuine contributions, those contributions are not diminished just because you later received some benefit. Again, let me quote you when you say.” at the same time these actions benefits others because I focus on providing value to them through my thoughts, words, presentations, teachings and research.” So in my opinion, if someone read your work, recognized your contributions, appreciated your selfless efforts, and offered you a big check, or a great job, or the opportunity to be on TV or in a movie, that would not diminish the contribution you made to the community.

I think the confusion here is the fact that we are using concepts like deposits and withdrawals to help people understand the positive and negative impact that different types of actions have as they develop their online presence and their online reputation. But let’s not let the form in this case define the function, or over complicate what we need to do to be valued in our communities.
Remember the Spike Jones movie “Do the Right Thing”? Ozzie Davis played an older man named “Da Mayor” and Spike Jones played a young man named Mookie. In the start of the movie there’s a scene that defines social capital (possibly unintentionally, but it’ll work here)
Da Mayor: Doctor..
Mookie: What?
Da Mayor: Always do the right thing
Mookie: That’s it?
Da Mayor: That’s it.
Mookie: I got it. I’m gone.

See? Simple Social Capital -

You ARE zen – even now, as the spirit of intent IS flowing from your heart. The strength and inspiration that you both feel in your thoughts and ideas is great energy, shared with many others and appreciated in social capital from those who chose to receive and spin the energy/value/goodness. It’s not egotistical or self-serving because your intention is to make a positive difference for common good and beyond. Rob makes a very valid point with his perspective on karma, hierarchy, and status, which does apply in social media circles today. And within this society anyone can achieve as much status, hierarchy, and zen as they so choose via their spirit of intent and valuable contribution provided to their social circles and the vast universe. And as Joe raised, those snake-oil salesmen and charlatains whose purpose or spirit of intent lacks benefit for the GOOD of all, will ultimately reap massive cosmic debt which will, at some point, result in a disappointing outcome for them. So keep doing what you’re doing – providing inspiration and example to others each day. If there’s a method to measure the effectiveness of your communication and message, then do so, to help you understand how effective your efforts and energy are in aligning with your spirit of intent for maximum benefit and connectedness. Matt, thanks for sharing your information and ideas with us.

I think some folks involved in social networking think that being popular and social capital are the same thing? I don’t think it is the same. I think there needs to be more to whuffie than popularity, maybe a little heart.

Though I do wonder if your perspective would change at all if you consider that “karma” is a _religious_ concept developed by a society that was hierarchical in the extreme with vast gaps between the haves and the have-nots. The upper classes (the brahmins, etc.) used karma to justify why it was that they were wealthy and privileged, while the lower classes were poor and oppressed.

Karma is a tool to keep people quiescent in the face of inequality and oppression; if you’re good and obedient, you will be reborn in the next life in a higher caste, etc.

Might actually explain social media hierarchy quite well too, now that I think about it.

-rsh