We are surrounded by people who mean well, and in this context, the notion of respect seems to be quite central. Let me share my analysis, which points to a rather incredible inconsistency.

This article was inspired by Sylvain Tillon’s subtle and thought-provoking LinkedIn post, “Quotation: An Impoverishment of the Mind?” (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/la-citation-un-appauvrissement-de-lesprit-sylvain-tillon-lapre/?trackingId=hx41GBsxRNiSjMNVnYSS2Q%3D%3D).

First, I’ll revisit a comment I made on that post while resharing his article. In the second part, I expand on some ideas that have come to me since then. After all, when I analyze my own usage, emotions, and the way utterly irrelevant content grabs my attention—despite my awareness, knowledge of the mechanisms, and critical mind—I question things. And I assume you do too, even if you haven’t analyzed everything in detail.

Here’s a mix of my reflections on the question of respect:

Part Two: Reflections on Respect

Do marketing and social networks governed by algorithms respect your brain? In general, no, but we already knew that. I won’t demonstrate it here, and if you’re unfamiliar with it, you can find plenty of sources on the topic.

Neuroscientists have observed that prolonged and repeated exposure to content specially designed to capture attention can alter neural connections. The Brain Health Center has notably emphasized that algorithmic personalization and constant notifications shape how the brain processes information, affecting our relationships and perception of the real world. Isn’t that lovely?

Let’s consider this on an individual level now. Indeed, for each individual, it is a choice to decide whether to respect you or not, to offer certain forms of content, and the information on how to manipulate the brain is openly available, with step-by-step action plans easily accessible on all social media. Numerous posts explain how to grab your attention, create catchy titles, make viral posts, increase followers, and convert them to boost revenue.

Do content creators (from neuropsychologists to beauty influencers) who make this choice genuinely consider what will truly appeal to you? Certainly.

The real question is whether the word "appeal" has the same meaning and objectives for each group. Do they consider whether the content they post, like, and repost respects their audience in terms of form, frequency, and fundamental interest?

In the style of Socrates' Three Sieves—a playful nod to Sylvain’s post—this text is often falsely attributed to Socrates, and after extensive research, I found no evidence of such a writing.

You may feel respected, but is this feeling legitimate?

As a marketer, designer, psychologist, or coach, the author’s real question would be whether it will be useful, contribute meaningfully, and meet a need that won’t have negative consequences or create collateral damage. If it does, and we imagine it’s our duty to anticipate this, it should be highlighted! Ideally, that is. Attentive people will notice and make their choices.

When you look at your feed, posts that attract you like magnets with catchy titles, quotes, photos, or bright-colored infographics erode your free will.

I’m only discussing the "help relationship" posts here because it epitomizes the inconsistency between posture, services, and reality—not those posts offering business development advice, although we could delve into that small circus as well.

You are not respected, because beyond the issues of content accuracy or interest, you aren’t really allowed to decide if it’s a topic you care about or not, if you want to spend time on it for any reason. It’s imposed on you by its form as it appears before your eyes, like an auto-playing video. It takes a lot of resources to control your attention, to simply look at the title and a few words to assess its potential interest, at least for me.

It’s surprising that so many are here to sell their B2B services without respecting their clients or their time. And when we think about the concept of hosting a live stream to request your email address for more direct communication, we remain within the same principle.

On the network, it goes further: it’s not just about a lack of respect—it’s about hacking your brain. Many behaviors bypass reason and are mainly emotional, instinctive, and biased.

But if anyone were to wonder, does someone hacking your brain really respect you? Everyone will answer based on their perspective, but my view is clear: No, it’s an intrusion, an imposition.

Your time is precious, and furthermore, the content you consume has a crucial impact as it influences your development, the evolution of your ideas, your multiple intelligences, your knowledge, but can also instill beliefs, promote habits, and so on. Above all, as we saw earlier, it affects your brain on a higher level: neural connections, information processing, relationships with others, and perceptions. It’s therefore essential to question the nature of content, its source, and the duration of exposure. I’m talking about critical thinking and regulation here.

Think about it—would you have viewed that infographic, skimmed through that multi-page PDF, read that post, clicked on "...more" …………… without the image? Or, in the case of those wanting to showcase themselves, would you have read it without the desire to have a nice comment to increase your own visibility?

After a few discussions, everyone has their own excuse, but it doesn’t mask any reality: I wanted to relax, I had five minutes, I’m doing social observation, the author was attractive, etc.

Now, let’s dig to discover the most bewildering inconsistency.

Setting aside the question of whether the ideas/arguments in the post are nonsense—after all, with the best intentions, nonsense can be spread, and sometimes that’s the goal.

You’ve reached the most "eye-opening" part of this not-so-silly opinion piece.

To follow the thread of irony, I believe the most amusing part is that, by virtue of their roles as psychologists, coaches, or "personal development experts," they are perceived, a priori, as respectful, attentive, empathetic, and compassionate. However, these concepts are clearly compartmentalized and contextually variable.

So… when, regardless of their personal goals—which don’t have to be considered—they consciously use these techniques and post or repost about five times a day, we can only conclude that these previously mentioned concepts are secondary, as are the ideas.

Meaning becomes form, quantity, and, due to accumulated frequency, mere fluff.

Whether deliberately or due to a profound lack of empathy for their audience, they do not respect you. This isn’t a hypothesis—it’s a fact.

Their professional goals outweigh your well-being. And yet, your well-being is supposedly, a priori, their mission in life.

Do social networks and algorithms kill thought? Are they a place where it can be expressed and debated? Don’t steal this title, thanks. The article is coming soon. It’s a topic worth debating, tied to the idea that AI will externalize minds, another blog post I recommend if you enjoyed this one.

Part One: My Initial Comment on Using "Quotations."

Yes! But isn’t it even more astounding to find books, sold in millions, on personal development topics, that distort scientific studies to fit their narrative, or others that alter history to support arguments that would otherwise be unsustainable? When critical thinking is absent, persuasion thrives.

And this passes unnoticed by publishers. The publisher is not a guarantee of information verification when everyone is entitled to their thoughts—at least, up to a certain point. Returning to quotations and the initial lines of the post, it’s always the same principle: you either play the algorithm’s game and follow the rules of people’s attention spans on networks, what they prefer, catchy titles, colorful images, quotes, or worse, infographics (I wrote an article citing research showing this does not foster conceptual thinking), or you do as you please.

If everyone is content to do what’s necessary on a network, it creates a mind farm that perpetuates foolishness, as everything is reposted, self-congratulations are abundant, and few accept open-minded idea debates. The effect is similar to a rumor: foolishness is continuously re-packaged, served again, amplified, or worsened. Who you are and what you do does not address everyone. And that’s just fine.

Yes, I can write an 8-page A4 article in 2024. And publish it that way—but not here. And I enjoy seeing, when I check Google Analytics for page views and time spent on the page, that more people than I thought take the time to read it.

Let’s think and produce more debatable ideas, and let’s enrich each other to move toward something more engaging.

Have you asked yourself what the benefits are for you, for your child, and even for the family atmosphere? For some parents, it satisfies their need for control, giving them the feeling that they are fulfilling their role, that it's their duty, their mission. They believe that if they let things slide, their child’s grades will plummet, leading to a snowball effect.

There’s social pressure on parents to invest in their child’s studies, and teachers often remind them of this. When a student has trouble focusing, it’s often blamed on the parents for being lax about screen time. I’m being somewhat ironic, but you get the idea.

For your child, it’s quick to become a source of anxiety. They gain no benefit from these interactions. They might even prefer boarding school to escape the constant pressure. And as for the family atmosphere, you already know how tense things can get, so let’s not dwell on it.

So, why persist in this negative, destructive routine day after day?

Today, I invite you to think about whether you can identify the key steps needed to break this cycle of control and lack of responsibility in your child’s specific situation.

If you’re out of ideas, you can always try my five-step solution to break free from it.

As with any change, there might be collateral effects, but given the current state of things... isn’t it time to restore autonomy, trust, and respect? Although these crises are linked to schoolwork, the emotions and meaning spill over into the rest of your family life.

You can break this cycle in five simple steps (but likely to assess upon situation feedback) :

1. Stop micromanaging and policing their every move.
2. Detach from grades as mere numbers. Instead, focus on explaining, evaluating the effort/result ratio, and recognizing visible effort.
3. Have a deep, solemn conversation to restore a healthy relationship, ease interactions, and—most importantly—reposition responsibility: it’s now their problem.
4. Set measurable goals together.
5. Ask them only to talk about school or work if they’re encountering difficulties.

Yes, it might be scary, but maybe you’ve tried another solution that works? Feel free to send me a message or leave a comment.

If you manage to do this, you’ll finally have a break, be able to relax after work, talk about something other than school, and family interactions will calm down. Everyone will feel more in their place. Bonus: this context will also help you address other issues that might arise.

Indeed, what for? It has different meanings for you and for them… 

You sense or hear a lack of interest in studies, difficulty concentrating, remembering, getting down to work, or even planning ahead?

The situation doesn’t hold the same meaning for you as it does for them. 

And all the advice you hear everywhere doesn’t change a thing.

Some parents whose issue hasn’t really surfaced yet should anticipate, as, without being alarmist, this affects a growing number of students. 

For parents where the situation is well established and persistent, think, why do you want them to work?

Consider the disparity between the current digital evolution, the nature of what they’re taught in school, and the job opportunities society struggles to provide them with. 

It’s like visualizing three parallel lines: they never meet. 

More concretely, on one side, they have constant dopamine boosts through social media, flirting, or video games, and on the other, there’s schoolwork.

It’s a no-brainer, submerged in the present moment. 

From their perspective, the situation, when they’re aware of it—or when you impose that awareness through your discourse—is even simpler. 

But in reality, your discourse has no effect, because, practically, what would they be motivated to do and why? 

First, they would need a goal, a good reason to start working. 

Then, for it to make sense to them, that work would need to help them achieve their goal. 

So, things need to be taken in order: the first step is for them to have a goal.

These tips can seem relevant, insightful, and intriguing, yet they rarely lead to real change—pretty wild, right?

Let’s consider this trend of one-size-fits-all advice. Though often driven by marketing goals, what matters is whether it genuinely helps you. Otherwise, it’s just a distraction, promoting the advisor’s expertise more than offering actual guidance. This concept stems from my own experiences; like everyone else, I too seek advice in areas where I'm not proficient. The challenge lies in translating it into action.

Recently, a LinkedIn post illustrated this point perfectly. It was about marketing, an area I frequently explore. But despite my background, my mind couldn’t convert these insights into actionable steps.

The gap between online advice and real-world application is significant. This is due to various cognitive and behavioral factors, underscoring the importance of context and personalized support.

Understanding Why General Advice Falls Short

First, learning transfer is essential; advice may seem solid, but without the ability to adapt it to your specific scenario, it often falls flat. This lack of context leads to advice being applied in a superficial way. We also encounter the genericity bias, which occurs when simplified solutions are applied to complex situations. This bias can create the illusion of progress, even though the advice remains too general to address individual specifics.

Next, cognitive friction arises when advice feels misaligned with personal beliefs or habits. For example, tips on time management may sound useful, but if they contradict a person’s real schedule, they’re less likely to be effective. Similarly, advice that’s too overwhelming or complex can lead to cognitive overload, making action difficult.

Overcoming these barriers requires personalization and a gradual approach. Tailoring advice to specific situations makes change easier to integrate, reducing cognitive friction and enhancing learning transfer. This involves customized approaches that consider not just goals but also individual obstacles.

Another important element is self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to succeed. Advice that bolsters confidence is usually more effective because it increases engagement and motivation. On the other hand, generic tips may sometimes undermine confidence by not aligning with the individual’s resources or skills.

While online advice and podcasts are helpful resources, they fall short of the depth and personalization found in tailored support. Relying solely on generic recommendations—even ones I provide, despite my best efforts—overlooks the personal nuances that often determine success in implementing advice.

The Role of Personalized Solutions

Tailored solutions enhance generic tips, making them more actionable in real life. Moreover, they allow for additional elements like social proof, competition, and group dynamics to be factored into the equation, depending on specific contexts.

Generic advice is at best an imperfect initial step. As with any material, including this article, it’s only as useful as its adaptation to each unique situation.

LinkedIn is also a battleground, fought with a barrage of infographics. Personally, after two weeks on the platform, I realized I was overwhelmed, and they didn’t leave much of a lasting impression. This led me to dig deeper.

This topic piqued my interest, especially in connection with AI-driven brain outsourcing—a theme I recently explored. When you consider the conjunction of both in our daily lives and visualize the future...

Don’t all these visuals make your brain a bit sleepy?

Research from Cambridge and numerous psychology studies show that while infographics effectively grab attention, spark engagement, and quickly convey basic ideas, they often lead to superficial memory retention and limit conceptual understanding. They work well for overviews or introductions but aren't ideal for fostering critical thinking or detailed comprehension.

Infographics are frequently praised for their ability to convey visual information rapidly, but research reveals a more complex reality. According to Bresciani and Eppler's (2009) study, The Benefits of Visualization in Learning, infographics capture attention and support short-term recall due to simplified visual representations. However, this visual appeal can result in a shallow retention level, limiting the depth of thought or critical analysis. The authors note that while the brain processes images swiftly, this doesn’t necessarily equate to deep understanding.

Another study by Lankow, Ritchie, and Crooks (2012) in Infographics: The Power of Visual Storytelling illustrates that infographics are designed to enhance engagement and emotional response, particularly in marketing. They are often intended to go viral, garnering shares and attention on social media, but at the cost of deep, lasting learning.

Moreover, Mayer and Moreno’s (2003) research, Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning, underscores that while graphic elements in infographics can act as "visual anchors," they risk causing cognitive overload, especially if they lack logical connections or coherence. According to their findings, oversimplification in infographics can undermine conceptual understanding crucial for quality learning.

In conclusion, these findings suggest that while infographics are useful for surface learning and introducing topics, their utility for deeper reflection is very limited.

For a more extensive exploration, check out Bresciani and Eppler's meta-analysis, The Risks of Visualization: A Classification of Disadvantages Associated with Graphic Representations of Information (2008), which covers over 30 studies on the topic. It might confirm beyond your own experience with infographics: PDF link.

With the explosion of Google, individuals’ cognitive behaviors have changed radically. A series of studies conducted in the 2000s, such as those by Betsy Sparrow, a psychology professor at Columbia University, revealed that the constant availability of the internet influences human memory. We no longer attempt to retain information but focus instead on knowing where and how to find it. This phenomenon, called the Google Effect, has led to a dependency on instant access to knowledge, accompanied by a decrease in deep thinking.

Right now, I wonder how this trend influences children—are they only studying for tests the night before, compared to twenty years ago?

Today, with the rise of artificial intelligence, this phenomenon has reached new heights. AI is no longer just an information repository; it’s becoming an active participant in thought processes.

Cloud + AI = Information + Reflection.

So it’s a brain at your fingertips, and soon it will be as intelligent as and 10,000 times faster than top researchers at conducting meta-analyses. The goal seems to be to replicate human thought’s most unique qualities, even down to emotions.

Outsourcing these mental processes risks reducing our ability to think independently.

What will motivate people—especially students—to think for themselves in the future, when even today, critical thinking and high-quality personal reflection are in daily decline?

Critical thinking is already on the endangered list!

Consider the magnitude of this issue by reflecting on a fact from 2016: according to a study by Stanford University, 82% of young people surveyed were unable to differentiate a sponsored post from a factual article. This is Native Advertising, and you can find a post on my blog on this topic.

This loss of discernment is symptomatic of a global decline in critical thinking in a hyper-connected society where information is consumed in superficial, image-based formats. These images often contain collections of facts and advice, but lack true reasoning or connections between ideas. Combine this with other phenomena like fake news, deepfakes, myths, misconceptions, beliefs, and scientific misinterpretations that we’re already steeped in.

The problem isn’t just about access to data but how it’s presented and thus processed. And today, social media content already presents challenges because what goes viral are infographics. Despite being minimalist and often lacking in reasoning or connections between ideas, they dominate, but that’s another subject I’ll address in my next article.

What Will Motivate Reflection in the Future?

The big question is: in the future, what will drive young people and future adults to learn, attempt to retain information, cultivate critical thinking, and maintain independent thought during their education and beyond? Semantically, we’re already in the era of content creation—it’s no longer about having something meaningful to say that advances thought on a subject, or even raising thought-provoking questions or snippets of reasoning, but rather about repackaging the same content in a new format.

As human intelligence faces the risk of being overshadowed by AI, the need to preserve critical thinking might arise from two sources: education—with necessary adaptations from both parents and school curricula—and philosophy.

However, parents are often overwhelmed by issues related to digital and device usage, educational curricula lag by several years, and philosophy is only taught later in life.

And we’re only talking about a minority on a global scale.

This article reflects the reality of the French minimum wage system (known as SMIC), which, as of 2024, is set to rise significantly. While this situation is specifically French, the broader theme of young people navigating career choices and the impact of guidance is globally relevant. However, the numbers and regulations mentioned apply to France.

In France, the increase in the minimum wage (SMIC) for 2024 might tempt some young people to think: “If I end up earning the SMIC, it's not the end of the world.” But the real question is whether this is a sustainable option, or simply a way to avoid more critical questions about career orientation. Let’s have a lighthearted but informative look at the topic, with a focus on how it ties into students’ future decisions.

The Minimum Wage: A "Blessing" with Limits

With the SMIC now nearing €1,500 net per month, many young people might view this as a decent safety net, especially those who are hesitant about pursuing higher education. However, the SMIC is not a career plan; it’s a base level. Focusing on it without planning ahead for professional growth is akin to choosing a field like robotics without really understanding the skills and knowledge needed to succeed.

Is Career Guidance the GPS to Avoid Minimum Wage?

In France, career guidance (often referred to as orientation scolaire) is supposed to help students make informed decisions that lead to fulfilling jobs. However, many students follow paths laid out by teachers and parents without fully considering whether these choices align with their personal goals. In fact, 37% of students in France change their educational paths after high school, suggesting that the initial decisions often lack proper reflection and planning.

Choosing a career path should be about more than just avoiding minimum wage. It’s about finding a field that sparks passion and offers long-term potential. But here’s the catch: young people must know where they want to go—and many don’t.

The SMIC Trap: Is It an Excuse?

The real issue with SMIC is that it can sometimes serve as a reason for students to avoid putting in extra effort at school. Why push themselves harder when they know they can live on this salary, even if modestly? But this is where career guidance plays a crucial role. Teachers and counselors should help students ask the right questions—not just which study program to pursue, but which profession they want to excel in. Ambition shouldn’t just be about hitting a number on a paycheck; it should be about finding a career that combines passion, talent, and opportunity.

Aiming Higher in Career Orientation

Yes, SMIC can seem like a fallback option for some, but it’s often a sign that career guidance has missed its mark. Young people need support not just to avoid the worst-case scenario, but to aim higher. Because career guidance is much more than filling out a form or choosing a major—it’s about shaping a future where work is not just about survival, but fulfillment and growth.

For 10 to 30% of students (Cnesco 2018 figures), the advice given by their teachers plays a significant role in shaping their academic and career paths. However, we must consider the impact of teachers’ guidance on students’ decisions, especially in light of the high rate of college major changes and re-enrollments that occur in the U.S. after the first year of higher education.

But first, let’s break down what these recommendations are typically based on:

• Academic performance assessments (grades or subjects where students excel),
• Their school records,
• Preconceived notions about career opportunities in different fields.

Two central conclusions arise: first, these recommendations are often based on very limited personal information about the student. Second, because they rely on such factors, these suggestions lean more toward job placement rather than career exploration or long-term aspirations.

For those wanting further details on the differences between job placement and career orientation in the U.S. context, I encourage you to look up related articles or explore additional resources.

Interestingly, 63% of students whose primary advisor was a lead teacher report being satisfied with this guidance. However, we must critically ask whether this statistic comes from surveys conducted early in their post-secondary education or several years later, considering that around 30% of U.S. students change majors by their second year in college.

But let’s apply some common sense: when a student makes a decision (such as choosing a college major through platforms like Common App) after months of indecision, they often perceive the advice of their teacher—especially a trusted lead teacher—as authoritative. This dynamic is reinforced by the authority bias, where individuals accept guidance from someone they view as knowledgeable or in a position of authority.

For both the anxious student and their equally concerned family, this decision provides relief, even though it may not have been thoroughly thought through. The danger here is that these decisions are rarely based on a deep understanding of the students' passions, values, and future goals. Instead, teacher advice might be limited or reflect personal biases rather than an informed and objective view of the student's unique needs.

This issue is especially relevant for female students, who are often subject to gender biases and stereotypes—something I continue to investigate in my own work.

In conclusion, I advise caution when it comes to relying solely on teacher guidance for career decisions, especially without considering a more comprehensive understanding of the student.

Reference:

• Crédoc, Helping Young People Better Identify Their Tastes and Personal Motivations: A Lever to Improve Career Orientation, Cnesco, 2018.