The only conference I go to with any regularity is defcon. I understand why they don't want nametags, but this article makes me realize that there is much more to it than legal issues. The idea of nametags is prima facie dumb. If everyone had their real name and every alias they ever used listed on their badge, it wouldn't have added anything for me because thats not who they are. When I was looking for the registration desk, I saw a guy in a nerdy tee-shirt in the casino and asked him, I realized that that shirt told me everything I needed to know about him: he was there for defcon. Eventually we found the convention center and chatted through the registration line. Every time I leave defcon, I have a moment on the plane where I think back and realize just how much fun it is to be surrounded by people awesomely enthusiastic about the subject matter of the conference (even the vendors I met were). That's what makes that conference unique and special to me, its why I care to go back (I know there are others with the same attitude, but my line of work doesn't bring me to those).
That's the kind of spirit that makes a conference worthwhile. I hadn't heard of Wisdom 2.0 before this article, but between the article and some poking around on the web, its seems like a lot of people there are using it as an opportunity to sell themselves. Why would someone even go if that their goal? Do they really think they can pitch the pants off of Eric Schiermeyer in such a way nobody else there will, nor can be done over email? If selling something is your goal and you're not there as a vendor or on stage, your presence is probably doing the rest of the conference a disservice. Its a shame that OP had to buck the nametag trend to have the type of experience everyone there should have.
One of the main points here is (mentioned a couple of other times):
> I have my namelessness to thank for stopping me from using my moment with Evan to get somewhere with him.
Do you really? With your name covered up you could still intoduce yourself and pitch... and with your name showing you could still introduce yourself with your name and ask him about Nebraska. It just happens that your decision not to reveal your name happened at the same time, and for similar reasons, as deciding not to pitch people - there's no required dependency between them.
It wasn't just two things that happened. I think he is saying that through the namelessness experiment, he gained the insight that made him decide not to pitch. It didn't physically stop him, but it was a necessary precursor.
And then when everyone has decided to go nameless at conferences I shall wear a shirt with my name and contact info I plan to share. That way I will stand out from the crowd and everyone shall remember me.
I have a feeling you will be remembered as that guy who wore his own name on his shirt. You will stand out, but I don't think people will have an easy time remembering what specifically that information was.
I think the idea of the article is to create the associative memory anchoring that comes naturally when you get in a good conversation with somebody. Names, features, mannerisms, and ideas become easier to recall. While being 'nameless' might be a bit extreme, nobody really needs to know your job or your title.
Letting go of your self to be present in the moment is a good thing to practice. Not putting your name on your badge helps remind you of that goal.
I've done this a number of times for various reasons (I should have done it at the RSA conference but alas hindsight). I know its wrong to be amused at someone's discomfort but I admit that I do chuckle when someone is trying to cop a look at my badge to decide if its worth their time to talk try to engage me in conversation. Sometimes when they do decide to I'll ask them what it was that made them choose to engage. That has started some interesting conversations too.
as someone who has trouble remembering names, i truly hope this idea doesn't catch on. i have never looked at someone's badge to see if they were worth talking to; i have very frequently done so because i have talked to them earlier, and remember who they are, but not their name.
It sounds like working at certain types of tech companies forces insights that I usually hear from overworked Wall Street types.
The reference to Eric Schiermeyer and the Buddhist monk is interesting because the only other time I heard about someone at an industry event talk openly about Zen and mindfulness was also from another Zynga employee, one of the M&A guys speaking at a 500 Startups event on health and well-being. He alternated between being hilarious and insightful and had the room totally cracking up at his observations about startup life.
[+] [-] cbs|14 years ago|reply
That's the kind of spirit that makes a conference worthwhile. I hadn't heard of Wisdom 2.0 before this article, but between the article and some poking around on the web, its seems like a lot of people there are using it as an opportunity to sell themselves. Why would someone even go if that their goal? Do they really think they can pitch the pants off of Eric Schiermeyer in such a way nobody else there will, nor can be done over email? If selling something is your goal and you're not there as a vendor or on stage, your presence is probably doing the rest of the conference a disservice. Its a shame that OP had to buck the nametag trend to have the type of experience everyone there should have.
[+] [-] khafra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corin_|14 years ago|reply
> I have my namelessness to thank for stopping me from using my moment with Evan to get somewhere with him.
Do you really? With your name covered up you could still intoduce yourself and pitch... and with your name showing you could still introduce yourself with your name and ask him about Nebraska. It just happens that your decision not to reveal your name happened at the same time, and for similar reasons, as deciding not to pitch people - there's no required dependency between them.
[+] [-] cbs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesLeonis|14 years ago|reply
I think the idea of the article is to create the associative memory anchoring that comes naturally when you get in a good conversation with somebody. Names, features, mannerisms, and ideas become easier to recall. While being 'nameless' might be a bit extreme, nobody really needs to know your job or your title.
[+] [-] xrd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
I've done this a number of times for various reasons (I should have done it at the RSA conference but alas hindsight). I know its wrong to be amused at someone's discomfort but I admit that I do chuckle when someone is trying to cop a look at my badge to decide if its worth their time to talk try to engage me in conversation. Sometimes when they do decide to I'll ask them what it was that made them choose to engage. That has started some interesting conversations too.
[+] [-] zem|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkoryak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xrd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbhat7|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alabut|14 years ago|reply
The reference to Eric Schiermeyer and the Buddhist monk is interesting because the only other time I heard about someone at an industry event talk openly about Zen and mindfulness was also from another Zynga employee, one of the M&A guys speaking at a 500 Startups event on health and well-being. He alternated between being hilarious and insightful and had the room totally cracking up at his observations about startup life.
[+] [-] gojomo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_should|14 years ago|reply