Context
I'm reading The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. This book contends that the belief that more information, especially in the form of the internet, will somehow solve all our problems is at least premature, if not hopelessly naive. I've just finished a section where the authors talk about the intricacies of negotiation, pointing out that human beings makes thousands of implicit negotiations every day, and that we only resort to rule-based decision making, the kind computers are really good at, when those fail. As an example, they point out that committees often have to make rules about how to communicate, like who can talk for how long, but groups of friends usually do not.
Commentary
The idea of rule-based decision making and negotiation got me to thinking about the rule of law. Patriotism is a challenging concept for me. I like being an American because I think we have a kick-ass constitution, not because of any loyalty to a geographic or cultural entity. Does the U.S. even have a culture? Our embrace of multiculturalism maybe, but I digress. Anyway, I like the rule of law in this country.
On the other hand, I'm a Quaker, and as a matter of practice, we abjure some of the things the Constitution prescribes. For example, Quakers don't vote when doing church business. In my experience, Quakers vote like mad in the national elections, but that's a separate issue. Anyway, in our meetings for worship with attention to business (We're a simple people, but we like the names of things to be painfully precise.), we make decisions by "sense of the meeting." This means we work together until we find an answer that resonates with everyone participating in the process, rather than voting, which produces winners and losers.
If you ask a dozen Quakers why we do things this way, there's a good chance you'll get at least ten different answers. Christian Quakers often believe that a collective answer is more likely to reflect the will of God. In my case, I specifically hark back to the wrong turn the children of Israel made when they told God they no longer wanted their disputes settled and armies led by the itinerant judges He raised up among them. They wanted a permanent hereditary king, like all the other cool nations had. The extra level of remove from the Lord did not work out well for them.
Quakers who are not explicitly Christian sometimes still invoke the mystical aspect of collective decision-making, even if the mystery is not attributed to a particular deity. Even non-Quakers sometimes adopt the "sense of the meeting" language to their secular business dealings, in the belief that consensus (or in the case of the International Monetary Fund pretending to have consensus) serves better than conflict when expecting people to work together.
So I like the rule of law, but I avoid using it whenever I can. Brown and Duguid point out computers can't manage the slight change-of-course negotiations people navigate with ease because these depend on shared values and trust, which machines can neither create nor maintain. And there's the rub: the moment we turn to the rule of law, which is the set "If you cross this line, these consequences will happen," way of looking at the world, we give up human connection in order to take a chance on "being right." Which one is really more valuable?
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
10/14/2012
8/29/2012
I saw a book description
Context
I was looking over the new children's nonfiction books at my library when I found Moonbird: a year on the wind with the great survivor B95 by Phillip Hoose. If you go to this link and click on A Look Inside, you'll see that the book describes the survival of an individual migrating shorebird in the face of myriad threats to his existence, including environmental changes wrought by human beings.
Commentary
Yes, once again I'm blogging about a book description, rather than the book itself. I'm a librarian; I read a lot of book descriptions. And movie descriptions. And CD descriptions. I also seem to be on an environmental kick as well, so forgive me if I grow repetitive.
I've been reading little bits of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and feeling dismayed that some people hold it in such contempt. Far from being a dry scientific treatise tasked with disproving God's existence, it's actually page after page of Darwin describing the wonders he sees in nature and offering his best explanation as to why they happen. Perhaps I'm perverse, but to me it reads much more like a celebration of creation than a debunking of it.
Anyway, one of the things Darwin is particularly taken with is adaptation, and he devotes most of a chapter to talking about how human beings create (if I can use that word) adaptations in domesticated plants and animals. I agree that it's an amazing process, but not really a surprising one. As people, we're all about making things fit what we want and/or need.
Think about it. Most species reside in places that are suited to their physical makeup: tropical plants in Brazil, penguins in Antarctica. People move to places that are not suited to their physiology at all and then change their physiology! Well, they either put on some clothes or some sunscreen. Or they just change the place itself, by building air-conditioned condos in the middle of the desert.
I'm starting to think this is why we are so hard on the ecology of our planet. We figure we'll always be able to adapt to whatever nature throws at us. And we may be right about that, but we fail to take into account that other species do not adapt that quickly. When we change the environment to suit ourselves, we frequently make it lethally inhospitable to the other inhabitants of the planet. You might say we do this unintentionally, but that doesn't really excuse us. We're supposed to be the ones with the big brains, not to mention the caretakers of all creation. We ought to be able to both adapt and accommodate, not just carelessly wreck everything in our path.
What did you see today?
I was looking over the new children's nonfiction books at my library when I found Moonbird: a year on the wind with the great survivor B95 by Phillip Hoose. If you go to this link and click on A Look Inside, you'll see that the book describes the survival of an individual migrating shorebird in the face of myriad threats to his existence, including environmental changes wrought by human beings.
Commentary
Yes, once again I'm blogging about a book description, rather than the book itself. I'm a librarian; I read a lot of book descriptions. And movie descriptions. And CD descriptions. I also seem to be on an environmental kick as well, so forgive me if I grow repetitive.
I've been reading little bits of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and feeling dismayed that some people hold it in such contempt. Far from being a dry scientific treatise tasked with disproving God's existence, it's actually page after page of Darwin describing the wonders he sees in nature and offering his best explanation as to why they happen. Perhaps I'm perverse, but to me it reads much more like a celebration of creation than a debunking of it.
Anyway, one of the things Darwin is particularly taken with is adaptation, and he devotes most of a chapter to talking about how human beings create (if I can use that word) adaptations in domesticated plants and animals. I agree that it's an amazing process, but not really a surprising one. As people, we're all about making things fit what we want and/or need.
Think about it. Most species reside in places that are suited to their physical makeup: tropical plants in Brazil, penguins in Antarctica. People move to places that are not suited to their physiology at all and then change their physiology! Well, they either put on some clothes or some sunscreen. Or they just change the place itself, by building air-conditioned condos in the middle of the desert.
I'm starting to think this is why we are so hard on the ecology of our planet. We figure we'll always be able to adapt to whatever nature throws at us. And we may be right about that, but we fail to take into account that other species do not adapt that quickly. When we change the environment to suit ourselves, we frequently make it lethally inhospitable to the other inhabitants of the planet. You might say we do this unintentionally, but that doesn't really excuse us. We're supposed to be the ones with the big brains, not to mention the caretakers of all creation. We ought to be able to both adapt and accommodate, not just carelessly wreck everything in our path.
What did you see today?
8/28/2012
I saw a garden
Context
I was looking at pictures on the internet of people who have replaced their lawns with gardens and found a link to this story of a man who's been cited for having an educational garden instead of a lawn in front of his house because it's considered an eyesore. Wanting to see for myself, I found this picture of the garden in question.
Commentary
Does the garden in the link above look bad to you, like it would diminish property values in the neighborhood? It's OK; you can be honest. It does look a little odd, doesn't it? I mean, there's food growing right out there where everyone can see it!
It seems to me that Americans sometimes have a paradoxical relationship to work. Everyone is supposed to work hard, but when you return to your middle-class home in the suburbs no one is supposed to see the effort you put in. You go to an air-conditioned office in the city for eight hours a day to make enough money to buy food; you don't grow it yourself! It's not just food, either. You're not supposed to work on your car in your yard either, and you're not supposed to hang your clean laundry out to dry.
Pardon the digression, but having been raised in Mexico, that last one was quite a shock to me when I returned to the United States. I mean, line-dried laundry can be a little stiff, but it smells so much better and lasts so much longer than the dryer-processed version. Not to mention how much better it is for the environment.
Which brings me back to the garden, which is also more environmentally sensible than keeping a lawn. And it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, we used to all grow our own food and hang out our own laundry. But I think that's part of the problem. Americans are very fond of progress. We like to feel like we're starting at one point and constantly improving on our way to one goal or another. Going back to something we've already done feels like failure or surrender. In our culture "old-fashioned" and "traditional" are usually meant pejoratively. That's why the words "new" and "improved" so often go together.
Realistically, though, we have to recognize that some progress is not good. Like the constant upward climb of our average weight, which is considerably diminishing our quality of life. Increasingly sophisticated and efficient weaponry is not my favorite form of progress either. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we return to the good old days of beating each other up with rocks. I'm just saying that maybe growing a little food on your property is not a crime. Even if it is a little unusual-looking.
What did you see?
I was looking at pictures on the internet of people who have replaced their lawns with gardens and found a link to this story of a man who's been cited for having an educational garden instead of a lawn in front of his house because it's considered an eyesore. Wanting to see for myself, I found this picture of the garden in question.
Commentary
Does the garden in the link above look bad to you, like it would diminish property values in the neighborhood? It's OK; you can be honest. It does look a little odd, doesn't it? I mean, there's food growing right out there where everyone can see it!
It seems to me that Americans sometimes have a paradoxical relationship to work. Everyone is supposed to work hard, but when you return to your middle-class home in the suburbs no one is supposed to see the effort you put in. You go to an air-conditioned office in the city for eight hours a day to make enough money to buy food; you don't grow it yourself! It's not just food, either. You're not supposed to work on your car in your yard either, and you're not supposed to hang your clean laundry out to dry.
Pardon the digression, but having been raised in Mexico, that last one was quite a shock to me when I returned to the United States. I mean, line-dried laundry can be a little stiff, but it smells so much better and lasts so much longer than the dryer-processed version. Not to mention how much better it is for the environment.
Which brings me back to the garden, which is also more environmentally sensible than keeping a lawn. And it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, we used to all grow our own food and hang out our own laundry. But I think that's part of the problem. Americans are very fond of progress. We like to feel like we're starting at one point and constantly improving on our way to one goal or another. Going back to something we've already done feels like failure or surrender. In our culture "old-fashioned" and "traditional" are usually meant pejoratively. That's why the words "new" and "improved" so often go together.
Realistically, though, we have to recognize that some progress is not good. Like the constant upward climb of our average weight, which is considerably diminishing our quality of life. Increasingly sophisticated and efficient weaponry is not my favorite form of progress either. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we return to the good old days of beating each other up with rocks. I'm just saying that maybe growing a little food on your property is not a crime. Even if it is a little unusual-looking.
What did you see?
7/27/2012
I saw an article that contradicted itself
Context
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
I found this article regarding James Holmes's prison behavior while perusing the Time Magazine website today. The article states that Mr. Holmes has been engaging in erratic behavior in jail, then says that might not be true, and concludes that the man's behavior is "mysterious."
Commentary
Consider this my Friday evening snark: I believe there's a difference between mysterious behavior and not confirming your information before posting a news story. Oh wait! This is the internet age, where the truth is "fluid."
What I find particularly funny is that the updated version, the one that says Holmes has been quiet throughout his incarceration, seems less credible, quoting only "sources," as opposed to the more specific "Arapahoe County Jail officials." Honestly though, can we just not say anything until we find someone willing to go on the record? Or are we just as crazy as James Holmes himself, believing that if we stuff ourselves with every morsel of information thrown our way everything will eventually become clear?
What did you see today?
7/24/2012
I saw reaction to an obituary
Context
Sally Ride died yesterday. I didn't know this until I was looking at The Huffington Post for another reason and saw the headline to this article. I didn't read the article, but understood from the headline that Sally Ride was a lesbian. About 15 seconds later, I saw the headline to this article about some reactions in the LGBTQ community to a memorial tweet by Mitt Romney. This time I actually clicked through to the article in question.
Commentary
My first response to the Twitter fight referenced above was puzzlement. I thought that the fact that people were getting angry meant that Romney had said something derogatory about Sally Ride's sexual orientation on his Twitter account. But no, just the standard, "We've lost an American hero today" stuff. So the retweets seemed to be saying, "Because you haven't fully supported equality for homosexuals, you don't get to honor them when they die."
On the face of it, I though the reaction was crazy for two reasons:
1) It was unfair. I don't know the exact timing of Romney's tweet, but I get the impression that Sally Ride did not come out of the closet to the general public while she was alive. There is every reason to believe the presumptive Republican nominee didn't even know she was gay when he tweeted about her. And if you're going to blame him for that, you're too far gone for me to even talk to you.
2) It was ungracious. When someone says he admires you or holds a door open for you, you thank him politely. You don't spit in his face.
My husband contends that the offended members of the LGBTQ might have been saying that tweeting about someone's death is somewhat self-aggrandizing, unlike sending a private note of condolence to the family. It's kind of like mentioning Sally Ride's death at the beginning of your stump speech for the day. It acknowledges the loss, sure, but also ties it to your current endeavors. So the retweeters respond, "Nuh-uh, you don't get to hitch your wagon to our star!" and that might be a reasonable response.
We have so many ways of communicating these days and mass communication is becoming increasingly massive in both its reach and its accessibility. Telling everyone how you're feeling has become simple, as has gathering everyone's response. Even things that really should be private, like letting someone know you're breaking up with him, end up happening through Facebook.
Which brings me to God. Generally speaking, although I'm pretty sure He can, God does not engage in mass communication, except in the person of Jesus. Usually, when the Almighty speaks from a place of divinity, He gives a personalized message to one person. Now, that person often passes the message on to a crowd, in which case we call him/her a prophet, but some of the best Bible stories derive from private communication between an individual and her/his Lord: the Magnificat; Jesus telling the woman, "Your sins are forgiven;" even Jonah's argument with God about job satisfaction. I'm not saying I know why God chooses to communicate this way, but I think it does bring home the idea the manner in which we deliver a message can be as telling as its content.
What did you see today?
Sally Ride died yesterday. I didn't know this until I was looking at The Huffington Post for another reason and saw the headline to this article. I didn't read the article, but understood from the headline that Sally Ride was a lesbian. About 15 seconds later, I saw the headline to this article about some reactions in the LGBTQ community to a memorial tweet by Mitt Romney. This time I actually clicked through to the article in question.
Commentary
My first response to the Twitter fight referenced above was puzzlement. I thought that the fact that people were getting angry meant that Romney had said something derogatory about Sally Ride's sexual orientation on his Twitter account. But no, just the standard, "We've lost an American hero today" stuff. So the retweets seemed to be saying, "Because you haven't fully supported equality for homosexuals, you don't get to honor them when they die."
On the face of it, I though the reaction was crazy for two reasons:
1) It was unfair. I don't know the exact timing of Romney's tweet, but I get the impression that Sally Ride did not come out of the closet to the general public while she was alive. There is every reason to believe the presumptive Republican nominee didn't even know she was gay when he tweeted about her. And if you're going to blame him for that, you're too far gone for me to even talk to you.
2) It was ungracious. When someone says he admires you or holds a door open for you, you thank him politely. You don't spit in his face.
My husband contends that the offended members of the LGBTQ might have been saying that tweeting about someone's death is somewhat self-aggrandizing, unlike sending a private note of condolence to the family. It's kind of like mentioning Sally Ride's death at the beginning of your stump speech for the day. It acknowledges the loss, sure, but also ties it to your current endeavors. So the retweeters respond, "Nuh-uh, you don't get to hitch your wagon to our star!" and that might be a reasonable response.
We have so many ways of communicating these days and mass communication is becoming increasingly massive in both its reach and its accessibility. Telling everyone how you're feeling has become simple, as has gathering everyone's response. Even things that really should be private, like letting someone know you're breaking up with him, end up happening through Facebook.
Which brings me to God. Generally speaking, although I'm pretty sure He can, God does not engage in mass communication, except in the person of Jesus. Usually, when the Almighty speaks from a place of divinity, He gives a personalized message to one person. Now, that person often passes the message on to a crowd, in which case we call him/her a prophet, but some of the best Bible stories derive from private communication between an individual and her/his Lord: the Magnificat; Jesus telling the woman, "Your sins are forgiven;" even Jonah's argument with God about job satisfaction. I'm not saying I know why God chooses to communicate this way, but I think it does bring home the idea the manner in which we deliver a message can be as telling as its content.
What did you see today?
7/20/2012
I saw a corporate settlement
Context
This morning, an agreement was reached between DirecTV and Viacom in their 10-day-long dispute over how much the former would pay to carry the latter's channels. DirecTV's announcement posits the settlement as a triumph over "bullying" by a programming provider. Viacom's announcement is more subdued. I myself am a DirecTV subscriber who frequently watches Comedy Central, one of Viacom's channels.
Commentary
I found many interesting aspects to this dispute and its resolution, but I'm going to start with the one that caused me to want to blog in the first place: the belligerents immediately removed all references to the dispute itself from not only their main websites, but the little ancillary ones each of them had set up just to rag on each other about it (this one for DirecTV, and this one for Viacom).
I was sad this information was gone, because I thought the tone each company took in defending its viewpoint might be indicative of their corporate culture, and I wanted to share them with you. Fortunately, the people over at Ping! Zine have been covering the story and have some characteristic quotes from each side here.
It's funny, in the past the two parties seemed to be taking the opposite positions of the ones they're using today. DirecTV generally spoke in measured tones. "We are negotiating." "We'll get this handled." "We're on your side." Viacom claimed to be on the consumer's side as well, but their rhetoric went more along the lines of, "DirecTV is run by greedy, lying bastards who want to take away your Spongebob!" In fact, I have to believe that one of the reasons Viacom took down their previous comments so quickly was because only yesterday they were saying, "DirecTV refuses to negotiate!" And yet a settlement was reached today. Magic, yes?
Perhaps I'm predisposed to take DirecTV's side. I've been generally happy with them as an entertainment provider, and I don't really feel like I have a relationship with Viacom. I like The Daily Show, but I associate that with Comedy Central and Jon Stewart, not Viacom. And of the other 16 channels that were in dispute (See, I even take DirecTV's word for that figure.), TV Land and Nick at Night are the only ones I watch, and those very rarely.
That being said, I really just liked DirecTV's approach to the whole conflict. I don't like scare tactics under the best of circumstances, and Viacom's making the loss of a few TV channels sound like a personal assault was just egregiously bad. It's more than that, though. From my perspective, disputes over money rarely have an ethically right or wrong side. If money's been stolen, or if one party is much more vulnerable, sure, but we're talking about two corporations arguing over how much money they were going to, let's face it, take from me. Best to make it sound like business, because that's all it was. So DirecTV's decision to use the emotionally charge "bullying" word today was disappointing. Ah well, at least I get my Daily Show back.
What did you see today?
This morning, an agreement was reached between DirecTV and Viacom in their 10-day-long dispute over how much the former would pay to carry the latter's channels. DirecTV's announcement posits the settlement as a triumph over "bullying" by a programming provider. Viacom's announcement is more subdued. I myself am a DirecTV subscriber who frequently watches Comedy Central, one of Viacom's channels.
Commentary
I found many interesting aspects to this dispute and its resolution, but I'm going to start with the one that caused me to want to blog in the first place: the belligerents immediately removed all references to the dispute itself from not only their main websites, but the little ancillary ones each of them had set up just to rag on each other about it (this one for DirecTV, and this one for Viacom).
I was sad this information was gone, because I thought the tone each company took in defending its viewpoint might be indicative of their corporate culture, and I wanted to share them with you. Fortunately, the people over at Ping! Zine have been covering the story and have some characteristic quotes from each side here.
It's funny, in the past the two parties seemed to be taking the opposite positions of the ones they're using today. DirecTV generally spoke in measured tones. "We are negotiating." "We'll get this handled." "We're on your side." Viacom claimed to be on the consumer's side as well, but their rhetoric went more along the lines of, "DirecTV is run by greedy, lying bastards who want to take away your Spongebob!" In fact, I have to believe that one of the reasons Viacom took down their previous comments so quickly was because only yesterday they were saying, "DirecTV refuses to negotiate!" And yet a settlement was reached today. Magic, yes?
Perhaps I'm predisposed to take DirecTV's side. I've been generally happy with them as an entertainment provider, and I don't really feel like I have a relationship with Viacom. I like The Daily Show, but I associate that with Comedy Central and Jon Stewart, not Viacom. And of the other 16 channels that were in dispute (See, I even take DirecTV's word for that figure.), TV Land and Nick at Night are the only ones I watch, and those very rarely.
That being said, I really just liked DirecTV's approach to the whole conflict. I don't like scare tactics under the best of circumstances, and Viacom's making the loss of a few TV channels sound like a personal assault was just egregiously bad. It's more than that, though. From my perspective, disputes over money rarely have an ethically right or wrong side. If money's been stolen, or if one party is much more vulnerable, sure, but we're talking about two corporations arguing over how much money they were going to, let's face it, take from me. Best to make it sound like business, because that's all it was. So DirecTV's decision to use the emotionally charge "bullying" word today was disappointing. Ah well, at least I get my Daily Show back.
What did you see today?
4/30/2012
I saw a 3000-word rejection letter
Context
Someone on Help a Reporter Out made reference to a 3000-word rejection letter that was on the internet as an example of something job recruiters shouldn't do. When I sought out the actual contents of this letter, I found them on Gawker, which also included comments from the recipient who forwarded the letter, and two catchy titles.
Commentary
OK, it's official. All of my inspiration comes from HARO now. Plus all that, I deliberately titled today's entry as search engine bait, because "3000 word rejection letter" has become an internet meme. I have lost all my morals.
Anyway, I was surprised at the amount of vitriol thrown at this this list of dos and don'ts from Shea Gunther. In particular, I don't understand the accusations of arrogance and condescension. Both of those terms imply to me, "This guy thinks he's better than his applicants." Perhaps I have too hierarchical a view of the world, but to me, the person who not only has a job but has a job to offer is, in fact, better than the applicants. At least in the job-hunting realm, which is where rejection letters come from. Moreover, I think we can all agree that Mr. Gunther is better at seeking employment than the people whom he apparently encountered who applied for a writing job without proofreading for spelling and punctuation!
I'd like to believe I would not have been offended if I had received this letter. After all, it's obvious from the first paragraph that it was sent to over 900 people. Which means that each of the criticisms contained in it belong to one of three categories:
1) Doesn't apply to me. Water off my back.
2) Might or does apply to me, but not something I want to change. Great, now I know I would not be a good fit at Shea Gunther's place of business.
3) Might or does apply to me, and I didn't know it was a problem. Yippee, something I can fix before my next round of job applications.
So where's the down side to any of these three scenarios?
Is it just considered rude to say, "Some of you are really bad at applying for jobs."? That can't be right, because career advice websites do it all the time. So then it looks like we're mad at Gunther because he actually has some interest in receiving good applications, as opposed to people who are spouting the same old cliches in order to create column inches.
Here's a scale of types of rejection letter I'd like to receive. OK, I don't like to receive any, but you know what I mean. From least-favorite to favorite:
1) Dead silence. Hello, is anybody there? Did you get my application? Does your company still exist?
2) Polite, meaningless form letter. By far the most common of rejections, it gives me no help whatsoever, except to know for sure I didn't get the job.
3) Something like what Shea Gunther wrote. It's like an extra 3000 words of job ad I can build on for the next time!
4) A personalized rejection saying exactly why I didn't get the job. This would be golden, but according to most human resource offices, also actionable. Isn't that great? Someone takes the time to tell me why it wasn't a good fit, and I sue them!
What did you see today?
Someone on Help a Reporter Out made reference to a 3000-word rejection letter that was on the internet as an example of something job recruiters shouldn't do. When I sought out the actual contents of this letter, I found them on Gawker, which also included comments from the recipient who forwarded the letter, and two catchy titles.
Commentary
OK, it's official. All of my inspiration comes from HARO now. Plus all that, I deliberately titled today's entry as search engine bait, because "3000 word rejection letter" has become an internet meme. I have lost all my morals.
Anyway, I was surprised at the amount of vitriol thrown at this this list of dos and don'ts from Shea Gunther. In particular, I don't understand the accusations of arrogance and condescension. Both of those terms imply to me, "This guy thinks he's better than his applicants." Perhaps I have too hierarchical a view of the world, but to me, the person who not only has a job but has a job to offer is, in fact, better than the applicants. At least in the job-hunting realm, which is where rejection letters come from. Moreover, I think we can all agree that Mr. Gunther is better at seeking employment than the people whom he apparently encountered who applied for a writing job without proofreading for spelling and punctuation!
I'd like to believe I would not have been offended if I had received this letter. After all, it's obvious from the first paragraph that it was sent to over 900 people. Which means that each of the criticisms contained in it belong to one of three categories:
1) Doesn't apply to me. Water off my back.
2) Might or does apply to me, but not something I want to change. Great, now I know I would not be a good fit at Shea Gunther's place of business.
3) Might or does apply to me, and I didn't know it was a problem. Yippee, something I can fix before my next round of job applications.
So where's the down side to any of these three scenarios?
Is it just considered rude to say, "Some of you are really bad at applying for jobs."? That can't be right, because career advice websites do it all the time. So then it looks like we're mad at Gunther because he actually has some interest in receiving good applications, as opposed to people who are spouting the same old cliches in order to create column inches.
Here's a scale of types of rejection letter I'd like to receive. OK, I don't like to receive any, but you know what I mean. From least-favorite to favorite:
1) Dead silence. Hello, is anybody there? Did you get my application? Does your company still exist?
2) Polite, meaningless form letter. By far the most common of rejections, it gives me no help whatsoever, except to know for sure I didn't get the job.
3) Something like what Shea Gunther wrote. It's like an extra 3000 words of job ad I can build on for the next time!
4) A personalized rejection saying exactly why I didn't get the job. This would be golden, but according to most human resource offices, also actionable. Isn't that great? Someone takes the time to tell me why it wasn't a good fit, and I sue them!
What did you see today?
4/27/2012
I saw a request for information
Context
Help A Reporter Out (HARO) had a query today that made me laugh out loud. When I've discussed HARO in the past, I've mentioned that they had a strict "no copying the query to your blog" rule, but that appears to have gone by the wayside. So here it is (author removed to protect the laughed-at):
I'm looking for a female podiatrist who can help readers understand how to wear heels without sacrificing long-term health. Note: This is not about telling readers NOT to wear heels. They can do whatever they want. We want to help them wear heels safely.
Commentary
It's the second-to-last sentence that did me in. The way the writer jumps to the defense of her reader's personal liberty is both heartwarming and technically true. They can, in fact, do whatever they want. If I want I can drive at 90 miles per hour through rush hour traffic. There's not really much advice you can give me that will help me do it safely, though.
What the reporter is up against is a sad part of reality: facts do not yield to principles. Freedom of choice is something worth fighting for, but you can't use it as a bludgeon against biological processes like joint and bone breakdown. OK, it's just a story about wearing high heels, and although doing so regularly will cause long-term damage (Look, I'm not even a podiatrist and I said it!), it's not that big a deal right? Probably not, but acting as if belief can defeat reality can have truly terrifying consequences.
Randy Shilts wrote an excellent book about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic called And the Band Played On. In it he talks about how often proper health precautions were not taken because no one wanted to violate gay men's civil rights by suggesting their sexual practices were a vector for spreading the disease. Even though they were. And they were killing each other in numbers that would have made the Nazis proud. You should read the whole book, but if you want just one concentrated example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the entries for January 3, 1983 (The book goes in chronological order).
I can understand why we do this. I too have principles I like to live by. People shouldn't get mad at me when I tell the truth. I should be able to walk unmolested down any street I please. The animals who live in my house should do what I say, because I have their best interests in mind. The facts, however, do not yield.
We can choose to ignore this bit of unpleasantness, sticking to our principles and ignoring all inconvenient truths, or at least being really annoyed by them. Or we can abandon principle, being tempest-tossed by every new piece of information that comes along, whether it be a new diet or the latest management technique, and not the slightest bit worried that nothing we say or do can be counted on for more than twenty minutes.
But I think there's a middle road, one that recognizes that what we're really talking about is competing principles and we can choose between them according to our desires and values. You can believe both that high-heeled shoes are an important piece of professional attire and that it's important to take good care of your feet. My doctor does, after all. She's wearing her high heels every time I come into her office and every time we discuss them, she mentions the dangers inherent in doing so. Because she's made an informed choice. Now there's a principle I can get behind!
What did you see today?
Help A Reporter Out (HARO) had a query today that made me laugh out loud. When I've discussed HARO in the past, I've mentioned that they had a strict "no copying the query to your blog" rule, but that appears to have gone by the wayside. So here it is (author removed to protect the laughed-at):
I'm looking for a female podiatrist who can help readers understand how to wear heels without sacrificing long-term health. Note: This is not about telling readers NOT to wear heels. They can do whatever they want. We want to help them wear heels safely.
Commentary
It's the second-to-last sentence that did me in. The way the writer jumps to the defense of her reader's personal liberty is both heartwarming and technically true. They can, in fact, do whatever they want. If I want I can drive at 90 miles per hour through rush hour traffic. There's not really much advice you can give me that will help me do it safely, though.
What the reporter is up against is a sad part of reality: facts do not yield to principles. Freedom of choice is something worth fighting for, but you can't use it as a bludgeon against biological processes like joint and bone breakdown. OK, it's just a story about wearing high heels, and although doing so regularly will cause long-term damage (Look, I'm not even a podiatrist and I said it!), it's not that big a deal right? Probably not, but acting as if belief can defeat reality can have truly terrifying consequences.
Randy Shilts wrote an excellent book about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic called And the Band Played On. In it he talks about how often proper health precautions were not taken because no one wanted to violate gay men's civil rights by suggesting their sexual practices were a vector for spreading the disease. Even though they were. And they were killing each other in numbers that would have made the Nazis proud. You should read the whole book, but if you want just one concentrated example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the entries for January 3, 1983 (The book goes in chronological order).
I can understand why we do this. I too have principles I like to live by. People shouldn't get mad at me when I tell the truth. I should be able to walk unmolested down any street I please. The animals who live in my house should do what I say, because I have their best interests in mind. The facts, however, do not yield.
We can choose to ignore this bit of unpleasantness, sticking to our principles and ignoring all inconvenient truths, or at least being really annoyed by them. Or we can abandon principle, being tempest-tossed by every new piece of information that comes along, whether it be a new diet or the latest management technique, and not the slightest bit worried that nothing we say or do can be counted on for more than twenty minutes.
But I think there's a middle road, one that recognizes that what we're really talking about is competing principles and we can choose between them according to our desires and values. You can believe both that high-heeled shoes are an important piece of professional attire and that it's important to take good care of your feet. My doctor does, after all. She's wearing her high heels every time I come into her office and every time we discuss them, she mentions the dangers inherent in doing so. Because she's made an informed choice. Now there's a principle I can get behind!
What did you see today?
4/26/2012
I saw a discussion about validity
Context
Slate magazine often runs a feature whereby they will have one or more participants weigh in on a piece of pop culture. Currently Katie Allison Granju is debating Hanna Rosin on the Elisabeth Badinter book The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women. Over her past couple of entries, Granju has focused on how Badinter's financial interest in Nestle's PR company disqualifies her from taking a position on breastfeeding, snce Nestle is a multinational manufacturer of infant formula. Here is a paragraph from today's entry:
"So how can anyone take anything Elisabeth Badinter has to say on the topic of infant-maternal nutrition seriously? Her ethical conflict is so enormous, and her motives so glaringly questionable, that her position on the topic ultimately doesn’t even matter. There’s just no way to get past who it is making the argument. It’s as if the Board Chairman for American Beef Association’s publicist released a book criticizing Americans’ “naturalist” eating habits, and vegetarianism in particular. It wouldn’t matter if she had a Ph.D. in nutrition from Harvard or a history of bashing vegetarianism. It also wouldn’t matter if her book were well argued and persuasive. The very idea of someone in that position writing such a book would be laughable."
Commentary
There is a saying in American politics, and maybe elsewhere as well: "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." With that in mind, I'm forced to disagree with Ms. Granju. It always matters if a book, or any statement of opinion for that matter, is well argued and persuasive. I have no problem with accounting for someone's character, personal history and economic ties when evaluating an argument, but if those are the only criteria you use, I think you'll miss out on some good stuff. I personally thought the late Christopher Hitchens was an execrable human being, but man could he write stuff!
I also think this critique fails to allow for the possibility that Badinter might be taking a principled position in both the economic and philosophical spheres. If one truly believes in the legitimate uses of baby formula to free up women's time, why wouldn't you invest in Nestle's publicist and even Nestle itself? Are we supposed to expect hypocrisy and cynical self-interest instead, where no one actually puts their money where their mouth is? Wouldn't that be a bigger "ethical conflict?"
So, to sum up, I don't think a well-researched book written by a PhD in nutrition on the evils of vegetarianism would be laughable, even if it was written by someone employed by the American Beef Association. I like to gather as many reasoned opinions as I can. I'm about done with the Slate series, though. I think the conversation has gone about one entry past "reasoned."
What did you see today?
Slate magazine often runs a feature whereby they will have one or more participants weigh in on a piece of pop culture. Currently Katie Allison Granju is debating Hanna Rosin on the Elisabeth Badinter book The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women. Over her past couple of entries, Granju has focused on how Badinter's financial interest in Nestle's PR company disqualifies her from taking a position on breastfeeding, snce Nestle is a multinational manufacturer of infant formula. Here is a paragraph from today's entry:
"So how can anyone take anything Elisabeth Badinter has to say on the topic of infant-maternal nutrition seriously? Her ethical conflict is so enormous, and her motives so glaringly questionable, that her position on the topic ultimately doesn’t even matter. There’s just no way to get past who it is making the argument. It’s as if the Board Chairman for American Beef Association’s publicist released a book criticizing Americans’ “naturalist” eating habits, and vegetarianism in particular. It wouldn’t matter if she had a Ph.D. in nutrition from Harvard or a history of bashing vegetarianism. It also wouldn’t matter if her book were well argued and persuasive. The very idea of someone in that position writing such a book would be laughable."
Commentary
There is a saying in American politics, and maybe elsewhere as well: "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." With that in mind, I'm forced to disagree with Ms. Granju. It always matters if a book, or any statement of opinion for that matter, is well argued and persuasive. I have no problem with accounting for someone's character, personal history and economic ties when evaluating an argument, but if those are the only criteria you use, I think you'll miss out on some good stuff. I personally thought the late Christopher Hitchens was an execrable human being, but man could he write stuff!
I also think this critique fails to allow for the possibility that Badinter might be taking a principled position in both the economic and philosophical spheres. If one truly believes in the legitimate uses of baby formula to free up women's time, why wouldn't you invest in Nestle's publicist and even Nestle itself? Are we supposed to expect hypocrisy and cynical self-interest instead, where no one actually puts their money where their mouth is? Wouldn't that be a bigger "ethical conflict?"
So, to sum up, I don't think a well-researched book written by a PhD in nutrition on the evils of vegetarianism would be laughable, even if it was written by someone employed by the American Beef Association. I like to gather as many reasoned opinions as I can. I'm about done with the Slate series, though. I think the conversation has gone about one entry past "reasoned."
What did you see today?
4/12/2012
I saw an article about "The Talk"
Context
I came across this article today, although I can't remember how I was referred to it. The main point is that now that John Derbyshire has heard about the talk African-Americans routinely have with their children about racism, he has decided to publicize his own version.
Commentary
I had never heard about The Talk prior to today; so much for my command of pop culture memes. It occurs to me, though, that our lives would be immeasurably better if everyone's version of The Talk went like this: "Racial tensions exist in our society. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
What did you see today?
I came across this article today, although I can't remember how I was referred to it. The main point is that now that John Derbyshire has heard about the talk African-Americans routinely have with their children about racism, he has decided to publicize his own version.
Commentary
I had never heard about The Talk prior to today; so much for my command of pop culture memes. It occurs to me, though, that our lives would be immeasurably better if everyone's version of The Talk went like this: "Racial tensions exist in our society. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
What did you see today?
3/27/2012
I saw some information about Trayvon Martin
Context
I was reading this article about the Trayvon Martin case on Slate. Until I watched the Daily Show last night, I hadn't realized he was shot over a month ago. I keep learning new things all the time, including the tidbit included in the Slate article about Martin's school suspension for marijuana possession.
Commentary
My husband and I differ on whether Trayvon Martin's death should be considered a lynching. We were in the park walking our dogs discussing it, so we didn't have a dictionary at hand, but it turns out we were pretty close to the correct definition. According to Merriam-Webster Online, to lynch is to to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. So I will concede to my husband that this was not a mob action (unless you want to blame the entire Florida Legislature) and make the half-concession that it was not achieved by hanging. Nonetheless, very much without legal sanction. Or at least, without common sense sanction.
Departing from the formal definition, my husband made another argument that we think of lynching, at least the form that was practiced regularly down here where I live (check this data set if you want your hometown's scorecard), as being predicated on teaching someone a lesson. I remarked that it's hard to teach a corpse a lesson, but I understood the point he was trying to make.
And now, from hyperbole to trivializing. Lynching in this country is what white people do to black people who are bugging them. It's our way of saying, "The law of proportional response only applies to people who look like me. For others, I can react however I want." Remember, we used to use this form of capital punishment for offenses like speaking to white women, failing to yield the sidewalk, or looking someone in the eye. Which is why I don't find the continued investigation into Trayvon Martin's various misdemeanors helpful. It's like we keep trying to come up with a sum of offenses that make it OK that he's dead.
Well, maybe it is helpful. Decide for yourself, does walking around a gated community + hoodie + marijuana use + school problems = put him down like a rabid dog? I'm going to be even meaner and say that if Martin was beating George Zimmerman up he still shouldn't have been shot. If someone is punching you in a populated area, you yell. You or someone else calls the cops and the perp is taken to jail. Everybody survives the encounter. Even people who bug the crap out of each other.
What did you see today?
I was reading this article about the Trayvon Martin case on Slate. Until I watched the Daily Show last night, I hadn't realized he was shot over a month ago. I keep learning new things all the time, including the tidbit included in the Slate article about Martin's school suspension for marijuana possession.
Commentary
My husband and I differ on whether Trayvon Martin's death should be considered a lynching. We were in the park walking our dogs discussing it, so we didn't have a dictionary at hand, but it turns out we were pretty close to the correct definition. According to Merriam-Webster Online, to lynch is to to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. So I will concede to my husband that this was not a mob action (unless you want to blame the entire Florida Legislature) and make the half-concession that it was not achieved by hanging. Nonetheless, very much without legal sanction. Or at least, without common sense sanction.
Departing from the formal definition, my husband made another argument that we think of lynching, at least the form that was practiced regularly down here where I live (check this data set if you want your hometown's scorecard), as being predicated on teaching someone a lesson. I remarked that it's hard to teach a corpse a lesson, but I understood the point he was trying to make.
And now, from hyperbole to trivializing. Lynching in this country is what white people do to black people who are bugging them. It's our way of saying, "The law of proportional response only applies to people who look like me. For others, I can react however I want." Remember, we used to use this form of capital punishment for offenses like speaking to white women, failing to yield the sidewalk, or looking someone in the eye. Which is why I don't find the continued investigation into Trayvon Martin's various misdemeanors helpful. It's like we keep trying to come up with a sum of offenses that make it OK that he's dead.
Well, maybe it is helpful. Decide for yourself, does walking around a gated community + hoodie + marijuana use + school problems = put him down like a rabid dog? I'm going to be even meaner and say that if Martin was beating George Zimmerman up he still shouldn't have been shot. If someone is punching you in a populated area, you yell. You or someone else calls the cops and the perp is taken to jail. Everybody survives the encounter. Even people who bug the crap out of each other.
What did you see today?
1/26/2012
I saw someone encourage divorce
Context
As referenced in this previous post, I like to read advice columns. I was reading Slate's version, Dear Prudence today, and a woman wrote in asking if it was acceptable to take a lover in light of her husband's brain hemorrhage, which has left him with the mental capacity of an 11-year-old. Prudie said no, it would probably be best to find him an assisted living facility, divorce him, and start a new life. Full column here, if you don't trust my paraphrasing.
Commentary
My snarky response to this situation is: have we become so enamored of writing our own wedding vows that we just leave out the "for better, for worse" part?
Here's my more well-considered response: I have no idea how I would respond in the advice-seeker's situation. Philosophically, though, I believe that although we may be attracted to a set of attributes, like mental capacity, sense of humor, and physical attractiveness, we don't marry those. We marry a person, and abandoning that person in their time of greatest need seems wrong.
Sometimes when my husband feels like he has disappointed me in some way, I'll remind him that I don't love what he does, I love who he is. I think he is alternately reassured and dismayed by this, but that's what he has to work with.
I suppose one might contend that a person is no longer himself after a dramatic cerebral change, but I'm not sure I buy that, either. My mother had middle-stage Alzheimer's before she died, but I have to say I never felt like she wasn't my mom anymore. She remembered less, and she didn't always know who I was, but she was still the same person. Perhaps this is what a soul is, the essential, unalterable part of ourselves. And aren't we supposed to marry our soulmates?
What did you see today?
As referenced in this previous post, I like to read advice columns. I was reading Slate's version, Dear Prudence today, and a woman wrote in asking if it was acceptable to take a lover in light of her husband's brain hemorrhage, which has left him with the mental capacity of an 11-year-old. Prudie said no, it would probably be best to find him an assisted living facility, divorce him, and start a new life. Full column here, if you don't trust my paraphrasing.
Commentary
My snarky response to this situation is: have we become so enamored of writing our own wedding vows that we just leave out the "for better, for worse" part?
Here's my more well-considered response: I have no idea how I would respond in the advice-seeker's situation. Philosophically, though, I believe that although we may be attracted to a set of attributes, like mental capacity, sense of humor, and physical attractiveness, we don't marry those. We marry a person, and abandoning that person in their time of greatest need seems wrong.
Sometimes when my husband feels like he has disappointed me in some way, I'll remind him that I don't love what he does, I love who he is. I think he is alternately reassured and dismayed by this, but that's what he has to work with.
I suppose one might contend that a person is no longer himself after a dramatic cerebral change, but I'm not sure I buy that, either. My mother had middle-stage Alzheimer's before she died, but I have to say I never felt like she wasn't my mom anymore. She remembered less, and she didn't always know who I was, but she was still the same person. Perhaps this is what a soul is, the essential, unalterable part of ourselves. And aren't we supposed to marry our soulmates?
What did you see today?
11/07/2011
I saw a writer's bio
Context
I was looking for more information about the criminal charges filed against a former Penn State football coach. That search led me to this article, which has the following printed at the top as the author's bio:
Jason Whitlock writes about the sports world from every angle, including those other writers can't imagine or muster courage to address. His columns are humorous, thought-provoking, agenda-free, honest and unpredictable.
Commentary
My first question is, have we become so enamored of the idea of personal branding that we think "bio" means "advertisement?" I think of a bio as being something that tells you where a person comes from, perhaps even what he's accomplished up to now, not a description of how awesome he is at present.
Or maybe someone thought it counted as a bio because it's written in the third person. Cynically, I think it was written by Whitlock himself, but I have no evidence one way or the other, because it's not attributed. This, of course, does not help its credibility. Even quote whores put their names on their opinions. By the way, the person at the top of that quote whore list in the link above works for the same parent company as Jason Whitlock, but I digress.
If you're getting the impression I don't believe anything in the "bio," you're correct. I know it's narrow-mindedness on my part, but after reading the bio, I pretty much wrote Whitlock off as a blowhard. Which is kind of sad, because the bio appeared before the article, so his writing didn't even get to speak for itself.
On the other hand, that may have been the bio's author's intent. It seems to me that if you have to say a writer is courageous, insightful and funny before allowing someone to read his work, you're somewhat afraid the reader won't come to those conclusions on her own.
What did you see today?
I was looking for more information about the criminal charges filed against a former Penn State football coach. That search led me to this article, which has the following printed at the top as the author's bio:
Jason Whitlock writes about the sports world from every angle, including those other writers can't imagine or muster courage to address. His columns are humorous, thought-provoking, agenda-free, honest and unpredictable.
Commentary
My first question is, have we become so enamored of the idea of personal branding that we think "bio" means "advertisement?" I think of a bio as being something that tells you where a person comes from, perhaps even what he's accomplished up to now, not a description of how awesome he is at present.
Or maybe someone thought it counted as a bio because it's written in the third person. Cynically, I think it was written by Whitlock himself, but I have no evidence one way or the other, because it's not attributed. This, of course, does not help its credibility. Even quote whores put their names on their opinions. By the way, the person at the top of that quote whore list in the link above works for the same parent company as Jason Whitlock, but I digress.
If you're getting the impression I don't believe anything in the "bio," you're correct. I know it's narrow-mindedness on my part, but after reading the bio, I pretty much wrote Whitlock off as a blowhard. Which is kind of sad, because the bio appeared before the article, so his writing didn't even get to speak for itself.
On the other hand, that may have been the bio's author's intent. It seems to me that if you have to say a writer is courageous, insightful and funny before allowing someone to read his work, you're somewhat afraid the reader won't come to those conclusions on her own.
What did you see today?
5/10/2011
I saw (and heard!) a disappointing webinar
Context
I attended a free webinar sponsored by the American Library Association today entitled It's All About the Student: How Students Learn and How Online Reference Sources Help. Since I teach computer skills to adults at my library I thought it would be of some use to me and I stuck with it until the end, but I didn't enjoy it much.
Commentary
The first thing I found disappointing about this webinar was that it was not a webinar, at least not in the sense of being in seminar format. The presenters were given time to present and attenders were allowed to ask questions through a chat window, but generally those were answered by a moderator. So it really wasn't the "exchange of ideas" my dictionary says a seminar is supposed to be. It was a set of lectures.
To compound the problem, the lectures themselves didn't engage me. Some of that was because I am not much of an audio learner. Instead, I'm more of a visual-kinesthetic type. There were visual aids (otherwise it would have been a podcast), but because they were PowerPoints I found myself thinking, "I could have just read these slides at my leisure instead of being chained to my desk listening to these people blather on." Or in one case, LISTENING TO THE PERSON READ HER POWERPOINT SLIDES! Are we ever going to cure people of that?
Not that I would have read the slides anyway, because they were mostly sales pitches for the online reference products sold by various companies. I probably should have expected this going in because most of the panel was composed of vendors, but I didn't think it would be quite so blatant.
Which brings me to my main problem with the whole enterprise. The first presenter, a librarian at Harvard, attempted to build a context for what we were going to hear by talking about some learning characteristics of digital natives. I didn't necessarily trust her conclusions, but at least she was speaking in the realm of ideas. After that, it was a series of "Look at these cool bells and whistles!" talks except for the very last vendor, who at least attempted to to talk about the pedagogical reasoning behind his company's offerings. I came away not only disappointed in the webinar, but in our whole educational system if this is how we decide what tools to use.
"Student engagement" is a popular concept in teacher training these days, and I agree that if someone's not paying attention, they're not likely to learn much. I'm concerned that we're confusing condiments for entrees though, trying to get students engaged using cool technology toys and ignoring whether they're actually learning and retaining something in the process.
In the end, though, the webinar was not a total loss for me. I spent some time this afternoon thinking about ways I balance student engagement with discernable learning outcomes in my own classes, and I'll probably do some writing about that topic a little later. I count it as blessing when my generally discontented nature allows me to examine some deeper truths.
What did you see (and hear!) today?
I attended a free webinar sponsored by the American Library Association today entitled It's All About the Student: How Students Learn and How Online Reference Sources Help. Since I teach computer skills to adults at my library I thought it would be of some use to me and I stuck with it until the end, but I didn't enjoy it much.
Commentary
The first thing I found disappointing about this webinar was that it was not a webinar, at least not in the sense of being in seminar format. The presenters were given time to present and attenders were allowed to ask questions through a chat window, but generally those were answered by a moderator. So it really wasn't the "exchange of ideas" my dictionary says a seminar is supposed to be. It was a set of lectures.
To compound the problem, the lectures themselves didn't engage me. Some of that was because I am not much of an audio learner. Instead, I'm more of a visual-kinesthetic type. There were visual aids (otherwise it would have been a podcast), but because they were PowerPoints I found myself thinking, "I could have just read these slides at my leisure instead of being chained to my desk listening to these people blather on." Or in one case, LISTENING TO THE PERSON READ HER POWERPOINT SLIDES! Are we ever going to cure people of that?
Not that I would have read the slides anyway, because they were mostly sales pitches for the online reference products sold by various companies. I probably should have expected this going in because most of the panel was composed of vendors, but I didn't think it would be quite so blatant.
Which brings me to my main problem with the whole enterprise. The first presenter, a librarian at Harvard, attempted to build a context for what we were going to hear by talking about some learning characteristics of digital natives. I didn't necessarily trust her conclusions, but at least she was speaking in the realm of ideas. After that, it was a series of "Look at these cool bells and whistles!" talks except for the very last vendor, who at least attempted to to talk about the pedagogical reasoning behind his company's offerings. I came away not only disappointed in the webinar, but in our whole educational system if this is how we decide what tools to use.
"Student engagement" is a popular concept in teacher training these days, and I agree that if someone's not paying attention, they're not likely to learn much. I'm concerned that we're confusing condiments for entrees though, trying to get students engaged using cool technology toys and ignoring whether they're actually learning and retaining something in the process.
In the end, though, the webinar was not a total loss for me. I spent some time this afternoon thinking about ways I balance student engagement with discernable learning outcomes in my own classes, and I'll probably do some writing about that topic a little later. I count it as blessing when my generally discontented nature allows me to examine some deeper truths.
What did you see (and hear!) today?
4/08/2011
I saw ideas about education
Context
I'm still reading What Would Google Do? In the section on Google U, Jarvis posits that most useful education is self-motivated and self-directing, so the current educational model of coming to a specific classroom and learning what the teacher tells you is hopelessly outdated. He allows that our schools may have a socialization function as well as an educational one, but he thinks there are plenty of other communities and experiences that could fulfill the same role.
Commentary
OK, now Jarvis has wandered into my field, so I'm bound to get touchy. Actually, I don't want to talk about education per se; I want to dive into that "socialization" thing. It seems to me that when Jarvis looks at it, he thinks of socialization as the process of helping a student find a community, literally giving them a social life in some respect.
However, that's not entirely what we expect out of schooling, especially public schooling, in this country. We don't just want students to find some community to belong to, we want them to specifically belong to the American community. The most obvious example of our attempts to create Americans is the civics class, but there are others. Take science labs. Performing experiments in school tells our kids that they shouldn't just take someone's word for something. Or gym class, where 8-year-olds learn some of the same lessons about discipline and teamwork they would if they attended military boot camp.
In fact, the biggest battles we fight over education in this country are about what "America" is. Are we a Christian people who should be taught about God in the classroom? Are we an egalitarian people who believe everyone should learn together, regardless of skills or background? Is free speech or good discipline a more important characteristic of Americans? General school board meetings are fun, but if you really want to get a lesson in civics, find a way to get yourself on a curriculum or textbook choosing committee. Then you'll really learn what this country is all about, at least in your neighbors' eyes.
Does it make you uncomfortable when I talk about school as indoctrination? That is, in and of itself, an American thing. We pride ourselves on being free, independent, self-deterministic types. And, to be fair, the fact that we debate the issues mentioned above on a regular basis, rather than being dictated to by a small group of people or a time-honored tradition, speaks to how free we are. And also to why debate techniques are frequently taught in American schools.
What did you see today?
I'm still reading What Would Google Do? In the section on Google U, Jarvis posits that most useful education is self-motivated and self-directing, so the current educational model of coming to a specific classroom and learning what the teacher tells you is hopelessly outdated. He allows that our schools may have a socialization function as well as an educational one, but he thinks there are plenty of other communities and experiences that could fulfill the same role.
Commentary
OK, now Jarvis has wandered into my field, so I'm bound to get touchy. Actually, I don't want to talk about education per se; I want to dive into that "socialization" thing. It seems to me that when Jarvis looks at it, he thinks of socialization as the process of helping a student find a community, literally giving them a social life in some respect.
However, that's not entirely what we expect out of schooling, especially public schooling, in this country. We don't just want students to find some community to belong to, we want them to specifically belong to the American community. The most obvious example of our attempts to create Americans is the civics class, but there are others. Take science labs. Performing experiments in school tells our kids that they shouldn't just take someone's word for something. Or gym class, where 8-year-olds learn some of the same lessons about discipline and teamwork they would if they attended military boot camp.
In fact, the biggest battles we fight over education in this country are about what "America" is. Are we a Christian people who should be taught about God in the classroom? Are we an egalitarian people who believe everyone should learn together, regardless of skills or background? Is free speech or good discipline a more important characteristic of Americans? General school board meetings are fun, but if you really want to get a lesson in civics, find a way to get yourself on a curriculum or textbook choosing committee. Then you'll really learn what this country is all about, at least in your neighbors' eyes.
Does it make you uncomfortable when I talk about school as indoctrination? That is, in and of itself, an American thing. We pride ourselves on being free, independent, self-deterministic types. And, to be fair, the fact that we debate the issues mentioned above on a regular basis, rather than being dictated to by a small group of people or a time-honored tradition, speaks to how free we are. And also to why debate techniques are frequently taught in American schools.
What did you see today?
4/06/2011
I saw an explanation of Google's success
Context
I'm reading Jeff Jarvis's What Would Google Do? As you might discern from the title, this is a book analyzing Google's business success and suggesting what other businesses could do to emulate them. According to Jarvis, one of Google's chief strength is its ability to leverage communities and their data to deliver outstanding advertising packages.
Commentary
As I told my husband, What Would Google Do? is a palette cleanser after having read Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture. It's funny, before I started I would've sworn I had much more in common with Kenn's viewpoint than Jarvis's, but I found The Cult of the Amateur to be a nearly unreadable elitist screed, while What Would Google Do? is a well-reasoned, thought-provoking treatise.
Not that I agree with all of it. I understand that Google has revolutionized advertising and made it, for perhaps the first time, a viable way to make money off the internet. However, I'd like to point out two things about advertising:
1) It's annoying. In fact, I think I can make a case that Google's famous "Don't be evil" motto is violated every time they run an ad.
2) It's hard to do well. I'm on the internet a lot, because I use it a lot for my work. I see a lot of internet advertising, and most of it is bad. Here's what I define as bad internet advertising:
1) It advertises something I would never buy, like life insurance.
2) If I did ever consider buying the type of product or service advertised, I wouldn't pick this particular one, because the content of the ad seems untrustworthy.
3) The advertiser seems to be trying to distract me from #2 by using cheesy, distracting graphics (shocked babies, dancing women, etc.). Apparently, some of them use sound as well, but my work computer is always muted, so I'm spared that.
The ads that appear on Google itself may fit #1 and #2, but never #3, so I'll give them credit for that. But the prevalence of ads on other sites that do fulfill all three make me question whether "becoming a node for advertising" is the panacea Jarvis seems to think it is.
In fact, it can backfire badly: when I'm on a website, if it has the 1-2-3 punch of bad advertising, there's a good chance I'll think the site itself is disreputable or failing economically even if I like the editorial content. If I decide to not visit anymore, the advertising has hurt the site's long-term bottom line while giving it a short-term injection of cash. Everyone can be harmed by their company they keep. Even Google.
What did you see today?
I'm reading Jeff Jarvis's What Would Google Do? As you might discern from the title, this is a book analyzing Google's business success and suggesting what other businesses could do to emulate them. According to Jarvis, one of Google's chief strength is its ability to leverage communities and their data to deliver outstanding advertising packages.
Commentary
As I told my husband, What Would Google Do? is a palette cleanser after having read Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture. It's funny, before I started I would've sworn I had much more in common with Kenn's viewpoint than Jarvis's, but I found The Cult of the Amateur to be a nearly unreadable elitist screed, while What Would Google Do? is a well-reasoned, thought-provoking treatise.
Not that I agree with all of it. I understand that Google has revolutionized advertising and made it, for perhaps the first time, a viable way to make money off the internet. However, I'd like to point out two things about advertising:
1) It's annoying. In fact, I think I can make a case that Google's famous "Don't be evil" motto is violated every time they run an ad.
2) It's hard to do well. I'm on the internet a lot, because I use it a lot for my work. I see a lot of internet advertising, and most of it is bad. Here's what I define as bad internet advertising:
1) It advertises something I would never buy, like life insurance.
2) If I did ever consider buying the type of product or service advertised, I wouldn't pick this particular one, because the content of the ad seems untrustworthy.
3) The advertiser seems to be trying to distract me from #2 by using cheesy, distracting graphics (shocked babies, dancing women, etc.). Apparently, some of them use sound as well, but my work computer is always muted, so I'm spared that.
The ads that appear on Google itself may fit #1 and #2, but never #3, so I'll give them credit for that. But the prevalence of ads on other sites that do fulfill all three make me question whether "becoming a node for advertising" is the panacea Jarvis seems to think it is.
In fact, it can backfire badly: when I'm on a website, if it has the 1-2-3 punch of bad advertising, there's a good chance I'll think the site itself is disreputable or failing economically even if I like the editorial content. If I decide to not visit anymore, the advertising has hurt the site's long-term bottom line while giving it a short-term injection of cash. Everyone can be harmed by their company they keep. Even Google.
What did you see today?
3/09/2011
I saw a blog post about teaching methods
Context
One of the messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today referenced this blog post. I encourage you to read it yourself, but here's the quick summary: it's about using a learning cycle consisting of assimilation, accommodation, and organization as a model for library instruction.
Commentary
This is my interpretation of the learning cycle described by Frierson: assimilation is when we receive information, accommodation is how we match up new information to what we already know, and organization is how we decide to use the information. Let me give an example of how this works: I look at my thermometer and assimilate that the temperature outside is 49 degrees Fahrenheit. I accommodate this knowledge by remembering that in the past when it has been 49 degrees, I've been pretty chilly. I organize the information by deciding to wear a coat.
Teaching is often treated as just a process of putting information out there so students can assimilate it. In return, students sometimes bypass accommodation entirely and only organize the information so they can regurgitate it on an exam. Teachers are frustrated because students don't appear to learn; students are frustrated because teachers don't appear to offer anything of lasting value (Where am I ever going to diagram sentences in the real world?).
Early in his teaching career, my husband attended a workshop called Teaching and Learning. He learned all kinds of useful stuff there; I learned for the first time that education is not just about teaching, but about learning as well. In other words, you can be the best teacher in the whole world, but if your students aren't learning, it's a pointless exercise for everyone. This can be terrifying to teachers, because although we have complete control over how we present information, we have no control over how students accommodate it or organize it. The best we can hope for is to accompany them in that process and maybe learn something ourselves.
There's also a time factor. Presenting information generally doesn't take long, whether we talk, or give the students something to read, or even demonstrate a task. However, waiting for each individual student to find existing knowledge in his/her brain to tack the new information to and decide how she/he wants to use it is not only time-consuming, it's unpredictably time-consuming.
A typical response is to say we don't have time to teach that way. I don't buy it. Here is my philosophy about time: we have time to do everything we really want to do. I have a similar philosophy about money, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when it comes to time constraints, I think what we're really saying is we don't have time to do something and . . . "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight" really means "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight and go to bed early so I can get up early tomorrow and not be sleepy." We're setting some priorities, which is reasonable, but it's not the same as having no time to do the dishes.
So why don't we have time to teach in such a way that students will want to learn and be successful doing so? Because what we prioritize more highly is "covering material." Of all the insidious ideas to infiltrate education, this has got to be the worst. OK, I'm not super fond of group work either, but I digress. I don't know how we ever got to a place where we believe it is more important for a teacher to get through a certain number of lessons or concepts or textbook pages than it is for students to actually learn something.
Actually, I'm lying. I know exactly how we got here; it's through mistrust and laziness. We don't trust teachers to teach, so we want to evaluate them. But measuring how much a student has learned, as opposed to how much he/she can remember at test time, is difficult. So we settle for a quantitative measure, like a percentage of right answers, instead of a qualitative one, like how good a student is at formulating worthwhile answers to substantive questions of her/his own devising. But man, that material gets covered!
What did you see today?
One of the messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today referenced this blog post. I encourage you to read it yourself, but here's the quick summary: it's about using a learning cycle consisting of assimilation, accommodation, and organization as a model for library instruction.
Commentary
This is my interpretation of the learning cycle described by Frierson: assimilation is when we receive information, accommodation is how we match up new information to what we already know, and organization is how we decide to use the information. Let me give an example of how this works: I look at my thermometer and assimilate that the temperature outside is 49 degrees Fahrenheit. I accommodate this knowledge by remembering that in the past when it has been 49 degrees, I've been pretty chilly. I organize the information by deciding to wear a coat.
Teaching is often treated as just a process of putting information out there so students can assimilate it. In return, students sometimes bypass accommodation entirely and only organize the information so they can regurgitate it on an exam. Teachers are frustrated because students don't appear to learn; students are frustrated because teachers don't appear to offer anything of lasting value (Where am I ever going to diagram sentences in the real world?).
Early in his teaching career, my husband attended a workshop called Teaching and Learning. He learned all kinds of useful stuff there; I learned for the first time that education is not just about teaching, but about learning as well. In other words, you can be the best teacher in the whole world, but if your students aren't learning, it's a pointless exercise for everyone. This can be terrifying to teachers, because although we have complete control over how we present information, we have no control over how students accommodate it or organize it. The best we can hope for is to accompany them in that process and maybe learn something ourselves.
There's also a time factor. Presenting information generally doesn't take long, whether we talk, or give the students something to read, or even demonstrate a task. However, waiting for each individual student to find existing knowledge in his/her brain to tack the new information to and decide how she/he wants to use it is not only time-consuming, it's unpredictably time-consuming.
A typical response is to say we don't have time to teach that way. I don't buy it. Here is my philosophy about time: we have time to do everything we really want to do. I have a similar philosophy about money, but I won't go into that. Anyway, when it comes to time constraints, I think what we're really saying is we don't have time to do something and . . . "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight" really means "I don't have time to do the dishes tonight and go to bed early so I can get up early tomorrow and not be sleepy." We're setting some priorities, which is reasonable, but it's not the same as having no time to do the dishes.
So why don't we have time to teach in such a way that students will want to learn and be successful doing so? Because what we prioritize more highly is "covering material." Of all the insidious ideas to infiltrate education, this has got to be the worst. OK, I'm not super fond of group work either, but I digress. I don't know how we ever got to a place where we believe it is more important for a teacher to get through a certain number of lessons or concepts or textbook pages than it is for students to actually learn something.
Actually, I'm lying. I know exactly how we got here; it's through mistrust and laziness. We don't trust teachers to teach, so we want to evaluate them. But measuring how much a student has learned, as opposed to how much he/she can remember at test time, is difficult. So we settle for a quantitative measure, like a percentage of right answers, instead of a qualitative one, like how good a student is at formulating worthwhile answers to substantive questions of her/his own devising. But man, that material gets covered!
What did you see today?
2/15/2011
I saw responses to unwelcome opinions
Context
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
Today I saw two similar things in different places. First on PUBLIB, an e-mail list for public librarians, I saw a series of inflammatory posts (one example here, but you can find others if you browse the February entries by the same author, Matthew Price), followed by some equally inflammatory responses and several well-considered ones, including this one by Robert Baillot. Then on Slashdot, I saw another discussion initiated by quoting Glenn Beck in one of his more outrageous moods and evolving into a metadiscussion of how to respond to outrageous opinions. By the way, that last link is a little tricky. You may have to do some collapsing and expanding of comments to see what I'm talking about.
Commentary
Almost since the inception of the internet, people have been using it to exchange opinions. And almost since the start of that activity, there have been trolls, which are defined as people who take an inflammatory stand just for the sake of being inflammatory, not because they actually believe it. The perception is that trolls get off on attention or on getting people upset because they think it makes them superior.
The conventional wisdom about this phenomenon is "Don't feed the trolls," i.e. don't encourage their bad behavior by responding, but I was intrigued by the two responses I saw that seemed to fly in the face of that. "Ephemeriis" takes a civic responsibility approach, saying that since Glenn Beck is taken seriously in some quarters, the opposition is obligated to craft a serious rebuttal. Robert Balliot goes him one better by quoting Aristotle to make the point that every idea deserves consideration, even the rantings of a troll.
These responses are challenging to me. I often believe in operant conditioning, or at least the principle I learned from my mother: "If you ignore someone, he'll go away." But is getting someone to go away really my goal? Or is it engagement, where I continue to grapple with the people who drive me crazy in the belief that the God who loves all of us might be trying to tell me something?
What did you see today?
2/07/2011
I saw an unfamiliar medical condition
Context
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
I was reading an e-mail from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) today and it referred to a condition known as gluteal amnesia. As mentioned previously, the rules of HARO don't allow me to quote the actual message here. Since I had never heard of gluteal amnesia, I did a quick internet search for it. I saw it mentioned and defined on several sites, but when I sought more information on either WebMD and PubMed, the term was not found.
Commentary
I can't tell you what gluteal amnesia is, because once I found it wasn't mentioned on the two internet sources I consider most authoritative for medical information I was no longer interested in the condition itself. Instead, I came to wonder why a great many people outside the medical establishment wanted to talk so much about it.
I've come up with three possible reasons:
1) Gluteal amnesia doesn't really exist at all and is just a scam started to convince people they have an exotic ailment.
2) Gluteal amnesia is a very real medical problem, but health professionals call it something else.
3) What is labeled gluteal amnesia is a set of symptoms that could point to a variety of other widely recognized medical conditions.
Whichever of these three reasons explains the discrepancy in the discussion of gluteal amnesia (Could we really just be talking about your butt falling asleep?), it must drive physicians up the wall. It may also illustrate, in part, why doctors sometimes hate it when patients get medical information from the web. Think about it: a general practitioner has to keep up with all manner of real medical problems, and then people come in complaining of a problem that doesn't exist. Or does exist, but is called by another name or indicates another type of problem.
It doesn't help in the slightest that there are probably some people who believe in a fourth potential reason for the relative silence about gluteal amnesia: it's a very real, very serious medical condition that the medical establishment doesn't want us to know about for some nefarious reason. So now we have skilled professionals (and, in my experience, generally nice people) being told, "I don't trust what you say because the internet, (where nobody knows you're a dog), says different."
For the record, my doctor often encourages me to look up information on my medical problems on the internet, but that's after she tells me what they are. And it's possible she does that because I'm a librarian and I let her be a doctor.
What did you see today?
12/16/2010
I saw an icon on my desktop
Context
I was sending material to the consultant who's setting up an intranet for Shreve Memorial today. While I was working, I happened to notice the icon for editing the library's new website that I put on my desktop a few days ago.
Commentary
OK, I know, "Way to put nothing useful in the Context, Lynn!" The reason the juxtaposition above struck me as interesting is that I was not entirely happy about the way either our website or our intranet was set up. Yet here I was, happily contributing to both of them now that they are faits accompli. That's pretty much normal for me; once a decision is made I prefer to deal with the new reality rather than stewing or sulking. I'm not passive-aggressive, in other words. Aggressive-aggressive, but not passive-aggressive.
So does that mean I cave when I lose an argument? Maybe. For me it just means acknowledging the argument is in fact lost, that I can see things not go my way and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reset the universe. Plus it doesn't seem weak to me; it seems empowering. A decision gets made; I don't agree with it; I then get to make my own decision whether to adapt, fight openly, or leave, all of which sound more productive to me than denial or sabotage.
Frankly, sometimes my flexibility in accommodating different viewpoints feels like a great intellectual and/or spiritual achievement to me. And yes, sometimes I go along with a new procedure just so I can be around to see how spectacularly it'll fail. So maybe I'm a little passive-aggressive.
What did you see today?
I was sending material to the consultant who's setting up an intranet for Shreve Memorial today. While I was working, I happened to notice the icon for editing the library's new website that I put on my desktop a few days ago.
Commentary
OK, I know, "Way to put nothing useful in the Context, Lynn!" The reason the juxtaposition above struck me as interesting is that I was not entirely happy about the way either our website or our intranet was set up. Yet here I was, happily contributing to both of them now that they are faits accompli. That's pretty much normal for me; once a decision is made I prefer to deal with the new reality rather than stewing or sulking. I'm not passive-aggressive, in other words. Aggressive-aggressive, but not passive-aggressive.
So does that mean I cave when I lose an argument? Maybe. For me it just means acknowledging the argument is in fact lost, that I can see things not go my way and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to reset the universe. Plus it doesn't seem weak to me; it seems empowering. A decision gets made; I don't agree with it; I then get to make my own decision whether to adapt, fight openly, or leave, all of which sound more productive to me than denial or sabotage.
Frankly, sometimes my flexibility in accommodating different viewpoints feels like a great intellectual and/or spiritual achievement to me. And yes, sometimes I go along with a new procedure just so I can be around to see how spectacularly it'll fail. So maybe I'm a little passive-aggressive.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)