I got to meet an amazing woman last night. Dina Mehta is someone that i met through the blogging world. Her ideas are so crisp and her politics are so righteous. I’ve had so much fun reading her ideas, so i was delighted to be able to make it. I met her amidst a group of other bloggers. And i will admit that i was bouncing full of energy and disrupted the flow of conversation, but it was so fascinating to hear all of the ideas about blogging.

But it made me think… am i blogger? I never identified as such actually. I mean, i’ve been writing rambles online since 1996, inspired by my dear friend jcn. In 1997, my Zen teacher required that i write down my reflections of the day for me. I did so digitally because he was living in a different city. I wrote journals for friends (under htaccess), started a live journal and eventually switched to MovableType. As i’ve gotten “older” and “wiser” my public rambles have become less emotional… or actually, they just make me feel less vulnerable than the emotional rambles i shared with friends.

Amidst this, “blogging” happened. I didn’t identify as a blogger because my habits didn’t change. I still rambled; friends still made fun of me and i still used the site primarily to lookup my own thoughts. But then something changed. This summer, i became a participant in some community of sorts. My voice was suddenly being read by strangers. My ideas were being critiqued. People were commenting about concepts not just being supportive. It was weird. I didn’t know how to take it.

Through this, i kept attending conferences. People would ask me if i was a blogger. Well, i blog… But it dawned on me that to “be a blogger” meant something entirely different. It’s a state of mind. People walk around and see knowledge floating in the world that they must blog… a compulsion. Well, i have a lot of compulsions, but to archive my observations is not one of them. In fact, it’s a constant struggle of mine. I actually do this because i *should* not because it’s easy. I mean, i always loved Anais Nin, but i could never understand how she wrote so much!

In fact, every time people mention that they read my blog to me, i feel guilty… I mean, i feel like it’s a neglected child. It’s so far from representative of all of the thoughts that go through my mind, all of the critiques that i spew, all of the ideas that i have. I’m embarrassed by the design which is about as adhoc as it gets (thank goodness for RSS feeds).

To “be a blogger” means to identify with this “community of bloggers.” People who are pushing the edge, changing the way people interact with information. I didn’t start blogging to do that, but people keep attributing my work as such. I read so many blogs, although i’m a dreadful commenter. All the same, they are the best ethnographic study. But am i just an observer. Somehow, i seem to have become a participant… perhaps i have “become a blogger” accidentally.

[From Many-to-Many]

I had the awesome privilege of attending the Intimate (Ubiquitous) Computing workshop at Ubicomp this year. The attendees grappled with issues of intimacy, the relationship between people and the impact of technology on intimacy. These issues are so relevant to social software, but so rarely addressed. For example, what is the impact of social software on intimacy? How does it affect our mechanisms of relating to people?

It’s so easy as social software developers to think about people’s hypothetical needs and design towards them, without really processing what impact we’ve had. Yet, the structures we create fundamentally affect how people interact, both offline and online. How are we changing people’s ability to engage offline because of their digital presence? How are we changing our understandings of the public sphere?

Ubicomp made me reflect on how easily we slip into a technocentric point of view. It’s so easy to assume that there is a perfect set of technologies, that they will solve all of the world’s problems and that they will produce nothing but good.

My take-away from the whole thing was to remember that we must think about the domains that we impact. We as social software developers/designers have the opportunity to dramatically impact social behavior. But we must approach this cautiously because if we fail to consider our impact, we could cause more harm than good.

[Remember: guns don’t kill people; people kill people. But they *use* guns and those guns were designed by people, and designed to kill.]

Tonight, i listened to a well-known software designer articulate his view of usability, ubiquitous computing and interface design. He spoke of usability as a burgeoning science. From his worldview, it would one day be possible to truly test what was the best way to do something. This conversation reeked of technological determinism* – one correct way… universalist notions of science… eek!

Now, i take issue with usability tests in general. When you run a usability test, you assume that 1) people will use it in the intended way; 2) people’s use won’t change over time; 3) people’s in-lab use will be identical to their social use at home. All of these are fundamentally WRONG. Thus, i just don’t believe in usability testing for social software because the goal is not to see if some feature works better than another, but to see if they “get” it.

Oh, my other favorite quote from the discussion concerned cell phones and their hideous user interfaces (which are worse in Japan from his perspective). “In Japan, it’s a social mystery that people buy these tools.” The connotation was that the social factor was superfluous and without value. ::shaking head::

* Technological determinism has been on my mind lately because it’s been a topic on one of my classes. My professor stated that no one would admit to being a technological determinist nowadays. I argued back stating that most of the technological determinists that i know know so little about social critiques of technology that they wouldn’t know that term so as to label themselves accordingly. I told her not to worry – there are plenty of people who still believe this problematic philosophy.

There’s a Sucker Born in Every Medial Prefrontal Cortex is a terrifying NYTimes article that discusses the convergence of branding / product addiction and neurological science.

These are the kinds of articles that remind me to be wary of academic science being sponsored by industry and cranky that psychologists and other trained professionals use their knowledge to help corporate control of people.

Continue reading →

I wrote an entry for misbehaving on ubicomp, privacy and vulnerability, but forgot to link it here.

Continue reading →

OK… my friends who are addicted to the little psychological tests so need to stop telling me about them, because they are the *perfect* procrastination tool.

You are Form 4, Gargoyle: The Fallen
“And The Gargoyle mended his wings from the blood of the fallen so he could rise up from imprisonment. With great speed and resourcefulness, Gargoyle made the world his for the taking.”

Some examples of the Gargoyle Form are Daedalus (Greek) and Mary Magdalene (Christian). The Gargoyle is associated with the concept of success, the number 4, and the element of wood. His sign is the new mooon.

As a member of Form 4, you are a creative and resourceful individual. You are always thinking of possible solutions to problems you face and you generally choose one that is right. Much of your success comes from your ability to look at things a little differently than everyone else. Gargoyles are the best friends to have because they don’t always take things for face value.

Which Mythological Form Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I was out to dinner with my roommate and we were reflecting on Ubicomp. Apparently, there was quite a discussion amongst “the boys” about the presence of some very strong women at the conference. My roommate laughed as he recalled the discussion. At some point, he reminded these boys that this is what strong women looked like. For so long, strong women tried to fit into the boys’ world, tried to be like men. (I was there, i remember.) But now, there’s a whole new flavor of strong women. These women are not really feminine, not really masculine, but themselves. Their presence in the tech world is small, but powerful and they are fundamentally themselves.

As he described this, i smiled, thinking to the women that i know who can be described by this. It’s so refreshing to see powerful women be themselves in the tech industry, but it’s also terrifying. When we were following men’s example, our direction was laid out for us. Now, we are trying to make up our own mechanisms for survival, for getting validated, for having our voices heard. Without an example, we tend to flail a bit. We’re accused of playing too nice, of being too mean. Men’s world has defined the balance; we have yet to find ours. It’s this struggle, this confusion that still cripples so many of the women that i know.

There is no easy answer, no set philosophy. Yet, it is with this mindset that i’ve joined in on the team of women blogging at misbehaving.net, a blogspace where we can reflect on women & tech.

I’m on social ban until i catch up on academic work or until Halloween (whichever comes first). Halloween is my favorite holiday – costumes, candy, absurdity. It’s the one time per year when everyone is free to be creative and embody something from their imagination. Given this, i’m ecstatic to be spending it at False Profit’s “Scary Party 2: Escape from the Castro” (watch the trailer). [Translation: crazy breaks party and haunted house with some of my closest friends]

Wired just ran an article on the “hypernetworked nodes who secretly run the world.” I knew this article was coming out because i was talking with one of the people represented about the power that one has in being a hyperconnector and how managing that power is a complete art. Of course, each of the nodes represented discusses their version of the art.

So, i have to wonder…. Can sites actually empower the marginalized when the hyperconnectors know darn well that their power is in maintaining a certain level of secrecy about who they know.