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.

Friendster Support wrote:

Your profile was flagged because you’ve listed/posted tribe.net as contact information and said you’re closing your account with Friendster. Technically our Terms Of Service (TOS) does not allow posting URL’s in your profile. If you’d still like to use our service we’ll reactivate your account. If you feel more comfortable using another company we understand. Thanks for your understanding.

[Similar stories shared under ‘excommunicated’ on the “Friendster Sucks” Tribe at Tribe.net]

Oh, goodie! Earlier this month, “Weblogs, Inc.” created a blog on “Software and Technology for Group Interaction” (a.k.a. social software). They appear to be keeping completely up-to-date on the business elements behind this phenomenon (and folks seem to be checking their facts).

[This is *great* news for me and for any of the readers of this blog, as i prefer to deal with the more research-y issues anyhow. Check there for all industry gossip, press bits and whatnot and i’ll focus far more on the challenges in this space, particularly around the “social” part of the phrase.]

[From Many-to-Many]

At FooCamp, i realized that many people have been misreading my pleas for contextualization of identity presentation. I have regularly argued that people facet their identity and present different aspects given the context. Although i’ve argued against the multiple personality approach that emerged in the 1980s’ cyberculture research, my statements keep getting re-read as promoting multiple personas.

The easiest way to talk about how people facet their identity is by talking about dualisms. Unfortunately, this segmentation creates confusion. It also creates the assumption that people are always hiding one aspect of their identity from groups of people. Additionally, this approach seems to indicate that only a small fraction of the population reads context into their identity presentation.

In fact, we all read context into our presentation of self. The vocabulary choices you make are dependent on the audience you are speaking with. You speak to your child differently than you speak to your lover; you use different vocabulary when talking to someone with shared expertise than you do to someone whose doesn’t know the terms common in your field. Depending on shared history, you provide a different level of background information. Depending on perceived shared interests, you magnify your favorite interests differently. We constantly alter what we are presenting depending on to whom and in what context. This is not about deception; this is about contextualization.

When i speak of faceting one’s identity, i am not speaking of the ability to explicitly segment a manageable number of identity components; i’m talking about the ability to constantly adjust what is being presented, to whom, and in what context. Without this ability, people rely on the least common denominator. (This is why the majority of personal webpages out there read like a resume – the aspect of one’s identity that one is most readily comfortable sharing with everyone.)

From a suicide note: “I’m going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.” The guy jumped.

There’s something utterly intriguing about leaving one’s fate to the probability of society outperforming its stereotype.