Sarah Davies

Language Log had a post last week on uptalk using this YouTube video as an example:

Notice how his inflection rises at the end of each statement, as if he’s asking a question, or indicating that he’s unsure the listener understands what he’s saying. That’s called uptalk.

I think a lot about why it is that women are consistently paid less than men. Clay Shirky thinks it’s because women haven’t properly learned to become assholes. I think he’s onto something there. His detractors claim he’s blaming the victim. I do think that people who are more assertive in the office tend to get things done, and people who get things done are more successful.

Uptalk seems to be a more prominent trait in women. In my experience, the women who do uptalk do it all the time, not just when they are feeling insecure about a particular statement. But I can definitely see how it could be perceived as insecurity and thus result in less assertive statements. I would love to see research on whether uptalk correlates with salary.

I just discovered Rapportive today, and I can immediately say that I don’t know how I lived without this application. You install it, and it automagically provides context for all the crazy people who email you, right from those crazy people’s social networking profiles!

For instance: yesterday, some crazy dude emailed me from out of the blue wanting me to blog about a Capitol Hill open house event for urbnlivn, the real estate blog I write for. I had no context for who this person was. Today, I install Rapportive, and voila:

You can even make little private notes to yourself about where you met these crazy people and why they know who you are! Genius!

Mark Kleiman and Andrew Sullivan are discussing who in America has moral authority. My immediate reaction on reading the headline was the Dalai Lama. He fills cheering stadiums to capacity in Seattle, while most Seattlites, I imagine, would as soon spit on the pope as look at him. However, Kleiman clarifies:

I took this to mean both “moral authority you are prepared to accept” and “enough public standing to be an actual force.” Tom Schelling, for example, has the intellectual force, the moral clarity, and the nerve, but not the notoriety, nor the impulse to seek it out.

That seems to square with the Dalai Lama more or less, but in reading some of the candidates I saw that “in America” is meant to mean “live in America” not “have influence in America.”

A few of the nominees so far:

• Barack Obama
• Bob Dylan
• John Lewis
• Jimmy Carter
• Ralph Nader
• Bill Clinton
• Colin Powell
• Jon Stewart
• Oprah Winfrey
• Al Gore
• Elie Wiesel
• Tom Brokaw
• Bill Gates
• Warren Buffett

(I linked two of them because I had never heard of them, and assuming my audience is roughly the same age/education level as I, you probably haven’t either)

I’m loathe to accept the moral authority of politicians or the richest people in the world. Of those listed, Jon Stewart would be the closest to having moral authority for me. Personally, I’d also include Dan Savage, Andrew Sullivan, and Cornell West, though none of them fulfill the public standing requirement, and obviously much of the country would disagree. I don’t think there is any one person who would fit the bill for such a divided country.

Thoughts?

My friend Erica Mills (that’s her on the right with the dementedly determined grin) does communications for small businesses and nonprofits. I talked with her this week about, well, lots of stuff, but one thing that stood out to me was the degree to which she really has to hand-hold people through their fundamental business plan before she can even start on a communications strategy. I have the same issue with nonprofits and technology. Here’s Erica on “marketing your essence, not your everything” at the Northwest Enterprising Moms Conference.

That chart she’s standing in front of is her “1, 2, 3 Marketing Tree” (pdf). You should fill this out before you even think about hiring someone to work on your tech or communications.

There are many resources for small businesses to build a business plan, and nonprofits should take advantage of them. It’s especially important for nonprofits going through Founder’s Syndrome. It takes a lot of time to define your organization on such a granular basis, but it makes the services that Erica and I provide much more valuable to your organization. If you don’t have a goal, we can’t build a strategy.

The tragic earthquake in Haiti has brought up the subject of nonprofit overhead. Here’s an example of a tweet on the subject which was posted today:

Another false meme: “100% of Yele proceeds go to THE PEOPLE” – 2005: 61%; 2006: 65%; 2007: 73%

Seems like a logical complaint – if I’m donating to aid in Haiti, I want my money to go to Haitians. The same complaint occurs all across the nonprofit sector. People want their money to go directly to the cause, with no cuts taken for bureaucracy and inefficiency. But, when you talk to folks who have worked at nonprofits, you hear a much different story.

The word for this type of giving is “restricted.” Restricted giving is popular and common, but it’s actually the least helpful type of giving you can do. The fact is that it takes many people to run a nonprofit organization, and what seems like bureaucracy to you is actually salaries, benefits, and the savings accounts which give organizations a buffer so they don’t have to lay people off in hard times. Most nonprofits run incredibly lean – minimal salaries, minimal benefits, few perks – but the people who run nonprofits are the ones making the biggest positive impact on our society and our world.

When you give to an organization, please specify that you prefer that your gift be “unrestricted,” essentially meaning that you trust the people who run that organization to use it in the most effective way possible to serve their mission. Sometimes that means taking money that would otherwise go directly to Haitians, and using it to raise the salary of the call center staffer who is fielding reports of injury and death all day long, or increase his benefits to include counseling services.

Think about it.

I’m currently studying for the GRE with the hope of getting into the University of Washington’s Executive Master of Science in Information Management program. One of the challenges the GRE uses to separate the men from the boys is a timed essay based on a vague but opinionated prompt. I wrote one today just to practice, and I need blog fodder, so I’m making you read it. This was written in 45 minutes flat without spellcheck. I did have coffee though, so any perceived coherence can be chalked up to the brief clarity that is the gift of caffeine.

Prompt:

The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyze the trends of its youth.

Essay:

No generation has produced more data than today’s youth. Never has so much information gushed from an oppressed people than that which the youth of Iran are broadcasting to the rest of the planet. It is infinitely easier for this generation of youth to understand each other than it has been for any generation in the history of the world. If you wish to understand contemporary culture, the only place to look is to the youth of today.

Instant communication on a global scale has allowed today’s youth to lay bare their lives and their cultures out for all to see. Lest we discount the significance of this fact, remember just a generation ago when a convincing argument could be made that our political enemies are monsters who are nothing like us. The average American, or Iranian, could not fly to the other side of the world to see if these claims were valid. Today’s youth wake up and read messages from friends in six different countries before they get out of bed.

Contemporary culture, however, is a misleading term. When the lines of communication were not so direct, we used representatives like actors and politicians to describe our culture, and our culture appeared more homogenous. It was only possible to buy the books that were carried in your town, so in fact, culture back then actually was more homogenous. Today’s youth see no point in representatives. Why would youth allow an actor or politician to represent them to the world, when it’s simple and easy to represent themselves? The youth of today can order any book they like, and it’s caused them to have a multitude of nuanced perspectives. There is no such thing as contemporary culture anymore. Today’s youth speak with a thousand voices to describe a thousand different cultural backgrounds and experiences.

If culture is so varied, how can we ever hope to understand it? There are several academic projects seeking to answer this question. It is not a question to be taken lightly. Can we look at the backlash from the Iran election, at the terrabytes of data that flowed from Iran in the weeks following that momentous event and draw any meaningful conclusions? We can. There was anger. There was pain. There was fear. These are the places where the many different cultures of Iran coalesced and agreed. We know this because we listened carefully to the many voices of the youth.

Today’s youth have powerful voices. They do not have a homogeneous culture, and the clarity with which we can understand them is sometimes cloudy and fleeting, but if we support more research in this area, if we are willing to try and willing to fail, our understanding will grow over time. This volume of data is a wholly unexpected glut of chaos that the human race has never seen the likes of, but we must break it down into its parts. We must understand it, and in doing so, we will gain a greater understanding of each other.

Barry’s New Posse – Rigoberta Menchu Tum, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Betty Williams, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Jody Williams

I was shocked to find out this morning that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Like some “unnamed white house aides,” my initial reaction was to check the date and make sure it wasn’t April 1st. Nominations closed only two weeks after he was sworn into office.

Last I checked, we’re mired in two wars that have no chance of success because we have no clue what success looks like, we have the highest military spending in the history of the world (over seven times as much as the next highest spender in 2008), and we’re refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama because we luuuurv China. Peace? Not so much.

However, if the intent of the award is not, in fact, to award achievement, but rather to advance the cause of global peace, then the question before the committee becomes “who has the most influence? who can do the most good with the blessing of the well-regarded Nobel name?”. And I don’t think that any of you, dear readers, don’t know the answer to that question.

the lovely ankle of blogger violet blue

I teach people how to blog. It’s a fairly big part of my professional career, and it has occurred to me that I really ought to put my money where my mouth is. Although I do blog here, and a few other places, I have never actually made money blogging.

Well that ends today. I’ve taken up a freelance writing gig with the Seattle condo blog, urbnlivn! Brian and I have been informally condo hunting for a while now, and I figured it wouldn’t be much more of a burden to put the notes and pictures we take anyway up online.

So if you’re interested in the Seattle condo market, head over and check it out. My first post is already up on new green townhouses in Squire Park. It involves pickle vats. Really.

Hello beloved readers!

This here blog and the ideas herein are made possible by the fact that I am employed. My employer is currently running a membership drive, so this seems like a good time to remind all of you who enjoy this blog for free (look ma, no ads!) to kick back a little something to the folks who send me to conferences, buy me books by smart people, and pay me to do a fascinating and constantly changing job.

That employer is the constitution-defending, gay rights loving, drug law reforming ACLU.

AND if I get 10 of you to join this awesome organization I get *secret prizes*. Do you know how much I want *secret prizes*? I really really want them! So get with the joining, already. If you hate freedom, do it for me. If you hate me, do it for freedom.

Type “davies” into the promotion code section of this page: http://www.aclu-wa.org/join and become a member. That page says that the minimum is $35, but it’s actually $20. You can put $20 in that little “other amount” box and you will still get your little card in the mail and get invited to all the secret parties.

Membership renewals also count. People *not* in Washington State count; you all will become members of your state affiliate, but you can do it through our form, and get me credit.

*secret prizes*, people! get on it!

Today’s interview is with Mary Jane Kelly. Mary Jane (or mj) is a computer security consultant at Casaba Security and the Managing Director of the Seattle chapter of Girls In Tech.

Sarah: What does it take to motivate a community that spends 12 hours a day in front of a screen to meet in-person on a regular basis? How do you build that sort of community?
Mary Jane: I think this question hits at the heart of a lot of important issues. Technology is a wonderful tool for facilitating social interaction, which we all need. Like any tool, though, it can be misused. Multiple studies show how vital in-person communication is for maintaining the close relationships that are necessary for health and happiness. While virtual communication can definitely enhance relationships, it can’t ever totally replace the experience of being with other people in person. With so many demands on our time, though, it’s very tempting to try to replace face-to-face meetings with quick IMs or status updates. We need face time, though, and there’s really no replacement for it.

I think the key to building a successful networking community is to provide that in-person interaction in a way that is sensitive to busy schedules. Flexible, casual meet-ups work well, especially if there’s an incentive to attend, like an interesting topic, a cool venue, or, of course, free food! Timing is just as key, since it’s easier to cancel and go home than to rush through traffic to get to a meeting right after work.

Sarah: Do women have a unique role to play in the digital world, or should we have the same expectations for women that we do for men?
Mary Jane: Women absolutely have a vital and unique role to play in the tech industry. In addition to the hard tech skills required for our projects, women can also be excellent at fostering team cohesion and propagating a shared vision, and I think that most women do this very naturally. So often on a tech team, because we get engrossed in the details of our particular tasks, we forget that solutions are still created by people. That oversight can put a project at risk because even the best idea can fail without the right team to make it happen. I believe that women have a natural aptitude for bringing teams together above and beyond the explicit shared work items, and until we have machines to design, make, and repair our technology for us, the human factor will continue to be vital to the future of technological innovation.

Sarah: What perks can organizations provide to motivate young people, particularly women, to work there? Do you think most young people would take a pay cut for some of those perks?
Mary Jane: Flexibility and work-life balance are very important to young people, especially those who have family and volunteer commitments. Creative work arrangements appeal to bright, involved employees who have a lot going on outside of work, and there are some great models of how value increases when employees have more freedom and input about their work environment. For most tech jobs, flextime and working from home are easy to arrange with the right tech solution. It’s different for each organization, of course, but I think that in a lot of cases, especially for highly skilled, self-motivated employee bases, the added performance, decreased overturn, and increased project morale gained by keeping employees happy would probably more than offset the overhead. Implemented correctly, there’s no need for pay cuts, since the company would be getting a return on the investment.

Sarah: What do you think the next revolution will be for online dating?
Mary Jane: Online dating is a great way to meet potential friends and dates, when it’s used the right way. It’s most effective as an introduction tool, when communication moves from virtual to real life as early as possible. People are wired to respond to in-person communication, especially when it comes to dating, and the risk of building up unrealistic expectations increases the longer the communication stays strictly virtual. Of course, people want to have an idea of what they’re getting into first and there are real safety concerns, so some communication is important before the first meeting.

We’ve seen a lot of improvements in online dating since it first started out. I think that a service-oriented matchmaking site would be an interesting development. Dating services can offer more than simply providing a forum for user-generated content, some personality tests, and a chat client. I’d be interested to see some branching out into profile editing/advice, date scheduling, better screening, and maybe personalized relationship coaching.

Sarah: Is there a good way to help upper management folks understand digital culture, or do they just have to trust the people who are immersed in the internet everyday to provide the answers?
Mary Jane: I think the best way for management to better understand digital culture is to get more involved. It’s so simple to generate content that there is practically no barrier to entry. Setting up a blog or Twitter account that employees could read would be a great way to improve personal tech skills, get informal feedback on decisions, disseminate non-sensitive information, and improve team/company cohesion. Personally, with the low resource cost and high potential gains, I don’t know why more executives don’t participate in some form of active social networking.

The purpose of these interviews (in addition to just being fascinating) is to promote my panel proposals at this year’s sxsw, but the panel picker is now closed, so this one’s just a bonus!