Representation -> Identification -> Expectation of Consequences -> Self-efficacy.
Monthly Archives: April 2016
The more things are connected, the more things can be hacked.
The more things are connected, the more things can be hacked.
Next time you put any kind of connected device in your story, consider asking: What happens if someone hacks this thing? What can they do that would cause problems?
“Literary” writers Junot Diaz and Karen Russell talk about:
“Literary” writers Junot Diaz and Karen Russell talk about:
– the short story form and why they persist with it;
– the challenge of minority representation in media;
– why they include genre elements in their work (part of it is being able to include elements of experience that general culture doesn’t want to talk about);
– dystopias as consolation in a crisis of helplessness;
– what they have learned from teaching;
– how students learn better when they don’t see the subject as “instrumental” to some purpose;
– how to maintain mental and emotional health as a writer with the help of your support network;
– literatures of recognition vs literatures of estrangement, and how the latter bypasses our defences and enables us to access extreme emotional truths;
– how specificity helps to communicate universality;
– what a utopia might look like;
– what they don’t feel able to address in their work yet;
– how to balance a writer’s and reader’s perspective; and
– how readers will put up with a lot of confusion if you can activate their generosity with human vulnerability.
(1.5 hours. Considerable swearing from Diaz.)
Yonatan Zunger gives his usual clear and insightful summary.
Yonatan Zunger gives his usual clear and insightful summary.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
The story below contains nothing which is likely to surprise anyone: white men advocating diversity in the workplace get treated net neutrally for it, while women or people of color doing so get rated worse by their peers than ones who don’t. What’s important about this is the consequence: that if you are a white man, this puts more of the onus on you to do this.
This is part of a general pattern. We each have things beyond our control which lead to us being treated better or worse than other people. If you’re seen as white in the US, you’ll be treated better in various ways (by cops, by employers, by business owners, etc) than if you were otherwise identical but black. If you’re “gender conforming” (e.g., you’re male and you look it and you act it), you aren’t (among other things) in danger of being killed for it. And many of these things can be subtle and situational: there are times and places where (e.g.) being black, or being female, is an advantage, just like there are times and places where those aren’t. And you almost certainly have a combination of features: maybe you’re white, male, gender-conforming, and straight, but also grew up poor and had no access to a lot of basic things that everyone around you is taking for granted.
The technical term for a thing you can’t control which makes people treat you better is “privilege.” I personally hate this word, because in English it implies something slightly contemptible, and like if you have it then everything in your life must be fine. That’s obvious nonsense, which makes this a terrible word for a very important idea. The technical term for the fact that everyone has different things for and against them, and these interact in complicated ways in their daily life, is “intersectionality.”
But here’s the thing: There’s nothing wrong with having privilege. You can’t control that, any more than you can control not having it. It’s just something that’s sort of there. It has no notion of whether you “deserve” it, because it’s something that was assigned to you before you could deserve or not deserve it.
What you can control is how you use it. In particular, with each privilege comes a responsibility to use that privilege for the benefit of people who don’t have it. (You didn’t ask for the responsibility, either, but that’s life for you. It doesn’t really care.)
That doesn’t mean infinite responsibility, and this is far from the only responsibility in your life. You absolutely can and should balance between them.
But you need to be aware of what privileges you have, and keep an active eye out for when something seems to be depending on them, and question that. Because here’s the thing: lots of the things which depend on these things aren’t even explicit “oh, I like this one better” sorts of things. They’re things that happen so subtly that you don’t even see them unless you’re actively looking. In fact, the most common effect of a privilege is “not having to worry about X” – which means that it’s only obvious to people who don’t have it. Another common form is “there really aren’t any X’s around here;” well, what’s stopping them from coming?
Spend your time talking to people who are different from you in various ways. Listen to them: recognize that their experiences might be really different from yours in a way that seems outright bizarre at first. (“That would never happen! People aren’t like that!” “They aren’t like that to you.“) The things really going on often won’t be obvious.
And when you do find things, do something to fix them. Often what’s needed most is something simple and straightforward: for example, people like X aren’t showing up somewhere because they don’t feel they’ll be treated equally, that people will always see them as other. Just taking the effort to actively welcome people, and to seriously pay attention, is a very important first step.
(Far from the last step, of course, but it’s an important place to start)
This isn’t just true for managers; it’s true wherever you work, live, or play. Take active steps to welcome people who are different from you. It’ll make your, and their, lives better.
I have had seven story rejections this week, and it’s only Wednesday. I think that’s a new personal record.
I have had seven story rejections this week, and it’s only Wednesday. I think that’s a new personal record.
On the upside, some of them are very encouraging.
The day may come when I sell a story to Unidentified Funny Objects.
The day may come when I sell a story to Unidentified Funny Objects.
But it is not this day.
(The editor did include a note that said “you’re close, keep trying”.)
I’m auditing a University of Columbia course on data science at the moment.
I’m auditing a University of Columbia course on data science at the moment. This lecture is on detecting truthfulness in human speakers. The researchers created a corpus of speech, some of which was truthful and some of which was not, and analysed various features to see how easy it would be to distinguish.
They also had human judges score the speech for truthfulness, and found:
– people performed, on average, worse than chance
– some people, however, performed much better than others
– training did not improve performance
– neuroticism in the scorer reduced performance
– agreeableness and openness in the scorer increased performance
– post-test confidence did not correlate with ability.
In a meta-study, criminals were found to have the best ability to distinguish between truth and lies, and parole officers the worst (less than 50%, possibly because they expect people to lie more than they actually do).
It wasn’t until nearly the end of this hour-and-a-half video (from 2008, so a bit out of date in places) that I…
It wasn’t until nearly the end of this hour-and-a-half video (from 2008, so a bit out of date in places) that I figured a couple of things out.
The main speaker, Jonathan Zittrain, talks about the difference between “sterile” and “generative” technologies. A sterile technology does only what its designers plan for it to do (like CompuServe, which gave you a menu which they controlled of things you could use the service for). A generative technology forms a platform on which people can build anything they want, and this creates tremendous and often completely unexpected value for everyone participating (like the World Wide Web).
The problem is, not everything that some people want is desirable to the other people who are also using the technology, so the success of generative technologies utterly depends on the people of goodwill outnumbering, and collectively outwitting, the people of ill will. And in fact this is the problem of having a society in general.
If I can make a political parallel, sterile technologies are like dictatorships: they may work extremely well, the trains may run on time, medical school may be free, architecture may be magnificent, but only the things the dictator approves of will flourish. Those things will flourish mightily, but if your interests as an individual don’t align with those of the dictator, you’re going to have a bad time.
On the other hand, an open society can generate things that aren’t centrally planned, and because they’re an environment which allows the creation of unplanned benefits for which people don’t have to gain permission, they are going to be more innovative as a consequence of being more free – if for no other reason, just because the interests of many different people are open to being served.
The problem is that an open society is inherently exposed to being taken over by people whose interests don’t coincide with those of most of the society’s members. Only the vigilance of the members against such a takeover – and also against the tendency to prevent such takeovers by attempting to close things up and move towards a sterile, controlled environment – will enable the benefits of openness to continue.
I suspect I’ve just summarized John Stewart Mill.
South African SFF author Lauren Beukes gives an excellent TED talk on stories and what they mean and enable for us.
South African SFF author Lauren Beukes gives an excellent TED talk on stories and what they mean and enable for us.
(22 minutes)
That de-escalated quickly.
That de-escalated quickly. One-day rejections for both – but with an invitation from UFO to submit something else, and a nice personalized rejection from F&SF.
Also today, a personalized rejection from Beneath Ceaseless Skies for “Castle”. I’m now puzzling over how the pace of an 1800-word story (involving a little girl growing up to adulthood and a wizard fight) can be “too slow”.
Originally shared by Mike Reeves-McMillan
Well, two big submissions sent out: a story for Unidentified Funny Objects (who have given me several encouraging rejections in previous years), and Brother Blue to F&SF.
Pleased to see that F&SF have joined us in the 21st century and now allow electronic submissions.
And now we wait.