The time has come to cull my facebook account. This is both a personal decision and a cultural one. Afterall, cultural change is an individual’s responsibility.
I’m tired of people feeling like having a mark on someone, a way of contacting them because they maybe crossed paths at one point, takes care of actually engaging people. I’m sad the drama and shallow exchanges facebook not only permits but, by its very infrastructure, encourages.If you want to take action with me, find me in these places. If you want to actually talk to me, you can find me via text or in person or at an event or during office hours.
This is part of my finally establishing personal boundaries on my time. My core group of friends get the vast majority of my time. Maybe this round will even stick. The world is, afterall, full of shiny and awesome people. This is not me saying I don’t care about who you are or what you do – it’s that I no longer have the bandwidth to share it with you so much. I can trust you to take care of your section of the world, yes? And you want me to be happy and focused, even if that doesn’t involve you? Awesome. I’m glad we can agree.
I want it to be ok for people to grow out of a time in their life. I want attention to go to the things immediately around people and their interests, not some trivial game with someone they had one (albeit amazing) conversation with two years ago. Let life be a process, a continuum, let go of the things that are done.
The only thing Facebook has going for it is critical mass. And that won’t change unless we, as individuals, take the detriment to our social currency to choose to interact in better forums. You won’t lose the people you actually care about, promise. Everyone else is just your cognitive heat sync.
Now that I’m done with the first phase of deleting things, I’m left with this weird middle ground – the people I talk to regularly I have culled, as I have better ways of contacting them. The names I don’t recognize are gone. It’s like being in a dream… this weird hodge-podge of “don’t I know you from somewhere?” and “you look so familiar” and “I feel like we went to the same event one time, and had an amazing conversation over beers after.”
Let me rephrase that. I am *furious* at culture. I am pissed off that I can’t go play, that it has so much to do with gender roles, and so little to do with the actual people involved.
First, let me set the stage: most of my interactions are within geek subculture. There are certainly some appalling gender ratios in most geek space, with “Sausage Fest” being a common term. That’s fine. I get along better with people who have been socialized to be outspoken, physical, and crass – ie, more masculine than feminine types. And I’ve talked before about constructing Safe Space. And long ago (so long ago it was on LiveJournal) about being a being in a woman’s body who also happens to be precocious, comfortable in sexuality, and tactile – and the assumptions that go along with that (that assumption being that I Want To Bone You — I don’t). But it’s come up again – the falsely inverse-d relationship between sexuality and respect. Something I said in a recent interview (published soonish, methinks):
I think it’s totally appropriate to find intelligent people attractive, and that the best potential dates ARE your equals. The issue is that there’s this separation of sexualization and respect. They should be completely independent OR have positive correlation, but instead they seem to have a negative correlation in our culture. IE, if someone finds me hot, they are also likely to care less about listening to my ideas. For me, it boils down to consent. If I consent to being hit on by someone I am also attracted to, that’s awesome. If someone continues to hit on my after I have made it clear I’m not interested (either in them, in dating within that social group, or in dating in general), then it’s *not* cool.
What brings this up is being a “free agent” in my social groups has meant that some people have turned their focus on me. And while I’m flattered by the attention, it kind of sucks socially. The attracted people who don’t know me well either discount my ideas in lieu of trying to get into pants, or the idealization of physicality trumps the interest in ideas. Those who know me AND like those ideas tend to play a game, knowingly or not, about declaring intellectual territory via sexual or romantic advances on me. And those who actually like me and my ideas and who don’t play those games I STILL can’t associate with because the social response has to do with the first two sets of people (see me with partner, either discount any brainmeats I have or assume I’m at play in a game).
Respect for people while sexualizing them is only difficult because our culture makes it so. Beauty vs Brains is, clearly, a false dichotomy. But it’s one we still have to deal with while we murderize it. And I have no idea how to live my life in a way that tears down those stigmas while not being (non-consensually) objectified.
Monkeys piss me off. Maybe I shouldn’t listen to Sex At Dawn as I do my dishes and walk around Seattle. Gah!
What I can do right now is work on having more women in geek space. I feel like brute-forcing the problem, to say it in a very awful way. Care to join me?
Yes, I know. I know the events I’m putting on are called “hackathons.” Yes. I know they’re actually “apps contests.” As I’ve said before, and will say again (and again and again), hackers are people who tinker with systems other people take as granted. They were the farmers who reappropriated parts from their failing machinery to create things which actually worked for them. They are the traceurs of the world, who play on walls and railings. Yes, they can be people who use a back door to teach an irresponsible company a lesson. And yes, they can be people using new open data to create ways of responding to disaster. Developers are people who build on systems which exist, new ways of interacting with those systems. While the line seems fuzzy at first, and is certainly contextual, it is an important one.
Hackers are therefore the people who are taking responsibility for themselves and their environments, their communities. And that is what gives me hope in this world. While systems are important for efficiency and sharing, those systems should constantly be tested, pushed, bettered. I don’t think we’re so much taking back the word “hacker” as making it into a thing everyone should strive to become. We HAVE to be hacking on things if we are to be engaged and responsible citizens of the world. We HAVE to be testing our friends, our selves, our causes. Through playful testing, we are able to trust one another while creating accesible safe space.
My friend caezar said this in response to me:
In times past, the advancement of humanity happened at a rate that was slow when compared to the individual life experience. That is, people didn’t see evolution happen during their life times. In the information age, we see change at a pace that can only be described as shocking. So when people used to discuss “long” terms, they meant years and decades into the future. Today, long term can mean as little as 18 months. Short term solutions often only apply for weeks or a few months. In this accelerated view of time, short term thinking can be seen for what it is: a waste of energy.
A trail blazer hacks a path through dense jungle. A hacker forges new paths through the tangles of ignorance and complexity, finding and developing the conceptual roads of tomorrow. A hackathon is simply a work party on a new frontier in a village full of idealistic and hard working people. There is no path except what we make. Before big business comes along to designate which roads they think will yield profits, someone must explore the boundaries and find the trails into new territory. Hackers are the scouts of new ideas; they teach us what is possible and afford a hint of the future to those willing to listen. In a world beset on all sides by corruption and suffering, we owe it to ourselves to send out more scouts and to equip them as well as possible to survive outside the plans of our parents.
Random Hacks of Kindness is not unusual at all. It is just a fireside chat, among settlers in a new land, about how to better live each day. We hope to make every life a little better by making a few lives a lot longer.
I made a post to Twitter last night about how I was thinking more and more that Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintencence is a crock of bullshit. Which sucks, because Sirus got me a copy with lovely graphic art on the cover7. While I summed up my response to “but why?!?!!!@” with a <140 character "Main Character Complex", here is the longer explaination.
First, a disclaimer or two: I’m “reading” this via Audible, which I love. I do not have page numbers, but I can get you minute markers. And I have not finished it. One of my greatest joys of no longer being in school is that when a book sucks, I can put it away – I don’t have to finish it. So if he learns some great lesson, or the focus shifts or something, let me know and I’ll actually keep reading.
What at last did me in, so far as not being able to listen to any more: his discourse on Science. About how all science is ineffectual because (as his “ghost” narrative device discovered) so many hypothesis are born as you test the first one, and there’s no way to test them all, so you create this whole set of unknowns. And as science is about creating truths, and you can’t test all of them…
Wait, what? Science is about creating truths? Someone hasn’t been looking at science. Science is about proving things false. Something is considered true (but not a law) until you’re able to disprove it. Laws (like gravity) are so morally independent, so long established (ie, tested against), and so universal that Scientific Law basically equals Taken As Granted.5
This is just one example of the underlying viewpoint that upsets me about this book. “Oh, look at this insight I have. I am so clever. You should examine your world, too. Question things!” Which yes, you should constantly be questioning the things around you, but for fuck’s sake, the “insights” provided are bullshit, and unless you spend as much time (if not more) examining your own assumptions, questioning the world around you just becomes a wank session. And one that ends in loneliness and The Crazy, not what wank sessions should end with, IMHO.
So this brings us closer to my own insight about the book, and the narrator1. He’s a narcissistic piece of shit. Oh sure, he speaks about different methods of inquiry, but his language and approach are seeping with judgements about those methods. His “inquiry into values” is always in relation to his own set of values, and there is always implied (or stated) moral high ground.
And maybe this wouldn’t bother me so much, but for recent life interactions, and a long-lived pet peeve of mine: Main Character Syndrom. This is my own way of explaining narcissism without bringing up that loaded word. People with this syndrom believe that they are the main character. Anyone they interact with is simply filling a supporting role. Every interaction, every discussion, -everything- has to do with them. Because why else would it be happening? Common symptoms include taking everything personally, being confused when people act “out of character,” or having unreasonable expectations.
A sub category of this is what I lovingly refer to as Narrator Syndrom, where an individual realizes they’re not the Main Character but still imparts their world view on the interactions they have with others. Symptoms include imposing moral values3 and assuming purpose/projecting omnipitence4.
A solution:
Realize everyone is full of stories. Their own. That range from completely —completely— to mostly not about you. At all. Have nothing at all to do with you. An individual – one individual – has lived an entire life of experiences. Their life is just as (if not more) complicated as your own. Each individual is (mostly) internally consistent, has a set of values and goals which are legitimate (to them), given those experiences. Now think about how many other people live in your house, your apartment building, your neighborhood block. So many stories! AND YOU GET TO SHARE WITH THEM. We get to interact, to use that wealth of experience, to build our world. And that is what makes that individual insignificance so phenomenal. We are so much greater than the sum of our parts, as individuals and as a super organism.
1. I accept that the narrator might be the author’s own way of trying to get people to come to the realizations that I speak about here, so far as the meta level, narcissism, and examination. But if that’s what he’s going for, I already get it, and listening to someone experience it just hurts my fucking faith in humanity.
2. (Yes, I know there’s no 2 up there). I also hated Catcher in the Rye. Self-involved bitchfest. Whine whine whine with no constructive action in site.
3. Morals as opposed to ethics, which are malleable and socially based as opposed to dogmatic. One of the few things Freud was not completely bat shit about.
4. The assumption of knowing where the plot is going/all the factors in any interaction, so any other viewpoint is null.
5. I am not at all saying science should not be questioned. That is, after all, what it is for6. It is imperative to question the cultural assumptions which support some scientific analysis. And what we as a culture value of course dictates what we even DO science to.
6. Well, actually it’s for describing things which exist, but whatever.
7. <3 to Sirus, who gave me the disclaimer that he hadn't read it, but liked the art and thought it might be about motorcycles, which I do like.
8. (Yes, another footnote without a reference to it). All the individualism in my last paragraph is not to get postmodern on you. Through SCIENCE (also see above) we are able to know we have a shared reality and that we must interact within it. The point I’m getting at there is that all the individual pieces are separate but interactive. There’s a reason I have “we are the machine” tattoo’d down my back – we are all interconnected, and through that interconnection, our superorganism is self-guided.
And since this post is already so incredibly long, here is a video to make me not be so ranty, which beautifully sums up a lot of that wonder and interconnection. Thanks, melodysheep!
Being involved in education means I’m always in conversations about bullying. Hell, being on the internet means there are always conversations about bullying. My viewpoint is apparently somewhat radical – I don’t think the bullies are the problem that need to be addressed. Here’s why: there will always be assholes in the world. There will always be people who project their own insecurities, or have a need for power, or what have you. Always. You cannot stop them.
What you can do is teach others the how and why of standing up for themselves.
Some background slash an anecdote: my dad wrestled us as children. We were never afraid of having hands laid upon us, the only thing was to figure out how to react. While I was slight of figure and certainly an outcast, I never dealt with bullying. This was not because there were no bullies, but because I was not afraid of a fight. Sure, the other party might win but I would inflict some major damage on my way down (which is, incidentally, how I also play chess).
I could ramble on and on about this. But basically, it boils down to people trying to end bullying are looking at the finger instead of what it’s pointing at.
There was recently a thread on the Jigsaw mailing list (daVinci) about reclaiming the Monday Math-Meet-Up. Horray! The goal was to have a more approachable set of topics, rather than esoteric and difficult. The first name thrown out was Math Porn. Most people were very into the idea of the event, but there was some back-and-forth about the name.
Just to be clear – I adore both Maths and Porn. But a maker space is not the place for such a name. The argument was basically that the name was very clear about the event being fun, accessible, and enjoyable. It would also be sure to attract a very specific group of people – those who were advanced enough in their understanding of society and the like to find the name amusing.
My response was as follows:
Yes, it would bring in a more specific group. But here’s the thing.
Women and minorities are appallingly underrepresented in geek communities. And it’s in part because many geek men (usually upperclass white dudes) do things like have specific panels for “women in tech” or crack jokes about sex in the openings to their talks. Makerbots are commonly named after women because “they’re full of glitches and problems.” Porn is stimulating, porn is fun, but porn is also a convoluted term to use in the context of larger society.
While I know that you are of the dark-humor persuasion (like myself) and understand that pornography tends to be an indulgence in intellectual wank sessions, the majority of people do not know that.
A pasty-making class is ok. DIY strap-ons are ok. It is very clear what people are signing up for, and it is indicative of subject matter, not the approach. Math Porn is not clear what environment people are entering into, and while I fully invest in the transdisciplinary ideology of Jigsaw, going the route of tried-and-true alienation is not acceptable.
I had also had a conversation with a gentleman today who is designing a new bike (450cc at about 80lbs – get your head around that one) and how it was more accessible to women. He also did a fantastic job of making it clear it wasn’t “For Women,” for that makes female-identified individuals feel pandered to, and men won’t buy it because they are insecure in their sexuality and feminity is seen as a bad thing.
When you make a separate space for us, you alienate us. When you tell us what we want or need, you belittle us. And when you expect all women to be “post-sexism,” you are being blind to what our everyday existance is like. Yes, things are better. But these places that are meant to be inclusive, meant to give people a handle on their own lives, and certainly to be a safe space, to treat exchanges oblivious of history and context is still an asshole move.
The end of the group interview I was on at 27c3 – gentleman talks about how it shouldn’t be “radical inclusion,” but just “inclusion.” – now on the Presentations and Interviews page (on your left, if you’re on the site)
So life is crazy as always (see, I even added a page with my schedule so you can see the horror).
I’m currently in MKE prepping for The School Factory reignition. Geeks Without Bounds has a huge thing in the works, and we’ve been learning lots during events by interacting with Crisis Commons and other volunteers). My brother is moving to San Francisco. And I am no longer director of the Jigsaw after April 17th. It needs space to grow, and my other endeavors are 1) national / global and/or 2) paid and/or 3) have enthusiastic help.
That means I’m post-geographic. My work not only doesn’t require me to be in one place, it requires I be all over the place. The person I care most about in the world now lives away from my home of Seattle. But the other people I care about most in the world live in Seattle.
I’m seriously looking at what “Home” means. I love my friends, I love my life in Seattle. But I can suddenly travel so much more… It’s like being in a poly relationship after being in monogamous ones.. when you didn’t go out on dates with other people because you couldn’t, based on the relationship you had agreed on. In poly, you have to decide if youwant to or not.
My friend @dymaxion asked “how do you teach someone to be a systems thinker” on Twitter this morning.
So first, what is a systems thinker? I am one because I believe that all systems are the same, they just use different language. You can also always just read the wikipedia article.
Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole. In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish. In organizations, systems consist of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organization healthy or unhealthy.
So usually it has to do with looking at a whole system, but I see it as what is true across systems. I see this in terms of movement and stories.
Some simple ways to see this, which also break down common boundaries between disciplines:
creation stories are all very similar, despite having vasty geographical distance
watch ants move. now stand on a skyscraper and see how people move
think about how people interact while working on an electrical system
Pay attention to how you react to things. It’s like massage.. you’re not paying attention to how your fingers/knuckles/hands feel, but how the creature you’re massaging feels to your fingers/knuckles/hands. How do you walk when you’re happy? When you’re sad? When you’re in a bad part of the city? When you’re lost? Now, how do the people around you respond to you based on how you walk? What is the difference in how wildlife responds to you (bird calls, what creatures do you see, etc) when you’re not in a city? How do things around you move based on how you’re moving?
Now think about stories and how people speak. What sorts of stories and archetypes appear again and again? Now, how do people break those (this is the interesting part). What histories occur again and again? Now, what happens before those stories start to be told?
why it’s worthwhile to think this way: All learning tacks onto existing nets of knowledge. “I know this because it reminds me of this” sort of thing – it’s why mnemonic devices work so well, why we mutter to ourselves when learning new things. By connecting everything to everything else, you have a much more solid structure in which to learn. It also means you’re much more immersed and engaged. how to start: pay attention, clearly. Now what else is it like? What is it made of? What else is made of that? What else moves like that?
Watched Exit Through the Giftshop with Pip, Monica, and Josh last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it – the humor, involvement, art, story. Dialoge natural enough to be an actual documentary, clever enough to make you question if it actually is.
I took two main thoughts from it. I don’t think they get along with each other, but here goes:
1) MBW is a manifestation of the graffiti community as seen from people in other arts communities. It’s pulling from previous iterations of artistic ability to do something many see as degenerate and/or offensive.
2) Graffiti is like hacking in the way parkour is like hacking. Breaking systems other people take for granted. But a web dev taking the course of actions a hacker did months before is not hacking. It’s working on a (newly) established structure. That to me is the difference between MBW and the artists he looked up to. But because he wanted to be perceived as one of those artists instead of as his own thing, he didn’t hack (way of making things work in an unexpected way) but rather was a hack (someone who throws together shit content in order to have content). (See the internet for copious examples of both).
Now onto graffiti. I grew up in a family of architects and German engineers. I believe architecture lives up to the term “frozen music” it used to be called. It is art. And whether or not art itself should be defaced is a whole other argument as it involves grey areas of history, politics, new artistic statements, etc etc. That’s why art is so fascinating to me – because it is so fraught with nuance.
But then there’s all this architecture out there that’s crap. Or abandoned. Or both. And I love graffiti on that. It’s like dumpstering a plank or a canvas someone else did some attempt of art on and doing something new, something yours, on it. I’ll leave you with this, because I think it’s amazing. And please do watch Exit, if you haven’t already.
This is part of my finally establishing personal boundaries on my time. My core group of friends get the vast majority of my time. Maybe this round will even stick. The world is, afterall, full of shiny and awesome people. This is not me saying I don’t care about who you are or what you do – it’s that I no longer have the bandwidth to share it with you so much. I can trust you to take care of your section of the world, yes? And you want me to be happy and focused, even if that doesn’t involve you? Awesome. I’m glad we can agree.
