#but on principle I do think being in a space that is exclusively centered on doing your job is better than being at home. for everyone.

[tchaikovskaya]

I think return to office is good for most jobs

[overfedvenison]

There’s this Traditional Architecture movement I see sometimes. It’s interesting to see it gaining traction. Personally, I’m pretty skeptical of them... But kind of in an optimistic way. I see potential here in their philosophy, even if I think it has some deep flaws I can’t quite articulate.... These guys also tend to annoyingly infest architecture resources, so by being an artist I see them a lot. And they’re kind of weirdly varied, from genuine movements to make streets more walkable to history people to weird politics people, and a lot that just seem to really hate modernism. But at it’s core, it’s got a few concepts. So I guess I’m trying to parse the core of what they’re saying, you know? To summarize the rather broad movement, I see a lot of the following from these Traditional Architecture people: - “Traditional architecture evolved to it’s environment and this is important to the quality of daily life.” ...There is an idea here that much of our modern architecture is over-reliant on technology and doesn’t consider enough the practical purposes of these traditional styles; such as tall ceilings in Southern architecture giving a cooling effect or the trees around the house dramatically reducing heat. Architecture, they say, should suit the local environment and tie into it in ways that mitigate environmental factors; this also makes it cheaper to maintain Additionally, they say that a majority of people find modern architecture styles disheartening; I don’t know how true this is, but it does seem like traditional stylings are more populist.   - “Our reliance on modern architecture and city design is unsustainable and we need to build for long-term sustainability” The idea is that modern architecture tends to be largely disposable, opposed to the more permanent buildings emphasized in traditional styles. There are roman ruins still standing, and some still functional, thousands of years later. But modern buildings are not really intended to last in perpetuity; this is both highly wasteful and also impersonal as many traditional styles are built to make maintenance easier There is a notable idea here about long-term sustainable living, I find this interesting because this is largely more of a right-leaning movement; they seem to use a traditional lifestyle as the basis for a sustainable lifestyle. It’s not like they think that alone is enough, but it’s sort of a reactionary philosophy in the respect that it thinks a proper respect and adherence to what has worked in the past is a good path to the future - “Architecture should be beautiful and something that inspires the people” So the short of it is that they want buildings that look nice, opposed to depersonalizing people. They say that modern architecture tends to devolve into a really depressing look once reality gets to it; I find it notable that even proponents of brutalism tend to call it a kind of ‘architecture of doom.’  The argument here is that architecture should, mostly, serve the people and not the architect. You want to build a -space- and not a -building- if that makes sense, and you want those spaces to inspire people. This isn’t without merit; you know the old idea that areas with broken windows are more likely to be vandalized? This is the opposite; if an area is beautiful, people will be more inclined to keep it nice. This also helps build a community, etc Now... I don’t really think this is exclusive to traditional architecture. A lot of people note that non-traditional architecture is just as capable of inspiring awe, and those people have a point. I think a lot of this sorta ties in to a respect for the past and tradition - “We should restructure society to be more ‘human-scaled’ as in the manner traditional towns evolved, instead of dividing things into clusters of residence and large mall centers accessible primarily by car. There should also be more communal areas in cities.” Right, I want to say right off the bat that this is one of the more utopian and radical ideals, here. But it’s rather core to the whole point, I think... So it’s like, a strong emphasis of the traditional architecture movement is to be ‘human-scaled’ opposed to built around cars. So they want like, fewer roads and wider walkways to encourage walking instead of driving; and, to this end there is more of an emphasis on human-scaled habitation - They do not want this city planning design where there is this area for commerce largely detached from a residential area ass connected by roads. Instead, they kind of want these clusters of communities centered around public spaces all pretty walkable; this is based on how old cities were before everyone had cars. And, they seem to really like trains connecting these communities. Thus, instead of these clusters of malls, you may have smaller shops all closer together and build around areas of public spaces So like... Imagine a park and local garden, and on a little sidewalk next to this park are small shops; say a bakery and some small grocery stores. Above the stores are some apartments. You can thus just kind of... Exit, walk over to the garden, get grocery shopping done, and walk home. It’s this kind of idea; this idea that no matter where you are in a city you should be in easy walking distance of whatever you need and that this should be attached to the local community A lot of the time they also want more trains as a method to connect these things, and point to Tokyo as an example of an impossibly large city that has managed to achieve a generally clean environment largely based off of these principles .... Uhh, I see a lot of people questioning modern city design, and in particular there are a lot of people opposing ‘lawn culture’ and the like as this inherently wasteful, nonsensical thing. So it’s sort of like, there are a lot of these opinions building up over the generations. I think the Traditional Architecture movement tends to get stereotyped as these weirdos that want society to be castles and wheat fields. There is honestly a lot of people who don’t think deeply, and it kinda just feels like they want to live somewhere pretty. But those that do delve into it beyond the traditionalist bend... bring up good points Now, I don’t think we should just let them all run wild with things; I find the Traditional Architecture people’s ambitions have some queestionable aspects at times. But I think it will kinda go hand in hand with those people questioning car dependency, monoculture lawns, seeking more bicycles in cities, seeking public transport support, and more progressive takes on sustainability as we move forward.  What’s my point, overall...? I have no idea. I guess I’m just trying to parse this weird movement I see cropping up. It’s something I see a lot that’s like, ‘Yeah, you make some good points,’ but I’m often left with this idea that something is not really thought through on it. I see a lot of people mocking it, but this traditional architecture focus... there’s some deeper ideas there, deeper than ‘I love tradition and greek statues and want a tradwife’ like we often dismiss this as. There are... A surprising amount of futures in fiction that tend more towards the ghibliesque. I think, this idea they have, it might be a nice world. A humanity that uses more traditional principals to live in harmony with nature... At least, it’s an interesting concept to think about. We should obviously do more than simply recreate the past, but then, that will come regardless.

[mssapphire]

Being emotionally responsible: what the hell does that mean? or answering ‘what have you got to offer?’

This post was intended to be a draft because I had some cohesive thoughts looping around my head and I thought it’d be nice to write them down so I could come back to them when I did decide to write a Serious Post (Serious Post like Serious Steven) about it, but I got carried away and the Serious Post just happened.

When you move around non-monogamous circles there’s a phrase that tends to be repeated (but not thoroughly explained, because that’s not what Insta is for): “it’s not about how many people you’re with (simultaneously), it’s about how many people you can actually care for/take care of”, which is a nice way to phrase what is also called “sexo-affective responsibility”. Let’s unpack that.

To me, that’s nothing but a fancier way of saying that you need to know your own limitations and how much capacity and room you actually have in your life to sustain relationships healthily (re: having the time is not the same as having capacity). It’s also based on a very simple common sense principle: you need to relate consciously to people. You should know yourself enough to be aware of your needs and wants, and invest the time and effort in those people who can actually help you grow and heal - and this is not something that just happens spontaneously, but something you think about, weigh, ponder, consider and decide to do.

Giving yourself that time and space to properly assess your capacity is what is going to allow you to decide what type of relationships you should have. And, if you do your homework right, you’ll understand sooner rather than later that there is a lot of bullshit we don’t need in relationships. That there are relationships not worth having, or that we insist we want one thing when in actuality we need something else. It’s like the person who compulsively has as much sex as possible, without stopping to unpack why they do that and why they want that. Or the person who keeps making romantic connections because they have no idea how to make sustainable, basic friendships. 

And yet time and time again you see people in these circles, particularly but not exclusively cis men, who think they understand this, or at least they agree with everything in theory, but they leave nothing but a wake of broken hearts in their path. It’s what I call “out of control steamrollers” (una aplanadora sin frenos). 

So, what gives? Where is the disconnect? Why do these guys keep doing this, so much so that it’s A Thing, a trope, inside the community? Is it because they’re evil? unlikely. Is it because they’re stupid? also, unlikely. Is it because they have loads of male privilege and are taking advantage of the situation so they can have as much sex as they want, while successfully making the bare minimum emotional investment and at the same time scoring Woke Points because they’re “challenging monogamy”? well, I’d say yes, this is definitely the case. But at the same time, it’s something they’re usually unaware of. And thus it’s a behavior that’s very hard for them to change. Because, even if they’re confronted with it (and if they’re adults, I am sure they have been, plenty of times) - they just don’t see themselves that way.

I have personally dealt with these types. All of them lovely guys in their own way. Guys I loved, and still do. But hot damn, so freaking immature. And I think it’s worth sharing that at some point in our relationships, where I was feeling emotionally neglected and uncared for, I confronted them about it. Of course they insisted they cared about me, and sure, why not, I’m sure they did. But a question I like to throw out there in these discussions, and that always catches them off guard is: what have you got to offer me in this relationship?

And they never know how to answer. And I understand - they have never had to ask themselves this question. And here’s my take on why: I think in society men are raised to believe that just by fact of being themselves that’s enough to be in relationship. In fact, this is the knee jerk reaction I usually get: “I’m a good guy! I’m not a terrible person!” - and I am sure they are, that’s not what I’m asking. But they immediately feel it as very personal criticism. As if you were telling them they’re less than. And that’s not the point

When you are in relationship with other people, the dynamic is supposed to be mutual and reciprocal. You can be a great person, but that doesn’t mean you have the mental space to be in relationship, or even the tools and skills to healthily relate to others. This is what I like to call Emotional Illiteracy - why? because it’s something you can learn. You can learn to be empathetic, to listen and communicate better. You can learn about attachment styles and why people relate the way they do when they’re in a loving relationship (platonic, romantic, familiar). But men don’t think that’s something they’re supposed to learn, because that’s un-manly. Emotions are things for women, not for men!

And the thing is that in society, women are raised to be caretakers and empathetic and to put other people’s needs ahead of their own. Am I saying that all women are sensitive and great in relationship while every guy is emotionally stunted and will never truly love anyone? of course not. What I’m saying is that men who don’t proactively question these structures and who seek out help and actually take the time to learn (and unlearn) are probably going to do a lot of damage... they don’t even want to do, but that they’ll be emotionally responsible for non the less. And yes, we all have things to learn, like what relationships are systematically unequal and should thus be avoided, but I think when it comes to love, men are more in the woods.

Personally, I think Bell Hooks’ definition of love is the most accurate I’ve ever seen: love is not just a feeling you have for someone, it’s a verb - it’s the things you do to grow and nurture the relationship, motivated by that feeling. Feelings alone are no base for a relationship - feelings change. But action based on connection, and a willingness to be vulnerable and heal and connect with someone else, is what is going to give you solid relationships that will stand the test of time. 

But in hetereopatriarchal society, men are taught that their attraction to women, and that alone, is what is going to reward them with a relationship. After all, men do the desiring, and women are the objects of their desire. Time, and time again, I’ve met guys whose only interactions with me boiled down to telling me how attractive they found me. And, sure, that’s nice and all. But that is not actually connecting and setting the grounds for love to grow. And there’s a common misconception where we confuse desire and admiration with love (explained in this post), because we have no idea what love actually is.

Love is being seen, known, heard and understood. And love actions are those actions centered around making the other person feel (say it with me) seen, known, heard and understood. That means making the effort of really getting to know someone. To discover their history, their inner world, to uncover trauma together - and then, by virtue of sharing time and experiences together, provide space for emotional wounds to heal. Love is not fixing someone else’s brokenness, it’s understanding them just enough so they feel safe and less alone, which is something that will nurture them into self-healing.

And this all sounds like extremely hard work - like dangerous work even. We are not taught to be vulnerable, we’re not taught to be in a healthy relationship with ourselves, let alone with others. But understanding just how much of an impact we can have on people around us, for the better or for the worse, is what’s actually going to allow us to make responsible decisions.

When we fail to do all of this work, and engage in relationships impulsively, we’re doing nothing but engaging in capitalistic consumerism of bodies and emotions (another post I intend to write). Where we are using people only to provide us with pleasure or comfort, until things get too difficult and we toss them aside and move on to our next victim (in polyamory circles they call this ‘new relationship energy’ - the rush you get when you start any loving relationship, which can be addictive). Needless to say, but: this is unfair and irresponsible.

And irresponsible, rampant, consumerism not only applies to sex, but to emotions as well (you can be abusive and exploitative in non-sexual relationships too, you know). When we don’t show up emotionally and leave the other person to do all the emotional labor in the relationship - we are using them. Coming to someone just when we need their support and their shoulder to cry on or, worse, when we need someone to give us a solution to our problems, is deeply exploitative and immature.

That’s why it’s so important to have an integral relationship with ourselves. If we are self-destructive, un-self-aware, selfish, prone to instant gratification, and in no place whatsoever to actually care for other people (or, in other words, emotionally immature) - then we really shouldn’t be in relationship. Like the character of Darryl says on the episode of Hunters Without a Home of The Midnight Gospel: according to Tibetan views, love is how happy you can make another person. That is answering the question: what have you got to offer them in relationship? 

The reason why this is such a hard question to answer, I think, it’s because we’re afraid to look inside and find ourselves empty, without anything of real value to offer. And, again, please don’t confuse ‘offering value’ with offering hedonistic pleasure, status, or material things. In the end, as human beings, we all have a necessity to love and be loved - to be interconnected. And I find it appalling and devastating that we live in a society that has made us believe that our actual worth is outside of us, or that ‘we don’t owe each other anything’ or that ‘we shouldn’t have any expectations’ (this relates to a hook up culture that has convinced us that sex is the best and only thing we’ve got to offer, again, another post I intend to write eventually).

No matter what relationship model you choose to practice (monogamy, polyamory, relationship anarchy, open relationships), if you are emotionally illiterate you will only engage in consumerism of bodies and people. And one of the best things you could ever do for your own sake and other’s is to actually make the effort and learn.

Anyway, it’s 2am and my brain has ran out of juice, so forgive me if the conclusion isn’t better articulated. But, there you go!

Edit: here’s a shorter, bullet point version I had already written and which I had forgotten about.

[itslmdee]

Fic: No Pride in Exlusionism

This month's theme is 'gatekeeping'. Today's piece looks at gatekeeping within the LGBTQ+ community.

"You're home early," Roger said. Mae sat heavily on the sofa next to him, kicking off her heels. She leaned over to kiss his cheek and then leaned back, staring at the ceiling.

Roger muted the tv. "You okay?"

"I dropped out of the planning committee."

"Why?"

Mae shook her head, took a deep shuddering breath. "This party...Gays for Halloween. I wanted a different name from the start. What does that even mean? Gay people support a holiday that many people think is an American import? Pumpkins in pride colours?"

Roger shifted to look at her. "Actually I can see paper pumpkins in pride colours."

Mae gave a wry smile. "Me too. That's not why I quit. It was Josie mostly, her and Jane and Peter. I was filling up the urn in the kitchen before we got started and I heard Josie talking by the serving hatch. Saying they were so glad John had joined us, an actual gay. She was feeling the committee was being overrun by bihets."

"She said that?" Roger took Mae's hand.

"I had three serious relationships with women before we got married," Mae said. "I'm bisexual. Marrying you doesn't change that."

"I know." He squeezed her hand. "I know."

Mae squeezed back. "Me and Tim and Desiree are all bi. Laura's lesbian but Josie is suspicious of anyone who's ever dated a man though she gives Dan a pass for a past girlfriend. Anyway Jane was giggling and agreeing because I think she fancies Josie - only reason she agreed to be vice chair when Rachel said she needed fewer responsibilities this year. And Peter...my God."

Roger waited patiently. One of the cats wandered over to inspect Mae's discarded shoes.

"I'm not that much older than most of them," Mae said. "But they don't seem to know anything about the history of the gay rights movement. Queer history, except Josie says queer is a slur despite it being reclaimed and used to push for greater awareness. And so they're trying to force out anyone who isn't a gay man or a good enough lesbian. Peter had a lot of opinions on the right kind of trans people who should be allowed to participate. The group has become increasingly exclusionary."

"So you quit?"

"Yes. I will not gatekeep," Mae said. "I will not tolerate bihet being thrown around to try and exclude bisexuals, or cishets to exclude asexuals, or get involved in the dysphoria debate to try and debate the rights of trans people. Josie doesn't want LGBT let alone Q, I, and A. Josie and Peter want L and G and screw everyone else."

Roger sighed. "Maybe there's another group you can join. A more inclusive one."

"Maybe." Mae let go of Roger's hand and got to her feet. "I'm making coffee, want one?"

"Please."

Roger knew Mae had found kinship, friendship, and purpose over the last six years she'd worked with the LGBT+ community group. She'd miss it. But he also knew she was principled and wouldn't regret quitting rather than supporting exclusionism.

"Did you talk to Maggie about this?" he asked when Mae returned with their drinks.

"I told her I quit, apologised that she'd probably have to pick up my role in organising the Halloween party."

"What about Peter? Is Maggie the right kind of trans woman according to him?"

Mae shrugged. "Maggie can take care of herself," she said. "My only regret is that if Peter talks out of turn like I heard him doing with Josie is I won't get to watch Maggie rip him a new one."

Notes and further reading

A lot of this gatekeeping takes place online; people say they've only experienced being excluded from online spaces and not groups in real life. However there are some people reporting being harassed at Pride for being seemingly straight while being bisexual, trans, or nb in a heterosexual relationship. The people who say the A in the LGBTQA is for ally not asexual to gatekeep are probably the same ones trying to gatekeep anyone who doesn't look 'gay' enough from participating in Pride.

"With the advent of queer theory and the launch of Queer as Folk, “queer” became used online as a more concise umbrella term than the full LGBT+ acronym (which, depending on who you ask, is LGBTQQIP2SAA). Today, interpretations of “queer” go a step further, and its acceptance generally splits along generational lines. Many young people — myself included — view “queer” as a term defining all nonstraight, nonbinary identities. “Queer” addresses the fluidity of gender and sexual orientation" - https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2017/8/02/21-words-queer-community-has-reclaimed-and-some-we-havent#media-gallery-media-2

3 Differences Between the Terms ‘Gay’ and ‘Queer’ — and Why It Matters - https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/difference-between-gay-queer/

"The word "queer" has only recently been identified as a slur because of TERFs and exclusionists. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) and radical gender/sexuality bianarists are flooding social media and blogging sites with propaganda smearing the word queer in the hopes of silencing all of us who don’t identify with their hate politics. Queer is the one word that doesn’t worship exclusion." - https://aminoapps.com/c/lgbt-1/page/blog/history-of-the-word-queer/BQ4p_GxRHwu5Xz35RWB31oKMLp8XJ8r7Ybo

Tumblr repsonse to "What does bihet mean" - https://bisexual-community.tumblr.com/post/93798259302/this-probably-sounds-stupid-but-what-does-bihet

On ace discourse and exclusionism on the internet vs in real life - https://medium.com/@meganhoins/the-rhetoric-of-digital-ace-discourse-4a690792f0bc

"According to 2013 Pew Research Center data, about 84 percent of bisexual adults who are in “committed relationships” are with “opposite-sex partners.” Within a broader LGBT community that too often guesses someone’s sexual orientation based on who they happen to be with at the moment, that statistic means many bisexual people get read as “straight”—or, at least, something less than fully queer." https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-bisexuals-feel-ignored-and-insulted-at-lgbt-pride

"Transmedicalism is a term for a wide range of beliefs in the transgender community that are critical of transgender people who haven't medically transitioned and/or don't experience major dysphoria. Many transmedicalists (or "transmeds" for short) focus on gatekeeping....Although the debate has been going since the '60s, it has gained more notoriety in the Internet age, particularly on Tumblr. Transmedicalists may be called "transmeds" or "truscum," while anti-transmedicalists may be called "tucutes" or (often erroneously) "transtrenders." " - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transmedicalism

[robalchemy]

Why Embracing Our Diversity Is Key To Our Survival

Okay, that’s a bit of a dramatic title, but I needed to get your attention! (Also, it’s true...Anyways...)

Okay, so we all know exclusion is akin to prejudice/fear, and that kinda stuff results in that which we COLLECTIVELY do not prefer. (I would say ‘bad’, but there’s technically no such thing - And that’s beside the point!) Now, as a bit of a preface, I can’t emphasize enough how fluid and universal this principle actually is. It can be applied to literally ANY facet of our 4D existence here on earth - Education, agriculture, politics, food, religion, cars - Even right down to your favourite football team. This concept is as broad as it is simple. And it’s not super profound or anything, but I think it’s just one of those things that we don’t really stop and think about very much. Also, the universe told me, so now I’m gonna tell you! ;)

I could come at this from two perspectives: Positive, which says this is why we need to embrace or diversity - OR negative, which says why assimilation is damaging to humanity. Both work just as well and make the same point by explaining the same mechanics. So it’s not my intention to paint anything with a good or bad brush, the purpose here is to become conscious of exactly WHY diversity is in our best interests.

I’ll open with a statement we can agree on - Balance is best, yes? If you don’t believe me, go strap 100 kilograms of dumbells to only your left side and go ride your bike for 20 or 30 kilometers - Then come back here and tell me how moot the concept of balance is!

But here’s the point - Assimilation is one of the single most damaging things we as the human race CAN do to ourselves. It cripples us in every way societally, and it demolishes our mental health and understanding individually. I could go on and on and on for days about all of the negative consequences of embracing assimilation over diversity, but you can probably fill in the blanks pretty easily.

But why?

Well first off, forced assimilation is just a massive dick move, but also it works against EVERYONE’S best interests, even those doing the assimilation, whether they choose to accept it or not.

The mechanics of why are PAINFULLY simple!!! The example I was given was a swiss watch; Swiss watches are world renown for their precision and exquisite craftmanship, yes? Have you ever seen the inside of a Swiss watch? Well, here’s one...

It’s absolutely stunning. It’s elegant, artistic, precise and most of all - As perfectly functional as we’re capable of making a mechanical watch. And save for maybe a couple screws, how many pieces can you spot here that are identical?

EVERYTHING. Works this way. Absolutely. Freaking. EVERYTHING. And people are certainly no exception.

So why’s this important? Well, long story short - Look at the world we live in right now, all the things we bear witness to that not only we don’t prefer, but are just downright traumatic to see, let alone endure. This goes so far beyond transcending the simple things like prejudice. There’s actually nothing simpler than racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. - These are either learned or chosen behaviours that are based in fear. And as I always say, what kills fear? Understanding. And if we can’t understand from our current perspective, then we shift or change our perspective to see the other side of the proverbial sphere that is truth.

But prejudice is the most obvious example here. In context, I want to go a little deeper, a little more...Individual-ish. But this is actually something we ALL do. You may not like to hear it, but yes, even YOU attempt to assimilate those around you, at least from time to time. An example of this may be having a political argument. In this case, both sides are attempting to assimilate the other side to their perspective to validate their own personal truths via the ego, which is where confirmation bias lives. And ofcourse it NEVER works, and the result is emotions of hostility, anger, judgement, etc. because of the ideological clash that just took place. When in fact the TRUTH is that all political systems, parties and leanings are flawed. Every single one. Because they’re made up of these imperfect creatures called humans who cluster in almost a tribalistic fashion - Kind of an egoic ‘safety in numbers’ strategy. And ofcourse, Dr. Nash proved mathematically that the single most preferable results can only come when all sides compromise from what’s best for the individual or what’s best for the group - To what’s best for the individual AND the group. Kind of a compromise within the compromise.

This is called cooperation, and we teach it to toddlers, but seem to have this mass difficulty of practicing what we preach.

The next major example I want to touch on is something I personally know ALL too well - Education. We honestly still have NO. FREAKING. IDEA. How different we all actually are. We THINK we do, but no individual point of comprehension could even scratch the surface. But what do we do? Standardize education. And I even use the term education VERY loosely, because so often, our schools spit on the fine line that divides education and learning from programming. And then ofcourse, this inevitably sets so many up for failure, because the potential of one’s intellect is so easily based on the simple ability to mindlessly regurgitate data. Just data. Being programmed with data is not the same thing as learning. All the data in the world could never create a even a semblance of genuine empathy in the even the most advanced quantum AI. But why is this? Again, PAINFULLY simple - Because data simply is not experiencial. Experience is the single biggest reason incarnation even EXISTS!!! We LEARN by experiencing, by questioning, by exploring and most importantly - By having different experiences. Again, one of the central purposes of life itself. Otherwise, we’re just...Robots.

I could apply this principle to any facet of existence, but I think you get the point. The collective purpose is that every person, plant, rock - WHATEVER - Holds a unique space in existence & causality. Each THING has its own unique duty or job, in a way. And if every human had the same job, flipping burgers for example - How would anything else get done, built or function? And as people, we’re CRITICALLY subject to this.

So what’s the takehome here? Again, again, again - SO SIMPLE!!! At the very least, if we want to heal this world, ourselves and our collective or society - We need to end assimilation in every conceivable form. And how do we work toward accomplishing this eutopic dream? Again, very simple (Are you noticing a theme here?!) - It sounds cliché, but prove me wrong - Love. It’s not about repressing or trying to kill our egos - We need egos to function as conscious humans on a 4 dimensional plane. The reason love is the solution aside from how warm and fuzzy it sounds - Is because when we take a more heart-centered view of others, love is how we eliminate all fear & judgement when we don’t necessairly have full understanding. Love fills in all the cracks that are not yet filled with understanding.

I’m going to end off on that note for now; Please understand that this is SUCH a brief explanation. Paper thin, really, there’s so far deeper to go down this particular rabbit hole (Please forgive my awful grammar) , but a guy can only type so much on his phone in one sitting! That being said, if you can’t yet just generally love others, then at the very least, begin by giving permission to love yourself and don’t worry what the next step is!

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HERE'S WHAT I JUST REALIZED ABOUT YC

I'm not sure myself. The danger of symmetry, repetition and recursion.1 I ask myself what I've found life is too short for, the word that pops into my head is bullshit. The second counterintuitive point is that it's not that important to know a lot of what ends up driving you are the best predictor of how a startup will find the preceding portrait to be missing something: disasters.2 Copernicus' aesthetic objections to equants provided one essential motive for his rejection of the Ptolemaic system. Why do so few founders know whether they're default alive or default dead is that the founders will no longer have complete control. Google. The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: After Altamira, all is decadence. But if you consciously prioritize bullshit avoidance over other factors like money and prestige, you can use this information in a way that was entirely for the better. He had all of us roaring with laughter.

You only get 52 weekends with your 2 year old. $300 a month, which was an order of magnitude less important than solving the real problem. It was really close, too. If it seems surprising that the gap was so long, consider how little progress there was in math between Hellenistic times and the Renaissance. The era of credentials began to end when the power of large organizations peaked in the late twentieth century.3 The smarter spammers already avoid it. This lets me get ip addresses and prices intact. And while having the best people to work for him unless he is super convincing.

When we switch to the point where much of what you're measuring is artifacts of the way schools are organized is that we invest in the earliest phase. As those examples suggest, a recession may not be so naive as it sounds. Every startup's rule should be: spend little, and work fast. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. They think they're trying to avoid.4 What made YC successful was being able to pick good founders. But working on this is not going away. Most Perl hackers would agree that Perl 5 is more powerful than machine language. Hard as it is to believe now, the big money then was in banner ads.

The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: After Altamira, all is decadence. But there are at least big chunks of the world in 587, the Chinese system was very enlightened. Like angels, VCs prefer to invest in this startup. So it's annoying that we keep hearing from you, you should never do this.5 The safest kind were the ones that occur a lot. Blub? I can do at this computer is work. There are two senses of the word portal, what they do is related to strength. Many of which will make you a better parent when you do have kids. It's like skiing in that way.6 People need to feel that what they create can't be stolen.7 Of all the useful things we can say, which are the most general truths.

But I don't wish I were a better writer.8 Strangely enough, if you get this stuff, you already have most of what you want to slow down, your instinct is to lean back. The five languages that Eric Raymond recommends to hackers fall at various points on the power continuum, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. Sealing off this force has a double advantage. The component of entrepreneurship that really matters is domain expertise. The official story is that legacy status doesn't carry much weight, because all it does is break ties: applicants are bucketed by ability, and legacy status is only used to decide between the applicants in the bucket that straddles the cutoff. —Total 1950 100 This picture is unrealistic in several respects.

I went to work there. Others thought YC had some special insight about the future of technology. For every idea that times out, new ones become feasible. So keep typing!9 And when you convince them, use the same matter-of-fact language you used to convince yourself. And to support this claim I'll tell you now: bad shit is coming.10 I read a lot of other ambitious and technically minded people—probably more concentrated than you'll ever be again. Fortunately an audience for software is now only an http request away.11

The reason young founders go through the motions of starting a startup stays alive in everyone's brain. Then you can measure what credentials merely predict.12 Anything so admired and so difficult to read must have something in it, among other things, he tells would-be startup founders, and I have a separate laptop on the other. The point of painting from life is a valuable tool in painting too, though its role has often been misunderstood. I'm skeptical about the idea of starting a startup, you shouldn't worry that it isn't widely used. And yet in the very first filters I tried writing a Bayesian spam filter, it caught 99. You may not realize they're startup ideas, turn your mind into the type that startup ideas form in without any conscious effort.

They use the same matter-of-the-future, because this is what I call a spam-of-the-future, because this is what I call degeneration. If we send them an email.13 7—total 1950 100 This picture is unrealistic in several respects. There are tricks in startups, as there are in any domain, but they invest other people's money, and it is very hard to do in college? Here are some of the current probabilities: Subject FREE 0. Bill Gates must have been when startups wrote VisiCalc. We aren't, and the living expenses of the founders of Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft both executed well and got lucky. She'd seen the level of vitriol in this debate, and she shrank from engaging. In grad school I decided I wanted to keep it that way.

Notes

The IBM 704 CPU was about the size of the 1929 crash.

But I'm convinced there were 5 more I didn't care about may not even be symbiotic, because some schools work hard to avoid the conclusion that tax rates were highest: 14. Even if you get of the twentieth century. When I use.

If language A has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B doesn't, that alone could in principle is that you're not sure. Who continued to dress in jeans and a t-shirt, they're probably a real salesperson to replace you. This kind of bug to track ratios by time of day, thirty years later.

Some professors do create a web-based applications, and b the local startups also apply to types of people, how little autonomy one would say that it will thereby expose it to colleagues. They thought most programming would be to advertise, and that we wouldn't have had little effect on the spot, so much on luck.

But it's a significant effect on what you call the years after 1914 a nightmare than to call you about an A round. If you don't get any money till all the rules with the issues they have a taste for interesting ideas: Paul Buchheit adds: I remember about the size of the first question is not too early for a couple hundred years or so, even if it's convertible debt with a cap. After a bruising fight he escaped with a faulty knowledge of human anatomy.

Dan was at Harvard is significantly better than the time and became the twin centers from which they don't, you're using a dictionary to pick the words we use the standard series AA terms and write them a microcomputer, and that injustice is what people will pay the most general truths. When investors can't make up their minds, they tended to make people richer. The second biggest regret was caring so much worse than close supervision by someone who doesn't understand what you're doing something different if it means to be self-imposed. But it can buy.

What people who currently make that their explicit goal at Y Combinator is a trap set by evil companies for the entire cross-country Internet bandwidth wasn't enough for one another directly through the founders: agree with them.

Put rice in rice cooker. It doesn't happen often. Founders rightly dislike the sort of investor behavior. This of course, that he be spared.

The dialog on Beavis and Butthead was composed largely of these limits could be adjacent. Most people let them mix pretty promiscuously. A lot of time.

Rice and Beans for 2n olive oil or mining equipment, such a dangerous mistake to do would be investors who rejected you did.

There's not much use, because they were forced to stop raising money, in writing, he found it novel that if a company tried to raise the next stage tend to be something you can control. Foster, Richard, Life of Isaac Newton, p. Founders at Work.

We couldn't talk meaningfully about revenues without including the numbers like the bizarre stuff. I saw that I know of any that died from releasing something full of bugs, and a little about how to be a distraction. This plan backfired with the New Deal but with World War II had become so embedded that they cared about users they'd just advise them to stay in business by doing another round that values the company is Weebly, which amounts to the yogurt place, we should work like blacklists, for example, it's not always intellectual dishonesty that makes the business, Bob wrote, for many Americans the decisive change in how Stripe felt.

It may indeed be a founder, more people you can stick even more dangerous to have the concept of the 70s, moving to Monaco would give you money for other reasons. You may be the next round. What you're too busy to feel guilty about it well enough to do it is more of the lies we tell as we are not mutually exclusive. If you're expected to do this right you'd have to include in your country controlled by the Corporate Library, the mean annual wage in the US is the only way to make you expend as much income.

[gravitascivics]

PRIME REASON

While the challenge of promoting civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions is an ever present one, there currently seems to be an increased need to address this challenge.  For years, there has been an ongoing release of studies documenting the lack of these attributes or abilities that one associates with good citizenship among not only young people but citizens in general.

This has only magnified with the currently, often-cited polarization one finds in the American political landscape.  Surely, this reflects less than stellar accomplishments by the nation’s civics education programs.  And one can say, with the exception of recent reports in some segments of young people around the country, that things are not getting better.[1]  Here is what the journalist, Rebecca Winthrop, wrote in 2020,

Americans’ participation in civic life is essential to sustaining our democratic form of government.  Without it, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not last.  Of increasing concern to many is the declining levels of civic engagement across the country, a trend that started several decades ago.  Today, we see evidence of this in the limited civic knowledge of the American public, 1 in 4 whom, according to a 2016 survey led by Annenberg Public Policy Center, are unable to name the three branches of government.  It is not only knowledge about how the government works that is lacking – confidence in our leadership is also extremely low.  According to the Pew Research Center, which tracks public trust in government, as of March 2019, only an unnerving 17 percent trust the government in Washington to do the right thing.  We also see this lack of engagement in civic behaviors, with Americans’ reduced participation in community organizations and lackluster participation in elections, especially among young voters.[2]

This sort of concern and findings by a variety of academic and journalistic sources have been often cited in this blog.

         So, from less civic engagement in community efforts to acquiring political knowledge, both of the nation’s founding principles and of the civic challenges of the day, to voting and performing other civic activities, the level of engagement is wanting.  Within this context of how civics education efforts should be conducted, this blogger’s task – as he sees it – is to argue for those in charge to institute various elements of a reform effort in civics education.  

Naturally, besides what goes on in the classroom, that focus would include what the preparation of teachers should include to meet the challenges that civics education confronts today.  To meet the aims of imparting civic knowledge and skills and encouraging a disposition prone toward civic engagement, how teachers should approach these educational aims, what they should be able to do, and how they should be prepared to do their jobs need to be considered.  

In order to meet the above concerns, one is apt, in typical business style, to collectively find the components of the teacher preparation process, narrow one’s focus to those portions of the process dedicated to preparing teachers to handle relevant civic factors, identify what’s wrong, and go about devising plans and allocate resources to fix the problem(s).  Sounds logical enough, but is it enough?

In addressing this topic, this posting does not count on its writer’s academic credentials but instead on his being a veteran classroom teacher of twenty-five years. While the years of his service are a bit dated (1972-2000 – with some of those years having him do some other things), he feels they still provide relevant insights as to what is happening today – the reader will be the judge as to whether he is right.  

What he learned from that teaching experience – the constructed beliefs he developed – allows him to feel he can add to the discourse about what is ailing civics education.  No doubt the challenges facing civics are daunting, not only due to a lack of resources, but also due to a multitude of factors affecting the general situation. With that in mind, what follows is his take on what should constitute an ideal teacher preparation program which emphasizes civics education.  

That is, what should such a program include as its elements?  Warning:  transcending all of these factors and elements is a holistic aspect that defies systemic linear thinking and planning as just described.  He hopes his presentation over several postings captures that sense and communicates it to the reader.  His goal in describing and explaining his specific plan is to convey an element, provide a rationale for it, and then speculate and react to what the reader might respond to the given element.  

This general order of presentation will be followed as the individual elements are addressed.  When all of the elements are “covered,” he will then make some general comments as to the holistic nature of the concern.  But before starting, the reader should also be advised that the elements will not be divided by postings.  For example, this posting begins its comments on element one and will continue with element one in the next posting.  How the whole presentation will appear or be divided is still being considered.

So, here is the first element,

Element One: A viable teacher preparation program needs to make clear that civic preparation is not only a foundation of civics education or even social studies, but of all public education and of responsible private educational programs as well.[3]

         In terms of this element, it is helpful for one to step back a moment and ask why one supports public education.  What serves as the ultimate or trump value justifying all the expense that public education represents?  Different perspectives would probably elicit different answers to this question.

         One way to address this question is to look at the origins of public education; that is, what was the original intent of having public education?  According to the educational historian, R. Freeman Butts,[4] it was to support the development of a civic minded citizenry to meet the inherent needs of a functioning republic.  And supporting this notion are the thoughts of the historians Allen Nevins and Henry Steele Commager.  

They state: “The Founding Fathers knew that their experiment in self-government was without precedent, and they took it for granted that it could not succeed without an enlightened electorate.”[5]  They go on to cite the efforts of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, George and his son DeWitt Clinton to establish an accessible school system in their respective states.  

And another historian, Samuel E. Morrison, more explicitly states the original purpose of public schools in the following way:

 Opposition to free public education came from the people of property, who thought it intolerable that they should be taxed to support the common schools to which they would not dream of sending their children. To this argument the poor replied with votes, and reformers with the tempting argument that education was insurance against radicalism.[6]

 All other reasons than that of preparing responsible, civic minded citizens (such as preparing an educated workforce, keeping youngsters from competing for jobs and off the streets, advancing the career ambitions of individual citizens, etc.), while not necessarily exclusive of the main goal, are at best secondary.

         Yes, the expense of public schooling needed to be justified to others besides the rich and these practical and utilitarian reasons were advanced by the likes of Horace Mann[7] and others, but the main justification was the promotion of civic education.  Butts further writes,

In re-examining the stated purposes used to justify the development and spread of the common public school in the mid-nineteenth century, I believe that the citizenship argument is still valid.  The highest priority for a genuinely public school is to serve the public purposes of a democratic political community. Those in favor of “excellence” or “back to the basics” [cries one commonly heard at the time Butts wrote these words] should be reminded that citizenship is the basic purpose for universal literacy. If the fundamental purposes of schooling are to be confined to preparing for a job or developing individual talents, these might well be achieved in private schools that select students for particular destinies.  But the faith of the common school reformers, as of the founders, that the civic tasks can best be performed by public schools that are characterized primarily by a public purpose, public control, public support, public access, and public commitment to civic unity was soundly based.[8]

 So, the first element is for involved and interested parties to see the main function of public and even private education is to promote good citizenship – all else follows from this fundamental aim.

And with that general support for a civic foundation, this posting stops and gives the reader an opportunity to mull over this role of civics or for this central rationale for public schools.  The next posting will pick up this first element, elaborate on it and, given the space remaining, continue with the others.  In all there are five elements.

[1] There have been reports of an uptick in young people becoming more politically engaged.  For example, see David Lauder, “Essential Politics: Young People’s Political Engagement Is Surging.  That’s a Problem for Republicans,”  The Los Angeles Times (April 23, 2021), accessed September 27, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2021-04-23/surge-political-engagement-youth-problem-for-gop-essential-politics .

[2] Rebecca Winthrop, “The Need for Civic Education in the 21st – Century Schools,” 2020 Brookings Policy (June 4, 2020), accessed September 26, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/the-need-for-civic-education-in-21st-century-schools/ .

[3] These comments will directly address public education, but a lot of what will be stated will also apply to private or sectarian educational efforts.

[4] R. Freeman Butts, The Civic Mission in Educational Reform:  Perspectives for the Public and the Profession (Stanford, CA:  Hoover Institution Press, 1989).

[5] Allen Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, A Pocket History of the United States (New York, NY: Washington Square Press, 1986).

[6] Samuel E. Morrison, The Oxford History of the American People (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1965).

[7] Allen C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues (Boston, MA:  Pearson, 2004).

[8] Butts, The Civic Mission in Educational Reform, 130.

[shedrewthe-hallelujah]

@elflady ok this a) got away from me, b) has like nothing to do with what you said and c) I’m not sure if I even agree with it. Also I thought this was about the nature of Lou’s love for Prior but its not. It is, like most of the rest of my brain, about Lou’s relationship with justice and his own crimes. again. I think the second bit is like… slightly more relevant? (Also. I’m not saying that Prior IS a pure embodiment of goodness and justice, I’m saying that to lovestruck Louis who runs everything in his sight through an internal filter to fit it into his moral compass, Prior is as good as it gets.) Anyway, incoherent 2am rambling ahead.

Prior as the embodiment of Lou’s ideals. (vs Joe as that negation) If Prior is his “goddess” (which I adore and am pretty much considering textual at this point), then it can be extrapolated that Prior comes as close to Lou’s ideals as a person can. Lou purports to value justice (the platform on which he builds his whole worldview basically. I think even Democracy In America supports this, if you allow that it isn’t 10000% just hot air.) above all else, (or at least textually its where his head is at 24/7, and that could be viewed as him pretty much preparing for some kind of cosmic trial or judgment from on high, but the way Prior acts around him “the point dear, the point” implies that he’s just…. like this). Not only does he position justice as the prism through which he views the world, but he views it as literally divine- “justice is god”. If Prior is justice, then Prior is the divine, or as close to the divine as Louis can bear to allow himself.

I feel like this shows up in the Bayeux Tapestry monologue to a certain extent (or maybe I’ve just been thinking about it since you posted it). He personifies Prior as this legend made flesh, almost a symbol of immortality, and then comes back around and says if he cannot live up to the myth I have carved around him, if he really is just flesh and spirit then I cannot deal with that. A goddess should, by definition, not die. “My beliefs are bullshit but heres this person, this good and true and divine person who loves me so that validates me and makes me whole. If his goodness doesn’t render him immortal then what am I.” He’s terrified. He cannot watch the best part of his life die because the view of the world that is left after is too terrifying.

So the idea of the death of Prior shakes his entire worldview at its core. The death of Prior represents the total collapse of the system. He has fused Prior (his foremost great love) with his view of moving “onward and upward, power to the people,” etc. (his other great love), and in 1986 he’s watching both of these things crumble and crack in front of him (the beach scene illustrates this a bit) so of course he can’t fucking take it. This could be a reach (and is arguably overly generous to Louis but) but theres an argument to be made that he basically cannot reconcile watching Prior die with his understanding of reality. They are incompatible. The death of Prior renders Justice obsolete. (I think that sentence is what I’ve been working towards for like 15 minutes.)

(note- that sacrifice doubles onto itself. If cutting ties preserves Louis’s understand of reality it also literally destroys his entire moral system. Like he loses his grip bc he built his character on morality and then shredded his own integrity)

Ok more to the point. I absolutely agree with everything you said, and I think it centers a bit on one of the more interesting sort of… thru lines of the play; although the whole thing plays a bit with reality, Priors experiences and mindset come across pretty consistently as the most visceral and grounded in truth. Specifically compared to Louis who is basically playing house with Joe and having pointless arguments and “sitting all day on cold park benches”, so much of his experiences in the play are an act of some kind. They often have a glossy veneer (Democracy in America) but they’re not TRUE, he’s acting, he has a shield up. Perhaps this is the only way he can function but it’s in stark contrast to Prior who has kind of come around to Truth=Survival, like, he absolutely has to deal with whats in front of him (the angel, loneliness, terror), or it will kill him. Louis has the option to continue to live in theory, Prior simply does not. It FEELS like these guiding principles of who they are can be used as a guide to their relationship, much as they change, it seems to fit them at the beginning as well.

This also doesn’t really interact with what you said except it’s totally right and I love it. Also “And also I suppose in very very basic terms. Louis values being guilty and kind, and he’s the guilt and Prior’s the kindness.” is my new favorite thought. It’s perfect.

Also, it turns out my thoughts on this can be found in this unedited note I wrote probably 3 years ago that oddly enough lines up pretty well.

As the Rabbi says in the first monologue Louis is not IN America. Prior is chosen by the American angel. He is an American prophet dying of an American political system and Louis is not in America, nor is he firmly on the clay of “some Litvak shtetl”. He is stranded somewhere else, floating without that identity. Moored somewhere between Jewish immigrant status and the refusal to really look at the world and his place within it bc he only looks at ideals from an external perspective (and his own guilt) . Prior also defined by his history. By immigrant ancestors. Defined by that rowboat. He exists in a constant state of waiting to be pitched into the ocean. By Lou? By god? But Priors rowboat is defined by movement and an ultimate destination. Death or America. Possibly both. Lou, by the nature of existing on a landmass suspended in time, has removed himself from the foreword motion of the story. Bc that motion is at its core defined by Prior and priors illness and Priors angel. And so for Lou to "save himself" he lifts himself out of the motion, he erases himself from the narrative. Prior is movement and progress towards.... life or death or god or angels. Lou is empty space.

LOU EXISTS EXCLUSIVELY IN THEORY. Not in reality. This is supported by... everything. “Up in the air, just like that angel, too far off the earth to pick out the details… Big Ideas are all you love” He's not in America he's not grounded he's theory, of the Bolsheviks etc. he can't handle reality and NOTHING is more of reality that Priors illness INCLUDING THE ANGEL. The angel exists in the complex visceral reality of Prior. And Lou simply cannot handle it.

[godaddywebsitebuilder285]

Connecting the Dots

Two plans: one for design, one for culture.

What I’ve found is that the DNA between both dynamics must be inextricable from one another. Creating with compassion in an environment fueled by compassion means we never lose sight of what it’s all about: people. Beyond functioning in this manner because “it’s the right thing to do,” quality of work, loyalty internally (team) and externally (users), and product innovation are all benefits to reap.

Earlier we talked through the concept of “simplicity” and its application to creation and environment. Now, let’s revisit a few other examples of healthy benchmarks from a creative culture as we’ve discussed in this book:

Slowing down / pausing with intent

Everyone has a seat at the table

The New Day One

In taking a focused look at these facets, their correlation to HCD is readily apparent:

Culture: Slowing down / pausing with intent Design: Discovery / observation

The Swedish concept of fika transcends a mere “coffee break.” It’s about slowing down, the act of pausing during a typical day and making time to have a dialogue with someone (though a good cup of coffee is a vital part). I ensure this time is not only a known quantity within my team’s creative culture, but that it’s protected and actively utilized.

Instead of getting a product manager’s Powerpoint wireframe in your inbox with a request to “make it look nice” or a client’s request to crank out a design for their approval by EOD, we must slow down to understand the people who will be interacting with our design (and the design’s potential impact on others, the environment and community in which it will be used, and so on). Rushing to get something done to tick an account manager’s client-appeasement box at the expense of the human experience is to sacrifice empathy, quality, and any prospect of innovation.

Culture: Everyone has a seat at the table Design: Inclusion

As the very definition of cultural transparency, Nick Sarillo’s pizza parlors tack their full financial statements to a wall, daily, for all employees to see. Everyone’s hourly wage is listed on a nearby whiteboard, with the means to make more money articulated in tandem (training in more areas of business = increased hourly wage). Many managers have worked their way up in this manner, and offer training to other employees who wish to advance by taking on more responsibility. This is about collaboration yielding success to both the employee and the business, the sharing of information, and access for all; key dynamics of an inclusive culture.

Inclusion in the design process enables us, as creators, to recognize our own personal biases. By identifying the exclusion in our work, we humbly set aside our assumptions; connecting with people from diverse communities, building empathy, will expand our product’s reach (access). Via engaging humans throughout our design process, listening to them, and usability testing iteratively, objective solutions that yield innovation follow suit.

Culture: The New Day One Design: Ethnography

The New Day One concept evolves an employee’s first day from formulaic and sterile into directly personal and custom. Via the “Inspiration” portion of the day and venturing away from the office, we gain insight into a new team member as an individual that transcends what folio work can yield. What physical aspects of their selected location have impacted who they are? How did it inspire their way of creating, or approaching problems? Understanding the impact of spatial dynamics on an individual is vital toward an individualistic, yet ultimately holistic, view.

Ethnographic research provides an environmental context to human interaction that a video-conference interview could never yield. Through direct observation, ethnography is the qualitative study of human beings in their native environment. Is the individual sitting in a high-traffic area in an office, causing frequent distraction from their work? Are they a field worker primarily utilizing a mobile device in direct sunlight, yielding paramountcolor contrast needs? By making research truly human, we gain an understanding of how those we observe see the world and how they ultimately engage with it.

For the Greater Good

Greater Good Studio (GGS) is a social impact-focused human- centered design firm co-founded by Sara Cantor Aye and George Aye. Their business is located within the Logan Share, a co- working space they also founded in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.

I reached out to the Studio to ask if I could stop by their space and observe a “morning in the life” view of their process: culture and design, organically, as both unfolded. Without hesitation, Sara (a former Northwestern University instructor) extended me an offer to join the team for observation. After signing a non- disclosure agreement, we agreed on a date for my visit.

When I arrived on a Monday morning, George (formerly of IDEO) greeted me with a cup of coffee and walked me up the stairs into the naturally well-lit Logan Share space. I noticed the open seating in the co-working section was already nearly full, as he gave me a tour of the “configuration by human need and intent”-based layout and active-project areas. On long single sheets of cardboard suspended by custom-built fasteners, entire lifecycles of project- centric human-centered design artifacts were on display. Once a project is deployed, George explained, the cardboard is detached and saved for forthcoming iteration, with fresh sheets re-fastened to form the partitions of a new project space thereafter.

The six core steps of the Studio’s HCD process manifest themselves in the following way:

Framing Defining questions to answer and people to engage

Research Learning from people about their needs and values

Synthesis Finding patterns of behavior and areas of opportunity

Concepting Creating a high volume of new ideas

Prototyping Making tangible mock-ups and gathering feedback

Piloting Testing solutions in real time with real people

As a team, GGS functions via a working method called ROWE (Results Only Work Environment), a concept leveraged from Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson’s book Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: The Results-Only Revolution. Taken from an article on the Studio’s blog, they describe the practice within GGS like this:

“The basic principle behind ROWE is that staff doesn’t need to be supervised, when given the tools, clear expectations, and deadlines people will not only do their work, but do it better than if they were trying to fit into a mold. Within GGS, this practice is exercised by very diligent calendar management, clear deadlines, expectations on deliverables, and Cookie Rewards (little treats we give each other if we have to move something on the calendar).”

Once a month the entire team pauses for a five-hour, non-client project block of time called “internal day.” This time is reserved for studio-centric things: team members sharing learnings from conferences they’ve attended, how to improve internal practices, past project debriefs, etc. It’s the act of pausing with intent, in full effect.

Sara arrived a few minutes into my tour of the space, and the GGS team’s “BD charrette” was the first employee gathering (remote and in-person) of the morning. “BD” stands for “business development,” and in a cozy seating area, everyone had a seat at the table in all senses of the phrase. Sara and George ran through the status of a current request for proposal, then each team member had the opportunity to voice their opinion about whether the RFP should be pursued based on how it aligned with GGS’s (and their employees’) personal, values. Everyone was heard; every voice was respected.

The dialogue eventually shifted to another potential new client, this time with GGS at the presentation stage. Again, everyone at the table gave their feedback on Sara and George’s presentation plan of attack and, again, every team member’s voice carried equal value and weight. The studio-wide inclusion in the business owners’ decision making was genuine, effortless, and natural.

Forty-five minutes later, the group made a physical transition to a few nearby couches; less than a three-foot walk, as I eyed it. I inquired about the very minor spatial change for this next leg of the meeting and was told, “There’s a difference in purpose, so we transition to a different space.” Each member of the team then took their turn describing their weekend in three words:

“Sunshine, beach, baking.”

I got my turn as well. Changing the energy on those couches, from new business to being focused on the individual, made for a palpable climate change. In a few words everyone had a sense of what their teammates got up to over the weekend, eliciting smiles and planting the seeds for future dialogues throughout the pauses- with-intent over the rest of the day.

Next: “validations.” In this final portion of the meeting (pre- project status), anyone who wanted to articulate their appreciation for a team member over the previous week did so. One person recognized their co-worker for their selfless collaboration, taking time from their own project work to help theirs get client-ready on time. Similar-but-unique “thanks” emerged from varied people; no one was required to speak up, but everyone did.

After project updates I sat with Sara for a one-on-one to chat over coffee. I asked her about the synergies between their HCD process and how she interacts with her team in the office:

“I think where it’s actually become more intentional and obvious has been with our staff who are not trained designers. Operations folks, or our community manager, etc. I’ve had to say, ‘I want you to be a designer about this’ (whatever ‘this’ is). ‘We are your users, you’re trying to get us to do our timesheets, or clean up the kitchen, etc. Observe. Talk to people. Figure out our motivations. Summarize everything you’ve learned, and then have ideas.’

As a designer, I am constantly designing at every level. I’m designing deliverables in many cases for clients, or coaching our teams to design deliverables. I’m also designing process by which we work by writing proposals, scoping, etc. And at the highest level, I’m designing our company. I’m designing our culture based on our customs and traditions and policies (the hard and the soft) every day. My users are not hypothetical, they’re actual people.”

When All is Not Good

Sara went on to cite how her previous work experience shaped the leader she is today:

“I think a lot of my design choices are based in (unhealthy dynamics) with prior employers. Where decisions were not made transparently, everything financial was completely opaque. Lots of lack of trust with other employees. It’s been so critical that I’ve had bad experiences so I can now clearly say: let’s not do that.”

The tactics, mindsets, organizational shifts, and operational flexibility discussed in this book are predicated upon a simple truth: a company presently supports and operates as a creative culture, or it’s genuinely willing to evolve to become one. Along the way, I’ve been primarily speaking to those who are in a position to help implement change; even at a small scale. But what about when you’re not in a position to be heard, or the position to help facilitate change?

Reality isn’t always unicorns and rainbows. Bad experiences can impact us all. For example, the fabric of a company’s creative culture can become irreparably frayed thanks to management changes, acquisition, or it can lack sustainability. Whether these circumstances reveal themselves over years or overnight, your passion and evolution should never be their casualty.

Sometimes, creating within an environment that’s the best fit for your growth and passions means finding a new opportunity.

[nqobilemkhize]

I was not aware of the impact I could make

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 goals that were developed in 2012 at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.  These 17 goals success of all these goals is interconnected, success/failure in one affects the success of others. SDGs aim to meet the political, environmental and economic challenges of the world by 2030 and were developed to continue the progress made by Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from the year 2000 till 2015. Advancements made by the MDGs include increasing access to water and sanitation, decreasing income poverty, greatly improving maternal health and decreasing child mortality, development a movement for free basic education and “most significantly, the MDGs made huge strides in combatting HIV/AIDS and other treatable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis”. In order to meet the 2030 SGDs set globally, South Africa formed a National Development Plan to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality. The Voluntary National Review in July 2019 revealed the NDP has a 74% convergence with the SDGs.

In this week’s blog we have been asked to present 5 SDGs, that one could work towards within the community they are currently working in. I have chosen to focus on the following (Please see image below for names) SDG 2, 3, 5, 11 and 4.

The township is made up of low-income families. The population in the community in question has been observed to comprise mostly of the youth with high levels of unemployment, poverty and low levels of education being rife. Though the population is mostly unemployed youth, a dearth of social and recreational facilities has been observed. This leads me to think “Why not make gardening fashionable among the youth?” SDG 2 seeks to end hunger, provide and achieve food security together with improved nutrition and lastly seeks to promote sustainable agriculture. What is food security? Food security is said to be “achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996. Rome. The Park already provides a gardening programme for the elderly where a variety of vegetables are planted. In conjunction with IYD - a non-profit organization based in the community whose objectives are to uplift, revive and empower the youth of the area through focusing on education, health and social activities, the park (this will be a student project) can expand the gardening programme to the youth. At the Park youth will be taught how to garden and then urged to start their own gardens at their homes in order contribute to the fostering of food security in their homes. By involving the unemployed youth in this gardening programme occupational reconstruction will occur where the youth will use gardening “to remake ordinary life in response to a problematic situation.” (Frank, Gelya, & Muriithi, 2015). Principles of occupational reconstruction; the problematic situation being unemployment, gardening being the meaningful and purposeful action and voluntary engagement, creative transformations and hopeful experimentalism will be evident.

Every Monday to Wednesday morning at the clinic my classmates and I conduct health promotion talks to the members of the community who have come to the clinic that day. While promoting health and well-being by presenting on different topics (i.e. diabetes and healthy living, mental health, arthritis and developmental norms) we also promote occupational therapy as a profession. By doing this, we are promoting health and therefore contributing towards meeting SGD 3 – Good health and well-being. What else can be done by us students? Students in collaboration with the clinic and the local radio station (located on the same premises as the clinic) can provide health promotion talks on the last Friday of every month. The health promotion talks will be delivered to the community through the radio. Topics will center around the targets of SDG 3 which are to:

·  Reduce the global maternal mortality ratio

·  End preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age

·  End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases

·  Reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases

·  Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse,

·  Halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

·  Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs

·         Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all

(Sdgcounting, 2017)

During the past few weeks our health promotion talks have been well received. Every time we play the recording of our health promotion speech, the members of the community are startled at first but are soon observed to be listening attentively and some even come forward to ask questions. Because of the above, I am sure the health promotion talks through the radio will be well-received too.

She does not have a phone, anybody who needs to speak to her on the phone must go through her boyfriend first and if he deems the reason given good enough, he will pass the phone to her. She has permanent scars on her back from beatings from him yet she still says “but I’m also partly to blame”. That is a client at the Park. “Why?” I ask myself. Are the laws on gender equality in South Africa not strict enough? The Constitution does state that “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.” . Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. (1996).  The Domestic Violence Act (DVA) No 116 of 1998 and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses and Related Matters Act (SOA) No 32 of 2007) were formed in response to violence against women in South Africa. Many campaigns have also been formed to combat the violence against women one of them being the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign. SGD 5 seeks to achieve gender equality by 2030 and one of its targets is to eliminate all forms of violence against all girls and women. In support of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign, my classmates and I on this block can start raising awareness about the campaign by informing the women and young girls of the community about the purpose of the campaign, urge them to attend events of this campaign that will be hosted near them and impart information on how to seek help from organizations like POWA and FAMSA. The reason for only raising awareness about the campaign is because by the time the 16 Days of Activism begins our block would have ended.

Without realizing it, my classmates and I are contributing to meeting target 11.7 of the SDG’s which seeks to “provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities”. We are transforming an unused piece of land at the Park (which is a green space itself) into a ready/story-telling/skit enacting corner by demarcating it with colorful rocks and making benches out of pallets. The objective of our green space is to use the environment as a treatment and education tool as this private space can be used for reading, story-telling and skits. relaxation, peace, and an escape from heat. In the Community Rehabilitation Matrix through this green space the Education pillar will be targeted, in particular early childhood, non-formal and lifelong learning.

Undoubtedly children with only physical disabilities and no cognitive disabilities experience occupational dysfunction which Joubert (2007) describes as “a state in which an individual cannot or can only partially perform everyday occupations due to physical or mental impairment” and occupational injustice defined by Watson (2004) as “a situation or society in which the recognition of and provision for the occupational needs of an individual or community are not recognized”. This is due to not being allowed to receive an education from a mainstream school because the buildings of the schools do not cater for children with disabilities. Target 4.5 under SDG 4 seeks to “eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations”. Advocacy is an integral component of an OT’s job. To contribute to reaching target 4.5 part of our (my group and I) handover to the three schools in the area that we worked with could present to the school principal the benefits (to the child and the school) of accommodating a child with a physical disability. The mental and emotional effects of exclusion would also form part of that presentation to substantiate why it is important to include children with physical disabilities in mainstream schools. Occupational Therapy based recommendations and accommodations will also be provided.

This week’s blog topic revealed the agent of change I am and can be. Being forced to not only look at the SGDs but the targets set to achieve those goals provided me with a more in-depth understanding of the SDGs and challenged me to think of ways of how I can do my part. To contribute to the achievement of one target if not a goal as a whole a year is definitely going on my vision board.

 The journey continues

#Growing #Learning 

References

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. (1996). Cape Town: Juta.

Environment, U. (n.d.). GOAL 11: Sustainable cities and communities. Retrieved November 06, 2020, from https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/sustainable-development-goals/why-do-sustainable-development-goals-matter/goal-11

Frank, Gelya, & Muriithi, Bernard Austin Kigunda. (2015). Theorising social transformation in occupational science: The American Civil Rights Movement and South African struggle against apartheid as 'Occupational Reconstructions'. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(1), 11-19.

Joubert, R. (2007) Indigenous fruits from exotic roots? Revisiting the South African Occupational Therapy Curriculum. Doctoral Thesis, UKZN.

Inanda, Phoenix. (n.d.). Retrieved November 06, 2020, from https://www.sahistory.org.za/place/inanda-phoenix

Sdgcounting. (2017, June 06). SDG 3 Indicators. Retrieved November 06, 2020, from https://medium.com/sdgs-resources/sdg-3-indicators-43806cbf63e9

SOUTH AFRICA’S VOLUNTARY NATIONAL REVIEW (VNR) REPORT 2019

Sustainable Development Goals. (n.d.). Retrieved November 06, 2020, from https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html

Watson, R. & Swartz, L. (2004). Transformation through occupation. Whurr Publishers. London.