Merriam-Webster ascribes roughly 3 definitions to the word “vanity”: conceit, emptiness (or meaninglessness), and a piece of furniture to assist in grooming. Congratulations then to Klout, which has simultaneously managed to fit these disparate criteria in one offering. Continue reading →
The Intentionality of Equity
My friend Deanna Zandt and some of her colleagues recently became frustrated with the imbalance of the “Top 10 This” and “Most Powerful That” lists which invariably skew toward one demographic, albeit even if the cause is often innocent (owing to the subtle and fancily-titled phenomenon, homophily). Admirably, they wished go beyond simply whining about the issue and devised a solution: #One4One.
This challenge asks people to create their own list of “influencers” with just one constraint: the names you select must have an identity that is radically different as your own. For example, “if you’re a dude, name a woman. If you’re white, name a person of color. If you’re straight, name an LGBTQ person” etc. Voting is done by the crowds, who – if they are observing the contest to start with – are likely taking on the same degree of thoughtfulness that the challenge creators and nominators are. Continue reading →
If it were common sense…
…wouldn’t it be practiced more commonly? I’m justifying some posting on what may seem to be mundane or insanely self-evident subjects. I console myself that a genius like Benjamin Franklin had similar compulsions.
So next up: calendaring. Not rocket science, right? Find a time and place and just meet the person. But now, with our increasingly complicated forms of connecting and communicating, this is evolving into an increasingly painful process. Continue reading →