Grant Snider (1) One Page at a Time

(image credit)

Between here {where we are right now} and wherever our potential reaches ~however far it reaches~ is the space in which we write [and create in general].  It is the space that we can grow into and carve out our lives' oeuvre.
 

Social Experiment with Woman Wearing Abaya

Then, there is this video, veritably viral in its own right at nearly 6 million views and over 16,000 comments.

Discuss.

I have had the privilege and pleasure of traveling, living and working in the Middle East, and I can tell you that Arab women of different nationalities in this region garner certain respect and reverence.  People around leave them alone and avoid eye contact, and unless they're friends or colleagues they do not greet people and people do not greet others.  If this video is at all representative of how such women, or women who look Arab, are treated in the US, then that respect and reverence I have seen is evident elsewhere besides the Middle East.  But, to the point of this video, the clothing - called abaya - seems to matter a great deal. 

Discuss further.

Indeed the original 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman has spawned quite a slew of related videos, for example, as a man, as a homosexual, and as a Jew.

The Human Algorithm is unendingly fascinating!
 

Social Experiment on Street Harassment

(image credit)

Needless to say, at nearly 40 million views, 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman is a viral phenomenon.  It also provoked a firestorm of comments, numbering at 143,004 right now.  Some are relatively viral in their own right, and YouTube highlights these as Top Comments.  So have a read.

So as a social experiment, and I use the word experiment very loosely, I imagine the video serves its purpose well.  That is, those who felt moved perhaps donated to Hollaback:

What is Hollaback?

The real motive of street harassment is intimidation. To make its target scared or uncomfortable, and to make the harasser feel powerful. But what if there was a simple way to take that power away by exposing it? You can now use your smartphone to do just that by documenting, mapping, and sharing incidents of street harassment. Join an entire community ready to Hollaback!

Our mission

Hollaback is a movement to end street harassment powered by a network of local activists around the world. We work together to better understand street harassment, to ignite public conversations, and to develop innovative strategies to ensure equal access to public spaces.

Our vision

We envision a world where street harassment is not tolerated and where we all enjoy equal access to public spaces.

Hollaback has admirable lists of Awards + Funders.

Some, perhaps many, scientists would readily balk at how unsystematic this approach is at elucidating the issue of street harassment.  Science works at building our knowledge and understanding of things via research design, statistical analysis, and judicious interpretation of results.  But one reason I used the word experiment earlier is that this sort of video does indeed elucidate street harassment, but not just this: It also elucidates what I have come to call The Human Algorithm.  That is, we millions of viewers and commentators, plus YouTubers who uploaded related videos, are very much part and parcel of this social experiment.

So is Hollaback itself, as it apparently engaged a viral video marketing agency Rob Bliss Creative to provoke, inform and persuade.  Whereas science builds our knowledge and understanding dispassionately, intellectually, even objectively, art (i.e. creativity) does so via emotionally, viscerally and subjectively.  I'd say this agency has been wildly successful with this effort.  Nevertheless, before you open a new tab and click Donate for Hollaback, I suggest watching a thoughtful review from The Young Turks: Discussion About '10 Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Woman' Viral Video.
 

My Greeting Passersby, Passersby Greeting Me

I go for a walk in my neighborhood, and I greet passersby roughly the same number of times as passersby greet me, with Hello, How you doing?, How's it going?, Alright, Good evening, or That's a big dog!  Roughly speaking the people I greet, and those who greet me, are the same number of men as women.

The difference between my circumstances and that of this video?

I am a man.  My neighborhood is in the suburbs. There are few people here (i.e. neighbors), relative to those in the city.  We're probably all in a limited band as far as socioeconomic status goes: middle class.  It's a mostly White American neighborhood, even though I am not.  Moreover, I don't take umbrage at polite, friendly greetings, and the greetings I either initiate or reciprocate are always polite and friendly.  I would take umbrage, though, at greetings that are otherwise.  (rf. Discussion About '10 Hours Of Walking In NYC As A Woman' Viral Video.)

On a few occasions, there are passersby who look immersed in their activity, such as jogging alone or talking with a friend.  I sense this, so I don't greet them and they don't greet me.  I use the best of my empathic sense when, what and whom to greet.  Moreover, sometimes the passersby are young people, for instance, teenage girls, and I sense that it's best not to greet them, so as not to potentially make them nervous; I keep a calm, friendly demeanor, but make no eye contact and look straight ahead all the way.

Weighing Scandal as Complex Phenomenon

I recently posted this video on Google+, and saw it as very unfortunate, even tragic circumstances for these women:

Caroline Norton, Harriet Mordaunt, and Josephine Butler "helped shape new legislation and attitudes towards women in 19th century" England.

I bristle at labeling them as scandalous, which suggests that they were fundamentally at fault, which indeed is precisely how 19th century England saw them (also rf. Scandalous women in British history).  But in fact their actions and circumstances were more complex than such a label suggests: Scandal as a phenomenon is a product of culture, era and discrimination (i.e. context) as well as of gender, personality and determination (i.e. individual).  So certainly these women were agents in shaping circumstances, but they were also victims of conniving powerful figures.  In the end, agent or victim notwithstanding, they helped evolve views and policies toward greater equality between men and women.
 

Weighing Jeremy Rifkin's Empathic Civilization

Recently I posted this video in the Philosophy of Mind community on Google+, and it sparked a bit of a discussion:

Jeremy Rifkin argues that our brains are soft-wired not for aggression or self-interest but for sociability and attachment (i.e. empathy).

I agree with the ideas presented in the video. However, the reason why many species have empathy for others in their group is because the probability of survival is increased by orders of magnitude by forming a well organized team. Consider that insects such as bees and ants are very successful because they form strong teams. Therefore, many species, including humans, undergo natural selection and adaptation to being good team members. But if this is so, then why are people not concentrating on building strong teams? Well, unfortunately, currently humans do not always make very good team members and many of the teams that are formed do more damage than good. This often gives team membership a bad name. Humans need more adaptation and understanding about how to build strong teams.

You make a very good point: Empathy may be the drive to form teams and civilizations, because it helps to ensure survival.

Your second point about more destructive teams is definitely a curious one. In another interview, Rifkin responds to question about why, in the very process of creating an empathic civilization, we also have world wars, genocide, and other mass destruction. Rifkin attributed these simply to "blowback moments, implosions and collapses." In other words, there are glitches or short circuits to our empathic wiring.

I'd like to invoke Sigmund Freud, however, and argue that, yes, we human have empathic wiring, but that we are also wired for aggression. Freud posited that there were both life (eros) and death (thanatos) drives. So the destruction we have inflicted on each other aren't just glitches in the empathic wiring, as Rifkin argues, but are fundamental aspects of our nature, too, that is, destructive wiring.*

Here's that interview: Jeremy Rifkin: The Empathic Civilization.

There were two other, relatively lengthy comments, acknowledging more competitive teams and conflictual events and also emphasizing the sharing of positive experiences. 

*The more I think about it, the more I believe that Rifkin's notion of empathy, and the mirror neurons in particular, is actually synonymous with sympathy or compassion, that is, feeling with or for others.  My unconscious must've picked up on this particular notion, so I felt compelled to invoke the dual drives of Freud: That is, not just sympathy, but also aggression.  Instead, the definition of empathy as putting oneself in others' shoes or seats means it's fundamentally neutral; it is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding.  Once we have that deeper understanding of others, we can act positively (e.g. sympathetically) or negatively (e.g. hostilely).
 

Weighing Catherine Courage's Design Thinking

Catherine Courage, Senior Vice President of Customer Experience, leads the shift at Citrix - from (a) dreaming up technology and delivery technology simply for the sake of technology, to (b) building a deeper empathy for customers and creating products and solutions that meet their actual needs.

This is not new thinking at all, but the fact that a renowned consultancy like McKinsey highlights it suggests that companies are still far far from adopting it, let alone grasp what it truly means.  As I argued in Part 2 - Making the Future, CEOs and their people may find themselves trapped in The Dilemma of Self-Centeredness, and not even know it.

Courage distinguishes the design thinking approach that she and her team adopts, from others who start with the problem, which they have an intuition about, and race toward a solution.  To me, starting with a problem, or an issue, challenge or objective, is actually a fine thing to do.

But to her point, Theory of Algorithms and The Core Algorithm emphasize focusing on the problem without preconceived notions and without a toolkit of solutions clambering to be used.  Instead, like design thinking, my conceptual framework and practical applications model work at engaging others - seek first to understand, then to be understood - for example, via an algorithm I call Galileo (Human) Algorithm, which counters Self-Centeredness.