emenel

My thoughts after reading @rhjr’s controversial blog post

Update/Note:

Due to a few comments I’ve received after posting this I want to make something clear: My thoughts in this post are a reflection of what I’m reading in Robert’s post, not my thoughts on Whitney’s presentation. I didn’t see the presentation and have no grounds on which to comment on it. Reading Robert’s post and some other things going on have seeded some ideas, and that’s what’s here. 

——-

So.. Robert Hoekman Jr wrote a post criticizing Whitney Hess. I think most people reading this already know that. I’m not going to write a response or critique of his post, that’s already happening in a big way on Twitter. What I want to write about is the valid point that’s buried in the controversy over his singling out Whitney. 

Maybe this is just my existing feelings casting a glow over Robert’s words, but what I think really spurred on his reaction to Whitney’s presentation in Italy is a larger issue within our community. I think I’ve written about it before, but can’t seem to find the post.

Kyle Soucy responded to Robert on Twitter saying that his post “has [possibly] made UX newbies scared shitless to ever present and share their knowledge and experience with others.” While I understand what she’s saying, I honestly think that people should be a little more scared to share their experience in the very public forum of a conference presentation. We’ve fallen into a bad habit as a field - we conflate personal experience and story with valid professional thoughts and opinions. To present at a professional or academic conference there needs to be some level of rigor… we need to have a way of validating that what the person is saying is actually valuable to the people listening.

We too often pat each other on the back just because we got up and spoke out. This alone is not what will make our field great and respected. We see too many presentations full of old ideas or half-baked concepts presented as “expert leadership.” 

There’s a place for sharing personal experience, inspirational stories, and all those half-baked ideas. That place is not on the main stage at a professional or academic conference. Maybe we need a different event for that.. I don’t know. All I know is that we need more rigor. If we present researched and well thought out ideas then we can all discuss and critique the ideas, not the people. If we present ill-researched ideas and personal experience we end up in a place where we’re criticizing people instead. 

The other aspect of this is that many people in our community are friends, and we want to defend and encourage our friends. That’s great too, but we also need to be able to call our friends on bullshit. Otherwise we veer dangerously into clique territory and will invalidate our field.

Anyway.. I didn’t see Whitney’s presentation that Robert talked about, so I can’t comment on how that fits in or doesn’t fit in with my above stated rambling thoughts. This is just some stuff that I got thinking about when I read his post.

Politics in Canada

I rarely post about politics.. but the events of the federal election in Canada, and the campaigns leading up to it, make me feel like i need to get some stuff out… This is half-baked and rant-y, but I’m compelled to post it anyway.

(originally written as a response to comments on the BlogTO.com election results post)

——-

People really need to do some research. 

Harper, and most neo-conservative governments (ie. Bush and his predecessors) are actually NOT FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. They actually spend more than “liberal” (not the party) governments. Our deficit after the Harper Conservatives over the last few years is far higher than it was before. The Conservatives spend just as much, but they tend to spend on military, police, and prisons rather than services that actually help people. Our economy is stable because our financial industry is highly regulated.. regulations that the Conservatives would have done away with had they been in power (some of them tried, and this is what happened in the USA). 

Conservative governments also give away billions in tax breaks to corporations, while actually raising taxes for the majority of citizens. All of this, with no additional services to help normal people. 

That is just the fiscal issue… Harper’s Conservatives have also shown that they don’t care about our system of government and have no respect for Canadians or other view points. They have lied, hidden facts, and abused the system (ie. prorogue twice for personal reasons). 

This is not a political ideological difference. I’m not a social conservative, but would be in favour of fiscal conservatism in many ways. However, if people want to elect a socially conservative government, I might complain but that’s ok. That’s how democracy works… In this case, that’s not what happened. We have elected a party that abuses their power, does not listen to the people, and throws money away on things we don’t need (jets, G8 project funding corruption, prisons, internet surveillance). 

Ask yourself what Conservative policies are actually helping you in your daily life? Which ones could hurt you? What do you think of their behaviour in regards to secrecy, contempt of parliament, and G8/20 funding irregularities and spending? An election is not about voting against the other parties, it’s about voting for a party or candidate that represents your best interests. How does the newly elected Conservative majority do that? I would genuinely like to know. 

I’m not interested in partisan debates. Everybody needs to take a rational, educated, and detailed look at how these parties behave, their policies, practices, and opinions. They work for us, and we need to keep the accountable and honest. If that doesn’t happen we are no longer in a democracy.

There are also system level issues at play here. The party who now has a majority only received 39% of the votes.. That’s actually a minority of support. I’m not sure how to fix this problem with our election system, but something isn’t working. I’d be saying the same thing no matter who won the election.