you, my friend, are hella awkward.

let me set a few things straight. yes, i'm a GenYer. yes, we are wicked awesome and good for business. but we are also hella awkward. and, my friend, most likely you are too.

GenYers spend most of our days on the internet. but let's not kid ourselves. if you're reading this, you probably do too. you have a digi-positive 9-5; you write emails, texts, and generally communicate with words first--voice second; it's faster, sure. short of being Grandma who still (bless her heart) can't quite get all this new fangled stuff, you are in danger.

that's right.
you're becoming more awkward.
and likely, less understood.

that's the irony in this day and age. social networking. all points access to your friends 24/7. transparency to the enth. and yet, you still have no idea what i'm saying. and i'm an highly educated word-person-thingy.

half our country is still leaving 'h' out of "wat" and using "c" in place of 'see,' etc. there is no diction, no word choice, to convey emotion behind the txting, beyond maybe an ambiguous ":)"--and that is the primary mode of communication.

we're losing our body language, our vocal tone, our inclination to have conversations in real life, in person as well as the skills needed to decode those aspects.

we're just stuck in our heads. the Googling of thoughts, we read and intonate what we want to. personalized communication, it is what i want it to be--not necessarily what you mean for it to be. or so i'm noticing.

i had this issue this weekend. wanted to have a semi-serious chat with my sig other, who prefers only talking in txt (i prefer in-person). compromised, chatted on AIM (...no joke). and you know what? i 'walked out' of that chat not at all confident that anything i said actually was understood. the responses were just not on the level.

how do you combat your 'awkward' in an increasingly text-only driven world? do you feel less understood more frequently, or does the "140 character limit" just get you off? are you more in your head, or less? can you even tell if a person is lying by looking at them any more, or do you trust the transparency of consonants and vowels?

things to think about.

[img via.]

on that live-streaming suicide...

some people found the whole thing repulsive, some folks blamed social media, but i just got really depressed and decided to watch PuppyCam after reading an article on it. after reading David's post, i decided i did want to talk about it.

i don't think it's about the fact that it was online, really. he was depressed from the outset. being online didn't make him more depressed. i really think being in a chat room didn't make him more or less likely to commit suicide. he seemed pretty intent on that, anyway. he talked about how he was going to do it, just as many people tend to do beforehand. in fact, it just seems like many other teen suicides:

"I have let everyone down and I feel as though I will never change or never improve. I am in love with a girl and I know that I am not good enough for her."

and i don't mean that in a belittling way. as some of you know, i'm a major supporter of To Write Love on Her Arms, which is a charity in support of getting people help who deal with suicide, depression, and self-mutilation, among other aspects (you can donate via PayPal here). he loved a girl and didn't love himself enough (or didn't get enough love through relationships, hat tip to @mtartag) to discover whether or not he was 'good enough for her.' and that just makes my heart hurt.

i think perhaps it was executed on justin.tv mainly as a last act of attention, of a version of love-seeking. i think the intent here was different, and in some way intriguing (after all, i favourited it on twitter), when @anniemal said "if I'm going to die, I'm going to broadcast it. I'm not going out without an audience."

and yet, the heart of it isn't the broadcast. it's just bringing it to your attention because so many eyes are on it. for once, you don't have to die alone. you can die with a thousand people watching. you are not alone. but you need to tell the kids that before they die. the take-home message isn't ban social media, but instead reach out and help them. it's in your face. don't you think it's time to believe this isn't some "stupid teen thing"?

"But love is the answer to a question That I've forgotten But I know I've been asked And the answer has got to be love." - Regina Spektor <3

PS: another effort in loving your fellow stranger, brought to you by zoomdoggle. check it out.

somethin' about the way garyvee says douchebag

...just makes me feel all aflutter inside.



i found this via @TDefren's new post. in this video, Gary Vaynerchuk talks about passion and patience.

which is funny, considering both have the same Latin root, pati, meaning "to suffer." [HOL reference for you there, kids <3]

which is to say, garyvee [it just rolls so nicely, i have to type it like that] believes that if you don't like what you do--not even a little--STOP. just STOP. and do SOMETHING ELSE. even if that thing is smurfs. me, i don't buy into the monetization of a smurf blog, but hell, i believe him, and his Pinot Grigio Hour. that's where the passion comes in. life is too short to be doing something you hate. yadda yadda motivational speech.

[hey does it sound like that stuff your generation sold my generation and now you want to take it back because we all think we're genuinely entitled to that Pursuit of Happiness? i thought so--but there's a catch.]

yeah, that patience thing, which has to do with that suffering thing i mentioned earlier. "how do i monetize my new Smurf Empire?" you may ask, and he answers: by doing some serious damage between the hours of 7pm and 2am, before you pass out, go to work, take an hour break to "kiss the dog," and do it all over again. so that you still have to go to work. to make the money. to do serious damage. to make your new Empire.

i'm not at all belittling garyvee's view. i think it's powerful, poignant, and necessary. its passion is inspiring and the message is spot-on. but i've also heard it before.

i think that, reading between the lines, it's also a message that requires you to keep that passion when you're up until 2am working on the new Empire, have barely seen family or friends, and still aren't so keen on the job you're spending 8-10 hours of daylight on. the message is to feel like he does on that stage, only every morning. and i think that's the hardest part. not just saying "I Quit!" as Audience Man #1 did, but sticking out the suck for the better ahead.

not the interest, not the late night Empire, and not the years of development.
but keeping the passion, and acquiring the patience, through those times of suffering.

porn and the search engine showdown

Google is on its game, with two shiny toys:
Google News, which enables you to search newspaper archives online [because you know, the interwebs will make newspapers extinct, until they're fossilized and preserved here] and Google Labs' Audio Indexing, which you must admit is pretty sweet, be it looking up the lyrics to Chocolate Rain or finding out what exactly the politician said during that speech or other [as it's currently being used for].

MarketingVox points out a new trend that Bill Tancer of global research at Hitwise discovered when analyzing the search engine data: millenials aren't so interested in porn anymore, compared to previous numbers. they're spending more time searching social media networks. wait.

you're telling me folks are less into porn because they're wasting time on facebook?

no no no, kind sirs. it's because they're busy finding porn on facebook, myspace, etc. don't get me wrong. i'm not saying there's actual porn on facebook. after all, they did take down pics of breasts. but the difference is proximity. you have no chance with Ms Giselle of whatever porn site. but you might actually get a chance to make porn with that girl you haven't talked to since sophomore year of high school.

in other SEO news, there's the Search Engine Rap Battle. i don't even have words.

my first Facebook breakup. there's a point.

so, being a digital native has certainly made breakups more awkward. i know this has been touched on, especially with regards to the "surprise" breakup, where you log in and suddenly you're not in a relationship. oops!

...that's not what happened to me.
i was one of the original Facebookers. my college was one of the first 50, i think, if not less. this recent relationship was very long. it was the first one to be recorded by Facebook in my life, and now the first to go, it's evident how Facebook is changing relationships.

we actually had to have a Facebook Conversation. we broke up. does that mean we unFacebook each other right away? is it so important that we leave one another's presence and, to properly lifestream, we do it the same day?

...or do we wait a few days? to affect our own nonchalance. or because we don't want to talk about it. or in case we do that strange thing where we break up and get back together. better just not to change it until we're sure, right?

yes, i really did have that conversation.
apparently, Facebook is the measure of just how official my relationship is.
[can i get a "fucked up"?]

we Facebook broke up five days after our actual breakup. it was my decision. i woke up this morning thinking, you know what, it's time to Facebook it. it sucked. moreover, what was even weirder?

it lists my ex as "In a Relationship" as the new status.
apparently when i "Cancal a Relationship" [because it's a transaction, you know: "you never give away your heart; you lend it from time to time. if it were not so, how could we take it back without asking?" -- winterson] i only cancel it on my end. i'm single. the ex is "In a Relationship" with no one, but since it's a new listing, it gets broadcast like it's a new relationship.

...really, really awkward.
not to mention if i hadn't Facebook-stalked my ex right away and noticed this error, i likely would have been hella fuckin' pissed when i noticed in three days. and now i have to go text my ex to warn that i did it, so it doesn't look like a jab. or before weird phonecalls start coming about the New Relationship.

but my question: where is the broken heart?

revisiting facebook, jobs, millenials

in light of this post, i'm revisiting this post.

i wonder if this is going to change.

me, i am a brand. i embrace my inner brand and utilize it. i am the CEO of the brand of the girl Riot™. however, even CEOs get to go home. no one is Cheerios, or BMW, or Adidas all day long. even Adi, Adidas' founder, shares the responsibility with other well-titled folks. at one point, you go home. you sleep. you see friends. you connect with other people. you know... a la the point of social media: being social. and after hours, i'm sure they don't all sleep in Armani and talk jargon in their theta-state.

what gives you the right to inspect a person's private life for their job?

isn't that what applying is about? references, presentations, self-craft. now we're pushing away from that, toward transparency. "twit-pitch me. tell me what you're after and how you can help me--i'll do the background check. nevermind that you can't control what pictures other folks put up of you. nevermind that you can no longer access accounts to things you created, age 14. nevermind what exploration you did in your youth years that made you a good creative--i don't want to see it."

then how transparent are you, really? you want the real person--but only after they've covered their tracks? deleted their pics during those college years everyone had but everyone is supposed to deny? it's a shame facebook wasn't around when you Xers and Boomers were younger. are we handling this like 50s prudes asked to sit in on a sex addicts' meeting in a church basement? if you don't want the "full story" then why are you looking? keep it to the "legit" side of things. we craft those.

sure, check out their blog, their website, their portfolio, newspapers who reference them, other blogs who link to them. i'm not saying don't Google search. i'm saying to assess your digital detective choices--chances are you won't find that information solely on their facebook accounts. to me, that level of invasion borders on pervy. all 100+ pics of me on facebook? i haven't uploaded one. not one. i don't care if it's "personal and public"--it's discerned as a private space for friends (unlike, say, Twitter, which is searchable, Google tracked, and anyone can follow). just like your brand is not my friend, my employer is not my friend unless i invite you in. those spaces are not about you. they're about me.

and i'll be damned if you want me to censor my life to fit your desk job. you wanted a forward-thinking creative, you wanted experience and intellect--this shaped me. this is who i am. and yes, my stuff is on private. but then you're going to want to know why it's on private, aren't you? i'm supposed to connect with friends but not with employers. can i have a "only folks born 1986 or later can access this profile" option? why do i have to keep my personal life private if the whole reason of having the profile is to share?

moreover--will this disdain for (supposed) transparency change as more millenials enter the work space?

and if you think just cos i can do a keg-stand that i'm going to do one with your client, then i'm really concerned. my maturity isn't directly related to my flip cup abilities (which, mind you, are stellar). don't ask for transparency (look at personal sites) if you don't want it. my brand is excellently crafted. my personal life isn't. and if you can tell me how to control all aspects of your personal life, that's really a blog post worth writing.

so i return the question to you all:
how well do you expect someone to cover their tracks? what are you really looking to get out of trawling potential employees' facebooks and myspaces as opposed to their blogs, LinkedIns, websites? ...what are you really expecting? --and will those expectations change?

[post script & further transparency--i had a really engaging conversation with Jason Falls about his post; this is not an affront on his views: i actually highly value and understand them, and respect him, which is why i engaged in the conversation to begin with. after all, my facebook is on private. i'm just arguing that it shouldn't have to be.]

hey radar's robert, sure your name's not richard?

"They felt threatened by our youth, confused by our lack of earnestness, and deeply troubled by our lack of appreciation for James Taylor. The boomers' entire identity was wrapped around being young and progressive. Gen X was an affront to their place in the world." -- Robert Lanham

[stop][rewind][rewrite][play]

You feel threatened by our youth, confused by our lack of earnestness, and deeply troubled by our lack of appreciation for Your Ass. The Gen X's entire identity was wrapped around being young and progressive. "The Millennials" are an affront to your place in the world.

...that's really what you're saying, isn't it?

reading: Chet > Safer > Lanham > Anastasia > Adrian > Me in April.

then again, radar is all about "pop + politics + scandal + style."
this is jack's complete lack of surprise.

interesting bits on gen-y.

how to engage us once i've convinced you that your company really, really needs 20something thinkers. and in case you didn't know, we're gonna change the world, or at least the interwebs... yeah. that we are. at least it's a far cry better than that hideous nytimes article citing us as lazy bastards. again, i reiterate: i do not have to hate my job. i'm sorry you do.

virtual connections, intangible hope

[updated fact adjustment]

i'm beginning premature analysis and first impressions of thoughts surrounding Twistori, a project by Amy Hoy and Thomas Fuchs inspired by the previous We Feel Fine applet. i began using it the other day.

[/updated fact adjustment]

i am in love with these sites. i think i find them reassuring in a personal way without feeling intrusive. when i read "#I believe that the secrets of life are at the bottom of my coffee mug. I must investigate," i don't need to know who wrote it, how old they are, where they're from, or how they identify.

i find connection because it is a familiar thought consideration (belief) in a familiar sentiment (in unexpected places) with a personal addition ('i must investigate'). the phrase offers me comfort. i can commiserate and appreciate it. in the same way that i can appreciate, "#I love grapefruit...it tastes like Summer" and "#I HATE YOU STAPLER, HATE HATE."

simple phrases (i love, i hate, i think, i believe, i feel, i wish) are some of the most intrinsic building blocks for opening communication between two people because it at once shows a vulnerability (telling something about oneself) at the same time as offering it up for empathy (chances are you can relate to most of what appears).

but what does this mean?

it means i can reach out to people and find reassurance without their knowing it. without having to consider how they might feel about how i feel about their words. it's a selfish act of self-therapy, to, at its basest, simply know i'm not alone. i can know that i share so many things with so many people i've never met, and moreover, never have to meet.

i don't need to share my life story with them on Facebook chat. i can take it at face value and appreciate the common threads of human existence, which make me feel small and part of a larger whole, but in a reassuring way rather than a depressing one. it's not complex enough that i have to start asking myself deeper analytical questions about the nature of the statements.

i can just watch the world unfold around me in this faux sense of digital peace. it's pixelated zen. connection without judgment or responsibility. i'm not saying it forgoes human interaction, but it helps as a mental supplement. i don't know if this is the product of an internet disconnected generation, finding connections without faces, or if this is a human instinct to want to feel.

"#I believe this week is killing me."
and i just think we can all use a little zen.

[this will likely be considered again the more i dwell on and use Twistori.]

full circle, 1 of 2: 2.0 literacy "IRL"

study 1: students say "e-text" isn't writing (CNetNews)

study 2: students use "text speak" in school work (TimesOnline)

funny thing? they're talking about the same study: Pew Internet and American Life Project. so how can, in the same study, it be found that 1) students differentiate between txting and writing, and that differentiation makes them understand the time and place for each, and, 2) that in fact that differentiation means nothing and txting is used within scholarly writing.

"What's at stake here is just the ability to express oneself in more than one register," she said. "As long as children are taught to use the standard spelling and to appreciate the difference between registers, this could even be positive."
(excerpt from Times)

yes yes, i agree. there is no trouble with being "multiliterate"--able to txt-speak and write essays also. the problem here is, why, oh why, would you ever need 'LOL' in your essay? or a smiley face? why would there be a need for this expression in academic writing which a teacher must assess and decipher??

i enjoyed this comment response: "I hope those students who do use abbreviations in their essays receive an unhappy face sticker for their incorrect use of the English language." (Farore, Melbourne, Australia)

hahaha, could you imagine? i'd have been livid to get back a frowny face sticker. what does it MEAN? B-? F? it's almost as ambiguous as "A-/B+" (i hated those with a passion). pick one! oh, the teachers' revenge.

in essence, i think the CNet article about the study got it better; it seems that students believe correct spelling/grammar is vital in the academic sphere as well as central to future success in their careers. however, that doesn't stop the error, every so often, of slipping into "native tongue" (txt speak).
[though i'd still love to know when its usage is called for... "and then atticus finch defended tom robinson at trial, showing the ewells for the liars that they are--LOL!" ?]

digital natives and the elevator twitpitch

i read this plea to ban employers trawling Facebook some time ago via a link through danah's blog, and while yes, i agreed to an extent, i didn't really think long and hard about it until elevator (twit)pitches arose.

now, i do think twitpitches can be useful. i like the simplicity, the conciseness, the mandate for effectiveness and efficiency. it does not allow for fluff but instead lets the work (ie, a link) do the talking. this is, on the whole, a brilliant idea--especially when aimed toward those who know well enough to craft themselves online; those who know and expect their online 'persona' to affect their working world.

but what about the up-and-coming folks, the "digital natives" as the phrase goes? they were not considering the twitpitch (and all that follows) when they were journaling online at age 13, sneaking into frats at 16, or generally doing "self-exploration" that they may not later wish to admit to (especially when some sites, like Facebook, make it so hard to delete the tracks later on).

as the article i first link to states,
“A world where even a 14-year-old has to think twice before posting an adolescent poem suddenly looks very unappealing and increases the pressure on children and young people to conform to a set of tightly focused adult norms.” (excerpt)

i recently asked my twitter followers this question;
@luckthelady was nice enough to respond, saying that:
To a degree, certainly. I definitely wouldn't hold it against a girl if she got drunk at a frat party, but...
If she's considered to be dishonest, a repeated flake or someone with a bad reputation, it would definitely affect the offer.

do you agree? disagree?
what do you take into account in your employment decision when "e-searching" someone? how well do you expect them to "cover their tracks" (or do you expect at all)? do you think this is unfair to begin with and puts digital natives on an uneven playing field with their more-crafted, older brethren?

and, my question also: how do you determine if someone is a "repeated flake" (for example) online? ie, what if they simply don't check Facebook in particular a lot? or how to measure this over the span of 4 years on Facebook? at what point is social media, aimed at friends, no longer about personal facts but professional representation?

i have questions. i'd be interested in any answers.

we have to change our tune? NYTimes, bite me.

and this is what's wrong (ok, one of the things that's wrong) with the mindset about work in america. i wish i could comment right on the site, because i would.

sure, yes, i agree, don't get me wrong.
persistence? important. hard work? important. paying the rent? important!
as usual, in the words of my dad, 'it's not what you say, but how you're saying it.'

excerpt:
Meanwhile, Eric Papp, the 24-year-old founder of Generation Y Consulting in Tampa, Fla., recalled how he had run into a friend who was dressed in gym clothes having just worked out in the middle of the afternoon. “I asked how his job was going and he said it was going well but he had to quit,” Mr. Papp recounted. “He said ‘It interfered with my social life. I had to work weekends.’ ”

None of this surprises Daniel H. Pink, an author who specializes in navigating the workplace. “This generation has been spoon-fed self-esteem cereal for the past 22 years,” he said. “They’ve been told it’s all about them — what they want, what they are passionate about, what they find fulfilling. That’s not a bad message, but it’s also not a complete message.”

IT SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT US. and yeah, maybe that's my "GenY" mentality.
why SHOULD the guy have to work weekends if he doesn't want to? it wasn't the job for him. he didn't love it enough, or find it fulfilling enough, to sacrifice his weekends and be a slave to the clock like other workaholics. clearly he's not doing too badly if he can quit that job and still have the funds for his social life. where's the rest of that picture, NYTimes, hmmm?

not to mention that in the same breath as you defunct GenY's values, you cite a GenYer who created his own consulting firm. how does that fit into your description? he took those values of self-esteem, work-fulfillment, and self-definition and made it work for him. kudos to that, sir, kudos to that.

if i never sat down and asked myself what i wanted in a job, i would never have gone into advertising. i know this for fact, because it's something i had to sort out midway through my college years sitting in a career services office hating my internship options.

it's not how "it's not about us" or these old rules you think we should follow.
it IS about us because we're going to be in your shoes. and well, we think they need to be shinier.

to struggling students entering, i wouldn't spout out negative dogma about how no one has a plan and how you are unimportant. you are important. it's your life. everyone's priorities are different, and i'd say to examine yours. write a list, seriously. do you need your weekends? what salary do you want to make in the future? do you want to take your work home with you after hours? would those answers change if you really loved what you did? what do you love to do?

persist. don't settle.
all the costs--photocopying and coffee retrieval--are worth it. correct, you may not land the thing you love in your first job, but PLEASE, please please, pursue what you love. if you love what you do, i'm going to love that you do it well, and there's success in that. and yes, it will look like work, NYTimes. but it doesn't have to. i still wake up every morning and say "do not want" because i sacrificed my love of sleeping in for the love of my work. but i love my work.

someone out there is doing what you love. join them.
do whatever it takes to join them. get involved.
and if no one is doing what you love? make it happen.
someone else loves it, too.