"Do we really feel better when a computer pats us on the back? Yes, we do"

Watch out for those machines, though. Humans know a special trick of self-observation: when to avert our gaze. Machines don’t understand the value of forgiving a lapse, or of treating an unpleasant detail with tactful silence. A graph or a spreadsheet talks only in numbers, but there is a policeman inside all of our heads who is well equipped with punishing words. “Each day my self-worth was tied to the data,” Alexandra Carmichael, one of the founders of the self-tracking site CureTogether, wrote in a heartfelt blog post about why she recently stopped tracking. “One pound heavier this morning? You’re fat. Skipped a day of running? You’re lazy. It felt like being back in school. Less than 100 percent on an exam? You’re dumb.” Carmichael had been tracking 40 different things about herself. The data she was seeing every day didn’t respect her wishes or her self-esteem. It was awful, and she had to stop.

Electronic trackers have no feelings. They are emotionally neutral, but this very fact makes them powerful mirrors of our own values and judgments. The objectivity of a machine can seem generous or merciless, tolerant or cruel. Designers of tracking systems are trying to finesse this ambivalence. A smoking-cessation program invented by Pal Kraft, a Norwegian researcher at the University of Oslo, automatically calls people who are trying to quit, asking them every day whether they’ve smoked in the last 24 hours. When the answer is yes, a recorded voice delivers an encouraging message: All is well, take it easy, try again. This mechanical empathy, barely more human than a recorded voice on the customer-service line, can hardly be expected to fool anybody. But a long line of research in human-computer interaction demonstrates that when machines are given humanlike characteristics and offer emotional reassurance, we actually do feel reassured. This is humbling. Do we really feel better when a computer pats us on the back? Yes, we do.

I've been thinking a lot about validation lately... maybe even a post-it or a pop-up on the computer really can be helpful, as hokey as it seems.

NJ Asian Americans Happiest, Things Glee Does Wrong, Beyoncé's Latest Video (worth reading & watching 2)

This posting my link collection daily is harder than I thought it would be. Instead of clicking "Share on Facebook" now, I keep everything in a text file until I have time to make this blogpost. It shouldn't really take longer, but it does! These were collected May 4 and 5, 2010
 
"New Jersey Asian Americans live, on average, an astonishing 26 years longer, are 11 times more likely to have a graduate degree, and earn $35,610 more per year than South Dakota Native Americans"
 
 
Results from the XKCD Color Survey - fascinating, definitely take a look at this!
 
Interesting data, sample size is probably too small though
 
"There's just one problem—by relying so heavily on Lynch, and Lea Michele's Rachel and Corey Monteith's Finn, and underdeveloping large swaths of its big and talented cast, the show is at risk of making its leads boring and overexposed."
 
"To our knowledge this is the first time in the world that a postal authority is issuing a special stamp on a gay/lesbian occasion. At least, we are not aware that this has happened before anywhere in the world." via Towleroad
[de] HOSI Wien
 
Video for Beyoncé's New Single - Why Don't You Love Me
 
NYT on how medical schools are (some more slowly, some more quickly) adding cost as an additional consideration when teaching medical students how to choose treatments: Teaching Physicians the Price of Care

"It may have taken an ecological disaster, but the gulf-state conservatives' newfound respect for the powers and purse of the federal government is a timely reminder for them. As conservatives in Washington complain about excessive federal spending, the ones who would suffer the most from spending cuts are their own constituents." (via Misha)