‘Expectations’ is a digital art piece, representing the state of gender in the workplace.
It was inspired by the following quote in the episode, “Women are expected to be more polished to be taken more seriously. Like if I showed up to work 100% disheveled, then I’ know i won’t be taken seriously. But if I’m too groomed and look too good then that makes you seem ditzy and incompetent. So you have to make sure that you’re presenting yourself in all the right ways.”
There are two important aspects in ‘Expectations’; the color and the shapes. The choice of colors is an obvious representation of gender. The shapes signify how men are allowed and accepted in different forms regardless of their ‘edges’, whereas women are expected to be perfect, like a circle. No edges, complete, formidable but non-threatening.
Welcome to our fourth and final installation of the BTB Case Study series where we tackle topics and try to “walk the walk” of discourse, break through our comfort zones, and learn about new perspectives and subject matters from experts and spokespeople.
This week, we’re closing out our first season by taking a look at what socio-economic divisions can look like by featuring three interviews that might give you new insight into how the “other half” lives.
We have stories about being the poorest kid in school, stories about breaking through the poverty bubbles, and some insight into aristocratic parties in France.
Happiness Initiative: We Wear Culture, Google’s initiative to shine light on the stories, history and culture woven into the clothes we wear.
Lastly, thank you to all of our friends, family, interviewees and listeners for your support this season. We are looking forward to using the next few months of hiatus to get our next season lined up and to figure out better ways to break through our own bubbles.
If you have any story ideas, happiness initiatives or feedback (we don’t bite and really really do want honest and constructive criticism!), please email us, tweet, leave a comment here or find us on Facebook!
We’ll see you all soon for Season Two of BTB and more tips, stories and case studies! BYE!
Welcome to our third installation of the BTB Case Study series where we tackle topics and try to “walk the walk” of discourse, break through our comfort zones, and learn about new perspectives and subject matters from experts and spokespeople.
This week, we surveyed the vast expanse of the internet (okay, not really) to do a case study on how political messages get spread in non-conventional ways. In light of the increasingly viral nature of campaigns, grassroots organizations, and even popular media, our examples this week might make you rethink how you draw boundaries between art and politics.
Priyanka and I are in the same city for once and we’ve spent all of it working on new content and brainstorming for BTB. And… eating a few (dozen) pastries.
This week’s episode is slightly different–we’re updating you on some of the longer-term projects we have in progress including:
-Several case study episodes like a dialogue between us and a conservative blogger (Aussie Conservative)
-Expanding our reach and virtual bubble
-Finding new sources and stories from you, our awesome listeners 🙂
So far in our podcast, we’ve been encouraging people to break out of their bubble through discourse, good questions, and a careful awareness of bias in media and how we consume news. But we’d be remiss to not point out the obvious bias we often see in ourselves when we’re seeking out information.
This week, we tackle the idea of “confirmation bias” at all its levels– in how we ask questions and sometimes skew the responses we get, in how we think about what is “given” and what we can question, and even how searching for positivity can result in being happier.
Listen to “Grey Swans” (and how we adapted Nassim Taleb’s concept of Black Swans for our title) :
We see them more and more these days. And not just because people are posting more often, but because their reach is getting amplified with social media shares and “viral” statuses. These cathartic, explanatory, uplifting, or sometimes ranting social media posts are making their rounds on newsfeeds around the world.
This week, we take a look at some statuses we’ve seen in our feeds to better understand what pushes someone to share personal details or stories on a platform that is very public.
In the process, we found that posting things to social media sometimes reinforces your echo chamber, but it can also break through to bipartisan discussion or invite the ever-feared “Internet Trolls” (dun dun dunnnnn).
Listen to this week’s episode on “Posting and Low-Blows and Trolls, Oh My!” :
How would you explain to a child how to walk? Or explain what exactly it is you’re doing when you speak? Often, the things that come most naturally to us are the most difficult to explain to others. And sometimes, our jobs – our professional skills – can fall in that category.
This episode touches on experiences we discussed way back when BTB was just a concept. And when we heard about our friend Zaid’s experiment on expertise and the takeaways he was finding, we decided now was the time to synthesize our own anecdotes and come up with ways to “check your expertise.”
As an overview, here are some general Do’s and Don’t’s when it comes to engaging in conversations where expertise level might be unequal:
-Don’t be condescending
-Remember that your expertise had to start at the beginning at one point too
-Remember your “audience”
-Try to avoid jargon and be patient
-Is the topic someone might feel judged or self-conscious about for not being aware of?
-Start by acknowledging that you might be covering something he/she already knows and that you can speed up if needed
-As the learner, think about how to make the information stick in a way that works for you
-Use other examples or metaphors to draw connections (like Mean Girls! That always works for Eunice!)
We’ve both been big fans of The Daily Show for years, and back in college, we often found ourselves relying on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for more candid, unfiltered versions of the news.
But that in itself is a problem. And as the political climate around the world has become more charged, it seems ‘unfiltered’ is a thing of the past.
All media today seems to have an opinion. And that combined with the stress of gaining viewership means TV news channels are getting more and more sensationalised, often following the path of comedy shows and late night programming.
Does that simply make the news more interesting? Or is this a dangerous trend?
This episode was super fun to research, discuss and edit because of all the examples we’ve sprinkled throughout. Check it out and let us know what you think!!
We also mentioned a specific back and forth between an O’Reilly Factor segment and a response from the Daily Show, as well as what we thought would be comparable precedent.
Daily Show Response:
Previous Daily Show segment in the same vein:
Reverse Engineering Stats! We got a lot of positive feedback on the How to Question Everything episode so we decided we’d take it one step further… How to question the statistics and numbers you see cited in articles. More specifically, how to reverse engineer them to see if you’re being misled.