Please don’t use this study to justify your horrible habit of using two spaces after periods
Is it better to have one or two spaces after a period? The first study investigating this hotly contested issue is here, and it supposedly gives the win to the two-spacers. But a closer look at the research suggests that the only reasonable interpretation is that double spacing after a period remains bad. It’s ugly, it doesn’t help when it comes to what matters most (reading comprehension), and the experiment that supports its benefits uses an outdated font style.
Read entire article from @verge
Courage Over Comfort: Rumbling with Shame, Accountability, and Failure at Work
I think the people who wade into discomfort and vulnerability and tell the truth about their stories are the real badasses in this world.
This is especially true of people who rumble with failure. These are people who choose courage over comfort, accountability over blame, and are able to embed key learnings from failures into their lives.
For early interviews about the rising strong process, I was able to meet with Andrew—a senior leader at a successful advertising agency and a total badass.
I recognized some of myself in his story, and I think you might, too.
Read the entire story from Brene’ Brown and follow Brene’ @breneebrown
The Gift of Compassionate Communication
If innovation is the engine of the knowledge economy, creative problem solving is the fuel.
While excellence in writing, design, communication and critical thinking are still in demand, when employers are asked what they would like to see in our students, creative problem solving rises to the top.
Can we teach creative problem solving? Is it a skill that can be learned? Is it nature or nurture? How do we train a new generation of leaders and problem solvers?
Read the entire article from Dr. Prabu David, Dean of the College of Communication Arts & Sciences at Michigan State University and follow him @prabudavid
Gun Reform: Speaking Truth to Bullshit, Practicing Civility, and Effecting Change
One of the biggest sources of bullshit today is the proliferation of “If you’re this then you’re automatically that” and “You’re either with us or you’re against us” politics. These are emotional lines that we hear invoked by everyone from elected officials and lobbyists to movie heroes and villains on a regular basis. They’re effective political moves; however, 95 percent of the time it’s an emotional and passionate rendering of bullshit.
Normally, we used forced choice and false dichotomies during times of significant emotional stress. Our intentions may not be to manipulate, but to force the point that we’re in a situation where neutrality is dangerous. I actually agree with this point. One of my live-by quotes is from Elie Wiesel. “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
The problem is that these emotional pleas are often not based in facts, and they prey on our fears of not belonging or being seen as wrong or part of the problem. We need to question how the sides are defined. Are these really the only options? Is this the accurate framing for this debate or is this bullshit?
Read the entire amazing article from Brene’ Brown. Follow Brene’ @breneebrown