Skip to content

Posts from the ‘communication’ Category

You’ve come a long way, baby camera

[Vimeo=13560440]
It’s another proof of the adage that good things come in small packages. A studio test left me impressed with the big time potential of the compact Canon T2i digital SLR.

If you’re wondering about the future of small and mid-budget video, there’s little doubt shrinking camera size and interchangeable lenses will be huge.

Now, if someone could invent a pocket-sized tripod…

Hi ho! Hi ho! It’s off to work I go at IFL

My hair is combed and I’m wearing socks and shoes today instead of my usual flip-flops. I even shaved this morning. Why all the extra footwear and grooming? Because today is the first day of my new gig at Insight for Living.

And they like it when you wear shoes.

Here’s the scoop on IFL according their website:

Insight for Living is committed to excellence in communicating the truths of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ in an accurate, clear, and practical manner so that people will come to an understanding of God’s plan for their lives, as well as their significant role as authentic Christians in a needy, hostile, and desperate world.

Insight for Living is best known for the daily radio broadcast featuring Chuck Swindoll which is broadcast to hundreds of outlets across the North America and worldwide. I’ll be working with the great crew that produces these broadcasts, but instead of radio I’m focusing on expanding their video offerings on the IFL website and for publication (Pun intended).

If you know me, then you know that things like “excellence in communicating” and “accurate, clear, and practical” truth from Scripture are exactly the kinds of things I’m interested in. That’s why I’m jumping on board with IFL. It’s an opportunity to grow my skills as a communicator while doing something I believe in at the same time. Such opportunities are rare.

The way all the circumstances lined up for me to join the IFL crew was a God thing. I’ve enjoyed IFL’s work for years, so it’s hard to believe that I’ll now be below deck pulling on the oars. Like any other journey, there will be ups and downs. But getting there is half the fun, right?

Except the wearing shoes part. And the shaving part. But if that’s what it takes to hop aboard for this next leg of the voyage, then hand me a pair of socks and razor.

Your cheatin’ widget heart

Dear Blogger:

Thanks for the memories. It’s been fun, but now I have to let you go. You were my first blog, but now I need a clean start. I need a new home for all my WildThoughts.

If I were writing a country music song about you it would include these things:

  • Your easy-to-use interface
  • Your many, many fun widgets
  • How cluttered and confused those widgets made me feel
  • How I longed for better layouts and more space to be myself
  • Also, a pick-up truck

I won’t totally shut down our relationship. I’ve found a new blog and she has everything I need. We’ll still be friends. But, things can’t be like they used to be. You’re a nice old blog, so I know you’ll find someone else.

It just won’t be me. I’ve moved on to WordPress.

Thanks for the memories.

-Wildman

Tonight, CNN races to call American children "racist." Not so fast…

CNN reports that biased racial attitudes begin forming in young children and that American black and white children are both biased toward whites. And, they say they have a scientific survey to back it up.

It goes like this.

An interviewer shows a young white girl illustrations of girls lined up from lightest-skinned to darkest skinned. Then, the interviewer asks her questions like: “Which girl is the smartest?” and “Which one is the good girl?” She points to the lighter-skinned girls. When the interviewer asks, “Which girl is the bad girl?” the little white girl points to the darker-skinned illustrations.

Her mother looks on through a live camera feed and cries. Obviously, scientifically, her sweet little girls is a budding racist. Or is she?

Not so fast.

This poorly crafted survey is an example of what  researchers call a “confounding bias” introduced by how the questions were phrased and how the test was presented. I’m not making any comments about race or racism here. I’m only talking about the validity of the survey from a scientific standpoint, as a way to remind us all to be careful what we accept as “proof” of a particular point of view. Just because people in lab coats stand around with clipboards doesn’t mean it’s science.

In this survey’s case, there are a number of problems:

  • This girl had no option to chose that “none of the children are bad.” She was forced to make a value judgment.
  • Lack of variables. No other visual characteristics like hair color/length, eye color, clothing or even position of light and dark illustrations in the line-up were introduced in the line of questioning. Would the girl have made a different choice if the darker-skinned illustrations where wearing purple dresses and the survey taker’s favorite color happened to be purple? The survey doesn’t rule out these possibilities.
  • Because of the lack of variables introduced, no correlation can be drawn between the girl’s choices and her racial attitudes. It’s scientifically useless.

Since this survey did not introduce any other possible variables – say, asking the same question but with the illustrated children arranged in a different order in the visual, for example – the survey isn’t scientifically conclusive.

But then, why would a black child point to the light-skinned child as being “good” or “smart”?

The survey’s results say that even black children pointed to light-skinned illustrations as being the “good” or “smart” children. How could it be anything but the child reflecting a belief that light-skinned individuals are somehow better then them or, at least, better off socially?

Here’s something else to consider. Children are not able to think abstractly at this young survey-takers’s developmental stage. When she is picking a child out of the line up, she isn’t drawing abstract conclusions about value based on skin color. Quite the opposite, she sees herself as a “good” and “smart” child, so she picks the illustration that “is like me.” (If you watch the video, you’ll see this is the case.)

This survey could just as easily be viewed as a measure of a child’s self-esteem than a test of his/her views on an abstract race construct.  Why would a black child pick a light-skinned illustration as the “good” one? Maybe his or her parents and teachers have sent the dark-skinned child negative self-esteem messages. Therefore, the “good” child is the one that is opposite to them. That’s a self-perception that would fall on the shoulders of parents, teachers, and other influences in the child’s life.

Since the survey didn’t test for these possible variables for the responses it gathered, it’s interesting but scientifically useless. Again, this is not a defense of any kind of racist behavior. But, in the race to call young Americans “racist” I’m just flipping on the yellow light of caution.

Just because this survey is labeled “science” doesn’t mean it’s the genuine article.


Just the facts, ma’am. The art-i-facts.

Do you ever sit back and wonder what the bits and pieces of our modern lives say about what it means to be human? What we as people hope for, desire, despise, and value? The basic, nuts & bolts needs and assumptions we’re using to build our lives as individuals and as a culture?

Archeologists use the artifacts left behind by a civilization to guess what that civilization considered important, what they believed, and what they desired to achieve. An unearthed scrap of pottery can reveal a lot information. Everything from technological advancements, to economic conditions, to the ideals of a culture can be reflected in the things they made, used, and left behind.

Such artifacts are valuable because they have both a function and a meaning. They do something for the person that used them and they say something about the people that made them. Sometimes the function and meaning of these objects are closely related. Sometimes they were quite distinct.

Artifacts don’t have to be buried in the soil to be telling indicators of a culture.  You don’t have to dig in your backyard for artifacts — just dig in your closet. Clothes from the 1970′s aren’t really that old in the grand scheme of history. But to our modern eyes the tie-dye, polyester shorts, and Chuck Taylors of that decade are distant from us today. They are a reminder of the spirit of the times that inspired these fashion artifacts. A spirit that’s somehow similar but very different from the spirit of our contemporary times.

Artifacts don’t even have to be old. In fact, the clothes I’m wearing right now are artifacts that say something about me personally and my culture. We all know this. We know that what a person wears on their bodies is an expression of what’s in their minds and on their hearts — a small symbol of who they are. We check out each other’s artifacts all the time. That’s one reason why brand names are important to us.

So, looking at our clothes is an easy way to sit back and wonder what the bits and pieces of our modern lives say about what it means to be human. What about the other things? Maybe sit back, have some fun, spot a random object and try to think about what that thing says.

That’s a conversation I could learn a lot from.

National Day of Unplugging: 10 commandments for high-tech Jews that we all could use

10 Principles for an Unplugged Day

1. Avoid technology.
2. Connect with loved ones.
3. Nurture your health.
4. Get outside.
5. Avoid commerce.
6. Light candles.
7. Drink wine.
8. Eat bread.
9. Find silence.
10. Give back.

 
Read more about the National Day of Unplugging from CNN: 


Imagine not booting up, logging on, dialing up, downloading, streaming, hyper-texting, clicking, viewing, or browsing for one whole day. Sad to say, I don’t know if I could really do it. It’s worth a try….With all the chatter hushed, maybe I could even hear a still, small voice….

Pew Research Study: Young adults as religious as ever, but are less interested in church

Check out the article below from a recent USA Today…
Contrary to what we hear from today’s church leaders, today’s youth are no less spiritual than previous generations. The problem is Church – today’s young people are much less interested in Church than the youth of yesteryear. Is it possible our “post-modern culture” that church leaders claim is the problem with America…really isn’t the problem? If contemporary young adults are just as interested in religion as their parents, but less interested in attending church, then maybe church is the problem.
Every generation and every culture presents challenges to evangelism and discipleship. Let’s complain less and work harder to find out what people need from church. We might have to make changes, but that’s ok because we’re not out for our own gain, right? Right. :)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers