Stitchin Up Now

Artist

Various Clients

User Experience Designer

Medium

Writer

Confidential

UX/UI Designer

Life is a long journey of constant learning and growth. 🥰

A curious person who reads and shares a lot of different perspectives on a variety of topics.

“‘If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. If you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together’.”

Entering a new chapter or season of life where the focus is on creating art alongside reflective writing pieces.

I've noticed people often don't realize the distinction between debate vs dialogue vs discussion and how quickly a conversation can shift between the three. I know I personally shut down when I realize I'm in a debate with someone who is trying to persuade or influence my thinking in a certain direction, especially if they're trying to change my mind. Because you're crossing psychological boundaries when it turns into a debate with no consent or rules around it, i.e. being in a more formal setting, in my opinion, and could come across as cruel criticism. Decided to Google what the difference is and got the following, which I found interesting so decided to share:

"Debate is a competitive activity to win an argument, discussion is an exchange of ideas to explore a topic, and dialogue is a collaborative process to find mutual understanding. In a debate, the goal is to prove your point is right and the other person is wrong. In a discussion, people share perspectives and challenge each other, but the goal is not necessarily to "win". Dialogue is focused on building a shared understanding by listening deeply and exploring different viewpoints without a focus on winning or losing

Debate
Goal: To win the argument by proving one's viewpoint is superior and convincing others.
Process: Competitive and oppositional; listens for weaknesses to discount them; focuses on asserting one's own point of view.
Environment: Often formal and structured, with rules, and ends with a clear winner and loser.
Example: A formal political debate where candidates try to win over voters by arguing their policies are better.

Discussion
Goal: To explore a topic, share different ideas and perspectives, and increase clarity on an issue.
Process: Involves advocating for your viewpoint and challenging others, but can also involve a more collaborative exchange of ideas. Can sometimes be less structured and may involve abstract concepts or competing ideas.
Environment: Often more informal, but can involve power dynamics that might not be acknowledged. The focus is on the content and the generalities of the topic, with a goal of reaching a shared understanding of the issue itself.
Example: A classroom where students exchange opinions on a book to better understand its themes and discuss different interpretations.

Dialogue
Goal: To build a shared connection, find common ground, and reach a mutually beneficial understanding.
Process: Collaborative and seeks to create a space for learning; involves deep listening to understand others' perspectives; not concerned with winning or losing. Emphasizes self-reflection and can involve exploring emotions related to the topic to deepen understanding.
Environment: Creating a safe environment where people can speak from their own experience is key.
Example: Two undecided voters talking to each other about candidates to understand what they both see in each choice and figure out their own vote."

Alex W.

This is a thoughtful reflection on creative growth and the challenge of documenting artistic process. The author revisited YouTube videos from a few years ago (early attempts at filming while working through Create This Book prompts) and analyzed what changed between then and now. The honest assessment of technical mistakes, awkward filming setups, and questionable music choices make an interesting read for anyone who's ever cringed at their own early work but also learned from it.

Definitely recommend subscribing to this Substack and supporting the artists publication if financially able to do so.

https://lnkd.in/eDc3-Se8

"There really is no good psychology research, okay? Within the human condition, there are just too many variables to try and control. All of our research is pretty bad. If you’re desperate to conduct some solid research, try physics, not psych."

"This is my issue with a lot of the self-help pop psychology work that’s published these days. It’s based on “research” when I believe the foundation should be experience with actual human beings. And I fear that a lot of the writers I follow work like I did. They find the research to back up what they already believe, not the other way around."

It also occurred to me recently that I have seen/heard plenty of people claim they are empathic. Empathic and empathetic are different things and the distinction between the words matters, in my opinion.

Founder & Executive Director, Real Safety AI Foundation NPO | AI Safety & Ethics Researcher | Harm Blindness Framework for Stakeholder Analysis | Patent Pending: Teacher in the Loop (Edtech) | AuDHD Creative Polymath

For a different point of view: "Just be more empathetic" is the "thoughts and prayers" of ethics.

It's what you say when you don't have a mechanism for change.
I documented how major corporations paid $200+ billion for harms they could have identified at the ideation phase. Every single case follows the same pattern: stakeholders were visible, harm was predictable, prevention was cheaper than the lawsuit.

But here's the uncomfortable truth: stakeholder analysis doesn't come naturally to everyone. Some people's cognitive patterns prioritize technical elegance. Others focus on market efficiency; or personal profit, pride, etc. None of these are wrong or inherently evil. They're just different.

So if we can't force everyone to think empathetically (and frankly, should we?), what's the alternative?

What if we stopped trying to change how people think and started changing the questions they're required to answer when designing anything with stakeholders?

What if the answer is as simple as appealing to everyone's MOTIVATIONS and not to their ethics?

...What if I had the answer?

I wrote about this. 

#AIEthics #StakeholderAnalysis #CorporateGovernance #PreventableHarm #SystemsThinking  #RiskManagement #AISafety #Philosophy #Leadership

"Even though they may not intend to, many criminal justice journalists hover from moral perches when they write about people who kill. It’s a moral superiority they can’t avoid, which is why some of these reporters don’t include their subjects’ crimes, which can be problematic. Just like true crime creators bring a specific agenda to their work — that we’re all evil, and include egregious facts to ensure their audiences agree — criminal justice reporters often do the opposite. They want to highlight the injustices of the system or make the case for reforms, and to convince their readers, they exclude facts about our crimes."

John J. Lennon tells Bill Keller that he “wanted to tell a different story about the guilty” in his new book. Read their Q&A:

"The reason people believe the “crazy equals dangerous” myth is simple — they only hear about the exceptions. The news doesn’t run stories about the thousands of people with mental illness who went to work, paid their bills, took their meds, and didn’t hurt anybody. That’s not “breaking news.” That’s boring. Instead, we get the one headline that says, “Man with mental illness attacks stranger,” and suddenly every person talking to themselves on a bus is a suspect. It’s lazy storytelling and we’ve been buying it for decades. But the numbers tell a completely different story. People with serious mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, they’re up to ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. And when they do commit violent acts, it’s usually against themselves not others.
Most people struggling with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression aren’t acting out a scene from Psycho. They’re trying to stay stable enough to survive the week. But instead of empathy, they get distance because fear’s easier than understanding. You hear about one “crazy” person who snaps and forget about a hundred thousand who don’t. That’s not reality; that’s ratings.

And since we're talking Psycho, let's talk Psycho II. Even I had my doubts — I mean, how do you make a sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made by one of the greatest directors who ever lived? You look at something like that and your first thought is, “Here we go, cash grab.” But Psycho II wasn’t that. Director Richard Franklin wasn’t trying to piggyback off Hitchcock. He actually had something to say about rehabilitation and how society refuses to let people move on. Norman Bates gets out, medicated and older, genuinely trying to live a normal life again. But Lila Crane just cannot let it go. She uses her own daughter to torment him, gaslighting him, pretending to be his mother, moving things around, slowly pushing him back into madness. The “hero” becomes the villain. Norman becomes the victim. He doesn’t crack because he’s evil — he cracks because nobody lets him be anything else. That’s how we treat mentally ill people in real life. We preach “second chances,” then slam the door the second someone actually tries to take one.

But here’s where it gets darker — not in the way people think. When folks see someone who looks “off,” they don’t quietly worry or try to help. They pull out their phones. They record. They post. “Look at this guy talking to himself at the bus stop.” “Some weird woman pacing outside Target.” It’s all over social media — shaky video, fake concern, and smug captions like, “Someone needs to check on this person,” which really means “Look at me, the good citizen noticing the crazy person.” Because that makes you feel safe. It makes you the sane one, the stable one, the hero behind the camera."

Source: https://lnkd.in/eTfVYei2

taplio

Alex W's Linkedin Analytics

Alex W

Performance ScoreAlex W's LinkedIn Performance

Alex W's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Alex W's Linkedin Analytics

Alex W

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Alex W's LinkedIn Performance

Alex W's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Alex W's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreAlex W's LinkedIn Performance

Alex W's Best Posts (last 30 days)