Google Glass—in vogue? How the device is shattering the barrier between fashion and tech

Technology Google Glass was the centerpiece of a spread in this month’s Vogue magazine. Photo: Max Braun/Flickr

In its most recent September issue, Vogue offers a futuristic vision of fashion that blurs the line between gadget and accessory. A 12-page spread titled “The Final Frontier” features models wearing Oscar de la Renta and Gucci, gazing out over a space age landscape, taking in the view through the lenses of Google Glass. The subtle details of the shoot’s art direction – a hand resting on the Glass frames, the light reflecting off the lens, a shot as if the camera were wearing Glass — suggest that these glasses are the future.

Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?Glass, the wearable computer that Google’s Sergey Brin shared at TED2013, is the first mainstream electronic device to be worn and operated on your face. Following in the footsteps of eyeglasses and wristwatches, Glass just might be the next revolution in wearable technology.

With Glass, Google hopes to achieve ubiquitous computing — a constantly accessible digital information source that can be controlled without lifting a finger. As Brin explained in his talk, Glass’s aim is to minimize technological distractions and quickly return users to their immediate surroundings by providing fast access to information. The device — which can take photos, send texts and tweets, and look up information — is voice-operated and intentionally located above the right eye, for quick glances rather than extensive web browsing. Its slogan: “Getting technology out of the way.”

Glass’ developers knew that no mater how functional the gadget, it would be useful only if people wanted to wear it and it was considered “cool” to wear in public. (To that end, perhaps it helps that TED attendee Chris Kluwe, the kicker for Oakland, wore Glass at a practice last month.) “If it doesn’t meet a minimum bar for comfort and style, it just doesn’t matter what it will do,” Steve Lee, who was involved in the development of Glass, told The New York Times last month.

This is where fashion design comes in. Google recruited Swedish designer Isabelle Olsson to streamline and stylize the device, which in prototypes was bulky and awkward. In fact, the earliest versions included chopsticks, fishing line and coat hangers — as Google’s Tom Chi explained in a talk at last year’s TEDYouth. The “nose-born weight” was too much to bear, and the plastic white frames made with a 3-D printer were cumbersome, especially with a cell phone taped to their side. The slick frames are now available in five colors — charcoal, tangerine, shale, cotton and sky — and have been streamlined to the bare bones minimum, channeling Japanese design.

Google’s target clientele is the general public, but it doesn’t hurt to have fashion heavyweights like Diane von Furstenberg as endorsers. Von Furstenberg incorporated Glass into her show at New York Fashion Week last year and has been a strong advocate of the frames. As she told The New York Times, accessories “tell someone that extra bit about you, and I think to wear Glass is to show that you are engaged, you are current, you are open to new things.” In other words: Glass can be a fashion statement.

But the current Glass frames have also been called a fashion faux pas. They have been criticized for looking dorky and futuristic, — a “Segway for your face,” as writer Matt Novak put it. The blog “White Men Wearing Google Glass” wryly pokes fun at both the frame’s style and the tech industry’s white male dominance. A recent Saturday Night Live sketch highlights the awkward functionality of the gadget, and paints a portrait of how the device is viewed in some circles.

The team at Glass has acknowledged some of the negative feedback it has received, and other frame designs seem to be in the works. Olsson recently posted a photo on her Google+ page of a more conventional glasses frame that incorporates Glass while steering away from the sci-fi look. Google is also considering partnering with Ray-Ban or Warby Parker to design additional frame styles.

In some respects, Glass is simply the newest innovation in performance-enhancing wearable technology. We’ve grown accustomed to calculator watches, hearing aids, and Nike+iPod armbands. But Glass could be a game-changer, as it ventures to make an electronic device fashionable and allows unprecedented access to information with the blink of an eye.

A look at Glass. Photo: Ted Eytan/Flickr

View the original article here

The curious relationship between truth and madness

I’ve got an article in The Observer on the misunderstood relationship between truth and madness.

The definition of a ‘delusion’ has just been changed so it no longer has to be considered a ‘false belief’.

It turns out that this issue turns up regularly in world events, owing to the sad tendency for whistle-blowers to be ‘accused’ of being ‘mentally ill’ when others don’t like what they’re saying.

It’s not clear who forcibly sedated her in 1972. It’s not certain that she was admitted to a psychiatric ward in the following year. What’s definite though is that many people thought she was mad as she ranted about conspiracies in the White House during eccentric phone calls to the press. Questions about Martha Beall Mitchell’s sanity were encouraged by the Nixon administration, who consistently briefed against her and probably had her medicated against her will. But ultimately her claims were proven correct when the Watergate scandal broke.

It’s worth bearing in mind that we’re not talking about the everyday use of the term ‘delusion’ (typically meaning mistaken) but the psychiatric definition which describes intensely held beliefs that are impervious to reality.

They are fascinating in many ways but, as the article discusses, they do not necessarily mean that the person is wrong.

Link to Observer article on truth and delusion.

View the original article here

Recognizing the Distinction Between Blame and Responsibility

“A man can fail many times, but he isn’t a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.” ~John Burroughs

Do you believe that in a perfect world everything would go right every time? At the beginning that sounds pretty nice, especially if it is a radical change from your present circumstances. In our fantasies, things work out, we get the “yes”, and events go exactly as we planned. The problem is that certainty can get boring, so we tinker, we try new things, and we experiment. That’s when it happens:

What you do next is the thing that makes all the difference. Is it your common response to cast about for who messed up? That might seem practical: after all, until you know who made the mistake, you can’t fix it. Do you look for what went wrong? Not just people are involved; there are things and there are processes. Perhaps one of them is faulty. Who was in charge anyway? Maybe it was a failure of leadership or instruction or training—after all, the buck has to stop somewhere.

Before we head down these roads, we need to check one thing: What is our intent in this inquiry? Are we looking for someone to pin it on? Are we looking for something to “fix”? Are we looking for a leader to denounce?

These are the common motivators. In politics, business, and the social scene, a favorite pastime is finding fault. News television is full of talking heads who are assigning blame everywhere and rallying to replace those at fault. Unfortunately, their replacements become the next targets and the cycle continues.

Only a few are strong enough to accept blame and take responsibility when something goes south. Only a subset of those strong individuals manages to hang on to face their next scrutiny. but there are such persons and we can model ourselves after them. What do they do differently than those who run from the blame?

Before we go further, we need to get some definitions straight. What is blame, what is fault, and what is responsibility?

To be responsible is to be answerable or accountable. It means that we will be measured.To be at fault is to be responsible for a failure or worse, a wrongful act.Finally, to blame is not just to hold responsible but to find fault with.

There are ways to approach responsibility that work and ways that don’t. Let’s start with the latter. When our focus is on blame, it is all about finding someone to get. It turns focus away from what went wrong and how to keep it from going wrong again. It is judgmental and vindictive.

Blame is often used to divert attention away from ourselves. After all, we don’t want the blame—who ever wants to be “at fault”? But the blame game shows a lack of understanding of what responsibility fundamentally is. Responsibility cannot be assigned after the fact even though many attempt to do so. Responsibility was always present, even if it was not acknowledged. When you start to realize this, you stop blaming others. You begin focusing on your own role, whether in action or in abdication.

This is a moment of clarity but some folks lose it immediately by making one critical error: they replace blaming others with blaming themselves. This turns into self-recrimination, self-judgment and self-hatred. Blaming yourself is not the same thing as taking responsibility: In fact, it is a way to avoid taking responsibility.

How so?

The focus of blame is to find fault. Its objective is judgmental to its core. Finding yourself guilty is not going to change anything, fix anything or improve anything. Taking responsibility, on the other hand, has a superior objective—it is all about accountability. It is an assignment, not a verdict. When something is assigned to us, we take care to manage it, protect it, and make it successful, so in circumstances where many go from blame to self-blame, can you see the superior path of focusing on assignment? Whatever happened is now a provider of new and useful information, rather than a distraction from your objectives like blame can be.

There is one other turn of a phrase we must be wary of. That phrase is “to hold responsible”. Yes, it has “responsible” in it, but don’t be fooled: the active word is “hold”. It’s just a stand-in for finding fault. Remember, responsibility just is, and it was, but it cannot be assigned after the fact. A better phrase to embrace is “to accept responsibility”. It is best if you do it in advance. It is painful if you have to do it after the fact but keep in mind that your acceptance didn’t bring your responsibility into existence, it was already present.

If responsibility is sounding like a serious matter, it is, but it isn’t a circus like blame and faultfinding. Take responsibility mindfully and stay away from blame. If you do, you will find that things calm down and get clearer. It feels better to be responsible than to merely endure the blame.

OK, you screwed up. Something’s gone horribly, horribly wrong, and it’s all your fault. And now, it’s time to pay the piper: How to Admit Your Mistakes

Featured photo credit: businessman in suit and tie pointing the finger in front of himself via Shutterstock

You know how many small business owners have lots of ambitions but can’t seem to get clear enough to make them real? Kenneth Vogt teaches them how to transform their ambitions into a big mission and then into reality at VeraClaritas.com.

View the original article here

Charity Tillemann-Dick shares the harrowing story of living between life and death

Health TEDx

At TEDMED 2010, opera singer Charity Tillemann-Dick told the story of a revolutionary, life-changing surgery — a double lung transplant. While a doctor had warned her that she would never sing again, Charity Tillemann-Dick: Singing after a double lung transplantshe revealed what it felt like to get her voice back. “We need to stop letting disease divorce us from our dreams,” she said.

Now, three years after her first transplant (she has since had another), Tillemann-Dick has given a second talk, “Discourses from the undead,” filmed at TEDxMidAtlantic in December. In the talk above, she takes a stark look at death. sharing the vivid dreams that she had while she was in an unconscious state after her surgery — a time when her doctor said that survival was unlikely. Having “spent many a night in death’s guesthouse,” Tillemann-Dick  shares meaningful lessons that she believes to be from the next world, and gives thanks.

“While [death’s] sting is real, good can come from it,” she says. “Death is as much a part of life as love, birth and happiness.”

Far too few people are organ donors, and Tillemann-Dick attributes this not to disregard but to our lack of conversation about death. She says it’s time to talk about death. Will you join her?

View the original article here

Why It’s So Important to Know the Difference Between Self-Help and Personal Growth

Photo credit: Jesper Sachmann (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

To many of us the terms “self-help” and “personal growth”  are interchangeable. But while they may give the external appearance of having twin meanings, in the external perception they are more akin to those tiny figures that we would see perched on the shoulders of a character on television. If you can, visualize the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other and you’ll get my meaning.

One is a near obsession with fixing some innate flaws, either real or imagined, which are a blemish on our existence. We just know that if we could fix ourselves, life would be pure bliss. Or would it?

The other is based on the belief that we are fine the way we are, though not perfect, we are good enough already. But that we are a work in progress and there is a desire to expand in some way, through gaining knowledge, through improving our skill or through cultivating healthier or more positive behaviors.

Though I may be splitting hairs over textbook definitions, the true difference is in how the perception of the journey affects both our attitude and our actions. We resist change when we feel bad about ourselves; condemned, criticized and judged (usually we are the ones offering up our own judgment.) We embrace change when it elicits happy feelings of fulfillment and accomplishment.

A few examples to illustrate my theory…

Self-Help Perspective: I can’t fit into my jeans. I need to lose 20…30…50 pounds, then I’ll be happier. What is wrong with me? I’ve tried so many diets. I just need to exercise more. Ugh

Personal Growth Perspective: I want to be healthy and have more energy to allow me to live the life I love. This is the only body I have and I choose to nurture it by making healthier food choices and moving to keep my heart and muscles strong and fit.

Self-Help Perspective: I have got to get it together. My house (car, office) is always a mess. I can’t find anything. I never seem to get anything done. I just need to find the right system. Or maybe I could hire someone to come in and clean it all up.

Personal Growth Perspective: I set my priorities. I won’t accumulate things I don’t need. I’ll ask for help from someone who can offer effective strategies on how to better manage my life, my home or my work. I acknowledge that external disorganization is a symptom of lack of internal focus. I need to be clear about what I want.

Self-Help Perspective: I need a better “get out of debt” plan. But the book said if I just followed the guidelines, I could be a millionaire…I need a job that pays more money.

Personal Growth Perspective: I work toward my debt and savings goals consistently. I understand that it can be a slow process. I treat money with respect and gratitude. I am grateful to have a job. I invest in myself and my career by improving my marketable skills.

You get the idea. Though this may be an exaggeration to illustrate a point, I think the difference in perception and attitude is readily apparent. And while the actions taken may actually be the same, the results will differ greatly, because the intention is different.

We instinctively push back against the idea that we are lacking and “should” fix ourselves. We are drawn to the idea that we are wonderful and getting better all the time.

Which way of thinking sounds more enticing to you? Which strategy do you think has better long term results? Which perception do you think contributes more to your happiness in life?

Royale Scuderi is a writer, life and business coach who empowers individuals and businesses to achieve higher productivity, growth, business success and work - life balance. She offers wisdom, insight and ideas to help you get the most out of your life at Productive Life Concepts.

View the original article here

Epilepsy as a door between worlds

There’s a wonderful anthropology study on beliefs about epilepsy among the Guaraní people in Bolivia in the latest Epilepsy and Behavior.

The Guaraní believe that people with recurrent seizures are a gateway between the worlds of life and death.

Among the Guaraní, epilepsy is called mano-mano, which literally means “die-die” and refers to the concept of death with a notion of frequency (die several times) and also of being in a constant passage between life and death. In other terms, this word means always being on the border between life and death, reflecting the fact that mano-mano produces a constant interruption of life or a “partial death.”…

In fact, the expression mano-mano is meaningful. It refers to the idea of a round trip between life and death. This concept addresses the loss of consciousness and shows that epilepsy is recognized mostly in terms of generalized seizures. The uncertain state between life and death is seen as a kind of “third possible condition” for a human being, a state that generates hesitation over what attitude to hold. PWE [people with epilepsy] are omano-mano-vae, the “undeads,” different from the other members of the community and considered both as victims of this life–death relationship and as enablers of the meeting of these two worlds…

The representation of epilepsy as a state of human being and the perception of this in a vision that involves the entire community allow an interpretation of Guaraní attitudes toward PWE [people with epilepsy]. Guaraní PWE are rarely condemned, misjudged, or isolated as in other cultures. Apparently, PWE do not represent a threat to the Guaraní, who seem to hold the attitude of helping and protecting PWE. As noted, the restrictions and prohibitions cited by the Guaraní appear to derive from the need to take care of PWE, as heavy work, traveling alone, and being involved in problems are believed to worsen the condition or trigger seizures in PWE.

It’s worth noting that while their perception of people with epilepsy is generally positive, several of the people interview gave advice about avoiding contact between affected people and children or pregnant women.

As the researchers note this raises questions “that could be related to a belief that was not mentioned: possible transmission of the disease to those who are considered the weakest and most defenseless in the community.”

However, their general outlook is markedly positive in light of widespread beliefs about epilepsy being the results of evil spirits or a divine punishment.

In contrast, the Guaraní most frequently cited epilepsy as being caused by a “failure to observe the Yekuaku, a fasting period linked to special events”.

Link to locked anthropology study.

View the original article here

Shifting between the worlds of Carl Jung

The New Atlantis has a wonderful article giving an in-depth biography of Carl Jung, perhaps one of the most interesting, infuriating and brilliant thinkers in the history of psychology.

Variously a pioneering experimental psychologist, a depth-analyst, an asylum psychiatrist and a man submerged in his own psychosis, he had a massive influence on both our understanding of the mind and 20th century culture.

…Jung never slackened in his pursuit of the ultimate — both ultimate good and ultimate evil, which he tended to find inseparable. He was frequently off in the empyrean or down in the bowels of hell, consorting with gods and demons as ordinary men do with family and friends. Few persons conducted such conversations, and most of them were inmates of lunatic asylums. For a time the thought that he might be insane terrified him.

The fear dissipated, however, as he became convinced that his visions were genuinely revelatory and belonged to the primordial psychic reality that all men have in common: the collective unconscious, he called it. Poets and such may get away with beliefs like these, for their madness is pretty well taken for granted, but it was a most unorthodox way for an esteemed psychiatrist to think.

Jung is also probably one of the most misunderstood figures in psychology, largely owing to his tendency to swing between science, poetic genius and outright flakery.

The New Atlantis article is a fantastic exploration of the man and his ideas and one of the best short introductions you could find. Well, as short as you could get with Carl Jung.

Link to ‘Psychology’s Magician’.

View the original article here