Category Archives: Nuggets

Video Research Nugget Post

A look at how Attractiveness Affects the Workplace

Newsy. ( Sep 11, 2015). A look at how attractiveness affects the workplace. . retrieved from


This video was the first video i was able to find on my topic. The video was posted on by Newsy. I had never heard of Newsy before so when i did some research i learned that it is a multi source video news service that highlights perspectives from various media outlets and packages them into concise easy to digest news bites. I found the source reliable since they do mention the sources in which they get their statistics and facts from and majority of the sources are well known trusted sources like CNN.

One of the first things mentioned in the beginning of the video was that “time and time again it has been proven that people who are tall, physically fit, and facially symmetrical are often times more successful than the others in their workplace”. This is what my topic is all about. My questions are, how are they more successful? what can we do to fix this issue? is there anything being done? and is being attractive more of a benefit when it comes to the workplace or is it a downfall?  I have these questions because i have gotten mixed thoughts and answers from all the research that i have previously done. Some say it is an advantage for women, and others say that it is harder for attractive women to be successful because they have to work harder to prove competence. This video clip helped me answer a lot of my questions.

” A London Guildhall study found that attractive people make as much as 11-15% more than less attractive co-workers”.

 Although, i had read that attractive people were more successful in the workplace, this quote still stuck out to me. I assume its because no other article, video or link mentioned numbers. This made it hard to understand exactly how much more successful they are and in which ways.  Like i mentioned before, some of my research states attractiveness is a pro for women in the workplace and some states that it is a con. The video mentions the Halo Effect, which is when people often think that attractive people are smarter, funnier, kinder and more athletic than average looking people. I guess this would be a pro. however, they also mention the Bimbo Effect, meaning good looking women may have to work harder to prove their competence especially in a male dominated workplace. Women already have to deal with many hardships when it comes to work. So the fact that the have to work even harder just because of their looks it not fair. since majority of these women have to work harder to prove themselves, maybe its okay that their getting a higher pay. right?

Towards the end of the video, it is mentioned that only few US cities have protective laws against discrimination based on appearance. This answered my question about whether anything is being done about this issue. Clearly their is, but its unfortunate that it is not seen as a bigger issue. I learned that some corporations are switching up their hiring process to something similar to the show “The Voice”. Companies have started doing blind interviews in their hiring process so that applicants are judged solely on their job skills.

I can use a lot of what i learned from this video in my IP project. The amount of questions that were answered from such a short clip was remarkable. I just received so much new information that i can grow off of.

 Beauty in sports: Why looks shouldn’t come first for female athletes

Goot, Alexandar. (Aug 22nd 2015). Beauty in sports: Why looks shouldn’t come first for female athletes. Retrieved from


This article and video clip were found on The article discusses beauty in sports which i found interesting since one of my ebsco scholarly articles were based on this very topic.

“when a female athlete is unbeatable, she gets accused of being manly”.


“Rousey is a man amongst women”

this is so unfortunate that if a woman is great at the sport she is doing she is too “manly”, but if she is bad at it then she isn’t doing her job. It seems like a lose-lose situation. One of the examples that the video used when this was mentioned was Serena Williams. It is easily said that she is the best of the best, however, even other competitors whisper about how she is “un-feminin” before competitions. Why is her appearance a factor? she’s good at what she does. this is all that should matter.

“you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t as a female athlete; Dominate your sport and be considered a man or be part of the pack and only get attention if you’re considered attractive.”

One part of the video mentions how Tom Brady is the “poster child” because of his looks, however, he is seen as a great athlete first, then as Gizelles hubby, then as an alleged cheater. His good looks fit in somewhere after all of those. However, its not the same for female athletes. They mention Anna Kornikova and how she was one of the best doubles tennis players, however, many don’t know that because they only knew her because of her looks. She was popular amongst men but that was not because of her scores.


Google Like a Pro Research Post – Comparing Sources

My “Google Like a Pro” Search

University of Michigan Health System (2015). ‘Sharenting’ trends: Do parents share too much about kids on social media?. Retrieved from

“However, there’s potential for the line between sharing and oversharing to get blurred. Parents may share information that their child finds embarrassing or too personal when they’re older but once it’s out there, it’s hard to undo. The child won’t have much control over where it ends up or who sees it.”

Nelson, J. (2015). Why Parents Should Be Mindful of (Over) Sharenting. Retrieved from

Then there’s the possible impact on your adolescent’s real-world life. Sure, that may seem improbable, but it is a possibility, say the experts. Social media activity can live on forever, and many more people are privy to our activity than most of us may realize.

These two nuggets are very similar, probably because they come from articles discussing the results of a poll conducted by the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital which questioned parents about their online habits. I chose these passages because I believe that parents today, as the first generation raising their kids in a world where the Internet, social media and blogs are widely available, perhaps have not anticipated the consequences of the so-called “sharenting” (a mash-up of the words “parenting” and “sharing”).

As mentioned in the passages above, what we publish online can literally live forever. Even if we delete a post, someone could’ve easily taken a screenshot of it and saved it – and that happens a lot nowadays, especially when someone posts something embarrassing or dumb online. So it wouldn’t be completely far-fetched to think that a “cute” potty-training Facebook post shared today could one day be seen by a college recruiter, a human resources employee, a future boss or a potential business associate. And while I personally wouldn’t judge someone by their parents’ oversharing, I don’t believe everyone would be so kind all the time.

Another problem that comes to mind, more serious than posts about potty-training, temper tantrums and made-up words, is that some parents might inadvertently share medical information online. I personally have seen parents discussing their kids’ ADHD diagnosis and medications on Facebook. This kind of sensitive information should remain private, because even though discriminating against someone because of a medical condition is a crime, we can’t be sure that won’t happen anyways.  Therefore, the message is very clear for parents everywhere: think before you share.



Google Search Like A Pro Nugget Post

Gellman, B. (2013, August 15). NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:


“Some Obama administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have defended Alexander with assertions that the agency’s internal definition of “data” does not cover “metadata” such as the trillions of American call records that the NSA is now known to have collected and stored since 2006. Those records include the telephone numbers of the parties and the times and durations of conversations, among other details, but not their content or the names of callers.” –B. Gellman


“Defenders of the new surveillance insist that the NSA’s domestic-surveillance program is appropriately limited because the government merely collects metadata, not the content of calls. But “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life,” as Stewart Baker, former general counsel of the NSA, has acknowledged. “If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” For example, the metadata can reveal whether a person called a rape-crisis center, a suicide or drug-treatment hotline, a bookie or a particular political organization. When I quoted Baker’s statement during a debate with the former director of the NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, he readily concurred and even raised Baker one, bragging: “We kill people based on metadata.” – D. Cole



Gellman’s article presented a lot of numerical evidence that shows the number of “errors” or law breaking the NSA has committed. This quote spoke out to me because it reminded me of one of my previous articles where Cole talked about metadata. Metadata is basically data of call records of the time and location of the phone call and whom it was between but not the explicit content of the phone call. In Gellman’s article, he mentions that most of the rule breaking involved surveillance on American citizens which demonstrates that they are collecting more than metadata. Gellman looks at the numbers from the audits of the infractions and also states the constitutionality of each matter, in comparison to Cole who also looks at Supreme Court rulings on privacy in regards to the NSA. Gellman doesn’t make any argumentative claims in his article but rather show numbers that make the audience wonder what goes on in the NSA. Cole makes a claim that the government is tracking its citizens and that it needs to be stopped to an extent.


Video Research Nugget Post – Let’s talk about parenting taboos

Griscom, R. (Producer) & Volkman, A. (Producer) (December 2010). Let’s talk about parenting taboos. USA: accessed 10/27/2015.

Rufus Griscom and Alisa Volkman are the co-founders of, a website that aggregates blogs, articles and news for parents. became so popular that it was acquired by Disney in 2011, although its content has not changed much since then. Rufus and Alisa are also married and have three sons together, and in this Ted Talk they discuss four parenting taboos that they believe people should be discussing more openly:

So taboo number three: you can’t talk about your miscarriage — but today I’ll talk about mine. As I was working through that mourning process, I was amazed that I didn’t want to see anybody. I really wanted to crawl into a hole, and I didn’t really know how I was going to work my way back into my surrounding community. And I realize, I think, the way I was feeling that way, is on a really deep gut level, I was feeling a lot of shame and embarrassed, frankly, that, in some respects, I had failed at delivering what I’m genetically engineered to do. And of course, it made me question, if I wasn’t able to have another child, what would that mean for my marriage, and just me as a woman.


And I just remember feeling all these stories came out of the woodwork, and I felt like I happened upon this secret society of women that I now was a part of, which was reassuring and also really concerning. And I think, miscarriage is an invisible loss. There’s not really a lot of community support around it. There’s really no ceremony, rituals, or rites. And I think, with a death, you have a funeral, you celebrate the life, and there’s a lot of community support, and it’s something women don’t have with miscarriage.

These two nuggets demonstrate that parents, especially women, suffering the loss of a child greatly benefit from being able to discuss their mourning openly with others. However, as Alisa and Rufus explore on the video above, miscarriage (and I would add child death) is a taboo topic so most people rather not talk about it – even though “15 to 20% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage” as Rufus mentions. Alisa’s story supports the notion that the Internet is a crucial tool for mourning parents, as discussed by Whitehead (2015). In this article, the author argues that blogging about the loss of a child allows parents to reframe their experience, making it meaningful to the bigger context of their families and communities.

Of course the ideal would be for the taboo to be broken and parents discuss their experiences in “real life”, but as mentioned on the video the majority of women who suffered a miscarriage blamed themselves for what happened, and 22% said they wouldn’t even tell their spouses about it. So clearly we still have a long ways in making this topic normal. Until then, forums, blogs and social media offer privacy (and sometimes even anonymity), and the possibility of extending the much needed conversations to virtually every corner of the world.


Nugget: Personal Dynamic Media

But if the projected audience is to be “everyone,” is it possible to make the Dynabook generally useful, or will it collapse under the weight of trying to be too many different tools for too many people? The total range of possible users is so great that any attempt to specifically anticipate their needs in the design of the Dynabook would end in a disastrous feature-laden hodgepodge which would not be really suitable for anyone. (pp. 12-13)

Ok, this is a little tangential but I had a hard time finding anything explicitly about parenting on Personal Dynamic Media. With a little help and imagination, however, I believe I can connect the nugget above to my Inquiry Project. As I’m sure my thousands of readers know, I have been contrasting different findings about parenting online spaces here on the blog. So far, it seems to me that the Internet (and blogs and social media) are “generally useful” for parents seeking advice, support and information, as I discussed here and here. However, some aspects of the “different tools” (specifically, Facebook and help forums) being used by parents online can lead to false information and even psychological distress.

Does that mean parents should steer clear of the Internet and only look for tips and advice from real people? No. The accumulated knowledge readily available on the web should not be overlooked or dismissed, and I am sure the majority of parents finds good help online – even if the help is a “like” on Facebook. Alas, not “all happy families are alike“, meaning that some kinds of advice found online will be helpful for some, but not all, parents. To paraphrase Goldberg and Kay, it’s impossible for parents to anticipate what they will need and/or find useful on the web, so when navigating online it’s crucial they use critical thinking and don’t believe everything that they read (or watch).

When it comes to the Internet, different strokes for different folks.

Personal Dynamic Media Nugget

“Devices” which variously store, retrieve, or manipulate information in the form of messages embedded in a medium have been in existence for thousands of years. People use them to communicate ideas and feelings both to others and back to themselves. Although thinking goes on in one’s head, external media serve to materialize thoughts and, through feedback, to augment the actual paths the thinking follows.

In my IP project, I look at privacy and its relation to technology. This article looks at what seems to be the creation of a laptop. I chose this nugget because this was written in the beginning steps of this project. In this quote, Kay and Goldberg talk about a device that can store and easily retrieve information embedded into a medium (hard drive). They think that this device will be able to serve as an outlet for thoughts and ideas to become materialized and useful to the public. This shows the beginning stages of record keeping and data storage. Although the creation of the Dynabook took place in the 70s/80s, the idea to be able to record and trace people’s computer movement or pathway had existed before that. The evolution of technology had just begun and people already wanted to know what was others were doing on their computer, phone, and soon-to-be laptop.

Ted Nelson at Mid-term

“If everything we ate were kibbled into uniform dogfood, and the amount consumed at each feeding time tediously watched and tested, we would have little fondness for eating. But this is what the schools do to our food for thought, and this is what happens to people’s minds in primary school, secondary school and most colleges.”

I chose this nugget because I found myself nodding in agreement while reading it. I can remember situations from years ago where a teacher has told me I was wrong for having a certain opinion, or that I wasn’t being creative enough. In my mind, I had thought my idea was great. Does that mean I was wrong just because she disagreed? It’s true that students get discouraged. Not everyone thinks alike. We each have our own minds, and they are taught, trained and think differently. I had lost enthusiasm in that course afterwards. I didn’t even enjoy participating anymore because I felt I wasn’t smart enough. One thing I got from the article is that Nelson believes that education should remain unique. It should not be this bland “dogfood” that gets used over and over again. The best way to teach someone something is by keeping his or her interest.

Nelson goes on to say that “Education ought to be clear, inviting and enjoyable, without booby-traps, humiliations, condescension or boredom. It ought to teach and reward initiative, curiosity, the habit of self-motivation, intellectual involvement.” This reminded of this course. So far I can honestly say that I have thoroughly enjoyed this course. Many of my previous online courses were extremely repetitive and the assignments were very bland. We did the same thing over and over again every week. Read the article and write a post about it. We are taught to question things in this course. We are pushed to be creative and research topics that we cannot find easy answers to. We are not punished for our opinions, rather rewarded for getting our creative juices flowing. One of my favorite assignments was the one where we had to search a question that we already knew the answer to. I had no idea that my question about the S on superman’s chest would lead to gender equality. It taught me to always take a deeper look. This course is the kind of course Nelson was talking about. It’s unique, and definitely meets his criteria.

Ted Nelson at Midterm

Education ought to be clear, inviting and enjoyable, without booby-traps, humiliations, condescension or boredom. It ought to teach and reward initiative, curiosity, and the habit of self-motivation, intellectual involvement. Students should develop, through practice, abilities to think, argue and disagree intelligently.

I chose this nugget because this is states my ideal form of education. I can’t recall a time where I was truly enthusiastic about my education. One should learn in an environment that is a challenge that they can overcome. Nelson makes points throughout out the excerpt that education has lost its uniqueness. Everything has become so standardized. He also mentions that tests are a trap because most the questions have questions that contain twists and tricks. He strongly advocates for an education that requires a lot of thinking and expression of opinion.

This nugget resonates with our online class because we aren’t just a normal class that writes essay and do readings, but we are a class that looks at multiple aspects of each presented topic in unique ways. In our class, all assignments are very thought provoking. One of my favorite assignments was the blog post of combining sentences from my own posts and my classmates’ post, to make one giant post. It was challenging to find flowing sentences but it was possible because I had to think each sentence through to make sure they relate. The other thing that this class does, is since we are online, I feel we are more inclined to be opinionated because there isn’t a sense of judgment that there would have been if this class were online. This is what Nelson wanted, an environment where students can all think and present their opinions with enthusiasm and the ability to debate

Nugget #3: Augmenting Human Intellect

“The English language since Shakespeare has undergone no alteration comparable to the alteration in the cultural environment; if it had, Shakespeare would no longer be accessible to us.”

In “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework” Douglas C. Engelbart explores the idea of improving humans intellectual intelligence. He explores the nature of intelligence and human’s conceptual framework. In the section, Concepts, Symbols, And A Hypothesis, one statement he states that really caught my interest was the one mentioned above. Despite the small adjustments, like the vernacular, much hasn’t changed in the English Language. The language is still understood through many different generations, and essentially it is still the same. Shakespeare works were written in a way that combines numerous generations, which makes his literary works worth reading. Adults and children throughout the world read and analyze Shakespearean literature even if there is a language barrier.


I also find Engelbarts idea of language and how it adapts to framework of humans interesting because I’ve always questioned how languages first came to be. According to Engelbart, humans created it in an effort to solve the problem of communication. I did a little bit of research on this topic. According to, I found that people once spoke the same language. Although we’ll never know whether or not this is true, linguists are still conducting studies on the brains of babies to determine whether or not language or grammar comes hardwired in our heads from birth.

Nugget – Augmenting Human Intellect

Although the size of the step a human being can take in comprehension, innovation, or execution is small in comparison to the over-all size of the step needed to solve a complex problem, human beings nevertheless do solve complex problems. (2a7)

I chose this nugget because it made me think of all the “complex problems” we have solved as a species that got us where we are today. We evolved from single-celled bacteria into bipedal mammals and we dominate the world today with our big brains and unparalleled intelligence. We solved the problem of surviving, reproducing and protecting our offspring to ensure they could survive too. Then later, much later, we solved the problem of feeding larger, newly sedentary groups of people by learning how to cultivate plants and domesticate animals.

We solved a whole lot of complex problems after that, too. We invented the wheel, the printing press, the light bulb, the steam engine, and cars. Each of these was responsible for major changes in the way people lived, propelling even more inventions and making our lives more comfortable. We invented vaccines, modern medicine, refrigeration and airplanes. Notice I say “we” because most revolutionary inventions were not the idea of a single genius but rather the collection of several bright minds’ inventions. And of course, we can never forget the computer and the Internet, which, by the way, Engelbart contributed a lot to in order to make them a reality. Nowadays the “final frontier” seems to be creating a machine that is at least as smart as ourselves, and maybe even smarter. Our shared history as humans illustrates Engelbart’s idea in the nugget above: as individuals, we cannot progress much unless we collaborate with one another.