396 Followers
228 Following
86 Posts

i'm an assistant professor of information at the university of michigan. i think about computational takes on conversation.

http://tisjune.github.io/

I'll be at CSCW in Minneapolis this week.

You may find me thinking through some ideas about language and ideology and technology at a workshop on labor, and also wandering around the conference venue hallways, and hopefully finding some nice places to get coffee. If any of these keywords sound interesting to you I'd love to chat.

It has been a weird few years for various reasons and I'm excited for some fresh air.

well,

i guess i'm putting all my hot book takes on _cohost_ then

@Niloufar maybe, if this toot manages to rise from the ashes of mastodon obscurity (but what makes you think those weren't _also_ work books? đŸ˜¶)
@Niloufar so do you use the boxes and index cards? (or is my podcast-level memory of an entirely different book lol)

bonus podcast lightning round:

In Our Time was all-around amazing as usual, but i particularly enjoyed the episodes on Angkor Wat (listened-to in a car on a highway in nevada), Berthe Morisot (in a kitchen peeling potatoes) and Peter Kropotkin (on a couch in san francisco feeling miserable).

spy books:

A Small Town in Germany

The Constant Gardener

both by John le Carré, so they're not spy stories so much as (in his words) "political ghost stories," people digging through papers to uncover what others have been rewarded to forget. there are lots of papers. also, some of his most and least likeable characters.

dog books:

Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know (Alexandra Horowitz)

Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon (Bronwen Dickey)

a beautiful exploration of dog umwelt -- sniffy, licky, low-to-the-ground subjective experiences of the world. and, a cutting look at how humans treat (mythologise, abuse, and legislate on) dogs, as a sort of microcosm of the way they treat each other.

this year i mainly read books about spies, dogs, and work. work-related books aside, a few favourites:
so, the call analysis method is junk science. but, had it been good science -- i.e., replicated, run with more data that was shared with other researchers, had more caveats attached to it in publications -- would it have been any better?

consider the intersecting beliefs that such a method is at home in --

that there's a certain relation between language and its users,

that a key challenge in administrative interactions is assessing a citizen's worthiness,

that the words people say can and should be used to make inferences and decisions about them, in settings such as the criminal justice system.