Week 1 – UXD Principles and Concepts

Preface – As of Jan 2019, I’ve enrolled at Kent State University, seeking a Masters of Science in User Experience Design. As such, certain coursework in the curriculum will require regular blog posts (reflections) of weekly learnings. This is the first of those posts.

In reflecting on Week 1 in UXD Principles and Concepts, I feel that we’ve covered a lot of ground. We began with the Kent State LUMEN model for design, which is similar to the Design Thinking Process, but contains a final element (iNform) that necessitates thinking about why designs are made and reporting to stakeholders. That led to a foundational understanding of what roles exist on a UX team that may use LUMEN, how the reporting structure for that team may look, and how that team may go about its engagements with its partners, whether they be internal partners or clients. I find that I’ve done many tasks similar to those defined by the Content Strategist, but am just as interested in UX Strategist and Interaction Design roles. What’s interesting to me is how imperative it is that all of the roles come together to achieve UX success. In a business world where we preach the importance of experience, my department (if not our entire company) is ill-equipped to handle the experience design needs of all our customers.

We also learned the basic elements of experience design this week, as defined by Jesse James Garrett. Garrett’s Elements of Experience are conceptualized as “planes” on which different components design considerations take places. Each level – Surface, Skeleton, Structure, Scope, and Strategy – has its own significance in the design process. But it’s important to remember that this is not a linear path and that there must be some overlap during phase shifts to ensure each is applied thoughtfully. This is complicated, though necessary when we traverse both the software and information sides of each plane. Additionally, the software vs information mindset stipulates specific needs that must be accommodated on each plane, resulting in a more comprehensive model for considering the end-to-end design process.

“Design is concerned with how things work, how they are controlled, and the nature of the interaction between people and technology.” – Don Norman

Finally, we learned to think about the human element of design. The Ted Talk from Tony Fadell implored us to think bigger, think smaller, and think younger, to better notice things that we’ve habituated to. The Design of Everyday Things communicated the importance of discoverability and usability in design, whether it be a product, site, or anything else. My favorite line from the first chapter may be this: “Design is concerned with how things work, how they are controlled, and the nature of the interaction between people and technology.” That concern is made evident through designers use of affordances, signifiers, constraints, mappings, and feedback. However, a designer’s most important job may be helping craft the visualization of the conceptual model, which affords the user the ability to see how the object should work, and what to do if it doesn’t.

My Week 1 notes are viewable here.

Gamification is Poised for a Podcast-like Resurgence

Gamification Origins

Gamification is a stupid word. I think at this point just about all of us agree on that. Yet despite the words silliness, the definition is important: the process of applying game-based elements to non-game activities. We humans have been trying to gamify non-game situations (at least knowingly, at scale, in business, according to this definition) since the 1990s. That should come as no surprise given the influence the video game revolution of the 1970s had on youngsters of that time.

Twenty years later the kids that grew up in front of arcade cabinets and playing early-gen home consoles were heading off to college and joining the workforce. Their mental models, full of Pac-Man, Space Invaders, and Galaga patterns, mechanics, and scoring systems, acted as the lens through which they viewed nearly everything.

It was inevitable that they would bring systems of play with them, both to the work they did and to the way they thought. As they did, people took notice when things worked, copied their ideas, and then tweaked and hyped gamification until the weight of the gluttonous idea collapsed on itself, thereby negating most of the footing it had gained.

Game Over

To the masses, gamification faded as quickly as it came. Google searches for gamification peaked in September 2012, after a half-decade of fever pitch hype.  Amara’s Law says “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” Side note, Amara’s Law would be a great title for an RPG.

The cause of death for gamification, I think, was its rapid ascendance in our psyche as the silver bullet for moving people through unfriendly systems with the intention of extracting as much value from them as possible.

Need a student to learn something? Gamify it.

Need an employee to be more productive? Gamify it.

Need a customer to be more loyal? Gamify it.

I could go on and on – that list is endless. Where the silver bullet failed though, was that the implementation of these ideologies used simple mechanics to push people through systems, and I’ll say this again, focused on the extraction of value rather than the creation and exchange of it. Before people had time to ask why and how gamification worked, consultants and designers were throwing point systems, leaderboards, and badges on anything they could hoping those minimal incentives would push users to do more. To want more. To buy more.

Points, badges, and leaderboard mechanics can be important for some gamified systems success, yes, but most implementations forgot that those systems were merely the scoreboards of the games being played. Points, badges, and leaderboards (or PBLs as they’ve come to be known) are not they themselves the game.

The hype of gamification didn’t deliver,, and the phrase itself was so pervasive that it reached a point of cringe-inducing cliché whenever it was used. Our collective culture constructed a conscious block for mentions of the practice, and it’s been largely ignored or muted since.

But it’s there, in that out-of-sight out-of-mind basement, that the cognoscenti have continued to hypothesize and test the mechanisms that make gamification what it is. It’s there, that modern innovations in technology, and further research into behavioral economics and neuroscience have been applied to the frameworks that lay under gamification.

And it’s there, where the word gamification is hardly used but its essence still permeates, that the concept has gone through a string of evolutions to become a stronger, more diverse, more capable – albeit more complex – version of itself.

The purveyors of the hype train a decade ago may disagree. They may still sore from being burned by the number of consumer audiences they tried to inflict PBLs upon, but the rapid failure of their work was their own fault. They’re likely the same people that have run from social media platform after platform, scratching the surface and never seeing results. They’re the groups that hyped VR and built cheesy systems that customers didn’t use. They’re the clowns that are cobbling together too-simple Messenger chat-bots and voice recognition apps for the Alexa’s of the world, with the only aspiration of being as functional as the already much-hated voice navigation phone trees. No doubt in time they’ll declare that they too don’t work and will start pushing something new. These are the modern day snake oil salesmen, except these days they even have the snake oil to sell you, just an ever changing recipe.

Our first go-round with 8-bit gamification ran out of lives too soon. But what I think you will see is that this time around, the new 64-bit gamification system is ready to explode.

Marketing Evolutions

If you take an aggressively oversimplified view of marketing during the last hundred or so years, it’s safe to posit that the business function has gone through some changes.

Originally, marketing was basically just made up of sales functions. Something was made, someone went out and told others about it, and subsequently sold it to them. If people were interested enough after seeing someone else use the thing, maybe they would even come to the salesperson. But at the core of it, was that one person, with the insight and swagger and salesmanship that could get people to bite .

Things got more complicated when marketing decided that it’s main function should be showing people “the thing”. The salespeople needed the good leads. So marketing became advertising. Plus, getting people to come to you was far easier than trying to go out to each and every one of them.  Marketing became less about the hard sell to the customer, and more about spreading word of your product (often with a disregard for truth – hello regulation), so that people would come to see the salesperson.

But as marketing and sales diverged, they quickly realized their distinct need for proximity to one another.. Every operational discussion became “sales and marketing have to work hand in hand.” But how do you symbolize that work and the hand-off from a mass messaging strategy to the hard sell? How about a marketing funnel, made ever-so-simple with the application of the acronym AIDA? It so very conveniently helps us symbolize the movement of a person from Awareness at the top-of-the-funnel (tofu) to the Action at the bottom-of-the-funnel (bofu). And if we want to be REALLY customer centric, we’ll slap a Satisfying “S” at the end, so those customer service people feel included too. Voila! Marketing becomes the funnel. That is, until we acknowledge the leaks.

The more we know about something, the more we realize that we don’t know anything about it at all. As we adopted the marketing funnel, we allowed ourselves to think more complexly about the systems at play. But then we gained access to more and more data, thanks to technological advances. The data said that our attempts to linearize consumer purchase decisions with a funnel. AIDAS turned into AIAAIAIDDDIIAIDDA…..S? Add in multiple devices per user, and poof – that right there is some finely observed chaos. So what do we do? We revise our definition of marketing again to be based upon… say it with me, the Customer Journey. And we love journeys now because they’re non-linear! If the customer isn’t moving through the system, we can just diagnose that they must be looping and need more content. Problem solved, right?

The journey we measure, now covers the space from *pre-awareness* to *brand advocacy*. That’s a large swath of land to manage, so while most of the visuals created depicting the journey make it look simple, it’s far from it. It’s great that we’re finally thinking about how all these pieces fit together, and with so many moving and changing concurrently, it’s really difficult to manage.

I know you’re probably thinking “thanks for the history lesson, but you said this had something to do with games.”

Well, next we’ll need something to help us understand a customer’s movement throughout the journey. To make sense of the motivations that compel a consumer from one stage to the next, for the right reasons, for the right value exchange. Have you ever used a 5-by to made a piece of content that was supposed to move a consumer along their decision journey that didn’t work? Then you know what I mean.

Attention is a currency. For messaging to be given attention there has to be either, 1) value within each individual interaction with your brand or 2) a whole gob of value at the end of all interactions with your brand. Gamification, done thoughtfully, establishes how to assess those value transactions and how to make progress with your messaging.

Datas Ex Machina

If you’re going to manage the customer journey properly, you need one thing more than anything else: data. I guess we’re lucky then that our data sources, storage, and reporting capabilities have progressed tremendously since our last go-round with gamification.

We now have more and better data on individuals that don’t know our brand, those that do, and those that really-really do. Today’s’ digital tracking (and increasingly, offline tracking) allows us to maintain robust real-time databases, to link those databases with hundreds of others, and to query them simultaneously for instant results. This access to consumer data allows us to paint elaborate pictures of our audiences, and their needs and desires. These databases store consumers history and algorithms can predict their future. Properly analyzed data can tell us where consumers struggle, and where they’re apt. The data can tell us how to engage in a way that makes consumers, the real humans on the other end, want to actually engage back with us.

If we’re smart enough to have that portrait for each one of our customers (not personas), then we’re beginning to have the underlying structure we need to effectively implement a gamified system into our entire marketing ecosystem.


Another big change in the last decade has been the shift to subscription-based services like Netflix, Spotify, and Blue Apron. Businesses have gone from a buy once mentality, to what is essentially a membership model. Heck even Microsoft is starting to sell their XBOX game consoles as part of a subscription model. Activity looping, like membership and subscriptions, is ABUNDANT in games.

As humans, we love the safety of repetition. But also quickly get bored with it. Game designers have for years found ways to adjust games in-flight so that the boredom arising from the repetition is mitigated. As brands and non-profits alike come to grips with the cyclicality of their work, and as those kinds of systems become increasingly more common, they’re a veritable breeding ground for gamification. Every year members renew service, but what considerations are made that need accounted for? How can you make that transaction more exciting? More inviting?

Consistency, Familiarity, Simplicity = Experience

The final piece of the gamification 2.0 mentality is our renewed focus on Customer Experience. You know, the end to end experience. The online and offline experience. Every touchpoint crafted in the perfect way, for just that user and where they are in their journey, with the right message delivered at the right time in the right medium. All done by cheap and efficient AI so we don’t have to pay real employees to do anything. The holy grail of marketing.

Right now, people are obsessive about “experience”, and they should be. Maybe not quite as pumped as they are for design thinking, but that’s another post. And I totally get it. Getting experiential consistency, familiarity, and simplicity right is critical. Establishing solid constraints, feedback mechanisms, and recovery options are just as. But you know what modern UX has in common with game design? Everything I just said. Modern mass-applied UX is many cases is following in the footsteps of what game designers have been doing for decades. The only difference is that game designers have been crafting these systems in worlds where they have full control, so it’s no wonder it’s taken us a bit of time to figure out how to make that play in the real world where we aren’t in control of anything.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some UX innovations that video games need to learn from too – it’s a two-way street after all. But games themselves are self-contained experiences. If you’re going to craft an experience, you should accept some insights from a domain that’s been successful for hundreds of years.


You might be asking yourself “if we’ve got the journey figured out, and we’ve got the data figured out, and we’ve got the experience figured out… why do we need gamification?”

To address that, we need to explore where the cognoscenti have been spending their time with gamification. It’s not unexpected, but it is a bit of a deviation. The experts who continued working in game-based systems found that the application of game mechanics, as I mentioned earlier, were not enough.

The most successful implementations of gamification relied on a deeper level of design, that provoked humans into acting. Those implementations have been in educational/learning arenas. They knew the systems would fit perfectly in this space, but have to finely tune the use case for each environment. They’ve found that successful gamification is reliant upon motivational systems that are balanced between extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators, and between black-hat and white-hat motivators. And it’s those understandings that will start to creep into the regular business world, to be adopted for better, and likely for worse by the nefarians that always show up when something is working.

Where gamification 1.0 was merely the process of applying game elements to non-games, modern gamification 2.0 has become more of a motivational design. Or as prominent gamification author Yukai Chou (@yukaichou) calls it, Human-Focused Design. We are after all humans, with 99.9% of the same genetic and evolutionary composition. Our lizard brains react with fear and love in similar ways regardless of geography, skin color, or deity. Good human-focused design starts with that at the core, and works its way out – all the way out – to those points, badges, and leaderboards we started with. That’s the difference between good and bad gamification. Between where we were, and where we are now.


So do I really think gamification is going to blow up like podcasting did after languishing for a while? Very much yes! All the underlying technological tools that enable gamification are reaching a point of usable maturity, while neuroscience and psychology are helping distill down specific human conditions we’re all attuned to. All these elements are coming together at a time when marketers are finally exploring meaningful, lasting relationships with consumers by adding value to their lives, which is btw, the real goal of any business.

Here’s to hoping that the next wave of gamification does just that.

What is The Gen Z Frequency?

I was selected by publisher Kogan Page to read an advance copy of one of their upcoming titles, The Gen Z Frequency (scheduled for release on September 28). Over the last few weeks, I’ve worked my way through the text with relative ease. It’s a well written, fun book.

In what I would now call the quintessential guide-book for marketing to Gen Z, authors Gregg Witt and Derek Baird explore everything from finding relevance with the cohort to the procedural steps needed to align with Gen Z’s culture and expectations. The book’s tips and frameworks are explored via well-known brands, but examples including Nike, Lego, Carhartt, Glossier aren’t the same stories you’re used to hearing. There are even some case studies from unnamed companies exposing how they’ve failed trying to implement tactics to reach Gen Z. It’s all incredibly insightful.

Here are some key take-aways about Gen Z that you’ll get to explore even further throughout the book.


  • is comprised of individuals born between 1996 and 2011 (approximately)
  • is estimated to be a little more than 1.9 billion, or 27% of the global population, with the most significant proportions being in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa
  • is estimated to be between 62-65 million people in the US
  • has a minimal tolerance for companies that don’t take the time to get to know them individually (you’re going to need better data)
  • expects brands to see and adapt to trends before they become cliched
  • rejects being called anything besides Gen-Z, as the notion of a cohesive generation is nonsense to them
  • is open to all ethnicities, races, genders and orientations; and expects that those values will be reflected in the brands they are loyal to
  • manage their social media profiles more like brands, having watched and learned from Millennials mistakes of over-sharing
  • tends to reject companies without a clear brand story that they can ascribe cogent values to, if they can’t find out who you are and what you stand for, they won’t risk buying from or working for you
  • seeks brands that connect with their passions and interests, and contribute to their lives (are you adding value, or selling stuff)
  • expects “unique”, hyper-individualism is the norm
  • wants to interact with companies who produce content that makes them feel cool and look unique, using all the digital assets available today like emoji, artificial and mixed reality, stickers, etc.

The latter half of the book is filled with deliberate examinations of and recommendations for building a marketing ecosystem that works for Gen Z. The authors expose you to their “youth culture engagement playbook”, which, by itself, is probably worth the price of the book. They also break down specific social strategies for each and every dominant digital platform, explain content strategies and appropriate brand voice development, and they explore how you can parlay engagement with your content into the creation of a vibrant community.

There’s a lot here, and the book doesn’t waste words. Gregg and Derek are the experts that have been working with the biggest brands in this space, and their experience and omniscience is clearly evident. It’s an engaging and illuminating look into the next big driver of our economy, and subsequently, your organization.

The Gen Z Frequency is a worthwhile way to start exploring the audience you’ll be working with, and the marketing operations you’ll need in place in the not-so-distant future.

My 2018 Personal Balanced Scorecard

Every year, I take a different approach to resolutions. Since 2013 I’ve crafted a personal balanced scorecard to guide my personal behaviour, and, hopefully, improve it. Most of this is pretty personal to me, but I’m happy to talk with anyone about it if you have questions.

For the last few years, I’ve broken my scorecard into four categories; mind, body, spirit, and wallet. Not every item fits perfectly into a category, but I’ve done my best to organize them in a way that seems most logical.

Mind / Learn 

  • Read books for 30 minutes a Day
    • Goal: Read 24 Books in 2018
      • New
        • Great at Work (Jan)
        • Empower: What happens when students own their learning (Jan)
        • Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus (Jan)
        • Blood, Sweat and Pixels
        • Slaughterhouse Five
        • In Praise of Slowness
        • Die Empty
        • Superbetter
      • Reread
        • Octalysis
        • Nonsense
        • Ready Player One
        • In the Line of Fire
  • Use Duolingo for 1 Lesson Per Day
    • Goal: Learn basic Mandarin
  • Spend an hour a week training w/ After Effects
    • Goal: Fluency in core skills
      • Organization
      • Masks
      • Animation Curves
      • Kinetic Text
      • Motion Titles
      • 2D to 3D images
      • Screen Replacement
      • Double Exposure


  • Workout every day
    • Goal: Weight – 250, BMI – <35
      • Walk 30 min or 1 mile or Leg/Arm/Core Sets
      • Daily back stretches
  • Zero soda intake
    • Goal: reduced heartburn and sleeplessness
      • Focus on 1 gallon of water daily
  • Visit physicians for ailments
    • Goal: Improved mobility/health
      • Left knee
      • Spine T7-T10 area


  • Meditate for 15 min a day
    • Goal: Relaxation/Mindfulness
  • Engage thoughtfully about how weekly church scripture applies to my life
    • Goal: Build habit of bringing message home
  • Volunteer 1x per quarter
    • Goal: Support orgs/missions I care about
      • Focused on core focus areas of hunger, shelter, or equality
      • Possible: Iowa Homeless Youth Shelters via Nationwide Volunteer Match


  • Pay off smallest fed student loan – $3k
    • Goal: Reduce monthly bill obligations
  • Do all 100k maintenance to Venza – $1.2k
    • Goal: Preserve condition
  • Do all 50k maintenance xB – $500
    • Goal: Preserve condition
  • Contribute to kids 529 plan
    • Goal: Double existing balances

Ankeny School Board Vote 2017 – Candidate Round Up

The Ankeny Community School District will vote the nominees to three School Board seats on September 12 (the second Tuesday in September per school policy). Since there’s only a couple of days left to do your homework, I thought I would collect some of the disparate resources for Ankenians to make it a little easier to review the nominees, and hopefully get you interested enough to get out to the polls (search for your address on the Secretary of State website since school vote polling locations could be different than where you normally go).

Meet the candidates.

I’ve pulled a short list of links together for you to get to know the candidates. I basically pulled each persons Des Moines Register interview, a link to their Facebook Page (if it exists), and their LinkedIn profile (if it exists). These are essentially the only resources out there for which you to base your opinion on, which seems lacking.

James F. Ford

Susan Gentz

Aaron Johnson

Lori Lovstad

George Tracy

What about endorsements?

A few local and/or state organizations recommend candidates, so here’s a roundup of what I could find on those:

ISEA Recommended Candidates

  • Jim Ford
  • Aaron Johnson
  • Lori Lovstad
  • George Tracy

Ankeny Education Association Recommended Candidates (sourced via FB posts from the candidates)

  • Jim Ford
  • Aaron Johnson
  • Lori Lovstad
  • George Tracy

AFSCME Iowa Council 61

  • Lori Lovstad

Iowa Women for Progressive Change Political Action Committee

  • Lori Lovstad

Hear them in their own words.

The Ankeny Area Chamber of Commerce (thanks Chamber!) held a public forum that allowed candidates to field a common set of questions, both planned and from the audience. The video is of the full session, so if you’re going to watch it’ll take 90 minutes.

When you’re ready to vote…

After digesting all of that info you feel like you’re ready to vote, review the sample ballot to make sure you understand the process (pick no more than three). The polls will be open from 7:00 AM until 8:00 PM and the polling places for this election are listed within this publication or you can visit the Secretary of State page to look up your School Election location.

But wait, there’s more.

This won’t be the last you hear about the Ankeny School board this month. On September 18 the existing board is scheduled to vote on how to handle more than $43,000 outstanding lunch debts, so stay tuned for that.

If you know of other links (endorsements are especially hard to find) that I’ve missed, drop them in below. And thanks for spending some time getting to know these candidates, and giving local elections the attention they deserve!

What Can Video Game Design Teach Marketers?

It’s more than the gamification buzz that’s been thrown around.

I’m a total nerd. It took me a long time to realize how big of a nerd I really am though. In high school, I was friends with people that played sports (when I did not). Being friends with “jocks” clouded my self-assessment accuracy, and drowned out all of the Pokemon I watched which would have normally allowed me to easily establish my nerditude. I also spent a lot of time playing video games, both with friends and alone. Video games offered a source of connection and camaraderie with jocks that I couldn’t fake on the court/field/pitch, and an escape into a more heroic self when I was alone.

College was a lot of the same. Other than my roommate, I didn’t socialize much. I spent most of my time studying, learning how to film and edit video, learning to do a little bit of coding, and re-watching movies pursuant to my film criticism courses. All of that learning led me down the marketing/communications route, which I fell in love with. Marketing, coupled with my new found interest in criticism of movies (and in turn everything else I encountered) let me down the road of looking at all of those video games I’d played differently.

Fast forward a dozen years, and here I am. Sucked down a flooded rabbit hole of marketing, drowning in buzzwords and phrases preaching “starting with why”, “building the customer life-cycle experience journey round”, and “content and context and con-queso are kings”. As I’ve struggled to parse together the thought-leadership from a million different and disconnected applications of modern marketing theology, I think I’ve found a group of disciplined professionals building a framework for what modern marketers are trying to say.

That group of unwitting pioneers is video game designers. Game design is a complicated thing, grounded tightly in behavioral psychology. That obviously closely aligns it with marketing as a discipline, but game designers have been testing and perfecting their craft differently than marketers for the last 30 years. To that end, I think we have a lot to learn. And while I’m obviously not a video game designer, I feel confident enough that my understanding of the concepts will allow me to make the connections over to a marketing application far better than the standard analogy post we’d usually get from the idea.

I’ve spent some time researching and dissecting this already with the intention of putting together a blog post. Unfortunately, I’m already well over 5k words and feel like I could finish with 3x that. So, I’ve decided to turn it into a (small) book. I know nothing about writing a book, or getting it edited. I only know how to put words down on “paper”. So that’s where I’m starting. I’m excited about how it’s making me think differently, and I can’t wait to keep working on it.  I’ll keep you posted.


PC Upgrade

Last month I decided it was time to do a new custom PC build. It wasn’t much on the “budget” side, but I did already have a Nvidia GTX 1070 that I’d picked up last year, so I didn’t have to worry about a GPU.

Here’s a capture from CAM of the system upon completion:


Down the left-hand details pane you’ll see the basic stats.

It’s not an uncommon setup, so I’m not going to run any benchmarks. I’m not overclocked (obv. with the 7700), so no cool water cooler.

Eventually I’ll add in some LED strips to take advance of the jled port on the mobo, and some LED Corsair Vengeance RAM to brighten up the guts a bit. Oh, and the case is last year NZXT s340 (last year’s model, of which the new came out 10 days after I completed this build.)  Even for being last years model, I do love this case. The cabling options are choice, I’ve never had a box that looked this clean.

[picture incoming]

The primary reason for the build was handling HD video for editing in Premiere. As I seem to be doing more and more video worklately , both professionally and personally, my old rig just wasn’t keeping up. I picked up the GPU last year to help out my six year old i7-870, and it did its job for gaming, but the system still struggled to keep up on big video file renders.

Alas, new beefy desktop that should last another 6 years. Also, building a PC is so much more fun and rewarding that buying one. But if you’ve read this far, you already knew that.

Why I Believe Global Warming / Climate Change Science

It looks like the Iowa Legislature is heading towards a nice little discussion around science in the classroom, particularly around our two favorite areas; climate change and evolution. Since it’s a discussion we’re going to have, I thought I would take this month to explain not just what I believe, but why I believe it.

Part I – Climate Change, True or False

It is my opinion that climate change is real. My opinion however, is based upon the facts presented by scientists over the last 30 years. Everyone gets to look at the facts and decide if they believe it or not. My position is that the temperature of our planet has increased temperature faster in the last 117 years than it ever had in the last 150,000 years.

The factors I based my decision on vary, but there are simple facts to consider, like:

  • 2016 (and 2015 before that) were the hottest years on record across the majority of our planet. More importantly, 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.
  • Total global sea ice has shrunk an average of 13,500 sq miles (basically Maryland) every year since 1979. Hotter planet, less ice. Less ice, hotter planet.
  • Global sea levels have been measured rising faster in the last century than ever before.

And there are more complicated factors, that I don’t fully understand, but I put my trust in the conclusion of scientists. You know, the kind of experts we’ve trusted to create lasers that heal human vision, that have all but eradicated the majority of major diseases from first world countries, that have put a man on the moon, and put a camera the size of  car on a planet four hundred million miles away. Science and our methods are nearly flawless, because they’re rigorous, and built to be tested until we know with near-most certainty that our assumptions are proven.

So, anyway, some of the more complicated factors are:

  • Extreme weather events has increased. Living in Iowa, over the last few years at least it seems like we haven’t experienced much of this since the floods of ’93. But like I said, I trust the scientists that measure this stuff around the world.
  • Another measurable impact is ocean acidity. As CO2 is emitting into the atmosphere, it is absorbed into the ocean. When absorbed, it changes the pH balance of the water. If I remember right, a neutral pH is something like 6. It’s not a big scale. So even small changes impact living organisms ability to survive.

Increased weather events can also refer to an increase in the lack of weather events. A lack of rain. A lack of snow. And it’s not just me that’s concerned. Farmers across our state, and throughout the world have seen the impact and are trying to understand what’s next, and how we cope. You can read about that here, here, and here.

Now, there are some pretty common attempts made to try to debunk climate change, and instead of trying to make you read through them, my friend hank made a video you can watch that you’ll enjoy more than reading.

The most important thing I’ll call out from the video is an agreement that scientists are not stupid. Again, the methods they follow don’t allow them to be. They don’t have hidden agendas. If I were a scientist, I would guess that I would much rather spend my time inventing something that might make me rich, rather than spend my time trying to find some shred of evidence that might help more people understand. 97% of actual experts agree, which by all measures and means in a consensus.

But, even if I could convince you global warming was real, the next step is understanding how humans are contributing to it.

Part II – Man Made, True of False? Hint: Yes, it’s us.

I could point you to even more data and analysis, but those aren’t the things that actually really convinced me that it HAD to be us. What really sold me was an understanding of how inconsequential humans were on this planet until recently, both in volume and impact. A really great example is this video from the American History Museum:

You see, humans have gone off the rails in the last hundred years. The last HUNDRED years. Compared to other mammals, and arthropods, and whatever else had existed for the hundreds of millions of years before us. We have bent this planet to our will, but the volume of us and demand of our needs is now tipping the balance of the carbon cycle.

But that won’t make any sense unless you understand the carbon cycle. So here’s Hank again, but doing his thing on Crash Course:

So the Earth has carbon. And lots of it. And it can handle lots of it. But the carbon that all of us humans are pumping into the atmosphere are too much.

One final  thing to supplement the history of humans on the planet video above is this. It’s a fun graphic depicting the movement from -4 degrees Celsius in 20,000 BC to a center line (the 1961-1990 average temperature) in 8,500 BC and up through modern day. The temperature does increase and decrease, but only a couple of degrees Celsius over thousands of years. So you really only have to look at the bottom of the graphic to see that the increase in temperature has done in 116 years something that usually takes tens of thousands of years.

Humans. And a butt-load of us at that. Burning more fossil (carbon based) fuels into the atmosphere than ever before. That the planet isn’t able to “absorb” back into stored carbon quickly enough, so it hangs in the atmosphere.

It’s like putting an extra blanket over the Earth while it’s trying to break a fever.

My Homelessness Video Script

Dialogue(conscious thought dialogue)

Good Morning Iowa, welcome to November!

We’re digging in to fall, the holiday season is nearly upon us, and so as we take a break from plowing through the bucket of leftover Halloween candy, it’s a good time for chit-chat

I love Iowa. Were an amazing state, but even great states can always do better at a few things. 

So let’s channel that sugar energy … because its time to talk about something we’d rather not think about, especially this time of year.. homelessness. I know, I know. It’s not fun and it’s complicated, but it’s really important. 

Every individual person has some preconceived opinion about what homelessness is and what creates it, and how to fix… no, how to manage it. But, just, bear with me. Let mash the reset button on those preconceptions, and try to reconstruct how it is we think about homelessness. 

But before I can get into this, we’ve got to look at some definitions because it’s… complicated.


Homelessness is primarily documented by counting persons suffering at a point in time. To capture this, collective data is reported by various sources like shelter/nutrition/etc, on how many folks are trying being served by providers. Homeless individuals are defined in the social services space as being sheltered and unsheltered. But the point in time numbers only include people who are able to be counted. Unfortunately there are always individuals that aren’t able to be counted. 

Another measure, usually of service capacity is the number of “beds” available. Beds are important for understanding overnight occupancy, but in terms of need and movement throughout the shelter system. It lets you compare demand to supply. (You’ve maybe heard “beds” used in the hospitality or healthcare industries, which is pretty appropriate, but I’ll get into that in a minute. Like the fact that we only have 2 psychiatric beds for every 100,000 residents, which places us last in the country, compared to the national average of 12 beds per 100k residents. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/06/11/editorial-mentally-ill-locked-out-psychiatric-care/85550738/)

The final term to understand, and this one is important, mostly because of money, is the definition of Chronic Homelessness. You see, the federal government has a definition for chronic homelessness so that it can allocate funding to social service organizations. Anyway, to be chronically homeless, and I’m paraphrasing, you must: have a disabling condition AND either have been homeless for the last year or have had four episodes of homelessness in the prior three years.


Types of housing

 • Day Shelters 

 • Emergency Homeless Shelters 

 • Halfway Housing 

 • Permanent Affordable Housing 

 • Drug And Alcohol Rehab

 • Supportive Housing 

 • Shared Housing

 • Rooming House or Boarding House 


Cut scene to location 2

Open letter to homelessness – Why you gotta be so complicated? As humans, we have a hard time fixing complicated things. No no no, not even that, we even have a hard time just grasping the tenets of complicated problems, let alone fixing them. And here you go mixing economics and health and religion and interpersonal relationship into a drudge of confusion. 



OK, we’re done with definitions. Now for some Iowa stats. Here are basic numbers on Iowa that you probably already know:

 – 99 Counties [state map], 

 – 3.2 Million People 

 – and 1.1 Million Families – links to the last census data in the doobly-do (that’s the comments area). 

And then, here are some homeless statistics. According to the 2015 Point In Time assessment (which is done every year the last wed of January), in the state of Iowa we have: 

  • 12,918 individuals who were considered homeless and sough support from some type of organization

  • And 8,174 individuals who were at risk for homelessness and sough support from an organization

   § 21,092 Total

 – Included in those numbers are the 2,424 families made up of 5,800 people; including 3,392 children under the age of 18 years (who were served by shelters, transitional housing or permanent supportive housing.)

So 1.1 million families in Iowa, and 2,400 sought help for being homeless or at risk of it. That’s 0.22% of our population, which is incredibly manageable for a group of people who pride themselves on their “niceness”. But helping them happens one person, and one family at a time. No silver bullets here.

When those individuals receive services, they self report the cause of their situation. Those causes are aggregated into four buckets: 

 • 52% say economics caused their homelessness. 

 • 16% say disability, including mental health or an addiction 

 • 21% report a breakdown in their support network. and

 • 11% respond Jail or other causes

And while they may report one of those causes, a problem with one almost always snowballs into problems with the others. 

So we’re left with a complicated situation, where different forms for homelessness impacting individuals of different cultures, backgrounds, and family composition require different resources and funding. And the way we’ve traditionally handled this, at least in Iowa, is through an amalgamation of funding and service providers (all with noble intentions) that have to operate across a multi-year spectrum moving individuals through a train of housing providers, all the while trying to stabilize each individuals health, employability, income, and most importantly relationships. 

Wait, what? Relationships Seth? Yes. 

The relationship piece of this is really where most homeless starts and end. Most people have a certain aptitude in life and relationship skills, so that when economic or other troubles arise, they’re able to find social support through friends and family. When extraneous factors limit someone’s ability to turn to those individuals (maybe drugs or crime or plain old struggle with human courtesy), they’re left to find a way through the system we’ve established. And then, if they struggle with that, the slide from short term, to long term, to chronic homelessness happens. And the further someone wanders into the maze, the more difficult and most costly it is to help them back out. And all of that doesn’t even touch on the psychological consequences of being homeless, being both internally against yourself and stereotyped by others.

That’s a lot to take in. But the reason I wanted to do this video was to illustrate that even though the situation seems limited (20k people out of more than 3 million), it’s incredibly complicated for each individual facing homelessness, both in the personal obstacles they have to overcome, but also in the system that we’ve designed. But just because it’s challenging, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If you’re interested in making a contribution, volunteering time or clothing or food items, I’m putting a list of links below for you check out.


A lot of this got edited out, but here’s the video if you want to watch: https://youtu.be/2WrBXNcvNgQ