More information = more contributions

"'I had literally never given money to charity; it wasn't that I didn't care, but I was inhibited by personal psychological barriers. I didn't sense my impact.'"

Chapter 8 of Causewired contains this quote from Ben Rattray, a Stanford graduate. Watson's inclusion of someone who had never given to charity before makes his text that more relatable: so many of us see people collecting on streets or we're invited to give via Facebook causes, but I think it's the lack of a sense of connection that prevents us from giving.

If we don't know exactly what we're contributing to, or who will receive our financial support, then why would we want to give? A general feeling of "doing good" is nice, but Watson is pointing out that people like to feel connected--or, as Rattray says, sense their impact--regarding the cause that they are donating to.

Rattray's quote was the most compelling part of this chapter. Even though we might not know who we're giving to, it shouldn't stop us--there is still need whether or not we know specifically what it is. However, it seems that more charitable organizations are trying to connect their givers with those who are in need. It's not that people don't care. We just want to be more informed.

Flash causes

Upon reading chapter seven of Causewired, I realized that I had been uninformed about the topic of flash causes, and they turned out to be rather interesting. One thing on which I wish Tom Watson would have elaborated: what exactly are the "selling factors" of the causes that really catch on? I.e., what is it about any certain cause that makes it popular, and why do some causes just fade out?

The causes that Watson mentioned are obviously very noteworthy, important causes. Perhaps he could have mentioned some specific ones that didn't make it, and speculated on why that might be.

The story about CIGNA denying Nataline Sarkisyan a liver transplant was particularly compelling. How incredible that just a few people can become so many, and can cause such a sensation. I never imagined that blogging could be such an effective messenger of causes, but apparently, it works all the time.

Anyone have any opinions on the aforementioned question about flash causes? That is, why do some work and some fizzle out?

Phatic communication--what's up?

I've been thinking that I want to do my final research paper on something that has always bothered me (and yet it's still something that I do with some frequency). I never realized that there was a name for it until it was on Dr. Ray's list of recommended research topics. After some quick Wikipedia research, I realized that phatic communication is something everyone does (with a few possible exceptions of ultra-aware speakers/writers).

Just this morning, my roommates and I greeted each other with "good morning," even though it was technically afternoon. Were we really wishing for each other to have a good morning, or is that just what's socially acceptable when one first greets a person in the early hours of the day? It seems to be the latter.

This is especially prevalent in the context of social networking. People who aren't even "friends" will use small talk in order to not forget about each other, it seems. Are there other purposes for phatic communication?