Confessions of a Data Junkie

I have a confession to make: I’m a data junkie. I love data, charts and graphs; I love analyzing them for trends and patterns; and I love coming up with explanations for those trends and patterns and testing my hypotheses. I know, at this point, you probably think I’m crazy. Since that’s probably true by several definitions of the word, perhaps it’s best if we get it out in the open already.

My first exposure to the concept of a database was at my first job, really an internship, out of college. I was tasked with creating and populating a database of sales quotes for an import/export company using Microsoft Access. I had never heard of Access, or databases before that job. Ten years later, I’m an expert user of the program, and a big proponent for the use of databases for collecting and tracking information. I took my knowledge of database design and use and brought my next employer kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Lots of people use data, databases and analysis in their day jobs. It is one of the best tools in a business’s arsenal. Any new project or plan should start with an analysis of the current situation before any steps are taken. The quality of collected data and the subsequent analysis can make or break a business strategy. But most people leave the data collection and analyzing at the office, for their business. They don’t see the application in their personal lives. This is where my “habit” becomes apparent.

A few of the ways I’ve collected data in my personal life, and what I’ve learned from them.

1) The Job Search. Every person looking for a job should have some system of keeping track of what jobs they’ve applied to. I would recommend a simple Excel chart showing the company, job title and date of application. I’ve taken my Job Search chart to the next level, though. I’ve included Pivot Tables (a tool in Excel for analyzing the data in your chart) that break down the information and allow me to see some trends. What have I learned?

• I apply to more jobs on Wednesday than any other jobs. [Note this trend could have two causes – 1) more new jobs are posted on Wednesdays; and 2) my schedule on Wednesday allows me to look for and apply to more jobs. The true cause is probably a combination of these two possible causes.]

• Although I source jobs to apply to from a variety of areas, including networking, the biggest sources for jobs to which I apply are still Monster and CareerBuilder. A lot of pundits have criticized these large job posting boards as outdated, but they still seem to have a large number of companies using them for their job search needs. Hmm, this gives me an idea for a new piece of information to track – response rate from different sources.

2) My media collections. I have a database for keeping track of my books, CDs, DVDs, etc. It helps me to know what I have, to avoid duplicates, but also to find things, but tracking when I’ve lent things out or moved a CD to my car. What have I learned? My husband and I have an inordinate number of books with the word ‘Unicorn’ in the title. Maybe not as useful as my job search data, but certainly an interesting trend.

3) My exercise routine. I actually have two charts for keeping track of my workouts. One tracks my running, showing time, heart rate and notable info about a run. The other tracks my Pilates workout showing the current routine and the plan for adding new exercises (I add new ones each month). What have I learned? I’m faster and stronger at the beginning of the week than at the end.

Are there more? Of course; I create a new chart whenever there’s a new piece of information I want to know more about. I’ll admit, my frequent use of Excel and Access for personal reasons isn’t normal, but it helps me to understand and catalog my world. So, while you think I’m crazy, I have a pretty good handle on how things in my life are affecting me, allowing me to be more organized and generally happier.

NJ: Where the only thing fresher than the produce is the wait staff

I have the dubious privilege of living in New Jersey. NJ has a bad reputation as a place to live not just in the other 49 states of the country, but with its own denizens as well. One of the things biggest things contributing to NJ’s bad reputation is the local government. Even before The Sopranos became a hit series, everyone knew NJ was the mob's playground. In the eight years I've lived here, I've seen two governors resign and no fewer than three federal sting operations that have brought down multiple officials at a time.


Since the election of our newest governor, Chris Christie, there’s been a lot of talk about the state budget and the gap between income and spending. I’m not an expert in government budgeting, and I recognize that the economy has not been booming for the last few years, but it puzzles me that the state’s finances are as bad as portrayed. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation and our state income taxes are on par with our neighbor states (not to mention that some of the nation’s top earners live here). Yet despite the increased income one would expect NJ to have over other states, we do not get additional, or even better, services from the government. So I wonder where does the income go, if it’s not going to services?

Along with cutting many government budgets, Christie’s answer has been to attack teacher salaries and benefits, as the reason for the government’s budget problems. While I do take issue with the idea of teachers receiving their health insurance without contribution and having a pension plan in an age where most workers are funding their own health insurance and 401k plans, at least in part, I’m not convinced that the cost of paying our teachers is the reason for the budget gap. My parents live in another state, in one of the highest paying school districts in the country, and yet their taxes are a fraction of those in my town. Personally, I believe the real reason for the budget gap is that NJ has too much overhead; too many niche government positions, held by unqualified, or underqualified, individuals and obtained through nepotism, who are kept employed through inertia. I would love to see the political leaders of NJ take a tough look at the people on the government’s payroll and make the effort to better align its workforce with the work.

Despite its problems, I will grant that NJ has some things to offer its residents. My home is (relatively) close to the mountains and the beach, giving me options for activities. I'm within easy travel distance of both New York City and Philadelphia, giving me access to the culture, jobs market and resource availability of a large city, while still having a green backyard. I might move out of the state eventually, but for now, I just shake my head at the political ridiculousness and make the most of the opportunities the state offers.

What's in a Name

I believe that names have power. Not necessarily that a person can be controlled through the use of their name, although some people believe that, but more that a person can be known through their name. The interplay between a person and their name is interesting. Our names can shape and define us, but at the same time we give meaning to the words that make up our name. One of the things that proves to me the importance of names is our adult reaction to learning that someone has given their child an obscure or different name. "Think of the teasing she'll get on the playground!" we decry. Now if there is one thing I know, it is that children will make fun of and tease their classmates over anything they think will cause a reaction. Are Jennifers really teased less than Apples? Probably not. But making fun of someone's name is somehow more traumatic. It cuts deeper; it questions our very identity. [It occurs to me that some of this name identity may be tied to our language. In every language I have studied other than English, one gives their name by saying they are called their name; In English we are our names. An interesting thought, but since I don't subscribe to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I doubt it will prove to be unique to English.]

What I'm really trying to say is that names are important, and as such should be used with care. Unfortunately, not everyone uses other people's names with the care they should. It seems as if someone, somewhere has proposed the idea that if you use someone's name they will like you better, trust you more, or feel a connection to you in some way. This is most likely true, since it seems pretty intuitive that we would feel closer to those who know our names, than those who don't, or can't be bothered to remember them. I can see this being one of those psychological studies that seem to say something interesting, but when you look closer, you find it wasn't telling you what you thought after all (this is a common topic of discussion in my household - yes, my husband and I are dorks). But, while we may feel an affinity to those who know and use our name, there are rules for name usage that need to be followed. Deviation from the rules makes the person whose name has been used improperly uncomfortable, and instead of fostering good will, fosters suspicion. Here are some helpful guidelines for using someone's name based on my own observations.

Get it right. This is the golden rule for name usage. If you're going to use my name, make sure you've gotten it right. Don't call me by my sister's name or my coworker's name, or some random name you made up. If you're not sure, you're better off not using my name at all. I think I'm fair when it comes to pronunciation of my name: I allow for some variation. Depending on your dialect you may say the vowels in my name slightly different. My last name is long, but spelled phonetically. I accept two possible phonetic parsings of my name, but have no patience for people who say the first syllable and give up just because it's a long name. Sound it out like you learned to do in school (or maybe didn't - if you were taught the whole word method of reading, you're probably going to mispronounce my name and I'm not going to like you. Sorry.) If you do mispronounce my name, or call me by the wrong name, I will correct you. My name is important. If you've been under the impression that I'm my sister or someone else, you need to be corrected. I try to be polite about it, but I am firm, too.

Use it properly. It probably won't surprise you to learn that pretty much everything about language is rule governed. Appropriate name usage is no exception. There are limited number conditions where using someone's name is expected and/or accepted. Some general guidelines:

1) Names may be used at the beginning or end of conversations. For example, "Hi, John." or "Talk to you later, Melissa."

2) Names may be used to attract someone's attention. For example, "Jessica! Over here!"

3) Names may be used when in a group to single someone out to get their particular views on something. "What do you think about our plan, Brian?"

4) Obviously names may be used when you are talking about someone, even if they are part of your conversation group.

5) A name can be used when expressing a strong emotion directed at the individual, but this usage should be kept to a minimum. "Mary, what were you thinking?!"

There may be a couple more scenarios where a name could be used, but I think this list is pretty exhaustive. Usage outside of these conditions immediately puts a person on guard. When you say to me, "Let me tell you, Amanda, what a great time we had in Florida." I immediately worry that you're about to sell me a time share. Using my name there is inappropriate. It's wrong. And I think that if you've used it there, it's because you read somewhere that using my name more often would make me like you. Which is wrong. I now don't like you because you used my name in the wrong way.

As the saying goes, "That's my name; don't wear it out."

A Tale of Two Yarn Stores

If you've read my first post, you know that I crochet and knit as a hobby. Obviously, both hobbies require yarn. I get most of my yarn, like pretty much everything else, on line. Unfortunately, yarn is one of those products that it is nice to see and touch before purchasing, so I do like to visit yarn stores from time to time. Most yarn stores fall into one of two categories, which can be illustrated by my recent visits to two different stores.

At the first store, there is a living room set up with a couch and chairs and coffee table to the left of the entrance, in front of a picture window. The cash register is straight ahead on the right hand side. The yarn is arranged on shelves located in two rooms beyond, and in a small area behind the couch. A group of people were sitting in the living room area knitting and talking. An employee was at the cash register, and another employee was in a back room apparently working on inventory or some other business function. The employee at the cash register was chatting with the knitting group, but when we walked in, greeted us and asked us if we needed any help. We said we just wanted to look and proceeded to do just that. I ended up purchasing some yarn, and she wound the skeins into balls for ease of use for me.

At the second store, there is a card table set up to the left of the entrance, running long ways away from the front of the store. The cash register is to the right on a counter. The yarn is arranged in shelves along all of the walls, some of it behind the counter that the cash register is on, and some behind the table, which is surrounded by folding chairs and a group of people knitting and talking. No one is at the cash register; everyone in the store is knitting at the table. One of the people at the table stands up as we walk in and asks if she can help us. We say we're just looking, and proceed to do so. But it's awkward to get to some of the yarn because it's blocked by people knitting, or is behind the register, where customers aren't supposed to go. We leave.

I don't know if I succeeded in explaining the subtle differences between the two stores, but the first felt welcoming and inviting. The second felt as if we were intruding. A quick analysis of the differences:

1) The knitting area - both stores included an area for knitters to relax and work on their craft and talk with others. In theory this should be a welcoming feature in both stores, but it's not. In the first store, the knitting area is set up like a cozy living room with a sofa and chairs. In the second store, it's a multipurpose card table with folding chairs.

2) Layout - In the first store, the yarn is laid out on shelves that meander through the store. The store feels a little cramped, but is not disorganized, in fact, the yarn is sorted in ways knitters will appreciate - sock yarn is in one area, bulky yarns are in another, fine silk yarn in yet another. The second store has a more airy feel. It is one long room with built in shelving stuffed with yarn. A low counter runs most of way up both sides, which are stacked with books and more yarn. Unfortunately, this counter makes it difficult and awkward to get to the yarns to look at them. In addition, the knitting table is also in the way of getting to the yarn. The organization is less obvious as well. They yarn's seem to be grouped by weight, possibly material, but since they're hard to get to, it's hard to tell.

3) Staff - This one is the key. In the first store, the staff is not part of the knitting group. They are working. One staff member is near the group and talking with them, but she has held herself apart from the group. Another staff member is doing other work in the back. In the second store, there is no obvious staff, because any staff members are sitting with the knitting group. It makes it feel as though the customer is interrupting. Additionally, there's the offer to help. Coming from behind the counter, it feels genuine and unhurried. Coming from the social group, it feels as if the offer is just a means to get you out of the store as quickly as possible. I know this is not how the second store's employee meant it, but that's how it feels to the customer.

Unfortunately most yarn stores that I've visited fall into the second category, not the first. While it's nice to see and touch the yarns before purchasing them, visiting a yarn store is not always a pleasant experience, so I'll stick to ordering most of my yarns on line.

How You Like Me Now?

The car manufacturer Kia has been running an ad recently that I absolutely love. Because I can't put my finger on exactly what about the ad I love, I've been picking away at the ad and my response to it for the past few days. In brief, the ad shows a bunch of children's toys, enlarged to adult human size, taking on Vegas. As an ad, I'm uncertain of the intended effect, or if it achieves what it set out to do. The ad doesn't make me want to buy a car, let alone specifically a Kia. But I can see where the positive feelings I have for the ad could spill over into my emotions towards Kia, a company I've previously associated with plastic cars, good for someone's first car maybe, but not one I'd probably ever buy.

So why do I like the ad? A lot of reasons. I like the whimsy of the premise: what if your toys were people and did things that people do. I like the cleverness of the details: the sock monkey gets a tattoo that is sewn in with a needle and thread. I like the cinematography of the ad: it's like watching a thirty second art film. The arrangement of the elements in each frame, the bold colors, the use of different speeds for the action. One section grabs me every time: the five toys are walking into a building together, fanned out, with the red one eyed alien (apparently Muno from Yo Gabba Gabba) in center front. The shot is slowed down just slightly and you can feel the swagger in the toys' walk. But I think the real reason I like this ad so much has to do with the message I take away from it. The ad shows a bunch of children's toys going wild, being bad. With the backdrop of the music lyrics saying, "How you like me now," it reminds us that you never know what others are thinking or capable of. Even the most seemingly harmless individual could one day cast off the restraints society puts on them and act out. And it reminds all of us seemingly harmless individuals that we could one day act on the thoughts in their head, saying, "How you like me now?"

Author's Note: I'll be honest, I've been debating whether or not to write about this topic for a few days. Mostly because I do not want to become one of those navel gazing self obsessed bloggers that everyone makes fun of. But two things swayed my decision. First, this blog has already strayed from my original vision of what it would be. So, since it’s already not the professional level blog I thought I'd be writing, what difference does it make if some of my posts are more self reflective? Second, I titled this blog Life Analyzed because it was a good description of my thought processes and the way I approach the world. How applicable would the title be if I didn't every now and then give my readers a glimpse of the ridiculous depth of analysis I give even the most banal of subjects? And third, although it wasn't really a swaying factor, the subject matter really did push me to go outside the restraints I'd put on myself. So, how you like me now?

Setting Priorities

It will probably come as no surprise that my husband and I discuss our jobs and work together. It allows us to consolidate our thoughts and opinions on issues at work, and provides an outsider's opinion and solutions that we would not otherwise have been able to obtain. One of the topics we have discussed on more than one occasion is managing millenials. Personally, I'm not really of the opinion that generations make for huge differences in work ethic and personality. I think a lot of the complaints older generations have about millenials can be chalked up to inexperience, rather than some generational psychology. I also think the ideas the younger generations embrace have more to do with culture change than generational differences. At the same time, there are things in the work environment that younger generations seem to have a harder time grasping or working with.

One thing I've noticed about millenials is that they have difficulty setting priorities. A lot of this is inexperience. Whenever you start a new job, you have to determine which work is more important. And it's not always easy. In a perfect world, priority levels would be based on the urgency or need for the finished product, but in reality, office politics, company policies and client demands can alter the order in which things get done. However, millenials have an obsession with priorities. When given a list of tasks with equal priority, they want their manager to tell them in exactly what order they should perform the tasks. It can cause a mutual frustration between manager and employee - the manager because they just want the work to get done, they don't care about the order; the employee because they feel a need to achieve and think that they cannot unless the tasks are done in the right order. On the other hand managers can get in trouble for setting priorities. Give your employee too many top priority tasks and they may think they're authorized for overtime. Give an employee a low priority task and it ends up never getting done. As my husband says, if it's low priority that means you can check facebook before doing it. It's actually the low priority tasks that get millenials in the most trouble, because they don't get done - there's always something more important to do. One of the things I've tried to explain to millenials I've coached is that the longer something sits on your desk the higher its priority becomes. If you have a project that's been on your desk for over a week, and you don't have anything due five minutes ago, that project is now your top priority.

Speaking of facebook, the internet and its use in the workplace is another area where millenials get a lot of criticism from older generations, and also have trouble adjusting. A lot of managers and older workers feel that surfing the web while at work is wrong. Personally, I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that opinion, because I've done plenty of web surfing on the job. I have always felt that as long as the work was being done in a timely manner, and took priority over personal web use, there was no harm in looking at facebook, or looking up airfare. As a manager, when I felt my employees were on the internet too much, I evaluated whether they were getting their work done correctly and on time. If so, and they still had a lot of time to surf, I simply gave them more work. If they weren't, I had a heart to heart with them about getting their work done and prioritizing that above internet usage. Not everyone gets that message, but most millenials understand that they are in the office to work, and alter their behavior. I think a lot of the conflict over web use during office hours has to do with a difference in how older generations and younger ones view pay. Most younger employees are non-exempt, even if their wages are stated in an annual format, they are still technically hourly employees, which leads employers to think that every minute for which they are being paid, they should be working. But millennials don't see their pay as hourly. Sure they come in from 9 to 5 and get paid extra if they work more than that, but really you pay them to do a set number of tasks in that time, and if they can accomplish those tasks and get some web surfing in, that's fine. This mindset also leads them to not understand why they can't leave at 4:30 some days if all their work is done. All this has led analysts to say that millenials are more project oriented and would prefer contract work to regular salaried employment. I'm not sure that's true, but I see the basis for that belief.

There are other mistakes that inexperienced employees, or maybe millenials make, but these two stand out as the most contentious and relevant. If both sides could see where the other is coming from, maybe a lot of office tension could be resolved.

A Few Thoughts About High Fructose Corn Syrup

Lately, The Corn Refiners Association has been running ads refuting claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy. I find these ads to be of particular interest for two reasons. The first is that while I have been a critic of HFCS for a long time, I have not heard or noted a groundswell of avoidance of the sweetener. The ad campaign almost seems to be bringing the subject up for a majority of people, rather than addressing concerns they may have. (Or maybe it's targeted at me alone. . .) The second is that the ads note that HFCS is like any sweetener: fine in moderation. While I'm a big believer in moderation, including with things that are 'bad' for you, this comment is laughable, because HFCS is in practically every food product the average American buys. Don't believe me? Check the ingredients for your loaf of bread or your pasta sauce. Manufacturers put HFCS even in items that are not supposed to be sweet.

I have long believed that both sugar and corn are unhealthy for a majority of Americans and culprits in the 'obesity epidemic' everyone is so concerned about these days. While every individual's dietary needs and problems are different, for me, cutting these ingredients out of my diet completely and then adding them back only in low quantities has allowed me to arrest rapid weight gain, have more energy, fewer episodes of 'sugar crash', and better digestion. The Corn Refiners Association is probably correct that HFCS is no worse for many people than regular sugar, but for some it is probably the worst combination out there.

While I'm on the subject of food and obesity, I'd like to take a moment to get on my soap box about dieting. I don't subscribe to the calories in/calories out diet. I have not seen where it is a valid weight loss technique. Sure, you can lose weight if you limit your caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but all you're doing is starving yourself. Unless you want to be hungry for the rest of your life, you're going to gain the weight back (and probably more) when you go off that diet. It's called yo-yo dieting and it's been proven to be one of the most unhealthy lifestyles there is. In addition, I've noticed that reducing foods to caloric value alone leads people to make bad food decisions, such as skipping a healthy vegetable in order to 'save' the calories for desert. I'd much rather see a lifestyle of exercise and good food decisions, with less concern about body weight, shape or size. An active, well fed person who carries a little extra weight is more healthy than a yo-yo dieter who eats dessert instead of vegetables.