My Masters School Journey so far
Here are some examples of my coursework thus far
As I work full-time, I can only take one course at a time in my program.
The great thing about that is it allows me to focus deeply on the class I select each quarter.
Featured Projects
501: Leadership & Communities
Profiles of Purpose
Assignment Description:
In the first part of our course, we’ll focus on unlocking your creativity, enhancing your listening and informational interview skills, and fostering a strong sense of community within your cohort. You’ll begin by interviewing two peers and exploring their goals, values, and concerns. Your task is crafting visually compelling profiles that capture their essence and tell unique stories about each other. Highlight 1-2 distinct aspects of their life journeys that you choose inspired by your interviews, focusing on details that would be valuable for professional purposes.
Make sure to unleash your creativity—imagine this as if you’re crafting a company representation of a peer, or a feature in a professional newsletter. If you have design skills, feel free to apply them—take a creative approach! This is graduate school, so push your boundaries and think beyond the ordinary.
This assignment is designed to promote mutual support and spark conversations about personal branding. It will also help you identify key elements to highlight as you shape your professional identity. Understanding how others perceive you and what stands out in your interactions will offer valuable insights for future projects and career development.
Learning Objectives:
Unleash creativity through profile creation.
Practice informational interview skills.
Hone short-form writing and visual storytelling abilities.
Gain a deeper understanding of fellow cohort members' intentions, purposes, and concerns.
Foster connection and collaboration within the cohort.
Tasks:
Meet Your Interviewees: You will be assigned two fellow students as interview subjects during Week 2. Contact them via Microsoft Teams or the Canvas People section to schedule your interviews.
Conduct Informational Interviews: You can use the provided interview questions to conduct insightful conversations with your assigned peers. Ask follow-up questions to investigate their motivations, values, and concerns. Include/come up with your questions before the interview as well.
Create Distinctive and Creative Profiles: Each profile should include a visual representation of the person you interviewed, such as a headshot photo, a drawing, or a creative visual representation (approved by the interviewee for sharing).
Craft a compelling and creative narrative of your peers. Use your creativity to capture their essence, aspirations, and doubts.
Incorporate short-form writing (at most 300 words) that paints a vivid picture of each individual.
You are encouraged to experiment with multimedia elements like audio or video, but this is optional.
Share Your Profiles: Submit your assignments on Canvas and our shared class online wall. We will use them so you all can view each other's work and gain insights about our community. Please ensure your creation can be used for professional reasons and with professional communities. Please also send your profiles directly to the peers you profiled.
Include a brief reflection: When submitting the profiles on Canvas, include a short reflection as a separate document (200 words) on what you learned from the interview process, including any surprises, challenges, or insights gained. In this reflection, include the additional questions you included in your interviews and why you picked these particular questions
Once you complete your assignment and submit it via Canvas, please also send it to those you interviewed directly so they can access the profiles you created.
Interview Questions:
Why did you decide to pursue a graduate degree at this point? What was your journey before graduate school?
What are you passionate about?
What are your foundational values?
Do you have a hidden talent?
What are your doubts/worries about graduate school, and where do they stem from? How can you tackle/overcome your doubts and concerns about graduate school?
What are your goals in pursuing a graduate degree? How will graduate school bring you closer to your goal(s)?
Add 1-2 of your questions to gain unique insights and reveal the life stories of your peers.
Reflection:
Throughout the interview process, I gained valuable insights into the importance of active listening and the art of asking follow-up questions. One of the biggest surprises was how much depth can emerge from open-ended, reflective questions. For example, when I asked, “What is a pet peeve or annoyance of yours?” it provided a window into how the interviewees approach challenges and frustrations in their personal and professional lives. This question revealed personality traits such as patience or attention to detail, which would not have surfaced through standard questions. Additionally, the question “How would others describe you?” helped me understand how each interviewee views themselves through the lens of their relationships, which added a layer of self-awareness and humility to their profiles.
One challenge I faced was navigating the balance between professional achievements and personal anecdotes, ensuring that both were woven seamlessly into their profiles. I also learned that subtle cues in conversation—like tone and emphasis—can greatly inform how to present someone’s narrative. Overall, this experience reinforced the power of thoughtful questioning to not only gather information but also to connect on a deeper level with the interviewees’ values and aspirations.
The Potato's Journey Through Chemistry, Culture, and Cuisine
The potato's evolution from a famine-relief crop to a global culinary icon is a fascinating chemistry, culture, and innovation story. It begins with the visionary efforts of Antoine-Augustin Parmentier and extends to modern-day chefs like Virgilio Martínez and Grant Achatz. This narrative explores how the humble tuber has transformed dining experiences over centuries and across continents, bridging the gap between sustenance and art.
The journey starts with Parmentier's campaign to popularize the potato in 18th-century France. He employed creative methods to win over skeptics, such as hosting potato-centric banquets and presenting potato flowers to royalty. His efforts helped establish the potato as a staple food across all social classes.
Next, we examine the science behind the potato's adaptability. Its starch composition allows for various textures, resulting in creamy purées, crispy fries, and elastic gnocchi. This versatility transforms the potato into a canvas for culinary innovation.
Virgilio Martínez, at Central in Peru, celebrates the potato's Andean origins by incorporating native varieties into his tasting menus. His use of indigenous ingredients elevates the potato to a cultural heritage and biodiversity symbol.
At Alinea, Grant Achatz pushes the boundaries of the potato with dishes like "hot potato, cold potato," playfully exploring textures, temperatures, and flavors. His work showcases the potato's potential in molecular gastronomy, turning familiar elements into extraordinary experiences.
Finally, we examine the potato's role in iconic dishes worldwide, from Peruvian causa to Irish colcannon. Today's chefs honor its history while innovating for the future, employing sustainable practices and creative techniques inspired by Parmentier's vision.
This narrative intertwines Parmentier's pioneering efforts with modern culinary artistry, illustrating how science and creativity continue to elevate the potato. It celebrates the power of food to connect history, culture, and innovation on every plate.
Assignment Description:
Choose ONE of the following (I know this is weird):
PAINT
POTATOES
PAPER CLIPS
Your challenge: Think about, do some “cast the net widely” research on (which does NOT mean ask chatgpt, copy and paste), talk to others about one of these items. Now brainstorm story ideas that, if fully developed, would pique audience interest about that item. Have fun with this. Think outside of the box. Stretch your “story” mind. Then decide on and propose a small, interesting story. NOT FICTION!! A factual narrative with a beginning, middle and end. Don’t write the story! Just do enough thinking and basic research so you can propose—that is, pitch-- the idea. Remember: a small narrative. There really is a story (many stories) in everything. 300 word maximum/ 10 points
Some ideas:
Historical approach: Delve into the history behind any of these items. Is there a compelling story there?
Cross-cultural: Explore item as it exists in other countries
Compelling characters associated with item?
Interesting or innovative processes?
537: Principles of Storytelling for Social Impact
Is there a Story in Everything?
Assignment Description:
For this final assignment, you will create a storyboard – a graphic representation – of your story. This is a tool to organize your material into a narrative and to plot that narrative, section by section, scene by scene.
The storyboard is a key creative tool used by journalists, novelists, screenwriters, podcasters, advertising copywriters, and others when plotting a story.
A storyboard is created by a series of squares (or cells), each representing a section (information) or scene (narrative action). Here’s one you can use. (There are many others just like this one.)
We will SHARE these in class. You can create a digital presentation using the tools of your choice.
For the “Plus,” this assignment MUST include your opening scene. If your story is text only, you would write this scene. If you have proposed an audio or video story, the opening would be the written script for this opening scene. The maximum word count for the opener is 500.
The core creative assignment for the term is the finding and shaping of a story, which involves significant background research (the larger context) and whatever it takes to gather the material necessary to plot the “small story.” Your choice of media/ platform to tell that story is dependent on the story itself, the audience you want to reach, and other important factors such as the needs of the organization, access, resources, time constraints, and ethical concerns.
Any single medium (text, audio, still image, moving image) could work. So could any combination of media, for example: a photographic slide show with audio; a photographic slide show with text; text with links to audio; text accompanied by photos or mini-videos. What does this story deserve? What is possible? What tells it best? Those are the criteria.
Take your time with this. Try out different organizing narrative structures. What would most engage your audience? Ask me! I am here to listen and give guidance. Your first idea may not be your best idea. But if you leave this until the last moment, your first idea will be the one you use.
Final: Storyboard + Opener
517: Psychology of User Experience
Final Theme Paper
Shining a Light on Dark Patterns in UX Design: How to Do Well by Doing Good
On a typical Wednesday evening, I found myself refreshing WhatNot for the third
time in an hour, watching a PopMart toy reseller prepare for the next round of Labubu
Big Into Energy blind box openings. The platform displayed a pulsing countdown timer
alongside a viewer count climbing impossibly fast: 347 people watching, 512, 891. I was
hoping to catch a "Lucky" Labubu, a cute, fuzzy purple one that had become my
obsession simply because purple is my favorite color. When the seller finally opened the
boxes, the chat exploded: "I'll take it!" "Me!" "Dibs!" In the frenzy, I secured my Lucky
Labubu, but only after paying $54, double the typical $27 asking price. In the cold light
of morning, I confronted an uncomfortable truth: the platform's design had
systematically dismantled my capacity for self-regulation, transforming a fun collecting
hobby into compulsive purchasing through mechanisms I understood intellectually but
couldn't resist experientially.
This experience with WhatNot, a livestream shopping platform where users buy
and sell through online video auctions, exemplifies a crisis in digital commerce:
platforms increasingly structure reinforcement schedules to exploit rather than support
impulse control. The Labubu scenario illustrates the problem: I was simultaneously
gambling on random outcomes while competing in real-time, with no information about
scarcity or fair market value, all while experiencing hot-state arousal from countdown
timers and synchronized chat pressure. My earlier analysis documented how
unpredictable "drops," artificial scarcity claims, and social pressure create variable
reinforcement undermining self-regulation. However, identifying manipulation is
insufficient; ethical design requires demonstrating viable alternatives that serve both
user and business interests.
This paper argues that WhatNot's exploitative mechanisms can be restructured
using Nobel Prize-winning auction theory (Milgrom & Wilson, 2020) to support user self-
regulation. I propose two interconnected redesign mechanisms, verified inventory
transparency and cooling-off hold periods, that align psychological needs for
autonomous motivation (Self-Determination Theory) with economic principles of efficient
market design. This redesign addresses fundamental ethical concerns: rights and
autonomy (respecting user consent), justice and fairness (ensuring users do not bear
disproportionate risks), care for vulnerable populations (protecting those with impulse-
control challenges), and superior outcomes for long-term business sustainability.
Milgrom and Wilson's FCC spectrum auctions provide empirical proof: transparent
auction mechanisms attracted ten times more participants and generated over $200
billion precisely because they supported rather than exploited bidder psychology (De
Witte, 2020).
My original WhatNot analysis identified variable-reinforcement schedules as a
cause of compulsive checking behavior. The platform employs unpredictable "drop"
timing mirroring Skinner's (1938) variable-ratio schedules, but the blind box format adds
additional variable reinforcement. With Labubu, I wasn't just waiting for drops; I was
gambling on whether the seller would open a Lucky variant. This double variable
reinforcement creates robust compulsive checking. I documented checking WhatNot 15-
23 times daily despite having no purchasing intentions, a pattern Alter (2017)
characterizes as behavioral addiction in Irresistible.
The blind-box scenario perfectly illustrates the winner's curse: I had no
information about how many Lucky Labubus the seller had, their typical market value, or
the number of competing buyers. In that hot state, heart racing, watching chat explode,
seeing purple fur appear, I committed to 100% markup without deliberative assessment.
This is precisely what Milgrom and Wilson (2020) identify as information asymmetry
creating systematic overbidding. The seller knew precisely how many Lucky variants
they had and could orchestrate reveal timing for maximum urgency. At the same time, I
operated with zero information beyond "purple is my favorite color, and I want it now."
This violates the principles of Self-Determination Theory for autonomous
motivation. Deci and Ryan's (2000) framework shows that autonomous motivation
requires satisfying needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. WhatNot's
unpredictable drops, combined with blind-box gambling, prevent users from planning
purchases during "cold states," when deliberative processing functions optimally. The
psychological mechanism operates through Loewenstein's (1996) "hot-cold empathy
gap." During my purchase, countdown timers and dopamine from seeing the purple
variant created an aroused state, preventing me from accessing the reasoning capacity
I would have when calmly evaluating offline.
WhatNot's design violates all four ethical frameworks simultaneously. From a
rights and autonomy perspective, I could not give informed consent when sellers
deliberately withheld critical information while the hot-state environment exploited my
impaired deliberative capacity. Justice and fairness concerns emerge starkly: the seller
had complete information and operated calmly, while I had none and operated in a hot-
state arousal. From a care ethics perspective, the design shows callous disregard for
vulnerable users; collectors with impulse-control difficulties face environments
engineered to overwhelm their regulatory capacities. Finally, examining consequences
reveals incoherence: while achieving short-term transaction value, the long-term
outcome is platform abandonment. I now warn fellow collectors about manipulative
tactics. This pattern characterizes unsustainable business models.
Self-Determination Theory and auction theory, though from different disciplines,
share a fundamental insight: systems that support autonomous, informed decision-
making generate superior outcomes compared to those that manipulate. Autonomous
motivation predicts sustained engagement; controlled motivation predicts short-term
compliance followed by abandonment, precisely what happened with my Labubu
experience. My initial compulsive engagement gave way to platform avoidance once
regret crystallized.
Milgrom and Wilson's (2020) Nobel Prize work demonstrates that the auction
format fundamentally shapes market outcomes through information revelation: auctions
that transparently disclose relevant information reduce "winner's curse", the systematic
tendency for winners to overpay when possessing incomplete information. My Labubu
purchase exemplifies this: I "won" precisely because I was willing to pay more than
others, but only by dramatically overpaying. Had I known the seller possessed three
Lucky Labubus and typical sales averaged $27, I would never have agreed to $54.
Their FCC spectrum auction redesign applied these principles at scale: the first
auction in 1994 attracted over 200 bidders (versus 20-30 previously), generated $7.7
billion (billions beyond predictions), and efficiently allocated spectrum with minimal
disputes (De Witte, 2020). Both frameworks prioritize rights and autonomy by
supporting volitional choice; both address justice and fairness through equitable access
to information; both demonstrate superior outcomes; and both protect vulnerable
populations by designing systems that support rather than exploit human limitations.
Two Core Redesign Mechanisms
To address WhatNot's multi-framework violations, I propose restructuring the
platform using auction theory's information revelation principles combined with
psychological insights about autonomous motivation. Two mechanisms work
synergistically to transform exploitative variable reinforcement into autonomy-supportive
design: verified inventory transparency provides the information users need for
competent decision-making, while cooling-off hold periods offer the time and cognitive
state necessary to integrate that information into deliberative choice.
Mechanism 1: Verified Inventory Transparency
WhatNot would integrate third-party verification, displaying "Verified Inventory"
badges showing real-time information: "Verified: Seller has 3 Lucky Labubu variants.
Average sale price last 30 days: $27. Current asking price: $54 (100% markup)." Users
could view historical data on seller scarcity claims, creating accountability.
This satisfies Self-Determination Theory's autonomy need by providing
information necessary for volitional choice. Had I known the seller had three Lucky
variants at the typical $27 price, I could have made an informed decision about whether
I valued this purchase at double that price. Economically, Milgrom and Wilson's theory
predicts that transparency reduces the winner's curse, attracting more participants. For
WhatNot, verification would attract serious collectors currently avoiding manipulative
platforms while reducing return rates by 30-40%. If verification reduces returns by 10
percentage points, savings in reverse logistics (typically 10-15% of revenue) would
offset any reduction in panic-driven overbidding.
Verification restores informed consent (rights and autonomy), redistributes
epistemic power equitably (justice and fairness), protects users through clear signals
(care ethics), and produces better outcomes (consequences).
Mechanism 2: Cooling-Off Hold Periods
For purchases exceeding $50, WhatNot would implement mandatory 15-minute
holds. After clicking "buy," I'd see: "Your Lucky Labubu purchase ($54) is held for 15
minutes. Consider: This is 100% above the recent average sales of $27. Does this align
with your collecting budget?" The interface would be deliberately calm, no countdown
timers, no chat pressure.
Holds address Loewenstein's (1996) hot-cold empathy gap by creating temporal
separation between aroused impulses and deliberative confirmation. A 15-minute buffer
would have allowed my arousal to decrease while I accessed actual collecting priorities,
likely realizing $54 for a $27 toy based on color preference didn't align with deliberative
values. The EU Consumer Rights Directive (2011) established 14-day cooling-off
periods for distance purchases, which research suggests improves consumer decision-
making quality. WhatNot's 15-minute hold operates on this principle compressed to
realistic timeframes.
Holds ensure authentic consent (rights and autonomy), level cognitive playing
fields (justice and fairness), provide structural protection without requiring self-
identification (care ethics), and reduce regret while building trust (consequences).
My Labubu purchase demonstrates why both mechanisms are necessary:
inventory transparency provides information (seller has 3 Lucky variants, typical price
$27, I'm paying 100% markup), while cooling-off provides time and cognitive state to
integrate that information (15 minutes to ask "do I really value purple fur at double
price?"). Together, they transform WhatNot from a platform where impulsive decisions
based on hidden information predominate into one where informed deliberation
becomes possible.
The business case reveals a crucial pattern: when consequences, rights, justice,
and care ethics align, this convergence signals an optimal strategy. My trajectory
illustrates WhatNot's unsustainable model: initial compulsive engagement, followed by
significant transaction value ($54 for a $27 toy), then immediate regret and
abandonment. I now warn fellow collectors and seek alternatives with pricing
transparency. If this generalizes across 30-40% of users, WhatNot faces escalating
acquisition costs.
Milgrom and Wilson's FCC auctions demonstrate that transparent design yields
superior outcomes. A tenfold increase in participation occurred because transparent
rules reduced the winner's curse; bidders who had previously avoided unfavorable
information asymmetry entered markets when they could accurately assess value.
Revenue exceeded predictions by billions because market expansion effects dominated
per-transaction effects (De Witte, 2020). The paradox: reducing the winner's curse
through transparency increases revenue because attracting serious participants
generates more total value than extracting maximum markup from vulnerable impulse
buyers.
The customer lifetime value calculation is stark: WhatNot extracted $54 from me
once, then lost me entirely. Had verification shown typical $27 pricing and cooling-off let
me reflect, I might have purchased at fair value or waited for future drops, but either
outcome would have kept me as a repeat customer. Over 24 months, moderate
consistent purchasing ($27 per quarter = $216) vastly outperforms $54 once, then
permanent avoidance. Multiply this across thousands of collectors experiencing similar
regret trajectories, and lifetime value destruction becomes catastrophic.
WhatNot's current design violates psychological principles (undermining
autonomy from Self-Determination Theory), economic principles (creating winner's
curse contrary to auction theory), and ethical principles across all four frameworks. My
Labubu experience, paying 100% markup in a hot state with zero information, followed
by regret and abandonment, illustrates this multi-framework violation. Systems that fight
human nature cannot sustain success, regardless of short-term metrics.
The two proposed mechanisms address these violations while demonstrating
feasibility. Had these existed during my purchase, I would have seen "Seller has 3
Lucky Labubus, typical price $27, you're paying $54 (100% markup)" followed by 15
minutes outside hot-state arousal to consider whether purple fur justified double price. I
would have either made a truly autonomous choice I could later endorse, or walked
away, both outcomes superior to the current regret-driven churn.
Milgrom and Wilson's Nobel Prize-winning work shows that this transformation
yields better business outcomes: transparent auction mechanisms attracted ten times
more participants and generated over $200 billion precisely because they supported
rather than exploited bidder psychology (De Witte, 2020). This convergence, where
psychology, economics, and ethics all point in the same direction, reveals a
fundamental principle: ethical design is not a constraint on effectiveness but a
precondition for sustainability. WhatNot's choice is not between profitable exploitation
and ethical sacrifice, but between short-term extraction that destroys customer lifetime
value and long-term value creation that supports the human capacity for self-regulation
that sustainable markets require.
References
Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of
Keeping Us Hooked (1st ed.). Penguin Publishing Group.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego Depletion: Is
the Active Self a Limited Resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human
Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
De Witte, M. (2020, November 12). The big picture: Nobel Prize winners explain auction
theory collaboration. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/11/bid-
picture-nobel-prize-winners-explain-auction-theory-collaboration
European Union. (2011). Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Official Journal of
the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj/eng
Gross, J. J. (1998). The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review.
Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.2.3.271
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0028
Milgrom, P. R. (2020, December 7). Auction research evolving: Theorems and market
designs [Nobel Prize lecture]. Nobel Prize Outreach.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2020/milgrom/lecture/
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms; an experimental analysis. D.
Appleton-Century Company, Incorporated.
Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The Winner's Curse. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 2(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.2.1.191
Assignment Description:
Theme Paper: “Shining a light on dark patterns in UX design: How to do well by doing good” (30% of grade.)
One (1) five (5) page final paper, 12-point font, double-spaced, approximately 1700 words,
preferably in Microsoft Word and uploaded to Canvas. Your paper should put into words in your best prose an example of how psychology can be used to align to human nature rather than exploit it. You MUST draw on the topic of an applied analysis done earlier in the year. Make a reasoned argument how the ethical design choices are better for business in the long term than unethical design choices. You do not necessarily need to agree with your position from a previous applied analysis. However, direct reference to your previous work is required for full credit.
Pick from these broad themes:
• Attention: Time notifications to avoid interruption.
• Perception: Set apart sponsored content to reduce vulnerability to abuse by unethical
advertisers.
• Memory: Assist users to save and share peak moments in usage sessions.
• Motivation: Allay users' fears rather than distract them in conversion flows.
• Motivation: Assist with self-regulation of usage by altering reinforcement schedules
• Self-image: Enable impression management of targeting algorithms.
• Social influence: Mitigate radicalization by disrupting group polarization and discouraging the
spread of misinformation
The Echo Project
517: Psychology of User Experience
A bold reimagining of a timeless brand.
Assignment Description: