Tuesday, January 07, 2020

ANS -- Flip Trump Voters the Easy Way

This is great -- the latest psychology on how to persuade someone to change politically.  I'm glad someone is researching this.  
--Kim


Flip Trump Voters the Easy Way

Leverage existing ambivalence with a few simple questions.

Karin Tamerius
Nov 8, 2019 · 7 min read



Photo by Diana Parkhouse on Unsplash

Today I'm going to teach you one of my favorite tools for helping people transform their political attitudes, beliefs, and behavior.

It's a two-part intervention commonly used in Motivational Interviewing (MI), a type of psychotherapy originally developed to help people overcome addiction, but useful in any setting where people want to change or are thinking about changing.

Intro to Motivational Interviewing

As we all know, change is hard. Whether you want to eat healthier, exercise more, or stop using substances, there is a huge gap between the desire to transform yourself and actually doing it.

For a long time, psychotherapists thought the key to getting patients to change was to help them identify the barriers holding them back. We'd ask, what's stopping you from quitting smoking? What are you afraid will happen if you stop drinking alcohol? What roadblocks are preventing you from entering rehab?

The theory behind these questions was simple. If we could help our patients identify the things stopping them from changing, we could then help them find a way to eliminate, surmount, or avoid those obstacles.

You keep smoking because it calms you down when you're stressed? Let's find alternative ways to address your anxiety. You're afraid to stop drinking because you might be less fun at parties? Let's explore why being the life of the party is so important to you. You feel compelled to shoot up every time you are in the company of your friends who use heroin? Let's find you a new group of friends.

The theory was seductive. Not only did it make sense to both patient and clinician, but it provided a clear roadmap for treatment. All you had to do was keep talking until all the psychological and non-psychological barriers were identified and removed, and then the patient would make the changes they so desperately wanted and needed to make.

Only, it didn't work. Not really. Plenty of barriers were identified and many were overcome, but people still had trouble changing. Moreover, there seemed to be an endless supply of reasons not to change. Just when someone overcame one challenge, another one would pop up in its place.

Then one day, a couple of bright young clinicians, William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick, had a thought. What if the reason we're having so much trouble getting people to change is because we spend all of our time talking about reasons not to change rather than reasons to change? What if we are actually persuading patients that change isn't desirable or possible?

This idea became the basis for a new theory of change that said, when it comes to transforming their behavior, people are ambivalent. There are parts of them that want to behave differently while at the same time there are parts that want to continue just the way they are. The best way to help them achieve transformation is to support and nurture the parts of them that want to change while ignoring or minimizing the parts that don't.

And that's what MI is all about. As you might expect, there are many, many theoretical and practical nuances to the approach, but today I'm going to teach you a single, easy intervention that has tremendous crossover appeal for political conversations — in your home, online, and on the campaign trail.

The MI Commitment to Change Scale

A standard practice in any MI therapy session is to ask the patient how they are feeling about change at that moment:

On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all and 10 being as much as possible, how much do you want to [stop smoking/stop drinking/stop using] today?

The question itself isn't particularly exciting. What makes it work is the follow-up.

Under the old theory, the next question would be why isn't your commitment higher? Why is your desire to change only a 3 today? What's holding you back?

But that's what MI practitioners call sustain talk. It keeps people focused on all the reasons why they won't or can't change rather than all the reasons why they want to change.

So what does MI advise instead?

Ask the patient why their desire isn't lower:

You say your commitment to change is a 3 today. Why not a 0 or 1?

It's a simple shift, but the effect is profound. Suddenly, instead of dwelling on all the things that make change hard, the patient is remembering and voicing the reasons they want to change despite how difficult it is.

Using the Commitment to Change Scale in Political Discourse

Most people are as ambivalent about politics as they are about changing bad habits. Even hardcore Trumpers will admit there are things they don't like about the President — his use of Twitter, his disrespect of members of the military, his indifference to the ballooning national debt. But when they get into a conversation with a Trump opponent, they usually spend all their time thinking and talking about the ways in which Trump is great. As a result, they are likely to emerge from a transpartisan dialogue supporting the President even more strongly than they did before.

So, how do we get people thinking and talking about what's wrong with Trump instead of what they think is right?

Use the commitment scale:

On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all and 10 being more than any other president ever, how strong is your support for President Trump?

Then, when they answer, resist the urge to ask them what it is that they find so appealing about the President. (Trust me, that impulse will be strong and you will have to resist it.) Instead, nurture their ambivalence and support the part of them that wants to change with this response:

You say your support for the president is a 9. Why not a 10?

When I use this approach with Trump supporters I am often shocked by how many aspects of the President they dislike. Things that — if I'd mentioned them in the form of an argument — would have triggered resistance and an unflinching defense of everything Trump stands for.

As the French polymath Blaise Pascal once wrote, "People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." The key to MI is giving people incentive and space to discover their own reasons for change rather than their reasons for staying the same.

Beyond Trump

This approach works for all kinds of political discussions, ranging from candidates to parties to policy to values to goals. For example, if I wanted to discuss Medicare for All with someone on the Right, I'd start out like this:

Medicare for All has been in the news a lot. How important is it to you to make sure all Americans have health insurance regardless of ability to pay? Say, on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being you couldn't care less and 10 being absolutely essential. Where do you fall?

In my experience, when phrased this way, most people — even those who say they are staunchly opposed to Medicare for All — will voice considerable support for guaranteed health insurance.

It's easy, then, to follow up with:

So, you put yourself at a 6. Why not a 4 or a 5?

The Close-Minded

Of course, there are many topics where people will be unwilling or unable to articulate ambivalence at all. Some people will locate themselves at the far ends of the scale or even beyond. It's not uncommon, for example, for people to say their support for Elizabeth Warren is "negative 100".

No worries. There are two ways to approach this.

One, try rephrasing the question. Instead of asking how they feel about Warren, for example, ask how they feel about her in relation to someone else you suspect they dislike even more:

How does your opinion of Warren compare to your opinion of Clinton? Say you had to rank your support on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is Warren is much worse than Clinton and 10 is Warren is much better than Clinton. Where do you fall?

By granting their dislike of Warren and contextualizing this dislike in relation to their feelings about Clinton, you provide room for them to explore nuances in their attitudes and beliefs that might otherwise get glossed over.

Two, move on to another topic. Sometimes a person is so polarized in their thinking or so defended against change that this technique won't work. Just as some people suffering from drug addiction have no interest in talking about it with a mental health professional, some political views aren't up for reconsideration. That's okay.

It's worth keeping in mind that those of us on the Left have these lines too. It's very hard for me to imagine a situation where I would rate my support for President Trump any higher than zero or to conceive of being able to articulate a single reason for keeping him in office. It's important to respect others' lines as well.

One final tidbit

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that these questions have to be worded exactly as I've described them here. That's not really necessary. In fact, putting these questions into a less clinical, more informal form can help you build rapport.

Furthermore, scales don't have to be numerical. You can simply use words like more, less, a lot, a little, strong, and weak to help people understand that you want them to move beyond thinking in binary terms.

Ultimately, the most important thing is for you to stop focusing on why the other person disagrees with you and start exploring reasons why they don't disagree with you more. You might be surprised by what you find.

About the author

Dr. Karin Tamerius is a former psychiatrist who specializes in the intersection between psychology and politics. She is the founder of Smart Politics, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching progressives how to communicate more persuasively with people across the political spectrum. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Progressively Speaking

Smart, practical information, analysis, and advice for progressives.


Posted by at No comments:

ANS -- How Economists Tricked Us Into Thinking Capitalism Works

This is a good, clearly written article showing that economists are wrong, and we are more cooperative than competitive.  (But I think the scum rises to the top in Capitalism).  Read it.  Medium-short length.
--Kim



How Economists Tricked Us Into Thinking Capitalism Works

Our species has survived through caring and sharing, not competing in markets as economists claim.ENDAI HUEDL / GETTY IMAGES
BY
PUBLISHED
January 5, 2020
SHARE
READING LIST
WAR & PEACE
Trump Threatens War Crimes Against Iran. Congress Must Stop Him.
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Naomi Klein: Climate Solutions That Neglect Inequality Are Doomed to Fail
EDUCATION & YOUTH
College Presidents Aren't Who We Should Consult About Free Higher Education
WAR & PEACE
Trump Threatens Iraq With Sanctions "Like They've Never Seen Before"
POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Trump Never Cared About Ending "Forever Wars." He Just Wanted His Own War.
ECONOMY & LABOR
Eight Ways the Trump-GOP Tax Cuts Have Failed Working Families

These days, it seems like someone is always trying to privatize something. One day it's the Trump administration contemplating the privatization of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The next it's the Tories looking to sell off the U.K.'s National Health Service, or economists promoting "market-based" solutions to the climate crisis. In this age of neoliberalism, the rallying cry for politicians and economists alike is always for "More privatization! More markets! Sell it all off to the private sector!"

Of course, much of the time this faith in the market is used as a cover by those looking to simply make a profit — or by the politicians representing their interests. But this is not always the case. There are many who actually believe, wholeheartedly, that markets are the most efficient and even the most ethical way to run a society. And because this is the worldview that is taught in the vast majority of economics departments throughout the world, it's not surprising that this is the dominant worldview among those in power.

It's an ideology that was carefully crafted during the time of the early Western economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Homo sapiens are actually Homo economicus, the theory goes: selfish, competitive, rational agents who are all constantly seeking to efficiently maximize their own personal well-being.

Never miss another story

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

No need to despair, however, because economists have figured out that these inherent traits can actually be utilized for good, through a social relation known as the market. By its nature, the market encourages competition and efficiency, and thus, by relying on the self-maximizing behavior of individuals, market capitalism is the only economic system that truly accepts human nature for what it is. And in fact, it's the only system uniquely situated to actually channel this nature into a net positive outcome for society.

How does this all work? Well, when they are free to make choices that maximize their own interests, people in a market system negotiate on a price and quantity of a product or service until a sort of equilibrium is established. It's a natural process of compromise that leaves everyone satisfied and also leads to an efficient way of producing and distributing goods and services. Everyone wins. And, the theory goes, it just so happens that the process aligns perfectly with human nature. It's a fascinating theory. The only thing is, it's completely wrong.

The foundation of this theory relies on an assumption about human nature that has been discredited over and over by research across multiple scientific disciplines. It turns out that Homo economicus is a fairytale, an outdated misconception, a gross distortion of reality. Yet, it still serves as the theoretical foundation of our entire economic system.

Research shows that by 14 months of age, children are already beginning to help each other by handing over objects that others are unsuccessfully reaching for.

Studies have determined that the Homo economicus personality is an extremely rare one. Instead, most humans are marked by a deep capacity for reciprocity, cooperation and selflessness. For example, research shows that by 14 months of age, children are already beginning to help each other by handing over objects that others are unsuccessfully reaching for. This empathic behavior only increases as children grow older and begin to share things that they value with others and even object to other people's violation of social norms.

These are all early signs of prosociality — behavior that is marked by an intent to help or benefit others. And importantly, this behavior is motivated by a genuine concern for others and not by selfishness.

Evolutionary biologists have also largely debunked the theory of Homo economicus. Researchers like David Sloan Wilson and others have determined that more prosocial groups will robustly outcompete less prosocial groups, meaning that prosociality was an advantageous trait when it came to the natural selection of early humans. And these theories are not new. Over a century ago, the anarchist theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote convincingly on how the survival of our species has depended more on cooperation than on the heroic efforts of isolated individuals. It certainly is difficult imagining an early human taking down a woolly mammoth without engaging in highly coordinated prosocial behavior. How else could the human species evolve to dominate the globe if not by cooperating with one another to overcome the many challenges our species faced?

Another place where we see the myth of Homo economicus debunked is in the research that comes out of post-disaster communities.

Another place where we see the myth of Homo economicus debunked is in the research that comes out of post-disaster communities. In her landmark book, A Paradise Built in Hell, Rebecca Solnit presents a thesis arguing that humans have an innate capacity toward collectivism — and that these traits tend to reveal themselves most strongly in community response to disasters. Far from resorting to antisocial behavior after a disaster (a myth which the media tend to elevate), Solnit's book outlines enumerable instances where communities demonstrate prosocial behaviors like cooperation, solidarity, sacrifice and generosity instead.

"In the wake of an earthquake, a bombing, or a major storm, most people are altruistic, urgently engaged in caring for themselves and those around them, strangers and neighbors as well as friends and loved ones," Solnit writes. "Decades of meticulous sociological research on behavior in disasters, from the bombings of World War II to floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and storms across the continent and around the world, have demonstrated this."

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence contradicting it, we've come to accept Homo economicus as the truth. Perhaps not always consciously, but it haunts our dreams, our imagination. It confines our sense of possibility and imposes boundaries as arbitrary as those that carve up ecosystems and communities into nation-states.

Market capitalism has been imposed onto us, often at the point of a gun, and as a result, we've been forced to internalize the idea that we are a selfish, competitive and greedy species. Well, that's just human nature, we'll acquiesce when we hear about the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies or the greed of investment bankers. But the thing this, that's not human nature — it's just what we've been coerced into thinking by an unfeeling economic system that dominates every facet of our life. And in many ways, Homo economicus is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Market capitalism has been imposed onto us, often at the point of a gun, and as a result, we've been forced to internalize the idea that we are a selfish, competitive and greedy species.

It's been demonstrated that studying economics actually makes you more selfish. Studies have shown that economics students are much less likely than other students to donate money that was given to them into a common pool; that they are more likely to "freeride" and are also more likely to defect than to cooperate; that they are more likely to participate in deception for personal gain; and even that they are more likely than their peers to rate greed as "generally good," "correct" and "moral."

And it's not just students: economics professors give less money to charity than professors in other fields — including history, philosophy, education, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, physics, chemistry and biology.

When faced with the overwhelming evidence that Homo economicus — and thus the whole neoclassical economic project — is nonsense, the defenders of the status quo tend to rely on another myth: that there is no alternative. Margaret Thatcher famously uttered those words over 30 years ago, paving the way for an age of neoliberalism that has seen the dismantling of the social safety net, the stagnation of wages and the rise of extreme inequality.

But the thing is, there are alternative ways of organizing society that reflect the human capacity for reciprocity, selflessness and cooperation. The worker cooperative model promotes equity and democracy by giving workers ownership and control over their workplaces. It does so in a way that not only aligns with our inherently human traits, but in a way which has been shown to be more efficient and productive than the traditional workplace models.

There are alternative ways of organizing society that reflect the human capacity for reciprocity, selflessness and cooperation.

There is also the commons model that reflects how communities organized themselves for thousands of years before they were torn off their land in the enclosure acts of 17th-century England. The commons are a way of organizing production and distribution where resources are held in common and are accessible to every member of society to be managed collectively for the benefit of all.

In fact, the political economist Eleanor Ostrom actually won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for disproving the long-held belief known as the "tragedy of the commons," a theory which held that resources held in common by communities would naturally be overused and depleted. Ostrom's work demonstrated that this assumption is false, and that it is in fact very possible for resources to be managed collectively without privatization.




There are many ways that community resources can be collectivized instead of privatized, from land trusts that take land off of the market to policy proposals like Medicare for All, which represents a major shift in how we view our collective responsibility when it comes to health care, or the Green New Deal, which recognizes our collective responsibility to prioritize climate justice in the fight against climate change.

The alternatives to market capitalism are out there — and the thing is, they actually align much more closely to the natural human tendencies toward reciprocity and sharing. The theories behind modern economics have left us with a burning planet and with skyrocketing inequality — it's time to put them to rest.

And whether economists and politicians choose to accept it or not, the days of Homo economicus are limited, because a society based off of a lie cannot go on indefinitely.


Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, January 04, 2020

ANS -- Bricks made from plastic waste build much-needed classrooms in West Africa

Here is an upbeat article about a good way to use plastic waste.  Here is what Sara Robinson, who is a futurist, said about it:
"This is one future I've been looking out for for over 15 years (and contemplate again every time I step out onto my Trex deck) —- the one where our massive planetary load of waste plastic becomes our dominant building material instead.

Leave the trees — we need them right where they are. Instead, let's tap waste streams and landfills for a material that, in the end, can be far cheaper, more versatile, and more durable."

--Kim



Bricks made from plastic waste build much-needed classrooms in West Africa

Children in Côte d'Ivoire soon will benefit from new educational opportunities, and they have plastic waste to thank. There is a severe shortage of classrooms in the country, with some kindergartens packing in as many as 100 pupils. Conceptos Plasticos, a company based in Mosquera, Colombia, that recycles used plastics into alternative construction materials, has partnered with Unicef to collect plastic waste in the West African country and turn it into modular plastic bricks to build classrooms.

School in Cote d'Ivoire made of plastic bricks
A school built of plastic bricks in Sakassou, a village in the center of Côte d'Ivoire. Image courtesy Unicef/Frank Dejongh.

Conceptos Plasticos has broken ground on a first-of-its-kind factory to produce the plastic bricks in Côte d'Ivoire. Plastic waste is melted and poured into a mold to form the bricks, which are designed to slot together like Lego pieces. The fire-resistant bricks are 40% cheaper, 20% lighter and will last hundreds of years longer than conventional building materials, according to the company. They are also waterproof, well insulated and designed to resist heavy wind.

Once the factory is fully operational, it will recycle 9,600 tonnes of plastic waste a year and provide a source of income to women living in poverty in a formalized recycling market, said Unicef in a press release. Nine classrooms have been built thus far using plastic bricks molded in Colombia, demonstrating the viability of the construction methods and materials, said Unicef.

Côte d'Ivoire needs an additional 15,000 classrooms to meet the educational needs of its youth. Initially, the collaboration with Conceptos Plasticos hopes to build 500 classrooms in and around Abidjan, the country's economic capital and most populous city, in the next two years. There is no lack of raw materials: More than 280 tonnes of plastic waste are produced every day in Abidjan alone, writes Unicef, only 5% of which is recycled.

Plans are underway to scale this project to other countries in the region and beyond. "Sometimes, embedded deep within our most pressing challenges are promising opportunities," said Unicef Executive Director Henrietta Fore. "This project is more than just a waste management and education infrastructure project; it is a functioning metaphor—the growing challenge of plastic waste turned into literal building blocks for a future generation of children."

Comments (0)


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)