You Had to be There

Explorations Outside the Box

This from Wikipedia, about the famous “Tears in the Rain” monologue in Blade Runner:

In Blade Runner, dying replicant Roy Batty makes this speech to Harrison Ford’s character Deckard moments after saving him from falling off a tall building. Deckard had been tasked to kill him and his replicant friends. The words are spoken during a downpour, moments before Batty’s death:

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears…in…rain. Time to die.

We want witnesses to our witnessing.

Most of the time, eyes glaze over. You had to be there.

Except for the blessed: those who are good story tellers. They gather witnesses. And so their worlds live on a little longer.

 

Why Don’t They Like Us? Climate Change Skeptics and Their Discontents

The Environment

How do people become climate change skeptics?  Was it through manipulation by the Forces of Evil and/or Stupidity (e.g., Corporations, Republicans, Religion)? Did exposure to skeptical messages by these Forces lead them down the path of Doubt and Ignorance?  Or was it simple group identification – my friends are skeptics, ergo…?

As it turns out, a lot of skeptics say they used to be more concerned about climate change but exposure to the climate change activists and their dire messages convinced them that the threat of climate change was overstated. For instance,  in one study, several skeptics indicated the film “An Inconvenient Truth, “instigated or enhanced their skepticism”. Other skeptics were “inspired” by reading reports put out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which they saw as long on questionable computer models and short on actual evidence.

A common theme among skeptics is an initial aversion to climate change activists, followed by exploration of evidence and views at odds with the “consensus”, followed by increased skepticism. In other words, first they were turned off by the message of activists. Then they were turned on by the arguments of skeptics.

So why are climate change activists so repugnant to some people?  I’m thinking it’s mostly their perceived: 1) moral self-righteousness that imputes the character of those who disagree; 2) tone of certainty that exceeds the science; and, 3) exclusive focus on worst-case scenarios. Take “An Inconvenient truth” for instance. Its title alone invites resistance from anyone on the fence. The film basically trivializes skepticism as a matter of not wanting to be inconvenienced. Talk about character assassination! Anyone who disagrees with Al Gore is willing to destroy the planet to avoid walking to the grocery store or just putting on a sweater when the house is cold.  Impugning the character of non-believers is rarely a winning strategy for gaining converts.

Dire messaging about climate change, especially when delivered with a tone of certainty that exceeds the science, can backfire. Subjecting skeptics to vividly catastrophic climate scenarios won’t work – and might even increase their skepticism.  When there’s already a degree of mistrust, arguing on the basis of authority (the “consensus”) or relying on fear tactics increases distrust.

But that doesn’t mean that most skeptics are irrational or unconcerned. I predict if the evidence of global climate change gets stronger, many skeptics will change their tune. That doesn’t mean they’ll believe that catastrophe awaits unless drastic measures are taken – it just means more will accept there’s a problem.

Then, hopefully, we can move on and have vigorous arguments about what to do when, without character assassination or name calling.

Thoughts, Things, and Life

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

A thought is not an inert object. A thought is a living thing: it is both propelled and goal-directed. Thoughts bring into being the unanticipated. Thoughts activate neural connections and open up worlds. Reducing thoughts to objects takes the life out of them – stops them in their tracks, unable to continue on their path, spread activation, and open up worlds.

Sometimes we want them to stop – but that is a matter of the particular case, not a general rule.

Thoughts and Choking

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Linguistic conventions keep tripping me up when I write about thoughts and thinking. It sounds like there is a little homunculus in the head listening to thoughts, encouraging them to proceed, or directing them to more worthwhile topics. Often if you try to do anything to or with thoughts, the thinking process will  stall. Just like with “choking” in sports: if you pay the wrong kind of attention to an action, you will disrupt its fluid unfolding.

Some behaviors are best performed on autopilot; scrutinizing them stops their flow. Behaviors require attentional resources, but this doesn’t mean the behavior itself should be the main object of attention. To focus on a behavior is to withdraw attentional resources that are best directed elsewhere – as required for the behavior to be successfully performed.  Baseball pitchers need to be aware of where they want the ball to go, which is impossible if they are focusing on the micro-movements of their throwing arm. The attentional field of speakers includes the facial expressions and movements of their listeners.

Focus on the thought and close off access to the well of inspiration that continually feeds into the thought. Focus on the thought and stop the thought. But the water will resume flowing soon enough.

Thoughts and Mood

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Some thoughts and thought-streams lead to slightly lower mood – so what? A slightly lower mood isn’t the end of the world. If a line of thought leads to identification of problems, unresolved issues or as yet unrealized goals, fine – that realization may not make you jump for joy, but it’s still good to know. Going from an 8 to a 6 on the happiness scale isn’t a tragedy. Occasionally dipping down to 3 or 4 on the happiness scale doesn’t portend general unhappiness.

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? The Question Phase – Part III: Healthcare

Politics and Economics

Ideal # 3: Everyone has a right to healthcare

  1. Where does one draw the line between healthcare that is a right and healthcare that is not a right?
  2. Who decides which procedures and treatments will be provided as a right?
  3. How much is cost a factor in determining what is and is not a healthcare right?
  4. How much do other factors determine how much cost is a factor? For instance, how much does the probability of positive outcomes impact how much cost the right will bear? Or the seriousness of the condition?
  5. What kinds of positive outcomes are within the right? And what determines the degree of positive outcome that falls within the right? For instance, if pain relief – how much pain relief given cost and probability of effectiveness?  Or, if improved mental health, how much mental health is enough?
  6. If a condition is chronic and incurable but not terminal, how much treatment for that condition falls within the right?
  7. How much preventive healthcare falls within the right?

The questions here are mostly about where you draw the line. Moral to this story: there is always a line. Moral posturing is always easier than implementing policy.

 

Believing is What?

Explorations Outside the Box

What exactly is a ‘belief’?  The dictionary says, to believe is to have confidence or faith in the truth of something.

People  may ‘hold’ beliefs or ‘entertain’ them. To hold is to adhere or remain steadfast. To hold is to continue in the relationship – to be committed. To entertain is to be in an uncommitted relationship.

Do beliefs actually exist inside our heads?

Or are they more convenient labels for a broad range of mental products and processes?

How much thought goes into beliefs?

How stable are beliefs? From a matter of milliseconds to a lifetime?

(Maybe beliefs are momentary blips in the spreading activation. Associations. Memories. Transitory appraisals. More a snapshot in an ongoing stream…What comes to mind in certain situations. Or maybe they come and go, or the conviction with which they are held comes and goes.)

How unchallenged are beliefs within the person?

How deeply held are beliefs?

How much do beliefs motivate behavior?

How much does behavior motivate beliefs?

How much do questions about beliefs give rise to beliefs?

Does asking about a person’s  beliefs create a mental scrambling to express something coherent, something that will pass as a belief?

Does the belief exist before the question?

What are the effects of labeling something a ‘belief’?

What’s the difference between beliefs, assumptions, and suppositions?

Want to Convert a Climate Change Skeptic? Some Basics Rules of Thumb

Scientific Encounters, The Environment

Basic Rule of Thumb #1: if the person you are trying to persuade doesn’t like or trust you, continuing to insist that catastrophic climate change will definitely happen without major self-sacrifice, when that can’t be known for sure, basically erodes trust even further. By “you”, I mean the category to which you have been assigned.  For many climate change skeptics, that would be “environmental activist” or “climate change alarmist”.

Basic Rule of Thumb #2: don’t assume all climate change skeptics are the same. According to various surveys, few skeptics are “strong skeptics” – those convinced it’s all a bunch of hogwash and don’t care what the “consensus” is. More are “lukewarmers” or moderate skeptics, who take exception to some part of the message: how much the climate is likely to change, various  inadequacies of climate change models, or what needs to be done to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.

Basic Rule of Thumb #3: don’t assume climate change skeptics are simply ignorant. Skeptics are about  as knowledgeable as those who accept the “consensus”. Interestingly, many skeptics report they used to be more concerned about climate change but became skeptical upon further study.

Basic Rule of Thumb #4: just because strong emotions are involved doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid point behind the emotions. Try to understand and respect that point. You can still stand your ground.

References:

Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 614–626. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1983 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

Matthews, Paul (2015) Why Are People Skeptical about Climate Change? Some Insights from Blog Comments, Environmental Communication , 9:2, 153-168, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2014.999694 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.999694

Election 2016: Chapter 2: Climate Change and Energy Issues  (“Views about climate change are roughly the same regardless of level of science knowledge. There are no differences in views between those with a degree in a scientific field and those with training in other fields.” )  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-2-climate-change-and-energy-issues/

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? The Question Phase – Part II: Safe Living Conditions

Explorations Outside the Box, Politics and Economics

Ideal # 2: Everyone has a right to safe and sanitary living conditions

Questions (focusing on ‘safety’ only):

  1. Re-wording ‘safety’ as protection from danger, what types of dangers should we be protected from?
  2. What types of dangers should be tolerated?
  3. How much danger should be tolerated within each category of danger?
  4. Should more vulnerable individuals have greater protections For instance, children or mentally ill persons?
  5. What at are the principles involved in affording vulnerable individuals greater protections?
  6. At what point in the vulnerability continuum does a person no longer qualify for extra protection? Why there?
  7. Where does choice enter the equation of dangers everyone should have the right to be protected from? For instance, should people be physically prevented from exercising their choice to enter a dangerous area, say, an abandoned building with rotting floors?
  8. What would be reasonable measures to physically prevent a person from acting on their choices to endanger themselves?
  9. What would be sufficient warning of danger? What physical barriers would be sufficient? What makes something sufficient?
  10. How much probability of harm is needed to label something as unsafe?

Well, it’s a beginning. As always, the devil’s in the details.

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? Questions/Part I: Housing

Politics and Economics

Ideal #1: Everyone has access to affordable housing

Let the questions begin!

  1. What does ‘access’ mean?  Does it mean everyone can be housed if they so choose to be housed?   What if they so choose not to be housed?   What if they choose to be housed in a way that violated other ideals, like the right of everyone else to live in safe and sanitary conditions?
  2. What does ‘access’ mean?   Does it mean housing is guaranteed in certain metro area?   Or that it’s available somewhere in the country, but you might have to move to redeem your access?   Or that everyone also has a right to not have to commute more than a certain amount to work (combination time/money)?
  3. Is a certain housing size or number of bedrooms per person also a right?
  4. Does this mean subsidized housing?
  5. How would the housing materialize?   Will the housing become available through expansion in the housing stock?   What if adding housing in an area reduces the quality of life in an area?  What is ‘quality of life’? How much quality should be guaranteed to existing residents?   Who gets to decide?  Should existing residents has a say in how much housing development there is in their neighborhood? Why? Why Not? How much?
  6. How does one keep a stock of affordable housing available when housing supply and demand is constantly changing?   Does it need to be available everywhere?   If not, where does it have to be available?
  7. Should assistance to low-income households be specific to housing or simply general income/tax credit assistance so that they can afford housing?   If income assistance, what happens if individuals spend their money unwisely and still don’t have enough for housing?
  8. Since housing stock is mostly privately developed and owned, how does one incentivize property developers and owners to provide affordable housing?
  9. How does one guarantee the right to affordable housing without overbuilding affordable units that are then left vacant and create blight?
  10. Does the right to affordable housing mean not having to live with unrelated persons, i.e., roommates? Should families have the right not to have to take in boarders?

Those are top-of-the-head questions. Moral: the devil’s in the details.