Search For Home Led Suspect To Land Marred by Strife by David M. Herszenhorn and Andrew Roth. The New York Times. April, 21, 2013.
Boston Marathon Bombings: Turn to Religion Split Bomb Suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Home by Alan Cullison, Paul Sonene, Anton Troianovski, and David George-Cosh. The Wall Street Journal. April 22, 2013.
These two excellent overviews provide religious, cultural, and political context for the actions of the accused Boston Marathon bombers. The question remains however of what in the final analysis, motivated the brothers to take action. Here are some questions for consideration focusing on the brothers' US citizenship applications:
Could granting of citizenship to Dzhokhar while consigning Tamerlan to "pending" status be at least part of that motivation?
Could Dzhokhar have viewed the "pending" status given to his brother as a humiliation to the person he so deeply admired?
Could Dzhokhar have viewed his own successful application in light of his brother's pending status as more an insult to his brother than a personal honor or attainment for himself?
Could Dzhokhar have been subject to taunts from his brother for attaining citizenship while he was delayed in "pending" status?
Could Tamerlan have used his brother's citizenship as a tool to coerce loyalty from Dzhokhar? "Do you love me or do you love this country which questions my access to citizenship?"
Could Tamerlan used this reasoning to coerce Dzhokhar into actions that were out of character, the character as described by his classmates?
While these questions are worth consideration in the final analysis there can probably be no explanation for such an event as the Boston Marathon massacre. We would probably not be able to understand an explanation even if we were to hear it.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Lack Of Knowledge Provides Tremendous Opportunity To Distort Public Policy
Don't Know Much About Gun Laws by Joel Benenson and Katie Connolly. The New York Times. April 6, 2013.
A brief, and I am certain not nearly complete, overview of some of the misperceptions about gun laws. The significance of lack of knowledge and misperception is that they provide a tremendous opportunity to shape public policy in ways contrary to facts and rationality. For those who wish to shape policy in accord with facts and rationality, it is important to systematically identify the prevailing illusions in order to develop strategies to counter them.
It is important therefore for political polling to focus on prevailing misperceptions as well as specific patterns of lack of knowledge. For example, how perceptions of spending compares with actual spending is vital for effective fiscal advocacy. How the perception of the Constitution compares with the actual Constitution is important in presenting legal arguments. How prevailing perceptions of inequality compare with actual inequality is vital across a range of issues. How
Would it be unreasonable for media organizations to incorporate in their reporting a systematic effort to identify prevailing factual misunderstandings and illusions to address the information needs of the readership?
Illusion is too important to ignore.
A brief, and I am certain not nearly complete, overview of some of the misperceptions about gun laws. The significance of lack of knowledge and misperception is that they provide a tremendous opportunity to shape public policy in ways contrary to facts and rationality. For those who wish to shape policy in accord with facts and rationality, it is important to systematically identify the prevailing illusions in order to develop strategies to counter them.
It is important therefore for political polling to focus on prevailing misperceptions as well as specific patterns of lack of knowledge. For example, how perceptions of spending compares with actual spending is vital for effective fiscal advocacy. How the perception of the Constitution compares with the actual Constitution is important in presenting legal arguments. How prevailing perceptions of inequality compare with actual inequality is vital across a range of issues. How
Would it be unreasonable for media organizations to incorporate in their reporting a systematic effort to identify prevailing factual misunderstandings and illusions to address the information needs of the readership?
Illusion is too important to ignore.
Communicating The Urgency Of Climate Change Faces Numerous Barriers
Democrats and Republicans Differ On Conspiracy Theory Beliefs. Public Policy Polling. April 2, 2013.
Blowing Hot And Cold: U.S. Belief In Climate Change Shifts With Weather. Science Daily. February 5, 2013.
Communicating the reality of climate change is proving to be a formidable problem despite the general scientific consensus on the issue. It is a problem that uniquely combines considerations of body, mind, and politics.
From one perspective the problem is a difficulty in resolving the inputs derived from the body, i.e. feelings of cold and warmth, with a conflicting theoretical framework, a mental construct, that may conflict with the bodily inputs.
To illustrate that conflict is "Blowing Hot And Cold," a summary of research from scientists at the University of British Columbia. These researchers found evidence that, in the study period between 1990 and 2010, headline-making weather strongly influenced climate beliefs. Significantly, they found the strongest influence of local weather on those who did not hold strong convictions for or against climate change though even opinion leaders were also apparently influenced by local weather.
Climate change advocates face significant difficulties in dealing with a conflict between the senses and mind. After all there is a deep history of evolutionary success in the following logic: when it seems cold, it is cold; when it seems hot, it is hot. No further thought has traditionally been required. "Seeing a big picture" was not required. Indeed further thought in the past would have been risky in addition to being completely unnecessary. Now things are different and advocates need innovative strategies. Here are five that occur to me:
(1) Of course education into the fundamentals and theory of climate change is key. This education should emphasize how sense input and climate system significance will sometimes conflict. Education in complex systems thinking along with developing multidimensional perspectives to problems would help.
(2) Find opportunities with individuals in the "mushy middle." Since these individuals have a record of changing their mind along with the weather, they are at least open to persuasion. They lack dogmatic opinions that could serve as a obstacle.
(3) Focus on those with an interest in and capacity for abstract analytical thought and paradox. Students could be a subset of this group. With flexible minds and exposure to critical and systems thinking in schools, some of them are potentially open to the paradoxical idea that the world of immediate sensation is not always the complete story.
(4) Utilize teachable moments. Climate-related events may cause some to escape lethargy and embrace new perspectives. Teachable moments may be the only way some not accustomed to analytical thought and paradox will be persuaded. Each demographic, behavioral, and political group will have a unique teachable moment. Advocates will need the intellectual flexibility to identify and utilize those moments.
(5) Build upon patterns. The lessons of teachable moments often fade. Education in patterns will reenforce and build upon the teachable moments. Developing and encouraging memory is important, probably essential, since climate change is itself a complex pattern. However, sensitivity to audience is key. Complexity may overwhelm, not persuade.
Perhaps an even more difficult obstacle to successful communication of the reality of climate change is found in the political realm. Illustrated in a Public Policy Institute poll released on April 2, this difficult is starkly presented: 37% of respondents thought global warming is a hoax; 12% are not sure; 51% disagree. Also included in this poll was the disturbing information that 13% of Americans thought that Barack Obama was the Antichrist, while 13% were not sure. While it may be assuring that 73% of the American people thought that Obama was not the Antichrist, it is somewhat disconcerting that a quarter of the population believes or is not sure that he is. How can one deal with this appalling situation where rational thought has been cast aside by many? (Obviously there is a different between thinking theories of climate change/global warming are incorrect and thinking they are a hoax. Those who believe that the theories are incorrect can marshall rational evidence and discuss alternative perspectives. As a result of that distinction they contrast with those who subscribe to the "hoax" belief.)
Perhaps the most logical approach is focus on the persuadables while minimizing the potential for damage from others. In this task a variety of electoral, social media, marketing, and psychological strategies are called for to appeal to those whose views "change with the weather." As pointed out by a letter writer to the New York Times, a better name, such as "climate instability" would perhaps help. By more precisely capturing the nature of the phenomena, the persuadables would have a more effective anchor for belief. Labels have consequences and perhaps this one could help.
Of course, there is the political system as it is presently configured. That is another even more difficult topic.
Blowing Hot And Cold: U.S. Belief In Climate Change Shifts With Weather. Science Daily. February 5, 2013.
Communicating the reality of climate change is proving to be a formidable problem despite the general scientific consensus on the issue. It is a problem that uniquely combines considerations of body, mind, and politics.
From one perspective the problem is a difficulty in resolving the inputs derived from the body, i.e. feelings of cold and warmth, with a conflicting theoretical framework, a mental construct, that may conflict with the bodily inputs.
To illustrate that conflict is "Blowing Hot And Cold," a summary of research from scientists at the University of British Columbia. These researchers found evidence that, in the study period between 1990 and 2010, headline-making weather strongly influenced climate beliefs. Significantly, they found the strongest influence of local weather on those who did not hold strong convictions for or against climate change though even opinion leaders were also apparently influenced by local weather.
Climate change advocates face significant difficulties in dealing with a conflict between the senses and mind. After all there is a deep history of evolutionary success in the following logic: when it seems cold, it is cold; when it seems hot, it is hot. No further thought has traditionally been required. "Seeing a big picture" was not required. Indeed further thought in the past would have been risky in addition to being completely unnecessary. Now things are different and advocates need innovative strategies. Here are five that occur to me:
(1) Of course education into the fundamentals and theory of climate change is key. This education should emphasize how sense input and climate system significance will sometimes conflict. Education in complex systems thinking along with developing multidimensional perspectives to problems would help.
(2) Find opportunities with individuals in the "mushy middle." Since these individuals have a record of changing their mind along with the weather, they are at least open to persuasion. They lack dogmatic opinions that could serve as a obstacle.
(3) Focus on those with an interest in and capacity for abstract analytical thought and paradox. Students could be a subset of this group. With flexible minds and exposure to critical and systems thinking in schools, some of them are potentially open to the paradoxical idea that the world of immediate sensation is not always the complete story.
(4) Utilize teachable moments. Climate-related events may cause some to escape lethargy and embrace new perspectives. Teachable moments may be the only way some not accustomed to analytical thought and paradox will be persuaded. Each demographic, behavioral, and political group will have a unique teachable moment. Advocates will need the intellectual flexibility to identify and utilize those moments.
(5) Build upon patterns. The lessons of teachable moments often fade. Education in patterns will reenforce and build upon the teachable moments. Developing and encouraging memory is important, probably essential, since climate change is itself a complex pattern. However, sensitivity to audience is key. Complexity may overwhelm, not persuade.
Perhaps an even more difficult obstacle to successful communication of the reality of climate change is found in the political realm. Illustrated in a Public Policy Institute poll released on April 2, this difficult is starkly presented: 37% of respondents thought global warming is a hoax; 12% are not sure; 51% disagree. Also included in this poll was the disturbing information that 13% of Americans thought that Barack Obama was the Antichrist, while 13% were not sure. While it may be assuring that 73% of the American people thought that Obama was not the Antichrist, it is somewhat disconcerting that a quarter of the population believes or is not sure that he is. How can one deal with this appalling situation where rational thought has been cast aside by many? (Obviously there is a different between thinking theories of climate change/global warming are incorrect and thinking they are a hoax. Those who believe that the theories are incorrect can marshall rational evidence and discuss alternative perspectives. As a result of that distinction they contrast with those who subscribe to the "hoax" belief.)
Perhaps the most logical approach is focus on the persuadables while minimizing the potential for damage from others. In this task a variety of electoral, social media, marketing, and psychological strategies are called for to appeal to those whose views "change with the weather." As pointed out by a letter writer to the New York Times, a better name, such as "climate instability" would perhaps help. By more precisely capturing the nature of the phenomena, the persuadables would have a more effective anchor for belief. Labels have consequences and perhaps this one could help.
Of course, there is the political system as it is presently configured. That is another even more difficult topic.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Doctoral Dissertation Idea: A Voting Test For Male Microchimerism In The Female Brain?
Male Microchimerism In The Human Female Brain by William F. N. Chan, Cecile Gumot, Thomas J. Montine, Joshua A. Sonnen, Katherine A. Guthrie, J. Lee Nelson. PLOS ONE.
The You In Me by Sam Kean. Psychology Today. March 11, 2103.
Some Women Actually Have Men On The Brain by Melissa Healy. Los Angeles Times. September 12, 2012.
Here is a doctoral dissertation idea for an ambitious student with interests in politics, genetics, voter behavior, and decision making. It probably wouldn't hurt to have access to big-time computing resources and big data voter information.
Male Microchimerism In The Human Female Brain for the first time examined the presence of male genes in the human female brain, genes that originated by fetal exposure.
Could the presence of male genes in female brains have behavioral effects?
In this small scale study, the male genes seem to be related in some way to Alzheimer's. Could there be other behavioral effects? Could the presence of male genes influence, along some presently-unknown dimension, female behavior to be more similar to male behavior?
If so this possibility could help explain an established pattern in voter behavior. It is well-known--with the last Presidential election as a prime example--that married women tend to vote Republican more often than single women. In addition, the key point of inflection for married couples to voting Republican is the birth of the first child.
Why is this so? A process of socialization can explain much, but probably not all, of this change. Could a methodology be developed to factor out socialization and individual decision making based upon changed perspective to move toward identifying the unknown factors? Could male microchimerism in the human female brain be one of these unknown factors that changed voting behavior?
Could demographic voting data (marital status, number and sex of children, order of birth of children, timing of birth of children) be analyzed to provide at least a partial explanation to the change in voting behavior by linking with the possible of male micochimerism in the female?
Could controls be established to eliminate or minimize the socialization/change in individual decision perspective that confounding a possible effects of that micochimerism?
We know that modern political campaigns develop vast data banks about voters. The Obama campaign for example believes it knows the name of every voter who voted for Barack Obama. I am intrigued by the possibility that, while presidential campaigns are utilizing more behavioral as opposed to demographic data, the vast demographic data that they possess could be useful to shed light on brain science? After all this is decision making on a big scale.
Perhaps identifying micochimerism as a component factor of married female voting behavior could provide some information of marginal value in targeting married women with children for effective political appeals. There also could be potential benefits in identifying women who might be interested in products and services that are traditionally associated with males. From the brain science perspective, such research could link a physical act, voting, with a bodily feature, the presence of an unusually placed gene.
Interesting, isn't it, that the Romney's raised five boys while the Obama's raised two girls and those family profiles were reflected in voting patterns? Maybe something significant is happening here.
The You In Me by Sam Kean. Psychology Today. March 11, 2103.
Some Women Actually Have Men On The Brain by Melissa Healy. Los Angeles Times. September 12, 2012.
Here is a doctoral dissertation idea for an ambitious student with interests in politics, genetics, voter behavior, and decision making. It probably wouldn't hurt to have access to big-time computing resources and big data voter information.
Male Microchimerism In The Human Female Brain for the first time examined the presence of male genes in the human female brain, genes that originated by fetal exposure.
Could the presence of male genes in female brains have behavioral effects?
In this small scale study, the male genes seem to be related in some way to Alzheimer's. Could there be other behavioral effects? Could the presence of male genes influence, along some presently-unknown dimension, female behavior to be more similar to male behavior?
If so this possibility could help explain an established pattern in voter behavior. It is well-known--with the last Presidential election as a prime example--that married women tend to vote Republican more often than single women. In addition, the key point of inflection for married couples to voting Republican is the birth of the first child.
Why is this so? A process of socialization can explain much, but probably not all, of this change. Could a methodology be developed to factor out socialization and individual decision making based upon changed perspective to move toward identifying the unknown factors? Could male microchimerism in the human female brain be one of these unknown factors that changed voting behavior?
Could demographic voting data (marital status, number and sex of children, order of birth of children, timing of birth of children) be analyzed to provide at least a partial explanation to the change in voting behavior by linking with the possible of male micochimerism in the female?
Could controls be established to eliminate or minimize the socialization/change in individual decision perspective that confounding a possible effects of that micochimerism?
We know that modern political campaigns develop vast data banks about voters. The Obama campaign for example believes it knows the name of every voter who voted for Barack Obama. I am intrigued by the possibility that, while presidential campaigns are utilizing more behavioral as opposed to demographic data, the vast demographic data that they possess could be useful to shed light on brain science? After all this is decision making on a big scale.
Perhaps identifying micochimerism as a component factor of married female voting behavior could provide some information of marginal value in targeting married women with children for effective political appeals. There also could be potential benefits in identifying women who might be interested in products and services that are traditionally associated with males. From the brain science perspective, such research could link a physical act, voting, with a bodily feature, the presence of an unusually placed gene.
Interesting, isn't it, that the Romney's raised five boys while the Obama's raised two girls and those family profiles were reflected in voting patterns? Maybe something significant is happening here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)