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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)