Just another WordPress site

Category: Public Discourse

  • “How can you hate me if you don’t even know me?” Daryl Davis and the KKK

    “How can you hate me if you don’t even know me?” Daryl Davis and the KKK

    In the last post I flagged a practical example of reducing inter-group communication to inter-personal relationships, and here it is. A few weeks ago I was down a Reddit rabbit hole and came across this AMA from Daryl Davis. In it he discusses his documentary ‘Accidental Courtesy‘ that documents his relationship over the years with members of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). After having a read through the pages of the AMA, I was intrigued and watched the documentary on Netflix.

    One poignant moment in the documentary is where he talks about his motivation for cultivating friendships with Klansmen. There the overriding question he asks is “How can you hate me if you don’t even know me?” From sitting down in a bar with Klansmen, to being invited into their home, this question—and the associated interpersonal interaction—drives the conversation at hand. The results show how successful it is, as Davis displays a wardrobe full of Klan robes that were given to him after members had left the Klan.

    Daryl Davis’ documentary is a strong example of the theory that we talked about in the last post. He is actively reducing inter-group interaction to inter-personal interaction by face-to-face contact and conversation.

    A couple of points from his AMA are worth repeating. He writes:

    While you are actively learning about someone else, realize that you are passively teaching them about yourself. Be honest and respectful to them, regardless of how offensive you may find them. You can let them know your disagreement but not in an offensive manner.

    Don’t be afraid to invite someone with a different opinion to your table. If everyone in your group agrees with one another and you shun those who don’t agree, how will anything ever change? You are doing nothing more than preaching to the choir.

    When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting, they are talking. They may be yelling and screaming and pounding their fist on the table in disagreement to drive home their point, but at least they are talking. It is when the talking ceases, that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So, KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING.

    I highly recommend the documentary, which is available on Netflix: Accidental Courtesy. Its a good approach, and while it is focused on race relations in America, the concepts behind it are broadly applicable. If you don’t have Netflix, then NPR have an interview with Davis up here: http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes The AMA on Reddit also contains some absolute gold from Davis and others.

  • That Cooper’s ‘Keeping it Light’ Ad… what it got wrong and what is so very right.

    That Cooper’s ‘Keeping it Light’ Ad… what it got wrong and what is so very right.

    I’ve been meaning to write about this since March, when the original Coopers ‘Keeping it Light’ ad aired, but haven’t got around to it until now. However, I think that the take home points from that ad are just as relevant now—and perhaps even more relevant with the postal survey about to close.

    For those who may have missed the furore—or more realistically are reading this from overseas, as it was pretty hard to miss here in Australia—it goes something like this. Coopers partners with the Bible Society Australia to produce a line of commemoratively tagged cans under the “Keeping it Light” slogan, and subsequently filmed an ad featuring two Liberal party MPs discussing Same Sex Marriage. Perhaps unsurprisingly this didn’t go down well with the general public, and after just a few days the entire campaign was pulled (campaign archive here). So, then, what are the take home points from this furore? Well, here are some things that the ad got very wrong, and one thing it actually got right.

    Getting it Wrong

    Perhaps the biggest thing that the ad got wrong was the overall tone of the discourse. By placing it within the context of a ‘light discussion’ the creative team behind the ad severely undercut the discourse that happened within the ‘debate’—the tone and content of which frankly was pretty mild. Primarily, this is because the topic of same sex marriage in Australia is considered—as in many other countries—a heavy topic, and one that evidently is serious enough to spend $122M on (don’t get me started on that). But to pitch it as a ‘light discussion’ was sorely misguided.

    Secondly though was the choice of conversation partners, in Liberal MPs Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie. While the MPs do helpfully hold different positions, and Tim Wilson self-declares as same-sex attracted, they are notably both from the same party. That same party that has been notoriously resistant to allowing any discourse on the issue entirely. By pitching the debate as ‘light’ and between two members entrenched in a party that has traditionally disallowed this discussion both of the conversation partners are immediately categorised as part of a group that is negatively associated with same-sex marriage—despite Wilson’s own stated views.

    These two factors probably explain much of why the ad received so much negative attention and subsequent backlash. Leaving off the whole concept of light beer in the first place, which is a serious mispitch anyway.

    What it got Right

    However, not all is lost. Despite the massive failings of the ad, it did get one thing right: face-to-face discussions. Much of modern social discourse is conducted over relatively impersonal mediums such as social media. This goes for the SSM postal survey as much as it does for political debate (see Trump), and debates over race and gender. While these mediums give some semblance of interpersonal interaction, they lack much of the emotional engagement that interpersonal contact generates, as we have discussed here.

    What the Coopers ad gets right is that face-to-face one-on-one interaction defuses much of the group identity that is present on social media, and promotes interpersonal interaction instead. It, as social-identity theorists put it, reduces the salience of inter-group interaction, and increases the salience of inter-personal interaction. [ref]Haslam, S. Alexander. Psychology in Organizations. SAGE, 2004.,23[/ref] Why is this important? Well much of the literature on change of attitude in conflicting social groups emphasises that most of the change happens at an individual level, rather than at a social group level. Indeed, interaction at a group level ‘increases the perceived homogeneity of outgroups and consensus among the ingroup.’ Effectively entrenching views within those social groups.

    Perhaps then the take home from the Coopers ad is that if you really want to change someones mind on a contentious social-group issue, sit down with them face-to-face as individuals. Easy? No. But worthwhile. Just don’t use light beer. The next post in this series will focus on a practical example of this.

  • Complex Thinking – a skill sorely needed

    Complex Thinking – a skill sorely needed

    Came across this post today on applying Complex Thinking to current events. These six tenets that Michèle espouses are a great framework for engaging with the bevy of complex debates in our modern society.
    Patience, Effort, Courage, Retrospection, Tension and Thoughtfulness are all required across our debates in the public square–and especially in the private sphere. No matter your position on religion, politics, or even sport; all are required in greater measure.
    As she writes:

    I believe in Complex Thinking. And it is the antithesis of knee-jerk reacting. It requires the kind of emotional and intellectual self-control that feels insensitive under such heartrending circumstances.

    I highly recommend her post, go read it here: http://michelephoenix.com/2017/09/wheaton-college-complex-thinking/

  • Does Social Media help our Debate? – The Medium is the Message

    Does Social Media help our Debate? – The Medium is the Message

    This is the second of four (possibly more) posts in which I consider how our shift to social media as the forum of the polis affects our arguments.

    As we get deeper and deeper into this social media age, the question I often return to is whether or not social media helps or hinders our debate in this new digital ‘public square.’

    A while ago a colleague was doing some research using eye tracking while participants looked at websites, and as an aside noted that many participants actively looked at other links on the screen, rather than the primary content of the website.[ref]Research was published as Benjamin Stone, ‘Using LSA Semantic Fields to Predict Eye Movement on Web Pages’, International Journal of Human-computer Studies 69/11 (2011): 720–740.[/ref] This seemed to indicate that people were more interested in finding another page and source of information than processing the information in front of them.

    https://xkcd.com/386/

    This serves as a helpful reminder of Marshall McLuhan’s thesis that it isn’t merely the message that determines attention and retention, but the medium of the message holds salience even within CMC.  In this case the very nature of reading articles and even books on a digital device reduces attention span within the overall populace. We should not be surprised when users interact with only a mere snippet of material, while ignoring the rest of the argument.

    In combination with the sheer volume of information available, this has significant detrimental effects. In sorting and filtering through the ever expanding sea of information, our heuristics to detect the ever dwindling signal to noise ratio have to become far coarser. In doing so our modern culture has condensed the information gathering process into a series of bite sized snippets. News articles have been condensed from the long-form essay, to short columns, and then pithy snippets, shared on Facebook, condensed into 140 character tweets, and subsequently regurgitated as 2-3 second sound bites. This reduction in information length has seen a corresponding reduction in the average attention span for all media; and the reduction doesn’t appear to be merely an expression of ‘the Elvis Hypothesis.'[ref]The Elvis bias is essentially an inverted appeal to novelty fallacy, or a modified appeal to tradition. Karina J. Linnell et al., ‘Urbanization decreases attentional engagement.’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 39/5 (2013): 1232–1247.[/ref]

    Ultimately, I think that engaging in public debate on social media may be a low return proposition, as a minimal amount of argument is engaged with, and much is skipped over rapidly, and this isn’t even considering the ‘echo chamber’ like filtering that many social media companies engage in.[ref]https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/[/ref]

    So, is there any point in public debate on social media? Is my writing and publishing of this piece (on social media) a futile exercise? Not quite, as we will see in future posts. But the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

  • Why I am becoming convinced that bifurcated argument on Social Media is detrimental

    Why I am becoming convinced that bifurcated argument on Social Media is detrimental

    During this current ‘not-plebicite’ season I have been asked several times on various social media platforms as to what my position on various aspects of the debate are. But, apart from one more sleep deprived enquiry about jurisprudence, I have decided that I won’t be posting on the topic. More than this, I am becoming convinced for a few reasons that the place for extended debate is not on social media.

    Much of this has come from revisiting some research I was involved in back when Tom was the ‘first friend’ you had, and Facebook was in its infancy (ok, it was 2006). Most of this research involved evaluating hugely expensive telepresence solutions such as the HP Halo system as means of improving computer mediated communication (CMC).

    Two aspects of this research I will briefly consider–and most of this post is drawn from a paper I wrote back in 2015, so some bits are dated, and it is written for academic presentation. On the upside there are footnotes 😉

    Emotional Confusion

    The first aspect is emotional confusion, which is often present within textual communication is often parodied in mainstream media. From the innocently worded text message being read in an unintended tone, to the innocuous social media message eliciting murderous responses. See that classic Key and Peele sketch on text message confusion here (language warning). The situations are so often parodied because they are highly relatable, many, if not all, of us have had similar experiences before. Why? Why does text on a screen elicit such powerful emotive responses, when the same message in other forms barely registers a tick on the Abraham-Hicks. Studies have shown that it is the sociality, or social presence of the medium that provides the best insight into the emotional regulation that can be so diversely represented in CMC.[ref]Antony S. R. Manstead, Martin Lea, and Jeannine Goh, ‘Facing the future: emotion communication and the presence of others in the age of video-mediated communication’, in Face-To-Face Communication over the Internet (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction; Cambridge University Press, 2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977589.009.[/ref] Specifically in our case it is the factors of physical visibility, or more precisely, the lack thereof that impact on emotional regulation. When engaging in social interaction an enormous amount of social cues are communicated non-verbally, through facial features and mannerisms. Of course with CMC the majority of these are removed, and those that remain are relegated to the domain of various emoticons and emoji. Notably this devaluation of the majority of non-verbal social cues serves to reduce the salience of social presence, and therefore the corresponding salience of the interaction partner. It is this effect that has led several companies, including my previous employer, to invest millions into virtual telepresence systems in an attempt to mitigate the loss of visual cues and the salience of interpersonal interaction.

    What does that mean? Well in essence the vast majority of social cues for interpersonal interaction are removed on social media, and it is this context that assists in evaluating the emotional content of the message. From a social identity perspective Spears et al. found that within CMC based interactions both in-group and out-group salience and bounds were profoundly strengthened, and inter-group conflict was heightened.[ref]Russell Spears et al., ‘Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance The Strategic Side of SIDE’, Small Group Research 33/5 (2002): 555–574.[/ref] Furthermore, the degree of expression of these conflicts was also heightened along with the corresponding in-group solidarity expressions. Essentially, the majority of CMC interactions serve to strengthen positions, rather than act as bridges for meaningful communication. For more on that see my post a while ago on the Backfire Effect.

    Emotional Regulation

    The other side of this comes in terms of emotional regulation. On this Castella et al. studied the interactions found between CMC, video conferencing and face-to-face mediums and interestingly found that not only is there a heightened level of emotive behaviour for a non-visual CMC interaction.[ref]V. Orengo Castellá et al., ‘The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media’, Computers in Human Behavior 16/2 (2000): 141–159.[/ref] But also found that the emotive behaviour was significantly negatively biased. So it is not merely a heightening of all emotions, but as Derks et al also observed it ‘suggest[s] that positive emotions are expressed to the same extent as in F2F interactions, and that more intense negative emotions are even expressed more overtly in CMC.'[ref]Daantje Derks, Agneta H. Fischer, and Arjan E. R. Bos, ‘The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review’, Computers in Human Behavior 24/3 (2008): 766–785.[/ref]

    Ultimately when people are emotionally confused, in low physical presence environments, they tend to react emotionally–and predominantly negatively. Hence, the majority of emotional expressions that will be found in CMC will be negative reactions from the extremes of any dialectical spectrum.

    What is the outcome of all of this then? Well simply put the very mechanism of computer mediated social media interacts with our own natural cognitive biases and produces an outcome that is predisposed towards burning bridges rather than building them. And this even before any considerations of social media echo chambers have been made (thats another post for another time).

    Where to?

    Sure, there will be always a plethora of anecdotal counters, but given human predisposition I think there is a better way. For me that better way is in person, in a setting where we can explore any conversation at length. So, if you want my views on the majority of controversial topics out there, come and talk to me over a coffee or beer.

  • Attention or Distraction – More than just Getting Things Done

    Attention or Distraction – More than just Getting Things Done

    A few days ago I posted on Facebook an excerpt from a book highlighting that peak productivity usually occurs in periods of task isolation–where one may focus on a single task for longer stretches at a time. This excerpt concludes that

    To produce at your peak level you need to work for extended periods with full concentration on a single task free from distraction

    Much of this is due to the ‘attention residue’ that comes with switching tasks, we continue to think and process on the previous task for a while before really settling into the new task. So to increase productivity we should be focusing on single tasks for longer periods.

    6875893248_07146d1191_bThat is all well and good for periods of time, but what about when you are immersed in multiple tasks that need doing? Well I would suggest that we are often distracted by other things, that aren’t even task related. This second article popped up today and highlights the sort of digital Attention Deficit Disorder that we have created for ourselves. The attention residue that we are leaving behind when we switch from each micro-interaction to another is crippling–sometimes even physically. That article concludes with this poignant reflection:

    But this new epidemic of distraction is our civilization’s specific weakness. And its threat is not so much to our minds, even as they shape-shift under the pressure. The threat is to our souls. At this rate, if the noise does not relent, we might even forget we have any.

    What is it that you are being distracted by (perhaps even this), and what is it that you should be attentive to.

  • “The Buyearchy of Greeds?” – Why choosing your analogy is important.

    “The Buyearchy of Greeds?” – Why choosing your analogy is important.

     

    thebuyerarchyofneedRecently a friend shared an image that tried to visually highlight an ethical hierarchy using the now familiar Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This usual pyramid highlights the broad lower levels of ‘use what you have’ and ‘borrow,’ ascending to narrower upper levels culminating in ‘Buy’ and ostensibly imploring the viewer to buy less and ethically source more. However, there is a significant problem with this hierarchy as it stands, and it stems from the source material.

    Maslow’s hierarchy is used to designate the base level requirements—the ‘needs’—of an individual to find fulfilment, culminating in their personal ’self-actualisation.’ Each lower category in the hierarchy is a pre-requisite that needs to be fulfilled to achieve the next layer up.

     

    maslowshierarchy-copy
    From http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

    Which is why the plethora of modern interpretations that include ‘wifi’ as the base level (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=maslows+hierarchy+wifi) are so easily able to be understood as indicating that life cannot continue without these basic pre-requisites.

    The problem for this ‘Buyerarchy of Needs’ is that by basing their paradigm on that of Maslow hierarchy they are implying that the ‘Buy’ state represents the goal of human needs, and that borrowing and using what you have are only pre-requisite steps on the way to buying. Patently this is the inverse of what they are attempting to communicate, and they need to revise their metaphor. Because in this configuration it communicates far more of a ‘Buyerarchy of Greed’ than an ethical buying guide.

    I suspect that they have been confused with the other common hierarchy, that of the food pyramid, that is commonly represented in the same fashion.

    foodpyramid-copy
    Creative Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#/media/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif)

    In this paradigm the upper levels are smaller to convey that one should consume less of these items, and this finds great parallels with the intentions of the ethical buying pyramid.

    Ultimately this points to the need of choosing our analogies carefully, as a significant amount of our message relies on our audience’s prior understanding of the analogical source. In this case the use of Maslow’s hierarchy (likely because the author didn’t have a good grasp on Maslow) conveys a message completely opposite to the intention of the image. Choosing the right analogy here is critical as the wrong analogy will detract from the message—or undermine it at worst. Ultimately if a point is so severely undermined by the analogical presentation then either choose another analogy or don’t make the point at all.

    To end this on a positive note, here is likely what they were intending, with no apology to Maslow required:

    buyerarchypyramid

  • A Brilliant Cultural Analysis based on Classical Music

    A Brilliant Cultural Analysis based on Classical Music

    This article, although focused on classical music, at its core is a brilliant exposition and exegesis of the current state of affairs in our society.
    From the transience of experience and rampant individualism, through to a constantly thwarted search for Australian identity, the observations in the middle section are rich and incisive.

    “Last year, at my son’s primary school Christmas concert, the children did not sing a single Christmas carol. I thought this might have been because the word “Jesus” was verboten, but the principal later reassured me that it was not. …
    I had recently returned from Germany, where a woman had asked me whether Christmas in the Australian summer could possibly be gemütlich. I sang one of the confected Australian carols I had learned as a child…
    “Oh wow,” she marvelled. “That sounds really awkward.”

    This awkwardness was writ large at my son’s concert. It was a Christmas concert in search of identity; never mind Christ, there were not even any references to Christmases past. It spoke to me of a larger Australian malaise: because we dare not confront the realities of our own past, we prefer to imagine there was no past. Instead, we busy ourselves with our home renovations and hero ingredients, and forget the Western humanistic tradition. We celebrate culture if you can eat it. (If we do acknowledge a heritage, it is frequently one of failure: Gallipoli, the Eureka Stockade, a suicidal swagman. This might look like the championing of the underdog, but nothing in today’s national actions suggests that we champion the underdog.)”

    Its a long read, but worthwhile. Read it now: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/october/1443621600/anna-goldsworthy/lost-art-listening

  • Personal Stories and Narrative Identity

    Personal Stories and Narrative Identity

    Identity is a hot topic in our society, with regular articles on ‘How to find your identity’ and what identity means in a shifting culture. Advocates on all sides of the culture, gender and sexuality wars also appeal to identity as a core ideal worth defending. However, from the broad usage of ‘identity’ across these different scopes I get the feeling that many of these ‘dialogues’ are really talking cross-purposes and using different definitions of identity. So how do we think about identity?

    Well one of the helpful ways of thinking about various forms of identity is from the perspective of story telling. Simply put if you were to tell the story of your life how would you go about recounting it? What would you emphasise, and what would you leave out? Which events have shaped your life, and which have fallen by the wayside unnoticed? How do you integrate all the different facets and experiences that you have?

    I stumbled across an article over on the Atlantic that elaborates on some aspects of Narrative Identity from the perspective of telling our own personal story. It is a very useful way of figuring out identity issues, and as we struggle in a world that values identity highly, but doesn’t have a strong grasp on it, it will become invaluable. For Christians the value of Christian identity is similarly core, although just as tenuously grasped.

    This short snippet gives the gist of the article:

    In the realm of narrative psychology, a person’s life story is not a Wikipedia biography of the facts and events of a life, but rather the way a person integrates those facts and events internally—picks them apart and weaves them back together to make meaning. This narrative becomes a form of identity, in which the things someone chooses to include in the story, and the way she tells it, can both reflect and shape who she is.  A life story doesn’t just say what happened, it says why it was important, what it means for who the person is, for who they’ll become, and for what happens next.

    I highly recommend you go and read the rest: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/08/life-stories-narrative-psychology-redemption-mental-health/400796/

    In addition I will continue to be posting things on identity, gender and social identity in the next little while. Many of which will build on some of the concepts that I’m raising now.

    Let me know in the comments what you think of Narrative Identity.

  • Racism, Identity and Identities: a Question of Salience

    Racism, Identity and Identities: a Question of Salience

    Yesterday I had the time to read an excellent long form report from Gary Younge—a British reporter for the Guardian—on his upcoming departure from the United States, where he has been reporting for the past twelve years (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-farewell-to-america). Throughout his report he notes that the overwhelming reason for his imminent departure is the continual subtext of racism that he identifies as present in his environment. Now while there are a swathe of interesting observations and great points in his article, I want to focus on just one aspect: identity and racism.

    In amongst his reflections of the swirling maelstrom of race relations he recounts an exchange he had with his son while walking to school:

    Explaining the complex historical and social forces that make such a dance necessary is not easy at the best of times. Making them comprehensible to a child is nigh impossible without gross simplifications and cutting corners. Once, during our 10-minute walk to daycare, my son asked if we could take another route. “Why?” I asked.

    “Because that way they stop all the black boys,” he said.

    He was right. Roughly twice a week we would pass young black men being frisked or arrested, usually on the way home. He was also four, and until that point I was not aware that he had even noticed. I tried to make him feel safe.

    “Well don’t worry. You’re with me and they’re not going to stop us,” I told him.

    “Why not?” he asked.

    “Because we haven’t done anything,” I said.

    “What have they done?” he asked.

    He had me. From then on we took another route.

    In amongst all of the social issues going on and the complexity of issues on the street, his son has rapidly assessed the situation at hand and identified a core issue: blackness. However this isn’t merely an issue with the melanin content of skin, but of something deeper—an identity of blackness. But some would argue that Gary Younge doesn’t fit the typical stereotype for the target of racial interactions, he is educated, employed and is British, not American.

    Yet here is where I think the crux lies for our modern society. We don’t deal well with identity.

    Within Psychology the stream of questioning that addresses this area is logically called Identity Theory. As Stryker and Burke write:

    Identity theory began with questions about the origins of differential salience of identities in persons’ self-structures and why identity salience may change over time (e.g., Stryker 1968; Wells and Stryker 1988). These questions led to the development of theory concerning ways in which people are tied into social structure and the consequences of these ties for their identities. [ref]Stryker, Sheldon, and Peter J. Burke. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly, no. 4 (2000): 284-297, 287.[/ref]

    Sounds logical enough. Certainly for Younge, the black American population, and every one of us we are each tied into our social structures by our identities. Not just black or white, but father, student, worker, mother, wife, single, married, and many more.

    But in this case what matters is the salience of those identities. When Gary Younge receives an extra frisking at a checkpoint, or Trayvon Martin was shot dead, or any one of the myriad of instances of racial abuse, the identity factor that matters is mainly reduced to one aspect: race. The other identities just don’t matter. All the other identities: gender, education, family relations, are all ignored in favour of the identity that is perceived to be most salient: race.

    In this aspect we can see one of the issues: we are terrible at engaging with multiple identity factors, and seek to reduce them to a single factor. Be it race, sexuality, religion, or many more. In each encounter one identity factor will likely be more salient than the others, and correspondingly others will perceive one factor as more salient than the others in our lives.

    Perhaps then the real solution to racism isn’t how to reduce the identity based discrimination, but how to broaden the salience of the perception of identity factors. This is a topic that I intend to explore further on this blog, keep an eye out.

    For now though, have a read of Gary Younge’s reflections, it is well written, sobering and eye opening: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-farewell-to-america