|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Hoggan wrote:
Neil Layton wrote:Okay, supplementary question, mostly addressed to James, since you've obviously done much more research on this than I have, and probably know much more than I do:
Let's agree that talking about values makes more sense than talking about the alternatives. My reading of the evidence, some of it cited above, suggests that those values do not exist in isolation. Lewandowsky seems pretty clear on that.
I'm not sure, then, that discussing values necessarily helps. Let's say that x has a value set that allows him an absolute, inalienable right to free speech. I think that right is limited well before misogynist, racist arseholery winds up in Leslie Jones's Twitter account, to cite a timely example. Not only that, but misogynist, racist arseholery is often linked to viewpoints and opinions as well as values that, when the day comes, I'll be on the other side of the barricade from. Regular readers of these forums will probably be able to infer my predilection for a good barricade when circumstances dictate: I'm willing to take sides when I think I have to.
With that said, I'd much prefer to have a sensible discussion over coffee in the public square than shouted comments followed by a mollie over a barricade. I don't want to have to fight: I just recognise that sometimes it becomes a last resort when other methods have failed: misogynist, racist arseholery has to be stopped. I'm not sure that it's necessarily worth throwing mollies over, but I say that as a Caucasian male. When you add up the views that stem from the value system that leads to misogynist, racist arseholery that becomes even more nuanced. One reason I'm engaging in this discussion is that I don't want to have to go there. What I don't see is how a discussion of values prevents us going from coffee al fresco to mollies at dawn.
I believe that values add a deeper meaning to facts and build greater support. It is the same in debate and in dialogue (barricades and coffee). Facts with a weak moral context or an overly aggressive partisan meaning aren't as effective. On their own they don't touch people the way emotions and values do. A good example of a more pluralistic moral narrative is the Pope's encyclical on Climate Change. Polarization (debate) and cooperation (dialogue) are both part of social change. As you point out polarization is tricky because if you don't do it you likely won't have change at all, but if we over do polarization we may end up helping the folks who are resisting change. Either way we need the best answer we can possible muster for the "whats this about" question.
Neil Layton wrote:Okay, supplementary question, mostly addressed to James, since you've obviously done much more research on this than I have, and probably know much more than I do:
Let's agree that talking about values makes more sense than talking about the alternatives. My reading of the evidence, some of it cited above, suggests that those values do not exist in isolation. Lewandowsky seems pretty clear on that.
I'm not sure, then, that discussing values necessarily helps. Let's say that x has a value set that allows him an absolute, inalienable right to free speech. I think that right is limited well before misogynist, racist arseholery winds up in Leslie Jones's Twitter account, to cite a timely example. Not only that, but misogynist, racist arseholery is often linked to viewpoints and opinions as well as values that, when the day comes, I'll be on the other side of the barricade from. Regular readers of these forums will probably be able to infer my predilection for a good barricade when circumstances dictate: I'm willing to take sides when I think I have to.
With that said, I'd much prefer to have a sensible discussion over coffee in the public square than shouted comments followed by a mollie over a barricade. I don't want to have to fight: I just recognise that sometimes it becomes a last resort when other methods have failed: misogynist, racist arseholery has to be stopped. I'm not sure that it's necessarily worth throwing mollies over, but I say that as a Caucasian male. When you add up the views that stem from the value system that leads to misogynist, racist arseholery that becomes even more nuanced. One reason I'm engaging in this discussion is that I don't want to have to go there. What I don't see is how a discussion of values prevents us going from coffee al fresco to mollies at dawn.
Neil Layton wrote:
James Hoggan wrote:
Bruno Latour suggested that we shift from debates about facts to discussions about concerns. Facts and evidence are important but they are tricky and are often used to shut down discourse. Latour is an advocate for continuing the conversation. Paul Slovic has written about the role of facts in his research on risk communications. He makes the point that experts see their facts as objective and public opinion as subjective but that even the facts of experts have a subjective element. So I decided for me to shift from debates about facts to discussions about of values.
Okay, that's very interesting.
I make a clear distinction between facts and evidence. One is completely settled; the other is a matter of a balance of data, on which it's often possible to come down firmly on one side of the other, but where there is often nuance to be discussed. Facts are pretty rare, although there are plenty of issues where consilience can lead us to a position where balance of evidence can lead us to treat some propositions as facts for most practical purposes.
I am aware of some very interesting studies that show that the positions people hold on issues where the science, for example, points very strongly one way, but the values of the people examining and interpreting it (or just ignoring it or applying other forms of denial) are linked to a value set, and that's linked to social connections. Climate change is, as you probably know, a key example of this: the Lewandosky studies are relevant (including perhaps the greatest non sequitur in scientific publishing!*), but see also doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 and doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001.
If these issues then become proxies for values, which I'm willing to accept, and we then discuss values as you propose, how does one then go about addressing the issues? It makes complete sense to me to then give people options that subscribe to their values and do not threaten their worldview. See, for example, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1981907
My problem with that is that even if we can tackle one or two specific issues in that way, such worldviews are often supportive of a whole other set of social and economic propositions that I also have issues with. I take a position that the broader environmental situation that we are now in means that everything has to change, and that will face resistance from vested interests and people with value sets that support them. In the case of the Kahan paper, for example, my reading suggests that geoengineering could be as bad as the disease it intends to cure, regardless of whether some groups would support it.
What are your thoughts?
* NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (doi: 10.1177/0956797612457686)
I think we need to have that big moral conversation and I agree we need to change everything and there is big resistance. I think we need pluralistic narratives and advocacy that explore the change that is possible. Many of the solutions are waiting for us on common ground. The way we are going at it now is leading to increased gridlock. I'm not opposed to polarization but without an effort to find common ground we end up where we are now.
Neil Layton wrote:
R Ranson wrote:
James Hoggan wrote:I think understanding how propaganda works is helpful. Certainly propaganda can be deceptive and thats a problem but sometimes propaganda is sincere. The bigger problem is the relationship propaganda has with flawed ideology. It is this relationship that makes the victims of propaganda so resistant to evidence and facts. I think we defend ourselves from propaganda by thinking through our own values.
I have a lot of trouble telling when the person is intentionally spewing propaganda or if they honestly believe what they are saying is true and are just parroting what they have been taught. Are there ways to tell this apart? Especially in a forum setting like this, but also in real life interactions.
I wonder whether there is even a clear distinction to make. I'm sure there are trolls and hired shills around, and I've engaged in discussions where I've played Devil's advocate as an intellectual exercise, but in the latter case it's always been clear that's what I've been doing (if not always to people overhearing the conversation...!). With that said, it's perfectly possible to propagandise while fully believing what one says. There are whole books on the dark arts of persuasion, and whole courses on identifying and countering propaganda: the video I linked to above comes from a course the material from which is just as relevant when tackling a hired oil company shill as it is when arguing with Uncle Jack at the dinner table. I suspect some of the shills believe what they write just as much as Uncle Jack does, and both may well be acting from the same sense of motivated reasoning (and the prospect that I might be doing the same is one I at least try to be aware of).
Terry Ruth wrote:Great book James. I don’t have a big impressive vocabulary nor am I a good writer, so excuse the straight talk and hopefully my intentions will be read properly. I deal and value mostly facts and data, educated opinions by the qualified.
I been a technical advisor for around 20 years on several forums, including corporate Aerospace (I current work as a consultant), Auto, Powersports, now Building Architectural Design/Land Developer we have a small father/son Design_Build company. I’m currently designing aircraft turbine engine structures with other pros on a multicultural “global” consultant design team that communicates extremely well to accomplish very expensive large designs. Not once in my over thirty years can I recall words getting in the way of progress. We have much bigger issues or fish to fry. The atmosphere is professional and we all talk the same value added technical language, or a universal truth backed by decades of facts that governs how we conduct ourselves. There are new efforts in place to make the engineering data and English easier to read for multi-lingual team members, as the corporate leaders lead to a Global Economy_Market Share I don’t completely agree with.
I mention all that for qualifications to offer some constructive observations based on education and experience, not that I claim to be an expert in communications. On the contrary, I humbly recognize the challenges here in this medium.
Here is a pie chart large fortune 500 companies I work for are now referring to as the “issues with electronic communications” (instant messaging, text, electronic sign-off, etc.) or a lack of human interactions that has gone to the way side. Professor Albert Mehrabian says, “Communication consist of three components. That is 7% words (the internet and forums falls into), 55% tone of voice and 38% body language”. I believe that to be accurate and from a reliable credible source.
Thanks to Burra Maluca for reminding me of the dangers of the word "should". Ironically it is one of the lessons in the book Peter Senge that people don't like being told what to think.
Your book is a supporter of data do you have any to support this? Or are you buying into tribal knowledge? Keep the word in your book IMO. I believe it all depends on the context (tone, body language) it is used in you will not find here on the internet. I’d like to see some quantified data in the 7% populous noted above it does to forum communications across the globe. I think you’ll find the majority of websites are based in tribal knowledge lacking supportive data as such. In the name of “Global” Permaculture for one, I doubt people stop using the word as they see fit and many already practicing it I have read about do not have their “own dictionary”. Yes, it is a double standard to “people don't like being told what to think” including the free use of the word “should”, along with “truth” there are universal truths like it or not. Enough of that, it is not doing anything on a large scale really; the practitioners know what words to use depending on the audience.
I’m on page 13 reading slow, ironically one can see what happens on forums as evidence of tribal knowledge, people here contributing to a discussion without having the proper education and credentials, as seen by some that have not purchased your book, for one example, and many more all over the internet.
What you’ll find on forums is little fact based discussion and lots of opinions by non-qualified people your book discusses. With the internet came knowledge, that in some minds have replaced by goggle search the need for education and experience. Nowadays, some are fooled into thinking, all one needs is a website and they are an expert when in fact all that website did is empowered people to communicate, not make a self-proclaimed expert of the site owner(s) or mods, or anyone, many of which do not have the qualifications in communications, especially this limited value type, more less, the stand alone technical expertise many requiring professional teams. So we need a good book for internet forum communications since most of this book points to human interaction, politics, and professionals.
If Permies.com is looking for better ways to “Protect itself from propaganda, polarization, and failed communications”, and it can take constructive criticism, I’d suggest for one stop the name calling (e.g.: “corporate trolls”, “cheese heads”, self-labeled experts that do not have the credentials, etc.)
Take a look at this thread especially towards the end, you’ll find examples in, little permaculture in practice by practitioners, too much emphasis of words and semantics, name calling and labels, long drawn out twisted theory, etc…validating the OP.
https://permies.com/t/57412/permaculture/permaculture
Today I called big city political officials let them know they “should” check out the tiny home and micro eco-communities developments since in practice it is solving a lot of their problems denoted in their 2035 Community Development Plan in a way much of permaculture hangs its hat on or attempts to practice.
These practical examples is what they were receptive too, my word choice had no negative connotation at all. This is “My Permaculture” and the society I create can use any word they see fit.
Permie.com tribal knowledge specific: It would be interesting to quantify the ones with the most apples & plus ones (a metric permie.com gives for quality), to look into their backgrounds, see their resumes, credentials; see the practical contributions they have made to develop Permaculture in these examples as post and threads they advise in. Perhaps one would uncover the “trolls” if one wished to create names aiding tribal knowledge and find these are not the ones to pollinate an accurate fact based website. Yes, a book on internet forums is long overdue, it can be quantified. IMO just as bad as media only since the impacts are not as large, less damaging.
This is not the only site reaching out to books like this for answers. Of course there are many more that want to succeed in its communications style to better promote themselves and sponsors. Knowing where the over/under mod boundaries are and quality is key and there is a ton of info out there about forum management. I believe based on what I’ve read quality accurate info is becoming a real issue, not word choice. IMO this one is over the top and not focused on the practitioner’s with proof of accomplishments or large impacts to develop permaculture accurately.
Just my .02 take it or leave it, and hope I did not offend anyone that is not my intentions.
Terry, I don't have any data on the breakdown of how we communicate. I bet it exists. I think the communication environment in professional groups or at universities is different than public discourse where we have high levels of mistrust and polarization. Public speech is delivered and received on multiple levels, cultural, emotional and moral content have more influence on persuasion than information.
Neil Layton wrote:I've never made any secret of my difficulties in communicating with other(?) humans, and have given this much thought over the years. It appears that James Hoggan has been doing much the same, and has identified similar issues.
It seems to me that people go through a series of phases in the way they understand evidence.
1) Most of us start off from a position in which there are simple established "facts".
2) Later, usually by adolescence, we learn that people disagree on these "facts", leading to a position where there are no "facts" and merely "opinions" of equal value. This is a viewpoint fostered by the media, because it allows them to present two or more "sides" to a story, which sells papers and advertising. It seems to me that most people (I mean generally, not specifically on this site) are stuck at this phase. It encourages fact-free discourse in many areas - for example the recent Brexit campaign here.
3) Some of us learn to move on to a position where we realise that while there may be two or more viewpoints on a subject it's possible to evaluate the evidence that supports those competing viewpoints. I recently engaged in a discussion, on this site, where it was suggested that if someone were to label something "science" that would enable that person to make me his "bitch" (my interlocutor's word, not mine). I pointed out that this seemed to reflect a misconception of how scientific discourse worked and that I would seek out the evidence to support the assertion, and draw my own conclusions.
I think this gives us a clue about how we may be able to depolarise our discourse. My understanding of the rules here is that asking for evidence is seen as an attack on the other person's credibility. That's not how I see it. When I seek evidence, I'm interested in evaluating it for accuracy and reliability. It's not something limited to agronomy: it's a process I go through in many fields of my life, and I admit to getting very pissed off when someone presents something as "fact", or even strongly supported belief, when the supporting evidence turns out to be very weak. I recommend the work of Ben Goldacre on this subject.
To me, this is about taking off the blinkers to which Burra refers.
It goes back to the quote Burra gave above: "Why isn’t public discourse on the environment more data driven, and why are we listening to each other shout instead of listening to what the evidence is trying to tell us?"
The thing is, the skills to evaluate evidence and to think critically can be learned. I conclude that it might benefit all of us if more people (I don't just mean here: I mean in general) learn the skills to evaluate evidence.
Here is a good introduction: http://lifehacker.com/how-to-train-your-mind-to-think-critically-and-form-you-1516998286
Here is another: http://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/critical-thinking.html
This is more academically oriented: http://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development/postgraduate/taught/learning-resources/critical
This site may be too heavy for some, but might be worth a look: http://www.criticalthinking.org/
This process is complicated, and I've had to spend many hours learning how to identify even the more common formulations supporting uncritical thinking. It's not, and I'd like to emphasise this, about intelligence, but about a learnable skillset.
With that said, in order to evaluate the evidence, it's crucial to have the evidence in the first place. I have often wondered whether this is a place where the rules on this site inhibit us from doing this. I've said this before, but I think it bears reiterating: a request for evidence is not a personal attack (or, at the very least it should not be construed as one when it comes from me) but a request for data to evaluate. In effect, we are discouraged from asking for the evidence.
May I propose that agreed forms be developed that allow us to request such evidence without it appearing as a personal attack? The skills for evaluation and synthesis seem to me to be key to depolarising many of the debates we have on here, which often seem to me to degenerate into one person's opinion (often given without substantiation) against another's (to which the same often applies), but we need the data to synthesise first.
I understand that for many users interpreting the rules is an intuitive process. This is not a skillset I share, and I've had to ask for guidelines in interpreting those rules on several occasions, but have generally just been referred back to the rules in a circular process. I think this is one case where I, and perhaps others, might benefit from improved clarity. How do we, for example, call someone out on the use of propaganda? How do we avoid inadvertently doing so ourselves?
Why is our discourse not more data driven? I suggest that two (of several) reasons may be that we are discouraged from seeking the data and that many of us lack the skills to evaluate it when we are presented with it. I hope this post will go some way towards overcoming those barriers.
I remain very interested in understanding the communication skills that allow us to overcome the other issues blocking us from data-driven discourse. I think that effective permaculture could benefit from this.