With the help of an advertising agency, the social scientists created online ads celebrating the tension between Israelis and Palestinians, and extolling the virtues of fighting for fighting’s sake. One ad showed iconic photos of Israeli war heroes and proclaimed, “Without [war] we wouldn’t have had heroes. For the heroes, we probably need the conflict.” The ad was scored with Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyries.” Another ad featured footage of a soldier with a machine gun petting a kitten and an infantryman helping an old man cross the street. “What a Wonderful World” played in the background. Its tagline read, “Without [war] we would never be moral. For morality, we probably need the conflict.” The ads, along with brochures and billboards, began appearing in Giv’at Shmuel in 2015. Over a six-week period, according to polling, nearly all of its 25,000 residents saw them.
...A year after the ads had ceased, by which time some residents had trouble recalling the specifics of the campaign, polls still showed greater tolerance. The campaign wasn’t a panacea, but it is among the most successful conflict interventions in contemporary social science.
The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. “No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank,” one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. “No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe.” Sometimes, however, we don’t realize we’ve become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious.
And, going to my previous post about flipping the script, it actually makes sense. In a counterintuitive way. Like doing a judo move where you use someone's own momentum against them, helping push them a little further than they intended to go until they lose balance.
One recent working paper found that the more partisan people become, the more likely they are to rationalize violence against those they don’t agree with, to experience schadenfreude or moral disinterest when they see an opponent get attacked, and even to endorse physical assaults on other groups. “Though most Americans reject violence, as more of us embrace strong partisanship, the prevalence of lethal partisanship is likely to grow,” wrote the political scientists Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe.
I've felt that schadenfreude, myself, and sometimes its a very real struggle to remind myself that such an attitude is bad. That the long term consequences are not worth the pleasure a perceived comeuppance gives. It doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat, or how distasteful I find them, none of them deserve to have people sending death threats (as just one example).
I posted a link from my phone, before I finished reading it, because the article was so timely and relevant. There's a lot of good stuff there, a lot to unpack, and I decided to go ahead and log on to talk about it. You know, on a PC where I can use a keyboard to type... so this can be a bit more in depth than what I'd do from my phone.
The driving force was this paragraph, right here:
When people believe that social institutions are functioning, they’re much less likely to feel vengeful urges. One study, for instance, found that when laid-off workers believed firings were handled fairly—that a process was adhered to, that seniority was respected, that worker evaluations were properly considered—they were less likely to protest or complain, even if they disagreed with the outcome. Alternately, if workers believed that managers were playing favorites or manipulating the rule book, sabotage was more likely. “Think about presidential elections,” Tripp said. “Every four years, roughly half the nation is deeply disappointed. So why don’t they get out their pitchforks? Because as long as they believe it was a fair fight, they tolerate losing. But when both the process and the outcome seem unfair, that’s when we see riots.”
This is what makes me pay very close attention every time voter fraud - or similar unfair systemic manipulation - is mentioned. Such allegations have the potential to truly destroy our system, but covering them up makes things worse... opens up the potential for further allegations that the system is unfair. They have to be handled openly, transparently, and with a result that is seen as understandable and (mostly) fair. That we followed the proper process, and that it wasn't just a matter of who had the political pull to get away with something.
That is, to my mind, the big challenge of our day and age. We, the public, have grown disheartened and disillusioned with our system. There's all sorts of things going into it, and different people will point to different elements. The recession, and it's impact on an entire generation as they graduated from college... and the belief that the system is no longer working for them, that they can work hard and go to college and still wind up struggling and drowning in debt. 9/11, the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq. The rise of Fox News, the movement towards 'infotainment' and 'truthiness'. Injustices you can point to, based on political affiliation... from Clinton's e-mails to Trump's collusion with Russia.
I know at least a little about US history. I know there is no perfect 'ideal' world where things worked. Hell, the very first shift in power involved one newly formed party trying to pack the judiciary. Election days used to be big old drunken brawls, and many of those involved couldn't even vote. That's not even discussing the party bosses, and backroom deals. Still, our system has somehow muddled through for a couple of hundred years, and people have (mostly) believed that we can fight for change within the system. That it may be long, and hard, and agonizingly slow, but you can build the support you need for whatever you want. The Civil Rights movement, constitutional amendments, etc.
That is what gerrymandering endangers. That belief, that trust. That is why every article discussing the discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral outcomes is so important. Not to say that they need to be aligned, our system comes with some roadblocks designed to keep us from shifting too fast with every change in public opinion... but there's a difference between a few delays because of built in checks and balances, and a complete impossibility of working within the system because foolish politicians tried hard-coding things in their favor.
Something has stuck in my mind for, I dunno, over five years now? I have a friend I try to visit at least once a year, though due to circumstances it's been longer than that since I last saw her. Anyways, I remember talking with her husband about something-or-other, and he expressed a complete lack of faith in the system. He felt it was too far gone, too corrupt, too much of a mess... that it was impossible to fix it from within anymore.
I don't like that attitude. I've generally been a believer in change from within, and using the tools we've been given. But I have to admit it's been harder and harder to hold on to that faith. And, unfortunately, a lot of others seem to feel the same way.
I dunno, like I said... I know at least a little about our history. I know that there's always been struggle, and that success often comes just when things look their worst (and perhaps this article helps explain why?)
What I also know is that we live, as the alleged ancient Chinese curse says, "in interesting times". I'd probably feel more confident about what that meant if I saw any indication that the leaders of this society - political, business, and others - showed some sort of collective wisdom, but unfortunately far too many of them seem keen on illustrating just how different intelligence can be from wisdom.
Mahatma Gandhi was a script flipper. So was Martin Luther King, Jr.
I remember watching a movie on Gandhi in school when I was a kid. There was this scene where the protestors were marching against these guards (? or police? figures of authority of some sort), and the guards would strike down the protestors...
Some of them would then help move the bodies of the first line away, and the next line stepped up to take their spot. They were utterly unthreatening, not trying to attack the guards or anything...
But every time one group was struck down, the next stepped up to take their place. And you could sort of see something going on in the faces of the guards, as they kept striking these people who refused to give them any sort of excuse or justification for their violence, and it starting getting to them, bothering them, that they kept offering violence to people who weren't threatening them at all.
I know some say Martin Luther King only succeeded as much as he did because there were other, more violent organizers in the background like Malcom X. Maybe so, maybe no. It doesn't change MLK Jr's role as a someone who chose not to respond in the more typical human response to the injustices of his day.
It seems that it's all too easy for people to turn their anger and resentment into violence... terrorists show that to us on a regular basis, no script flipping there.
I finished up (as best I could) the project due Friday, and only have a few less problematic projects due this final, last week. Not just for the semester, but for my Master's in Computer Science.
So now I can breathe a small sigh of relief and catch up on some other things. Like what I meant by 'flip the script'.
I suppose my interest/fascination starts, as happens all too often, with my Catholic upbringing. In this case, Jesus's command to "turn the other cheek".
Are we commanded to passively allow others to attack us?
Did we miss some sort of cultural context, and the command actually subtly puts our attackers in some sort of dilemma?
Or is it some meta thing, breaking the cycle of violence by refusing to return it in kind?
The dilemma captures something about the mystery at the heart of Christianity, I think.
Oh, there are legitimate reasons to criticize the religion. People have used their interpretation of the faith to justify all sorts of ills and evils, and claim that 'God' wanted it that way.
But what I consider the heart of it is something well worth engaging in.
And somehow, every time I try to put this into words I struggle. Bear with me as I ramble on, dear reader.
My brother and I used to have debates over free will, and my ultimate conclusion was... that I can't say for sure whether it exists, but true or not the concept is crucial.
See... people often act as though we're computer programs. Experience and genetics program us to act in certain ways, and we do so without thinking. You can debate endlessly how much of our actions are freely chosen decisions and how much can be traced back to nature or how we were nurtured...
But the concept of free will gives us a way to change the program. To rewrite it. To say "I don't like where this takes me, and I am not defined by my past. I can change, choose different, and end up somewhere better."
I believe we're all capable of change, but I admit it's hard. And all too often we don't seem to exercise that power.
Someone strikes us, we strike back (and perhaps wind up in some sort of lethal fight as things escalate). Or we choose to ignore it and accept being treated poorly (and perhaps it happens again, and again, and again, so that we're forced to accept constant attacks).
People act as though it's a binary choice, either/or, and it's really not. Realizing that we have free will means realizing we can break out of such destructive patterns. A long time ago, when I studied tai chi and hapkido (during my exploratory college years) I felt martial arts illustrated this point beautifully. We're used to thinking that if someone punches us, we can block it or take the hit. (I'm simplifying that for effect, because of course we can also dodge it... so even then it's not truly binary.)
But there are other options... like using your opponents momentum against them, and turning their attack into a throw. Of aiding them in overextending themselves, so that they lose their balance and give you control. (This Tai Chi site has an excellent video showing Push Hands and how that works.)
Trying to give clear guidance is a bit like trying to tell someone how to do Push Hands just from watching this video. It's not something you can learn like that, it's something you have to do yourself. Something you need to build experience at. (Perhaps like wrestling?). You can't say "push here, yield there" because too much of it is situationally dependent. In the video, you can see how their arms are lightly touching. Through that connection you can sense your opponent, get a feel for where their balance is, where they are putting their weight. (And - another tai chi lesson with great military applications - if you lose that connection your opponent becomes unpredictable.)
The point is to get them off balance, because once they're off balance you have control. From the outside it doesn't look like much, just two guys going round and round - until someone moves too far from their center.
Anyways, I like looking for things that show people being... I dunno... self-aware and making great choices. People who know how to flip the script, change their programming, become a force for change in the world around them. (Perhaps that's why I've been so obsessed with Naruto the past few months. Also why the notion of 'killing with kindness' appeals to me. When someone opposes you and is all geared up for a fight, it's actually sort of amusing - in a totally not saintly way - to watch how off balance they get when you refuse to act the way they expect.)
Take trolls - most people see it as a binary choice. Engage, and degenerate into an online screaming match, or ignore. i.e. "don't feed the troll." I think I linked to something earlier that showed there are other options.
It's just...
Most people don't use them, or don't have the skills to do so well.
I sort of got on this topic because of an earlier post, where I talked about the marketplace of ideas and the need to shine sunlight on certain topics.
I then encountered a rash of posts (on various different social media sites) talking about what a bad idea it is to engage white supremacists. How they tried taking over punk culture, for example, until they were forced out. How they take your willingness to engage as a way to get their foot in the door.
And yet... and yet there's another story I'd linked to previously, where a community successfully engaged and changed a former white supremacist. It can happen...
It's just, well, most people aren't all that skilled at doing so. They push when they should yield, or yield when they should push, and then say it's a bad idea and tell everyone not to feed the trolls.
It's like...
I'm not saying they're wrong. Given their experiences, and given that it takes a massive investment in time and energy, sometimes that's what you've got to do. Not everyone is in a position for the sort of interaction it takes to engage in a life-changing sort of way.
And, tbh, if you can't engage without losing your cool and having that online screaming match, then disengaging is probably for the best.
But I admire and praise the ones who know how to 'flip the script'. Who can respond and engage in ways that break the cycle (in this case, not of hitting and violence, but of the political polarization we see today.)
Of people who don't passively accept, but don't retaliate in kind. The ones who struggle to find a way of achieving their goals without compromising their morals or integrity. (Veering off track, but I want to say it because it angers me if I think about it too much - any politician who decides that they 'have' to lie, or rig an election, or do whatever shady and unscrupulous thing they've decided is necessary to defeat their (to their minds even more shady and unscrupulous) opponent and stay in power has shown that they've utterly failed at being a gamechanger, a script flipper, or a force for good. Instead, they've allowed their experience and programming to make themselves part of the problem, just as bad if not worse than their opponent. Gerrymandering, as just one example, is proof you do not deserve to be in power. Whatever good you think you might do is totally outweighed by your willingness to destroy the social contract in order to do so.)
