Warren Kinsella, Autism and the Art of Nudge

Let me explain.  This morning, I heard The First Ever Academic To Understand Political Ads™ on CBC Radio: Prof. Peter Graefe of McMaster said that political ads are for people who don't pay attention to politics.  They're a shortcut.  They're designed to be simple.  They're for the uninformed.

This, from the always-insightful Warren Kinsella - a guy who gets the irrational nature of politics if anyone does.  

Partisan politics isn't designed to appeal to logic, create debate or develop shared solutions - it's about winning, period.  By it's competitive nature, partisan politics is tribal.  The focus almost inevitably shifts from what one side can do (proactive) to preventing what the other side would take away (reactive).

The problem is, even the informed get swept up in this.  More person-hours and sweat get put into things like lawn signs when there's no real evidence that they have any impact.  The same can be said for any GOTV initiative.  Yet these are the sorts of activities that get picked apart by analysts as indicative of a winning campaign.

For the pols, it's about keeping up with the Joneses - you don't want to be the one guy who doesn't play the game; it just feels too much like falling behind.  What if it really does make a difference and you cause your side to fail by dropping the ball?  That's an uncomfortable feeling to have.

The salesmen are just as good at selling themselves - often, even better.

People, whatever their knowledge base, are simply not rational creatures.  In fact, the more informed they are, the better they tend to get at justifying their existing positions.  

Where this varies in politics is when a partisan, for whatever reason, switches teams.  A floor-crosser can confabulate changes to emotional positions in ways dug-in tribal partisans can't, rebranding old friends as untrustworthy foes - which is fascinating.  It's almost like a conversion process.

What does this have to do with autism?

A meta analysis of ten studies involving more than 1.2 million children reaffirms that vaccines don't cause autism.  If anything, immunisation was associated with decreased risk that children would develop autism, a possibility that's strongest with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

Do you believe this?  If you already feel autism has no correlation to inoculations, the answer is probably yes.  If, however, you're suspicious of inoculations already, the answer is probably no - instead, you'll be questioning the research.

Climate change, the effectiveness of social intervention on crime reduction, even homophobia are all similar examples - if we feel something, or if our feelings can be poked and inflamed, the facts against our position (or lack of facts for it) don't matter.

9 times out of 10 we'll go with our gut, which really means we respond to the drives of neurochemistry over external information.  This makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective - our ability to react quickly to potential threats is a big part of why our species hasn't died out.

At the same time, though, we don't live on the African plain in small herds anymore - we're socialized, specialized, technology-dependent creatures that rely on knowledge to survive in our current context. We might not feel like taking out the trash, or following the rules of the road, but we know there are consequences if we don't.  

This is the perpetual problem of public policy - how do you design systems and processes that appeal to how people actually make choices rather than how we'd like to think we make choices?

In an age where some governments are starving the public (and themselves) of facts so as to not confuse their ideological leanings, this is a huge problem the public service is trying to grapple with.

Herein, to me, lies an interesting problem - what determines success in our current political culture is to appeal to the limbic brain of the public; troubles at shores, illegal coalitions, dangerous schemes, common sense, etc.  You can win this way, but you can't effectively govern this way.

The elements of society seeking more effective governance and policy have to find a different approach; inoculations carry some risk, but far less than not getting them.  More to the point, not inoculating your own children puts other children at risk.

Autism, on the other hand, isn't leprosy or a zombie curse - it's a variation on cognitive wiring in the same way skin tones are variations on pigment.  The right understanding allows for the right accommodations.

While not every autistic person (because autism is part of the person, not some kind of virus) will become a Jacob Barnett or Temple Grandin, how many world-changers are we losing out on due to our own emphasis on avoiding a potential negative instead of supporting a potential positive? 

How might we shift gears between the growing trend towards instinctively-appealing presentation in politics, marketing and beyond and the need to promote debate, critical thinking and emotional self-regulation?  

I suspect the confabulations of floor-crossers or team-leavers will offer some insight into how this might be accomplished, but I don't have the definitive answer.  Neither do you.  

Between us, though, I know we could come up with something amazing and effective.

Your neighbours are getting on board the Open Movement - can we count on you, too?

=o)

Partisanship Is Not Too Tall a Wall

"I wish all leaders would gather and debate, and brainstorm, and engage with each other as concerned leaders. No, partisanship is not too tall a wall if candidates consider themselves human beings before politicians. Canadians need them to make a sacrifice and set their partisan stubbornness and pride aside. Although some issues would be approached from mutually exclusive perspectives, where there is the possibility of a common ground for some of our economic and social problems, they need to start working together. A lot of vulnerable Canadians just cannot wait for this political charade to end."

Stephen Harper’s Pompeii: Evidence-Based vs. The Reality-Based Community

Everybody working in the field knew the real reason the Conservatives dumped the agency was that it was an unwanted piece of Liberal baggage. They hadn’t listened to it in years. They didn’t want to be nagged about poverty, inequality or social responsibility.

-       Carol Goar

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality... We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

- Attributed to Karl Rove

There was the Census.  There's the National Council of Welfare.  It's a long list, really, of institutions that have been gutted or completely eliminated by the Harper government.  They will tell us their focus is on reducing waste, on saving the public money, etc.  They might even believe that, to some degree.

I think it's pretty clear the Harper Conservatives are following the reality-based community model; they don't feel they need facts now that they've got power.  They can make them up as they go along.

It is beyond tragic that at this time in history, when economic, social and ecological challenges and pressures are mounting, we have a government that is turning its back on information.  You know, that thing that fuels the Knowledge Economy.  But then, this government has made it clear they don't believe in the value of knowledge - who needs to think when you have natural resources to exploit?

Team Harper thinks they are being clever, that they have it all figured out.  In reality, their policy track is the equivalent of building a city next to an active volcano.  You've got the rich soil for a short-term fix, but the short-sightedness of that view is going to see them, and Canada, burned in the long run.  There are social laws that do not waver, just as there are natural laws that cannot be escaped.  By trying to ignore social and ecological gravity - by trying to play political God - Harper is pulling on a push door.

Information is essential to making wise (informed) choices.  That's why humanity developed science in the first place; think what you might, the need for evidence-based policy to actually overcome our problems will not waver.  If you doubt that, look at witch-burninigs and the stigma around left-handed people, or viewing mercury-as-a-cure and the flat-earth model. 

Poverty is not addressed by ignorning it, hoping competition will somewhow lead to a trickle-down of accumulated wealth.  Competition is about survival and dominance, which comes at the expense of others.

Poverty begets poverty and poor people breed faster than rich people.  The rich people can try to isolate themselves from the poor, but eventually you end up with either a revolution or North Korea, neither a desirable outcome.

You can blame poverty on genetics, but again, that's been tried before.  At the end of the day, we have to face facts - society is dependent on internal functioning.  We move forward together.

There are only so many trips you can make to the natural well before you leave yourself with nothing.  If you care about the next generation, you have to plan, manage your resources and, shockingly, conserve what we have now.  Once again - knowledge and collaboration are essential.

The number one thing Team Harper and all our politicians should be keeping in mind?

Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

UPDATE:  Human Resources Minister Diane Finley made the break specific this week when she announced that Ottawa will now let employers pay temporary foreign workers less than Canadians.

Are the Conservatives really that blind to the consequence of their actions, or are they so callous as to want to piss off Canadians against foreigners so that they'll be more likely to vote with their gut for extremist Parties?

This is what Capitalism does in the Global Village - wages don't go up, they trickle down to whoever will take less pay.  In this case it's foreign workers - the same foreign workers that Tim Hudak railed against during the last provincial election.  I can tell you from reactions at many doors, people are just frustrated and angry enough to believe that message.

By encouraging indentured servitude and telling Canadians to take lower-paying jobs or else, the Harper Tories are piling on the kindling.  Tensions are already on the rise in Canada; this is going to make it a hell of a lot worse.  With the dollar rising (thanks partly to Harper's push on Alberta Oil) the cost of living isn't going down - yet Jim Flaherty thinks Canadians should work for less or be left with nothing?  I have images of the Grapes of Wrath in my head.

Those who once had and now find themselves without will look for scapegoats - that's human nature.  The Hard Right politicians and would-bes in this country (Wild Rose, I'm looking at you) will make it clear who they think is the problem - urban, special interest groups, foreigners.  It's wedge politics at its worst and could lead, taken to the most polarizing extremes, to social collapse.

Harper used to wax on about trouble lapping at our shores; now, he's doing a hell of a job to foster them right here at home.