Yesterday, Joyce Vance shared a link to the “Projct 2025” ducument which is the Republican Party’s plan for governing us (and it will be governing us – no representation here.) It’s 920 pages long, and they are joping we won’t read it (heck, I had to struggle with the URL. It resisted being cut. But maybe that’s a good thing. Every time this link is used, the Republicans will know it’s someone who was, directly or indirectly, referred to it by Joyce Vance. And the more of us do, the more they will know she has supporters.) Because they hope we won’t read it, I hope that all of us will at least open the link. If you go, start with the Table of Contents. Ignore the glittering generalities, such as “the general welfare.” All the chaters are aspects of government which they wasnt to take over and destroy. All they need is Trump**. Try to enjoy your Juneteenth anyway (red beverages are apropos. I have some res herbal iced tea, some raspberry iced tea, and some strawberry soda, so I’m ready.)
I applaud Colorado for leading the way here. Our law may not be perfect (in fact, it probably isn’t – it’s nearly impossible to achieve peerfection in the very first law on anything new. The Second Amendment certainly didn’t.) But at least it’s a law. I hope other states will not just follow, but also alter details to make the law better.
If you disagree with me that Wonkette’s unique style adds to this story, you probably can find it elsewhere. I personally feel that people who say and do things such as the potential defendant in this potential litigation dod ans said deserve all the mockery that gets aimed at them, and likely more. There’s also a neat little twist of Virginia law in the story, and although I can see how it could be abused,I kind of like it.
Yesterday, when I had the time and energy to finish reading my emails from Sunday, I came across Joe Biden’s Father’s Day Proclamation (courtesy of Steve Smith), read it, and am sharing the link. That’s the world that I want to live in. It’s not a perfect world – there is no perfect world – but it’s a world in which at least the Federal goverment is run with ethics, honesty, kindness, and consideration, in order to make life easier for the maximum number of people. I’m sure I don’t need to say this, but I’m going to anyway: we willl never get there by electing people at any levels who just want power – and who get elected by promising their voters power through them. Also, Robert Reich’s caption contest, which asked readers to submit suggestions for whar “MAGA” really stands for, ad too many good answers to list here. I can’t enter, being a free subscriber, but had I been ale and done so, I would have suggested “Malice And Greed Always.”
Moving to actual news (or at least actual analysis of actual news – there’s some of both), Robert Hubbell goes into detail about how and why the Washington Post is so worng in their election coverage, even though they still do well in other areas (some of this ofcourse also apples to the New York Times, and other formerly competent mainstream outlets.) If he is accurate on their strategy (and I suspect he is), it’s easy to see why he wonders whether the Post can survive. It’s a no-brainer.
In Sunday’s Open Thread, Beau spoke about Ukraine, including commenting that Ukraine might be operating in the skies a little more – which, with the loan he also spoke about – they have been doing. Now, the Daily Beast confirms that Ukraine is hitting hard, and it is working. We can but hope Putin is runninng out of things up his sleeve.
Yesterday, I managed to remember it was Father’s Day in time to wish Virgil a happy one. The prison dog’s handler brought him out to say happy Father’s Day to all the visitors. And of course we played cribbage. Two weeks ago the cards were seriusly hot – we were seeing scores up as high as 24. Yesterday not so much. The highest score all afternoon was 16, and there were only 3 hands all afternoon which achieved that score. But who cares – we were having fun.
Before we get too giddy over the Supremes approving mifeprestone (for now), we need to look deeper. Robert Hubell does. There are several topics here, but each has its own large type headline, so it’s not hard to find. And some of the other topics are pretty interesting also.
Yes, it took me a while to get this up. But I try to minimize bad news over a weekend. At least there are influential people who see right through this and are doing their best to spread reality. Unfortunately, the media is not among them.
Yesterday, the radio opera was “Guillaume Tell” by Rossini. Everybody knows the story, and everybody knows the overture (though there’s a lot more to it than the Lone Ranger.) This was recorded in Vienna, at the Vienna State Opera. I do think it’s cool that anAustrian opera house would put on an opera in which Austria in general and an Austrian governor of Switzerland are the bad guys. Even though the story goes back to the 14th century, that would not have happened in Rossini’s lifetime and for most of the rest of the 19th century (possibly even through Thw Great War, as World War I was originally called.) I find this very hopeful. And now, I’m off to see Virgil.
I’d call this good news – while st the same time hoping it won’t be necessary for Hunter (The other felon is another matter.)
The Reich on the left is right – as usual – but how to get this message to the Biden campaign? Since our lives mey depend on it?
Some of y’all will know that I watched a Theater of War production thois week using Hendrik Ibsen’s 1882 play “An Enemy of the People” as the vehicle to address a whole lot of issues – pandemics, climate change, populism are three – and I’m probably missing some. There is no hero in this story. The protagonist, Doctor Stockman (as one espert put it on the PBS newshour segment about the production) did everything right as a scientist, but everything wrong as a communicator. And that cost him everything. It’s a story which could happen today, and one which could have happened at any time in history. Most of us think we can tell when one of our peers is lying to us. Mostly, we can’t (we are a little better discerning in a telephone call, enough to note, but not all that much.) Except when it is an expert speaking to us. Then the “How does he/she know” factor kicks in and we tend to become resistant to accept any information. And even more so if the expert appears arrogant, or talks down to the audience. Dr. Stockmann does this so blatantly that it becomes extremly difficult to watch and listen. The line “Who would accept a government where the wise are ruled over by fools?” is the climax of tis behavior, and probably of the play itself (Bill Murray delivered it brilliantly. So did David Strathairn, of whom the PBS segment showed a clip from a performance in Ohio.)
Hermes was not unafffected by the tendencies of humans not to believe information coming from someone in some way superior to them. You’ve heard of “trickster gods,” such as Coyote for the Navajo. But Hermes, who was the messenger of the gods (which is why he got to wear the cap and shoes with wings – the gods wanted their messages delivered right now) and Mercury, his Roman counterpart, were both also tricksters. I could go on, but it’s not really the point. The point is, how do liberals, who build our arguments of factual evidence, get around the fact that by so doing, we are seen as tricksters, or enemies, and dismissed? Clearly the first step is to stop talking about fools, at least outside of the seclusion of our liberal communities. But this article has more suggestions, and all of them have been tested in studies. So, at least sometimes, they work.
=============================================================
Messages can trigger the opposite of their desired effect − but you can avoid communication that backfires
The best graduation speeches dispense wisdom you find yourself returning to long after the graduation tassels are turned. Take the feel-good life advice in Baz Luhrmann’s song to a class that graduated 25 years ago. Only on a recent relisten did I realize it also captures one of the research-based strategies I teach for avoiding communication that backfires.
The tip is hiding in plain sight in the song’s title, “Everybody’s Free (to Wear Sunscreen).” Communication aimed at promoting a certain behavior can have the opposite effect when the message is perceived as a threat to individual autonomy.
Health campaigns frequently use strongly worded messages that end up backfiring. For example, strongly worded messages promoting dental flossing made people angry and more likely to resist flossing their teeth. Coercive alcohol prevention messages, with language like “any reasonable person must acknowledge these conclusions,” instead increased alcohol consumption. In contrast, the wording of the title “Everybody’s Free (to Wear Sunscreen)” is less likely to backfire by emphasizing liberty of choice.
Research reveals lots of reasons why well-meaning attempts to inform, persuade or correct misinformation go awry. Despite the ubiquity of backfires, formal instruction about why they happen and how to avoid them is rare. The omission inspired my new book, “Beyond the Sage on the Stage: Communicating Science and Contemporary Issues Effectively,” which translates scholarship from across disciplines into practical strategies that anyone can use to improve communication.
When new info challenges your identity
Backfires are often a response to communication of unwelcome information.
In addition to threats to autonomy, information can be unwelcome because it appears to conflict with how you think about yourself. Consider a study that asked people to read a message about genetically modified foods. Participants for whom purity, health and conscientiousness of their diet was an important part of how they defined themselves had more negative attitudes after reading a message intended to refute their views about GM food. Those who did not have a strong dietary self-concept did not react negatively to the message.
The same resistance can rise up when you’re confronted with something counter to the beliefs of a group you feel a strong affiliation with. Emotional and identity attachment to a group such as a political party can cause people to subjugate their own values to align with the group, a phenomenon called cultural cognition. Reactions to messages about climate change often exemplify this phenomenon.
Against the backdrop of protests and an impending election, communication breakdowns are increasingly blamed on political polarization, with more than a hint of fatalism. But the current heavy focus on ideological differences serves only to fuel a vicious cycle that amplifies them. To halt the cycle, the focus needs to shift away from the differences. Divides are not always what they seem, and even when they are, there are often ways to bridge them.
Every person contains multitudes
Encouragingly, a study recently published by the Pew Research Center found that just 11% of Americans consider it very or extremely important that they get their news from journalists who share their political views. Less than 40% of Americans said that it was even somewhat important. The study is a reminder that we are all complex mixes of identities, and those distinct identities can offer fruitful starting points for a conversation.
As the various identities within people interact, the context can bring a particular identity to the fore. For example, a study that examined the importance of voters’ identity as parents revealed that when thinking about their children, people were more willing to oppose the policies of their own political party. “Animal lover” is another example of an identity that researchers have time and again seen relegate party identity to the background.
Therefore, appealing to a shared identity is a strategy for bridging the divide.
Another strategy is to make it safe to go against the group without damaging an individual’s connection to it. For example, people may act anonymously, which is what happened during the pandemic when some people reportedly chose to wear disguises when getting their COVID-19 vaccine.
Accidentally conveying what you don’t mean
As in the case of threats to autonomy, the language you choose can minimize backfires caused by threats to group affiliations. People may agree that a proposed action is sound and consistent with their party’s beliefs but still reject it if it contains even small polarizing cues. Triggers, such as words associated with the opposing party such as “tax” for a conservative or “deregulation” for a liberal, lead people to judge that their party would reject a policy. The fix is to remove both real and perceived threats to group identity by using party-neutral language.
Surprisingly, communication need not be threatening or unwelcome to backfire. It can happen when communication contains hidden unintended messages or when it inadvertently makes an undesired behavior seem normal. For example, messages from a utility about reducing energy use caused low-energy users to consume more energy when their consumption was compared with others, and anti-littering posters emphasizing the extent of the problem increased littering.
Another intuitive communication strategy that backfires is presenting information in a myth-versus-fact format. You’ve probably seen this format used in communications aimed at debunking myths about health, science, technology, culture and more. Yet, research demonstrates that the “state-and-negate” format makes it more likely people will remember myths as facts. A facts-only approach improves retention of the correct information.
The research demonstrates that when it comes to effective communication strategies, trusting your instincts can lead you astray. The same research provides insight into why you may instinctively react in certain ways to some messages.
So, if I were to offer this year’s graduates just one tip for the future, I would encourage them to check their communication instincts against evidence-based recommendations. I would call my speech “Everybody’s Free (to Beat Backfires).”
==============================================================
Hermes, you’ve suffered from the pain of being misunderstood. Help us learn to use these techniques in our own styles. Our lives may very well depend upon it.
Yesterday, the Daily Beast had an article titled “Who Will Live Longer—Trump or Biden?” My immedaite response was “your answer to that depends on whether you believe in science, or in the folk belief that evil lives longer.” And then I thought, no, it won’t really. Because the same people who believe folktales are true are the ones who think TFG is good.” So, either eay, the answer is Biden. And Robert Reich’s DEBUNK Episode 3 was published.
Tina Peters is not what I would like to see from Colorado in national news. Not that this story is directly about her, but it’s about what Mesa County is doing to attempt to move on from her, and her name is the one that leaps out.
For Pride Month, here’s an article about the life (and death at 86) of a transgender woman to whom we all owe gratitude if we ever use anything involving microchips. I don’t ecpect her legacy to impress any gender bigots, of course, but I also don’t expecct any of them to be reading this.
Yesterday, Wonkette provided a gift link to an article on the Alitos. There has been plenty of coverage of what was said, but not so much of why it was so terrible. This article dives deep into the why. It also provides answers to some of the same questions asked of Chief Justice Roberts. There is a notable difference. Also FLorida (south Florida) was a bit damp. Our Mitch tipped me off to this in two emals (the second was arighteous but short rant LOL) And one more thing – I got the email that my primary ballot has been counted.
It had occurred to me that this might be the case. I’m happy to see I’m not the only one who thinks so.
Of course Congress has the authority to pass a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court. The authors of the Constitution specified they wanted a government with checks and balances. The claim that Congress cannoy legislate the Spureme Court is therefore unconstitutional on the face of it. Not that any minds will be changed by me.
Yesterday, I got the email that my ballot has been received. Also, the exterminator tech came and checked aroud (inside and out) and said it’s lookng even better than 2 months ago. So it will be another two months before the next ckheck. And I managed to watch a good amount of “An Enemy of the People.” (I came a little late.) I have always thought of “An Enemy of the People on terms of public health, like the pandemic. And it certainly does illuminate the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, But it has much wider application. It also helps to explain climate denial and even aspects of MAGA. As Dr. Vivian Pinn, Director Emeritus of NIH Women’s Health Resources tols PBS, the protagonist did everything right as a scientist ans everything wrong as a communicator.
It takes a district with a lot of crazy people to elect crazy candidates. I don’t say “full of” – because there are sane people everywhere who are already traumatized enough by just having to live in the same district with them and do not need to, and should not, be lumped in with them.
I’ve said that two things which have changed in my Congressional District have given me some hope. This may reinforce those two things.
