Viewing entries in
Explorations Outside
Tropes of Derision are mocking words and phrases used by The Unsympathetic Observer to frame its object as unworthy of respect or compassion. This is the first of an occasional series....Be inconvenienced: implies opposition is based on convenience and people’s unwillingness to give up their comfort and selfish ways (see: An Inconvenient Truth). Those who resist our message are not principled – they’re just spoiled and lazy.
Problem spaces being what they are, the human animal is not always in a cheerful mood when its mind is wandering. Not necessarily unhappy – but maybe a notch or two down on the happy-ometer.
The Process: identify policy goal; identify obstacles to goal (the problem); explore and become knowledgeable about the nature of the problem (causal factors, moderators, mediators, interactions); explore possible solutions to problem (pros/cons, trade-offs, incentives/disincentives, consequences, impact on other policy goals, etc.); identify the type of data needed to assess effectiveness and desirability of each solution; set up data collection and analysis system; experiment with possible hypotheses/solutions; analyze findings; refine hypotheses; tweak or reject solutions and experiment again with remaining options, ideally in different conditions (as effectiveness may depend on local contexts)....
Perceived scarcity happens when we want a limited resource that other people want too. Scarcity fuels desire; scarcity leads to suffering. By definition, most people cannot enjoy scarce goods. To me, scarcity is like the first law of existence. Whatever you want, if it's out there and others want it too, then the law of scarcity applies. Bottom line: if what you want is a resource available to others and it is generally desirable, it becomes scarce, with all that implies.
Humans typically seek social validation of their views – without which, niggling reservations rarely rise to the level of conviction. And without the courage of conviction, it’s awfully hard to resist the powers that be. We’ll just follow orders, however uncomfortable we feel about them.
...subjects have a conversation with a digitized person. When the face of this “person” frowns, scowls and otherwise looks unfriendly, the subjects report not really liking him. When the face is friendly, laughs a lot, and mirrors the subjects’ facial expressions and head movements, the subjects report liking him.
Recently I read about a woman railing against tech workers saying she reminds herself not to call tech employers “companies” but “corporations”, the better to maintain her indignation. Finding the words that vilify…. But why are “corporations” tainted and not “companies”?
Hype: nefarious others are exaggerating...Nefarious: sarcasm...
Puffery: “Examples: legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome ..."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Heuristics that are useful except when they aren’t: 1) It depends; 2) Context is everything; 3) The devil’s in the details...
My beef with cognitive approaches to motivation, emotion, and behavior: cognitivists tend to consider what happens in the head as products of what goes on in the head, with the implicit opposition to what happens "objectively" "in the world". I see what happens in the head as tethered to the world that exists beyond the head.
There are maps and means and a sense of purpose and direction. Of course, one will take many wrong turns – that goes with the process.