Often activists trying to do something, or stop something, will focus on the worst-case scenario. Gun control opponents invite us to think of all of the countries where guns have been confiscated and fascism followed. If we don't give up fossil fuels, we will kill the environment.
Hyperbole and exaggeration belong in advertisements for cologne and used cars. In discussing serious issues and what to do about them, you should be wary of those things. Let me explain why, in three short paragraphs.
1. You are being led to a radical view of a problem that is poorly supported by evidence. Eating less meat might be good for you and for the planet, but is eating meat really going to "kill the planet"?
2. You are being led to oppose a good idea by an appeal to fear. Sure, you could be a victim of a violent home invasion. Sure, having a gun nearby could help. How do you know? What are the odds?
3. You are being distracted from things that have a higher chance of happening.
I may return to these topics in future posts, if anyone is interested.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Saturday, October 28, 2017
No One Cares About Your Pronoun
Gay rights activists (I can't bring myself to keep using LGBTIA+) wish everyone would stop assuming someone's preferred pronoun. If you look like a man, but you identify as female, people are supposedly erasing your identity by using male pronouns. If a person who looks female identifies as gender non-binary, ze wants you to use gender neutral pronouns. Symbols are sometimes important, but only sometimes.
This is utter bullshit for at least two reasons. Firstly, only a tiny percent of the population identifies as something other than male or female, their birth gender. How many? No one knows.
We all know that, as adults, we are largely responsible for managing our own emotions. Even if you are deliberately insulted, by being called a 'faggot' or a 'nigger' you are still responsible for your reaction. The judge might go easy on you for beating up the troglodyte who insulted you, but there will still be legal consequences. Having to put up with the "wrong" pronoun is not even close to the same level of offense.
Yet, this is not the issue. The issue is whether using male pronouns for Joe is truly trying to quash, suppress, negate, or de-legitimize Joe's existence as a gender non-binary person. It isn't; it is assuming that at least 99% of people who look like men are OK with male pronouns. Whether Joe prefers 'ze' to male pronouns is a trivial matter. Joe needs to be responsible for managing his own feelings about hearing conventional words that he does not feel apply to him.
Getting people to give up gendered pronouns is going to take a very long time. And for what benefit really? How does anyone know this would make society more accepting of non-heterosexual persons? Maybe it will. If this is your position, you must be able to defend it. Calling the rest of us homophobic, or saying we are OK with throwing genderqueer people "under the bus" is just a way to cut off real discussion.
So, we are all responsible for managing our own feelings. Sensible people also (mostly) agree that society should have rules to protect people from outright oppression and discrimination. Those rules do give gay people some protections. The law in some US states and many EU nations does recognize gay marriage. Is there room for progress? Yes.
Changing Pronoun Use is Hopeless:
But, how to make progress? Is pushing for gender-neutral pronouns a good idea? Is encouraging everyone to find out what pronoun someone prefers a good idea? I doubt that even most gay people and trans people (who are trying to pass as their biological gender) would care.
I can read some minds now. So, what is your evidence that this evolution in pronoun use will make anything better for non-heterosexual people? That wasn't a rhetorical question. The only way I know to change attitudes is to really talk to people and address their concerns about gay and trans people one-on-one. Being sensitive to homophobia and transphobia isn't going to encourage Joe to check his pronoun use.
Advertising might help, some. Celebrity advertising is probably completely useless. How many of us really care about what movie stars think about social issues? And what if Matt Damon disagrees with you about how being gay is OK? Will you have a conversion experience and immediately go out to try and make gay friends?
Practical Action is the Key:
Getting people to give up gendered pronouns is going to take a very long time. And for what benefit really? How does anyone know this would make society more accepting of non-heterosexual persons? Maybe it will. If this is your position, you must be able to defend it. Calling the rest of us homophobic, or saying we are OK with throwing genderqueer people "under the bus" is just a way to cut off real discussion.
So, we are all responsible for managing our own feelings. Sensible people also (mostly) agree that society should have rules to protect people from outright oppression and discrimination. Those rules do give gay people some protections. The law in some US states and many EU nations does recognize gay marriage. Is there room for progress? Yes.
Changing Pronoun Use is Hopeless:
But, how to make progress? Is pushing for gender-neutral pronouns a good idea? Is encouraging everyone to find out what pronoun someone prefers a good idea? I doubt that even most gay people and trans people (who are trying to pass as their biological gender) would care.
I can read some minds now. So, what is your evidence that this evolution in pronoun use will make anything better for non-heterosexual people? That wasn't a rhetorical question. The only way I know to change attitudes is to really talk to people and address their concerns about gay and trans people one-on-one. Being sensitive to homophobia and transphobia isn't going to encourage Joe to check his pronoun use.
Advertising might help, some. Celebrity advertising is probably completely useless. How many of us really care about what movie stars think about social issues? And what if Matt Damon disagrees with you about how being gay is OK? Will you have a conversion experience and immediately go out to try and make gay friends?
Practical Action is the Key:
If you care about the rights of people who are not heterosexual, that's great. If you want to actually do something for them, that is even better. There is effectively no chance that gender-neutral pronouns will replace gendered pronouns.
Sticking with practical matters like getting gay marriage legalized in your state would be a better project to work on. You might be able to win a real victory against homophobic laws, regulations, or customs by using things like boycotts and petitions. Those activities are a better use of your time, really. Leave the symbolism to people who have more free time.
Sticking with practical matters like getting gay marriage legalized in your state would be a better project to work on. You might be able to win a real victory against homophobic laws, regulations, or customs by using things like boycotts and petitions. Those activities are a better use of your time, really. Leave the symbolism to people who have more free time.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Fighting Social Pollution by Teaching Mental Hygiene
What do Brietbart, Stormfront, Joe Mercola, and the Food Babe all have in common? Their sites are sources of social pollution. This is my own label for irrational, illogical, and counter factual thinking, you know, the stuff that critical thinking is supposed to help us resist. Defense against social pollution boils down to a combination of critical thinking and public education campaigns against propaganda and nonsense.
What is Social Pollution:
An opinion you don't like is not a form of social pollution. It has to go deeper than mere disagreement. It the opinion is illogical or contradicts known facts, then it probably counts. If that opinion would undermine widely-held values or human rights then it most definitely counts as social pollution.
How Pollution Starts and Spreads:
Social pollution comes from all parts of the social environment. As faith leaders, politicians, culture critics, documentary film makers and activists provide us with good information, they also feed us illogical and irrational ideas and opinions. Add to this the natural biases we all have in thinking and evaluating evidence, and you have the potential for trouble.
Conventional advertisers are part of the problem, but only part. Will that sports car really make you more appealing to the ladies? Will a crystal on a chain really balance your energies? Advertisers know how to play with our emotions and perceptions to make their products or services appeal to people. They are only a small part of the problem, except in a couple of cases.
1. Advertisements for scam products and services - Can you really get rich buying foreclosed properties? No. Will a nutritional supplement sold on late night television really slow the aging process? No.
2. Political advertising - Many advertisements dealing with politicians, social problems and laws use traditional advertising tactics and outright lies to move viewers to action.
The abuse of fact and logic illustrates what social pollution is, and what it leads to - opinions, behaviors, a worldview divorced from reality that have real effects on peoples' lives.
Individual and Social Causes:
Social pollution spreads because both society and the human mind help. This is a subject for a book, but in brief, several elements of modern society and of the human mind make it easy for social pollution to spread.
Our Unreliable Minds - Everyone is prone to cognitive biases, errors in thinking, that cannot be overcome by education or by intelligence either. Modern societies spawn people with an interest in selling lies and nonsense. Some of those individuals have political or religious motives, while others only care about the money. Either way, they are selling ideas that do not benefit the individual who hears them.
People Selling Fear/Division/Disorder - There is a special type of propaganda peddler, called an availability entrepreneur, who makes sure we have plenty of biased information on whatever threat or problem or crisis they want to promote. Those issues may indeed be serious ones, but the availability entrepreneur only cares about advancing their own worldview and making money.
Fighting Back Against Social Pollution:
This fight has two fronts - each individual's mind, and the social environment - that need to be attacked in different ways. Defending one's mind begins with learning to evaluate arguments and evidence. Better education is the best defense. Lesson plans and public education campaigns need to target specific issues, to prevent the resulting programs and policies from becoming contaminated with patent nonsense.
An educated mind is the best defense for the individual. Being smart or having common sense helps, but is not enough. Having a properly trained mind means having training in:
Social pollution is a social problem that can be fought through advocacy and public education efforts. Many such efforts exist now, to address a range of problems:
More needs to be done, of course. The world needs campaigns against other forms of social pollution, some with a more-direct impact on daily life. Myths about violent crime come to mind.
There needs to be a Social Pollution Prevention Initiative. At the very least, we can re-brand critical thinking as Social Pollution Prevention and use exercises related to social and environmental issues. There needs to be wider awareness of sites like the National Center for Science Education and TalkOrigins, to stick with natural sciences.
What is Social Pollution:
An opinion you don't like is not a form of social pollution. It has to go deeper than mere disagreement. It the opinion is illogical or contradicts known facts, then it probably counts. If that opinion would undermine widely-held values or human rights then it most definitely counts as social pollution.
How Pollution Starts and Spreads:
Social pollution comes from all parts of the social environment. As faith leaders, politicians, culture critics, documentary film makers and activists provide us with good information, they also feed us illogical and irrational ideas and opinions. Add to this the natural biases we all have in thinking and evaluating evidence, and you have the potential for trouble.
Conventional advertisers are part of the problem, but only part. Will that sports car really make you more appealing to the ladies? Will a crystal on a chain really balance your energies? Advertisers know how to play with our emotions and perceptions to make their products or services appeal to people. They are only a small part of the problem, except in a couple of cases.
1. Advertisements for scam products and services - Can you really get rich buying foreclosed properties? No. Will a nutritional supplement sold on late night television really slow the aging process? No.
2. Political advertising - Many advertisements dealing with politicians, social problems and laws use traditional advertising tactics and outright lies to move viewers to action.
The abuse of fact and logic illustrates what social pollution is, and what it leads to - opinions, behaviors, a worldview divorced from reality that have real effects on peoples' lives.
Individual and Social Causes:
Social pollution spreads because both society and the human mind help. This is a subject for a book, but in brief, several elements of modern society and of the human mind make it easy for social pollution to spread.
Our Unreliable Minds - Everyone is prone to cognitive biases, errors in thinking, that cannot be overcome by education or by intelligence either. Modern societies spawn people with an interest in selling lies and nonsense. Some of those individuals have political or religious motives, while others only care about the money. Either way, they are selling ideas that do not benefit the individual who hears them.
People Selling Fear/Division/Disorder - There is a special type of propaganda peddler, called an availability entrepreneur, who makes sure we have plenty of biased information on whatever threat or problem or crisis they want to promote. Those issues may indeed be serious ones, but the availability entrepreneur only cares about advancing their own worldview and making money.
Fighting Back Against Social Pollution:
This fight has two fronts - each individual's mind, and the social environment - that need to be attacked in different ways. Defending one's mind begins with learning to evaluate arguments and evidence. Better education is the best defense. Lesson plans and public education campaigns need to target specific issues, to prevent the resulting programs and policies from becoming contaminated with patent nonsense.
An educated mind is the best defense for the individual. Being smart or having common sense helps, but is not enough. Having a properly trained mind means having training in:
Social pollution is a social problem that can be fought through advocacy and public education efforts. Many such efforts exist now, to address a range of problems:
More needs to be done, of course. The world needs campaigns against other forms of social pollution, some with a more-direct impact on daily life. Myths about violent crime come to mind.
There needs to be a Social Pollution Prevention Initiative. At the very least, we can re-brand critical thinking as Social Pollution Prevention and use exercises related to social and environmental issues. There needs to be wider awareness of sites like the National Center for Science Education and TalkOrigins, to stick with natural sciences.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Notes on Blending Social Science and Activism
Activism is demanding enough, so a big social science project is probably the last thing on your mind. This blog won't make anyone into a social science researcher anyway. The point here is to teach activists, whether working in a nonprofit or not, read and use social science effectively and correctly. I'll focus on sociology, because that's my background.
Social Science and Activism
If you know anything about evaluation, performance management or doing survey research this blog might be useful. It will be of most use to consumers of social science data like Gallup and Pew Research polls and the results of peer-reviewed social science research.
The way you frame an issue or challenge is important. This often goes to the question of why a problem exists. Why is there bullying in schools? It could be a lack of empathy or a small subset of kids with serious emotional problems or one of those things and one or two others. Try to find research from a reputable source.
Too often, people jump on a diagnosis of the problem and a solution, but the solution was invented by other people who don't know what they are doing. Their diagnosis could be based in ideology - on what there philosophy or worldview requires them to believe - rather than on data.
This is a huge drain on resources in some issue areas. Economic development work driven either by Marxism or by free-market libertarian types can frame the problem in different ways, but wrong ways. Libertarians are automatically biased toward looking at how market forces can be used to promote economic development in the city. Activists rooted in Marxism will say the problem exists because the economic elites have basically taken resources from the workers.
Staying on Top with Data
Tracking results is important. How effective are your programs? If nothing else, you need to know because grant making organizations and major donors are going to ask. Before you even get a grant you will almost certainly need to have some idea of how you will measure your impact.
This may seem basic to sum, but no where to get information on trends that are relevant to your cause. Pay attention to polls from Gallup and Pew, or at least check what the publish online to see if it can be of use. If you are a gun control organization, even a small one, you really need to know where to get reliable data on gun violence and gun ownership and public attitudes toward guns.
Using secondary data in planning, social marketing and cause marketing, social media posting, advocacy, fundraising materials. Look for survey data, government statistics, and so on. You probably do that. Just be sure to use reliable sources that are widely trusted, versus sources that are feminist, socialist, libertarian or whatever. We all know you are committed to feminism, socialism, libertarianism and whatever else. To the extent that we care about data at all, we want know that your appeal is rooted in trustworthy data.
Concept R&D
This is an old idea from creativity guru Edward De Bono. His version of the idea involved looking for a concept employed in one domain of business and looking at how that concept could be used in another. For example, there is layaway for consumer goods. Could you buy education on a layaway plan? Perhaps? I don't know how you would actually make installments on training before actually getting the training, but never mind.
The point here is to pay attention to concepts that come in social science research. You can even pick them out from journal articles and Wikipedia articles on social theories. Write down challenges you want to tackle, or problems you might like to solve.
Become an Armchair Sociologist
The key to being a really good activist is...impossible to identify. There isn't one thing. If you have resources but lack passion, you might not get very far. If you have passion but lack knowledge, you will waste a huge amount of time and money, and perhaps create a worse problem than you tried to solve. The Law of Unintended Consequences cannot be suspended by having good intentions. I hope this cursory overview of how and why to blend social science and activism has been thought provoking.
Feel free to leave a comment below.
Social Science and Activism
If you know anything about evaluation, performance management or doing survey research this blog might be useful. It will be of most use to consumers of social science data like Gallup and Pew Research polls and the results of peer-reviewed social science research.
The way you frame an issue or challenge is important. This often goes to the question of why a problem exists. Why is there bullying in schools? It could be a lack of empathy or a small subset of kids with serious emotional problems or one of those things and one or two others. Try to find research from a reputable source.
Too often, people jump on a diagnosis of the problem and a solution, but the solution was invented by other people who don't know what they are doing. Their diagnosis could be based in ideology - on what there philosophy or worldview requires them to believe - rather than on data.
This is a huge drain on resources in some issue areas. Economic development work driven either by Marxism or by free-market libertarian types can frame the problem in different ways, but wrong ways. Libertarians are automatically biased toward looking at how market forces can be used to promote economic development in the city. Activists rooted in Marxism will say the problem exists because the economic elites have basically taken resources from the workers.
Staying on Top with Data
Tracking results is important. How effective are your programs? If nothing else, you need to know because grant making organizations and major donors are going to ask. Before you even get a grant you will almost certainly need to have some idea of how you will measure your impact.
This may seem basic to sum, but no where to get information on trends that are relevant to your cause. Pay attention to polls from Gallup and Pew, or at least check what the publish online to see if it can be of use. If you are a gun control organization, even a small one, you really need to know where to get reliable data on gun violence and gun ownership and public attitudes toward guns.
Using secondary data in planning, social marketing and cause marketing, social media posting, advocacy, fundraising materials. Look for survey data, government statistics, and so on. You probably do that. Just be sure to use reliable sources that are widely trusted, versus sources that are feminist, socialist, libertarian or whatever. We all know you are committed to feminism, socialism, libertarianism and whatever else. To the extent that we care about data at all, we want know that your appeal is rooted in trustworthy data.
Concept R&D
This is an old idea from creativity guru Edward De Bono. His version of the idea involved looking for a concept employed in one domain of business and looking at how that concept could be used in another. For example, there is layaway for consumer goods. Could you buy education on a layaway plan? Perhaps? I don't know how you would actually make installments on training before actually getting the training, but never mind.
The point here is to pay attention to concepts that come in social science research. You can even pick them out from journal articles and Wikipedia articles on social theories. Write down challenges you want to tackle, or problems you might like to solve.
Become an Armchair Sociologist
The key to being a really good activist is...impossible to identify. There isn't one thing. If you have resources but lack passion, you might not get very far. If you have passion but lack knowledge, you will waste a huge amount of time and money, and perhaps create a worse problem than you tried to solve. The Law of Unintended Consequences cannot be suspended by having good intentions. I hope this cursory overview of how and why to blend social science and activism has been thought provoking.
Feel free to leave a comment below.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Will Comet ISON or Nibiru or Wormwood or all three destroy the world?
Well, no, That is just paranoid nonsense. Comet ISON is too small and won't hit the earth this time. Nibiru doesn't exist or has not been proven. Wormwood is just a world from the Bible. If these things are not going to destroy the world, are they going to provide the excuse for some nefarious action by the United States government - FEMA camps, martial law, gun confiscation, et cetera?
You can probably guess what my opinion is, just by reading between the lines of that first paragraph. This post focuses on some sociological thoughts on the nature of these sorts of apocalyptic conspiracies. The types of people who both promote these ideas and take them seriously could tell us something about the nature of the modern world. That's a wild guess, but I will flesh things out presently.
Now, if you have surfed around on YouTube or just Googled "Comet ISON" you might have come up with some type of conspiracy. The basis of the conspiracy seems to be that "they" are hiding the truth. Those sinister pronouns! Always hiding things from people! Actually, the conspiracy refers to the United States government, or just NASA, or perhaps to multiple agencies.
What sort of person takes this conspiracy talk seriously? I don't mean to suggest the believers are insane or stupid. I want to know what social and economic characteristics do believers share that sets the group apart from the general public. And I want to know if my hypothesis is correct.
My proposed account of what's going on works like this: People are marginalized, not getting by in wider society. These people may not be well educated or have much of a social network to relate to. The believers feel bad about their place in the world. Latching onto a conspiracy like the Comet ISON story gives them a sense of being in on something special. And, unlike you, they are wise enough to see through the cover up and official denials.
Why do some folks insist on peddling these conspiracies? Money, power, and true confusion over reality might be all that is called for.
The same process or mechanism works with other conspiracies too. I'll try to explain in more detail in future posts, unless the NSA comes for me.
You can probably guess what my opinion is, just by reading between the lines of that first paragraph. This post focuses on some sociological thoughts on the nature of these sorts of apocalyptic conspiracies. The types of people who both promote these ideas and take them seriously could tell us something about the nature of the modern world. That's a wild guess, but I will flesh things out presently.
Now, if you have surfed around on YouTube or just Googled "Comet ISON" you might have come up with some type of conspiracy. The basis of the conspiracy seems to be that "they" are hiding the truth. Those sinister pronouns! Always hiding things from people! Actually, the conspiracy refers to the United States government, or just NASA, or perhaps to multiple agencies.
What sort of person takes this conspiracy talk seriously? I don't mean to suggest the believers are insane or stupid. I want to know what social and economic characteristics do believers share that sets the group apart from the general public. And I want to know if my hypothesis is correct.
My proposed account of what's going on works like this: People are marginalized, not getting by in wider society. These people may not be well educated or have much of a social network to relate to. The believers feel bad about their place in the world. Latching onto a conspiracy like the Comet ISON story gives them a sense of being in on something special. And, unlike you, they are wise enough to see through the cover up and official denials.
Why do some folks insist on peddling these conspiracies? Money, power, and true confusion over reality might be all that is called for.
The same process or mechanism works with other conspiracies too. I'll try to explain in more detail in future posts, unless the NSA comes for me.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Who cares about carbon pollution?
Is carbon pollution really a form of pollution? President Obama's remarks about the Keystone Pipeline and carbon pollution touched off some thoughts about climate change, politics, and environmental activism. The constant references to carbon pollution annoy me. This post explains why, and why you as an activist should care.
Carbon Pollution is not Pollution
First of all, there is a major factual error here - Carbon is not a pollutant unless it is introduced into the air in truly extraordinary amounts. Forest fires and volcanic eruptions dump lots of carbon-rich soot and ash into the air over a short period of time. We all know that sort of event is bad news indeed. But the carbon atoms themselves don't do anything in everyday life.
A pollution problem develops when carbon, in the form of methane or carbon dioxide starts to build up in the air. These greenhouse gases are what is really being talked about when President Obama and others talk about carbon pollution. Why do they oversimplify? I know what Obama's opponents will say - Obama voters are too stupid to understand what greenhouse gases are.
Simplification is a reasonable way to go sometimes. An oversimplification that introduces an actual error into your thinking is not reasonable. It is an error to think or say that carbon pollution is a major contributor to global warming.
Is carbon pollution just a shorthand way of expressing the idea that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change? Yes it really is. That's hard to argue with. What I don't like is the introduction of scientific inaccuracy to discussions of the subject.
The Correct Use of Shorthand
The shorthand might be misunderstood or even taken as a statement of fact over time: "Carbon is dust you know. You can't even see carbon coming out of tailpipes and stuff. How can carbon pollution be causing so much trouble. Environmentalists are full of it. Must be."
Shorthand leads to misunderstanding in other ways. If your message contains shorthand for some health concern, social impact, or environmental risk I, being new to the subject, might not understand. Now, your pithy headline contains what I see as a logical or factual error. Do you think I am going to study your message closely after that?
"Gun control is people control." - No. What does "people control" even mean? Do you mean that regulations on the ownership of firearms represent a form of oppression? That just sounds loopy and irrational.
"Carbon Pollution Threatens Us All" - No. Greenhouse gas emissions are a threat. Carbon is a non-metallic element, one of the most common elements in the universe.
"Abortion - Hitler Would Have Loved It" - Just absurd. Is this invocation of Hitler supposed to make me hate abortion because "Hitler" is a shorthand for horrible, hateful social policies that no sane person would support? If so, then this slogan fails. To a sensible person, that Hitler liked abortion, or dogs, or German beer is completely irrelevant.
"Hitler was a vegetarian. Do you want to be like Hitler?" Now I'm just fooling around.
So, in conclusion, exercise extreme care in using shorthand to get your point across. A related tip would be to check the conclusions that might be drawn from using shorthand in headlines, taglines, subheadings, slogans or the body of an article. Take a second look at the above examples and see what you get out of them, and I hope you will that writing about "carbon pollution" should be done with caution.
Carbon Pollution is not Pollution
First of all, there is a major factual error here - Carbon is not a pollutant unless it is introduced into the air in truly extraordinary amounts. Forest fires and volcanic eruptions dump lots of carbon-rich soot and ash into the air over a short period of time. We all know that sort of event is bad news indeed. But the carbon atoms themselves don't do anything in everyday life.
A pollution problem develops when carbon, in the form of methane or carbon dioxide starts to build up in the air. These greenhouse gases are what is really being talked about when President Obama and others talk about carbon pollution. Why do they oversimplify? I know what Obama's opponents will say - Obama voters are too stupid to understand what greenhouse gases are.
Simplification is a reasonable way to go sometimes. An oversimplification that introduces an actual error into your thinking is not reasonable. It is an error to think or say that carbon pollution is a major contributor to global warming.
Is carbon pollution just a shorthand way of expressing the idea that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change? Yes it really is. That's hard to argue with. What I don't like is the introduction of scientific inaccuracy to discussions of the subject.
The Correct Use of Shorthand
The shorthand might be misunderstood or even taken as a statement of fact over time: "Carbon is dust you know. You can't even see carbon coming out of tailpipes and stuff. How can carbon pollution be causing so much trouble. Environmentalists are full of it. Must be."
Shorthand leads to misunderstanding in other ways. If your message contains shorthand for some health concern, social impact, or environmental risk I, being new to the subject, might not understand. Now, your pithy headline contains what I see as a logical or factual error. Do you think I am going to study your message closely after that?
"Gun control is people control." - No. What does "people control" even mean? Do you mean that regulations on the ownership of firearms represent a form of oppression? That just sounds loopy and irrational.
"Carbon Pollution Threatens Us All" - No. Greenhouse gas emissions are a threat. Carbon is a non-metallic element, one of the most common elements in the universe.
"Abortion - Hitler Would Have Loved It" - Just absurd. Is this invocation of Hitler supposed to make me hate abortion because "Hitler" is a shorthand for horrible, hateful social policies that no sane person would support? If so, then this slogan fails. To a sensible person, that Hitler liked abortion, or dogs, or German beer is completely irrelevant.
"Hitler was a vegetarian. Do you want to be like Hitler?" Now I'm just fooling around.
So, in conclusion, exercise extreme care in using shorthand to get your point across. A related tip would be to check the conclusions that might be drawn from using shorthand in headlines, taglines, subheadings, slogans or the body of an article. Take a second look at the above examples and see what you get out of them, and I hope you will that writing about "carbon pollution" should be done with caution.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Thinking About Guns Like a Sociologist
Yes, that might be my dumbest title ever, but it does reflect my change in focus. The place I was blogging for, Film Annex, decided to take a break from blogging for a time, so no more posts about education and social change in Afghanistan. For now. On to gun control.
The next few posts will introduce some tools that activists can use to make their efforts to persuade and inform a bit more effective. In my blog Building Better Nonprofits, I sometimes describe brainstorming tools.
Gun control is still in the news. There are dedicated activists on both sides of the issue, with the Brady Center and the National Rifle Association (NRA) being the big players. Well, the mainstream media outlets tend to come down on the anti-gun side of the debate, if you believe the more paranoid opponents of gun control. Whether there is something to that claim is a matter for sociological investigation - Are media stories systematically biased for or against gun control and how would you know?
Statistics on gun control get bandied about quite a bit. This post will not repeat any of those statistics, but future posts will. This post just offers a few general observations about how to use sociological thinking when confronted with statistics on gun violence, gun control, and related matters.
States with concealed carry laws tend to have lower violent crime rates than states that do not require concealed carry. Is this true? The statistics I promised not to use will not reveal the answer really. Here is why? We are only looking at an association between two things - whether you are legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm in the state and the rate of violent crime. Other factors need to be considered before any real conclusions can be drawn. Do you know what I'm thinking of? Consider the possibilities for a moment before reading on.
So, here are some other factors that could affect the "relationship" I noted above:
1. There is not much you can really learn from a snapshot of the data. Was crime going down or up over a number of years, and in what states? When did THOSE states pass laws allowing concealed carry.
2. What is the poverty rate? Poverty is often associated with crime and other socially undesirable behaviors.
3. What percentage of the population is between, oh, 16 and 35, and male? I think that is the most crime-prone segment of the population.
4. Has the 16-34 male population been increasing or decreasing?
5. And this should be obvious - How many people are actually carrying? The rate, say 1 per 148 people, is even more important but I know most people don't jump right to thinking of rates and percentages.
6. What is the overall rate of gun ownership? Has it been going up or down? Those two questions probably crossed your mind as well.
Just as an aside, gun ownership is growing and violent crime in the United States has plummeted over the past 20 years. Is there a connection there? After reading this post I hope you aren't too quick to offer an answer.
Gun-related statistics can be used to say just about anything. Right? More on that topic next time...complete with numbers this time!
The next few posts will introduce some tools that activists can use to make their efforts to persuade and inform a bit more effective. In my blog Building Better Nonprofits, I sometimes describe brainstorming tools.
Gun control is still in the news. There are dedicated activists on both sides of the issue, with the Brady Center and the National Rifle Association (NRA) being the big players. Well, the mainstream media outlets tend to come down on the anti-gun side of the debate, if you believe the more paranoid opponents of gun control. Whether there is something to that claim is a matter for sociological investigation - Are media stories systematically biased for or against gun control and how would you know?
Statistics on gun control get bandied about quite a bit. This post will not repeat any of those statistics, but future posts will. This post just offers a few general observations about how to use sociological thinking when confronted with statistics on gun violence, gun control, and related matters.
States with concealed carry laws tend to have lower violent crime rates than states that do not require concealed carry. Is this true? The statistics I promised not to use will not reveal the answer really. Here is why? We are only looking at an association between two things - whether you are legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm in the state and the rate of violent crime. Other factors need to be considered before any real conclusions can be drawn. Do you know what I'm thinking of? Consider the possibilities for a moment before reading on.
So, here are some other factors that could affect the "relationship" I noted above:
1. There is not much you can really learn from a snapshot of the data. Was crime going down or up over a number of years, and in what states? When did THOSE states pass laws allowing concealed carry.
2. What is the poverty rate? Poverty is often associated with crime and other socially undesirable behaviors.
3. What percentage of the population is between, oh, 16 and 35, and male? I think that is the most crime-prone segment of the population.
4. Has the 16-34 male population been increasing or decreasing?
5. And this should be obvious - How many people are actually carrying? The rate, say 1 per 148 people, is even more important but I know most people don't jump right to thinking of rates and percentages.
6. What is the overall rate of gun ownership? Has it been going up or down? Those two questions probably crossed your mind as well.
Just as an aside, gun ownership is growing and violent crime in the United States has plummeted over the past 20 years. Is there a connection there? After reading this post I hope you aren't too quick to offer an answer.
Gun-related statistics can be used to say just about anything. Right? More on that topic next time...complete with numbers this time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)