Voices
In discussing over time with Ronan the need to present a more
balanced less dismissible view, not just attack on or use the same tactics of the alarmists,
I realized that this needed some further thought. It is clearly to
avoid rejection early or being dismissed or demonized. It
also then allows to find and enlarge cracks in their logic, all of which
are highly variable. There is however good reason to have various
voices in the course of the interaction. In fact we need to
have the various voices as they all have their place in the process. I draw upon my
mgmt.
experience in dealing with a situation of a high tech group that is highly energized and has
conflicts in its thinking. It has distinct parallels to what
openS faces. Clearly the discussion on climate
falls into that category.
In many fast paced, pressure driven organizations it is easy to revert into various behaviors. If a group of creative and strongly opinionated contributors sits down for a meeting to resolve a key issue, there are many possibilities that can occur. Groups with higher affectivity display different behavior than those that are not successful. If the group is operating with each individual constructing their view, and not really listening to the other person’s presentation then that leads to less collaboration and synergy between ideas. It then makes sense that the better group is open to learning from each other and displaying the behaviors of summarizing what is heard, asking for clarification, and even building on the ideas. The latter means that one idea sparks a new idea, and loop begins. This does not mean that there is not any defend or attack behaviors. The percentage of these can be low and be positive. So how does this relate to a discussion on climate?
If a person feels that a political or opinionated view is being pressed upon them without any discussion then there will be pushback and the worst behaviors of above will ensue. If a person is armed and ready for battle, but is unsure about some aspect of their climate change theory, the question becomes how to find that crack. It is however not our job to find it but to help the viewer find it and fill it. So presenting information that seems valid and clearly well-reasoned is the starting intent. If the viewer looks for ways to dismiss the counter theory then not much can be achieved. It is therefore necessary to give some validity to the counter view of climate change, without giving up a counter conclusion.
This was a matter of tailoring the demeanor to the audience being targeted. Taking a journey together is a process that respects each other. If that question can be answered early then it is possible to build on ideas. Lowering for those where this is possible the force field that resists alternative theories has to be achieved. The question as to how the person got to a position of a belief in AGW at a min is a topic for another email. First we need to examine the marketing opportunities for a unique product with advantages.
Having another blog or set of videos blasting the alarmist positions was not by itself very productive. There are a great many possibilities, but in the practical world of climate discussions the array of possible voices can be boiled down to 4. First what is a voice? I see it as the tone, demeanor and content that is presented. One example of a familiar voice is that of a scientific researcher. In this voice the presenter as the scientist is presenting the data, analysis, the methodology, the hypothesis, and the proposed theory. A orderly application of the scientific method. It would not mix in political polemics into the flow, for that would be a combination voice.
A look at the 4 voices I am outlining, and needs to be managed.
Inquiry: the scientific research and how does it stack up. Pure reason, data and logic. A furthering of understanding of the science and knowledge. It is about methodology and the application of the scientific method. By using ample and effective review, the climate science is pushed forward.
Summarize: present the summary of what is thought to be known along with the questions, along with the degrees of uncertainty. Clarify, make distinctions, raise questions. Make the case to learn before deciding how to build policy. Provide tutorials, apply the Socratic approach. Provide both sides in a clear fashion.
Instigate: go another step further and identify discrepancies, questions that beg a rethink or at least a debate. Closer links from ideas to what might be the unintended consequences. Ask what is the person willing to believe in, risk for the future.
Defend/attack: stand up to each attack with counter arguments. Itemize how the alarmist movement is functioning, orgs like the IPCC function. Follow the money and observe the orgs that use them. Identify the marketing and politics as practiced. Avoid broad categorical statements and demonizing. Stay one level above the opposition when it comes clearly to that distinction. Use more direct approaches to standing up against the claims that can be shown as ridiculous.
Some topics and discussions are best in one voice or another. Take the topic of a IPCC report. One could take a key technical points in the report and break it down as to methods, results, and what assumptions were made. So a combination of the first 3 voices, building from one to the next the deeper one goes. Another example of a voice 2 content could be to pursue the summary of the results of the models as compared to actual measurements. Some of the arguments for why the discrepancies occurred might be cataloged and raised as serious questions. A voice 3 example. The next step could be to ask critical questions as to how these arguments stack up and what counter arguments are there, more voice 3. The 4th voice could delve into the organization, the motives, the risk in the policies being promoted and the unintended consequences that would arguably result. This voice is an important expression for sometimes the raising directly of an issue, a false fact, is exactly in order. It is perhaps less valuable with the general public and for those who want to seize a simple view and defend it, as many do.
Clearly the challenge is to attempt this with a low cost model, cost measured in time and effort. It could be that a flow is from an observation to a deeper examination. Asking more and more detailed questions as to how a conclusion can be formed. If done well and with generous use of hyperlinks it would be harder to dismiss. Once a hook of curiosity is created it will be more difficult to dismiss. Once there is an opening then adding in more questions that are real and important will be a good thing.
(title)