Psychology and behavioral economics suggest that people cling to hopes as hard as possible until they are completely dashed. Thus, when people are presented with an option of taking a small loss to avoid a big potential calamity or preserving the status quo, they almost always choose the latter. Hope is not a rational thing, and so getting people to move from what makes them feel good to what is actually good for them requires far more than rational arguments. Appeals must be made to humor, fear and hope in something else to be successful. Above all, the proponent of any change must offer a compelling narrative.
I learned this when a friend of mine, we'll call her "D", was dealing with a nasty break up as an undergrad. She'd fallen hard for a guy who had a second girlfriend an hour's drive away, and decided to drop her in favor of the more distant girl. D was quite upset, and her friends, including me, tried to console her with very convincing arguements that ex-bf was an asshole, liar, scoundrel and complete waste of food (in point of fact, he's not a bad guy and we get along fairly well today). Two weeks later we had made no progress, so I tried a different approach: "D, he eats nothing but potatoes and fried chicken, and you are what you eat. Look at his skin, kinda splotchy like an old spud. His nose, and jowls . . . Well, you can love an asshole. You can love a lying, cheating jerk. But D, can you love a chicken?" I wore a bright yellow shirt and did a little chicken dance to drive home the point. When she stopped laughing a couple hours later, she felt a little better. It would take time and new opportunities for her to move on completely, but giving up trying to be rational about the process helped all of us.
This is relevant to the two big discussions on this blog, the financial mess and sustainability. The problem with the the banks today is one of confidence. After realizing that too few debts would be repaid for the debt-fueled system we've had since the 1980s to continue working, businesses and consumers have started hoarding. Fixing it will involve convincing everyone involved to take their losses and move on, while restoring confidence in the surviving institutions. Most importantly, these include the regulatory bodies that were established during the Great Depression and have the power to seize and wind down insolvent institutions. By allowing zombie banks to survive, they undermine their own real resource: credibility. If the coming "stress tests" don't reveal substantial problems in two or more of the top twenty banks, no one will believe them. If no one believes that BofA or Citi are more than politically connected, hollow shells, then their counterparties' will be suspect, and the banking system will remain paralyzed. I think FDR's "bank holiday" did more to help ease the GD than his spending programs, since the banks that reopened had more support and investment could begin anew. Until everyone involved trusts bank balance sheets and regulators' authority, the market will be paralyzed by fear.
The other issue is sustainability. As Tim noted in the comments on the previous post, talk about changing life styles to benefit grandkids doesn't have the emotional impact of scary movies or cute animals. There's an active ethics debate about investigating man-made reductions in Earth's heat flux, such as releasing particulates into the upper atmosphere, because giving policymakers that "out" from solving the real problems of unsustainable societies would hurt efforts that lead to long term solutions, and possibly force us to implement harmful "cures" for global warming. At the same time, climate skepticism has become a political stand against a perceived desire to destroy modern society. Thus, I prefer to cast the issue in terms of sustainability, since everyone agrees that we will run out of coal some day, and markets are not good at pricing depleting resources (North Sea cod, anyone?). Avoiding climate problems is important, but so is ocean acidity, particulate pollution (ask a USNA recruiter how many asthmatic kids he's had to turn down), and the security implications of keeping prosperity unavailable to most of the world's population.
In both cases, it's helpful to remember that the most effective anti-smoking ads don't bother mentioning that cigarettes will give you cancer and kill you, they point out that smoking can make you uglier, weaker and impotent. So it must be with all big social changes, pointing out the coming disaster won't help until it is upon people. Giving an alternate, better narrative if they choose a different path is more effective. To borrow a line from "Thank You for Smoking", know when it's an argument, not a debate.
1 comment:
If I might put in my two cents, I think one of the big reasons why there is an uphill battle to be fought here is the focus of society. Not to get all theological here (although, especially from my perspective, theology - especially theological anthropology is quite relevant to this debate), but my biggest issue is that we live in a society that caters to the passions. More often that not, we exult that which feels good, rather than that which is good. We look for the easy way, rather than the right way - and they are very rarely the same.
Of course, it is easy to point out problems. As a priest, especially one working with young kids and teenagers more than adults, one of the main questions that I have is "how do I help these kids see what is actually good and how do I help them learn to choose it?" (I guess that's technically two questions, but they are so closely intertwined that they may as well be one.) I don't have an answer yet. I have attempts - and, maybe, here and there, a little bit of success.
The thought I will end with here is that, maybe, if the grandchildren are woven into the story, then they will become relevant to the choices made. But you can't start with the grandchildren. You have to start here, now and help people weave the stories of their lives, pointing out here and there the decisions they make that are incongruous with the way the story unfolds. I think that can help start a process of differentiation between what feels good and what is good. You just need a solid foundation (at least partially shared with the person who is thinking about his life) from which to start the story weaving/critiquing. And that... is another story altogether.
Post a Comment