How Can I Be Radical ... Effectively?
February 16, 2010 10:33 AM Subscribe
When is it a good idea to declare something ought to be done when it goes against deeply held beliefs of a community?
Assumption: It truly would make things better for them and the world. They just don't believe it right now.
Two aspects to the question:
- Whether to do it at all?
- If you're going to to do it, how should you do for maximum effectiveness?
Examples: (Don't get too sidetracked on these examples. The question is broader.)
- Instructors who refuse to consider teaching a course with no text
- Librarians who refuse to recommend Wikipedia except in a very cautious way.
- Elderly people who refuse to read newspapers online.
Two aspects to the question:
- Whether to do it at all?
- If you're going to to do it, how should you do for maximum effectiveness?
Examples: (Don't get too sidetracked on these examples. The question is broader.)
- Instructors who refuse to consider teaching a course with no text
- Librarians who refuse to recommend Wikipedia except in a very cautious way.
- Elderly people who refuse to read newspapers online.
Just buy one Mac first, and when they see that person's productivity double, they'll approve the purchase of ten more.
Or whatever.
posted by rokusan at 10:43 AM on February 16, 2010
Or whatever.
posted by rokusan at 10:43 AM on February 16, 2010
Best answer: That's a pretty big assumption you're sneaking in there, especially as the reason a particular community's deeply held beliefs might go against said proposal is probably because the community doesn't believe that.
So I think the better question is probably "How do I convince my community that something they strongly resist is actually good for them?"
And I think the answer is "Use the language of the community to make the argument."
You need to show that whatever it is that you're trying to do is not only compatible with the community's beliefs but actually the best way to achieve the community's goals. This means really figuring out what the community believes, why it believes that, what it wants, why it wants that, and how whatever it is you think is the best thing since sliced bread fits in there.
This is how communities evolve. If you aren't doing that, you're basically forcing people to do things your way, and communities don't take kindly to that sort of thing, especially from outsiders.
posted by valkyryn at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
So I think the better question is probably "How do I convince my community that something they strongly resist is actually good for them?"
And I think the answer is "Use the language of the community to make the argument."
You need to show that whatever it is that you're trying to do is not only compatible with the community's beliefs but actually the best way to achieve the community's goals. This means really figuring out what the community believes, why it believes that, what it wants, why it wants that, and how whatever it is you think is the best thing since sliced bread fits in there.
This is how communities evolve. If you aren't doing that, you're basically forcing people to do things your way, and communities don't take kindly to that sort of thing, especially from outsiders.
posted by valkyryn at 10:48 AM on February 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: For those who want to know about the exact situation: The instructor and librarian examples are real. The one involving elderly people and newspapers is cover.
But I really want to understand ... in a generic questions for future situations where I'm tempted to "go radical."
posted by garyduke at 10:49 AM on February 16, 2010
But I really want to understand ... in a generic questions for future situations where I'm tempted to "go radical."
posted by garyduke at 10:49 AM on February 16, 2010
I heard a seminar on story-telling to effect change once. One point that stuck with me, because it was non-obvious, was that positive stories tended to have the desired effect, but negative stories did not. I.e., if you're trying to get people to do X, "Here's another group that did X and it turned out wonderfully," tends to be effective; but, perhaps surprisingly, "Here's a group that did not do X and it turned out horribly" is not particularly effective.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:49 AM on February 16, 2010
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:49 AM on February 16, 2010
I hope I'm not stating the obvious. In the world I live in, there are two cases:
1. You're a normal member of the community with equal rights. Example: a democratic institution. You have a chance to explain your point, if you do not get heard, it's not okay to just do what you were planning to.
2. You have more weight than the other members. Example: you're the boss of a team. You have a chance to explain your point and then make everyone follow you. Others have a chance to leave the group in case they do not want to follow you.
So what I'm saying is that it depends on your position in the community only. Btw. I'm not saying this is the right or even the best way, but just what I feel is considered a standard in the society I live in.
Since you're using the words "bettering the world" please be aware that many people before you have thought they would, and failed. For whatever reason.
posted by oxit at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2010
1. You're a normal member of the community with equal rights. Example: a democratic institution. You have a chance to explain your point, if you do not get heard, it's not okay to just do what you were planning to.
2. You have more weight than the other members. Example: you're the boss of a team. You have a chance to explain your point and then make everyone follow you. Others have a chance to leave the group in case they do not want to follow you.
So what I'm saying is that it depends on your position in the community only. Btw. I'm not saying this is the right or even the best way, but just what I feel is considered a standard in the society I live in.
Since you're using the words "bettering the world" please be aware that many people before you have thought they would, and failed. For whatever reason.
posted by oxit at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2010
What do you mean "declare"? What level of authority do you have in these situations? I mean, you could go declare to your local libarian that she should recommend Wikipedia, but if you're just a library patron and not citing any sort of authority for your stance except your personal beliefs then she's not really going to give a crap what you say.
posted by amro at 10:54 AM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by amro at 10:54 AM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
Did you ever consider that the instructor and librarian(s) may have perfectly valid reasons for acting the way they do? Your assumptions about what is "better for them and the world" sound pretty presumptive.
posted by arco at 10:56 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by arco at 10:56 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Librarians who refuse to recommend Wikipedia except in a very cautious way.
This comes down to a difference in the way people use secondary sources, but many people become open to Wikipedia if you can explain that many (most?) articles have extensive citations, and wikipedia can be used as a good launching off point. If they aren't ok with, say, quoting wikipedia in a school paper, that's fine. I hold the belief that secondary sources shouldn't be used as collections of facts. The primary sources are what you want, anyway.
posted by niles at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
This comes down to a difference in the way people use secondary sources, but many people become open to Wikipedia if you can explain that many (most?) articles have extensive citations, and wikipedia can be used as a good launching off point. If they aren't ok with, say, quoting wikipedia in a school paper, that's fine. I hold the belief that secondary sources shouldn't be used as collections of facts. The primary sources are what you want, anyway.
posted by niles at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
And, my main point - I work this way with any encyclopedia. Britannica and Wikipedia are both written by people who are just working from the cited sources anyway.
Wikipedia: No Original Research
posted by niles at 10:59 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Wikipedia: No Original Research
posted by niles at 10:59 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you're actually trying to win people over to your position, you need to listen respectfully to why they don't want to do things your way. People may have valid reasons for doing things the way they do, or for not wanting to do things the way you want to. In fact, their positions may actually be stronger than yours. If their position is based on a complete misunderstanding of your position, or there's some tangential issue that looms large in their thinking, you need to get to the root of that and address it before you can even start to make your case. If they have a valid position, you may just need to agree to disagree.
Just to pick on one of the examples you gave, there could be a host of reasons why people (old or young) would prefer not to read newspapers on a computer. They could be intimidated by computers in general, they may find the screens hard to read, they may not like sitting upright to look at a screen, it may feel too much like work, whatever. Maybe they're just cantankerous and don't like you telling them what to do. Some of these are issues you can't solve.
posted by adamrice at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Just to pick on one of the examples you gave, there could be a host of reasons why people (old or young) would prefer not to read newspapers on a computer. They could be intimidated by computers in general, they may find the screens hard to read, they may not like sitting upright to look at a screen, it may feel too much like work, whatever. Maybe they're just cantankerous and don't like you telling them what to do. Some of these are issues you can't solve.
posted by adamrice at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
I know you said don't get hung up on the examples, but a Librarian who incautiously and unreservedly recommends Wikipedia when the question is something other than "where can I go for unstable, unreliable and unpredictable information?" has misunderstood the demands of his or her profession. Just sayin'.
Whether to do it at all: I think "pick your battles" might be a good watchword. Gauge the need against the potential for conflict, and the severity of that conflict. A few ruffled feathers are not significant when weighed against something like a cleaner water supply or reducing the risk of fire. Inflaming the community because your opinion differs on some not-particularly-vital matter or because you personally favor something for unproven reasons is not.
How to do it for maximum effectiveness? What valkyryn said. Express it in terms of their values, not yours.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Whether to do it at all: I think "pick your battles" might be a good watchword. Gauge the need against the potential for conflict, and the severity of that conflict. A few ruffled feathers are not significant when weighed against something like a cleaner water supply or reducing the risk of fire. Inflaming the community because your opinion differs on some not-particularly-vital matter or because you personally favor something for unproven reasons is not.
How to do it for maximum effectiveness? What valkyryn said. Express it in terms of their values, not yours.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:00 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: in a generic questions for future situations where I'm tempted to "go radical."
I deal with the latter two examples all the time. It may help you to understand the idea of a "genuine option" which is something that is a sort of William James idea that he proposed philosophically around the "how do you get people to accept your good idea when it's SO CLEARLY a good idea..." notion. "Better" is relative.
The idea of a genuine option is that it's something that is a real option for people that THEY see as a real option [not you, them] and certain things make this happen for people. You can get into the philosophy of why this is true and how this works, but basically the idea is that you have to really decide you can show people that this is a good idea on their own terms. So for elderly people reading the paper, or librarians, it's not so much that you have to outmaneuver them intellectually, it's that you have to get to a point where you have absorbed their entire viewpoint and you can still give good and compelling [to them, not you] reasons why your approach is an improvement.
And then, and only then, if they're still dismissing you out of hand, you move on and fry other fish, elsewhere. I spend an awful lot of time telling librarians what I think Wikipedia is useful for. I don't say "you need to use this" I say "I think it's important in your job that you understand this system, how it works and why other people use it" It gives them the freedom to investigate without the pressure of "why can't you see why this is better?!"
I feel that there's a graciousness in being able to ask people to change their mind or change their opinion that often actually results in some movement as opposed to the "you obstinate cow, why can't you see it my way" approach that I'm pretty used to seeing not work whether it's used on others or used on me. Give people an opportunity to help you by seeing it your way, not insult them for their lack of clear sight that results in them having a different opinion from you.
And if you are at, as I suspect, school, this is a different issue than if you're a co-worker or a boss or a friend or a mentor. I waited til I was a mentor and now I get to suggest all sorts of wacky radical shit with aplomb, and people listen because... because they assume I've been there, and I have. I hope this is helpful and doesn't just sound preachy, but there's a lot more to the "how do I get people to accept my better ideas" than there appears at the surface, but it's sometimes hard for smart people to accept because they think they've done all the calculations already; they're often wrong.
posted by jessamyn at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2010 [9 favorites]
I deal with the latter two examples all the time. It may help you to understand the idea of a "genuine option" which is something that is a sort of William James idea that he proposed philosophically around the "how do you get people to accept your good idea when it's SO CLEARLY a good idea..." notion. "Better" is relative.
The idea of a genuine option is that it's something that is a real option for people that THEY see as a real option [not you, them] and certain things make this happen for people. You can get into the philosophy of why this is true and how this works, but basically the idea is that you have to really decide you can show people that this is a good idea on their own terms. So for elderly people reading the paper, or librarians, it's not so much that you have to outmaneuver them intellectually, it's that you have to get to a point where you have absorbed their entire viewpoint and you can still give good and compelling [to them, not you] reasons why your approach is an improvement.
And then, and only then, if they're still dismissing you out of hand, you move on and fry other fish, elsewhere. I spend an awful lot of time telling librarians what I think Wikipedia is useful for. I don't say "you need to use this" I say "I think it's important in your job that you understand this system, how it works and why other people use it" It gives them the freedom to investigate without the pressure of "why can't you see why this is better?!"
I feel that there's a graciousness in being able to ask people to change their mind or change their opinion that often actually results in some movement as opposed to the "you obstinate cow, why can't you see it my way" approach that I'm pretty used to seeing not work whether it's used on others or used on me. Give people an opportunity to help you by seeing it your way, not insult them for their lack of clear sight that results in them having a different opinion from you.
And if you are at, as I suspect, school, this is a different issue than if you're a co-worker or a boss or a friend or a mentor. I waited til I was a mentor and now I get to suggest all sorts of wacky radical shit with aplomb, and people listen because... because they assume I've been there, and I have. I hope this is helpful and doesn't just sound preachy, but there's a lot more to the "how do I get people to accept my better ideas" than there appears at the surface, but it's sometimes hard for smart people to accept because they think they've done all the calculations already; they're often wrong.
posted by jessamyn at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2010 [9 favorites]
It truly would make things better for them and the world.
I like Wikipedia just as much as the next person, but you don't and can't really know this. Further, having an assumption like this is not productive because you need an open mind to inspire open minds in others.
There are typically good (this term being highly objective) reasons behind what people think about certain things and understanding what their reasons are and by extension what needs they have that their current way of doing things fills will go a long way to helping you present a different way of doing things. Being "radical" (whatever that means to you) is probably not the best way to accomplish your goal here. Empathy and problem solving will probably go much further.
posted by Kimberly at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
I like Wikipedia just as much as the next person, but you don't and can't really know this. Further, having an assumption like this is not productive because you need an open mind to inspire open minds in others.
There are typically good (this term being highly objective) reasons behind what people think about certain things and understanding what their reasons are and by extension what needs they have that their current way of doing things fills will go a long way to helping you present a different way of doing things. Being "radical" (whatever that means to you) is probably not the best way to accomplish your goal here. Empathy and problem solving will probably go much further.
posted by Kimberly at 11:01 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
But I really want to understand ... in a generic questions for future situations where I'm tempted to "go radical."
This forum isn't really for hypothetical situations, and I don't understand why you feel that "cover" is necessary with us.
As for the librarians and the instructors... what do you mean by "radical"? Molotov cocktails? Sit-ins? Teams wearing black bandanas vandalizing the library? Hunger strikes?
These measures would never be appropriate in the situations you described. You would be viewed as a mentally unstable person who is best avoided and dealt with via law enforcement or mental health institutions.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:02 AM on February 16, 2010
This forum isn't really for hypothetical situations, and I don't understand why you feel that "cover" is necessary with us.
As for the librarians and the instructors... what do you mean by "radical"? Molotov cocktails? Sit-ins? Teams wearing black bandanas vandalizing the library? Hunger strikes?
These measures would never be appropriate in the situations you described. You would be viewed as a mentally unstable person who is best avoided and dealt with via law enforcement or mental health institutions.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:02 AM on February 16, 2010
When is it a good idea to declare something ought to be done when it goes against deeply held beliefs of a community? Assumption: It truly would make things better for them and the world.
Whenever you feel so inclined; there's nothing wrong with voicing your unpopular opinion. Acting like a self-righteous nut when your declarations are ignored is always going to be a bad move, though.
posted by jon1270 at 11:05 AM on February 16, 2010
Whenever you feel so inclined; there's nothing wrong with voicing your unpopular opinion. Acting like a self-righteous nut when your declarations are ignored is always going to be a bad move, though.
posted by jon1270 at 11:05 AM on February 16, 2010
Be the change you want to see in the world. So, use Wikipedia yourself and show by example how it's useful.
Understand other people's positions. You'll have a much easier time demolishing resistance if you understand why it's there.... or perhaps you'll learn something new yourself.
If you're enough of an authority on the subject, offer to teach courses on it. For example, a library might welcome some public evening sessions on "internet research". Not advocacy, just facts and techniques and honest comparisons of the merits of different kinds of website versus books. Then people can take it up at their own pace and make their own decisions.
Recognise that sometimes it's really just none of your business! I mean, what's it to you how I choose to read the news?
posted by emilyw at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2010
Understand other people's positions. You'll have a much easier time demolishing resistance if you understand why it's there.... or perhaps you'll learn something new yourself.
If you're enough of an authority on the subject, offer to teach courses on it. For example, a library might welcome some public evening sessions on "internet research". Not advocacy, just facts and techniques and honest comparisons of the merits of different kinds of website versus books. Then people can take it up at their own pace and make their own decisions.
Recognise that sometimes it's really just none of your business! I mean, what's it to you how I choose to read the news?
posted by emilyw at 11:09 AM on February 16, 2010
"When is it a good idea to declare something ought to be done when it goes against deeply held beliefs of a community?"
Well, first, you're assuming it goes against the deeply-held beliefs of the community. That may not be the case. Institutions are complex entities with a huge variety of stakeholders. I've been trying to get my college to let me teach a class without a text for three years now. They won't. It's not because it goes against my (the instructor's) deeply-held beliefs. It's because there's an entrenched bureaucracy, it's because there's a slow chain of command for textbook decisions, it's because accreditation isn't quite sure how to handle it, etc.
Frequently these "obvious" reforms are things other people have already thought of and attempted, or at least put on an action list, but there are a huge number of other, related issues that have to fall into place for it to happen.
PS -- I love newspapers. I WISH I still had a daily. It's not better at ALL to read the news online, I miss my newsprint. :(
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:19 AM on February 16, 2010
Well, first, you're assuming it goes against the deeply-held beliefs of the community. That may not be the case. Institutions are complex entities with a huge variety of stakeholders. I've been trying to get my college to let me teach a class without a text for three years now. They won't. It's not because it goes against my (the instructor's) deeply-held beliefs. It's because there's an entrenched bureaucracy, it's because there's a slow chain of command for textbook decisions, it's because accreditation isn't quite sure how to handle it, etc.
Frequently these "obvious" reforms are things other people have already thought of and attempted, or at least put on an action list, but there are a huge number of other, related issues that have to fall into place for it to happen.
PS -- I love newspapers. I WISH I still had a daily. It's not better at ALL to read the news online, I miss my newsprint. :(
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:19 AM on February 16, 2010
As to Wikipedia:
* You could ask them to guess how many errors are in an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica vs. how many are in an entry of the same length in Wikipedia. Presumably, they'll guess that there are more in Wikipedia. Tell them they're right -- a study found that an EB entry averaged 3 factual errors vs. 4 in Wikipedia. (Cite.) But that's a minute distinction.
* Along the same lines, you could point out "Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia."
* Then point out that EB has however many entries they have, and Wikipedia has however many it has. Thomas Friedman's book The World Is Flat contains some statistics -- I think it's about 30,000 vs. 800,000 respectively (and I'm sure Wikipedia has even more now).
* Then point out that Wikipedia is updated instantaneously. Paper encyclopedias quickly go out of date, making them less accurate.
* Admit that people sometimes post bad information to Wikipedia. But because of the social nature of the site, the bad content will quickly be fixed. (Clay Shirky gives a great explanation of how Wikipedia is so effective at this near the end of this diavlog -- audio/video starts immediately). As Shirky says, people shouldn't dismiss Wikipedia without understanding the social structure that creates it.
* There's also the fact that people now use Wikipedia by default. There's no way to get people not to use Wikipedia. But it is possible to help people use it more intelligently. (See Jessamyn's comment.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
* You could ask them to guess how many errors are in an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica vs. how many are in an entry of the same length in Wikipedia. Presumably, they'll guess that there are more in Wikipedia. Tell them they're right -- a study found that an EB entry averaged 3 factual errors vs. 4 in Wikipedia. (Cite.) But that's a minute distinction.
* Along the same lines, you could point out "Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia."
* Then point out that EB has however many entries they have, and Wikipedia has however many it has. Thomas Friedman's book The World Is Flat contains some statistics -- I think it's about 30,000 vs. 800,000 respectively (and I'm sure Wikipedia has even more now).
* Then point out that Wikipedia is updated instantaneously. Paper encyclopedias quickly go out of date, making them less accurate.
* Admit that people sometimes post bad information to Wikipedia. But because of the social nature of the site, the bad content will quickly be fixed. (Clay Shirky gives a great explanation of how Wikipedia is so effective at this near the end of this diavlog -- audio/video starts immediately). As Shirky says, people shouldn't dismiss Wikipedia without understanding the social structure that creates it.
* There's also the fact that people now use Wikipedia by default. There's no way to get people not to use Wikipedia. But it is possible to help people use it more intelligently. (See Jessamyn's comment.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:37 AM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
How much discussion have you had with the people you are trying to convince? Do you know their specific reasons for resisting? I ask because I teach high school, and I frequently deal with both the Wikipedia issue and the textbook issue. I don't let my students cite Wikipedia as a source. Not because it's bad, but because it's secondary. I teach them that it's a great way to get some background info and some direction toward some very useful primary sources, since part of our curriculum focuses on primary sources. Why would I, or any librarian tell them any different?
As for the textbook thing, well, I've done that, and I was plenty mad about it. I was given my class of 32 seniors, a curriculum guide, and then told "Sorry. We didn't order enough books for all the lit classes, so you just have to figure out how to get the required readings on your own." Um...what?! It's not that I'm all attached to a particular crappy old textbook, but I also don't like being hung out to dry. This is what most teachers I know think of when they hear about teaching a class with no book.
You can't just declare that people should take your word for it and just do it. It takes a little communication. For example, I'm not sure how you could change my mind about Wikipedia. About the texbooks, well, show me how it's done. Offer a class or training session and prove to me why it's a better way for my students and myself. Give me some resources and examples and support.
posted by SamanthaK at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2010
As for the textbook thing, well, I've done that, and I was plenty mad about it. I was given my class of 32 seniors, a curriculum guide, and then told "Sorry. We didn't order enough books for all the lit classes, so you just have to figure out how to get the required readings on your own." Um...what?! It's not that I'm all attached to a particular crappy old textbook, but I also don't like being hung out to dry. This is what most teachers I know think of when they hear about teaching a class with no book.
You can't just declare that people should take your word for it and just do it. It takes a little communication. For example, I'm not sure how you could change my mind about Wikipedia. About the texbooks, well, show me how it's done. Offer a class or training session and prove to me why it's a better way for my students and myself. Give me some resources and examples and support.
posted by SamanthaK at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2010
You want to accelerate the rate of acceptance of change. Praise and encourage people when they move in the direction you support. Articulate your reasons respectfully, and with good documentation. Listen to their responses maybe they have valid concerns. Be ready to have your own mind changed.
Ex. I am old, and I like to read the Sunday paper, on paper. The online version isn't nearly as complete. The local paper has the info that my neighbors will be discussing. If you tell me that newspapers are dying, that I should use Craigslist and the NYtimes, etc., I'll agree w/ you, but the local paper is still the best source for local news and features. so far. If you listen to my views, and I listen to yours, we can have an interesting dialog, in which we may both learn.
posted by theora55 at 2:14 PM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
Ex. I am old, and I like to read the Sunday paper, on paper. The online version isn't nearly as complete. The local paper has the info that my neighbors will be discussing. If you tell me that newspapers are dying, that I should use Craigslist and the NYtimes, etc., I'll agree w/ you, but the local paper is still the best source for local news and features. so far. If you listen to my views, and I listen to yours, we can have an interesting dialog, in which we may both learn.
posted by theora55 at 2:14 PM on February 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
I assume your specific examples are not what you're trying to do, but what are you trying to do? And what's your status in this community?
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:35 AM on February 16, 2010 [1 favorite]