CDZ They cannot both be correct...

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Aug 27, 2017.

  1. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    5,356
    Trophy Points:
    1,120
    Location:
    Yuurmaam
    Ratings:
    +7,358
    While it is true we will never get society to completely focus on a homogenous goal without government action, society's goals can gradually change over time with education and discussion. Not everyone will change, but many will.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,156
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    Cultural changes certainly can accrue from non-legal action.
    That the "sin tax" on smoking/tobacco products increased was merely incidental to the transformation of smoking from being a very cool thing to do to smoking being considered disgusting and becoming anathema to most people.

    Another cultural change is that of decreasing formality attendant to myriad genres interpersonal interactions ranging from highly structured/organized/deliberate interactions to serendipitous ones. We see that manifested in a variety of behaviors, one being people dressing informally in the office. The office was, until a few decades ago, the last stronghold of fashion formality. Silicon Valley changed that. How did that happen? The "Nike method;" people just did it, and, over time, increasingly more people followed the trend. It took little other than will. It certainly didn't happen by legal action. [1]

    The evolution of an increasingly casual culture affected more than just the way we dress at work. It also changed the way we live at home. Time and time again one encounters outwardly appearing very traditional dwelling the owners have renovated to align the floor plan with the less formal, "open floor plan," way people gather socially. That's even happened with very old historic dwellings. Another example of cultural change toward informality appears in how dating happens, the emergence of the "hook up" culture. A last example I might cite is, of course, the casualness of interactions in venues such as USMB where people unilaterally take communicative liberties with one another that historically one broached only with very close friends and family members, or worse, communicating in ways that one generally is well advised not to in-person. [2]

    Above I've illustrated two cultural changes we've watched percolate around the globe. But that such changes have happened doesn't explain how cultural, social change happens. How it happens is vastly more challenging to understand than is simply seeing that it is happening or has, yet how cultural change happens on multiple levels is something social science researchers -- sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and economists -- have studied and largely come to understand. There's even a field of study called "cultural evolution." (The documents linked below are just a small sampling of the "thoughtware" on how cultural changes occur, what catalyzes them, what makes the "chicken" precede the "egg" of change and vice versa, etc. If one asks the right question, and actually go look for it, one will surely find the answer -- if the answer doesn't already exist, well, there's an opportunity for renown and wealth.)
    The learnings social scientists have made about how cultural change happens have been applied on a lower level to changing organizational processes and cultures. Firms like Deloitte, Accenture, KPMG, McKinsey, E&Y, BCG, Bain, IBM, Kearney, Hay and others earn billions helping clients effect change of myriad types and on scales ranging from transaction processing to enterprise transformation.
    Indeed, the large change in attitudes toward tobacco use was one of the early implementations of the principles of change management -- so early that we hadn't yet coined the term "change management" to describe what we were doing -- to effect cultural change.

    The tactical component to effecting change is change leadership, which consists of several things, but the most important is leadership. Rarely is just one leader sufficient. One change "champion" has to coordinate the efforts of a cadre of change leaders, but one person cannot do it alone when the scope of change is that of which I've been speaking in this thread/post. Leaders, no matter how seemingly capable, cannot lead change when the people led don't trust them, and that's where one's character becomes paramount. [3] A key aspect of "world class" leadership is exhibiting what theologians call "humility." In the consulting world it's usually termed as "active listening," which is part of "communication skills." Psychologists call it "empathy." Whatever one wants to call it, it's something at which most folks are lousy. [4] That they are is what makes it hard to identify and emplace apt leaders of change as well as making it hard to implement change.

    As a parting thought, I'll note that for reasons I don't fully understand, the human animal is routinely resistant to change. Every other animal on the planet when faced the onus to change, rather than resist it, strives to adapt to it. When humans lost their will and prevailing ability to do that I cannot say. That trait of humanity, reticence for change, reminds me of Karr's wry epigram, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.



    Note:
    1. Now that we've for a couple decades substantively ditched our suits and ties at the office, several researchers have performed empirical studies that measure the impact of "formal" clothing on cognitive analysis. The findings are quite interesting.
    2. I think one could include the burgeoning of "acronym-words" and emoji/emoticon "words" as part of the increase in casualness we've experienced over the past quindecennial, perhaps vicennial, period.
    3. Managing/implementing change (process and culture) in multinational organizations is what I spent my career doing. I cannot count the number of times I've had clients -- COOs, CEOs, EVP, etc. -- award engagements to me and my team saying something on the order of, "I don't know really know whether your plan is better than 'so and so's,' but I trust you to put our goals on par with your own, so we're going with your firm."

      I know for fact, I'm only as smart and as capable as my competitive peers in the industry -- especially as go the "hard" skills of managing time, resources, people and activities, being structured and organized, product/subject matter knowledge, detail orientation, etc. -- and I know their plans and tactics are have neither more nor less potential to succeed than the ones my teams and I develop. The fee structures also aren't materially different, though we, and my projects in particular, tend to be a bit more expensive than average. The relationship -- character, unsurpassed integrity and honesty demonstrated by every key member of our team being what established the nature of the relationship -- is what made the difference.
    4. In saying folks are lousy at active listening I'm not criticising them, at least not in this post am I. It's merely attesting to something that, though not wonderful/positive, nonetheless is. It's something to mitigate by taking the theories (science sense) of what makes change happen organically and then applying that knowledge (effecting principles of change management) to deliberately make change happen in instances whereby it otherwise would not have occurred, or would not have occurred as coherently and quickly. (Mind you, "quick," with regard to some scales of change can mean a decade or two. Adoption of recycling is one example.)

      Most people see/hear (seeing is, paradoxically, part of active listening), no matter what's actually said, something that aligns with their "world view." When they don't hear such, if they they think they can, they'll try to fit the "square" they heard, and the source from which the message came, into the "round hole" that is their "world view." Barring that, they simply resist. (I know that reads like a "transactional" statement, but it's not.) The first change that has to happen is getting the person, people, to change themselves into "active listeners." There're many reasons why people do that, but here what's relevant is that they do it.

      There is, of course, an upside to the fact that most people are lousy active listeners: if one is among the comparatively small quantity of people who are very good active listeners, very knowledgeable about theories of change, very capable with converting abstract knowledge into action, there's a good living ("one percenter-anywhere-in-the-country" good) to be made at doing so.
     
  3. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,335
    Thanks Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +1,976
    Look X, number one as one poster has already attested to you are too long winded. I am not here to read a book, and if you can't get your point across with less wordage you are really just bloviating. Secondly, the first half of the op is a bunch of survey questions done by pew. If pew has a left wing agenda, which I believe it does, then the way pew fashions the questions will elicit certain preprogrammed responses which lead to pre programmed conclusions. If you are using pew survey answers as the foundation for your op then you are starting out with a false premise imo. Likewise, the very assertion that widely divergent views are held by different races in today's environment means that white people are always wrong in their perceptions as well as blatantly racist because they don't totally agree with the opinions of people of color which leads to an environment of artificial outrage which further polarizes both sides and makes the situation worse.

    I cited one or two of the questions in the pew survey to support my claims of survey bias, or at the very least survey leading questions.

    In a nutshell, my experiences with all the races is that everyone wants a fair shake and a level playing field and any one crying victimhood is just engaging in an academic discussion. Does the Ben Carson or the Seattle Seahawks cornerback(I cannot remember his name but they just did an espn special on him and his mother) not ring true for you. How about the fight this weekend. The black guy made 350 million, the white guy made 100 million. What are we debating about? You can make it if you try. Those constantly talking racism and taking surveys about division are whiners not doers. Your op X will never have a final answer so where is the productivity in engaging in the question?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +5,218
    Indeed. Good general summary.
     
  5. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,156
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    If that's sincerely why for and what you see as the nature and extent to which the thread rubric lacks discursive merit, why the f*ck did you even bother responding?

    I mean really. Who the hell reads a rubric, thinks "oh, this line of discussion has no productive value because there's no final answer," and then proceeds with attempting to participate in the discussion? Your time must surly be more productively spent elsewhere.
     
  6. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,156
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    To wit another thread poster provides a fine illustration (generously, for the second time...the first is on an earlier page) of exactly that....


    In the context of this thread, whether Pew is left or right wing is of no consequence.

    That said, the way to show that Pew's survey's (or anyone's studies) are biased and unreliable is to show specific flaws and biases -- ones Pew does not mitigate or does not disclose so readers can aptly apply the disclosed info when considering the survey results -- in the methodology. In addition to showing the flaws exist, one must also show that they are material flaws. Merely claiming flaws exist does not count as "showing" they exist. Also, not establishing that shown flaws are material makes pointless one's efforts to show the flaws exist; failing to establish materiality is tantamount to saying "the bull has tits."

    There are many ways to challenge a survey's methodology. Some examples of how to to do that are here: The Cameron Group's Survey Studies: A Methodological Critique. If one isn't going to soundly challenge a survey's (or study's) methodology, one has no credible basis for rejecting its results.

    The survey questions are not foundational, but rather illustrative of the thread's thesis.

    Who posted that premise and from it drew the noted conclusion? Please point me to their remark to that effect.

    As already noted, even if one accepts as so your claim, for this thread's topic survey bias is irrelevant.

    FWIW, if you think there's survey bias, I suggest you review Pew's survey methodology and present your assertions with regard to it. I provided you the link you need to access not only the methodology, but also the survey questions asked.

    You cited one, and you did so inaccurately. That inaccuracy obviates any validity your claim could conceivably have had.

    I can't say why you did so, only that you did. I didn't say anything about it because (1) it wasn't accurately described, (2) the way Pew in fact presented question is entirely neutral, (3) the post in which you did so concluded sardonically, and (4) it was clear to me you hadn't at that point grasped the thread topic. Thus, I opted to respond by giving you a hint about the thread topic.

    I've only acquiesced to remarking about your "survey bias" question because you seem to think it has enough merit for you to keep pressing about it. It's a "sick dog" you should have let lie.

    Of course, everyone wants that. That they do (or even if they do not) isn't the thread topic.

    I accept that your experiences are as you depict them. I do not for a minute think or accept that your anecdotal adventures have statistical significance making them worthy of use for making sound inferences.

    And? What is the point? Be honest. Did you read the OP? If so, how did you miss the context of the thread? I know you missed or misconstrued the OP's context by the examples you've mentioned. That you've mentioned four specific individuals is how I know you did, and, FWIW, what four you might have mentioned has nothing to do with it.

    Having now had a change to read through the thread, it's clear two parties to the discussion absolutely understand what the topic is and their remarks are on-topic and relevant. (Sometimes on USMB, people do share comments that are on-topic, but that are so inane that they thereby are rendered ingermane. That's not happened with the two I've noted.)
     
  7. Not2BSubjugated
    Offline

    Not2BSubjugated Callous Individualist

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,782
    Thanks Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    In a mysanthropic malaise
    Ratings:
    +584
    On this, we agree. The reason I specified that "this time" I believe government action and societal action are one in the same is specifically because of what was presented in the graphs. For the most part, they were polls on how blacks vs whites feel about racial relations and treatment. The only hard data graphs that they presented were gaps in income, gaps in poverty rate, and gaps in education. The implication is that, among the things that would constitute "equal rights" for people of color is average income balanced across racial groups, education results balanced across racial groups, and equally proportionate representation in poverty. I think it's safe to assume that the authors of the study aren't convinced that society's views are going to shift to the point that, not only is all bias accounted for, but every individual in every racial group makes choices that cause the numbers to average out evenly by group. Since every demographic is made up by individuals with what might as well be completely random sets of traits across variables that we can't even properly quantify, expecting that such a thing would ever come about is arguably more unrealistic than any myth in the history of mankind.
    No, I'm afraid that such a miraculous balance of consequences across relatively arbitrarily set dividing lines (and another fun conversation is why the same anti racists who are constantly reminding everyone that "race" is a concept invented by the white slave owners of early America insist on perpetuating the relegation of each individual into those same groups designed to justify atrocities) is something that a society could only achieve with some serious authoritarianism, right down to the level of assigning employment from the top down.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Not2BSubjugated
    Offline

    Not2BSubjugated Callous Individualist

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,782
    Thanks Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    In a mysanthropic malaise
    Ratings:
    +584
    I do concede that cultural changes happen all the time without government action being involved, but honestly tobacco is a pretty flawed counterexample. The fact of the matter is that the anti-smoking movement in our culture has, since even prior to my birth, gone hand in hand with authoritative action against the tobacco industry, including television advertising bans as well as advertising bans in various locations for various reasons, and shit tons of anti smoking curricula all throughout K-12 public education (I was part of the Smoke Free Class of 2000!). The sin tax, in my admittedly cynical opinion, is just about grabbing money, but it still came on the heels of growing anti-tobacco sentiment throughout society.

    And let's not forget about the public and workplace smoking bans that became all too common in the early 2000's. In Hawaii, they're so Nazi about it that if a cab driver who is, themselves, a smoker, allows a lone passenger to smoke a cigarette in the back of their cab, they can be pulled over and fined in the 4 digits for workplace smoking violations. You can't even smoke on the tarmac on the airport in Hawaii legally, regardless of whether or not there's even another human being within 1000 yards.

    At any rate, they haven't banned cigarettes, but smoking is still far and away from being a purely organic movement free of government force being used to perpetuate the will of the cultural mainstream.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. yiostheoy
    Offline

    yiostheoy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    19,194
    Thanks Received:
    1,777
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +9,376
    You need to put an executive summary of 5 sentences or less on all this.
     
  10. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,156
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,229
    Cool. Soliciting and securing concurrence that "changes happen all the time without government action being involved" is one of the main goals of post 32.
     

Share This Page