Subscribe for updates

Saturday, April 24, 2021

Finally - I understand what is going on with people.

Since I retired some time ago, I have been trying to figure out how human beings work. Turns out we are truly WEIRD entities - see the book below by that name. (Henrich) In the 2020 election, that weirdness had one third of the United States vote for a narcissist, and one third voted for a really old white guy with moderate views, and one third DID NOT VOTE. How is that even possible?

I have read a lot - neuroscience, psychology, politics, economics, history. There is a list of books at the end of this with some annotation on what they taught me. And, drum roll, here’s the answer:


The United States of America has a pervasive implicit racist culture. 


Period. Full stop. Much to my amazement, that simple statement says it all. I also understand that my take on this is never going to persuade you. It would be more effective if YOU undertook a bit of reading, and see where it leads you. To entice you, this piece is a selected summary or subset. Let me know if this helps. If you come to a different insight, in the best of worlds, you nught be able to persuade me that I am wrong. That would be very helpful. Thanks.


For a real shorthand of the argument - watch this Daily Show interview. 9 minutes. And this Ted Talk - Racism Has Cost All of Us. 14 minutes - you can do this. 

For a VERY recent and wonderfully concise summary of the first part of this see this column by David Brooks: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/brain-reality-imagination.html


Just to be crystal clear upfront - this argument is NOT saying that most of our fellow citizens are overt racists. It is saying that we are all immersed in a culture and world view that implicitly structures our thinking and unconscious choices along a racial, classist view of society. It is also saying that some of our political leaders expressly call out that racist model to generate the emotion of fear, which puts the brakes on our rational choices such that we often vote against our own best interests. (Shenker-Osorio).


Barrett, Lisa Feldman, How Emotions are Made.

Overview

This is a complex scientific work, by a preeminent neuroscientist. See her wikipedia entry. The theory is fairly new and debated. I think it is a brilliant insight, because it fits perfectly with all of the other evidence I have found. (DUH! That is called confirmation bias!) This is a “theory” but it is based on empirical research, not opinion. For a more populist explanation, see her much shorter book: Seven and a half Lessons about the Brain. She also has a TED talk you might enjoy. 


The Key Insight

Humans do not really THINK very much. We are simply NOT rational in most of what we do.

Our gut, our body and our brain is a reaction network of emotions and patterns that we learn over time. It is not automatic - most of it is learned behavior. We are taught to form predictions about the world, and we respond to them. We do not really have “ideas”, but rather “emotions”. What we think of as “ideas” are actually just another flavor of “emotions”. It is called the “theory of constructed emotion”. Our “thoughts” are really learned emotional responses to external stimuli. Our brain is a dynamic, flexible network, which learns how to respond based on our social environment! And the brain is very plastic - meaning it physically changes as it learns new responses. That also means that it does not easily let go of things - "ideas" or emotions.

 

There are cultures that do not distinguish between “ideas” and “emotions”. That distinction is a cultural mental construct. There are cultures that do not experience the emotion of anger - they simply do not have it. Our brain, our whole endocrine system is a complex of learned behavior - not automatic. Our culture taught us to smile when we first grimaced at our parents, and they responded with glee. We are inherently social beings, and our brain and emotions are formed in that context. There is very little abstract and rational about us. That thinking process that Kahneman calls the "slow brain" moves the things or emotions that we learn to our “fast brain.” All of our thinking has this built in "bias" or "framework." (Kahneman)


It also appears that we are not aware of most of the things going on in our brain network. Our senses are always picking up things and presenting them to the brain, which is always searching for patterns - for threats, for friends, etc. Things only pop into our conscious awareness when the "hidden controller" thinks we really need to be aware of something. That insight is from Robert Burton, On Being Certain. And John Bargh has extensive research and stories that illustrate that MOST of what is going on in our brain is really below the level of consciousness. See his book: Before You Know It


This constant and unconscious brain framework can be called our “culture” or “world view”. It describes our normal, “unthinking” response to things. It dictates how we regard children and adults, males and females, tall and short people, white and black people. For example, the Norwegian culture has the lowest view of the distance from top to bottom of society. Their king is no big deal. East African culture has the sense that they are not in charge of life. The U.S. culture says that we are in charge of our life, and the lives of everyone on the planet. We think we can install a democracy anywhere. 


Our U.S. culture also tells us that we live in a racial caste hierarchy. It is an implicit judgment that colors everything. It is not conscious, it is something we can barely recognize, even after a lot of introspection. It is just part of our fabric of life - our implicit world view.


This is why we have “biases”. This is why we have a protective cognition response to deeply held beliefs. When presented with evidence against our beliefs, our whole body reacts to protect itself, and to reaffirm our beliefs - the backfire effect! You cannot change someone's belief with Information! In fact, that only makes their belief stronger.


AND, since these basic "values", or "beliefs" are not arrived at by means of logic and argument, they are not amenable to change via argument. We are identified with these basic views or beliefs. So we automatically work to protect them.


Klein, Ezra, Why‌ ‌We're‌ ‌Polarized‌ 2020.

Overview Given that we are not really rational, how do we make decisions?. We use our emotions, and we use our "identities". We fall back on the default values of the group, the tribe to which we belong. The author makes the point that there is very little difference between the voting turnout by party in recent elections. People tend to vote by their party membership, even if they fundamentally disagree with the chosen candidate of their party. They identify with their party, and they have hope that the candidate will support their values.


The Key Insight
Good research indicates that we identify with our group, our tribe, our party. Our personal identity, our personal sense of self is supported by our group. In the past, people normally had multiple strong personal identities, such as family, their race, their religion, the club. In recent times, because of the increased pressure of social media, many of those identities have been weakened, in favor of our political party identity. When people had multiple identities, with values that cut across political party lines, the blind adherence to party policy was not as strong. 

Now the question is, what can we do about it? If logical argument does not work, what does?


Wilkerson, Isabel, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, 2020.

Overview

This is another scientific work, researched for 15 years, and brilliantly written, in beautiful English. The author is a journalist - contributor to the New York Times. She also wrote The Warmth of Other Suns - a heart rendering description of the migration and escape of Blacks from the terrorism of the southern United States. If you want to gain some racial empathy, read that one.


The Key Insight

The “culture” or “world view” of the United States is racist to its core. 

It started with slavery, and theology and economics - it endured and persisted through the Civil War, Reconstruction and the era of civil rights. It became even more pronounced with the election of our first black president. We all have it in our heads - black, brown, white, Asian, etc. It is in our institutions, in our laws, in our brains - it colors everything. 


Most other cultures in the world do not have this particular view of a racial hierarchy. There are no "Blacks" in Africa. There are no “whites” in Scandinavia. The caste position of the untouchables or Dalits in India is not about their race. The Germans did not try to obliterate the Jewish “race”, but Jewish heritage and culture. And they studied our Jim Crow laws to learn how to do it: deny them normal rights, make them seem less than human, make them different and of lower value.


It is no help to be “color blind” - rather we need to see color for what it is. We need to understand our history. We need to be “anti-racist.” But that is a lot of work, even for Blacks. It is doubly hard to see it if we are White. Whites at the bottom of our economic hierarchy still unconsciously consider themselves much higher in our system than any brown or Black person. It is not explicit - it is an implicit worldview, largely hidden from conscious awareness.


The United States Is Not Unique in Having a Hierarchical View of Society

This hierarchical mindset of “us and them” is a common human occurrence. Wilkerson is focused on our racist problem in this country, but most cultures have some form of this hierarchical world view. India’s caste system is well documented. The murderous climax of Hutu / Tutu genocide in Rwanda came from the colonial government’s intentional division of the country into upper and lower castes. The “indigenous people problem” in Australia and all parts of the Americas is another example.


McGhee, Heather, The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together, 2021. 

Overview

The author is a lawyer and social activist. She has been working in the field of race relations for decades. The book is based on interviews with hundreds of people, and documented scientific social research. For a very short synopsis of her argument, see this piece in the NY Times.

The Way Out of America’s Zero-Sum Thinking on Race and Wealth.”

Here is her interview with Trevor Noah, on the Daily Show.


I have to warn you - this is one of the most depressing books I have ever read. It is hard to believe that we as a nation have done so much damage to so many of our fellow citizens - white and Black. This book documents thousands of cases, laws, and events that deprive whites and blacks of benefits, privileges and jobs, in order to maintain the racist status quo. I am ashamed to be a member of this dominant caste.


The Key Insight

The United States racist culture is a Zero Sum game. We all hold an internalized racial view of our world, where there are only winners if there are losers. Wealth or education or freedom is in limited supply. If you move ahead, then I fall behind. When you get more, I have less. We see all of life as a competition for scarce resources, and the competition is based on our hierarchical view of race. The author clearly documents how much we have all lost because of our common racism. She uses facts and personal stories to give an empathic insight into the true scope of the problem.


The cover of this book shows a picture of a young person jumping into a swimming pool. I could not imagine why that image was chosen. When I was a kid, we did not know anyone who owned a swimming pool. But there were two public pools within walking distance of my home. Walking distance back then meant "several miles." When it was hot, we would walk to a pool and spend the better part of the day there. We had no AC, and this was a great way to spend a hot summer day. One of the largest public pools in the country was in Montgomery AL. In 1959 a group of citizens sued the city over the segregation of pubic pools and parks. So the city of Montgomery filled in that large pool and paved it over. The city then paid the YMCA to provide a “non public”, segregated pool. The city also closed all of the public parks! Now there are no public swimming pools in Montgomery - or in most of the south, and many parts of the north. Why? Because they had to open them to all races! So they closed them. Here is a bit more on that pool’s history. Who lost in that outcome? All of us! 


The same outcome is documented by the author in every realm. Education - predatory lending practices - salary - unionism - guaranteed employment - minimum wage - voting access - health care. Our white population is harmed by our implicit racist policies. Our Black population is hurt more - but it is costing all of us. The push for smaller government is driven by this goal - take it away from *them" so mine is not affected! Libertarian indeed - it is just racist.


And our fearless leaders know this. They promote it. They “gaslight” us with ideas and phrases that sound rational - but are racist to the core. Smaller government - read, "less for THEM". These are the “dog whistles” of voter fraud, violent crime, welfare fraud, big government, etc. These messages call on the basic fear that our society has built over hundreds of years.


Election Fraud

We must have a voter id to protect our elections - with no evidence of fraud - just the implicit knowledge that it is more difficult for some of our poor to obtain an ID, so we keep them from casting a ballot by mail. They are the majority, so enabling them to actually vote puts us at risk.

Health Care

When health care is expensive - it costs ALL of us. It would be less expensive for all of us if our healthcare were provided as a basic right, not a “benefit” mediated by insurance companies that are profit engines. Would we accept a police department, or fire department, or sewer and water that was focused only on profitability? 

2008 Economic Collapse

The economic collapse of Lehman Brothers started as predatory lending that took advantage of people with a low income, a low credit rating. The common view was that these people were at fault for taking these risky loans. But most subprime mortgages actually went to people with good credit, who could qualify for much better terms. More whites than blacks were damaged - and our entire economy suffered a 19 trillion dollar wealth loss. 

Education

When education is poorly funded - it costs ALL of us. In our southern states, the primary beneficiaries of better education and health care would clearly be the vast majority of whites. At one point, a strong majority supported free access to college for all. But then it was cast as a “gift” to the “undeserving classes.” Now the white majority does not approve of such a largesse, because they see it as a benefit for those “other” people. It is something “they” do not deserve, something that will reduce MY share of the pie. When college tuition is too high for ALL of us, it is difficult for anyone to get ahead - whatever the color of our skin. 

Minimum Wage - Unionism

The same thing happened to the minimum wage and to unions. Once supported by a solid majority, when our fearless leaders cast these things as primarily benefiting our Black brothers and sisters, the majority of white voters turned against them.

Climate change 

How on earth is climate change a part of this? The author interviewed a Finnish sociologist, Kirsti  M. Jylha, who came to the U.S. to study the problem. She describes the cause as “systemwide social dominance.” She says that she could not figure out the problem, until she came here. She discovered that she is WHITE! She had no idea that she was a member of a superior caste. In Finland, there literally are no homeless people, no hungry, no destitute. There are no people on the bottom of the social ladder because of race or through their own fault. They really are all in this together. 

In our American cultural brain, we are part of a hierarchy - and it is a zero sum game - win / lose. Any improvement for the bottom is seen as a deprivation for those higher up. So the ocean rises, or temperatures soar - it will not hurt me at the top - just those people at the bottom. Better to have them suffer than to “damage the economy” by environmental measures. It’s their fault that they are at the bottom. If we lose a few of them, no big deal! We support the status quo that we think benefits us, even if it leads to greater suffering for all. And we think that if there are problems we are likely to be spared the costs. But that's not true with climate change. We all share the same sky, the one Gaia - mother earth.

Social dominance theory

We accept Inequality as normal. We attribute social wins and losses to skill and merit. Good fortune and government infrastructure are the real keys to success. There are cultures in the world where there are no homeless, no poor, no one on the bottom. Those cultures do not have a mental hierarchy of status and worth. Simply having and tolerating a lower class of poor people makes those on the top less caring about the rest of us.

Anti Government

Government is our investment in order and structure for the good of all: police, courts, defense, sewer and water, roads, communications, schools, research, etc. But for most of our history, the government has been racist. Many white people now believe, consciously or unconsciously, that the government has taken the other side and is changing the 'proper' racial order through social spending, civil rights laws, and affirmative action. This makes the government untrustworthy. Today, racial resentment by whites and distrust of the government are very highly correlated.

Immigration

It is well documented that immigration is an economic engine of development - especially with today’s demographics of declining birth rates. But the unspoken fear that these “lesser” castes will “ruin our economy” dominates our political discourse. We damage our economy by creating immigration barriers.

Unemployment

A large majority of the country once (1970) supported a guaranteed employment program. Our fearless white leaders made that out to be a Black benefit. Now most white people no longer support what would have been a great benefit in the midst of a pandemic. Our European “cousins” have automatic unemployment programs that simply kicked in for the pandemic. They also have universal health care - which we cannot seem to muster no matter how we work at it. Why is that? 


Conclusion: The Sum of Us

We all suffer for this zero sum game in our heads. With this implicit sense of where we stand in this racist hierarchy, we are not able to make “rational” decisions. We respond to racist diatribe, we react with fear and anger to efforts to improve our whole society. If we could master this - there would be a tremendous solidarity benefit. There are economic studies that document the trillions of dollars in development that would be generated by a healthy, well educated, and fully employed United States.


We can do better. We can all prosper. But we will need to own our history, to own that we are all embedded in this, and work to overcome it.


To Sum Up

  • We are not rational - we are emotional. If we can get that idea into popular culture, maybe we can actually educate ourselves around this problem.

  • Our emotions in this country operate in a zero sum view of a racist hierarchy.

  • Much of the political partisanship that we see comes from this history, an implicit cultural model that we cannot easily resolve. It is most often "under the table", with gaslighting references like voting fraud and the like.

  • This political divide has grown larger with social media and instant news, such that the two sides of our political spectrum are now less than civil, let alone rational.

  • Kahneman and others posit that the way out of this is education that enables us to more fully examine our thinking processes. They point to experiments with mindfulness as one means to give people better insight into their bias or world view.

  • But values that were not arrived at through logic are not going to be changed that way.

  • To resolve this problem fundamentally, we must recognize our racist history. A "reconciliation".

  • If you are presenting a program or choice, it is much better to frame it in a non racial way. Focus on the benefit to be accrued by the group you are addressing - not the benefit conferred on the total society. See research below (English).

  • But you cannot simply ignore the negative, the fear. The message should explicitly call for a positive impact on our common humanity to expressly counter the fear filled message.


What To Do About It?

This is clearly the hard part. I have found very little solid research on how to overcome this fear, this implicit class society that is in our hearts and our heads.


One activist and researcher working on this is Anat Shenker-Osorio. She has been researching the kind of messaging that can call out this fear generation and counter it. (Shenker-Osorio) The key is to find a positive message that explicitly counters the negative messages that generate fear. This is key. It is not enough to generate a positive message, to point to rational arguments and the truth - those do not work to counter the emotion, especially fear. It is more effective to call on the positive values that we all share, and to create a message that creates empathy in people. Call them to be their best, to join those of us who are united in a positive message.


The science behind storytelling can help as well. If you can get a listener or a reader to live for a few seconds or few minutes in the life of their fellow citizens, you generate a positive, supportive emotion that can help overcome their basic fear.


Sometimes a campaign phrase, a set of messages can be successful. In other cases, a technique called "deep canvassing" might be helpful, where the interviewer engages a person in a shared exploration of common values. You can read more about that technique here: Changing the Conversation Together.


Supplemental Bibliography

I have found all of the books and articles below very helpful. They are in alphabetical order by author. The three above are also listed here without further comment.


Banerjee, Abhijit V and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times, 2019.
Two Nobel Prize economists, who won the award for their work on poverty. I cite this one here because of the extraordinary research they present on the positive impact of immigration. It is behavioral based, research driven, and factual analysis of the economic basis of poverty. The point is, we can conquer this beast - if we just put our minds to it and get our emotions out.

Barge, John, Before You Know It, 2017.
Remarkable summary of research that shows that MOST of what we do is driven by purely unconscious rumblings in our brain and gut. The good news is that he has also discovered what drives this in us - and possible ways to help us improve. For instance, there is some tendency to be conservative of progressive from our genetics, but it can be modified. The conservative among us are primary moved by FEAR. They found that if they have people spend a few minutes calmly thinking of their safety and awe and the like, they become more progressive in their views. NOW, how to get our world to have that dominant attribute?  HMMM? 
If you are more into oral communication, he has a fine Google lecture that   is worth your time: https://youtu.be/QWdDRVhhx8A 2018  30 minutes with Q/A after. 

Barrett, Lisa Feldman, How Emotions are Made, 2018. See above for details.

Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain, 2020.
Brilliant work. This is the latest neuroscience. Your brain is not for thinking. This is the same discussion as the prior book, but much shorter, skipping some of the research and arguments.

Bregman, Rutger Humankind: A Hopeful History, 2020.
This is one of the most uplifting and encouraging books I have ever read. We can do this. The only problem is that the author is Dutch - he does not share our distorted hierarchical view of society. Instead, he documents the best of us from around the world. Humankind is amazing - if we can unleash ourselves here, in what is still the richest nation on the planet, we can accomplish anything. 

Brooks, David, How to Destroy Truth, 7/1/2021, NY Times, I found this column by David Brooks to be a remarkable encapsulation of what I have been trying to say - done with a much better and more meaningful framework. If the above did not work, please look at his assessment of our emotional history as a nation, and his suggestion for how we can move it forward. I don't know if he is aware of the neuroscience behind this, and it really does not matter. We need a felt story about our history - one based on truth, not lies. One that truly reveals us to ourselves. See what you think. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opinion/patriotism-misinformation.html -------------------- In this column, You Are Not Who You Think You Are, 9/2/2021, David Brooks has as nice and comprehensive summary of this brain research as I have yet seen. He gets it. I highly recommend reading this one. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/brain-reality-imagination.html

Burton, Robert, On Being Certain, 2009. This is a nice summary of research and an interesting discussion. It seems that most of what our brain network is about is not conscious. We have a hidden layer, a kind of committee, controlling what gets to pop up in our consciousness. We have precious little control over that - so it is no wonder that we are mostly "non rational" beings.

English, Micah , Joshua Kalla, 4/26/2021, "Racial Equality Frames and Public Policy Support: Survey Experimental Evidence," This is a fine bit of research, pointing out that it is not helpful to frame discussions in terms of race or class in our society. If you want to persuade someone, you tell them that the benefit accrues to THEM. They are less receptive when the benefit is to a "lower" class , or even to the whole of society where the lower class might also benefit. https://osf.io/tdkf3/ If this it a little too dense for you, look at this article from Newsweek for a nice summary of the research. The author is being polemical to the liberal elite, but you get the point. https://www.newsweek.com/anti-racist-messaging-failing-voters-so-why-cant-liberals-quit-it-opinion-1589535

Haidt, Jonathan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
I have learned a great deal from this author, about evolutionary psychology, about politics and ethics. He really helped me understand that we are primarily emotional beasts. He did it with psychological and sociological research - while Barrett is focused on neuroscience. Talk to the elephant, not the rider! Our human self is like an elephant - our emotions pull us here and there. Our brain is sitting up on top, and it thinks it is in charge. For more on that see:
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2017/08/jonathan-haidt-righteous-minds-update.html
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-are-those-idiots-from-other.html 

Harford, Tim, Facts v feelings: how to stop our emotions misleading us, 2020.09.10, This is a nice summary of a lot of this research, as related to misinformation about the Covid crisis, with references. I find this type of article useful as a kind of ad hominem argument, but they never reach to the fundamental causes in our brain's operation. I think until people grasp that we will just be working on the periphery of the problem, instead of the roots! Freud put our "subconscious" into popular thought - we need to get the idea into our popular culture that MOST of our decisions are made without any rational, conscious input. This is an extract from his book, which I have added to my reading list: How to Make the World Add Up. It looks interesting, but, once again, it is at the periphery of the real problem. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/10/facts-v-feelings-how-to-stop-emotions-misleading-us

Henrich, Joseph, The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous,2020.
Another remarkable book. This one starts with the basic ideas of Diamond’s work, Guns Germs and Steel, and expands it in the context of European history. The dominance of the western European model does not have to do with superior human attributes, but rather accidents of climate, geography and history. Europe’s enlightenment, democracy and economic expansion came from a radical change in how we all view family, and relationships outside of family. It was hundreds of years in the making, with many players and forces. The insight is that this “world view” has tremendous power. The downside is that there does not appear to be a lot we can do to shape it or have it bend to our will for progress. For more on that:
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-weirdest-people-in-world-book.html

Hofstede, Geert, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind
This was the first book I read on this journey when we returned from a visit to Africa. I was so impressed that the people of East Africa had a totally different world view, that I went in search of some explanation. This book is based on research conducted in more than seventy countries over a forty-year span. He examines what drives people apart—when cooperation is so clearly in everyone’s interest. He studied IBM employees around the world, and found radically different world views. We have these implicit views that come from hundreds of years of history and events - and they do not easily change.  Originally, I was focused on why economic development around the world was so very different. It has to do with our world view - our implicit cultural perspective. I think that idea is still valid, but I now am not so sure we can actually do anything about it. For more on this than you probably ever want to read, see my blog entry:  https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2011/01/culture-and-developing-nations.html 

Isenberg, Nancy, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, I highly recommend this book. I studied a lot of history, and I never heard any of these stories. From the early Pilgrims and Jamestown, through all of the colonial leaders, fathers of our country, and most of our population had a very high sense of class and separation from the poor and common person. The author tells the stories of the prevailing view that the poor are less than, not capable. This is our history. It should come as no surprise that a large percentage of us still have that fundamental value framework. If India is burdened with a visible caste system, ours is no less powerful, and has as long a history.

Issenberg, Sasha, "Why the battle for gay marriage was won so easily," 06/04/2021, This is an interesting discussion of this rapid social and legal change. There is not much scientific research here, but it would appear that the reason this "flew under the radar" was primarily because no one felt really threatened by it, with the exception of some Roman Catholic hierarchy. It may be that this does not feel like a zero-sum game for the most part. That must not be true for abortion, curiously enough. Women's rights?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-the-battle-for-gay-marriage-was-won-so-easily/

Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2013.
This is one of the books that sent me down this rabbit hole of how humans think. Kahneman is a psychologist who won the Nobel prize in economics. His research on how humans make decisions provided the foundation for the field of behavioral economics. Most of our decisions are the “fast brain” - our gut call - our emotions, if you will. For more on that than you might want to read:
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2017/12/cognitive-science-and-mindfulness-and.html  For a very insightful interview with Kahneman, listen or read this one with Krista Tippet. He gets this - and he has a few suggestions - not great hope - but . . . https://onbeing.org/programs/daniel-kahneman-why-we-contradict-ourselves-and-confound-each-other/

Kelton, Stephanie - The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy 2021.
This is a solid introduction to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) by one of the pioneers. She and her associates believe that sovereign debt by a nation that controls its own currency, is always a good investment. It can be inflationary, but we can construct safeguards against that. Basically, our sovereign debt is owed to ourselves, and is almost without cost. At first glance you might think this author needs some serious mental health assistance, but when you get into the details, it makes perfect sense. She is one of the leading economists who have analyzed how national currencies actually work - and has destroyed the myth. You should also be aware that many prominent economists think that this is totally crazy. The point for putting it here is that we can afford to fix our racist past - and that effort can fund a prosperous future. To get a better handle on that, read my review, which you can find here, or:
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2021/03/book-review-and-celebration-deficit-myth.html 

Kendi, Ibram X. How to Be an Antiracist, 2019. Excellent, personalized account of overcoming his own racism, and how you can do the same thing. For a few more words on that topic, see: https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2020/07/how-to-be-antiracist-by-ibram-x-kendi.html 

Kirby, Kenton de, Beyond Thermostatic Response, 2020.06.23. This is a late addition to this reference list. I found this so unsettling that I had to include it, even though it does not actually support my argument. This article describes a theory of political response that seems founded on facts, given the research cited. But it is even more frightening than the one argued here. Basically the idea is that the prevailing opinion of the U.S. populace on any issue universally tends to move in the opposite direction of the discussion presented in public media. This piece is arguing that Donald Trump has pushed opinion to support action against global warming by his denial and efforts to undercut it. It is as though the general population are a thermostat - when things go too far in any direction, the middle seems to shift to support the other side. The murder of George Floyd was all over the media, and that was an extreme, which resulted in more support for Black Lives Matter. The problem is - how does one CHANGE public opinion enough to get legislators to agree to pass legislation, without going generating visibility in public media which might just have the middle to push back? I know politics is not rational, I just wish we had a better understanding of the mechanics.

Klein, Ezra, Why‌ ‌We're‌ ‌Polarized‌ 2020. A simple analysis of recent elections leads to the conclusion that most people vote based on their party identity - not on issues or the candidate's qualifications. The author explores the data that supports this view, and offers his own insights in what we can do about it.

Mason, Lilliana, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, (From Amazon Reviews) She argues that group identifications have changed the way we think and feel about ourselves and our opponents. Even when Democrats and Republicans can agree on policy outcomes, they tend to view one other with distrust and to work for party victory over all else. Although the polarizing effects of social divisions have simplified our electoral choices and increased political engagement, they have not been a force that is, on balance, helpful for American democracy. Our social identities are shrinking in number, and growing in strength. You can also find this author discussing this topic in this podcast. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/07/29/yanss-133-how-political-conflict-became-a-battle-over-who-we-think-we-are-rather-than-reasoned-differences-of-opinion/

McGhee, Heather, The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together, 2021. See above. 

McRaney, David, YANSS 204 – "Why belief is not a conscious choice and certainty is a feeling, not a conclusion", Nice chat with the author of On Being Certain, Robert A. Burton, MD. He gets it - finally. Maybe we can actually all come to understand this at some point. Quote: That’s because the book posits that conclusions are not conscious choices and certainty is not even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of “knowing,” as he puts it, are “sensations that feel like thoughts, but arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that function independently of reason.” YANSS 204

Menakem, Resmaa, My Grandmother's Hands. This is an excellent book by a psychotherapist. He works with individuals and police departments to improve their "community relations". It is now well documented that our gut has a significant nervous system, that generates feelings and emotions that can easily overwhelm us. Most of our emotions and feelings are automatic responses to stimuli that are generated by this GUT nervous system. The author has developed some exercises that enable our various "bodies" to better manage our automatic responses.

Shenker-Osorio, Anat, Don't Buy It, This author has done research on the kind of messaging that works in our political world, to overcome the fear that is raised by those who call out our worst, implicit racist fears. She has also created some podcasts around how this type of messaging research has helped to move elections in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. This is not yet a highly refined science, but she is getting there. https://wordstowinby-pod.com/ See these podcasts in particular. All In Wisconsin: https://wordstowinby-pod.com/season-2-episode-1/ Greater Than Fear, Minnesota: https://wordstowinby-pod.com/greater-than-fear-minnesota/

Stiglitz, Joseph, People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent, 2019. The author is an economics nobel prize winner. He explains the nuts and bolts of how our income and wealth disparity are destroying democracy and our prosperity. He presents the means we could use to grow our economy, and get us out of this mess of our own making. He also agrees with the Deficit Myth author - but he does not say that in this book. I think he is trying to avoid being seen as too far out for the agenda he is putting forward.  For a longer discussion, see this review. Or:
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2021/04/book-review-people-power-and-profits.html 

Thaler, Richard, Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, 2016. Thaler won the Nobel prize for economics in 2017 for being the inspiration behind Behavioral Economics. He applied Kahneman's research findings to economics to turn it into a science, instead of a quasi religious school of opinions. Turns out, humans are NOT rational. It is better to design things for the way we work rather than the way we think we work. I talked about this in connection with Kahneman's book, and in a piece on the World Bank: https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2017/03/world-bank-research-on-behavioral.html 

Wilkerson, Isabel, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, 2020.
See discussion above. 

Wilkerson, Isabel, The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration, 2011. Another fine work by this author. Again, 15 years of research, personal stories of people fleeing the persecution and terrorism of the South. 




Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Book Review - People, Power, and Profits - Joseph Stiglitz

Book Review - People, Power, and Profits - Joseph Stiglitz

If you are following along here at all, you must realize by now that I read a LOT - I mean, A LOT. And, as Jude says, that latest book is always the very best one I have ever read - and YOU should read it. Well, this one is NOT the very best one - but it is a damned good one. I highly recommend it. This is not really a book review - more like encouragement to read the thing. I got my copy from the digital local library - and am debating whether to buy a copy for my family to peruse when they have some time. We shall see. 
 People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent

Why Is This Book Important?

The author. Joseph E. Stiglitz is a progressive economist, Nobel prize winner. He has held some significant positions around economics - like chief economist of the World Bank, and the like. He knows what he is talking about. He is also very hopeful. And, frankly, I needed that. Humankind: A Hopeful History is the most hopeful thing I have read of late - but it is a bit short on the pragmatics, especially in the realm of economics. The Deficit Myth is really excellent for understanding the Modern Monetary Theory - but it is light on social programs and politics. 

Stiglitz hits them all - and well

And the book is not that dense - more than 20% of the pages are references to other authors and research on how this stuff works. This is not an extended opinion piece.

Highlights

Here are a few highlights from the introduction to tempt you. I started to write my own summary - but the author's is much better. 
---------------------------------

First, markets on their own will fail to achieve shared and sustainable prosperity. Markets play an invaluable role in any well-functioning economy and yet they often fail to produce fair and efficient outcomes, producing too much of some things (pollution) and too little of others (basic research). And as the 2008 financial crisis showed, markets on their own are not stable. More than 80 years ago, John Maynard Keynes explained why market economies often have persistent unemployment and taught us how government could maintain the economy at or near full employment.
. . . 

Capitalist economies have thus always involved a blend of private markets and government—the question is not markets or government, but how to combine the two to best advantage. When applied to the subject of this book, there is a need for government action to achieve an efficient and stable economy with rapid growth, and to ensure that the fruits of that growth are shared fairly.
. . . 

Secondly, we need to recognize that the wealth of a nation rests on two pillars. Nations grow wealthier—achieving higher standards of living—by becoming more productive, and the most important source of increases in productivity is the result of increases in knowledge. Advances in technology rest on scientific foundations provided by government-funded basic research. And nations grow wealthier as a result of good overall organization of society, which allows people to interact, to trade and to invest with security. The design of good societal organization is the product of decades of reasoning and deliberation, empirical observations on what has worked and not. It has led to views about the importance of democracies with the rule of law, due process, checks and balances, and a host of institutions involved in discovering, assessing, and telling the truth.

Third, one must not confuse the wealth of a nation with the wealth of particular individuals in that country. Some people and companies succeed with new products that consumers want. That is the good way to become wealthy. Others succeed by using their market power to exploit consumers or their workers. This is nothing more than a redistribution of income; it does not increase the nation’s overall wealth. The technical term in economics is “rent”—rent-seeking is associated with attempting to get a large share of the nation’s economic pie, in contrast with wealth creation, which strives to increase the size of the pie. Policymakers should zero in on any market in which there are excessive rents because they are a sign that the economy could perform more efficiently: the exploitation inherent in excessive rents actually weakens the economy. A successful fight against rent-seeking results in redirecting resources into wealth creation. 

Fourth, a less divided society, an economy with more equality, performs better. Particularly invidious are inequalities based on race, gender, and ethnicity. This is a marked shift from the view that was previously dominant in economics, which held that there was a trade-off, that one could only have more equality by sacrificing growth and efficiency. The benefits of reducing inequality are especially large when inequality reaches the extremes that it has in America and when it is created in the ways that it is, for instance, through exploitation of market power or discrimination. Thus, the goal of increased income equality does not come with a bill attached.

Fifth, government programs to achieve shared prosperity need to focus both on the distribution of market income—what is sometimes called pre-distribution—and redistribution, incomes that individuals enjoy after taxes and transfers. Markets don’t exist in a vacuum; they have to be structured, and the way we structure them affects both the distribution of market income and growth and efficiency. Thus, laws that allow abuses of corporate monopoly power or that enable CEOs to take for themselves large fractions of corporate income lead to more inequality and less growth. Achieving a fairer society requires equality of opportunity, but that in turn requires greater equality of incomes and wealth.
--------------------

OK. You are on your own now. Give the book a shot. Get it at the library. Ask me for a copy. Whatever works. 


Saturday, March 27, 2021

Book Review and Celebration: The Deficit Myth

 Book Review and Celebration: The Deficit Myth

OK, right to the point - READ THIS BOOK: The Deficit Myth, by Stephanie Kelton.

Buy it, borrow it from the library - read it. It will change your whole paradigm on economics, government, politics, unemployment, developing countries, health care, poverty, etc. If you can’t afford the $18 or so, send me an email - NOW, and I will send it to you:  carl(at)scheiders.com 

If you find reading a challenge - here's a John Oliver YouTube video that will give you a running start. He does not actually understand what these economists do, but it's a start. And it's funny!!

https://youtu.be/yq_E3HquRJY

Then come back here and read the rest of this. Our national debt is NOTHING like a home or business.


Paradigm Shift

How to persuade you to do this before your attention span quits?

Perhaps a story would help. Have you ever had a total paradigm shift? That is when your view of the world totally shifts and you know you can never go back there. Like when you learned about sex! Had your first child. Your first grandchild. Learned about a plant based diet? That is what happened to me with this book. 


What is Wrong with People

The election of 2016 hit me like a ton of bricks. And the one in 2020 was worse. 1/3 of the country voted for a person that I saw as a narcissistic idiot. 1/3 voted for a middle of the road, really old guy. And 1/3 DID NOT VOTE! In 2020, even more people voted for the “weird” one. Are we all crazy? I spent a lot of time reading, trying to figure out how humans actually work, since we are clearly not the rational beings I have assumed all of my life. One of my good friends, and some of my family members are in the “other” camp. I wrote about that here. I love these people. How can I get my arms around them and this idea that they are ill or crazy?

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman also did that to my brain. I wrote about that here. He persuaded me with a few simple experiments that we are somewhat less than rational beings.

How Emotions are Made  by Lisa Feldman Barrett did that for my understanding of “emotions” - those things we think are in control of us, but are actually learned responses, culturally created social tools. 


Read a Short Paper

Read this short piece, which nicely summarizes the book, and the critics as well. 

https://www.jhinvestments.com/viewpoints/investing-basics/what-is-modern-monetary-theory 


Watch a Video Explanation

I could go on, and I will if you give me a chance. But just take a few minutes and watch this video. The author uses the graphic symbols from the book to help shift your paradigm. https://youtu.be/3QYJjisPMQY 


Author’s Credentials

The book’s author, Stephanie Kelton, is a PhD, one of the leaders of the Modern Monetary Theory “school” of economics. She is joined by many other economists, including Joseph Stiglitz - a Nobel Prize winner - and his book: People, Power and Politics. She served as Chief Economist for the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff), appointed by Bernie Sanders. She describes her tenure in several interesting stories in the book. She had some very small victories there, and learned a lot about how this might actually work. 


NPR 

If your trusted information sources include NPR, here are some good pieces. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the few elected leaders that gets this. NPR Morning Edition has a balanced presentation:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/17/742255158/this-economic-theory-could-be-used-to-pay-for-the-green-new-deal  4 minutes.


An NPR Planet Money presentation is here: 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/20/958854717/modern-monetary-theory-classic   23 minutes.

The interview was conducted in 2018, and rebroadcast as a “classic”. The time has come!


If you are of a mind to endure a longer audio program, there is an NPR On Point interview with Kelton and Stiglitz here: Stiglitz comes in at the end. 

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/09/02/rethinking-americas-deficit-myth-with-economist-stephanie-kelton  47 minutes


More Detail

If none of the above persuaded you, and you are still reading here - below is my elevator pitch on this. It is also my tool for understanding. I cannot keep several hundred pages in my head!


Background

Economics is more of a religion or philosophy than a science. If you are an economist, you are of this school, or that school. You have deeply held beliefs about how finances work, and you interpret everything in those terms. We have the Austrian school, the Keynesian school, etc. Only in recent years has economics adopted a more scientific approach - look at the data, try an experiment, and see what happens. It’s called Behavioral Economics. Richard Thaler built some of it on the research by Kahneman. Nobels both. It is as difficult to shake people out of their “schools'' as it is to persuade a Christian that a Moslem has the correct world view - or the reverse. And those two schools have the same monotheistic roots!


The Gold Standard is gone.

Nixon dropped it in on 8/15/1971. The US currency is no longer tied to any standard. The dollar is solely supported by the United States Government. The U.S. government and similar governments that control their own fiscal currency, are completely in charge of their currency. It need not exchange dollars for anything else. Dollars are supported by the productive capacity of the U.S. economy. This is only true of governments that issue their own currency, tied to no standard. Nixon never understood this when he created it, but many governments are beginning to grasp what it really means. 


The Federal Reserve CREATES currency.

Money is not really printed - it is created as an entry on a balance sheet. You may have heard of quantitative easing - what the Fed was doing during the great Recession. They created more and more liquidity, trying to encourage banks to loan more money to the public. We avoided an inflationary disaster because it did not work - but you get the picture. 


The government creates debt in its own currency. 

US debt is called government bonds. The green money, dollars, are converted into yellow money, government treasuries. This allows the U.S. government to pay interest, thus moving funds across the balance sheet.


The U.S. Government Cannot Be Forced Into Insolvency.

Given the above, there is simply no way for the government to be insolvent. In this world, currency is a simple balance sheet entry - not a true debt that needs to be repaid.

When the U.S. government creates debt, it moves funds to the general public and to foreign nations. Those funds can be used to generate products and services.

When the U.S. government collects taxes, it moves funds OUT of the general public, and deletes them! That removes public liquidity, and slows down economic expansion. 


There is No Free Lunch

This is not a free lunch. The U.S. economy must be able to produce the goods and services that are being fueled by the insertion of credit. It if it cannot grow to accomplish that, then the balance sheet is balanced by inflation - making the U.S. dollar worth less in terms of trade for goods and services.


Automatic Brakes Are Possible.

If Congress ever figures this out, the risk of inflation is one of the worst things that could happen. There are already some natural brakes on this, but the MMT group recommends that we construct others. One good one would be an automatic government guarantee of a good job. When the economy is thriving and growing, and does not need and could not support any additional growth, so this government employment option would automatically decline. When the economy is lagging, and there is room for growth, it would automatically expand, by hiring willing workers for public sector jobs. This arrangement would also allow us to establish a true minimum wage, without any legal enforcement required. 


A Test

The author described this exchange, which she managed with each member of the Senate Budget Committee. What if you could wipe out the federal deficit with one stroke. Would that be a good thing. The universal answer was YES. Later, another point in time, she would ask, what if we canceled all of the US treasury bonds - basically by paying the holders green dollars for their yellow dollars. Would that be a good thing. The universal answer was NO! 

They are two sides of the same coin. 

And the NO is a better answer. If the treasury is holding ALL of the cash, then there is nothing in the hands of the public and other countries to use to invest, buy, promote, etc. A zero deficit would be a zero economy. That will not work either. 


This is not a theory

The book is full of graphs and numbers and charts, experiments, etc. Look at what Japan is doing if you don’t believe this. They may not have figured it out any better, but they are in fact doing it. Their debt ratio to GDP is 238%. The U.S. one is 105%. We have a way to go before we are going to stretch the capacity of our economy. 


I’ll quit. Read the book. Tell your congress person to read the book. Make it a MEME, please. Thanks.


Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Wait, Wait, I had that all wrong - listen to this guy

I Was Wrong 
I had it all wrong. You are not going to see many blog entries with that title!

I have been working on the premise that we need to all agree on what is true, and rational, etc. If people disagree, they are clearly mistaken, and we can work on their information, understanding. We can even work to overcome their built in bias, and error prone thinking.

NOPE - not going to happen. Just let it go. There is a small mountain of research that says normal people go with their instinct most of the time. It's the FAST brain, the gut, the mechanism that evolution gave us to make snap decisions to protect us. It might be possible to train people to work hard with their SLOW brain, spend some time, understand their own bias, etc. But it is uphill, and a lot of work.

The other force at work is CULTURE. Our fast brain goes where our cultural mindset sends it. We are literally not in charge of that If I think I am in charge of my life - that is how things are. If you think that a demon is in charge of yours, or that no one is in charge of your life - that is how things are. It is almost impossible to change that. Our western culture of WEIRD people has us firmly in its grasp. Most of the rest of the world do not share our weird ideas. Trust me on this. 

So  . . . what you need to do is go with the flow, where we are. Understand it. Adapt to it. And maybe, just maybe, you can nudge it a bit.  For a command lesson on this, watch this pair of interviews with Frank Luntz. He is a "communications consultant" with a very insightful view of the American people. It is based on a lot of methodical research, and he is constantly tuning it. Historically, he has represented the GOP, the more conservative portion of our society. Of late, he has moved to a "in defense of truth" position. 

There are two interviews that were part of the FrontLine series on our political world, that are particularly telling. They are long - but I will guarantee that you will come out of there a changed person. He changed my mind. And that is quite an accomplishment! Ask anyone. 

He understands how people work. He reads people. He interviews them, he runs ideas by them. 
This is my shorthand description of what he does: 

  • Listen to understand fully
  • Empathize with the emotion being expressed. You do not need to agree - but express understanding and empathy for the person and what they are sharing.
  • Respond to that - not what you think is a good idea, or even what science and facts tell you is the right thing to do. Go with their feelings.
  • Words are very important. Research what words resonate with your audience. Use those. Avoid ones that get a negative or critical response.  Try to nudge them a bit to a different perspective.
He uses an "Instant Response" focus group technique to read the tone of a group.

Interviews
This one is after the January 6, 2021 insurrection and invasion of the capital. It is remarkable. He explains how the GOP lost Georgia.   
Trump's American Carnage: Frank Luntz 1/27/2021 
It is part of this FrontLine documentary: Trump's American Carnage, 1/26/2021 

https://youtu.be/BVUs4dS30c0 53 minutes


This one is also excellent. It was 9 months before the 2020 election.
America's Great Divide: Frank Luntz Interview 1/13/2020
The FrontLine documentary: America's Great Divide 1/13/2020

For excellent examples of the use of language, watch this one which talks about how to address the current pandemic:  https://youtu.be/HgInPdK3pB0

For more on Frank Lutz, Ted Talks, etc.: https://www.filuntz.com/




Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Reflective Cognition - Metacognition - and Conspiracy Theories

Are We All Crazy?
If you are anything like me, the political world of the past 4 years has been unbelievable. How is it possible that 72 million people support an obvious narcissistic idiot? How can they believe outlandish conspiracy theories spawned by and for him? I have spent a lot of time reading the research literature to make some sense of this. I recently got a major insight into this. This entry is a brief summary. It will be updated as I learn more. You can also contribute - note the comment section at the end.  Thanks for that. 
We are all in this together and I am counting on you.

I want to keep this short and simple, so the main body is bullet points. There are more details in the annotated references. If you are really interested in this, take a look at those. OR, if you are the typical LAZY thinker - never mind. There is nothing here for you. Just move on. 

We are Normally Fast Thinkers
People fall into these illusions for one primary reason - they are NORMAL, and normal people are FAST thinkers. (The research literature actually refers to "lazy thinkers", but that seems derogatory to me.) There are many studies that show that there are other influences at work to meddle with our decision making, but this one seems to be primary. The others have influence, but I think that a lack of reflective cognition is the top one, and we should focus on that one. Just discovering that terminology opened a whole new set of research for me. A short list of some of the theories: 

  • Fast thinking
    A more technical description is a lack of "reflective cognition", or "metacognition". It's from the Greek. It means thinking about thinking. People who pay attention to how their brain and / or gut works, are much more likely to avoid the instant, intuitive responses that most of us are prone to, most of the time. This was evolution's gift. We decide rapidly, and for safety. We recognize a face without any thought process. It is the same for friend or enemy. Fast thinking is our normal mode of operation. Slow thinking, reflective thinking is slow, and takes a lot of energy.
  • Motivated reasoning.
    This is where we leap to accept quick answers that fit out needs for belonging, for being correct, to maintain our self esteem. 
  • Confirmation bias
    A very similar approach - we tend to believe what is consistent with what we already believe. We have a resistance to ideas which attack our existing beliefs. This tendency is so strong that data which is offered that appears to be contrary to our existing belief system, actually serves to shore that up as a defensive mechanism. 
  • Identity protective cognition
    This is confirmation bias to the extreme. When our self identity is wrapped up in a group, our sense of purpose and meaning, any attack on that must be resisted strongly. 
  • Heuristics -
    "Rules of thumb" such as Availability, Representativeness, Anchoring, Affect. These are some of the shorthand intuitions we use. For more see Dwyer. Given that we are primarily intuitive or "lazy" thinkers, understanding these shorthand leaps can be helpful to persuade an audience.
  • Satisficing
    This is a heuristics or rule of thumb identified by Simon to explain how we make irrational economic decisions. We tire easily, and we settle for "good enough". Just imagine trying to make a truly rational choice in the cereal aisle at the grocery store. Nutrition, cost, flavor, size, texture, etc. You just go with one that feels right at the moment. TP is another good example - imagine shopping for TP by the price per sheet.
  • Tribal identity
    We are fundamentally social animals. We need to belong, to be part of, to be held close. As our society fragments more and more, our sense of self is tied to less groups and smaller ones. If that small group moves one way, we do not have other social ties to fall back on, so we must go along. See the research by Lilliana Mason

How the Brain Works
I have written about this elsewhere, but here's the shorthand. Our brain or gut (they are the same) is a non stop stream of events. It's like James Joyce's Ulysses on steroids. We have a sense of self because we follow just one of these never ending chains. The challenge is to recognize that there are many, many options going by, and we can choose which one to follow. We are not blindly driven to just go with the flow. We can opt to control it. See Bargh on this. But this takes considerable time and energy.

Information from Current Technology is Overwhelming 
Facebook and the like present us with so much information that our normal filtering mechanism for what can be trusted cannot keep up. Our brain is already taxed with the normal stuff of life - family, friends, work, getting food, shelter, friendship. Taking the time and energy to engage in thinking about our thinking is not an intuitive practice. For things like elections, the actual return on our effort is miniscule - our vote barely counts - so the energy expended is usually commensurate.

Training in MetaCognition and Reflective Cognition Might Help
The jury is out on this, but one possibility seems most likely to my lazy brain. Some research indicates that people who are prone to reflective cognition are better able to discern what is objectively true, and can temper their rapid intuitional response. It seems that some small percentage of us (Pareto) do this fairly consistently, and that a larger percentage might be able to be educated in this practice (mindfulness). The normal curve would say that another small percentage are never going to be able to do this. That does not mean that they are evil or stupid. They are just lacking this skill, like someone with dyslexia. For them, we have to come up with other infrastructure assists. For the bulk of us, hopefully some program of education might suffice.

How to Educate All of Us
If this is true, and it is just the beginning of a theory for a solution, how in the world do we alert the broad swath of humankind about this? Just being open to looking at our thinking process would de facto require that we are already well versed in Reflective Cognition. Piling another bit of information on top of the already overwhelming load is simply not going to work. There is not much available in the literature on this. We could try:
  • Mindfulness education from pre-school to graduate school. We used to do something called mental hygiene, which introduced us to the world of psychological research. Something similar might help get this into common parlance and thinking.
  • Infrastructure "nudges" to move the general populace in the way most beneficial to a positive outcome. Make the most desirable outcome the first one, the default one. Rank choice voting - open up the visible choices. 
  •  Can you identify a few more? 
A Universal Meme to the Rescue
One more thought. There are two research studies by Pennycook that hit me between the eyes with ideas on this. The Podcast, You are Not So Smart, highlighted the most recent one. What if this became a THING, a MEME? What if we had a MEME expressing this, a symbol, an acronym that succinctly put it all together? What if that meme was the topic of the evening news. of the Saturday Night Live cold open? What if it was mentioned in every TV sitcom, movie and mystery? Harvard School of Public Health did just that to get the idea of a designated driver in front of the general public. And I am persuaded, my fast thinking part, that this is exactly how gay marriage so quickly became an accepted cultural shift.

You Can Help
My problem is that I have zero artistic and cultural sense about what meme might work. And I have less than zero ability to get it in front of anyone. Can you help? Stop and Think about it. Be Aware of your brain. Look It UP first. Your Gut is Wrong - Check it out. My Brain Feeds on Facts, does yours? No FAST Thinking Zone. Slow down. Etc.

Technology to the Rescue
I have hope that we will eventually understand how we think and communicate well enough that we can build some infrastructure to help. We need software and tools that enable us to communicate and negotiate, and to come to a consensus on what is true, what is real, and how to best move humakind forward. The internet and social networks got us into this mess by accident. Bring that technology to bear on the problem. We need some fancy "software" that will help us communicate, and negotiate creative alternatives that we can all support. If you want to read a purely fictional account of how this might work, look at the reference for (Finn), and the book Hieroglyph. It's a great story from Canada, and it gave me a lot of hope that this is doable. The story is about an indigenous tribe negotiating with a political leader about their role in Canada. They use all kinds of tools and methods to clearly understand his position, and to explain their position in the best framework that he will most likely understand. 

Of course, it is set in Canada, and you know that they are really different. They seem to be much more community oriented. And if you figure out how they got that way - let me know. It may be just the colder climate - think of all the Nordic countries. BUT  . . . then we also have Russia and the like. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIT - This may be a waste of time and energy
This post had only been up a few hours, and I learned something that makes me think this is a total waste of time. This interview with Frank Luntz on PBS's Frontline is really telling. He conducts polls and focus groups to find out what people want, what they fear, what they respond to. Then he proposes a way to present an idea to people in a frame of reference that they will buy. He is talking about the Trump and Republicans and the riot that invaded the Capital on 1/6/2021. He seems to be without personal scruples, a gun for hire. But he seems to know how to get a read on his intended audience, and how to reach them.   https://youtu.be/xT3hPuY8w5M 

I know "reframing" works - there is a lot of research on that.
Luntz learns enough about groups of people to determine the terminology that will reach them where they are. He does not give a damn how they think, or how they get their ideas. He just wants to persuade them to go his way, or your way - if you are paying him. E.G. - don't call it a "wall", call it a "barrier". Do NOT call it an "insurrection". "Riot", maybe.

He gets it, and my guess is most politicians do as well. There is simply no way to have people really think and respond to rational arguments. The thing to do is to figure out where the wind is blowing and get in front of it. With some tuning and talking points, you can hopefully steer the craft a bit with the wind. In this realm, there is no known way to sail upwind. No one has yet come up with a keel deep enough.

This from the Wikipedia entry: 
Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think. ... If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak."[4]
Luntz's description of his job revolves around exploiting the emotional content of language. "It's all emotion. But there's nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional. ... my job is to look for the words that trigger the emotion. ... We know that words and emotion together are the most powerful force known to mankind."[4]

I have been, as they say, barking up the wrong tree. Forget about understanding how this works. Use what we know about how people work, and just persuade them to YOUR story. The crazies seem to be in charge right now. Use the same tools and move them the other way. But that does not feel like it is progress. It is just more manipulation and skulduggery. The one with the bigger club or more money wins. Rats. 

BOTTOM LINE
Give up on changing the audience, or the electorate.
  • LISTEN to the audience, to the electorate.
    Find out what their primary concern is. Focus groups, language, ideas. 
  • EMPATHIZE with that view.
    You don't need to agree with it, but listen and empathize. Hold on to them, wish them well. 
  • RESPOND to that - not to what you think is a good idea, or even what science tells you is the right thing to do. Steer the ship a bit - don't fight it. 

REFRAMING
I added some book references on the reframing model, a la Luntz. I apologize for this - I have to go read them and figure out how much of this to just toss.  Again - my apologies - assuming there is anyone who really cares about this. Thanks.

References

  • Bargh, John, Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do.
    This is a collection of the author’s research on how humans actually operate. Most of what we do is an unconscious response to a need, an urge. It is Kahneman’s fast brain, but it operates in all parts of our body. From the introduction:
    “Dr Bargh takes you into his labs at New York University and Yale where his ingenious experiments have shown how the unconscious guides our behaviour, goals and motivations in areas like race relations, parenting, business, consumer behaviour and addiction. He reveals the pervasive influence of the unconscious mind in who we choose to date or vote for, what we buy, where we live, how we perform on tests and in job interviews, and much more. Before You Know It is full of surprising and entertaining revelations as well as tricks to help you remember to-do items, shop smarter and sleep better. Before You Know It will profoundly change the way you understand yourself by introducing you to a fascinating world only recently discovered, the world that exists below the surface of your awareness and yet is the key to unlocking new ways of thinking, feeling and behaving.”

  • Bandler, Richard, & John Grinder,  Reframing: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Transformation of Meaning 
    I have only read the introduction to this book, and I am impressed. This is a scientific analysis of how to use language to persuade people. Not persuade them rationally - but how to speak to their emotions. How have I missed this? I feel like I went down the rabbit hole of rational thinking. My apologies. When exactly does this stop? 

  • Carter, Lee Hartley, Persuasion: Convincing Others When Facts Don't Seem to Matter, Paperback – September 1, 2020, Post Trump election analysis that is telling. I have not read it as yet - the foreword seems focused on one on one persuasion - seek first to understand, etc. I will have to wait until I read more. Donald Trump as the Master Persuader. Scott Adams would understand this well.
  • Cohen, Jeffrey L, Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs
    This study describes 4 experiments in which the subjects were persuaded that their political party supported policies which were, in fact, antithetical to their party, and they said they agreed with them. When asked if they were simply following the party line,  they were insistent that their beliefs were not based on their party allegiance. They composed essays describing in detail how they arrived at these values. The bottom line is that we are almost automatically driven to hold to beliefs that identify us with our group. It is very hard for individuals to step outside of that influence.  You can download a PDF of the study here:
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Party-over-policy%3A-The-dominating-impact-of-group-Cohen/5cad54ca73fb0f4d38a8c5795139bac7069f44c8
  • Dwyer, Christopher, 4 Outcomes of Lazy Thinking, Using heuristics to understand why people fall prey to fake news. 02/22/2019, Psychology Today.
    This is basically a commentary on an article in the New York Times about the research of Pennycook and Rand which is cited here. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/fake-news.html for the original article. He has a decent bibliography attached. His contribution is that he relates this research to some of the original scientific insights by Kahneman, on confirmation bias, and Simon on satisficing, and the heuristics or rules of thumb which they describe. Given that we are intuitive thinkers, if you want to persuade people of that ilk, understanding these tendencies would be important https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/201902/4-outcomes-lazy-thinking

  • Farias, Miguel, Are the Brains of Atheists Different to Those of Religious People?, 01/30/2021,
    And the answer is, it appears so. The interesting thing about this piece is that it is from a group funded by the John Templeton Foundation, who are adamantly opposed to any disparagement of religion by science and scientists. Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, seems to be resistant to mystical experience, and his brain waves indicate why. “With Dawkins, though, the experiment failed. As it turned out, Persinger explained, Dawkins’ temporal lobe sensitivity was “much, much lower” than is common in most people.” There also appears to be a cultural dimension to all of this. “ The results confirmed that a cognitive analytical style was only linked to atheism in three countries: Australia, Singapore and the USA.” https://neurosciencenews.com/atheist-brains-17640/
  • Finn, Ed; Cramer, Kathryn, Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future, This is a remarkable little book of short stories about the potential near term future. The first one is by Neal Stephenson, who always makes me think. The book is the result of a project at the University of Phoenix to put scientists in touch with creative authors, to try to project what their research might actually accomplish. It kind of raises the bar for the medium and the researchers. One story is particularly relevant here, Degrees of Freedom. It is about a political dispute in Canada between indigenous peoples and a politician. The genius of it is that it uses many things we understand about how humans communicate, how we make decisions, how we influence each other, and brings them all to bear to help this politician and the tribe communicate, and find a common ground. I found it absolutely brilliant. AND . . . it does give me hope that we might actually be able to understand how we work, and how we might assist our communications enough to be able to effectively negotiate results that will benefit all of us. You can read a bit of the discussion here: https://hieroglyph.asu.edu/2014/08/response-to-degrees-of-freedom/ "What I found most interesting was the attempt by Karl Schroeder to really think about how the future of new media technologies can have an explicit impact on the way we do politics – specifically deliberative and democratic politics. There’s a lot of science fiction that relates to how technologies might encourage authoritarian politics, but not a lot about how they might bring about more positive ways that democratic deliberation might occur."
  • Greenway, Tyler S., & Barrett, Justin L., Intuitive and Reflective Cognition,
    "Cognitive science has distinguished between two types of thinking: intuitive and reflective. Intuitive cognition is fast and automatic, whereas reflective cognition is slow and deliberate. These two types of cognitive systems mutually influence each other. Together, intuitive and reflective cognition may determine how cognitively natural or unnatural certain thoughts may be, thereby influencing the likelihood that particular ideas and practices may become shared enough to be recognized as cultural. The distinction between intuitive and reflective cognition also has theoretical and methodological implications for the study of human thought and behavior, including cultural expression."
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1906 or https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1906

  • Lakoff, George, Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, 2014, I had read this a few years ago, and I thought the author had some real insight into how to use language to persuade people. But it did not occur to me at the time, that persuading people rationally was a waste of time and energy. The key is to figure out what they are tuned to want and like, and then reframe your ideas along those lines. Forget about facts and focus on emotions.
  • Luntz, Frank, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, 2008, I would never read this book, based on its title. But understanding where the author is coming from, it is a very important book. More later after I read it! To get a good feel for this guy and what he can do, watch this interview on PBS Frontline: https://youtu.be/xT3hPuY8w5M This is an older interview, but it explains the difference this guy found between Obama and Trump - and his sense of when it started: https://youtu.be/ii9DCfTUiUw BUT - he describes it, he does not offer any wisdom on what the bleep we can do about it.
  • Mason, Lilliana, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, 2018, This author's research indicates that our sense of tribal identity is more at risk today because we have become so polarized. In the past, people had many different social contexts that gave meaning and purpose to life. With our great divide, many people now have only one or two significant groups that give them that sense of self. If data is offered that seems to threaten that sense of belonging, they are much more prone to reject it out of hand. I found the book helpful, but not 100% persuasive.
  • Mcraney, David, Podcast: YANSS 198 – The psychological mechanisms that led to the the storming of the Capitol, an event that sprang from a widespread belief in a conspiracy theory that, even weeks later, still persists among millions  January 29, 2021
    This is an interview with Lovecraft about his most recent research, and the finding that cognitive reflection may actually help with “fake news” and conspiracy theories.
    https://youarenotsosmart.com/2021/01/29/yanss-198-the-psychological-mechanisms-that-led-to-the-the-storming-of-the-capitol-an-event-that-sprang-from-a-widespread-belief-in-a-conspiracy-theory-that-even-weeks-later-still-persists-among-2/
  • PennycookGordon, & David G. Rand, Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election, 01.21.2021, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-51 This is a pre-published research article on the false beliefs that were spread among Republican supporters after the 2020 presidential election. The amazing thing is how many people this impacted - millions of people were deceived by multiple conspiracy theories.
    “Despite a lack of any meaningful evidence of systemic election fraud, a majority of Trump voters believed that fraud is common in U.S. elections (>77%), and that Trump won the 2020 election (>65%).”
    Relevant to our topic, one of the findings is that more reflective voters were less likely to be persuaded by the groundless claims. They tested for this attribute with the standard “reflective cognition” test.
    “Thus, political knowledge and engagement were associated with increased political polarization, rather than accuracy. In contrast, cognitive reflection – a measures of one’s ability and disposition to think analytically (Frederick, 2005; Toplak et al., 2011) – was associated with a reduced belief that Trump won among Trump and Biden voters (these correlations are more robust among Trump when the analysis is restricted to individuals who passed the attention check questions; see supplement).”
    “Across two studies with 3446 participants, we found consistent evidence that analytic thinking plays a role in how people judge the accuracy of fake news. Specifically, individuals who are more willing to think analytically when given a set of reasoning problems (i.e., two versions of the Cognitive Reflection Test) are less likely to erroneously think that fake news is accurate.”
    “Thus, our evidence indicates that analytic thinking helps to accurately discern the truth in the context of news headlines. More analytic individuals were also better able to discern real from fake news regardless of their political ideology, and of whether the headline was Pro-Democrat, Pro-Republican, or politically neutral; and this relationship was robust to controlling for age, gender, and education.”
    “Contrary to the popular Motivated System 2 Reasoning account of political cognition, our evidence indicates that people fall for fake news because they fail to think; not because they think in a motivated or identity-protective way. This suggests that interventions that are directed at making the public more thoughtful consumers of news media may have promise.”

    There is hope! If you are interested in more on this topic, the bibliography here is excellent.
  • Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019b). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50.
    This is an extensive collection of research on this topic - how we actually DECIDE what we know. The problem is not that people are stupid, or uneducated - the problem is that our normal behavior is simply lazy. As Kahneman indicated, our fast brain, our gut reaction is automatic. Our slow brain, our reflective cognition takes a lot of energy and time - and we are not prone to do it.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011