http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/ In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works. Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:57:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7216 Sean Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:32:47 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7216 <a></a>Though I see someone mentioned Mother Teresa, we're missing the one famous quote that sums it all up: "We can do no great things; only small things with great love."Bravo on those last two paragraphs, Dave. While I agree with medaille that there needs to be balance of the "masculine" and "feminine" - the Taoist yin and yang - in a world largely dominated by the yang, this wise resignation that we can do not "great things" does not resign us to all out hopelessness, though that's what the prevailing culture has us believe, especially the whole "American new thought movement." As a Zen practitioner myself, I know that a deep love for the here and now is the only thing that keeps us sane and lets us take wise, mindful action.But, the bottom line is we humans like to take everything way too seriously. Going crazy trying to save the whole world from the top down is not the Taoist way of "effortless living" :) Though I see someone mentioned Mother Teresa, we’re missing the one famous quote that sums it all up: “We can do no great things; only small things with great love.”Bravo on those last two paragraphs, Dave. While I agree with medaille that there needs to be balance of the “masculine” and “feminine” – the Taoist yin and yang – in a world largely dominated by the yang, this wise resignation that we can do not “great things” does not resign us to all out hopelessness, though that’s what the prevailing culture has us believe, especially the whole “American new thought movement.” As a Zen practitioner myself, I know that a deep love for the here and now is the only thing that keeps us sane and lets us take wise, mindful action.But, the bottom line is we humans like to take everything way too seriously. Going crazy trying to save the whole world from the top down is not the Taoist way of “effortless living” :)

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7215 Dave Pollard Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:03:02 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7215 <a></a>Zach: Absolutely. And how nationally, even globally significant Gandhi's local protest proved to be.Medaille: If one community of 10-25 people is able to influence nine others to do likewise, then I think you have the critical mass to change the whole system bottom-up. It's just a theory, but seems to resonate with the way diseases spread from a very small point of entry, and how evolutionary changes in nature take hold if they have an advantage over the incumbent 'model'. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a top-down change project. The models we choose can tap into the wisdom of crowds, but they will not be monolithic -- beyond certain basic principles, I can see a new economy, political system, society and culture playing itself out with a lot of local variation, and these local experiments will refin the model more effectively than top-down 'guidance'. Zach: Absolutely. And how nationally, even globally significant Gandhi’s local protest proved to be.Medaille: If one community of 10-25 people is able to influence nine others to do likewise, then I think you have the critical mass to change the whole system bottom-up. It’s just a theory, but seems to resonate with the way diseases spread from a very small point of entry, and how evolutionary changes in nature take hold if they have an advantage over the incumbent ‘model’. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a top-down change project. The models we choose can tap into the wisdom of crowds, but they will not be monolithic — beyond certain basic principles, I can see a new economy, political system, society and culture playing itself out with a lot of local variation, and these local experiments will refin the model more effectively than top-down ‘guidance’.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7214 zach Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:24:40 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7214 <a></a>I know you guys largely ignore me but thats ok, I wanted to pipe in anyway about this comment: <i>That model, starting small, focused and functional, is capable of enormous influence, probably much more influence than can come from doing something conceptual (like writing a book full of brilliant but not clearly actionable ideas) or political (like getting elected as a Green).</i> Think Gandhi's salt march, that took enormouse vision but the action was extremely simple and effective. So vision is necessary and so is effective action, and unless you're a law maker I can't think of a way to implement effective action except on a local scale (physically, or in cyberspace I suppose). I know you guys largely ignore me but thats ok, I wanted to pipe in anyway about this comment: That model, starting small, focused and functional, is capable of enormous influence, probably much more influence than can come from doing something conceptual (like writing a book full of brilliant but not clearly actionable ideas) or political (like getting elected as a Green). Think Gandhi’s salt march, that took enormouse vision but the action was extremely simple and effective. So vision is necessary and so is effective action, and unless you’re a law maker I can’t think of a way to implement effective action except on a local scale (physically, or in cyberspace I suppose).

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7213 medaille Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:17:29 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7213 <a></a>Dave, a lot of what I read of yours talks a lot about starting from the bottom up. I think that in order to make an impact there has to be a balance between the effectiveness of a extremely local solution and reaching a large enough number of people to reach the critical mass required for other people to understand fully your cause and to influence them to follow your action. I don't think that one community of 10-25 people is adequate to achieve that, although for your model a network of say 100-200 communities that size would probably be adequate. An extremely important thing (I'm sure you've already thought of this) for you to consider when you use connectivity to promote your model is a detailed step by step method of converting their current living arrangement into the new proposed model. I'm confident that there needs to be a single person or small group at the helm to make the changes in the community. This is because it is rare for people to have both the knowledge required and the ability required to make the change, although once critical mass is achieved then it will be significantly easier. I agree that Connectivity will aid in this significantly.With regards to Bucky's statement, I agree that you can't fight the existing reality, but I think that to a certain extent that's exactly what you are doing by focusing on an extremely local level. It allows the existing reality to reinforce undesirable patterns and it will make it harder for each person to convert their method of thinking to the new model, thus it will make it more difficult to sustain the change and more input costs will go into (as Illich states it) therapy to bridge the clash in cultures.I think that it is wise to focus on making small significant changes in infrastructure that promote desirable patterns in the citizens everyday life. This will make it easier to influence people in the proper direction and will remove some of the competing forces that stand in the wayof your goals. I think a community of at least 50,000 is large enough to reach critical mass yet easy enough to change with the proper local influence. Top down solutions are a better method because "you" will be in control until the model is self-sufficient. At the very least the infrastructure and set-up of the society require a guiding hand.As far as cause-and-effect's relation to the world problems, root cause analysis is irrelevant. What can be determined is the general trend or the push/pull effect of an input or force. If you are alert to the forces at work that influence people than you can change the negative forces into ones that promote desirable patterns. It is not necessary to define the exact causes with complete certainty, but it is necessary to know what the causes are. This could be easily done through statistical analysis with a large enough population size. To explain what I mean, you are looking for how culture (in the sense of how it influences the brains patterns) varies on a local level and how it influences the general trend of the people exposed to it. If there is a strong correlation between people being happier by using mass transportation instead of individual vehicles than it is important to put that in design of the model. If there is a strong correlation between people existing under a "socially darwinistic" capitalistic economy and them making selfish decisions instead of responsible decisions then an effort should be taken to rearrange the infrastructure to promote making responsible decisions. By changing the infrastructure (which is relatively easy as most of it can be accomplished by changing laws or services provided by the local government) you are changing the existing reality to one that makes the overall transition to the new model and new method of thinking/culture that correspondes with it much easier, because you won't have to fight the old undesirable culture directly.I'm not sure if I made my definition of culture clear enough. Byculture, I don't mean on a broad level. I'm talking about all of the patterns that the brain learns due to external influence. This could be the wording on posters, or the method used to accomplish something as modeled by another person, or the constant bombardment by advertisements that we must conform to an ideal model which is not our own, or that happiness is achieved through consumption because our society is setup to promote that, etc. Dave, a lot of what I read of yours talks a lot about starting from the bottom up. I think that in order to make an impact there has to be a balance between the effectiveness of a extremely local solution and reaching a large enough number of people to reach the critical mass required for other people to understand fully your cause and to influence them to follow your action. I don’t think that one community of 10-25 people is adequate to achieve that, although for your model a network of say 100-200 communities that size would probably be adequate. An extremely important thing (I’m sure you’ve already thought of this) for you to consider when you use connectivity to promote your model is a detailed step by step method of converting their current living arrangement into the new proposed model. I’m confident that there needs to be a single person or small group at the helm to make the changes in the community. This is because it is rare for people to have both the knowledge required and the ability required to make the change, although once critical mass is achieved then it will be significantly easier. I agree that Connectivity will aid in this significantly.With regards to Bucky’s statement, I agree that you can’t fight the existing reality, but I think that to a certain extent that’s exactly what you are doing by focusing on an extremely local level. It allows the existing reality to reinforce undesirable patterns and it will make it harder for each person to convert their method of thinking to the new model, thus it will make it more difficult to sustain the change and more input costs will go into (as Illich states it) therapy to bridge the clash in cultures.I think that it is wise to focus on making small significant changes in infrastructure that promote desirable patterns in the citizens everyday life. This will make it easier to influence people in the proper direction and will remove some of the competing forces that stand in the wayof your goals. I think a community of at least 50,000 is large enough to reach critical mass yet easy enough to change with the proper local influence. Top down solutions are a better method because “you” will be in control until the model is self-sufficient. At the very least the infrastructure and set-up of the society require a guiding hand.As far as cause-and-effect’s relation to the world problems, root cause analysis is irrelevant. What can be determined is the general trend or the push/pull effect of an input or force. If you are alert to the forces at work that influence people than you can change the negative forces into ones that promote desirable patterns. It is not necessary to define the exact causes with complete certainty, but it is necessary to know what the causes are. This could be easily done through statistical analysis with a large enough population size. To explain what I mean, you are looking for how culture (in the sense of how it influences the brains patterns) varies on a local level and how it influences the general trend of the people exposed to it. If there is a strong correlation between people being happier by using mass transportation instead of individual vehicles than it is important to put that in design of the model. If there is a strong correlation between people existing under a “socially darwinistic” capitalistic economy and them making selfish decisions instead of responsible decisions then an effort should be taken to rearrange the infrastructure to promote making responsible decisions. By changing the infrastructure (which is relatively easy as most of it can be accomplished by changing laws or services provided by the local government) you are changing the existing reality to one that makes the overall transition to the new model and new method of thinking/culture that correspondes with it much easier, because you won’t have to fight the old undesirable culture directly.I’m not sure if I made my definition of culture clear enough. Byculture, I don’t mean on a broad level. I’m talking about all of the patterns that the brain learns due to external influence. This could be the wording on posters, or the method used to accomplish something as modeled by another person, or the constant bombardment by advertisements that we must conform to an ideal model which is not our own, or that happiness is achieved through consumption because our society is setup to promote that, etc.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7212 Dave Pollard Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:07:23 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7212 <a></a>Thanks for your comments. Voltron, I was generalizing just to be provocative. Not all women, and certainly some people in business, though my observation is that business keeps pushing them out or ghettoizing them in their organizations.Medaille, I'm talking about shifting focus to the local level, to doing things that can actually be done now, not necessarily shifting focus from problems to symptoms. My resignation is that no one is in control, so top-down 'solutions' won't work, and that there is no clear cause-and-effect in most of the world's intractable problems, so root cause analysis doesn't work. By working practically at the community level, we can create working <i>models</i> that, thanks to our exploding connectivity, can virally be spread and take root elsewhere. As Bucky said, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." That model, starting small, focused and functional, is capable of enormous influence, probably much more influence than can come from doing something conceptual (like writing a book full of brilliant but not clearly actionable ideas) or political (like getting elected as a Green). We cannot convince others, we can only wait for them to be ready to understand. Telling me that this is thinking in a 'very feminine manner' is the nicest compliment I have received since a kind reader called How to Save the World 'the New Yorker of blogs'. Thanks for your comments. Voltron, I was generalizing just to be provocative. Not all women, and certainly some people in business, though my observation is that business keeps pushing them out or ghettoizing them in their organizations.Medaille, I’m talking about shifting focus to the local level, to doing things that can actually be done now, not necessarily shifting focus from problems to symptoms. My resignation is that no one is in control, so top-down ’solutions’ won’t work, and that there is no clear cause-and-effect in most of the world’s intractable problems, so root cause analysis doesn’t work. By working practically at the community level, we can create working models that, thanks to our exploding connectivity, can virally be spread and take root elsewhere. As Bucky said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” That model, starting small, focused and functional, is capable of enormous influence, probably much more influence than can come from doing something conceptual (like writing a book full of brilliant but not clearly actionable ideas) or political (like getting elected as a Green). We cannot convince others, we can only wait for them to be ready to understand. Telling me that this is thinking in a ‘very feminine manner’ is the nicest compliment I have received since a kind reader called How to Save the World ‘the New Yorker of blogs’.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7211 medaille Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:18:13 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7211 <a></a>so... if no one is going to take on the responsibility of "saving the world" how is it going to get done? While I definitely agree that we should focus on improving the here and now, I think that only focusing on that aspect is kind of like a treatment instead of fixing the cause. It will reduce suffering now, but will fail to prevent suffering in the future. In situations like this, it's best to take a dual focused approach. 1) treat the current symptoms. 2) treat the actual problem.It's clear how to treat the symptoms. In order to treat the actual problem though, society needs to be restructured in order to promote healthy behavior in humans. Somehow there has to be active control of our future, or else our society will continue to be helpless just like its people are. People don't just become adults by turning 18 or by graduating. Adulthood is a defined by maturity and the acceptance of responsibility for ones actions and how they affect ourselves and other both in the present and in the future. At some point in time our society will have to "grow up" and accept responsibility for our actions. We have to plan for our futures to ensure that we aren't just settling for what is given to us.It seems to me that you are thinking in a very feminine manner, in that you are accepting your fate passively and that you are only capable of a small amount of influence and only on a local scale (for most people). Survival is optimized (for individuals, couples, communities, societies, etc) when there is a balance between masculinity and femininity. If one is overly dominant over the other than survival is hindered. If masculinity is too prominent, we run headlong into trouble and we are injured or soon deceased. If femininity is too prominent, we become helpless to shaping our future and helpless to defend ourselves against the rigors of the world and each other. We as a society are currently really feminine being controlled by really masculineentities, which is an incredibly bad situation because we aren't masculine enough to make a difference and the rulers are driving us into oblivion."Trusting our instincts" is only applicable if we act on them. It is not that hard to understand where all the problems (meaning causes not symptoms) are, the hard part is convincing everyone to actually do something and to know what to do. so… if no one is going to take on the responsibility of “saving the world” how is it going to get done? While I definitely agree that we should focus on improving the here and now, I think that only focusing on that aspect is kind of like a treatment instead of fixing the cause. It will reduce suffering now, but will fail to prevent suffering in the future. In situations like this, it’s best to take a dual focused approach. 1) treat the current symptoms. 2) treat the actual problem.It’s clear how to treat the symptoms. In order to treat the actual problem though, society needs to be restructured in order to promote healthy behavior in humans. Somehow there has to be active control of our future, or else our society will continue to be helpless just like its people are. People don’t just become adults by turning 18 or by graduating. Adulthood is a defined by maturity and the acceptance of responsibility for ones actions and how they affect ourselves and other both in the present and in the future. At some point in time our society will have to “grow up” and accept responsibility for our actions. We have to plan for our futures to ensure that we aren’t just settling for what is given to us.It seems to me that you are thinking in a very feminine manner, in that you are accepting your fate passively and that you are only capable of a small amount of influence and only on a local scale (for most people). Survival is optimized (for individuals, couples, communities, societies, etc) when there is a balance between masculinity and femininity. If one is overly dominant over the other than survival is hindered. If masculinity is too prominent, we run headlong into trouble and we are injured or soon deceased. If femininity is too prominent, we become helpless to shaping our future and helpless to defend ourselves against the rigors of the world and each other. We as a society are currently really feminine being controlled by really masculineentities, which is an incredibly bad situation because we aren’t masculine enough to make a difference and the rulers are driving us into oblivion.”Trusting our instincts” is only applicable if we act on them. It is not that hard to understand where all the problems (meaning causes not symptoms) are, the hard part is convincing everyone to actually do something and to know what to do.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7210 Jon Husband Tue, 01 Nov 2005 14:19:54 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7210 <a></a><i>I'm inclined to believe that many people are pessimistic, not due to learned helplessness, but because they 'know' instinctively that the world is facing some massive challenges, that short of a revolution (which few are prepared to precipitate, at least not yet) there is genuinely little they can do to help address these challenges. I think the influence of media 'spin' on this perception is minor.And I believe that many people are instinctively coming to realize that no one, no elite, is in control of this world (if any ever was), and that therefore even a revolution would be futile (as indeed most political revolutions in history have been). </i>This is me, most of the time .. and as I dislike believing that I have fallen into learned helplessness, what I do is (as I think I have said before) try to be helpful to others, work at being a good friend, live within my means, use strategies that minimize my entanglement with a system I believe little in, do no harm as much as possible, and try to find ways to speak out and get the few humans I come into contact with to question authority, amd challenge the status quo (or status qui ;-) I’m inclined to believe that many people are pessimistic, not due to learned helplessness, but because they ‘know’ instinctively that the world is facing some massive challenges, that short of a revolution (which few are prepared to precipitate, at least not yet) there is genuinely little they can do to help address these challenges. I think the influence of media ’spin’ on this perception is minor.And I believe that many people are instinctively coming to realize that no one, no elite, is in control of this world (if any ever was), and that therefore even a revolution would be futile (as indeed most political revolutions in history have been). This is me, most of the time .. and as I dislike believing that I have fallen into learned helplessness, what I do is (as I think I have said before) try to be helpful to others, work at being a good friend, live within my means, use strategies that minimize my entanglement with a system I believe little in, do no harm as much as possible, and try to find ways to speak out and get the few humans I come into contact with to question authority, amd challenge the status quo (or status qui ;-)

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7209 Voltron Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:58:11 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7209 <a></a>"women, poets, scientists and artists"First of all: -*ALL* women?-"Artists" - What is the definition of an artist in this meaning? I know many business-people whom I would consider to be artists in the manner that they produce amazing and creative products for society. Same goes for sales-people,marketing-people, etc. “women, poets, scientists and artists”First of all: -*ALL* women?-”Artists” – What is the definition of an artist in this meaning? I know many business-people whom I would consider to be artists in the manner that they produce amazing and creative products for society. Same goes for sales-people,marketing-people, etc.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-7208 zach Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:39:35 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2005/10/31/spin-the-three-ps-and-the-politics-of-learned-helplessness-and-learned-optimism/#comment-7208 <a></a><i> this resignation does not need to depress us, or debilitate us. On the contrary, it liberates us from the responsibility to 'save the world' and refocuses us, our sense of purpose, on making the world better here, now, for those we live with and love, in the communities that define us. </i> Well said and I completely agree with this. Or take a saintly example like Mother Teresa, I'm not sure of the reunciation part, but this is essentially what she did. Have you heard the statement "be in the world but not of it"? this resignation does not need to depress us, or debilitate us. On the contrary, it liberates us from the responsibility to ’save the world’ and refocuses us, our sense of purpose, on making the world better here, now, for those we live with and love, in the communities that define us. Well said and I completely agree with this. Or take a saintly example like Mother Teresa, I’m not sure of the reunciation part, but this is essentially what she did. Have you heard the statement “be in the world but not of it”?

]]>