Solving the Problem (of the Brain Off Conspiracy)
by Matthew Pilling, guest author
SALT LAKE CITY, UT | 2 July 2008 | Once, when working as a nighttime security guard for a hotel, I was called to take care of a “small water problem” in a guest room. When I arrived at the room, it was obvious that the guests had had a little too much to drink. They had started filling the tub and then left the room. Returning hours later, they found water gushing under their door. From in the hallway, I could see that they had been using towels to try and mop up the water, but weren’t having much success. Once I entered the room, it was obvious why—in their drunken state, none of them had yet thought to turn the water off. They had spent valuable time trying to solve the problem without ever looking to the source of that problem. And there was no way that they would ever be able to keep up or even gain any ground. When all was said and done, they had extensively damaged their room and the corresponding rooms on the floors below them. It was a great example of the trickle-down effects of a bad decision and of even worse problem solving skills.
In his recent article, “Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair”, Rick Koerber says that the “[Brain-Off Conspiracy, or BOC] sees contradictory ideas as threats”, meaning they feel threatened by ideas that oppose their own. The irony is that the BOC spends most of it’s time proposing and supporting ideas that, in essence, contradict themselves. They create solutions that not only fail to solve perceived problems, but generally damage the programs they are meant to fix. A quick and seemingly unrelated story should illustrate the point nicely:
A friend of mine in Chicago coaches a little league team. In the name of being fair, the league has come up with some rules to see that everyone has a chance and that no one has the upper hand. The rules dictate that no one can pitch for more than 2 innings; that no one can be left in the outfield for more than 2 innings in a row; and so on. He says that managing a team of 12 players to fill all 9 positions without breaking any of the “fairness” rules is virtually impossible. He actually had to purchase a computer algorithm program to figure it all out. They’ve quite effectively lost every game. And worse than that, he has had to deal with numerous accidents caused by putting little Johnny or Sally at first base position when they weren’t talented enough to handle that position. To top it off, the parents that came up with the rules lash out at him for not protecting their precious little children. How many kids will be hurt before some parent files a lawsuit? Following their rules endangered children and took all of the fun out of being involved in baseball. But, at least everyone gets to play.
While little league baseball is not the most pressing issue in the news today, the pattern of self-destructive solutions is reflective of the pattern seen in policies meant to handle major national and global issues. People blindly rally behind pet issues and waste their resources fighting for solutions without ever checking if those solutions solve anything.
When I first heard Rick Koerber describe those who make decisions without regard to principles as the “Brain-Off Conspiracy”, I thought it was a little harsh. It struck me the way that most of Ann Coulter’s columns strike me. I could agree with most of what either of them had to say, but felt that the approach was not very compassionate. I guess I wanted them to find a more politically correct way to share their message. Boy, was I brain-off!
Conclusion
While I don’t think that rudeness is a justified approach in any battle, nor will it solve problems, my studies in principles have led me to believe that my genteel, keep-everybody-happy approach won’t solve anything either. When something is dangerously stupid, we aren’t doing anybody any favors by helping them feel comfortable with it. Indeed, I have come to believe that it is the duty of those who are Brain-On to alert others to the contradictory and self-destructive nature of their ways. Not everyone who currently supports the BOC is a full-blown, card-carrying activist member. But whether someone is intentionally in that camp or simply there because they don’t know where else to go, the danger of their stupidities will hurt them. And us.
In the words of the great C.S. Lewis,
I do not think all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A sum can be put right: but only by going back until you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good. (Preface to The Great Divorce).
So, the question is this: How do you help someone who doesn’t realize that there is a problem? How do you change someone who is so intoxicated by the allure of “helping” clean up the water that they don’t realize the tap is still running?
Action Items
- Read or re-read Rick Koerber’s article, “Brain-Off Conspiracy”.
- Take a serious look at some of your own “pet issues”. Major issues have purposefully been left out of this article so that you can think through a few that are important to you.
- Spend some time journaling the principles involved in those issues. Do the major solutions being proposed in society properly deal with those principles?
- Consider how you would approach the same issue from a principle-based standpoint.
- Then consider how you could help others see that your solution would solve the problem at the source, rather than just replace it with another problem?
Sources
C. Rick Koerber, Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair? FreeCapitalist Daily, March 11, 2008.
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, 1946
(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)
I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, morals are objective, while the valuation of material things is subjective.
God values ...
I think the point here is that people choose those whom they trust. When the government, by force, arranges a ...
Ammon,
As always, you bring up good points. You're right--truth doesn't need to have an advantage of time in order ...
I think one of the greatest things about the voting process is that there is never complete objectivity or truth, ...
Comment by scromie on 2 July 2008:
One suggestion off the top of my head….if there is a way to get them out of the context of where they are (i.e. take the guest downstairs and see the water coming through the roof), then they can possibly see the water coming down.
So would that mean that a Sheep is shown comparative governments? I am thinking I probably need to expand this thought further but I want to be one of the first to submit. Stay tuned.
Comment by Onika Nugent on 2 July 2008:
In the case of the water running, I would exclaim, “Let’s find the source and turn it off!” I think they would agree with me, unless they were too drunk to think. Then I guess I’d have to turn it off myself, or, if I couldn’t, wait for them to get sober enough to understand and do it themselves.
Well, I guess I’m brain-off because I always thought that to change a law we have to convince a lot of people, get a petition, and send it to our representatives, or we can write a letter and convince others to do the same, or we can publicly debate and invite our reps. to attend, but it still comes down to our representatives making a decision. Our job is to help them get informed and others who would influence or persuade them. Right?
Really, people make the wrong decisions because they are deceived into thinking their decisions are in their self-interest (will give them what they value). To persuade someone to change, we have to convince that person of what is or is not in his self-interest by finding out what that person values and showing him through reason what principles to follow in order to help him achieve what he values and the consequences of not following those principles.
Comment by scromie on 2 July 2008:
Onika - I’ve been quite impressed with your posts, even when we disagree. This is not one of those times, though. It almost seems like the only way to get someone to do something it to make it very clear that it’s in their own self interest. Even when they are doing something altruistically, isn’t it true that their payoff is that they can call themselves altruistic and get some cosmic brownie points for it?
Comment by scromie on 2 July 2008:
Back to the Patriotic Sheep. The Patriotic Sheep are those that are deceived, but are so passionately deceived that they will do everything in their power to make the favorable outcome in their eyes come true. They will stand outside windows and chant, wave flags, sport lapel pins, launch marches, etc. So, if they have that much energy and have that much ability to organize, isn’t it best to point out the root cause of the deception that they are under?
Comment by scromie on 2 July 2008:
So, for example, Onika - you’ve got it. Point to the water and say “It’s on, dangit! Turn it off!”.
When I mentioned showing them comparative governments, I was thinking (too quickly - I had to beat Onika to the punch) that if you show Communist Patriotic Sheep the “errors of their ways” (i.e. that the force needed to maintain a Communist state causes much less prosperity than a more-free market) they would be convinced that their views are not productive. But that is probably naive.
So I back out of that first comment, but I do think that a change in perspective and an a-ha moment is what it’s going to take for someone to make the shift. What’s true is true in their mind, until persuaded otherwise.
Comment by Darrel Ratliff on 3 July 2008:
You asked how we get more interested this is one path, some times in getting a good argument in debate you must allow questions to be asked first then work your way to discovery to develop a common definition of terms so you are working from the same platform of knowledge.
In discovery the term wind has a common meaning is it a breath of fresh air moving a twisted path to Oz or how you treat an antique clock so you will arise at an appropriate time??
The first thing to do is get curiosity started, once its aroused then the person will look for the answer to the question.. this is the main how to grow almost any group.
That is a truth that the great deceiver used with Eve in the first of the Bible.. the tree of knowledge She recruted Adam and the Fall of man.
Comment by Travis Bryner on 3 July 2008:
If you can or could help someone an important part to their progress is to ensure that the help you are offering is based on principle. If you offer help to their problem and your purpose and plan are not based on principle then your help is only help in your mind. So first and foremost the people who are going to help must be educated in principle.
Once we people, who are running around cleaning up the water, become educated in principle then we need to start looking for the guy(s) that decided to turn the water on. This person that turned the water on does so without principle and as such never sees past the short term ramifications. He will turn the spout on of the Federal Reserve and inflate a country to the point of collapse. He will promise you safety and in the process unknowingly steal your freedom. He will turn the spigot on to whatever problem at the time a little water can easily fix. Once this person has left his place at the handle of the spigot we are left with a silent, growing, problem. This problem will not surface immediately, but given time, will show that principle was not followed.
These people who control the water must have necessarily been educated in principle and earned their right to assume control of the water. With the people identified who have their hand on the spigot we can, as a group of people educated in principle, follow the action of these people and ensure that they don’t turn on that spigot until the have demonstrated that it will not violate principle.
My answer to your questions is to get people educated in principles so that their actions reflect their perspective. Their perspective must be based on facts, data and history. Not feelings, emotions, beliefs and fear.
Comment by Onika Nugent on 3 July 2008:
Thanks for the compliment scromie, but I have to give the credit to my mentor, John S. Robertson.
Comment by Matthew Pilling on 3 July 2008:
Great thoughts here, everybody.
Travis–I love your use of the water analogy and controlling the spigot. I think that part of the problem is that, just like the hotel presumed that the average guest is mature and responsible enough to handle running water, we, as a society tend to presume that those who run for office are mature and responsible enough to handle it as well. Somehow, it would be beneath them to have to get back to the basics and take classes on the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and principles, especially when there is a mess to clean up.
I think the question still stands, however. How do we help people get educated in principles when they don’t recognize that those principles exist, let alone that they are violating them?
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 3 July 2008:
Ok, I guess I will toss my hat into the ring for a Wii.
I think the best way to persuade people is with a machine, I have this friend named Ferris who invents things and I think he may be onto something.
Of course I am joking, this has been something that I have thought a lot about, how to change peoples perspective. Of course the first obvious answer is that you can’t change someone’s perspective, only they can change it. So the question becomes how to help people see truth and live by principle. I don’t know if there is an easy generalized answer. I have often found myself in a friendly debate with people that quickly turns ugly when beliefs are challenged. Everyone is different, and some people will be more willing to question their assumptions than others, some will take offense more than others etc… Some people are smarter, or more perceptive than others, so to say that a particular technique will work better than another in helping people to “turn their brain on” is not accurate. Debating will work with some, giving some sort of motivation will work with others, it depends highly on the individuals. Which brings me to my point, the best way for us to influence others to “turn their brain on” is to first turn on ours. In order to “solve the problem” we need to question our own assumptions and challenge our beliefs, because as we do so we will either discover that we were wrong and we will learn something, or we will find out that we are right and our conviction will become stronger. By doing this we as individuals will become stronger people and those around us will naturally see a change, and hopefully ask us some questions. People have to be willing to think, and to learn before they will accept a change to their beliefs, and by being willing to think and learn ourselves, we will hopefully have an impact on others around us. Or at least we will hopefully become strong enough to carry the weight of those who choose not to think.
Dustin
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 3 July 2008:
Here is another thought on questioning our choices and making sure that they are correct. Sometimes we may find ourselves in situations where it is beneficial to make choices quickly, sometimes without having all the facts. In these situations it is easy to act emotionally and to jump on the bandwagon so to speak. If you can remember to ask yourself why am I doing this, or do I really want to do this, then it will quickly help get you in the right mindset, you may still not have all the facts, but at least you have acknowledged that you have the choice. You may find that the choice that you made was not very good, but because you asked yourself the question, and still made the choice, you are aware that you are responsible for your choice which will allow you to learn and grow and correct your path. Too many people make decisions, join causes, vote, etc… by thinking emotionally which leads to not wanting to be responsible for the outcome. For example the woman who argued with Rick about gas was thinking emotionally, both about her husband and about her wanting to feed her family, which led her to think that her husband had to by gas and thats just how it is. If she had simply honestly asked herself the question “does my husband really need to by gas?”, it could have made her aware of her responsibility for her choice. Under the pressure that she was under at the time she may still have agreed with her initial response, but at least she would be aware of her choice and her responsibility that follows it.
Comment by Israel Curtis on 3 July 2008:
Start by sharing a copy of the FreeCapitalist Primer….
It can also be more effective to point out what principles you agree on, than to begin a dialog by pointing out the error of their thinking. Most of the time, I find there’s a lot of context that has to be established before I can even begin to propose a solution. And getting clear on terms is crucial - remember someone in the b.o.c. may be speaking the same language, but using words and labels very differently (just as your terms might be confusing and/or misunderstood).
If I can cut through the misconceptions and presumptions with patient and deliberate dialog, I find that I am much more effective in advocating principled solutions and have a more productive result. Even your best efforts may not persuade them to change course, but you will have laid the groundwork for productive dialog in the future, and avoided the emotional, tyrannical, brain-off interaction that is so prevalent in the public discourse today.
Comment by Travis Bryner on 3 July 2008:
Can you ever truly influence or change a person if they are not capable of understanding Principle #1. If a person has not grasped the lesson the author of prosperity has put in front of them there is little to no chance for change until they accept the challenge.
A person must realize that the life experiences they have, and the lessons learned from other lives, are available for them to use in their life. If however they believe that the life they live is unique and no help can be obtained from other sources they are in no frame of mind to accept or grasp the challenge. The great minds are there to guide them they just have to look.
If the people are content to clean up the water they will not change. If they realize that at some point the water will get to deep they might look for some answers. Then hopefully Matthew, people of principle, people like you, are there to help them.
Comment by scromie on 3 July 2008:
Another idea that came to me is to find a person who is held in high esteem by the ones you are trying to convince. Persuade that person to the truth of the message, and then recruit them to the cause. By sheer virtue of the standing this person has with your targets, it will virtually guarantee that they will at least listen to the discussion, and should allow for the targets of your “conversion” to at least start thinking about things instead of just going from the gut of what they have been taught previously. Sometimes it takes getting someone’s attention so that they will HEAR instead of merely LISTEN.
Comment by Laurie Cromie on 3 July 2008:
Great article and I liked the analogies, especially the little league story. I think that in these stories, someone needs to be a parent teaching correct principles, and in turn teaching the children. If you, the leader/coach (not to be confused with “parent”), just turn the water off, or create those baseball rules by yourself without any input from others, then what does anyone learn? Before you know it, the water will be turned back on after a few more beers, and in the little league, the kids don’t learn anything of value.
Thus, I propose in the real world, a parent needs to gather facts and educate. So in the world of politics, I say the newscasters have the greatest responsibility of making sure their broadcasts are accurate and informative.
For example, today CNN was on in the background and I just picked up someone mentioning, “Barack will solve our economy and balance our checkbooks.” OK, GREAT! Sign me up!
But see… that’s the problem! I can’t ASSUME he’s going to fix all of my woes, and be led like a sheep just because it sounds good.
So come on, newscasters and people in the media… let’s teach the people to fish instead of giving them one meal and ending up with another fiasco of a president.
Comment by Laurie Cromie on 4 July 2008:
Oh, I just wanted to add that I didn’t mean to put down Obama, lest anyone think I was. I think he’s a truly fine candidate. I just meant that I think so much time on TV and the internet is wasted on pithy celebrity gossip and game shows. I think more time should be spent on the election.
I even have to applaud Colbert and Stewart. Even though their shows are mostly satire, they really does *spark* an interest in politics. Mercy me, I love them!
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
That is a good idea, but the problem is that the people who are held in high esteem by the people who you are trying to convince are probably going to be harder to persuade than the people who you originally wanted to convince. In other words, I have a couple of friends on facebook who are supporters of Barack Obama, however it would probably be very difficult for many reasons to convince Barack Obama of the error in his philosophy. I do believe that that if we could convince popular, supported people in the world to live by and teach proper principles that that could be very effective in persuading people. Mainly because there are a lot of people in the world who prefer popular people and leaders to do their thinking for them. So certainly this could be a technique worth trying in order to fight the BOC, but it may be easier to and more effective in the long run to work on the individual level. Remember that we want people to think for themselves, if they are so easily swayed by what their leader says, whats to stop some enemy from persuading the leader to some other harmful ideas and hence persuading the crowd of followers.
Comment by Ross Erickson on 4 July 2008:
“How do you help someone who doesn’t realize that there is a problem?”
Principle 8 - Exchange creates wealth. Exchange ideas, exchange knowledge, exchange books (with the string attached that the person reads them, of course.)
A person doesn’t know what he/she doesn’t know. If you can expose people to principles and to truths, they then have the opportunity to accept or deny them. For some people, the ideas you share with them will “click” and for others it won’t. (Though I think that if you can show how truths or principles are in their self interest, they will be more likely to accept what you have to offer. This requires knowledge of what you are trying to share as well as the understanding of the person’s self interest.)
“How do you change someone who is so intoxicated by the allure of “helping” clean up the water that they don’t realize the tap is still running?”
You can’t change anyone. It is up to the individual to change him/her self. I have a relative that is an alcoholic. No matter how bad I want that person to become sober, that choice of sobering-up is his. All I can do is offer my ideas of how his life might be better and he can, again, accept or deny. I think that applies to the BOC. You can share the knowledge that you have and the rest is up to them. The fact that we can’t change people can be frustrating, but it is important that we use persuasion and not violate principle by using force or deception to change people.
Exchanging ideas and living by principles while being a good example for your cause are some of the most effective ways to help understand the true source of the overflowing water.
Comment by Onika Nugent on 4 July 2008:
Aren’t we forcing the people/government in Iraq to change? Did they ask us to go over there and change them?
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
I have added quite a few friends on Facebook lately, and a lot of my freinds are people that I knew in high school and haven’t had much interaction with over the last several years. Many of those friends are liberal and support causes that are contrary to freedom. This will hopefully lead to some great conversations, I don’t think that they have sinister desires, I simply think that they are deceived, but at least they are taking a stand and have an opinion. This means that they will engage in a discussion and hopefully it will lead to a productive outcome for both parties. I do however have a few friends whose political views are apathetic. These people don’t spend very much time thinking about politics and how it effects them. You may engage in a conversation with these people and they might just say “I don’t really care”. In actuality they really do care, they just don’t know it yet. These people are the frogs who are slowly getting boiled. At some point they may find themselves with some sort of political action that they do decide to care about, but at that point it will be too late. It should be fairly easy to point out situations that will get them to start thinking and hopefully caring, such as some of theses apathetic friends are entrepreneurs, and while they may not care about abortion, or the war, or healthcare, gay marriage etc…, I could point out that a loss of economic freedom would definitely effect them.
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
Last night as I was trying to regain my number 2 recruit position on facebook, I started talking to some of the employees at my shop. I asked them to join the Free Capitalist cause, I was glad to see that they actually asked me what the cause was about, rather than just blindly doing what I told them. So I started to explain things to them, when one of my guys who is an accounting student at BYU started challenging some of the things I was saying. This lead to a very lively discussion which actually included a customer as well. Even though I was outnumbered 4-1 I held my ground, and it turned out to be a very productive exchange. As I was challenged, it helped me to think through my points better and to articulate in a better way. We established common principles that we agreed upon, which allowed us to apply our points on common ground. It also helped me to use them in my examples, so that they could think about how they themselves would feel about a particular situation. For example when we were talking about social security, they said that its good because it helps people when they retire. I said ok, if I came over to your 3 houses (i was talking to 3 people at the time) and forced you to pay me $100 every month because I wanted to retire, would you like it. It seems that when you are addressing people in regards to welfare type situations it is more effective to turn the point to them. Meaning instead of saying why should I be responsible for you, say why should you be responsible for me, most of the time you will find that these people like to be on the receiving end, rather than the giving end and it hopefully gives them a different perspective when you point out that they will have to pay for other people.
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
What’s wrong with BOC, I happen to like “Dont’ Fear the Reaper”
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
Dose anyone else like the show “30 Days”? It is very interesting, it is on FX channel, and was created by Morgan Spurlock, who also made “Fast Food Nation”. The show basically takes a person and has them live with another family, or group for 30 days. The catch is that the people are generally the exact opposites of a particular issue, for example they had an avid hunter live with an activist for PETA, or a Mormon woman live with a gay couple who had adopted children, so far my favorite episode was the gun control activist who lived with a father and son who were gun collectors and went shooting every chance they could. The show takes a very objective point of view, and is not pushing one side or the other, but it shows both sides of the issue and lets the viewer decide for themselves, which is one of the reasons that I like it. The other reason that I like the show is that it really makes people question their assumptions and beliefs, there is a lot of good debate and discussion etc… Sometimes when I watch, I wish I could be the one who is alone in enemy territory, so to speak. With some of these issues the people are so deeply rooted in their beliefs that they say some pretty radical things, that makes you wonder if there is any way that they could every change their minds. Good show, check it out.
Comment by scromie on 4 July 2008:
I hear a lot of people saying on this post (including myself) that we have to somehow inspire the change within the persons themselves. But I think the challenge really is how to PERSUADE them to make the change. How do you persuade the coach that it is not a good idea to FORCE each player to play each position? How do you persuade the BOC to think outside of their current context? You can point the BOC to the kool-aid, but how do you persuade them to drink it? (Perhaps ask Jim Jones???
)
I think that is really the question I’ve been trying to answer in my life for a long time. Persuasion is really one of the pieces of HLV I’m looking to improve upon.
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
I believe that the key is to inspire/persuade them to THINK, if truth is truth, then people will naturally discover it if they start to think and seek truth. I don’t believe that we are trying to get them to just drink the koolaid, because that would suggest that the people are not actually thinking, they are just doing what the leader has told them to do. I think it would be more accurate or appropriate to point the BOC away from the koolaid.
Comment by scromie on 4 July 2008:
Thanks for having your brain on Dustin - you make a great point. If we are actually having them drink the kool-aid (even if it’s the yummy purple kind) then we’re just as bad….we’re applying force. So then it’s back to persuasion. Thinking is definitely the key. I believe there is some scripture out there that says “Teach them correct principles and they will govern themselves.” But how do we get them in an audience to teach them?
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 4 July 2008:
Well one good way would be to get ourselves in order, to think, to live by principle, and to succeed as much as possible. This will hopefully inspire people to ask questions and to start thinking for themselves. Another good way is to organize in an organization like the Free Capitalist Project and to build it as big as possible so that it can truly become a force for good. But its important to remember that any cause will only be as strong as its individual members.
Comment by Jessica Sellers on 4 July 2008:
When you make it more uncomfortable to keep the status quo than to look for alternatives, that’s when a person is open to questioning their current beliefs and paradigm. To me, that means enjoying my life as much as possible by living by principle so that my neighbors will say, I’ll have what she’s having. It also means letting people reap the consequences of their decisions instead of bailing them out (be reasonable). Be an expert in and emulate the principles you want to teach others, and make sure people where you stand, so that when they start questioning their lives, you’ll be standing right next to them, ready to lead them to a more prosperous path.
Comment by Matthew Pilling on 7 July 2008:
Wow. I took the weekend off and feel like the tub is now overflowing. Thanks for all your comments.
I think I may have worded my question poorly–as many have pointed out, I can’t change anyone. They have to choose to change themselves. But, in the case of the overflowing tub, when I pointed out that the water was still running, all four drunk men had a deep “a-ha” moment. In a normal state, turning off the water would have been a natural, unspoken move for them. But, they were so drunk that their faculties were greatly impaired. And that’s the real problem that I see with the BOC. I agree with Dustin that many in the BOC aren’t driven by sinister motives and may be open to discussion. But, if they are so drunk that their faculties are impaired, even sharing the truth with them may not be enough.
Some in the BOC are ripe for the picking. They will recognized truth and be drawn to it as we share our message. Others, however, will be more concerned about proving that, even if the points they have defended are wrong, they have come by those points honestly and defended them honestly (”It’s not my fault that someone else reported the story incorrectly. I acted based on what I was told. I defended what I believed in and I did so boldly. You can’t blame me for that.”)
We can’t change anyone. But we can provide the impetus that leads them to change.
Comment by Dustin Lyons on 8 July 2008:
I want to make a correction, Morgan Spurlock of “30 Days” did not make “Fast Food Nation”, he made “Supersize Me”. I apologize for the mistake.
Comment by Ryan Wiser on 11 July 2008:
” Q: Who is more blind than a blind man?
A: The man who chooses not to see ”
The question: How to help people help themselves?
The most obvious, gut response to this question is to simply show them the problem. Point at the “faucet” and remind them it’s “on”. This, of course, is easier said than done. For example, telling an addict he is addicted will most likely get you nowhere. The addict in this case perceives your comment as a threat and immediately goes on the defensive. In the end, you may actually worsen the problem by strengthening the addict’s resolve in their own belief. Pointing out the flaws or problems in any individual is hurtful. The attacked rectify the assault with thinking things as, “they don’t know what they’re talking about”, “they don’t know me”, “who are they?”, etc. On the other hand, the attacked may even realize their own faults, yet out of duty to “save face” continue doing harm to themselves! Lesson: We need a new approach
So if the approach of simply pointing out someone’s myopia is inadequate (and may even backfire!), what approach can we use? What method can we apply, what kind of questions can we ask, to help a person see their own problems without feeling attacked?
Some things to consider:
1. Time frame: You might have to space out your enlightenment over many days or weeks. Deeply held beliefs will never vanish in an instant. The “impulse” (physics term) is simply too great; people need time to reflect.
2. Conversation: Is it turning into a battle? If so, you’ve already lost. No one will admit their beliefs are inferior to yours. The language you use, and its style are vitally important. Try to stay cool and collected. Another tactic I often use with my contentious friends is to ADMIT THAT I MIGHT BE WRONG. This immediately removes any perception of offensive behavior, and creates a more comfortable atmosphere. Even if you know you’re right, giving concessions to the other person shows you’re consideration for their ideas. You may even find, as I have, that they will return the gesture, and admit that they might be wrong!
3. Emotion: Beliefs aren’t just intellectual. A strong belief becomes an emotional attachment for a person, and will be defended at all costs. You cannot let a conversation turn emotional, this will only lead you into an argument. If the other person becomes emotional, apologize and admit that they are right. By doing that, you can actually make the other person think THEY are wrong. Let me give an example. Person A is confronted by Person B about his/her drug problem. Person A turns reactionary and a long argument breaks out. In A’s mind, everything B says is wrong, and vice versa. If, however, B admits A is right, A will agree at first, “but wait, everything B said was wrong, so I am wrong to agree with him, meaning that I am wrong to begin with!”
Comment by Jason Welch on 11 July 2008:
I know the contest is past(I just heard the podcast yesterday), But I wanted everybody to know that there is another freecapitalist out here that is interested, involved and reading fcd. By the way, who won the wii’s?
Comment by Nathan Adams on 14 July 2008:
I will start by saying that i have worked for an engineer and architect, and the result of such a problem would probably be something in a state code mandating that the owners have a seperate control over the water so that they can overide the tennants. Then there would be stipulations about how that seperate control would have to be accesible in the hallway so that the privacy of the tenants could be respected. Then there would be a special training for all employees of the establishment on how to turn the handle even though some 4 year old walking down the hall can figure it out. The control would go to someone who was “trained” on how to handle the situation while the person who caused it would be left with no responsibility.
I think the correct answer though without getting religious, is to show people the light or truth. We cannot force someone else to turn the faucet of. We can however demonstrate how to turn it off, or even remind people that there is a faucet in the first place. To many people get stuck thinking that the water is out of there control. Expose people to the truth, and they are more likley to make correct decissions based on principles.
Comment by J. Scott Cromie on 21 July 2008:
Congratulations to the winners!!! Dustin, Onika, and (I believe Darrell) were announced today on the radio.
Comment by Darrel Ratliff on 23 July 2008:
If it is me thanks I heard Rick say something similar to my first name but not quite I wish i was that young English lad Daniel, Radcliffe.(Harry Potter) but my last name correctly.
His earthly wealth is nice but trimming off the 36 years would be even better.
I know how hard it is to read my name on air as i worked radio in the days of tellitype, news, real records Cart machines and reel to reel tape and a cheep Cd player was a grand a commercial CD recorder cost 25,000.00 Looks like another capitalistic improvement a cdr in a medium quality computer under 200.bucks.. with enough equipment to run a complete broadcast station in the case. (less the human talent of the operator)
History..