“In contrast to men,” says Nikolova, “women act the same together as they would alone because they don’t need to prove anything in front of other women. Womanhood is not precarious and does not need the same level of public defense as manhood. That’s why we observe the compromise effect in the joint decisions of […]
New Ideas and Knowledge As Mortal Threats
The basic problem, that obstructs new ideas, facts and knowledge from being used to help people and solve problems is that the general public gets it’s information from the media and the media is, literally and figuratively, “paid” to monger fear about anything new, different or unfamiliar. Politicians and policy makers the same*. Blame the living conditions from millennia looong ago when our brains and behaviors evolved.
Attack the Messengers
So we can’t have new solutions to problems without new knowledge but our brains instinctively hate anything new and react to new knowledge as an immediate mortal threat. The defensive behaviors are then justified using a grab bag of current pop culture tropes usually citing ethics or morality, etc. At the same time, personal attacks on the messengers or the new knowledge are the default and, usually best, default tactic.
Not relevant to everyone but it shows the tough realities of today’s marketing challenges and the integration of bio and brain measures.
Thus, the overall picture that emerges is that of:
- “Trench warfare,” in which large battles for attention are waged every day
- But the battle lines of market share change very slowly.
Many previous studies have shown that important evolutionary changes in animals have resulted from the gain, loss, or modification of gene regulatory elements, rather than from the evolution of new protein-coding genes. “Most of the changes that have happened during vertebrate evolution, as animals acquired new body plans and features like feathers and hair, were not the result of new genes but of new regulatory elements that turn genes on and off in different patterns,”
So, apparently, we are a little twig on the bush of primates and the bigger twig of great apes. Well they are all gonna die off pretty soon. “Die off” as in go extinct. Continue reading
These are useful. However, never let politeness and political or commercial “correctness” get in the way of the facts — however, inconvenient. Incivility and and putting “psonalities before principals” just waste energy.
1. “When criticizing a colleague, try to begin your critique with something appreciative and positive—-or at least neutral–such as, “Dr. X. raises some very timely and important questions in his/her thoughtful essay.”
2. Try not to write anything about your colleague that you would not feel justified in saying to his or her face, at a professional conference (and bear in mind, that’s where the two of you may meet next!)
3. Never dash off an email or blog comment in a fit of anger; rather, write a draft version “off line”; reflect upon it; revise if necessary; and send only after a suitable “cooling down” period.
4. Always consider having a colleague read over any critique that leaves you feeling uneasy or slightly “guilty” regarding statements about another person.
5. Always phrase your criticism in terms of ideas or behaviors, not your opponent’s character or mentality; eg, say, “The notion that we should use that approach is misguided, in my opinion”, not “Dr. X is totally out of his mind!”
6. Try to include some points of agreement with your opponent, if you can legitimately find any (and look hard for them!)
7. Hard as it may be, try to attribute a benign intention or motivation to your opponent; eg, “Dr. X clearly intends to protect the welfare of the general public; however, in my view, her approach may lead to serious problems.” (“In my view” is a good mantra to recite).
8. Always try to summarize your opponent’s view in a fair and convincing manner, while allowing for the possibility that you have misunderstood his position. (In the Talmud, the School of Hillel garnered more approval than did its opponents, the School of Shammai, because in writing their opinions, the Hillelites typically began by accurately stating the Shammaites’ point of view).