As you might know, I am a bit of a language enthusiast, even though I don't geek-out on the subject. However, I find it useful to look at some terms from the perspective of where they came from and their original meanings. This is called etymology, and there are numerous sites on the internet from which to explore words. While the definition of a word is also handy, etymology gives me more of a picture of intent and story of understanding.
Dictionary:
democracy
/dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē/
noun
- Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
- A political or social unit that has such a government.
- The common people, considered as the primary source of political power
Etymology:
democracy
"government by the people, system of government in which the sovereign power is vested in the people as a whole exercising power directly or by elected officials; a state so governed," 1570s, from French démocratie (14c.), from Medieval Latin democratia (13c.), from Greek dēmokratia "popular government," from dēmos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength"
But, since we are here on Hive, we might also have a look at the meaning of the "de" prefix:
de-
active word-forming element in English and in many verbs inherited from French and Latin, from Latin de "down, down from, from, off; concerning"
This is important to think about in terms of decentralization, because while it looks similar to the "de" in democracy, it is not quite the same. This is especially true in the democracies that we have today, as witnessed in the recent US election. While "the people" get to choose who they vote for, what they are actually doing isn't a form of decentralized power, because they have been conditioned to believe and choose from what is pretty much a dichotomy, a false dichotomy at that. Not only this, they are also constrained by the powers of those they are voting for to stay within the rules they have been conditioned to believe are the way a democracy has to work.
There are many ways to form governance, even though we have been led to believe the options are limited to some form of centralized authority, some kind of "royalty", whether it be like a monarchy with kings and queens, a president that is king for a set period of time, or a dictatorship.
The idea that there has to be some centralized point for everything to function effectively and efficiently isn't bad, but it doesn't scale. Even at a small scale, it doesn't work. For instance, if there is just a single person making a decision for themselves alone, they never have to compromise. However, as soon as there are two people in that group, the dynamics change. If one person is the authority and gets exactly what they want, it is unlikely to meet all the needs and wants of the other. But, if they do it democratically, both are going to have to compromise. Add another hundred people into the process and not only does it create a of of mismatched activities to reach needs, it increases the potential for authoritarian control and corruption - imbalance.
While this sounds political so far, that is not my intention with this article. Rather, I wanted to look at the way people understand topics in general. For instance, using the core messaging of the false dichotomy choices, try to visualize what you are voting for.
Democracy
Immigration, Crime, Jobs
What comes to mind?
The "fight for democracy" might sound like something worth doing, but it is far too abstract to apply, which means it doesn't actually motivate many to act on it. Yet, it also doesn't face any real disagreement. For those that work in corporations with any kind of C-level phrases trickling down the hill, think about the times you have heard that the corporate direction is to be "more proactive", or "customer-centric", or "lean-thinking". While there is nothing wrong with the concepts, they stay just that, conceptual. In order for it to be turned into a behavior, it has to be translated by the audience, whilst they are simultaneously split between a million other activities, many of which are performed on habit, in an environment that has limited time to think and consider, and requires a lot of system one decision making.
System one: Think fast.
System two: Think slow.
We only have so much of system two available, so we will defer all we can to system one as often as we can, which is why we are more likely to do what we have always done, or do nothing at all, because consideration and application of alternatives is too much work. Humans are built to take the path of least resistance.
Look at the two messages again, and recognize that while you have zero picture in mind for what "democracy" means to you without system two thought, you do have a picture come to mind for "immigration, Crime, Jobs" with very little work at all. The difference in the messaging makes a big difference in behaviors, because it is far easier to understand, even though there might be no clear details behind those "policies". All they require to support, is a thoughtless, emotional response. And even supporters of the other side would want a reduction in crime and an increase in employment possibility. And even, better immigration management.
While I have talked recently about how our political choices are now driven by personality instead of policy, this also ties into why the messaging is failing. We have become far more emotionally reactive, less emotionally controlled, and with more emotional volatility on average than we have in the past. We are more driven by single points of information, than the overall ecosystem, and we react far faster, with more desire for instant gratification, instant feedback. If the messaging requires too much effort from us to comprehend, we skip it.
Too long, didn't read.
It isn't just a pithy statement, it is the way many of us think now. This means that if what is being said, no matter how clever, is too intellectual, meaning that it requires system two thought to process, it isn't going to change minds or behavior. This is a pretty basic concept in behavioral economics and design, yet just like in the corporations that keep pushing ideas that require too much thought from employees, some politics are expecting too much from their voters.
This sounds like I think voters are idiots, and that is partially true. But, it is more than that, because I know that people are people, and the human reality of thought and behavior change means that it is far harder to change someone's mind and actions, than the investment is given to do so. You can't convince most people to even do what is in their best interest, which is why we have obesity and drug problems, and people still smoke. They know it isn't good for them, but yet they continue.
It is actually very simple to stop the majority of people from smoking. Stop supplying tobacco products. Same for obesity. Put a fat person on an island where there is no junk food and they have to hunt for themselves, and they will lose weight. But, that is not a viable solution, is it? Because, we have been led to believe that "freedom" means we can do what we want, even though we want to be looked after when we have done what we want, and got terrible results.
And "freedom of choice" in a world that has an exponentially growing number of choices to make each day, means that we don't have time to consider all decisions. Rather than using our slow thinking to process the pros and cons, and the variable consequences depending on a dynamic environment for every choice, we make fast thinking decisions, even for things that are going to impact us negatively. And with an overworked system two, more decisions are pushed to system one, or we choose the default, to do nothing, or what we have always done.
While I have used political framing here today, all of this applies to everything we do, and every pithy phrase we hear, and meme and Tweet we read. If it isn't reflected on, if it isn't considered, if we do not invest into making it a part of who we are through our thoughts, words and behaviors, it is meaningless. And, so much of what we consume these days is meaningless in this regard, because we do not use it as material to improve our future position, but as a distraction so we can avoid our current position instead. Information is now system one entertainment, but it still affects our default decisions, priming and nudging us to act thoughtlessly, even if it would be in our best interest to slow down.... And think with system two.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
We think we are all so clever, that the decisions we make are right because they are well considered, but the fact is, most of what we decide to do is not considered at all. Even in reflection we don't really know our motivations as to why we did this or didn't do that, but we will create a story in hindsight to fit our desired narrative. And it feels right, because it fits our opinion of what right is even though we haven't considered alternatives.
If there is a "lesson" to this article, it isn't about politics or who to vote for. It is about spending time to discover our own decision-making processes and create strategies to empower our results, and mitigate the risks. If we are looking to make an impact, we need to understand the environment in which we operate, and that like it or not, not many people really have time to consider things using their system two processes. And, even if they did, most people don't have the knowledge and experience to consider them well.
If we were to teach a child the alphabet,
A is for 🍎
B is for 🍌
C is for 🐱
D is for Democracy ?
Our attention is constantly being split and redirected, and our brains and bodies are made to make the easiest decision, even if it is not the right one to make. We all do it. That is the reality.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
My wife always complains that I tend to break out a spreadsheet when I am making a big decision. I feel like it helps me visualize everything a bit more easily. Even then though, it doesn't mean I am making the best decision. I am just making a decision based on the variables I have chosen to evaluate.
It is a better process than most go through, as most "use their gut" as if their gut has some magical power.
All my gut has is fat!
And I wonder whether we are not capable of ruling ourselves instead electing someone to rule us.
I think we are largely incapable, if we are planning on living the life we are right now. However, if we are willing to build a different kind of society, I reckon we could work out a decentralized structure that allows for better governance and a higher level of freedom.
I know this post isn't supposed to be political, but yeah Democracy is too abstract. Trumps message was negative, divisive but also simple and we have a clear indication that it really worked, he won not only the Electoral College but also the popular vote. Populists win because they tell people what people want to hear...
Yes. And negative weighs heavier than positive. People don't want to be cured of their ills, they want to have their suffering eased. This is especially true if they have to do something to be part of the cure.
And it is easier to blame someone else other than to look at ourselves and correct our own shortcomings to find the cure...
Most of the decisions we make are coloured by subjectivity, influenced by our experiences, emotions and beliefs. However, there are times when we must challenge ourselves and question our own convictions in order to achieve true objectivity. It is in this act of contradicting ourselves that lies the key to making more balanced and fairer decisions. My friend @tarazkp, your decisions will be centred on the benefits you see in future outcomes, you will never bet on failure, will you? In the end, taking the risk to look beyond our biases can be the difference between stagnation and progress.
This is not true. Everyone who knowingly does something they know will harm them, is betting on failure, aren't they? They aren't doing it because they see a future benefit.
It's your way of thinking (objective or not, it's your problem)... I have mine and I've done very well with it. Blessings.
!PIZZA
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@danzocal(9/10) tipped @tarazkp
It's the club life for me! Two more shows on the media list on the weekend... ALLEYCVT and REAPER! It never gets old.
They never end. This is literally how my partner talks to me during the day... by sending memes...
D is for that Dick!