Changing minds (off topic - or perhaps not) [was RE: [eiffel-users] Quora - What is a pointer?]

[Peter Horan]

Ian Joyner wrote:

 

• I heard a radio program the other day researching how to change people’s opinions. This has certainly been more than demonstrated in this country yesterday with the election here. It showed that all the party that won had to do was to put around a lot of lies, misinformation, fake news to scare people off. It is very sad this worked – and democracy is considerably weakened. I certainly observe that in discussions (arguments) I have on Quora that opponents defending their cherished beliefs (GC spawn of satan) quickly become abusive and it seems they discuss in the tactic that loudest person wins – just like the continuing PM here. It is sad that such tactics have a habit of prevailing.

 

• https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/eleanor-gordon-smith/11099422

 

On reflection, the losing party thought that pointing out the dangers of inaction on their policies was enough. instead, they had to show how their policies worked compared to inaction.

 

For example, with renewable energy, the grid needs redesign to cater for the new generators (some solar and wind farms are already being choked by the grid). The question of supplying the inevitable EVs with energy needs to be faced.

 

The party’s other issues were also about redesign (thinking afresh like Eiffel), and the people are comfortable with the ways they are used to (old thinking like C and its descendants).

 

Peter Horan

 

 

 

Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.

Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free.

[Ian Joyner]

We should move to distributed production, not centralised. Problem is the centralised producers don’t want to lose their cash cows.

As all computing people know, power (nice pun!) is built up by the combination of millions of little computations. We need to handle water and waste the same way. But there are government/council regulations restricting tanks.

Most initiatives are effectively resisted by ignorance and misinformation campaigns (PUP, ON).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eiffel Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to eiffel-users...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/eiffel-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eiffel-users/74b096e060204fe180c16ccb9e0d2011%40exch15-f-5.du.deakin.edu.au.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[r...@amalasoft.com]

Great (and sad) observations, all.

To challenge another's belief system is typically futile.  That change must come from personal realization, not rational discourse.

Changing the behavior of a population, on the other hand, is much more feasible (for better of worse, as seen in recent elections, cited and not).

Both points are illustrated by a case of which I learned while working in Mumbai a few years ago.  I had the pleasure of meeting the team from Final Mile Consulting (https://finalmile.in).  Their specialty is Behavior Architecture, working with groups of people, performing behavioral analysis and modification - yes, modification.  Much of their work focuses on retail commerce, but their landmark effort was undertaken for the Central Railway.  The challenge was to reduce fatalities from train-person collisions (the train always wins).  They were asked, initially, to find a way to keep people from crossing and walking on the tracks, but they countered that itwould be impossible, as people needed to do that.  They did offer, however, to find a way to reduce the number of deaths.  It worked.  http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/05/08/train/

At the core of what they do is understanding why we behave the way we do, and to what sorts of input we respond.  They consider emotions, innate behaviors and physiology.  And, yes, it can be a little creepy being in a conference room with them after learning what they do :)

R

[Ian Joyner]

10 deaths a day. I had no idea it was so many. I’ve only ever caught the train once in Mumbai after spending the day with Freddy Mercury’s best friend as one does. I think now they are getting automatic doors. You could probably deter the Muslims from crossing the tracks by smearing the tracks with pig fat. It is interesting how to solve a problem – particularly of thinking – you need to not address it head on. Like teaching – the best way to teach is by teaching something else. So how do we get computing people to take quality, correctness, and security seriously?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eiffel-users/20190519053147.cf48dd763fcaf5d42559c6c92f6fc53b.c62c2dcadc.wbe%40email25.godaddy.com.

[Woland's Cat]

On 19/05/2019 13:56, Ian Joyner wrote:
> 10 deaths a day. I had no idea it was so many. I’ve only ever caught
> the train once in Mumbai after spending the day with Freddy Mercury’s
> best friend as one does. I think now they are getting automatic doors.
> You could probably deter the Muslims from crossing the tracks by
> smearing the tracks with pig fat. It is interesting how to solve a
> problem – particularly of thinking – you need to not address it head
> on. Like teaching – the best way to teach is by teaching something
> else. So how do we get computing people to take quality, correctness,
> and security seriously?

when it is the easiest path to follow, in whatever their current task is.

- thomas

[r...@amalasoft.com]

A friend of mine, from South India, explained something to me that I will never forget (and actually can have bearing on the discussion at hand).  He said that, in India, there is a culture of survival (upper classes exempted), where in countries like the US and many others, there is a culture of choice.

As sad as that assertion is, it rings true.  

What I saw in my months there (and elsewhere less fortunate) was just that.  I observed what I later called "the relentless pursuit of immediate goal".

One can witness all manner of dangerous behavior by otherwise rational people.  The scariest part is that such dangerous behavior does not materially influence one's chances for long term survival.

Contrast this behavior with what we see too often in the most pathological of "culture of choice" contexts.  It's hard not to become discouraged with the lot of us.  We have a broad choice of language tools, and methods, and, worst of all, excuses for failure.  Caring about customer satisfaction (vs hoping for customer resignation) and about quality are considered passe, the stuff that only moss-backs and gray-beards care about.  The fashion is to "sprint" and ask questions later.  If we/I build it, the requirements will come.

On that cheerful note, enjoy the wine.

R 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Changing minds (off topic - or perhaps not) [was RE:
[eiffel-users] Quora - What is a pointer?]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eiffel Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to eiffel-users...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/eiffel-users.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eiffel-users/2a8bf315-f7c2-77db-8962-a9e12a6be6ce%40gmail.com.