Never argue against a belief

You cannot make someone stop believing something. You can only make him believe something else more.

This thought has been kicking around in my head for a while. It's a single thread that I've pulled out of a whole host of articles, books, movies, and (yes, I put this last) actual real-world experiences.

Have you noticed how 99% of debates (whether personal or political) don't ever result in someone changing their mind? This article from Slate talks about how once people become disposed to believe something, they hold onto that belief regardless of logical argument or hard evidence. This is very evident in the political sphere. Shankar Vedantam asks, "when was the last time you heard about a liberal who was persuaded by Rush Limbaugh? Or a conservative who switched parties after watching a Michael Moore movie?" The truth is that almost all the effort that goes into debating and trying to change people's opinions is completely wasted.

But I want to be able to change people's minds, not just reinforce their existing beliefs. But how? I find that lots of our beliefs, whether it's that we should tax the rich, that housing is a good investment, that you should buy things on sale.... most of those beliefs can be attached to a famous saying or adage. I believe it comes out of our need to create structure around the way the world works. Gravity pulls down and patience is a virtue are both simplified representations of our world. Most interestingly, for any famous adage or proverb, it isn't too hard to find something that is its opposite:

You can't teach a dog new tricks: It's never to late to learn
Seize the moment: The best things come to those who wait
Sink or Swim: You have to walk before you can run

So it seems to me that while trying to argue AGAINST someone's belief is like running into a brick wall, it may be possible to just persuade them to latch onto another belief that may then supercede their previous belief.

You do see a variant of this in politics all the time. When party A attacks party B about kicking kittens, instead of refuting the point, party B realizes that facts are irrelevant and moves on from the kitten kicking issue to instead attack party A for killing babies knowing that many voters care more about baby killing than kitten kicking.

I feel that this may have some use in our daily interactions. Instead of arguing any point, you should analyze your "opponent," first to understand what proverb or story he is basing his belief on. For instance, not supporting government subsidies may be based on the classic story of corrupt politicians lining their pockets with corporate money. No matter what evidence you bring out, this person probably has a strong distrust of politicians and believe that something "under the table" is happening even if you can't see it. You can't prove to him that politicians aren't corrupt.

So, instead of arguing about corrupt politicians, you should search for another story that they respond to even better. Maybe they believe that all politicians are corrupt, but that also believe that all farmers are saints. So if subsidies are good for farmers...

Of course, fighting with stories is already quite common and successful. But if we realize that what we debate and what can change minds are often different, it may help us have more fruitful discussions. Much of what we debate boils down more to core beliefs than actual facts, and yet we often trade facts back and forth as if we expect them to change anyone's minds. Instead, framing things in terms of the adages that reflect our beliefs may bring us closer to understanding our true beliefs and the reasons we have for believing in them.

Co-housing

I am lonely.

I live in the bay area, a sprawling metropolitan area that contains almost 7 million people. There are eighty-one units in my housing complex. And yet I somehow still feel isolated amongst the vast sea of people that fill my view.

I know I am not alone in this feeling. In the public discourse, the loss of community in our generation is almost cliche, but that doesn't make it any less real. Some people yearn for the "small town" intimacy or the bar where "everyone knows your name." For many of my generation who never lived in a small town, our closest analog is the college dorm or fraternity. We reminisce fondly about the times we could just walk into a neighbor's room, sit on his floor and procrastinate together. Now, the twenty-minute drive to see that old friend feels like a thousand miles, insurmountable without a "good reason" or a meal-centric event of some kind.

So how do we regain a sense of community? Well, there is a small, 19 home co-housing community being developed in Mountain View. The idea is to have a group of individual homes share both a large communal space (in this case, a 4000 sqft common house) and a desire to view each other as family. Communal dinners and events would be expected but not required. it sounds great, but unfortunately, the development (due to be completed in 2013) is also a bit out of our price range. Plus, one of the things that really made the college experience work was that we were all at the same stage of life with similar needs and wants. The Mountain View housing community is currently made up of the people with the time and money to undergo such an endeavor, namely people over 55.

So what's plan B? The housing market sucks (if you own a house like I do). Prices are low, and inventory is high. In fact, in my complex of 81 houses, there are five units for sale. Thus, the silver lining. If our friends bought those five houses, we could have our own little housing community. For reference, the cost is roughly half the cost of the co-housing community in Mountain View. We could even buy an extra house and use it as a shared space if necessary. It's still cheaper.

So, if you're thinking about buying a house and want a great house with a great developing community, check out the houses in my complex like this one. Make my dreams come true.

Our Greatest Natural Resource

Studies show that we could easily become 37% more efficient in our water use. Gasoline engines themselves are only about 25% efficient while solar panels are typically around 15% efficient at capturing the sun's energy. Horrendous no? Billions of dollars are currently being invested in making more efficient use of our resources. But there is one resource that doesn't often make it into the news or into investment portfolios, and yet it is perhaps the area we can improve in the most: human potential.

How efficient do you think you are at work? I'm not talking about the hours spent doing actual work vs. playing solitaire. I'm talking about how much of your potential skills, experience, and intellect are being leveraged by your company. If you work at McDonalds, is following the cash register script and all the procedures really using your talents to the fullest? Or if you work in an office, do you really feel like your effort is producing the maximum impact that it can, that filling out TPS reports fulfills your destiny?

I'd guess that globally the true potential of the workforce is being utilized at less than one percent. The conventional wisdom is that work sucks. It's supposed to suck. Sure, some of us are lucky enough to like our jobs, and yet I bet we all still complain about the stupidity of management or beaureacracy or inane cost-cutting procedures or whatnot. These things irk us beyond belief because deep down inside, we know that these things are keeping us from our true potential. We know that we can be more, do more, if only someone knew how to unlock that hidden promise.

A colloquial scientific tidbit is that humans only use 5% of their brain. People always say, "Imagine what we could do if you used all 100%." Well, as a society, we leverage people's potential even less efficiently. Imagine all the things we could accomplish and the problems we could solve if we tackled this challenge.

It is a challenge that may entail changing corporate structures, social circles, cultural desires, residential systems, and even our political system. And yet, if we stop for a moment and imagine a world where every person is truly all that he can be, then maybe, just maybe it's worth the investment.

Leveraging Game Mechanics to spread Sustainability

Connie and I got our first article published on Triple Pundit. Check it out here:

Better design can change the world

Does a family really NEED a 2500 sq ft. house? I've found that living in California where houses are expensive has resulted in a space thriftiness that has kept me from buying too many physical goods which will eventually end up in the landfill. In many ways, abundant space promotes a culture of cheap, disposable products rather than fine, durable, space-efficient goods. Here's an amazing video that demonstrates how wonderfully efficient and beautiful well-designed furniture can be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRxvNhlS4V4

Greenerminds Summit: discovering a more perfect world

This weekend I participated in an event that provided nothing less than a glimpse into a more perfect world. For seventy-two hours, eighty great minds left behind their worldly responsibilities as designers, entrepreneurs, marketing consultants, and students and ventured deep into the Mendocino Woodlands, where cellphone signals and internet access fail to penetrate.

For those seventy-two hours, we cooked together, ate together, learned together, and played together. We discovered that amongst the powerful corporations and influential nonprofit representatives, we also had artists, athletes (somewhere in this world, egg toss is considered a sport), musicians, and writers. Most importantly, we dreamed together.

The trees overhead sheltered us from more than sun and distraction. They protected us from the cold separation of society. Here we were all instant best friends, supportive and curious about our brethren. The web of community held back the doubt and insecurities that assail us every day and let loose the potential of eighty truly great and green minds.

The organizers, an almost familial group from Net Impact, IDSA, and the Young Women Social Entrepreneurs recruited the minds, made sure they were well fed, and fostered an amazing environment of communal involvement. Beyond that, this was truly an Unconference. Discussion topics were created on-site by passionate pleas and popular vote. Groups were self-moderated, and participants freely flowed in and out of them, following the two-feet rule.

Can anything really come from such an unstructured format? I found the discussions I was involved in to be very engaging and inspiring. They often took a surprising turn - one of the advantages of tossing structure out the window - but stayed focused on the overall theme of sustainability. A few direct actions may result from this unconference, but the main benefit will undoubtedly be the creation of "mastermind" groups, support groups that will continue to inspire, promote new thinking, and launch projects long after the summit has passed.

Plato believed that every object that we see is merely a shadow of a true Form which, though abstract in nature, is more real than the objects which mimic it. This weekend we imagined a more perfect world, and for those seventy-two hours, it was more visceral and more real than the blank reality that surrounds us today. In daring to believe in that more-perfect future, I discovered the real me, one not bound by self-doubt, societal expectations and financial statements. In the Mendocino redwoods, I regained the courage to dream, and I can only hope that every morning when I look in the mirror, the real me will look back.

personal monorail

This seems like a lot of fun.

To me, it doesn't seem practical as an urban alternative because trains carry so many more people. However, there are many places where trains fail because they're expensive, and the area isn't dense enough to really support a subway system. Perhaps this type of solution is a good in-between a semi-mass transit system.

What do you guys think?