Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery premiers next month and I have largely been avoiding the growing hype from CBS.  But I will be interested to see how they fit this series in to established Trek continuity and the overall Star Trek "brand."

This series is acknowledged to be set a decade before The Original Series.  Way back in the early stages of production development, Brian Fuller said it revolves around an event that has been mentioned, but not seen on screen.  I have been wondering what that event is.

There have been indications that Discovery is set in the context of a cold war between the Federation and the Klingons. There have been allusions in previous Trek to conflict between the Klingons and Starfleet in the years before Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise.

The inconclusive Battle of Donatu IV would have taken place around ten years before Discovery (mentioned in The Trouble with Tribbles).

Kirk once mentioned having seen what Klingons do to occupied planets - organizing slave labor camps, eliminating all freedoms, confiscating goods, and taking hostages (Errand of Mercy).

Kirk was in his early 30s in The Original Series, making him barely out of Starfleet Academy ten years earlier, or maybe even still a cadet.  Of course, his reference to having seen what Klingons do does not necessarily mean he was on the scene in person.

So, that's about all we know about the Klingons a decade before The Original Series.

Somewhere in there was also the Battle of Axenar. It would be an interesting choice to incorporate this battle, given that one of the semi-copyright infringed fan productions purports to tell the story of Axenar.  I don't think it is definitive that the Klingons were involved, but they may have been.

And of course, the "decade before The Original Series" time frame puts it right at, or just after, the Enterprise's first visit to Talos IV (as seen in the Cage and The Menagerie).

It is also interesting that one of the main characters is apparently Spock's adoptive sister, although he may have moved out of the household of Amanda and Sarek by the time she came along.  Of course, Spock went for at least 20 years without mentioning a half brother (Sybok) so we can't assume that he would have mentioned an adopted sister.

I have a great dislike for the dystopian stories that are so common today, which I have described as "unlikable people doing unethical things to each other."  This cold war storyline COULD go that direction, but I hope it doesn't.   I hope that when they say they are being faithful to the vision of Gene Roddenberry about characters being professional and respecting each other, they are telling the truth and not just making empty claims.

Respect is a Reflection of Ethics

I heard someone say the other day that "respect is a value."  

What the statement really means is that giving respect, or not, is an action based on a set of ethical ideas.  That got me thinking and checking the literature, and it turns out that respect generally increases as people achieve higher levels of ethical development.

Trump Crisis Communications

When it comes to crisis communications, i.e. deflecting attention from scandal, the president only has one playbook - outrageous claims.

How does it work?  Why does it work?

Scammed Again

The news media got hoodwinked again this weekend.

The REAL story Saturday was millions of people turning out to advocate against promised policy initiatives of the Trump Administration.

The Trump Administration successfully turned the news cycle around to be about accuracy in media reporting.

Managers versus Leaders

What do you do when someone is making bad decisions that affect you?  It is a particularly tough question, particularly when it happens in the workplace.

Social Media Activism 2.0

From "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: 

Divided they blog" by Ladal Adamic and Natalie Glance.  By extension, 

it is an excellent representation of the current understanding of the 

"Echo Chamber" in which people online mainly interact 

with people of similar thoughts and orientations.

Political observers have noted recently that people on social media inhabit an "echo chamber" in which they only talk to themselves. As a result, no matter how much they post, they don't really change people's minds.

Yet, social media is huge in terms of selling stuff and corporations spend a fortune to influence people via social media.

How do we resolve these apparent conflicts into a paradigm for political activism via social media post-2016?

What is social media?

The idea of social networks long predates computers and smartphones.  It is "a social structure made up of people or organizations with one or more specific connection, such as friendship, family, common interests or dislikes, financial exchange, sexual relationships, and relations of belief, knowledge or prestige."

Social media is a technology-mediated social network, i.e. one pursued via electronic communications technology.

The key is that it is a network of relationships, not just information exchange.

What is persuasion?

Persuasion is "communication that is intentionally devised to influence attitudes, beliefs, or actions."  Persuasion, then, is about getting people to behave in ways you desire by appealing to their beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and motivations.

There are MANY ways to persuade (I have taught an entire semester course about persuasion). One of the most powerful, in the context of politics, is appealing to the threat/fear response. This works most effectively when the threat is personal.

How did social media fail in 2016?

To succeed, social media cannot be seen as persuading people directly to do something.  Social media needs to be seen as building relationships that will influence people to engage in a certain behavior.

In practical terms, we need to get people to do something because it is an expectation of the their reference group(s), or to support their group. Therefore, we use social media to forge and strengthen this group identify, and to present actions that align with the group.

when someone already agrees with you, this is not too hard.  When someone disagrees with you, it is much harder, and where you need to draw on psychology and established persuasion techniques.

The decision of which presidential candidate to vote for is a big, high-stakes decision.  Not many people change their minds easily about high-stakes decisions, and people HATE to change their minds, which means admitting that they were wrong.

So, how do we proceed?

We use sequential persuasion, that is, we accomplish our big goal via gaining compliance in a series of smaller persuasive steps.

We start by getting our target audience to agree to a small point that is so easy to accept and so logical that they cannot really object to it. Then we build, getting them to agree to another, and another, and another, each a logical step based on their previous agreement.

Businesses do this all the time in ways that are grounded in consumer psychology. Some typical tactics are:

• Pre-giving – Giving "free" return address labels, meals, etc, to get you in a more receptive frame of mind.
• Foot in the door, or a free consultation.  "We're not here to sell you anything.  We just want to understand your situation more" but in reality we are assembling evidence to use to sell you later.
• "But wait, there’s more” – Adding allegedly free stuff that is really hidden in the price you pay.  You see this in infomercials all the time.
• Lowball – Start with the basic version, but extol the benefits of upgrading.
• Incremental – Provide little bits of additional information at a time.  The dozens of little revelations about governmental surveillance of citizens accomplished this. People accept it now who would not if it all came out at once.

How do we apply this in social media?

We need to apply it top-down. Hundreds of thousands of people trying in uncoordinated ways to gain compliance isn't going to work as well as centralization of the message.  The centralization needs to be based on VERY careful analysis of the mindset and world views of the people who are NOT YET part of the group.

We need to find little points that are relevant to the big issues, and frame them in ways favorable to ourselves, but also that are hard for anybody to disagree with.  Then ask readers who agree to take some easy logical action, like sharing to their friends.

When we can show that it is particularly important based on THEIR frame of reference, we can to ask them to do something bigger, like send an email or make a phone call.

What we are asking may be straightforward and obvious our in-group people, but it may be more challenging for the folks we really want to reach, who are not yet in the group.  This is because they think differently from how we think.

How do I figure out the way the other guys think?

Number one, we listen to them.  Eavesdrop on their own talk and see how they present their logic.

But as I have posted before, there is also research that can help a lot.  It shows:

• Liberals make decisions based on data and analysis.  They are less emotional and more adaptable.  They are more likely to respond to complex information, considering multiple possibilities before making a choice.
• Conservatives make decisions based on fear-driven emotions, emotional attachment to an idea, and group identity.  They want stability, i.e. they resist change. When faced with ambiguity, they have a strong emotional response and are more protective of assets and loved ones.  For them, stability equals predictability, equals more expected outcomes, equals less fear.  They go with the choice that seems least threatening.
• The more conservative you are, the more group loyalty, authority, and purity/sanctity are important to you. The more liberal you are, the more harm/care and fairness are important.

To rally your base, use tactics that appeal to your own way of thinking.  To reach across party lines, you need to employ the kinds of arguments and communication styles that resonate with the other party.  This cross-party thinking can be hard to do, because it is alien to how WE think for ourselves.

If the liberals failed in their use of the "echo chamber" in 2016, it was through NOT framing the issues in ways that would appeal to undecideds (and conservatives) and in NOT employing organized, strategized calls to action.

I haven't seem much post-election change in their strategies, but maybe it is still a work in progress.

Trump Cups - Bletch

This USA Today story illustrates the self-contradictory campaign of Donald Trump supporters to spend money with Starbucks, but get the baristas to shout the name "Trump" when the order is ready.

In my opinion, fast food restaurants should be shouting out the order number, not somebodies name or food items ordered.

Please, protect the privacy of all of your customers!

How to Talk to the Other Side of the Asile

This Slideshare PPT, from 2015, contains a nice analysis of how Conservatives and Liberals think.

Your brain on politics the cognitive neuroscience of liberals and conservatives

Therefore, it contains ideas to keep in mind when we are communicating with people who think differently than we do.

Words that Persuade, and Words that Don't

I see very few words in my social media feeds that support Donald Trump. Some of this just reflects who my friends are, but I also think that many people planning to vote for Trump are reluctant to have it be known they will vote for him.

I have been a registered independent (not affiliated with a party) for almost all of my adult life.  My choice of candidates is based on who I think is best able to perform critical thinking, which is one of my own skills.  I find that candidates who are critical thinkers are likely to share my views on individual policies.

But there are a lot of political words out there that do not come from critical thinking. They are based on rampant logical fallacies or convenience.  "Doctrine", which people in a given party are told they must support, almost always has big logical gaps.

So right now, almost all am seeing are words of ridicule against Trump, which he well deserves.  I am also seeing quite a bit of negativity aimed at Clinton.  In her case, much of it is based on decades of attacks by conservatives, drawing on faulty logic.  In Trump's case, the liberal attacks are mostly based on facts.

So why aren't people planning to vote for Trump coming out and saying they support him?

Some have "drunk the Kool-aid" and insist on voting against Clinton.

But I have concluded that in many cases it is it is because every day, they are experiencing a sort of anonymous criticism because how they plan to vote contradicts the overwhelming majority of factual stories floating around about the candidates.

When we are bluntly criticized, we tend to clam up and get defensive.  We tend to insulate ourselves against such criticism, in this case by simply not talking about it.

Do you have someone in particular you want to persuade?  Do it in person, not via distance technology.  Avoid criticizing the current views of the person.  Begin with areas in which you know you agree and gently move into the grey policy areas between you.  Words have power, but they must be the right words, at the right time, delivered in the right way.

Is Kneeling for the national anthem the right time and place?

Around the world of athletics, we are seeing people kneel and presumably pray, rather than standing at attention, hands over their hearts, during the national anthem. They are protesting racial injustice.

At best, the national anthem is a celebration of the brave spirit of those who defended Fort McHenry, and thus the American government, from British attack.  At worst, the national anthem is an automated ritual that most people don't think about, and that is often intertwined with specific political agendas.

So, I have been thinking recently about the folks who believe that American has racial injustice and police brutality, and are making the point by kneeling during the national anthem.

The people who believe this already believe it. Therefore, the message of the athletes is presumably aimed at people who do NOT believe that there is racial injustice, or at least haven't thought about it much.

In marketing communications, we teach that a persuasive message should be crafted such that it receives the most positive response from its audience.  Part of this means understanding the audience well, so you KNOW what will cause them to respond positively.  Part of it means deliberately keeping elements out of the message which might cause people to react negatively.

In addition, while I completely support the right of the athletes to their free speech, I think that it is a valid expectation that we exercise our free speech on our own time, not on-the-clock with our employer or volunteer organization we represent, etc.  When we are being paid by an employer or in a volunteer capacity for a non-profit organization, ethics requires us to represent the best interests of that employer or organization.

When we are off-the-clock, we can fully exercise our right to free speech, making clear that we are speaking for ourselves.  This is particularly important for professional athletes and other celebrities who are closely associated in the minds of the public with a team, business, or organization.

So what about the fundamental message of the athletes?

I agree that there are big problems of racial injustice and inequality in the United States.  A lot of the rhetoric about these issues is based on logical fallacies.  We need to address the problems, but the way democracies make ground-breaking changes in social policy is political and messy and usually takes a lot longer than advocates wish.

It is important that advocates for social change avoid negative perceptions related to their causes that distract from the real message.

Therefore, my advice to the athletes is that the beginning of a football game, in the uniform of their employer or school, is not the right venue for their personal messages about the need for change in social policy, regardless of how valid the fundamental message is.

9-11

9-11 was an act of hate.

Too many people responded to it with hate and a desire for revenge.

9-11 should be about love and remembrance, for the people who lost their lives, and for the amazing work of rescuers.

If you look at the anniversary as an opportunity to renew hate, I do not respect you.

As Martin Luther King said:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."