Star Trek Discovery: Saints of Imperfection

Here are observations about the fifth episode of Star Trek Discovery this season, Saints of Imperfection.  There ARE a few minor spoilers below, but not full episode summaries.

1. May refers to transporting Tilly across the "dimensional plane."  So the thing Discovery is temporarily stuck in is basically an inter-dimensional portal.  Like a Stargate event horizon without the actual Stargate. Maybe THAT'S why the parts of the Discovery saucer need to rotate.  Because Stargates rotate in setting the destination address.  (In reality, CBS can't overtly use elements from MGM's Stargate, due to copyright, but the visual portrayals are reminiscent.)
2. Pike is seen entering the bridge from Lorca's Ready Room, even though Pike made a big thing a few episodes ago of not liking it and moving elsewhere. We can still see the stand-up desk through the doorway.
3. Pike and Georgiou were classmates at Starfleet Academy, although maybe not the same class year.
4. When Pike, Georgiou, and Burnham get into the turbolift, it starts going without anybody saying the destination.  In fact several times people get into the turbolift and don't say where they are going in this episode, but this is the only scene in which we see them continually after the doors shut.
5. A reference to "alligators" on Cestus III, was likely a reference to the Gorn, although supposedly Starfleet didn't know anything about the Gorn until the TOS episode Arena.  On the third hand, Lorca appeared to have a Gorn skeleton on display last season.
6. Also a reference to Deneva, one of the first Earth colonies, where Sam Kirk and family eventually live (and some of them die). 
7. Georgiou is eating an apple to show how cool she is, kind of like how the J.J. Abrams Kirk ate an apply in one of the movies.  She drops it when Burnham gets in her face.  She isn't as cocky as she pretends to be. Since they are getting ready to make a series about her, I HOPE that she is a nicer person than she lets on.  Here "oh look at the cute baby" moment last episode gives me some hope.
8. The new chief of security, Commander Nhan, is still wearing the skirt-and-tights version of the Starfleet uniform, except in Discovery blue.  Note that when Pike first came to Discovery, he identified her as an engineering staff member.  Now she's heading security.  Was she Security pretending to be Engineering, as a safety detail for Pike?
9. Once they find Tilly and...what else (spoiler) they find...they fritter away a LOT of time when they urgently need to be heading back.
10. Tyler has a radio integrated in his com badge, like TNG and later comm badges.  Nobody else has ever heard of that before, through the TOS movies.
11. The Section 31 ship does not have invisibility, but apparently is able to make its shields look like a big asteroid.
12. The tractor beams in this episode need a receptor or "tractor rig" to pull against.  The only time I remember the 1701 Prime using a tractor beam was in Space Seed, and they may well have placed a receptor on the Botany Bay, which we just didn't see.
13. Now we have two "we will meet again" foreshadows: Tilly and May, and Pike and Jacob (on New Eden). 
14. Leland is apparently in charge of Section 31, but he made a reference to "control" last week, and now we find out who "control" is.

Note: Photo is a "fair use" screen capture used for purposes of review or criticism, and thus complies with copyright law.

Facts vs. Truth

Screen capture from Meet the Press, NBC

Rudy Giulaini claiming that "truth isn't truth" is so strange, but WHY it's strange has been missed by the people reacting to his comments. 

It is a tenet of conservationism that there IS an absolute truth, outside of human experience and perception, that it is fixed, and relatively easy to understand. That is where literal reading of the Bible comes from. 

Conservatives, in the meantime, are skeptical about "new" knowledge, particularly when it contradicts the established narrative. This is where climate change denial comes from. I can easily understand a conservative saying that "facts are not the same thing as truth because facts are always suspect." 

The trouble for Giulaini is that this idea goes both ways. An administration that thrives on ignoring evidence, "alternative facts", and innuendo cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. But the way that Giulaini said "truth is not truth" smacks of propaganda and "if I say it enough times, they'll believe it IS the truth." And if the truth is not the truth, it leads to a mindset that lies are not lies. 

It seems to me that we see this "truth is what we persuade people it is" mindset all the time in the bogus and easily debunked claims that float thought the advocacy media. 

That is why we NEED professional, trained journalists, whose job it is to question claims, and fearlessly seek the actual truth, among the jumble of facts and opinions. The advocacy media can't do that for us, which is why we need the professional journalistic media.

Lost in Space; Lost in Science

The new Lost in Space from Netflix is an ambitious project with likable characters, but the show runners could have benefited considerably from a science adviser.

There are a few minor spoilers below about situations, but not about the characters or story line details (unless they have already been shown in trailers).

As in the original 1960s Lost in Space, the Robinson family is on a colonizing expedition to Alpha Centauri.  This time, the Jupiter 2 is a landing craft from a larger vessel, which ends up in the wrong place and runs into trouble, requiring evacuation.

The production, based in Vancouver, uses beautiful locations and elaborate sets to produce an authentic feel.  The characters are generally likable, although they have different and more complex family relationships than in the original Lost in Space.

At face value, it is an enjoyable season with nuanced characters, a complex villain, and good action sequences, partnered with thoughtful character development.

But time and again, I was taken out of the story by having to say "that's not right" or "it doesn't work that way" about things related to science.


Ice doesn't freeze that way

Early in the series, we see a lake freeze solid in an instant, causing problems for the characters.  But water freezes at the surface first.  Yes, the script established that it was really cold, but there is liquid water under the ice on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, not to mention probably at Pluto, which has been very cold for a long, long time.  Ice freezes by forming a thin crust of ice, which slowly gets thicker and thicker.

There are other scenes (hinted at in the trailers) in which the Jupiter 2 is also stuck in ice, and the way the ice works in those scenes doesn't seem right, either.


Forests and critters don't grow that way

Like in the original Lost in Space, the planet the Robinsons are on is in a funny orbit that will cause it to get VERY hot and pretty much kill all life.  At one point, a character notes that the trees only have one growth ring.

The life clearly has ways to recover, but the series was shot in a typical BRitish Columbia forest, with tree trunks several inches in diameter.  You are telling me that the trees get that big in one growing season?

Plus we see several indigenous animals, some of which are very large.  How do they survive the heat?

Oh, and in one scene, we see a fallen tree and stump that was clearly cut by a chainsaw.


Radio doesn't work that way

One of the main points of the overall story line is that part of the colony ship is still in orbit and and the remaining crew there is transmitting, but can not hear the landing craft on the planet, because the colony ship's dish antenna is missing.  But if you know ANYTHING about radio, this breaks down.

A broken dish antenna WOULD prevent one from receiving, but it would also prevent one from transmitting, which they were doing just fine. Plus one would not use a big dish antenna for general coverage of the entire planet, which is what the folks in space wanted.  Dish antennas are directional and the colony ship did not appear to be in a high enough orbit to be able to cover the entire planet with a tight beam dish antenna.

True, they could have been using a different omni-directional antenna to transmit, but such an antenna would also work fine for receiving signals from the surface.  Astronauts on the International Space Station use five watt portable (handheld) radios to talk to ham radio operators on Earth, transmitting through a window and using nothing but the built-in antenna of a few inches long.  Because of the altitude, and nothing in the way, it doesn't take much.

In addition, if the transmit antenna is not working right (or missing) the transmitter in the ship would not work right.  The radio operators would realize immediately that they had an antenna problem.  For purposes of talking to and from the planet, jury-rigging a replacement would not be at all hard.

Without this "the ship can't hear us" plot point, the entire rest of the story breaks down.  It is clear from the dialog that the landing ships don't have the fuel to go back into space, to save themselves from the heat, but that if the colony ship could hear them, it would send down fuel.

So the whole rationale of the ten episode story arc breaks down.


Biofuel production doesn't work that way

At one point, the folks on the planet talk about using the biowaste (manure) from animals on the planet to create fuel to power their ships.  I can't say much more, in order to avoid spoilers, but the plan is to produce huge amounts of fuel in a very short period of time, and I am not convinced that they can produce enough fuel to do what they want, starting from scratch, in the time available.


[Sigh]

I still liked the new Lost in Space and if they make a season 2, I will watch.

It has a rich production design, character-based scripts with lots of interesting character development.  It generally does a nice job of promoting the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is needed in science fiction.....

Except for these troublesome "it doesn't work that way" problems with the science part of the science fiction that significantly undercuts the story arc of the series.

2018: A critical year in Star Trek History

SS Botany Bay

We don't know a lot about the early 21st Century from historical references made on-screen in Star Trek, but we know something BIG happened in 2018 - the invention of Impulse Engine Drive.

One of the things that has always appealed to me about Star Trek is how all of the timeline and historical references fit together, an important part of the overall continuity of the multiple Trek TV series.  From the beginning, the producers have worked hard to ensure that they remember what they have said previously, and everything (usually) holds together well. 

So, this essay is based on many tidbits of what onscreen characters have said about 2018, and this general era in Star Trek history.


Star Trek is not in OUR Timeline

First, we have to admit that we do not live in the Star Trek universe.  As early as the 1990s, things happened in Star Trek history that did not happen in our own.  Specifically, the Eugenics Warshappened, in which genetically engineered "supermen" conquered a lot of countries and ruled as dictators.  Khan was one of them.

The Eugenics Wars are a fixed point in time in Star Trek history.  So what can we infer, based in this fact?

Humans, at least in one secret laboratory somewhere, had genetic engineering technology in the 20th Century that was already well in advance of what we have today.  The Original Series referred to Khan as the result of "selective breeding" but The Wrath of Khan and later TV episodes amended that to "genetic engineering."  Assuming that Khan and the supermen aged at normal speed (not TV magic rapid aging) means that somebody had advanced genetic engineering capability in the 1950s or 60s, which in our timeline we didn't have.


DY-100 Space Craft

We know that in 1996, the last of the supermen was overthrown, and Khan and 81 of his followers escaped Earth in the sublight DY-100 class SS Botany Bay. The Botany Bay, pictured above, appears to be a cargo ship, vaguely like the Hermes in The Martian, with detachable cargo pods. The Botany Bay was a sleeper ship, putting passengers in suspended animation for the months-long trip to Mars or other places int eh solar system.

Having an operational inter-planetary craft in 1996, with functional suspended animation, was certainly beyond what we were capable of in our own timeline.  This implies that humans were capable of transporting heavy cargo to the Moon, Mars, and maybe other places (you don't need a sleeper ship to go to the Moon).


2018, "The Year Everything Changed" 

In 2018 in the Star Trek universe, humans invented the first generation of Impulse Drive. Eventually, Impulse engines would be able to propel a starship close to the speed of light. Even the primitive 2018 first generation would likely have dropped the Mars trip to only weeks, or maybe even days.

(In our own timeline, a possible Electromagnatic Thuster is being tested. If it is proven to actually work, it might be something that could be scaled up to serve as our own version of an Impulse engine.)

The consequences of Impulse Drive in the Trek universe are not discussed on screen but it is clear that a small fleet of DY-100 or similar DY-500 ships, upgraded to employ Impulse engines, would have opened up the solar system to exploration and eventually to colonization.


What Comes Next

In 2037, Earth launched a mission outside the solar system, the Charybdis, which was large enough to carry planetary shuttles and an extensive library, arriving in the Theta 116 star system in 2044. To achieve interstellar distances in seven years certainly required speeds close to the speed of light, i.e. Impulse Drive. 

The 2030s is about the time when Zefram Cochrane was born, who would go on to invent Warp Drive in 2063, after a nuclear war a decade earlier. Within a few more years, the starship Valiant reached the "edge of the galaxy," a century before Kirk and Spock.

So, 2018 is a BIG turning point in the Star Trek parallel universe.  Maybe it will also be in our own. 


Image from: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bQgAAOSwTglYkpSy/s-l400.jpg

Why go to the Moon?

Going back to the Moon will be great -- if it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.

The Trump administration announced an initiative today to partner with private industry to return Americans to the Moon, and continue on to Mars.

I like the idea...if it's done right. But it could easily be done wrong.

First a confession

The starry-eyed idealist in me believes that we MUST establish a population of humans off the Earth, because there are SO many things that could destroy the Earth, or at least destroy civilization. I have thought this since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of the Cold War, and my ideas have been strengthened by the credible threats of climate change, big rocks from space, and even things like the Yellowstone super-volcano, not to mention epidemics, political stupidity, and other threats.

For the human race to insure that it will survive for the very long term, we have to distribute ourselves, in a way that is sustainable, on many different worlds, and eventually many different star systems.

Now back to today

Based on my logic above, having a significant human presence on the Moon, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would be a good thing. 

Having a significant human presence on MARS, and eventually getting it to the point where it does not need resupply from Earth, would also be a good thing, and possibly easier to sustain, in the long run, than the Moon.

There are other worlds in our solar system with lots of water and the possibility of sustainable colonies, as well.

Why return to the Moon now?

The biggest reason to go to the Moon now is to begin developing the technology we need to do the rest of this stuff.

A lander that can set down on Mars would also likely be able to set down on the Moon, which would be a good way to test it. The deep space outpost around the Moon, previously announced, can be the precursor of the orbit-to-orbit "mother ship" that takes people and landers to Mars, and maybe farther out.  We need to develop these things, step by step.

But we also need to start thinking not just in terms of reusable space vehicles, but also vehicles that can do lots of stuff.  Like the space opera fiction of the 1950s, our next generation of craft needs to be flexible enough to go many different places and land on many different worlds.

That's expensive, isn't it?

Yes, but the reusability brings the cost down a lot.  Partnering with private industry brings the cost down a lot.  Stable goals that do not get changed every time there is a new president would make a BIG difference. 

And remember -- every dollar spent on space is spent ON EARTH.  All the R&D and construction contracts go to companies and institutions on Earth which employ people, and have payrolls.  It would require a big push for STEM education, which would benefit lots of other technology programs and companies, also.  Face it, without the Apollo Program, you probably wouldn't have smartphones.

Is there a down side?

There is some concern that the Trump administration is pushing NASA to the Moon and Mars as a way of deemphasizing Earth resources programs and climate research.  It may be, and those programs will need protection in Congress. 

But going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is still a wise investment in the future of the human species.

Formula Scripts in TV and Movies

The growth of original series on streaming video services and cable has resulted in an explosion in the demand for scripts and "pitches" for series, not to mention movies, many of which never end up getting produced.

Nevertheless, many of these scripts, as diverse as they are, follow the same basic formulas.  One could argue that a "formula script" lacks creativity...but creativity actually resides in how new it feels, i.e. what is different, as opposed to what is similar to other uses of the formula.

Here are three storytelling formulas that we see over and over, including one that I consider to be particularly troubling:

1.  The Hero's Journey.  

In the 1940s, Joseph Campbell studied myths from many cultures (mostly Western) and found common elements.  A young reluctant hero is called to a journey that takes him out of his ordinary experience and discovers a villain or threat to which he has a hidden connection.  He has fellow travelers who help him as he is tested, and an older mentor.  The older mentor is taken away, and the young hero most stand up to the villain alone, eventually triumphing and returning to his ordinary life.

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings are all basically this same "Hero's Journey" story.  Even the original Die Hard movie used a lot of elements from this formula.

Because this formula is so familiar, writers use it all the time, or at least elements from it. The familiarity allows readers/listeners/viewers to easily engage in the story.

2.  Save the Cat

Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder
was published in 2005 and rapidly became the "bible" for many movie writers.  Save the Cat software is even available to help writers structure their story to Snyder's sequence of "beats."  If you know what to look for, you can find these "beats" in many movies and even TV shows.

At one level, Save the Cat is an interpretation of how to translate Joseph Campbell into visual storytelling terms.  At another level, it allows writers to make use of the psychology of the audience in terms of primary and secondary (A & B) stories, major milestones in the plot, and pacing.

Follow those links and you may be surprised.

3. Dystopia

Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia.  In dystopian stories, times are dark, there is little hope, and people are generally bad.  Such stories are often set in the future, with totalitarian governments, dehumanized citizenry, rampant crime, and environmental disaster.  Brave New World, 1984, and Lord of the Flies were dystopian, but in the last decade, we have been deluged by dystioian settings for movies, books, and TV shows.  Sometimes the heroes are admirable, but sometimes not.

Science Fiction writer and futurist David Brin has call dystopian stories lazy, cliched, and cookie cutter.  They are easy stories to tell, resonate with conspiracy theory and suspicion of authority, and they often do not require nuanced characters, which makes it a lot easier for the writers to create.

What does it mean?

The main goal of the movie, television, and publishing industries is to make money.  To make money, they need to produce content that audiences will buy.

That is why so many stories today follow the Hero's Journey, Save the Cat and Dystopian structures.  They resonate with people and gain acceptance more easily than some unusual storytelling approach, but to their foundation of familiarity.

The question media critics and even psychologists must ask is how these stories affect our psyches. The media has incredible power to influence people's perceptions and actions.  Heroes, like Luke, Harry, and Frodo, may well subtly influence people to do what is right in the real world, not just what is easy.

But how about the modern dystopian orientation of story after story? Does it subtly influence people to see conspiracies everywhere, distrust authority, accept thoughtless ideology, and expect people to conform to the dictates of the perceived majority?

Waves of dystopian fiction usually come during times of social unrest and war.  Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 459, and Animal Farm all stemmed from the Cold War and deep concerns about communism. Today's stories are written against a background of seemingly endless war, unstoppable terrorism, and fake news.

This recent New Yorker article suggests that for every present-day dilemma, there is a dystopian novel to match it, and that the resulting "radical pessimism" has resulted in the unravelling of trust in science and the weakening of a commitment to political pluralism.

I think that dystopian story after dystopian DOES affect our national mood and makes "the ends justify the means" more and more acceptable, when it shouldn't be. So if the "heroes" are unlikable and do unethical things to each other, don't expect me to watch.

The 97% eclipse (where I was)

I was not able to travel to the range of totaality, because I teach and had two classes meeting.  So I was at a place where 97% of the sun was covered by the Moon and 3% light still coming through.

Clouds covered the sun, minutes before the eclipse started:

The eclipse progressing.

And...the 3%/97% maximum, where I was:

Maybe by the 2024 eclipse I will be retired and will be able to travel further to see it.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

Academic Literature Visualizations

Here's an interesting resource for people who are actually interested in what the science shows about a given topic.

Open Knowledge Maps is an academic literature search engine, but it includes a visualization that categorizes the journal articles.  Click on one of the circles and it zooms in to show the specific articles.

Another nice thing is that it shows which articles are open access and therefore can be downloaded directly.

The example above (which I know is a little small to read), is a search on "Climate Change."

Because there are a lot of scholars out there who do NOT have access to research databases through university libraries, Open Knowledge Maps joins Google Scholar as a key way of exploring the academic literature to see what the peer reviewed scientific literature says.

Climate Change Skeptics aren't Skeptics

When it comes to science, skeptics are people who question beliefs as the result of scientific scrutiny.

On the other hand, people making political arguments professing skepticism about climate change are more likely to be non-scientific in how they reach their conclusions.

So what does a true skeptic conclude about human-caused climate change?

Failure of Conservativism

The president's withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty is not just a failure of leadership.

It is a failure to be a true conservative.

So what do I mean by a true conservative and how did he fail?

Fake News in Scholarly Publishing

I am a solid believer in science, but one of the big problems in scientific research, is "fake news", i.e. academic journals publishing fake articles about fake research findings.

To address this, more and more journals are requiring ORCID credentials to keep unscrupulous researchers from scamming the system to get publication credit they don't deserve.

The Role of the ACLU

I am sure that there is a segment of Americans that is vexed with the ACLU right now, but the ACLU serves a vital role which every democracy needs.

Laser Snow

OK, so maybe this is a little weird. But when it's snowing at night, how do you know how much it's snowing?

You shine a laser pointer out into your back yard, of course, so every flake passing through makes the beam show.

(No airplanes or rock stars were targeted.)

Rejecting Ideas we Don't Like

When we receive information that conflicts with our pre-conceived notions (as happens all the time in politics), we often struggle to avoid admitting that we may have been wrong. But how does that work, exactly, and how can we overcome this resistance in others?

Reframing the Message on Climate Change

This Scientific American article takes a while to get to the point made by its headline, but has a great call to action for liberals to shape their message to appeal to the American mainstream.

Geese and Climate Change

The geese used to migrate in late October and early November.  Now they are migrating in December.

They have apparently bought in to the global conspiracy of thousands of scientists created by Mainland China to take money out of the pockets of hardworking billionaires.

Darn geese.

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.

The Counter-intuitive Truth: A warmer planet can mean colder weather

We have had our first winter storm where I live in North America.  No doubt it will result in jokes about "we just got three inches of global warming."

But when the Polar Vortex brings colder weather and more snow to northern North America, it really IS the result of a warming planet.  Here's how it works:

Warmer water in the arctic warms the air above it more than in years past.  The North Pole is currently 36 degrees warmer than usual.  The warm air rises, and it is more humid than in years past because of the warmer water.  

When it gets up high, the warmer water moves southward.  As it cools off, and gets even colder than it started because it is up to high.  Being cold, it drops down closer to the planet again, bringing colder air to the surface, where it is pulled back up north to replace the rising air.  This causes cold, humid wind to be felt farther and farther south as warmer and warmer air rises over the North Pole.

But because the planet rotates, the wind doesn't go straight south to north. It rotates around the North Pole, west to east, or counter-clockwise as you look down from above.    

This is exactly what happens with a hurricane, except that it is not at the North Pole.  Warm air rises in the middle (the Eye) and air rushes in from the sides to replace it, rotating around the eye counter-clockwise.  The way the Earth rotates, and the tidal currents, make hurricanes move.  The rotation of the Earth keeps the Polar Vortex in place, centered on the North Pole.

And THAT is how a warming planet can cause colder, snowier winters in parts of North America.  

------------------------------------------------------

Bonus note:  People who really and truly think "it's cold where I am today so the planet can't be warming" are engaging in inductive reasoning, i.e. making broad generalizations based on limited specific observations. This is a logical fallacy.   

Proper deductive reasoning requires a large number of observations (data points) to be merged into a model or framework (theory) that can be used to predict future specific observations within acceptable error.  

What's next?

I was disappointed by the election results, but I could care less about second-guessing who should have done what differently.

I could care less what MIGHT happen under Trump.  All that speculation is just a distraction.

What I DO care about (as a registered independent) is whether Progressives figure out that the way they have been telling their story hasn't worked.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to retool their system and tell their story more persuasively to people who do NOT think the way they do.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to organize in a way they never have before to stymie policy initiatives they don't like.

Business as usual will not cut it.