This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How do we make what works well popular?
One way to get something done the way you want it done is a popular way. What if there are better ways to do it?
This is where something called evidence-based policy comes into play.
So, what's evidence-based policy? Evidence-based policy is where if there's proof that something works, then it will be done that way.
Unfortunately it seems to me that even if there's proof that something works well, it's still not done that way. This is because it isn't popular. Nobody (or atleast not many people) will do something where there is a fear of becoming unpopular.
So, how do we make evidence-based policy popular?
Faja Anser
Please keep an open mind. The idea is to write a book that inspires people to do what the book says. The book is the fictional story of The Second Foundation bringing these ideas (H2OPE, The A.R.C., and S.O.R.O.S.) to reality. Think of the book as a screenplay or business plan for the world. It would use computer modeling to get as close as possible to what could happen. It would sprinkle planned events through the book, that will happen after the book is out. For example, in chapter 2, there could be this charity ball where Oprah buys a bottle of H2OPE for a million dollars, this would then take place in real life (right on cue). This kind of thing, would be spread all through the book. The roll of a lifetime, an appearance in the book that aims to change the world. The book should be as accurate as possible as to be the manual. Showing people what to do and what will happen when they do. The book will show that by purchasing the H2OPE all that will happen. H2OPE (message in a bottle) is the unifier. It has many attributes, it can be quantified, by being distinctive it allows people to see others following the plan, this is a critical component for generating faith. It is easy to market; 1) buy one and someone in the world gets one for free; 2) start a collection (messages are infinite) your collection shows your contribution and can be used during an emergency; 3) use to teach another language, show duck in multiple languages; 4) use code or rfid to link to web sites generating traffic i.e. get Linden Dollars in Second Life; many marketing strategies are available. The idea is to release H2OPE at the same time as the book. Reality starts to mirror the book and the ball is rolling. This is by no means the whole plan.
Please visit my photos to get a little better understanding of the H2OPE, The ARC, and the SOROS. I look forward to ALL feedback. I will elaborate on any idea.
David Hamilton 50+
Thomas Mrak
Sometimes the best thing to do, when all else fails is to walk away or try something different until you find something that does work.
Life is one grand improvisational session.
Thomas Mrak
It most certainly is fear and anxiety, and sometimes doing something differently causes people to question their beliefs, and even themselves, which can be very uncomfortable.
If you could find a way to demonstrate the potential benefits from "doing what works" and the costs of doing it the "right" way, that's a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, there is no certainty in life. It's more important to connect with others and do what you value.
If you fail, you won't have to live with regret.
You tried.
Faja Anser
Faja Anser
Faja Anser
Faja Anser
My idea is simply to get as many people that can agree, to agree, and for each part of the plan to do as much as possible. The first part is to get the people who influence us to agree. First leading scientist, then they influence the celebrities who have money to donate, and huge access to help spread ideas (Ashton Kutcher has 4 million twitter followers). The unifier is H2O. People are asked to do something they were going to do anyway. Make it as easy as possible for people to do what you want them to do. Make it so everyone can see everyone who is participating, and who is not. The whole thing is to be as open as can possibly be. Everyone is aware of the plan and has positive feelings about what is happening. If you give someone a fish, you'll have to give them another fish, but if you give them a fishing pole... The way I see it, we have the ability to ease the burden on so many things if we just did a few things. If people have the ability to sustain themselves (EASILY), they are less likely to burden.
Faja Anser
Thomas Mrak
griffin tucker 10+
Jessica Figueroa
Now, how many people need to know your new idea in order to be popular?
For example in a small village cows are popular because 50 people cant stop talking about them. In a big city 50 people are talking about cows but its not conciderate popular because the amount of population there its so much bigger.
mhm I'm confuse now hahah well i hope i helped you a little bit.
Vivienne Eggers
Kristofer Schmolze
Making things popular works well. Look at how popularity operates. Study advertising and the psychological aspects involved. Perhaps there's a 'fill in the blank' method or formula to hype any idea? I consider media telling people what to think, not asking folks to think. Consider that nearly everyone in the western world owns and watches television. Billboards filled with ideas, products, and a sense of itself orbit nearly every where.
Popularity is evidence based in its own way. If dollars equal electoral votes, than the candidate with the most money wins, simply by being known. Popularity is about maximum attention of an audience.
'Green' products are a new marketing campaign to sell old things again. Kind of like buying a record (70's), then a tape for boom-box (80's), a CD for the car stereo (90's), and an MP3 file for an ipod (00's) Now I've paid for a song four times and it's still the same old song. How 'green' gains a positive marketing image of doing right by the earth is great. What's not mentioned is how purchasing anything does right by our fellow people. It's usually avoided with rare exception like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em9thvkiS7I Honey Bunches of Oats!
griffin tucker 10+
there is a shift happening in the way the world is run as a result.
i believe conglomerates and companies are now being forced to listen to what not only their clients and investors think, but asking anyone. social networking has almost enforced this over the last 5 or so years. some companies still have a way to go, though, in terms of involving communities. some may even be blatantly pretending.
this doesn't mean they will do what absolutely everyone says, but if it's a proven good method then i believe they will try. the point is they are beginning to listen, which promotes thinking.
you're also right about certain kinds of popularity being evidence based in its own way. i wish to change the idea of popularity to what works well, and is proven to work well according to true independent testing - ie. no corruption. true evidence-based policy with independent tests by its very nature doesn't leave room for corruption - if applied correctly.
attitude is a very important factor in applying evidence-based policy. just simply following instructions doesn't cut it anymore - probably never did 100% - and so we need involvement of everyone without fear so people can think clearly.
i see in your example of music formats evolving being attributed to 'green' products. they are more and more convenient as they evolve. i think that when people start to think, useless stuff won't get sold.
some people fear change, because they have seen how change has harmed or they simply fear the unknown.
there will always be problems, how we attempt to fix them depends on what those in power know.
do these statisticss seem warped?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Kristofer Schmolze
Corruption is a whole other story with an ancient tale spanning centuries and generations. Now that science is part of the popular canon, stats have been used to prove or dispel anything. The numbers can be weighted to 'prove a point.' Statistics weren't used to prove if a witch was to be burned or not. Other forms of 'proof' were determined and found to be 'true.' If there was a way to prove that broccoli would make the best breakfast cereal, I'm sure it could be done with stats, and would make an excellent SNL sketch. Point being, there is always room for corruption, and if there isn't it will find its way to the table. Greed is a stronger moral than any other. The only competition is compassion.
As leaders conquer the world over and over again and attempt to put their demands upon it. The need to micro manage nations and demand all of their resources is what lead to WWII. Nuclear weapons ended it but still remain as a threat today. Who's got the nukes is who's got the power.
What I'm starting to see are people self governing. No need for a boss, I can do it myself, independence. This act of taking power in one's life relinquishes control of outside forces. I also find folks who wish to help people find their feet so they can stand on their own. This act is a threat to the power and control given to corporate & political powers that be, cutting them off from the wallets of billions.
Those in power know and have access to information. Consider that members of congress have inside business information and are not allowed to be persecuted to use that information in order to profit in the stock market. Insider trading is applauded/permitted by those most closely tied in campaign dollars from business
griffin tucker 10+
in terms of independent testing, there are corrupt organisations that expose corruption. what i'm saying is there should be non-corrupt organisations that expose corruption, too, otherwise what could happen is corruption will last a very long time.
i don't believe greed is the strongest moral by nature, but if the idea of it is abused on a large scale (as it has been) then it certainly would seem that way.
the problem with compassion being the only moral that competes with greed is that the idea of greed creates ways to prevent the idea of compassion from, well, becoming popular. there are even instances where compassion is looked down upon as if it is socially unacceptable.
in 2005, the united nations formed the NPT treaty which created the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. although it's still an on-going process, the amount of nuclear weapons in the world has dropped dramatically.
basically the old-style method of thinking of 'mutually-assured destruction' doesn't apply anymore. the bigger focus is on mutually-assured development of the world - but there are exceptions when it comes to some developing countries - i believe this will change for everyone as true fairness becomes more wide-spread.
"who's got the nukes is who's got the power" - i don't think so. it's a bit like being the richest person alive and either spending everything at once on something that isn't wanted (due to their country being invaded afterward) or keeping the status as richest person alive and spending nothing at all.
if other countries don't like a certain country having nukes, sanctions will happen, and it will stop or slow development of that particular country to the point where other countries will develop much faster due to the idea of mutually-assured development.
griffin tucker 10+
as for members of congress being corrupt - i don't know very much about u.s. law.
Craig Patterson 10+
First, don't talk in generalities, talk in specifics. Give examples that are real, on the ground in real communities and then we might have the basis for discussion. Otherwise this topic will never develop legs that are relevant for those of us who walk upon the planet, if ya get my drift. My two cents.
griffin tucker 10+
since there's only roughly 2 days left in this conversation, i may start a new conversation using examples.
Vivienne Eggers
What I refer to is that there are three levels of existence that need to be examined. The individual level is the human behaviour trait and natural predilection of species. If something works well - then it will be done. But on the scale of deciding factors 'popularity' is not highest or fundamental - so your evidenced based policy has potential of resilience. The key factors for deciding to do something and adhere to a 'way' or process are: One, it works. Two, it is easy. Three, it involves minimal exertion and time to do it that way (efficiency). At this point it matter not if others want to adopt it or not - if you have these factors and there is a - reward - i.e. something achieved or gained from the activity then the person will do it even in secret.
For example - your best practices. These are optimally implemented into organizations and governments as guide ropes - but with ICT infrastructure often employees become bogged down by the administration of adherence and despite the 80-20 rule for gaining out of activity - the process loses flexibility for 'if then' scenarios - other ways or practices if another situation arises. In summary the best best practice needs to suit our environment - rapid adaptive change.
The individual will do something that works - and that first step is reward. Over time the other factors I mention reverse in importance. People will favour the quick and easiest after accomplishing the skill and experience of achieving.
Popularising something - i liken that to communicating the change or the new strategy and getting cultural acceptance and adoption. This involves change management techniques including communications and educating those you want to use the new strategy. If the basic factors are present - its a matter of engagement. Regardless - it requires flexibility
griffin tucker 10+
In Switzerland back about 15 years ago they were trying to decide where to site nuclear waste dumps. There was going to be a national referendum. Some psychologists went around and polled citizens who were very well informed. And they said, "Would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?" Astonishingly, 50 percent of the citizens said yes.
They knew it was dangerous. They thought it would reduce their property values. But it had to go somewhere and they had responsibilities as citizens. The psychologists asked other people a slightly different question. They said, "If we paid you six weeks' salary every year would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?" Two reasons. It's my responsibility and I'm getting paid. Instead of 50 percent saying yes, 25 percent said yes.
What happens is that the second this introduction of incentive gets us so that instead of asking, "What is my responsibility?" all we ask is, "What serves my interests?" When incentives don't work, when CEOs ignore the long-term health of their companies in pursuit of short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses the response is always the same. Get smarter incentives.
--Barry Schwartz
Vivienne Eggers
In other words this is a clear example of how semiotics work - intepreting symbols, language and other signs to create a contextual meaning and reality to a world. If a human does not believe themselves to have enough information on an issue they place their trust in the authority figure and give their power to. This is how governments work with persuasion techniques (to popularise).
Reward (and I do not use the word system in this context as it implies potential for coercion) at fundamental human instinctual level is about a personal achievement and the feeling of satisfaction and completion. I was not referring to it in the context of systemic manipulation from the outside as you quote here. It has no relevance to the core human trait - i.e. becomes a second stage conditioned response.
Another classic example in Australia such as the survey you mention above - is the Queensland notorious Doctor Death and how he as others like him around the world have been able to perform their criminal behaviours on others. Humans insecure and lacking information and truth give power away to the authority figure - in this case the one is posing as a doctor.
In the nuclear instance described above - as soon as they brought overt manipulation (bribe of money) into the equation - humans 'smelled a rat' gained a sense that they were being given something that they shouldn't. This instance was not about rewards but coercion.
griffin tucker 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
griffin tucker 10+
where it differs is that evidence-based policy finds independently-tested ways of doing things which usually leaves no room for corruption if applied properly.
i think you're right about the 'works well enough most of the time' strategy not being a true benchmark of successful best practice. i think the same goes for properly applied evidence-based policy.
Anne Dagen 10+
Why? Because my observation of its use is that it stops people thinking. It may be that something works well 95% of the time. That means it doesn't work well in 5% of cases. If the evidence based approach is followed, that tends to stop people from exploring the reasons why the 5% of cases don't fit the model. In medicine that could kill one patient in 20. In education it leaves a lot of pupils without the skills they need in adult life. In creative spheres it leads to formulaic entertainment and lack of innovation.
In practice, conventions are adopted because they have been observed to work well - but when people become dogmatic about a single way of doing things they close off opportunities for improvement. If someone comes up with something they perceive to be better, it wll only be widely adopted when enough people have evidence that it is an improvement. That's collecting evidence at the individual level, not mindless acceptance of statistics based on data collected in an unreal environment.
griffin tucker 10+
for the sake of argument, i will say that there then needs to be evidence-based policy of a way to focus on an individual's level, while still developing and maintaining a healthy perspective on "the big picture" of globalisation that includes investigating allowances for exceptions in terms of the current capitalist society.
you've almost convinced me to close the question, but i will leave the topic open to allow the possibility of an exception.