PILOTed

The Incredible Advantages of Preparing to Fail

What if we went into situations with the viewpoint that

1. Whatever we try isn’t going to work the first time
2. What we decide to try will give us valuable feedback
3. We can learn from the feedback and eventually we will succeed
4. If we prepare to iterate rapidly, we can succeed even if others oppose us

This mindset is the basis of John Boyd’s OODA loops.

I first blogged about OODA Loops in 2018 with OODA: The Winning Paradigm which describes that OODA Loops is a methodology for effective and rapid iteration, especially when we anticipate that there will be unknown adversities and possible opponents to our plans.

Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. John Boyd’s O. O. D. A. (or OODA) is a deceptively simple model and is based on a wide set of readings, from Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Heisenberg, Kuhn, Einstein, Gödel, and others.

John Boyd was an air force fighter pilot, military tactician, and strategist, so his work was initially aimed at armed military conflict. Armed conflict is a very high stakes form of interaction, most of the situations we are involved with aren’t literally win or die. The principles behind OODA can be and are applied in more generalized form to any type of change, decision, or conflict. And, in fact, Boyd became a trusted advisor of political leaders and business leaders around the world.

I love in the second Top Gun movie, when Tom Cruise gets in front of the fighter pilots he’s supposed to train, shows them the manual, and asks them if they know it. And of course, these are all the top pilots and they’ve already mastered it and memorized it. And then Cruise takes the manual and dumps it in the garbage. He tells them that their opponents have mastered and memorized it, too. The winner is not going to be the one who knows the manual the best, the winner is going to be the one who can pull together what is happening and then react fastest. The manual isn’t going to help them, building their ability to react rapidly and effectively to adverse situations is what’s going to keep them alive.

That’s OODA.

The OODA loops diagram above was created by Chuck Feeney who worked with John Boyd for 20 years. A complete explanation is in his 2 ½ hour OODA Loop & Evolutionary Epistemology of John Boyd video.

Notice that there are three loops highlighted:

Loop 1 is the rapid OODA loop. You are in the heat of the moment, you are in the middle of executing, perhaps in an argument or confrontation. You don’t have time to do research, consult experts, or even revise plans. You need to act and react fast. The better you are able to observe what’s happening, and the more possible actions you have already internalized so you can orient, the faster and better you will decide and act.

Loop 2 is the dangerous loop. This is when we get caught up in what we think will happen and what we think we should be doing. We observe, we come up with what we should do, but we don’t actually modify based on the results of our actions, we double down on what we’ve already decided and then justify why we should continue that way.

Loop 3 is the slow OODA Loop. This is when we have time to reassess the results we’ve achieved and devise new possible actions. Boyd used slow OODA to train quick OODA. Between events, Boyd worked on:

1. 1. What potential obstacles hadn’t he seen before or prepared for?
   2. What should he focus on in next time?
   3. What techniques should he be able to deploy in next time?
   4. How could he train himself on those so that they became automatic?

Think about any challenges you face. How could you start preparing so that when you are in the heat of the moment you can observe your actions and their results, you have a wide variety of fluencies to draw on so that you can rapidly analyze and then synthesize possible actions, and you can decide and act in a way that gives you an opportunity to observe and reorient?

If you want to go into OODA loops and complicated and complex situations more deeply, look into the course Mindshifting 2: Flexible Mindsets for Long Term Success starting in March 2024.

The best of all possible worlds

Many of us, even though we are not in the top 0.1%, can count many blessings from capitalism and cheap energy:

• Longer lives and fewer childhood mortalities.
• More leisure time.
• Advancements in education, entertainment, health care and home life.
• Increased mobility and reduction of travel time.
• Modern housing amenities such as electricity and plumbing.
• Increased food production.

For our own good, we should still question the following interpretation:

The US has led an unprecedented time of progress and opportunity largely because we encourage innovation through competition and the free market. In order to continue, we need to prevent government interference, including excessive regulation and policies that redistribute income or wealth. Survival of the fittest ensures that the best win, and is the surest way for continued progress.

Two books that challenge that story are How the World Really Works by Vaclav Smil, and Chokepoint Capitalism by Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow.

How the World Really Works explores the influence of cheap energy, and especially oil, in how we live and how nations interact. For example, for virtually the entire history of mankind, a farmer would produce enough food to feed about 1.3 people, and about 90% of the population was involved in farming. Today, 2 percent of the population work on farms. Similar transformations have taken place with transportation, communications, technology, and every other aspect of our lives.

It wasn’t necessarily the US political system, or capitalism, that has brought about progress and wealth, it’s much more likely due to our extraction of energy resources. These were made possible by cheap petroleum. Those resources are not found in Western Europe, China, or Japan, and yet those nations’ economies need access to cheap energy.

Smil points out and describes quite a few ramifications:

• Until we understand the full effects of cheap energy on all aspects of our lives and economies, we cannot properly take actions to promote sustainability or the regeneration of natural resources. Once we do, we can start weighing the tradeoffs we will all have to make.
• Access to petroleum and control of energy resources can be traced to almost every international political battle and armed conflict over the last 100 years.
• Unfortunately, we can’t just stop our dependence on fossil energy sources in a 10, 20, or even 30-year timeframe and also support the existence of almost 8 billion people on the planet.

In Chokepoint Capitalism, Giblin and Doctorow refute the perception that the capitalism practiced in the US is based on competition, an ordered market, and limited government involvement. The contend that large organizations more often thrive because of government protected monopolies, and that the results is both a tilted playing field and that any benefits of growth or productivity accrue solely to the top 0.1%:

Concentrated industries generate big profits for their investors, who, seeing how well their anticompetitive flywheels work, go looking for other industries to which they can apply the same extractive tactics. Its primary beneficiaries are an infinitesimal coterie of the ultra-rich.

It’s supremely difficult to maintain the free conditions that are central to capitalism, since markets have such a strong natural tendency toward concentration, extraction, and rent-seeking.

Our exploration shows corporations have strategically achieved the conditions they need to take control of creative markets and use them to shake down creators: anticircumvention laws, vertical and horizontal integration, high costs of market entry, captured regulators, opaque accounting, and the power to aggregate copyrights on an industrial scale and wield them against the very people they are ostensibly meant to protect. Combined with antitrust’s blinkered focus on consumer welfare and the neoliberal economic dogma that a company’s only purpose is to increase profits and maximize shareholder value, the outcome is inevitable: ever bigger corporations squeezing out an ever bigger share. That’s why the choice between Big Tech and Big Content is no choice at all. Whomever creators throw their lot in with, they’ll get essentially the same deal: the least the industry can get away with, and the promise it will be ratcheted.

Before we accept any explanation of how extraordinary society has made our lives and why we need to support the status quo, or the opposite claims that we are on the verge of an apocalypse and global anomie, maybe we should take some time expanding our mindsets; maybe we should spend some time on books like these to educate ourselves, and then find others who are willing to help right our societies and organizations to better serve all of us.

The title of this post was borrowed from the Panglossian philosophy caricatured in Camus’s short story Candide. Perhaps that should also be required reading.

Cancel Culture and The Folly of Crowds

There are four blogs/newsletters that I pay for, and Rachel Botsman’s rethink is one. A few weeks ago I responded to her post on the Power of learning to unlearn, and her current post, Cancel culture through a trust lens is what inspired this post.

In cancel culture,

1. Someone says something
2. Somebody objects
3. The objection goes viral (I’d even say goes cancerous)
4. The results are “absurdly harsh consequences including getting shamed by digital mobs or fired from a job.”

We seem to have lost the ability to play with ideas with which we disagree, instead we often attack the person. As a result we a) are ourselves unwilling express our thoughts out of fear of the backlash, and b) we lose out on gleaning whatever we can from these ideas because we are locked into a limbic fight/flight mode and the playful and resourceful parts of our brain are shut down.

These issues are further compounded by our mirror neurons, which mushroom to collective illusions. We all know about the wisdom of crowds, but collective illusions are the folly of crowds. As Todd Rose wrote in his book Collective Illusions,

Collective illusions are social lies. They occur in situations where a majority of individuals in a group privately reject a particular opinion, but they go along with it because they (incorrectly) assume that most other people accept it. When individuals conform to what they think the group wants, they can end up doing what nobody wants.

My recommendations

1. Everyone should have the skill to recognize when they are in fight/flight mode, and so not thinking resourcefully, especially when those reactions are amplified by the folly of crowds
2. Everyone should learn the skills of intercepting their primal reactions and switching to their resourceful parts of their brains
3. Everyone should learn to become comfortable in liminal states, in those times when we don’t really know the answers and we are exploring, even when we are surrounded by people demanding we adhere to some group norm
4. Everyone needs to learn the techniques of connecting with others, especially people with whom we disagree; techniques like motivational interviewing and nonviolent communications.

These just happen to be the skills that the course, Mindshifting techniques for collaboration, conflicts, and opposition focuses on. That’s an online course that starts Tuesday, January 16, consisting of 6 90-minute sessions.

Hope to see you there.

What I learned from Congressman Jamaal Bowman

Today I attended Congressman Jamaal Bowman’s Healing Breakfast: Fighting Antisemitism & Hate. Here is first a little background and then what I learned.

Jamaal Bowman is my congressman, and the 16^th district includes parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, NY. Many Jews are angry at Congressman Bowman because he was one of the few Democrats voting against HR 340 and HR 798. HR 340 puts limits on funding sent to the Middle East and was a move to cut off funding of Hamas. HR 798 seeks to curtail pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activities on university campuses. 

These votes have been portrayed as antisemitic and promoting or condoning violence against Jews. Many felt that voting against the bills showcased a lack of sympathy for Jews, many of whom have been his biggest supporters.

What I learned at the breakfast

The session lasted about two hours and was attended by about 50 people. Here were my take-aways from the discussion

Congressman Bowman is pro-people, pro-equity, and pro-child.

• He is not antisemitic.
• He is passionate about making a change, for equitable opportunity of all people and especially children
• He has made many pronouncements after the Hamas attack against the atrocities, in support of Jews, and also has come out in favor of humanitarian actions, including a cease fire, in Gaza.

Jews are feeling as unsafe in the US and the world as at any time since the end of World War II.

The place of Jews in the US, and the world, is unique.

• To many, Jews are seen as white and thus privileged. To the many people with this worldview, Jews are not a suppressed minority, and their voices protesting that they are, in fact, at risk, is just trying to grab for more power, position, and/or money.
• Jews are also a group that has been discriminated against for over a thousand years, and this discrimination continues in many places in the world, and in the US today.
• Jews have been at the forefront of protecting the rights of other oppressed groups, someitmes risking their lives, dating back to the early days of the Civil Right Movement. Jews today are feeling abandoned by many of the groups that they have supported, as in, why aren't those groups also condemning violence against Jews.
• Many Jews have taken advantage of white privilege and become successful, and some wealthy Jews have abused that right to the detriment of people of color.

The two bills were both flawed.

• HR 340 had nothing about humanitarian aid, and HR 798 was worded in a way that would have allowed the arrest of people in what as a nation we (should) value as valid protests.
• As finally worded, they were the only resolutions that came to the floor and no efforts to make them better were allowed to be heard, even though Congressman Bowman tried.
• Some of those who voted against the resolutions probably are antisemitic.
• Even though they were both flawed, it could be interpreted that voting against them signal an acceptance of Hamas violence and antisemitism on US campuses.
• Even knowing that, Congressman Bowman felt strong enough about weaknesses in these bills that he would still vote against them.

Congressman Bowman has come out strong against hate and against the actions of Hamas, although some participants felt that those words were not as important as the actions of voting against the bills.

The general societal discourse about Hamas, Palestinians, Israel, and Jews has been binary, which is unfortunately the case in so many other issues:

• Either you are pro Judaism or you are pro-Hamas
• If you indicate criticism of the Israeli response to Hamas, you are labeled as anti-semitic.
• If you indicate support for the Palestinian civilians or children, you are labeled as anti-semitic.
• If you indicate condemnation of the Hamas attack, you are anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim.
• If you indicate support that there should be a Jewish state, you are anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim.
• If you indicate support for Gaza or Palestinians, you are also attacking and threatening Jews in the US.

We need to make Westchester and the NY area a place where Jews are and feel safe.

• And also that all minorities are and feel safe.
• While our goals can extend beyond our own area, we should begin at home, and, in fact, Congressman Bowman represents our district, not the rest of the US or the world.

It took a lot of guts to engage with 50 people, 45 of whom are vehemently opposed to who they think you stand for.

I hope I get a chance to talk further with Congressmand Bowman about mindsets, sensemaking, and how learning mindshifting concepts and techniques can make us all more collaborative and creative, allow us to be better critical thinkers and innovators, and help us see that most issues do not have to be binary or win/lose.

Mutual Learning and Conflict Resolution

I have been blogging here since 2006. The very first post at this location was an interview with behavioral advisor Jim Oher on Mutual Learning.

Jim summarized Mutual Learning as a powerful set of techniques to avoid and resolve conflicts. It is based on four key values to an interaction:

1. Valid information: you resolve and signal that you will reveal all relevant information you have on a subject, whether it supports your position or not.
2. Free informed choice: no party is coercing any other party toward a particular path. You seek to create an environment for people to agree to do things because the information flow was transparent, not because they feel manipulated or coerced.
3. Internal commitment to the decision: once a decision is made, people commit themselves to do whatever is necessary to implement it, and they hold themselves and each other accountable.
4. Compassion: you, and as the process proceeds, all involved, temporarily suspend judgment in order to understand other people’s perspectives from a mindset of curiosity and letting go of judgmental reactions.

If you were to locate Mutual Learning on Thomas Kilmann’s five different styles for managing conflict (competing, avoiding, compromising, accommodating, and collaborating), it would align with collaborating, setting up for all parties to win.

We all encounter situations where other people oppose us, resist our ideas, block us, or compete with us. For example, educators are interested in the ultimate success of their students, and isn’t it ironic that the students often resist their efforts? And look at all the conflicts raging in the world and society today, where our whole social fabric is being rent apart by divisiveness and conflict.

And yet, it seems naïve to suppose we can just resolve to share information, provide all parties with informed choice, expect everyone will be internally committed to the ultimate decision, and show each other compassion and these conflicts will resolve and disappear. In fact, one of the insights from the five styles is that when one party is utilizing the Compete style and another party is using Collaborate, the collaborate manifests as a weakness to the compete style and that party will double down on demands.

On the other hand, using iterative Mutual Learning, Motivational Interviewing, and Nonviolent Communications techniques, it can be possible shift the conversation in many cases. It takes practice, listening with a sense of curiosity, detachment from specific results, patience, and a willingness to try different communication styles.

Doesn't it make sense to become versed in these methods? Could we start making some progress?

If you’re interested in learning about a variety of techniques to overcome and avoid conflict, take a look at the online course Mindshifting to Overcome and Avoid Conflict. The next offering will start January 16, and here is the registration page.

Unlearning

The power of learning to unlearn, a recent article by Rachel Botsman, caused me to think about some of the material in the Mindshifting classes.

One of the observations in Mindshifting 1 is that we can’t remove a habit (or belief, or value, or methodology, or skill) we replace it.

There is a tried and true 4 step model towards building fluency:

1. Unconscious incompetence: when we don’t even realize that something is wrong.
2. Conscious incompetence: this actually has three components.
   1. Realization that there is a gap between what we are doing (or thinking, or saying) and the results we desire.
   2. Observation that there are other actions which do lead to the results we desire.
   3. Selection of some action, but, because we are not skilled in it, the desire to learn those skills.
3. Conscious competence: improvement in the skills, probably through a combination of research, instruction, practice, and feedback with the understanding that we can perform them but only if we consciously and actively perform them.
4. Unconscious competence: fluidity in using the skills, so that we do not have to think about them and that they become our new habits.

Botsman emphasized that our own minds will often fight like the dickens to defend what is already known and familiar. This is one of the reasons that organizations and people who yearn for a growth mindset or learning culture find it much harder that expected; getting to that third part of Conscious incompetence is really really hard, and progressing to unconscious competence is equally fraught.

Our minds have a lot of weapons to resist change, to fight unlearning, using fear and anxiety to unleash cognitive biases and collective illusions. The deceptively simple answer is to act with a sense of curiosity and exploration, especially when success seems inaccessible.

During the unconscious incompetence phase, it’s being curious about whether there might be other or better ways. When we start realizing our incompetence it means searching for alternatives, synthesizing what we are learning, and consciously choosing a path even when our own minds and others question our sanity for designing change. While we are experimenting, and often failing, to acquire competence, it means looking at how far we have traveled, what we are learning, and what we might practice.

Our minds and our colleagues might call on us to give up. Progress is through curiosity and exploration, to exemplify what Arianna Huffington said, “Failure is not the opposite of success, it’s part of success.”

How to Make Sense of the World

Last week, I sat down with Nola Simon to discuss issues on the intersection of work and education and we ended up having a wider ranging discussion.

Here is what she wrote a that highlights:

Most of the time when I speak to Mitch it's as part of my futurist buddy group. We rarely spend time on titles - we are too busy talking ideas. Our conversations are far reaching, imaginative and often surprising.  Mitch actually made my jaw drop during this episode - on the topic of challenging the status quo.  I appreciate him precisely because he challenges my thinking.

Key takeaways:

• Mindset is the way we see ourselves and the world, and it influences our behavior and outcomes.
• Sensemaking is the process of creating meaning from information and experience, and it involves being aware of our biases, assumptions, emotions, and perspectives.
• Sensemaking can help us overcome cognitive traps, such as confirmation bias, availability bias, anchoring bias, and framing effects, that can lead us to make poor decisions or judgments.
• Sensemaking can also help us be more flexible, adaptable, creative, and resourceful in facing challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world.
• Sensemaking can enhance our communication and collaboration with others by helping us empathize, listen, ask questions, give feedback, and resolve conflicts.

Awesome quotes:

• “Education should be the way that we are preparing the next generation to assume their roles as adults.” - Mitch Weisburgh
• “I’ve always been interested in how our minds make sense of situations.” - Mitch Weisburgh
• “The brain has evolved to make decisions rapidly. How those rapid decisions very often lead us astray. How we can be aware when they lead us astray. How to prepare to be more flexible if we’re drawn off course. How to self correct. So that we’re more resourceful. How to deal with other people who are also making quick decisions and probably also being led astray.” - Mitch Weisburgh
• “Sense making is not something that you do once. It’s something that you do continuously.” - Mitch Weisburgh
• “The future is not something that happens to us. It’s something that we create.” - Nola Simon

And here is the recorded 35 minute discussion: https://thejanusoasis.libsyn.com/the-story-of-us-how-to-make-sense-of-the-world-with-mitch-weisberg

What I learned about education while in Portugal

Here are the five big takeaways:

1. When there is joy in school, there is deep learning, and when the main focus is standards and tests imposed by “authorities” there is neither.
2. Companies that develop internship programs gain access to talented and loyal employees while also advancing the entire industry.
3. Joyful learning occurs when the entire school community integrates music, art, sports, problem solving, and collaboration into their daily schedules, and when academic subjects are covered as if they were detached from all the above, neither the students nor the educators are served.
4. Angela Maiers can motivate teachers in any location and in any country, her message resonates and inspires.
5. We all need to listen to the teachers; they are the ones who best know their students, and if we do, we can propel Education 5.0.

Last year, a group of us visited Finland and embedded ourselves in the Finnish education system for three days, and here was my post and video of  reflections from Tammie Schrader and me.

This year, Marco Bento, Celestino Magalhaes, and José Alberto Lencastre hosted Angela Maiers, Nancy Mangum, Tammie Schrader, Kristin Zeimke, a team from Brazil, and me for three days in Portugal. We participated in the SuperTabi education technology conference, and visited schools, a video game development company, the largest education publisher in Portugal, and interacted with Edtech providers to the Portuguese education system.

The two schools we visited were Colégio Santa Eulália (birth through high school plus a retirement community) and Colégio Alfacoop (PreK-12). How many schools do you know feature a Frank Zappa quote for their students and teachers?

Or have students who are so engrossed in their work that they don’t even know they are learning or that 10 adults just entered their classroom?

Imagine a school with abundant intelligently designed outside facilities so children of different ages can play, burn off steam, and integrate what they are learning.It’s no wonder that the students end up with great lives and when they themselves have children, send their own children to the school.

Here was a great example of the effect education can have on a young life. A 14 year old boy had developed disruptive and damaging habits. His uncle was a bus driver at Alphacoop. As the driver explained, “I was afraid we were going to lose him, he was on a path to prison, drugs, or worse.” Alphacoop gave that boy a chance and the respect and guidance to help him turn himself around and now he is attending university. Listen to this story.

Look at the energy and enthusiasm in these students’ faces. Isn’t that why we all went into education? These were all students who had taken robotics and coding from Celestino and insisted on having their picture taken with him.

Visiting these schools made us feel forever young (yes, even me, especially as I got a chance to participate in a gym dancing class, sing, and tell a dad joke and riddle) and wanting to come and experiment, just like the sign says.

We also visited two companies. Saber is a state of the art video game development studio. They develop their own games as well as develop for all the large game developers, especially scenes involving cars and racing. Porto Editora is one of the two largest print and digital education publishers in Portugal, and has been charged by the ministry of education with creating a full digital curriculum.

Saber stands at the leading edge of technology, and so like all tech, faces a challenge finding workers who can step in to produce to their specifications. When software, graphics, or sound engineers graduate from university, they are not equipped for the higher standards of quality work or schedules. 

Saber is overcoming the school to work gap by offering a free Saber Academy to recent graduates. A typical attendee spends three to six months producing the same types of projects as actual workers, but under the mentoring of top quality developers. At some point, generally in their 4th to 6th project, they create some module that matches industry expectations, and they are certified and immediately get snapped up by Saber or another game developer.

Porto Editora demonstrated how old line manufacturing companies can adapt to the threats and opportunities of new technology. In print publishing and distribution, we saw how manufacturing companies can streamline operations through mechanized equipment and artificial intelligence, and by walking through their rapidly growing digital publishing arm, we saw how established companies can be nimble and create highly effective teams to pounce on new opportunities, capitalizing on their experience and resources.

Our very first activity was watching Angela Maiers kindle the fire in the hearts of Portuguese educators.

We all need to be able to comprehend digital content, create digital content, and unite others around our digital messages. Every child today needs to feel that their message is needed, and that they have the capability to get their message across, and only teachers can give that to children. That’s one reason why our whole society needs teachers. Here is her session and here was our session.

There is a (hopefully) growing Portugues movement in education around Education 5.0:

1. Technology to understand, create, and communicate.
2. Space to encourage inquiry, curiosity, community, and learning.
3. Pedagogy based on meaningful projects, games, digital storytelling and cooperative and collaborative models.
4. Engagement that involves students in their own processes of learning interacting with teachers and families in a joyful environment.
5. Emotion which determines the way the mind and brain learn and builds empathetic, curious, and motivated students and adults.

We are already planning our summit for next year. It should be epic.

Increasing Student Test Scores

According to McKinsey study released just this month:

nationwide, an estimated 17 million students have more than half a year of pandemic-related learning delay, 16 million students who need mental-health support are not receiving it, and 15 million students are chronically absent.

There are about 54 million students in the US. Fifteen to 17 million is just under a third of all students.

How many more students are more than a half year behind having nothing to do with Covid?

Maybe we should learn how the brain operates and then act in schools and outside of schools in ways that strengthen our critical thinking, resourcefulness, and social-emotional abilities?

Focusing on student test scores (AKA student achievement) just seems wrong. How are we enabling kids to grow so that they can take on their adult roles?

Donella Meadows taught us the potential leverage points for systemic change. While we tend to focus on changing inputs (like funding), outputs (like test scores), measurement (like assessment), or rules and structures (like curriculum or classwork or homework), you only really change systems by changing the goals and mindsets of the participants.

Like, maybe, Mindshifting?

Distrust

Many of us have a big distrust of press, whether it’s Fox or MSNBC or the Washington Post. Are they reporting facts, are they balancing different viewpoints, or are they spinning information to support their points of view.

Many of us distrust the government at all levels, do they serve us or are they more self-serving.

Many of us distrust large companies and their “your call is very important to us, please stay on hold.”

I thought I’d ask Bard and GPT 4 about the origins of this malaise and what we might be able to do about it.

What are the causes of the distrust that many people have in the large institutions of society such as the press, government, and large companies, documenting examples of possible corruption and self-interest, lack of transparence, and the sense of powerlessness.

Google Bard

Chat GPT 4

There are many reasons why people distrust large institutions. Some of the most common reasons include: Corruption and self-interest: Many people believe that large institutions are corrupt and that their leaders are more interested in lining their own pockets than in serving the public good. There are many examples of this, including the recent scandals at Wells Fargo, Volkswagen, and the Catholic Church. Lack of transparency: Many people feel that large institutions are not transparent enough. They believe that these institutions are hiding information from the public and that they are not accountable for their actions. This lack of transparency can lead to a sense of distrust and suspicion. Sense of powerlessness: Many people feel powerless to influence the actions of large institutions. They believe that these institutions are too big and too powerful to be held accountable. This sense of powerlessness can lead to a feeling of distrust and resentment. Here are some specific examples of corruption and self-interest, lack of transparency, and the sense of powerlessness that people feel towards large institutions: Corruption and self-interest: In 2016, Wells Fargo was fined $185 million for opening millions of unauthorized accounts in its customers' names. The bank's employees were motivated by greed and a desire to meet sales goals, even if it meant breaking the law. Lack of transparency: In 2015, Volkswagen was caught cheating on emissions tests for its diesel cars. The company knew that its cars were polluting the environment, but it hid this information from regulators and the public. Sense of powerlessness: In 2018, the Catholic Church was rocked by a series of sex abuse scandals. The church had covered up the abuse for decades, and it failed to protect its victims. This scandal led to a loss of trust in the church and a sense of powerlessness among its members. These are just a few examples of the many reasons why people distrust large institutions. It is important to remember that not all large institutions are corrupt or secretive. There are many institutions that are working hard to serve the public good. However, the distrust that people feel towards large institutions is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

The distrust in large institutions such as the press, government, and large companies stems from various factors, including possible corruption and self-interest, lack of transparency, and a sense of powerlessness among the general public. Below are some examples and explanations for each factor: 1. Corruption and self-interest: In 2015, the FIFA corruption scandal exposed widespread corruption in the international soccer federation, leading to the arrest of several high-ranking officials and undermining public trust in sports organizations. The 2008 financial crisis exposed corruption and unethical practices within the banking and finance sectors, leading to a widespread loss of trust in financial institutions. The influence of lobbyists and wealthy donors in politics has led to concerns about the integrity of the democratic process and the ability of elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents. 2. Lack of transparency: The Panama Papers (2016) and Paradise Papers (2017) leaks exposed widespread tax evasion and money laundering by wealthy individuals and large corporations, eroding trust in both governments and the business sector. The Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 revealed the misuse of personal data by a political consulting firm, leading to concerns about the transparency and ethical practices of social media platforms and tech companies. Government secrecy and classified information, often justified under the pretext of national security, can contribute to a sense of distrust among the public who may feel that they are not privy to important information. 3. Sense of powerlessness: Income inequality and the concentration of wealth among a few individuals and corporations can contribute to a sense of powerlessness among the general population. The revolving door phenomenon, where individuals move between influential positions in government and private sector organizations, can reinforce the perception that the general public has little influence over decision-making processes. The perception that elected officials are not held accountable for their actions or are able to act with impunity can further contribute to a sense of powerlessness among citizens. These are just a few examples of events and factors that have contributed to the erosion of trust in large institutions. The complexity of these issues and the interconnected nature of modern society make it challenging to rebuild trust. However, increased transparency, accountability, and efforts to address income inequality may help to restore public confidence in these institutions.

What are some actions we can take as individuals or members of society or consumers to counteract these trends, giving examples of where they have worked in the past and documenting cases where they have worked?

Google Bard

Chat GPT 4

There are many things that individuals, members of society, and consumers can do to counteract the trends of distrust in large institutions. Some of these actions include: Be informed: One of the best ways to counteract distrust is to be informed about the issues. This means reading news from a variety of sources, doing research on different topics, and talking to people who have different perspectives. The more informed you are, the less likely you are to be misled by misinformation or propaganda. Be critical: It is also important to be critical of the information you receive. Don't just believe everything you read or hear. Ask questions, do your own research, and seek out multiple sources of information. The more critical you are, the less likely you are to be taken in by lies or deception. Hold institutions accountable: When institutions do something wrong, it is important to hold them accountable. This means speaking out, writing letters, and voting with your wallet. If you don't like the way an institution is behaving, let them know. The more people who speak out, the more likely the institution is to change its ways. Get involved: Another way to counteract distrust is to get involved in your community. This means volunteering, attending meetings, and running for office. When you get involved, you can help to make your community a better place and you can build trust between the people and the institutions that serve them. There are many examples of where these actions have worked in the past. For example, the #MeToo movement helped to raise awareness of sexual harassment and assault, and it led to the downfall of many powerful men. The Black Lives Matter movement helped to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice, and it led to a number of reforms, including the defunding of police departments in some cities. And the Occupy Wall Street movement helped to raise awareness of income inequality and the power of the wealthy, and it led to a number of protests and demonstrations. These are just a few examples of where individual action can make a difference. When people come together and speak out, they can hold institutions accountable and build a more just and equitable society.

Individuals, members of society, and consumers can take various actions to counteract the trends of distrust in large institutions. Some of these actions include: 1.       Supporting independent journalism and media: By subscribing to and promoting independent, unbiased news sources, individuals can help ensure that reliable information is disseminated and that the public is well-informed. Example: The success of organizations like ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, demonstrates the positive impact of supporting independent journalism. 2. Engaging in civic activities and grassroots movements: By participating in local politics, joining community organizations, and supporting grassroots movements, individuals can foster positive change and hold institutions accountable. Example: The Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 brought attention to issues of economic inequality and the influence of corporations on politics, leading to increased public awareness and discussion. 3. Voting with your wallet: Consumers can choose to support ethical and transparent companies by making informed purchasing decisions, thereby promoting responsible business practices. Example: The Fair Trade movement has empowered consumers to support products made under fair labor conditions, leading to better working conditions and wages for producers in developing countries. 4. Advocating for transparency and accountability: By demanding transparency from both private and public institutions and pushing for accountability measures, individuals can help to create a culture of openness and responsibility. Example: The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in the United States has enabled citizens to access government information, promoting transparency and holding public officials accountable. 5. Promoting education and media literacy: By fostering critical thinking and media literacy skills, individuals can become better equipped to evaluate the credibility of information sources and resist disinformation campaigns. Example: Media literacy programs in schools, such as those promoted by organizations like the News Literacy Project, have proven effective in helping students develop critical thinking skills and recognize credible news sources. 6. Encouraging corporate social responsibility: By advocating for corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, consumers can push companies to prioritize ethical and sustainable practices. Example: The success of B Corporation certification demonstrates the impact of promoting responsible business practices. B Corps are for-profit companies that meet high standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. These examples show that individuals and consumers can have a tangible impact on the behavior of large institutions. By working together and demanding change, people can help counteract the trends that have eroded trust in these institutions and create a more just and equitable society.

I think one of the more effective actions is to shrink our area of concern into a size where we can exert influence, as in becoming more active locally (which was mentioned), supporting family, meeting and interacting with more local people from different social circles, buying from smaller local providers wherever possible, but this was not mentioned by either AI engine.

What are your thoughts?