Richard for real

as seen at the City Planning Office, Helsingborg

I took part in a seminar today and picked up some pointers on how to efficiently convey your idea or deal with an opponent in writing:

- Use words and phrase from the opponent, but make them your own

- Irony is always a potential threat to your credibility

- Join the readers and isolate the opponent (“we” approach) or join him/her in a dialogue and leave the readers to decide who is right (“you” approach)?

- A friendly and subtly critical introduction can be very effective

- Formulate question that people have asked themselves but never formed an opinion on, introduce critical questions from a neutral perspective to gain credibility

- An uncommented quote can often be more effective than one that is analysed

- Use “dichotomical questions” which leave the reader with just two choices

- Include and agree with the opponent’s arguments if they are relevant

- Adding details is a good way of strengthening credibility

- If the opponent is relying on the reader’s emotions, exaggerate these arguments to weaken them

- Be clear about your intention from the bery beginning

- Honesty and openness help your credibility 

- To pretend that you know something better than you do works as long as the reader doesn’t know it better than you actually do

- If your opponent writes something unclear or abstract and potentially stupid, make it more concrete to illustrate the stupidity

- Always define what the reader should think, feel and do after reading

And someone had put the following words of wisdom on the door to the seminar room:

 At some point I also allowed myself some doodling:

My first thought when I started putting this speech together was to speak about postmodern consumptione theory. But since it took me myself three hours to understand that I don’t really understand what that is I have chosen to stay on a more everyday level. I hope that you as persons meet me as a person and embrace what I have to say. The thoughts I want to share with you are based on a report I read recently. The name of the report is Prosperity without Growth and it is written by professor Peter Jackson. In a certain section he summarises the symbolic role that material objects play in our lives. I quote: “The ‘language of goods’ allows us to communicate with each other – most obviously about social status, but also about identity, social affiliation, and even – through giving and receiving gifts for example – about our feelings for each other.” Jackson means that this behaviour, this communication, is a central mechanism in the ecologically, economically and socially unsustainable global growth economy.

 I accept, even appreciate, the thought that all truth and moral are relative and the social constructivism, which implies that we are free, and forced, to paint our picture of ourselves and others with arbitrary symbols. I believe that we can choose, or believe that we chose, depending on where you stand in the debate about free will, what type of colours we use in this act of painting. With this choice also comes a responsibility. A responsibility against our fellow humans to chose the most honest, effective and authentic nuances in the palette. Concretely, this is about focusing more on what we say, do and signal in other ways.

Of course, one can argue that we as indviduals choose the most convenient set of symbols, in a wide sense that includes clothes, language, media, well, everything that constructs our image of reality. In effect, it could be some sort of assault on the natural state of being to choose an approach that can be viewed as more of an effort. But I want to counter this argument with the conviction that we, again as individuals, have a lot to gain from making a slightly bigger effort. Through an increased awareness of how we create our worldview we get a more solid self image. By understanding ourselves better we also reach a clearer personal development. Through a more distinct perception we increase our satisfaction. Add to this the benefits for the surroudings, both the global community and our closre relations.

So, my appeal to you is: Open your eyes to a new human awareness. And see beyond the superficial symbolism.

Instead of just reading whodunit, talk to your friends about heavy crime in society.
Instead of just obeying the IKEA catalogue, get feeling for how you really want to live.
Instead of just buying fair trade, spend your vacation as a volunteer.
Instead of just wearing a brand, express yourself with words that affect.

Ok, here’s a little quick post which will hopefully inspire some further thinking. There is this guy named Zimbardo at Stanford University. He did a really interesting psychological experiment in the seventies. This experiment was bout letting two groupsof random normal people act as prisoners and guards respectively in a made-up prison in the university’s basement. Long story short, the experiment had to be aborted after a couple of days because the guards were almost killing the prisoners. This experience led Zimbardo to deduce the following seven step process by which an ordinary individual can be lead to do really nasty things to others:

1. Mindlessly taking the first small step

2. Dehumanizing others

3. Anonymity

4. Diffusion of personla responsibility

5. Blind obedience to authority

6. Uncritical conformity to group norms

7. Passive tolerance of evil

Now this might seem a bit depressing, but this guy I met a while back, Walter Naeslund, has done some thinking on this and came up with a suggestion on how to reverse the process:

1. Being mindful of consequences

2. Humanizing others

3. Transparency

4. Clarity of personal responsibility

5. Personal values

6. Integrity

7. Active intolerance of evil

For some more info on this thing, check out Walter’s slideshow. Over and out.