Ataraxis: Solutions for Peace in Your Life

The Manhattan Peace Process on Israel and Palestine

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:10:00 +0000

In reading Betwa Sharma's story of an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue facilitated by Marcia Kannry in New York City, I am struck again by the failure of process. In this dialogue, as reported, a Palestinian woman< Ms. Rahsid, is complaining. To characterize a bomb attack on a Palestinian bus as an "operation," she says, is unacceptable and dehumanizing to her. Instead of stopping the conversation right there to explore this statement more deeply, the dialogue participants jumped in. An Israeli woman was apparently personally offended and the conflict cycle engaged. Ms. Kannry missed the moment. I see this so often in Israeli-Palestinian dialogues. The same cycle is poignantly depicted in the documentary "To Die for Jerusalem," and is repeated countless times wherever Israelis and Palestinians meet. What is needed are deeper skills to help these people process and work through their grief, anger, humiliation, and frustration. Facilitated dialogues hold excellent potential for reconciliation and understanding in the Israeli and Palestinian civic societies. To prevent conflict escalation, facilitators should be thinking about processes that engage participants, especially in moments of provocation or high emotion. Until we up the game, the results of the dialogues will continue to mirror the results of the political negotiations: stalemate, frustration, and blame.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'The Empathic Civilization': Rethinking Human Nature in the Biosphere Era

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:15:00 +0000

Mr. Rifkin has correctly stated the false assumption of modernity and post-modernity: that humans are rational, self-interested actors and international relations is a collective of rational state actors seeking to maximize national utility. He misses the mark, however, in thinking that mirror neurons, part of the neural substrate of human empathy, is the key to global change. We humans have evolved many emotional systems in our brains, many of which are barely understood. These systems work out solutions to the environment, social or physical, that cause them to metaphorically conflict and argue amongst themselves. In other words, the human brain is not some computer than churns out answers in responses to information. It is an extraordinarily complex biological system that allows for fast adaptability to environments that change right around it. Our brains have many limitations as well, known as cognitive biases, that shape and distort how we view the world and make decisions. Our brains have a rapid response fear reaction system that causes us to judge everything as good or bad at a primitive level. Instead of hoping that our mirror neuron systems will kick in to save us, maybe we would be better served understanding how the emotional and cognitive systems of our brains limit us, and begin working on realistic solutions with those limitations in mind.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Iran Is Burning in Revolution; Not Recognizing It Can Lead to Calamity

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:31:00 +0000

The continuing protests in Iran show that people can only tolerate autocracy for so long. With the irrepressible advantage of instant mass communication via the Internet and social networking, protests can be assembled quickly and efficiently before the government security forces can intervene. The Iranian people are taking advantage of this power in a unique way. Can the Iranian people translate this ability to self-organize into a sustainable regime change? Assuming the government is toppled, can the people choose more representative, liberal-style form of government? Their past choices suggest a contrary track record--Iranians have lived under one form of autocracy or another for the past 100 years. No matter the temptation to do otherwise, the international community's role in the unfolding of the next form of government should be by invitation only. However, the international community can prepare now to respond to any invitation by thinking and planning for the possible range of possibilities. An organized effort to think about the possible futures of Iran carefully assembled and properly introduced to the world could offer hope and support without taking sides or appearing interventionist.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Congress-Please Wake Up on Climate Change

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:23:00 +0000

Congress, please wake up. Climate change is here, it's real, and it's about to hammer us if we don't take immediate action. I know that Detroit is suffering from 50% unemployment. I know that there are not many other happy places in the U.S. economically. I happen to live in one of the deepest poverty regions of the country, the San Joaquin Valley. However, the depression will pass. Climate change will not pass and is apparently not subject to economic cycles. If we, as a nation, do not take leadership on this, we could be facing the mother of all economic depressions a lot sooner than anyone expects.

I appreciate the fact that Representatives must face re-election every two years and that their job security rests on their ability to convince the voters in their districts that they are protecting local financial, economic, and legal interests. The larger problem of climate change calls for a different type of leadership, however. Instead of reacting to your neighbors, friends, and supporters at home, can you, members of Congress, unify and lead those people? Can you educate yourselves on the facts, not the polemics, of climate change? Can you be public stewards and resist insistent, parochial demands for quick fixes, jobs, money, safety, and security? Can you help the people accept the need for dramatic changes in energy use when the medicine tastes bad? Can you look at the problem of climate change in terms other than a zero-sum, distributive, winner-take-all political competition or negotiation? Can you instead look at climate change as an opportunity to collaborate, to invest in new technologies, to create jobs that have never existed before, and to rebuild our national infrastructure? Can you resist the lobbyists for the extraction industries that seek to continue business in the same patterns that have created the environmental crisis we now face? Can you face up to the fact that this is not Republican vs. Democrat political gamesmanship?

If you cannot, the conflicts, fights, disputes, and wars will be like none you have ever seen as people around the world fight for food,water, and arable land. If you cannot, the depression of 2007-2010 will seem like a mild economic correction compared to the potential devastation of a collapsed world economy. If you cannot, the plaintive cries of your constituents will turn to screams of anger at you, demanding that you answer why you did not take action sooner. Look into the future. You can see what is coming--it is a locomotive heading right at us. Will you slow it down or will you allow it to crush us all?

Please wake up and take action.

Obama's First Year: A Nobel Effort

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:22:00 +0000

I have read the American Grand Strategy report pertaining to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The students make the statement “Obama’s major policy error has been his demand of Israel to freeze all settlement building.” I believe this is a grave error of analysis. The history of the region has created a deep mythology for both the Israelis and the Palestinians that reinforces a social identity around the sacredness of Jerusalem and the sacredness of the land. Israeli settlements in the West Bank, regardless of motive, have been seen for decades as deeply disrespectful of the Palestinian right to autonomy. For decades, the Palestinians have asserted that Israel must conform to UN Resolution 242. Israeli settlements have been in derogation of this assertion, whether legal or not. In addition, the settlements have created a checkerboard in the West Bank that makes the possibility of a unified Palestinian state very difficult to create. A cynical person might say that this has been by conscious design of succeeding Israeli governments. At the very least, settlements have appeased the ultra-conservative fundamentalist Jews that have seized the moral and sacred high ground in the debate around peace with the Palestinians. Thus, if an acceptable peace is to occur, settlement construction will have to stop. President Obama is therefore correct in making that a cornerstone of his administration’s policy toward the conflict.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Construction in East Jerusalem: What It Really Means

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:44:00 +0000

As I read the comments and posts following the Ir Amim post protesting continued settlement construction in east Jerusalem, I see several things. First, the comments are highly polarized around the status of Jerusalem. Second, I see no discussion of how the status of Jerusalem might be resolved in a way that makes sense to the Israelis and the Palestinians. As long as people focus on their personal opinions and feelings, the status of Jerusalem will continue to polarize and divide. There has been terrible suffering and violence instigated by all sides against the others. Can we accept that Jerusalem symbolizes sacred and holy ground, national pride, religious identity, and has deep, heart-felt meaning for the Jewish and Arab people of the region? Accepting this deeply held, mutual, sacred belief, can we fashion a remedy that honors the God of Abraham and the history of suffering witnessed around this land? There is much more than honor at stake here, of course, and starting with the acknowledgment of the sacred is only one place to start. However, it is a starting point that seems based on common ground.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Lessons Learned in Mediating Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:20:00 +0000

I am reading The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story about the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process by Clayton Swisher. This is a modern history of the events in the Clinton administration from 1999 to 2000 concerning US attempts to mediate peace between Israel and Syria and Israel and the Palestinians. The conventional wisdom and media reported that the collapse of each of these mediations was due to the intransigence of Hafez al-Asad, the leader of Syria, and Yassar Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Authority. What Swisher portrays is something very different.

Swisher interviewed dozens of people on all sides of the mediation, including former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and other high level officials in the US, Syria, Israel, and in the Palestinian Authority. As the story unfolds, we begin to see that the fundamental problems were not the intransigence of Asad and Arafat. Instead, the problems were caused by the unskilled, unprepared, biased, and incompetent team of mediators fielded by the United States. Any experienced commercial or family mediator reading this book will cringe at the rookie mistakes made time after time by the U.S. mediators, including the sitting President of the United States. The ethical mediation principal of impartiality and neutrality was completely abandoned as we learn how Dennis Ross, the chief mediator on the US team, was grossly biased in favor of Israel. President Clinton, desperate for an opportunity to end his administration on a high note in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair, essentially misrepresented offers and counter-offers to the representatives of Syria and the Palestinian Authority in the hope that he could force a deal. The mediators misread the parties time after time, ignoring cues and emotional data that any reasonably competent mediator would have seen. The utter lack of transparency, authenticity, and integrity of the mediation process is breathtaking when one considers the stakes of the negotiation.

We are led to believe that the people in charge are mediating and negotiating international disputes, conflicts, and wars because they are the best, the brightest, the most experienced, and the most knowledgeable. The Truth About Camp David is a chilling wake-up call that when those in power have little professional expertise, knowledge, or experience in mediating deep and intractable conflicts, bad things happen. This is a great book of how not to conduct any mediation and especially how not to mediate deep, serious, and difficult international conflicts.

As the Obama Administration again attempts to mediate peace between Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority, let us hope that it brings in skilled, experienced, competent mediators and not political hacks or diplomats using 18th century techniques and processes. What is needed is a modern mediation and negotiation approach based on best practices. Otherwise peace will be unattainable.

Iran's Economic Vulnerabilities

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:06:00 +0000

The Iranian nuclear issue is a problem of deeply layered complexity. Internally, Iran faces domestic economic problems, including lack of infrastructure financing and development in hydrocarbons, an upcoming expansion of its employable workforce, a population seeking less personal restraints, and a conservative political ideology that sees problems as zero sum rather than integrative. Support for Hamas in Gaza illustrates the prevailing attitude of non-engagement. Negotiation and cooperation are not the processes of choice for Iranian leaders because they appear "too soft" and "capitulating" to the western powers. Economic sanctions will strengthen internal political resolve to resist while the population suffers. The likelihood of a significant change in the government seems slight even with sanctions. Despite general unhappiness around lack of personal freedoms, the people still support a stable, if suboptimal, government. So what is to be done? First, keep Iran engaged in conversations with respectful disagreement. Second, no threats--if sanctions are needed, implement them incrementally after brief warnings. Third, take a very long term perspective on the problem by creating a policy that looks forward 10 to 15 years. Fourth, work towards solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict recognizing that Hamas will attempt to block peace. Fifth, move away from hydrocarbon dependence to change the dynamics of the world energy economy. An integrated, nuanced set of solutions is the real answer; not political hyperbole with no chance of success.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anger and Fear Affect Our Perceptions and Our Decisions

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:49:00 +0000

We have all experienced levels of anger and levels of fear in mediation, and we have witnessed our clients in fear and in anger. What effects do these emotions have on us, the way we receive and communicate information, and on the way we make decisions?

Neuroscientists tell us that most of our behaviors and decisions are driven by evolution and by habit. Cognitive control originating in the pre-frontal cortex let's us direct our behaviors and make decisions to achieve longer term goals in unique situations. However, the metabolic cost is so high, we reserve this cognitive, conscious control to truly unusual situations where habit will not work so well. Without getting too technical, the right pre-frontal cortex has some ability to suppress anger and fear, but not a lot. It is quickly overwhelmed if other parts of the brain are supercharged with activity (e.g., high emotions). The ventromedial pre-frontal cortex is the seat of our value signals and is activated by the things we like. This part of the brain turns down when facing losses and turns up when facing gains. Not surprisingly, people demonstrate a high variability of impulse control around gains and losses--some are disciplined, many are not.

How do fear and anger fit into this picture? Anger turns down the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex so that we tend to take more risks. The evolutionary biologists hypothesize that this gives us a greater perception of individual control that, in turn, gives us sufficiently more confidence to work, fight, or run our way out of difficult situations. What is even more amazing, is that we don't have to feel angry for this effect to take place. Residual effects of anger can last for hours. If your client had an angry moment with a spouse or child in the morning before the mediation, his or her ventromedial pre-frontal cortex will still be turned down at the mediation. Your client could look as cool as a cucumber, and still not have clear decision-making processing working in the brain. A great example of this is how President Obama handled negotiations with Chrysler executives one morning. Earlier, he had become angry over reports of the Air Force One flyover of Manhattan for photo-ops. He had cooled down by his late morning meeting with the Chrysler people. However, they did not walk away with the deal they wanted. It's very likely that his earlier anger made his risk assessment of a Chrysler bankruptcy different than what he might have assessed with a calmer morning.

Another effect of anger is to increase confirmation bias. This well-known distortion in decision-making says that we will tend to seek information that confirms earlier beliefs and ignore or discount information that is inconsistent fwith earlier beliefs. Anger intensifies the confirmation bias so that we cannot hear information about weaknesses in our case.

Fear, on the other hand, works much differently. Fear tends to make us overestimate risks due to a greater perception of situational control. In other words, in a fear condition, our brains tend to view the world as controlling events, not ourselves as individuals. With a lower sense of control, we tend to look at risky decisions conservatively.

Since the pre-frontal cortex is a metabolic hog, we lose self-control over fear and anger over time. Our loss of control is caused by cognitive energy depletion in the brain, and eating carbs will not boost energy right away. We have all seen tempers flare, positions become more entrenched, and cooperation flag later in the mediation. This is simply the effect of tired, energy-depleted brains.

One of the many reasons mediation is so useful is that the mediator becomes the pre-frontal cortex in the room. Mediators provide the cognitive functioning that is lost in the emotions of anger and fear and provide a functioning brain when everyone else's brains are in in low energy states. Anger and fear are normal experiences in conflict and in litigated disputes. Understand how these emotions affect perceptions and decisionmaking and you will have a greater insight into the negotiation.

What is China To Do?

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:52:00 +0000

The Chinese, as imminently practical business people, see the handwriting on the wall. If global climate change is not addressed through greener, low carbon emissions technology and industry, sustained economic growth will be impossible. Involving itself in the National Center for Sustainable Development in Washington, D.C. therefore seems to be a move based on enlightened self interest. No one likes to be told what to do--people as well as nations. However, people and nations will adopt behaviors that reward them in the future and will help them grow and prosper. On climate change issues, the focus should follow the Chinese. Let us find ways to make climate change regulation, financing, and technology transfers fulfilling to national interests rather than as a bitter pill to swallowed. Often times, mediation can help parties move beyond their positions to find interests that can be satisfied. Perhaps, bil-lateral and multi-lateral mediations would be of assistance to those nations, such as the United States, that are feeling coerced into solutions. Perhaps the National Center for Sustainable Development could team up with Mediators Beyond Borders to introduce mediation into the decision making process. With mediation, we can get away from the zero-sum positions and work towards sustainable, economically beneficial solutions to global climate change,.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is Democracy Promotion the Answer?

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:42:00 +0000

I think it is time to re-examine both the realist and liberal theories of international relations. First, both are based on flawed assumptions of human nature and behavior. Second, neither theory takes into account cognitive biases, belief structures in the human brain, the human fear response system and the myriad of other discoveries about behavior. Instead, both the realists and liberals assume rational, self-interested players. For example, the idea of democracy promotion assumes that every human would rationally prefer to live under an elected form of government. Maybe, maybe not. I argue that a more sophisticated perspective is needed. Democracy promotion sounds good, moral, and right. In the absence of context, however, it is a meaningless policy that universally applied is doomed to fail miserably. Let us look at each country, nation, and region which we wish to assist and determine whether the population is emotionally prepared, sufficiently motivated, and cognitively aware enough to succeed at a democratic experiment. If not, let's decide how to help them prepare themselves for democracy. Let us determine whether there are leaders sufficiently developed to take on the ambiguities, uncertainties, and anxieties of democratic governance. In the meantime, we can encourage development of local rule of law to create simple property and contract rights and create a sustainable local economy. Without this deeper inquiry, we and the people we wish to help will suffer in frustration and failure.

COP15 Will Fail Without a Different Process

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:36:00 +0000

The run-up to the COP15 Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen is illustrating the problem of using 18th century diplomacy for a 21st century problem. What is needed is an inclusive problem-solving process that is based on principles of interest-based negotiation, rather than distributive negotiation.

Diplomacy is based largely on representative negotiation through power projection. The Teddy Roosevelt aphorism, “Talk softly, but carry a big stick,” summarizes the concept. In diplomatic negotiation, the powerful generally get their way over the less powerful unless the less powerful help the powerful to create coalitions. For example, the U.S.-Israel coalition can be seen as protecting U.S. strategic interests (read oil here) in the Middle East. Thus, Israel may have influence in U.S. policy over and above its relative size, power, and resources. If an important small coalition partner becomes intractable on an issue (say, for example, the issue of West Bank settlements), the more powerful partner may be caught in a bind. This type of negotiation, involving economic, political, and physical security, is called distributive negotiation. In this type of bargaining, one person loses, while others gain. Generally, the person with more power tends to win, and terrorism can be seen from a negotiation perspective as a response to this power-based way of doing business in the world.
Power-based, winner-take-all negotiations is ill-suited to global climate change issues. Decisions will have to be made consciously, collectively, and carefully or mother Earth will make them for us. Thus, projecting power into the COP15 Conference may result in short-term protections for the powerful and long-term devastation for everyone. News reports in past few days already show that the conference is heading in this direction.

Yesterday, Jennifer Dloughy of the Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau reported that the Senate Finance committee, composed mostly of senators from extraction and heavy manufacturing industry states (read high carbon output states), took testimony from economists that carbon limitations would eliminate jobs and industries. She reported:

“Even so, manufacturing would sustain heavy job losses under the climate change proposal, predicted Margo Thorning, chief economist for the American Council on Capital Formation, a conservative think tank. Thorning estimated that even with new jobs created in “green industries,” there would be a net loss of 80,000 jobs in 2020, with more than half of them from the manufacturing sector.

Kenneth Green, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, another conservative think tank, said the proposed cap-and-trade program “will cause significant economic harm and will kill and export jobs, for little or no environmental benefit.”

At the same time, the less powerful nations coming away from the Barcelona talks, are demanding that the developed industrial nations pay 1.5 percent of their gross domestic economic output to finance carbon free industrial development in under-developed nations. The declaration states:

“{We}Call upon developed countries to provide public money amounting to at least 1.5 percent of their gross domestic product, in addition to innovative sources of finance, annually by 2015 to assist developing countries make their transition to a climate resilient low-carbon economy. This grant-based finance must be predictable, sustainable, transparent, new and additional – on top of developed country commitments to deliver 0.7 percent of their gross national income as overseas development assistance.”

Here we have the problem of global warming framed as a distributive problem: Loss of jobs and payment of money from the rich to the poor. As a mediator and peacemaker, I predict total failure at COP15 unless the question is reframed and the process redirected.

An interest-based process would look quite different. First, skilled and experienced mediators should be retained to develop and manage the negotiation process. Diplomats like to think they are good negotiators, and truth is that even good negotiators need the help of neutral outsiders to help them. Second, the parties to COP15 should commit to problem-solving processes rather than winner-take-all negotiations. The current debate is positional (loss of jobs) rather than interest-based (economic security and certainty for constituencies and stakeholders). Once positions have been broken down into interests (e.g., what are the interests that underlie a position), the parties would be asked to engage in problem-solving processes. The identified interests are seen as the universe of the problem and must be satisfied for good agreements to be reached. All of this would be done under the control and management of mediators. Parties would never be asked to give up power. They would only be asked to participate in good faith in the process. Ultimately, each nation would have to decide for itself whether the proposed agreements and solutions make sense. However, by following an interest-based process, the orientation shifts from “I win-You lose” to “We have a joint problem that we can solve together so that all of our needs are met.”

COP15 is a crucial test of global cooperation for the benefit of all beings and life on this planet. If business is done as usual, the test will be failed. I urge the attendees at COP15 to step away from old processes that have failed us in the past to try something different. Only then will there be a chance cooperative change on climate issues.

Resisting the Urge to Gossip

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:01:00 +0000

Gossip is an informal means of sharing information and gathering power that has probably been around since hominids started talking to each other. In the modern organization, vindictive gossip is often an indicator of underlying chronic conflict. The antidote is simple and complicated: leadership not management. We manage things and lead people. So the idea that "managers" can "manage away" the problem of gossip and the underlying conflict will only prolong and exacerbate the problem. What can leaders do to slow down gossip? First, leaders have to model the behavior and action they wish their organization to follow. In my organizational conflict work, I am amazed at how people in leadership positions think that they are above the rules. They usually do not realize that the higher they are, the more people there are to take their social clues from leadership actions and behaviors. Second, be aware of and sensitive to conflicts in the organization. Most conflicts are subtle and hidden, and a good leader will realize this. Look for the person that is bitter, jealous, unhappy, frustrated, or acting victimized and find out what is going on. By acknowledging the conflict, oftentimes the problem will solve itself. Finally, be transparent, authentic, and open about everything. Even if information cannot be revealed, say that and explain why. Vindictive gossip is a good indicator of deeper problems needing leadership attention. Don't stop the gossip; work on the conflict.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Africa's Seat at the Table

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:20:00 +0000

The economic reforms suggested by Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade, including western performance on commitments for debt-relief and grants, are important steps in the transformation of Africa. The real key, however, will be the transformation of African leadership. Trans-national highways and railroads will remain impossible dreams as long as corruption and self-aggrandizement by some African leaders continues. Political stability and vision go hand in hand with economic relief, and no investor will take undue risks with mecurial heads of state, non-participatory governments, and absence of the rule of law. If the African national leaders can come together and plan with vision, despite tribal, ethnic, and regional differences, investors may feel more confident that the people of Africa are ready for transformation. Without a unified vision and amidst corruption, violence, and human rights abuses, that confidence will not be well-placed. There are many people willing to help the Africans come together and overcome their differences when the Africans are truly ready to help themselves. So the first step is not western aid, it is African vision, African hope, and African inspiration. Do that and the world will follow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Standing Against the 'Wrong is Right' Goldstone Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:55:00 +0000

I am impressed with the Goldstone Report. The Mission members are credible international public figures with deep experience in international law and human rights violations. The methodology was well-designed. The standards against which the facts would be measured were based on conservative, well-accepted rules of international criminal and human rights laws. The conduct of the investigations was impartial and fair, despite the refusal of the Israeli government to cooperate in any fashion. Every interested institution, nation, or individual was given notice and opportunity to be heard, fulfilling basic due process rights. The report was thorough and detailed. Finally, the reporters understood and stated the limitations of the Mission clearly.

If the world seeks peace in the Middle East, reports like this must be weighed carefully. The passions, prejudices, beliefs, and biases of the extreme partisans of Israel and Palestine must be acknowledged and redirected if the atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Israel are to stop. At some point, the world will have to stop taking sides and say enough is enough. The U.S. Congress will have to have the courage to take the lead in this effort. Until then, the violence will continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suggestions Wanted for "Can Capitalism Survive?" Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:37:00 +0000

Capitalism as a philosophy is based on the incorrect idea that people make decisions to improve their lives by rationally choosing how to best allocate their labor, land, and capital. The underlying assumption is that humans make these decision dispassionately. Recent research reveals, however, that while the human brain has some capacity for rational decision-making, it is mostly emotional in how it processes cognitive information. Thus, the assumption of rational decision making, or maximizing utility, is simply false. We can see this by looking at the recent abuses of capitalism in which some people are making emotional investment or purchase decisions (for example, investing in Madoff schemes that promise unrealistic returns on investment or purchasing a home without a sufficient income) and other people are exploiting those decisions (e.g., Madoff and lenders). Thus, the role of government should be to restrain the excesses caused by emotional brain processing without choking the innovation and weatlh creation that capitalism produces. Fundamentally, however, we must as a society acknowledge that human brains are 98% emotional and only 2% rational and adjust our norms, regulations, and laws accordingly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Work-Life Tip Sheet: 10 Steps to a Successful Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:20:00 +0000

Work life balance gives a lot of leaders headaches and creates conflicts when actual values are not consistent with stated values. On the one hand, companies want employees to work hard, be productive, and contribute to financial profitability. Since success is still measured by shareholder value and return on investment, bottom line results dominate corporate values. On the other hand, employees want freedom, flexibility, respect, autonomy, and dignity so that they can manage their lives and maximize their happiness. And, there are that percentage of employees who want to do as little as possible for the maximum paycheck. How is this conundrum solved? I suggest that the solution lies with enlightened leadership and human resources professionals who are not so obsessed with compliance and rules. Great leaders will lead with integrity and humility. They will inspire their workforce by setting clear goals through achievable methods. They will create a loyal, devoted workforce, not an adversarial workforce. As trust is developed between leaders and employees, a certain amount of flexibility and tolerance will slowly grow. The leaders know they will not be betrayed by slovenly, lazy, unproductive habits. The employees know they will be treated as responsible adults. 250 words is not enough to get into this detail. The basic concept is to focus on strong, inspirational, high-integrity leadership. Everything else will follow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Causing Peace: A Nobel 'Call To Action'

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:53:00 +0000

I have found as a professional peacemaker that peace is much harder than conflict. Peace takes inner courage--the ability to look at one's self, deal with anxiety, overcome fear reactions, work around belief structures, separate out and identify emotions, and understand cognitive biases. That's just the inner work we each have to do. Then we have to turn to the person, group, or nation we have a conflict with and help them deal with anxiety, fears, belief structures, feelings and emotions, and cognitive biases. We have to create a deep empathic connection with someone we may at first hate or despise. If we get that far, we have to learn to engage in interest-based negotiation. We have to learn how to make good decisions on incomplete and uncertain information. We have to build mechanisms of trust through accountability, using cooperation as a model, not coercion. If all of this happens, then peace can occur. What is amazing, however, is that this happens every day. Whether I am working on a victim-offender mediation, or a half billion dollar commercial dispute or an intense family business conflict or a dysfunctional organizational conflict, peace happens. Would a Department of Peace make a difference? Maybe. But maybe a Department of Peace would give us each a personal excuse not to look in then reach out to make peace everyday to those we disagree with. After all, it's the government's job to make peace, not mine.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Prison Programs Take Innovative Approach To Reducing Recidivism

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:19:00 +0000

The ignored conversation is not about prison programs that can rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders back into society; it is about why state governments, especially California, are not acting. There are hundreds of ideas, programs, and policies known to save lives and families, reduce recidvisim, increase community safety, and reduce the enormous taxpayer burdens of the prison system ($250,000 per inmate per year in California). Like so many other important public policy issues, prison reform and rethinking the entire criminal justice system has become politicized and polarized. Too many jobs are now at stake to think about reducing prisoner populations. Too many politicians are dependent upon "Tough on Crime" or "Endorsed by the Deputy Sheriffs' Association" for re-election. As a result, anyone who questions the current policies and asks for a civil public conversation is marginalized as a left wing liberal wacko with no common sense. Ad hominem attack, rather than considered discourse, is the preferred method of dealing with intelligent, thoughtful discourse.

The solution is education and awareness. How long do even the most conservative anti-tax partisans want to fund a failed system that trades off education dollars for children for imagined safety, "justice," and "vengeance?" When will the media step up and stop using crime as cheap news fillers on the 5:00 pm news and the metro section of the local paper? When these shifts start, perhaps we will see the ignored conversation become the important conversation of social change.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Was "Ardi" a Liberal?

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:12:00 +0000

Interjecting politics by using bonobos and chimpanzees, or ancient predecessors such as Ardi, as symbols of ideological preference (bonobos being generally peaceful and chimpanzees demonstrating capacity for brutal violence against each other--read liberal and neocon respectively) seems to be a an exercise in reductionistic thinking. Humans are not bonobos or chimpanzees. Humans have the capacity for peace and for violence, with a tendency for violence to be a default mode under the right conditions. While ethology, the study of animal behavior, is important and useful research, drawing conclusions one way or the other from animal behavior about human nature is inexact at best and delusional at worst. Somehow, we apparently have not learned the lessons from the Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression)--Ashley Montagu (Man and Aggression) debate 45 years ago--that using animals as symbols for explaining peace, war, love, and violence in human culture and history, is not illuminating or culture changing. What is more useful is a deeper understanding of human behaviors in peaceful and in conflict situations through interdisciplinary studies of anthropology, sociology, social psychology, and neuroscience. As we slowly untangle the mysteries of the human brain, we are finding insights that refute long-held beliefs and challenge the fundamental philosophies upon which western law and culture are built. This is where the discussion should be centered as it will likely bear fruit in better informed education, law, public policy, and foreign relations policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Diversity: Why Do We Have Such A Hard Time Walking Our Talk?

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:31:00 +0000

Who wouldn’t want to work for a sexy, politically aware, spiritually evolved employer with great values? Sadly, the fear of lawsuits drives so many employers to attempt to repress all expressions of diversity such as sexuality, politics, and religion at work. The legal rules intended to protect people can create the very conflict they are intended to prevent. The unintended result of over-zealous regulation and repression of our essential humanness reliably creates a sterile, inhospitable, conflict-laden, and unprofitable workplace. Consequently, sexy, powerful, value-driven companies are hard to come by. Does it have to be this way?

Employers are compelled to follow a merciless number of (at times conflicting) employment laws. These laws have the unintended consequence of stripping the very essence of what it means to be truly human from every corner of the office. Authentic human relationships are crushed. We are expected to eradicate all hints of sexuality, political process and religion from the very fabric of our company for fear of a damaging, costly and paralyzing law suit.

The core problem lies in the diverse values that we bring to the office and workplace. Diversity is a function of value differences, not simply ethnicity, religious affiliation or gender. However, when inappropriate freedom of expression of sex, politics, and religion occurs, we run afoul of the law. Thus, understanding and leading diversity of values is the key.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Ambivalence With the Arts Makes Bad Education and Economic Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:00 +0000

Arts education is, I would argue, critical to a peaceful society, and its absence in the school curriculum creates a serious social problem. Math and science train minds in logical and critical thinking. What is missed by policymakers is the importance of developing emotional awareness. Arts and the aesthetics do just that-develop a rich awareness of our emotional world. If children are not trained in the arts, their emotional awareness and intelligence develops ad hoc. Some will grow into healthy emotional beings; many others will be stunted, unhappy beings. The purpose of arts training is not to create artists, musicians, and poets. It is to open up children to the feelings and emotions they experience when observing, creating, and interacting with expressions of emotion created by others. We know that mirror neurons in our brains are the substrate for empathy and need to be exposed to emotions. Arts training is therefore just as important for the developing brain as is problem-solving for we cannot solve social and personal problems just with critical thinking skills. So what is the payoff. As a lawyer turned peacemaker, I think the benefit is less crime, less conflict, fewer lawsuits as people learn to navigate and express their emotional experiences in healthy, robust ways. What better way to learn how to do that than through the arts? The way to peace must include a path through the arts.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Peacemaking Demands Peacemakers

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:08:00 +0000

The Israeli-Palestinian problem is more complex than a failure of leadership, although that is part of the complexity. From my perspective as a professional peacemaker, the heart of the problem lies in the identity conflicts existing within both the Israeli and the Palestinian camps. Essentially, the fundamentalists on both sides have seized the ideological high ground, They have staked out extremist positions in terms of sacred values from which no compromise is possible. I believe that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians seek and hope for peace. They are hijacked by those in their midst who claim that honor, duty, and death come before a pragmatic settlement of all disputes. If there is a failure of leadership, it is here: leaders on both sides have failed to stand into the ideologues, denounce their fundamentalist and extremist views, and courageously stand for peace. Until such time as the extremists in both camps are marginalized by popular opinion, the crisis and conflict will continue. In the meantime, there are ways to engage the extremists which will require engaging with patience and tact.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

California Constitutional Convention - No Politicians Please

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:57:00 +0000

Gavin Newsom, among others and including California Forward, are calling for a constitutional convention to rewrite, simplify, and change the way California government operates. In principle, this is a good idea and long overdue. The devil is in the details. For the past 20 years, California governors have been unable to govern and the legislature has been in effective deadlock. As a result of term limits, special interests dominate decision making. Gerrymandering legislative districts has insured highly partisan ideologies to dominate in public debate. State and local employees (prison guards and teachers in particular) diligently and rabidly protect their own at the expense of everyone else. Fiat by initiative funded by special interests or narrow political groups is the order of the day. In the face of this mess, all of it protected by the First Amendment right to free speech and the freedom to petition government, one wonders how a constitutional convention could possibly succeed.

Although the convention process is far from being decided or even outlined, it seems to me a few fundamental ground rules ought to be in place. First, no elected officials past or present should be part of the constitutional convention. There are plenty of really intelligent people in California not in politics who could be drafted as delegates. Politics should be as absent from the convention as possible. Second, every delegate should be trained in collaborative decision making, interest-based negotiation, conflict resolution, and fundamental principles of emotional intelligence. These classes should be mandatory to teach people the social and negotiation skills necessary to deal with sharply devisive issues. Third, the regions of the state should be represented by more than population size. Two thirds of California is rural and looks more like the midwest and, of course, is under represented in the political structure. The interior portions of California hold all of the natural resources, especially water, and therefore should have a pretty hefty say in the process. Fourth, there should be some advisory process in place to legally test constitutional provisions provisionally. Even if a constitutional convention creates a new document that is approved by the people and the legislature, it faces decades of challenges by interest groups unhappy with the inevitable loss of power, protection, and privilege.

I am sure that there are other fundamental procedures and ground rules that will be thought about and debated. I would like politicians like Mayor Newsom to elaborate on how they see the process developing and unfolding so we can judge whether their ideas of a convention make sense. The cry for a California constitutional convention will be come louder in the next year. Let's ask for details early and not let the process be decided in a cloakroom out of the public eye.

Zero Tolerance Teaches The Wrong Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Doug Noll) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:40:00 +0000

Here's a story making the news today:

A six-year-old American boy has been ordered to spend 45 days at a school for troublemakers after he brought his favorite Cub Scout camping cutlery to school.

Zachary Christie took out the combination knife, fork and spoon at lunch, in violation of the school policy of not bringing in knives.The Delaware school officials immediately suspended him and sent him off to reform school for 45 days. His mother, having better sense, withdrew him and will home school him.

As a mediator and peacemaker, I see the results of school zero-tolerance policies destroy relationships, children, and people. It is a concept born of fear and bereft of common sense. More dangerously, it does not teach children how to deal with conflict or violations constructively. Instead, zero tolerance polices teach kids that he or she who has the most power wins--exactly the wrong lesson we need to teach our future leaders if we want our species to survive another generation or so on this planet.

The solution is to invest in relationships and create the space, time, and resources to deal with conflicts and offenses appropriately. Can we teach school leaders not to be fearful of children? As a Cub Scout, I am sure Zachary is proud of his camp utensil and has great memories. Why wouldn't he want to bring it to school? An enlightened leadership at the school and in the school district would see this very obvious motivation of a six year old and respond appropriately. Imagine what the results would be if instead of investing in fear-based, one-size fits all policies that spectacularly blow up in the adminstrators' faces, the same energy were devoted to problem-solving, collaborative thinking and teaching, and compassion, even for six year olds?

Get rid of zero-tolerance policies. Invest in leadership and peacemaking skills. Model these behaviors. Our students and schools will be much better places because of it.