This article covers several topics. Notably, it mentions a "rural identity" where people disdain things such as minorities, the cultural elite, and other categories perceived to be urban,...
This article covers several topics. Notably, it mentions a "rural identity" where people disdain things such as minorities, the cultural elite, and other categories perceived to be urban, including intellectuals and intellectualism. Thus, it argues that people distrusting science and knowledge are not necessarily because they are misinformed, but rather that this is part of their identity.
The article also mentions that many rural people have "dirt under their fingers" and value experiential and empirical knowledge over "book smarts" and people telling them what to do. It brings up a case in Arkansas, where the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission realized that certain species of trees were dying and to stop this, changes would need to be made that would affect rural duck hunters. Instead of 'talking down' to them, the commission instead organized dinners where local staff would eat alongside the people they sought to convince. This practice of utilizing local messengers with relationships to the local communities enabled the hunters to discuss the matters with the staff, ask questions, and bring up concerns in a non-intimidating manner, which led to "dampening criticism of the new management system". The article proposes that this "intensely local, personal" approach to communicating issues and proposing solutions may be more effective to combat future problems, whether these problems are future pandemics, ecological disasters, or climate change in general.
To me this way seems just generally superior no matter if the policy change affects duck hunter in rural areas, inner city youth or ethnic minorities in segregated areas or you know... human...
This practice of utilizing local messengers with relationships to the local communities enabled the hunters to discuss the matters with the staff, ask questions, and bring up concerns in a non-intimidating manner, which led to "dampening criticism of the new management system".
To me this way seems just generally superior no matter if the policy change affects duck hunter in rural areas, inner city youth or ethnic minorities in segregated areas or you know... human beings in general. Truly engaging with communities is probably the only way to get acceptance no matter the policy change (possibly discounting some edge cases).
Exactly. So many communities (my hometown especially) just do and decree things without taking the public into consideration. Or if they do take the public, they take a small subset and give them...
Exactly. So many communities (my hometown especially) just do and decree things without taking the public into consideration. Or if they do take the public, they take a small subset and give them false expectations of what they're doing, and then being unable to follow through. That's how they ended up with a $26m+ stadium that wasn't needed and barely gets used compared to what they expected.
I think the article has it exactly right, and understanding the identity dynamic is key to trying to solve these problems. We keep talking down to and dismissing people, which does the opposite of...
I think the article has it exactly right, and understanding the identity dynamic is key to trying to solve these problems.
We keep talking down to and dismissing people, which does the opposite of what we want. Once you attack someone's identity (whether or not you intend to), constructive conversation is over.
Without meaning to, the left has contributed to anti-intellectualism far more than we are currently admitting.
I had an enlightening and fascinating discussion with a pro-life individual the other day on Reddit, of all places. We each walked away with a greater understanding of each other and the...
I had an enlightening and fascinating discussion with a pro-life individual the other day on Reddit, of all places. We each walked away with a greater understanding of each other and the realization that our viewpoints were not so different, we just disagreed on the weighting of specific directives to achieve our objective.
As I said to them, it's amazing how smoothly things go when one side isn't screaming "dictator!" at the person who's yelling "baby murderer!"
It seems like it would be the farmer stereotype of "who's got time for book learnin' when there's work to be done!" and "it ain't work unless you get your hands dirty." If so, it seems like in...
It seems like it would be the farmer stereotype of "who's got time for book learnin' when there's work to be done!" and "it ain't work unless you get your hands dirty." If so, it seems like in recent generations the stereotype has become the mindset. Very, very sad.
I've seen this referred to as co-development rather than community buy in. Definitely easier to get folks on board when they feel like they have a seat at the table. A really great example of top...
This practice of utilizing local messengers with relationships to the local communities enabled the hunters to discuss the matters with the staff, ask questions, and bring up concerns in a non-intimidating manner, which led to "dampening criticism of the new management system".
I've seen this referred to as co-development rather than community buy in. Definitely easier to get folks on board when they feel like they have a seat at the table. A really great example of top down decision making failing is the establishment of the California Marine Protected Areas. They literally had to undo years work and spend years redrawing them because of community and industry protest.
This article covers several topics. Notably, it mentions a "rural identity" where people disdain things such as minorities, the cultural elite, and other categories perceived to be urban, including intellectuals and intellectualism. Thus, it argues that people distrusting science and knowledge are not necessarily because they are misinformed, but rather that this is part of their identity.
The article also mentions that many rural people have "dirt under their fingers" and value experiential and empirical knowledge over "book smarts" and people telling them what to do. It brings up a case in Arkansas, where the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission realized that certain species of trees were dying and to stop this, changes would need to be made that would affect rural duck hunters. Instead of 'talking down' to them, the commission instead organized dinners where local staff would eat alongside the people they sought to convince. This practice of utilizing local messengers with relationships to the local communities enabled the hunters to discuss the matters with the staff, ask questions, and bring up concerns in a non-intimidating manner, which led to "dampening criticism of the new management system". The article proposes that this "intensely local, personal" approach to communicating issues and proposing solutions may be more effective to combat future problems, whether these problems are future pandemics, ecological disasters, or climate change in general.
To me this way seems just generally superior no matter if the policy change affects duck hunter in rural areas, inner city youth or ethnic minorities in segregated areas or you know... human beings in general. Truly engaging with communities is probably the only way to get acceptance no matter the policy change (possibly discounting some edge cases).
Exactly. So many communities (my hometown especially) just do and decree things without taking the public into consideration. Or if they do take the public, they take a small subset and give them false expectations of what they're doing, and then being unable to follow through. That's how they ended up with a $26m+ stadium that wasn't needed and barely gets used compared to what they expected.
I think the article has it exactly right, and understanding the identity dynamic is key to trying to solve these problems.
We keep talking down to and dismissing people, which does the opposite of what we want. Once you attack someone's identity (whether or not you intend to), constructive conversation is over.
Without meaning to, the left has contributed to anti-intellectualism far more than we are currently admitting.
I had an enlightening and fascinating discussion with a pro-life individual the other day on Reddit, of all places. We each walked away with a greater understanding of each other and the realization that our viewpoints were not so different, we just disagreed on the weighting of specific directives to achieve our objective.
As I said to them, it's amazing how smoothly things go when one side isn't screaming "dictator!" at the person who's yelling "baby murderer!"
It seems like it would be the farmer stereotype of "who's got time for book learnin' when there's work to be done!" and "it ain't work unless you get your hands dirty." If so, it seems like in recent generations the stereotype has become the mindset. Very, very sad.
I've seen this referred to as co-development rather than community buy in. Definitely easier to get folks on board when they feel like they have a seat at the table. A really great example of top down decision making failing is the establishment of the California Marine Protected Areas. They literally had to undo years work and spend years redrawing them because of community and industry protest.