3 ms·

I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory

I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.

vivekd 9y ago
How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe they're just afraid to speak up.
belorn 9y ago
If people within a group can't empathize and find common ground, then any hard stance by either side will just further the conflict. I recall reading quotes from a famous peace talk mediator that this is the primary reason why long war continues, and war rarely ends until people by both sides start to recognize that there is more common held opinions than inflammatory ones. But if that doesn't incentivize to include people, what about deconstructing the inflammatory opinion? If we are talking about a person making a comment about skin color and crime, could we not start by agreeing that the average social economical status is not identical for all groups that people in a nation can be sorted into? Some groups will have more wealth in average, and others will have less. Can we also not conclude that social economic status today effects many areas, such as education and crime rate? From that we could conclude that what would be a inflammatory opinion would just be the logical extension of the current average social economical status, and we could politely respond to such opinion with facts that the underlying issue has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a simple result of historical social economical problems which society has been and is continuing working to improve. We can even empathize that this relation between social economical status and crime is universal, so anyone including those in the group that the person holding the inflammatory opinion are part of should receive support in the case of low social economical status. By this we find common ground.
alok-g 9y ago
1. Select the right audience for your message. (E.g., Does it need to go to the Google founders, or is the true audience open public since the problem is still bigger?) 2. Educate your audience ahead of time, or at least as the opening part of the message: 2a. What the intentions for the message are? (E.g., help understand the true root causes of diversity gaps, reiterate that there are invalid opinions commonly held, and also boldly indicate that someone needs to stand up even in a culture there people do not openly share such analysis and/or opinions.) 2b. What the approach is (which would be to deep dive into the correct root cause of the issues (e.g., why working women have lower average salary than working men)? And explain that without understanding of the true root causes, it will only take longer to reach the optimal balance, never reach it perfectly, and the current situation may already be the maxima under the current set of beliefs. 2c. What are common pitfalls and misconceptions (e.g., assuming all gender gaps are coming from discrimination as the memo writer noted)? 3. The core message: 3a. What are the knowns (existing research) that points to the root cause? 3b. What are the unknowns that still need researching? 3c. Summarize the proposed next steps. 4. If as a result of capturing all of the above, the message is becoming too long: 4a. Revisit if you are targeting the right audience. 4b. Split it into smaller logical blocks, and deliver them in steps, so that people can actually follow, getting convinced along the way, rather than get inflamed. 5. There will still be people unfortunately who would not understand all this but who will resist nevertheless. A second round of explanations/FAQs would be needed to address them. 6. There will still be people unfortunately ... (Your approach above should be devised to help reach consensus.) 7. If at any point you realize that something was wrong in your own thinking, correct it, and revisit if your broader message still stands and is worthy. If you come out wrong too often, it's good for you (having learned something new), but be prepared to loose trust.

vivekd 9y ago

How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe they're just afraid to speak up.

belorn 9y ago

If people within a group can't empathize and find common ground, then any hard stance by either side will just further the conflict. I recall reading quotes from a famous peace talk mediator that this is the primary reason why long war continues, and war rarely ends until people by both sides start to recognize that there is more common held opinions than inflammatory ones. But if that doesn't incentivize to include people, what about deconstructing the inflammatory opinion? If we are talking about a person making a comment about skin color and crime, could we not start by agreeing that the average social economical status is not identical for all groups that people in a nation can be sorted into? Some groups will have more wealth in average, and others will have less. Can we also not conclude that social economic status today effects many areas, such as education and crime rate? From that we could conclude that what would be a inflammatory opinion would just be the logical extension of the current average social economical status, and we could politely respond to such opinion with facts that the underlying issue has nothing to do with race or skin color but is a simple result of historical social economical problems which society has been and is continuing working to improve. We can even empathize that this relation between social economical status and crime is universal, so anyone including those in the group that the person holding the inflammatory opinion are part of should receive support in the case of low social economical status. By this we find common ground.

alok-g 9y ago

1. Select the right audience for your message. (E.g., Does it need to go to the Google founders, or is the true audience open public since the problem is still bigger?) 2. Educate your audience ahead of time, or at least as the opening part of the message: 2a. What the intentions for the message are? (E.g., help understand the true root causes of diversity gaps, reiterate that there are invalid opinions commonly held, and also boldly indicate that someone needs to stand up even in a culture there people do not openly share such analysis and/or opinions.) 2b. What the approach is (which would be to deep dive into the correct root cause of the issues (e.g., why working women have lower average salary than working men)? And explain that without understanding of the true root causes, it will only take longer to reach the optimal balance, never reach it perfectly, and the current situation may already be the maxima under the current set of beliefs. 2c. What are common pitfalls and misconceptions (e.g., assuming all gender gaps are coming from discrimination as the memo writer noted)? 3. The core message: 3a. What are the knowns (existing research) that points to the root cause? 3b. What are the unknowns that still need researching? 3c. Summarize the proposed next steps. 4. If as a result of capturing all of the above, the message is becoming too long: 4a. Revisit if you are targeting the right audience. 4b. Split it into smaller logical blocks, and deliver them in steps, so that people can actually follow, getting convinced along the way, rather than get inflamed. 5. There will still be people unfortunately who would not understand all this but who will resist nevertheless. A second round of explanations/FAQs would be needed to address them. 6. There will still be people unfortunately ... (Your approach above should be devised to help reach consensus.) 7. If at any point you realize that something was wrong in your own thinking, correct it, and revisit if your broader message still stands and is worthy. If you come out wrong too often, it's good for you (having learned something new), but be prepared to loose trust.