7 ms·

Complicating the Narratives

59 points by imartin2k 8y ago

mcprwklzpq 8y ago
I took this notes. Journalist Amanda Ripley says that "Complexity is contagious" and that "Complicating the narrative means finding and including the details that don’t fit the [binary] narrative — on purpose." So in some study participants talk about polarizing issue. Before talking they read one article about it. If article is similar to news article with 2 sides to the story, participants take sides, argue and leave with negative impression that conversation is meaningless. If article is similar to anthropologist’s field notes, with emphasis on complexity of the issue and without binary division, then participants “don’t solve the debate” but "do have a more nuanced understanding and more willingness to continue the conversation" researcher and social psychologist Peter T. Coleman says. Then in a long case study of some american talk show some specialists propose general questions to bring more nuance to conversations. What divides us? What is oversimplified about this issue? How has this conflict affected your life? What do you think the other side wants? What’s the question nobody is asking? What do you and your supporters need to learn about the other side in order to understand them better? What do you think the other community thinks of you? What do you think of the other community? What do you want the other community to know about you? What do you want to know about the other community?
- extralego 8y ago
  Nice notes. I think the ‘other community’ notion can be thrown out, though, in favor of the anthropologist approach. I have been practicing engaging with people who are culturally extremely different from me and learned the anthropologist approach works great when introduced with some humility. The other party gets curious and ideally asks the important questions themselves. Instead of a debate, it becomes more like fixing a car or computer together.
  - mcprwklzpq 8y ago
    Yes, 'other community' questions imply binary division on issue. I think this questions were proposed to a mediator between the debating parties to try to move conversation into more productive direction. This questions aren't that useful when you start a conversation and can frame it not as a debate.
- eutropia 8y ago
  Note: in the study they read an article about a different polarizing topic before the conversation, not an article about the topic they were about to discuss
  - mcprwklzpq 8y ago
    Oh, then i read and understood it wrong. I did not think that article about different topic would make any difference.
arwhatever 8y ago
"Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism, despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had. We continue to collect facts and capture quotes as if we are operating in a linear world." Take a look at the, say, top dozen headlines on Google News and tell me you really think this passage above is the least bit accurate. Are the majority of those "headlines" starting simple facts about things that have occurred, or are they trying to convince you to reach their own conclusions about the facts at best, or at worst just link-baiting you with outrage?
- aalleavitch 8y ago
  I think the passage is entirely accurate in regards to what they like to THINK of themselves as doing. I'm willing to believe that most journalists are failing to live up to their own self-image rather than being actively cynical (though, mind you, the actively cynical ones are incredibly damaging).
  - mlb_hn 8y ago
    Yep. There have been lots of studies starting in the 1950s showing that journalism wasn't as objective as they wanted to be starting with White's study on "The Gate Keeper" and implicit bias in stories (http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Quarterly-1950-White-383-90.pdf http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journal...). But then everyone immediately forgets.
    - aalleavitch 8y ago
      The thing is, bias will always exist but you can easily get unbiased information if you simply understand how to compare and contrast multiple sources and assess them together. You also have to learn how to take your own biases into account, which is honestly one of the most difficult things to do.
stcredzero 8y ago
As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying their insults instead of exposing their motivations. Again and again, we have escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation. Why? Because it generates views. Because outrage is the easiest way to make something go viral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc Politicians of a certain bent encourage this behavior as well, because it's the perfect way of cementing a highly loyal "base." This happens more at the farther ends of the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk
jeffdavis 8y ago
The author unfortunately undermines his own article by starting out with: "I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong." If you start out with the idea that you are the reasonable one and all you need to do is soothe the fears of your opponents, you aren't going to teach (or learn) anything. But I like the general approach of interrupting narratives. It's the opposite of what the media does, and it makes people stop and think, or at least recognize there is greater complexity to an issue.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  I agree. I could not make it past the first part (EDIT: I read it all now, it gets better). The entire article is like all the other "introspection" articles I've read from journalists in the US and in Germany. They pretend to be critical of themselves - but their entire text shows incredible egos, all those articles actually say "we are too smart" (meaning the journalists). Now, I don't mind a smart person saying that, but those articles all sound... dumb. I'm sorry, that's just my impression. Like those people are incapable of just thinking "normally". Unfortunately I'm incapable of finding the right words to describe my impression, but even then it's just my impression. One example, when they try to find counter-points and to challenge the person they interview the questions they ask often seem... again, the only word I have is "dumb". As if they take it from some catalog they were given back in journalist school with instructions for how to "challenge" someone, and they follow their script, but the result does not make any sense. I often feel they mistake simply annoying people for challenging them. Nevertheless, I'm curious to see how this develops. At least they think about it. This article does present new angles and ideas. Unfortunately the need to maximize profits may stand against improvement, since outrage still sells better. I liked this sentence from the article, because it is something I myself wished for for quite some time: > The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative..... When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words. And also this about adding complexity: > ...But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity wherever you can find it. This does not mean calling advocates for both sides and quoting both; that is simplicity, and it usually backfires in the midst of conflict. > ...There are many things that journalists cannot do. But we can destabilize the narrative. We can remind people that life is not as coherent as we’d like. What I used the word "dumb" for above was often because of this, journalists trying to work according do some checklist that tells them to also give the other party a voice, but the result often is just dumb and annoying and not the least helpful for anyone incl. those people they interview. I don't think "better discussions" actually help that much for a lot of topics - the actual solution - please bear with me! - may actually be not to discuss certain topics with everybody. What, not being open is good, am I crazy??? The problem is that many topics are discussed by people not or only very marginally involved, including actual outcomes. It's easy to have an opinion about abortion or "gender stuff" - but 1) what's the use of involving millions of people who are not affected regardless of what is decided, and 2) therefore have no incentive to actually inform themselves about the issues. It's perfectly fine for them to have a "strong opinion" regardless of its contents. We don't discuss 99.99999% of everything and do fine! Imagine we would draw any random topic into the public arena, with accompanying emotional articles and comments in the thousands, because everybody who enters a discussion wants to be read, be it a forum commenter or a journalist. I bet that while before the topic ever came up the vast majority had no opinion and could not care less, if those discussions run for a while suddenly everybody has a string opinion! Without caring much about doing any research, because the topic itself does not really matter to most people, only the discussion. The "bike shedding" effect comes to mind. Also, a lot of things are discussed in such general terms as to be useless. I think that for many topics, if a specific example were to be discussed that many of those who seem to be far apart in the discussion would find that they suddenly agree. That's because if the discussion is too general - and most of them are - then you will still have concrete examples in your head, and depending on which ones they are you come to different conclusions. For example, the refugees: When we talk about specific people and who they are, what they need, what they did, it's much easier to agree. If it's just "refugee" then some people will think of those people in the refugee center in Cottbus (Germany) where some of the inhabitants started violent arguments among themselves for stupid (usually religious) reasons and even attacked police called to settle the disputes. The others will think of that family that tries hard to work its way up in the new home. If they both thought of the same concrete case I bet the difference in opinion would be much less. This fits the "add complexity" argument made in the linked article. Don't let people settle on one solid opinion based on the tiny parts of the huge issue that they chose to hold in their head.
fortythirteen 8y ago
Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher. Journalism in the west is close to dead. It's arguable if there ever was true objectivity, but not arguable that we haven't seen this little of it since the 19th century. If I had the resources I would start an online news service that actually followed the AP guidelines to the letter, and had no opinions whatsoever - not even an opinion section.
- iamdave 8y ago
  Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher. If you're looking for a genuine and authentic answer: I took up a part-time job writing local columns for high school athletics that turned into a few contributions for Sports Illustrated. Why? Because I genuinely love sports reporting and writing. I'm addicted to stats, I love the competition, I will enthusiastically argue for hours about 90's era baseball. I was and remain fully aware it might not be immediately or even eventually profitable, I have no long-term salary prospects, just a middle-of-the-road IT support job (that comparatively for the industry, doesn't pay that great). Combining the two 'jobs' I make enough to live what I consider, for my ends and motivations, a comfortable life doing something I really enjoy doing along with something that supplements everything else. Journalism in the west is close to dead I couldn't disagree more. It's not dead, it's evolving-and probably the most directly felt evolution is the delivery mechanisms. If one wants to talk about objectivity it helps to look at the concept itself a bit more objectively.
- watwut 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, what makes you think journalism was more factual before? Also, lack of opinion section does not mean no opinion. Opinion manifests through topic selection, what groups you focused at, which issues you talk about. Opinion section is just something that is cheap to produce and you know what you are getting.
hosh 8y ago
This is a great piece. The research this is based up on with conflict resolution is something I am learning at a personal level from the book, Crucial Conversations, and having to work through interpersonal conflicts in my life. When I apply those same principles to public discourse, I can see what the author is talking about -- at least, the problem space.
- hosh 8y ago
  For example: "The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate, rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes." Matches this technique from "Crucial Accountability" called "Completing the Story". Here, the authors talk about the Fundemental Attribution Error, and then show the way to deliberately expand upon the possible influences for failed expectations beyond simply, "This person is a jerk". It can be really effective. ... And it is also the first part of the book. The rest of the book involves the techniques of actually having these difficult conversations. I had been able to use this when talking with my wife about political issues that have great emotional significance with her. We used to get into arguments because, I tend to see nuances in many of the issues, and somehow the conversation quickly turns into something else. It doesn't _change_ her views on it and what she feels as important, but it has reduce a lot of the emotional charge while we explore many different angles of the issue.
  - hosh 8y ago
    The way that is expanded is very structured, by going through the a 3x2: Personal Motivation Personal Ability Social Motivation (peer pressure) Social Ability (support from peers) Structural Motivation (carrot-and-sticks; incentive structures) Structural Ability (technology, architecture, gadgets) Public policy and governance debates are often nominally around "structural motivation", but policies and governance along do not form the full picture.
myWindoonn 8y ago
This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. We should be seeking evidence to build fact-based narratives and actively downplaying emotional attempts to derail searches for facts. Fascists hate facts. Books are like their kryptonite.
- watwut 8y ago
  Fascists were not beaten by facts. That is just not how it works, sadly. Where fascism is winning, it is because emotions like fear and belonging and glory beat facts by mile. Books are not necessary factual. Fascists love pro-fascist books.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. This sounds like something one of the polarized participants in the article would say.
jancsika 8y ago
> One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy, similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control. I'm not sure how this relates to investigative journalism. While investigative pieces give the target of the investigation a chance to respond as part of the article, they do not devote paragraphs to "both sides" of the corruption/wrongdoing revealed.

59 points by imartin2k 8y ago

I took this notes. Journalist Amanda Ripley says that "Complexity is contagious" and that "Complicating the narrative means finding and including the details that don’t fit the [binary] narrative — on purpose." So in some study participants talk about polarizing issue. Before talking they read one article about it. If article is similar to news article with 2 sides to the story, participants take sides, argue and leave with negative impression that conversation is meaningless. If article is similar to anthropologist’s field notes, with emphasis on complexity of the issue and without binary division, then participants “don’t solve the debate” but "do have a more nuanced understanding and more willingness to continue the conversation" researcher and social psychologist Peter T. Coleman says. Then in a long case study of some american talk show some specialists propose general questions to bring more nuance to conversations. What divides us? What is oversimplified about this issue? How has this conflict affected your life? What do you think the other side wants? What’s the question nobody is asking? What do you and your supporters need to learn about the other side in order to understand them better? What do you think the other community thinks of you? What do you think of the other community? What do you want the other community to know about you? What do you want to know about the other community?

extralego 8y ago
Nice notes. I think the ‘other community’ notion can be thrown out, though, in favor of the anthropologist approach. I have been practicing engaging with people who are culturally extremely different from me and learned the anthropologist approach works great when introduced with some humility. The other party gets curious and ideally asks the important questions themselves. Instead of a debate, it becomes more like fixing a car or computer together.
- mcprwklzpq 8y ago
  Yes, 'other community' questions imply binary division on issue. I think this questions were proposed to a mediator between the debating parties to try to move conversation into more productive direction. This questions aren't that useful when you start a conversation and can frame it not as a debate.
eutropia 8y ago
Note: in the study they read an article about a different polarizing topic before the conversation, not an article about the topic they were about to discuss
- mcprwklzpq 8y ago
  Oh, then i read and understood it wrong. I did not think that article about different topic would make any difference.

arwhatever 8y ago

"Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism, despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had. We continue to collect facts and capture quotes as if we are operating in a linear world." Take a look at the, say, top dozen headlines on Google News and tell me you really think this passage above is the least bit accurate. Are the majority of those "headlines" starting simple facts about things that have occurred, or are they trying to convince you to reach their own conclusions about the facts at best, or at worst just link-baiting you with outrage?

aalleavitch 8y ago
I think the passage is entirely accurate in regards to what they like to THINK of themselves as doing. I'm willing to believe that most journalists are failing to live up to their own self-image rather than being actively cynical (though, mind you, the actively cynical ones are incredibly damaging).
- mlb_hn 8y ago
  Yep. There have been lots of studies starting in the 1950s showing that journalism wasn't as objective as they wanted to be starting with White's study on "The Gate Keeper" and implicit bias in stories (http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Quarterly-1950-White-383-90.pdf http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journal...). But then everyone immediately forgets.
  - aalleavitch 8y ago
    The thing is, bias will always exist but you can easily get unbiased information if you simply understand how to compare and contrast multiple sources and assess them together. You also have to learn how to take your own biases into account, which is honestly one of the most difficult things to do.

stcredzero 8y ago

As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying their insults instead of exposing their motivations. Again and again, we have escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation. Why? Because it generates views. Because outrage is the easiest way to make something go viral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc Politicians of a certain bent encourage this behavior as well, because it's the perfect way of cementing a highly loyal "base." This happens more at the farther ends of the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk

jeffdavis 8y ago

The author unfortunately undermines his own article by starting out with: "I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong." If you start out with the idea that you are the reasonable one and all you need to do is soothe the fears of your opponents, you aren't going to teach (or learn) anything. But I like the general approach of interrupting narratives. It's the opposite of what the media does, and it makes people stop and think, or at least recognize there is greater complexity to an issue.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
I agree. I could not make it past the first part (EDIT: I read it all now, it gets better). The entire article is like all the other "introspection" articles I've read from journalists in the US and in Germany. They pretend to be critical of themselves - but their entire text shows incredible egos, all those articles actually say "we are too smart" (meaning the journalists). Now, I don't mind a smart person saying that, but those articles all sound... dumb. I'm sorry, that's just my impression. Like those people are incapable of just thinking "normally". Unfortunately I'm incapable of finding the right words to describe my impression, but even then it's just my impression. One example, when they try to find counter-points and to challenge the person they interview the questions they ask often seem... again, the only word I have is "dumb". As if they take it from some catalog they were given back in journalist school with instructions for how to "challenge" someone, and they follow their script, but the result does not make any sense. I often feel they mistake simply annoying people for challenging them. Nevertheless, I'm curious to see how this develops. At least they think about it. This article does present new angles and ideas. Unfortunately the need to maximize profits may stand against improvement, since outrage still sells better. I liked this sentence from the article, because it is something I myself wished for for quite some time: > The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative..... When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words. And also this about adding complexity: > ...But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity wherever you can find it. This does not mean calling advocates for both sides and quoting both; that is simplicity, and it usually backfires in the midst of conflict. > ...There are many things that journalists cannot do. But we can destabilize the narrative. We can remind people that life is not as coherent as we’d like. What I used the word "dumb" for above was often because of this, journalists trying to work according do some checklist that tells them to also give the other party a voice, but the result often is just dumb and annoying and not the least helpful for anyone incl. those people they interview. I don't think "better discussions" actually help that much for a lot of topics - the actual solution - please bear with me! - may actually be not to discuss certain topics with everybody. What, not being open is good, am I crazy??? The problem is that many topics are discussed by people not or only very marginally involved, including actual outcomes. It's easy to have an opinion about abortion or "gender stuff" - but 1) what's the use of involving millions of people who are not affected regardless of what is decided, and 2) therefore have no incentive to actually inform themselves about the issues. It's perfectly fine for them to have a "strong opinion" regardless of its contents. We don't discuss 99.99999% of everything and do fine! Imagine we would draw any random topic into the public arena, with accompanying emotional articles and comments in the thousands, because everybody who enters a discussion wants to be read, be it a forum commenter or a journalist. I bet that while before the topic ever came up the vast majority had no opinion and could not care less, if those discussions run for a while suddenly everybody has a string opinion! Without caring much about doing any research, because the topic itself does not really matter to most people, only the discussion. The "bike shedding" effect comes to mind. Also, a lot of things are discussed in such general terms as to be useless. I think that for many topics, if a specific example were to be discussed that many of those who seem to be far apart in the discussion would find that they suddenly agree. That's because if the discussion is too general - and most of them are - then you will still have concrete examples in your head, and depending on which ones they are you come to different conclusions. For example, the refugees: When we talk about specific people and who they are, what they need, what they did, it's much easier to agree. If it's just "refugee" then some people will think of those people in the refugee center in Cottbus (Germany) where some of the inhabitants started violent arguments among themselves for stupid (usually religious) reasons and even attacked police called to settle the disputes. The others will think of that family that tries hard to work its way up in the new home. If they both thought of the same concrete case I bet the difference in opinion would be much less. This fits the "add complexity" argument made in the linked article. Don't let people settle on one solid opinion based on the tiny parts of the huge issue that they chose to hold in their head.

fortythirteen 8y ago

Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher. Journalism in the west is close to dead. It's arguable if there ever was true objectivity, but not arguable that we haven't seen this little of it since the 19th century. If I had the resources I would start an online news service that actually followed the AP guidelines to the letter, and had no opinions whatsoever - not even an opinion section.

iamdave 8y ago
Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher. If you're looking for a genuine and authentic answer: I took up a part-time job writing local columns for high school athletics that turned into a few contributions for Sports Illustrated. Why? Because I genuinely love sports reporting and writing. I'm addicted to stats, I love the competition, I will enthusiastically argue for hours about 90's era baseball. I was and remain fully aware it might not be immediately or even eventually profitable, I have no long-term salary prospects, just a middle-of-the-road IT support job (that comparatively for the industry, doesn't pay that great). Combining the two 'jobs' I make enough to live what I consider, for my ends and motivations, a comfortable life doing something I really enjoy doing along with something that supplements everything else. Journalism in the west is close to dead I couldn't disagree more. It's not dead, it's evolving-and probably the most directly felt evolution is the delivery mechanisms. If one wants to talk about objectivity it helps to look at the concept itself a bit more objectively.
watwut 8y ago
Out of curiosity, what makes you think journalism was more factual before? Also, lack of opinion section does not mean no opinion. Opinion manifests through topic selection, what groups you focused at, which issues you talk about. Opinion section is just something that is cheap to produce and you know what you are getting.

hosh 8y ago

This is a great piece. The research this is based up on with conflict resolution is something I am learning at a personal level from the book, Crucial Conversations, and having to work through interpersonal conflicts in my life. When I apply those same principles to public discourse, I can see what the author is talking about -- at least, the problem space.

hosh 8y ago
For example: "The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate, rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes." Matches this technique from "Crucial Accountability" called "Completing the Story". Here, the authors talk about the Fundemental Attribution Error, and then show the way to deliberately expand upon the possible influences for failed expectations beyond simply, "This person is a jerk". It can be really effective. ... And it is also the first part of the book. The rest of the book involves the techniques of actually having these difficult conversations. I had been able to use this when talking with my wife about political issues that have great emotional significance with her. We used to get into arguments because, I tend to see nuances in many of the issues, and somehow the conversation quickly turns into something else. It doesn't _change_ her views on it and what she feels as important, but it has reduce a lot of the emotional charge while we explore many different angles of the issue.
- hosh 8y ago
  The way that is expanded is very structured, by going through the a 3x2: Personal Motivation Personal Ability Social Motivation (peer pressure) Social Ability (support from peers) Structural Motivation (carrot-and-sticks; incentive structures) Structural Ability (technology, architecture, gadgets) Public policy and governance debates are often nominally around "structural motivation", but policies and governance along do not form the full picture.

myWindoonn 8y ago

This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. We should be seeking evidence to build fact-based narratives and actively downplaying emotional attempts to derail searches for facts. Fascists hate facts. Books are like their kryptonite.

watwut 8y ago
Fascists were not beaten by facts. That is just not how it works, sadly. Where fascism is winning, it is because emotions like fear and belonging and glory beat facts by mile. Books are not necessary factual. Fascists love pro-fascist books.
mistermann 8y ago
> This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. This sounds like something one of the polarized participants in the article would say.

jancsika 8y ago

> One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy, similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control. I'm not sure how this relates to investigative journalism. While investigative pieces give the target of the investigation a chance to respond as part of the article, they do not devote paragraphs to "both sides" of the corruption/wrongdoing revealed.