Exploratory Sketch III: An Israeli-Palestinian Agreement to End Hostilities for Good

…There is currently a housing shortage in Israel. Israel will build at least 15,000 dwelling units a year to house returning Palestinians, funded by private developers. Palestinians would not be obligated to live in these units but must submit documentation of suitable housing elsewhere in Israel before being allowed to emigrate.

Laying the Groundwork for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan, Part V: Human Rights in the Middle East

The Global RIghts Project (GRIP) is led by an interdisciplinary team of faculty and students from the University of Rhode Island Center for Nonviolence and Peace Studies and the Department of Political Science.   GRIP draws upon the “world’s largest quantitative human rights database” to create an annual report on global human rights practices…So did any countries in the Middle East pass the GRIP human rights test?

Laying the Groundwork for an Israel-Palestinian Peace Plan, Part II: The Status of Democracy in the Middle East

Democratic countries are happier and healthier than autocratic countries, even after controlling for economic factors like wealth and poverty (Tov & Diener, 2009; Barnish, Tørnes, et al, 2018). I want a peace plan that maximizes the wellbeing of people on both sides of the conflict and for that to happen, a peace plan should seek to strengthen the democratic institutions and cultures of both Israel and Palestine. Of course, democracy by itself can’t guarantee good governance, public safety or economic prosperity – but it lays the foundation for their possibility and improvement.

Laying the Groundwork for an Israel-Palestinian Peace Plan, Part I: Political Rights and Civil Liberties in the Middle East

Freedom House (FH) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons. Best known for political advocacy surrounding issues of democracy, political freedom, and human rights, the organization's annual Freedom in the World report assesses the political rights and civil liberties of countries and territories around the world.

The Psychology of Social Justice: Relative Deprivation

In prepping for this series on social justice, I came across a great meta-analysis on the research and theory of "relative deprivation", which the authors define as "the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment" (Smith, Pettigrew et al, 2011, p 203)

The Psychology of Social Justice: What Do People Deserve?

It's no accident that political arguments about social justice tend to focus on the role of hard work versus luck. For instance, in a recent Pew Research Survey, 73 % of Solid Liberals agreed that “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people”, compared to 4% of Core Conservatives. That's a huge difference. No wonder the partisan divide has turned into a chasm. The disagreements are on so many levels: bickering turtles all the way down.

The Psychology of Social Justice: Perceived Control, Hope, and Inequality

So how does this all connect with the psychology of social justice? Mainly to show that there is no "natural" response to status differences and inequality. Whether we respond with resentment, depression, fear, stress, envy, anger, indignation, admiration, aesthetic pleasure, or even happiness at another's good fortune...all depends.

Annotated Charts, Part III: Confidence in US Institutions

Hmmm. There is a general drift downward since around the Great Recession, although confidence in small business didn’t fall until the pandemic crash. Confidence in big business took a hit after the 2001 dot-com recession, after which it remained fairly flat until 2018 when it fell further. Confidence in the presidency plunged during the second Bush II term, recovered and then fell again during the Obama years, actually going up during Trump, and falling once again with Biden. Congress hit a high point circa 2003-2004 (I’m guessing before disillusion with US wars set in) and basically hasn’t recovered since. As for confidence in higher education, the trend is obvious and rather alarming.

Annotated Charts, Part II: Confidence in the Police and Criminal Justice System, 1993-2023

Mmm…pretty steady in the confidence department until around 2017, then a downward trend, accelerating since 2020. I put the “civil unrest” lines in the chart to see if confidence in police dipped after periods of anti-police civil unrest. No pattern there until 2020, when high confidence responses dipped 5 points over the period of 2020 - 2023.

Annotated Charts, Part I: US Crime across Cities and Time

Since 2012, the US violent crime rate has fluctuated a bit, but it’s still higher than in 1960, when the violent crime rate was 161 crimes per 100,000 population, compared to a rate of 381 per 100,000 in 2022 (the most recent year available).

Antiscience: Another Word Best Consigned to the Dustbin of History

There actually have been people and movements that were more broadly antiscience than today’s this-or-that skeptics: what we used to call “new age” types, e.g., members of religious cults and believers in the occult. In his oft-cited 1993 book Science and Anti-Science, Gerald Holton mentions “interest in astrology” as indicative of antiscience beliefs, as least as “conventionally” understood (his word).

As Simulation Machines, We Don't Have to be Rational, Take Two

Our brains run simulations, the better to survive and reproduce. Simulations don't have to be rational; they just need to be possible. Or possibly possible…Beliefs aren't either/or propositions; they are points along a continuum of felt credibility.

Antiscience as Mass Murder? Well, That's One View

So the author defines antiscience as the rejection of mainstream scientific views and their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. What does that even mean? Science is a process that moves forward by questioning received wisdom. Does “rejection” encompass doubt or criticism? At what point would a theory be considered “proven”? . And why all the ad hominen verbiage (“deliberating misleading”, “nefarious”)? Can’t people just disagree without being accused of bad faith?

Want to Change Someone's Mind? Beware the Persuasive Backfire Effect.

The inspiration for this post came from reading a bunch of articles on how to combat “antiscience”. Each one cautioned against trying to reason or debate scientific issues with people who hold antiscience views. Rather, one should try to relate to their emotions and social needs, e.g., be warm, tell stories, find common ground, establish a connection. Above all, don’t acknowledge their ideas have any merit.

And I thought: don’t any of these authors know about the “persuasive backfire effect”? Here’s a brief review…

What Does It Mean to be Antiscience? Unpacking a Definition

“Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge...Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments…for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.” Wikipedia

Hmm… 

Learning to Trust Science with Qualifications

“Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data.” Wikipedia,

In other words, science is a process. More specifically, science is a self-correcting process for deepening our understanding of the world. It is a process that comes with safeguards to minimize error. Data is the direct outcome of that process.