An encouraging article by Maria Konnikova for the New Yorker, How Norms Change, gives me hope that the bizarre behaviour of Donald Trump does not need to become a new normal for America.
Konnikova looks at the difference between biases originating from deeply held beliefs, and social norms which are the ways in which we behave in a society. She points out that while a bias is slow to change, social norms can change at whatever rate a society is changing. Norms can also be strongly influenced by leaders.
The fact that a powerful leader can change social norms is worrying when we see someone like Donald Trump. However, a powerful leader who is somewhat removed from your everyday life has less influence on your behaviour than someone you interact with more often:
If the President suggests that some neo-Nazis are “very fine people,” but those in positions of power closer to you—such as a pastor, principal, or governor—speak out against him, you’ll be more likely to call into question the new normal that the President has modelled. The new behavior will look more like an outlier than like a norm. Maria Konnikova
If leaders in a society consistently resist and speak out against a degenerating social norm, there is hope that society can remain a good place to be. This has implications far beyond opposing the madness of Trump, it places responsibility on all of us to lead with respectful behaviour in whatever sphere of influence we have, whether it is large or small we have the advantage of regular interactions with the people in our lives.
The beauty of norms is that, unlike ingrained hatreds, they are flexible. They shift quickly; with the right pressure from the right people, they can shift back. But the response, crucially, must be broad, and it must come from sources of authority across the political spectrum. Otherwise, behaviors we think of as socially stable may prove to be far more fragile than we’d like to believe. Maria Konnikova
Only science geeks are likely to get this, but it’s surprisingly accurate!
As a biochemist I have become quite accustomed to doing unit conversions in my head and working in scientific notation. But we all occasionally have to stop and count decimal places to get it right. The owner of this calculator (a student left it in one of our teaching labs) obviously has particular problems with this!
I read an interesting, and worrying, article today from the Guardian:
Warning of ‘ecological Armageddon’ after dramatic plunge in insect numbers.
It discussed the results of a longitudinal study surveying the biomass of flying insects in German nature reserves over the period from 1989 to 2016. Overall, the study found a 76% decline in the biomass of flying insects.
The authors of the published paper suggest that pesticide use and climate change are likely to be significant factors contributing to the loss of insects.
Some might react with gladness – the fewer annoying bugs the better. However, insects are a crucial part of the food chain and both plants and animals depend upon them to survive so rapid loss of insects over such a relatively short period is extremely concerning.
Another way to dismiss the relevance of this study to us in New Zealand would be to argue that it was performed in Europe which is considerably more developed than here and possibly more polluted. Yet we are even more dependant on agriculture than Germany so a similar decline in insect population here could have a massive impact on our economy. We also use large amounts of pesticides here too, and history shows that New Zealand’s ecosystems are sensitive to changes like this.
I have no idea if similar studies have been conducted in New Zealand, though I’m now curious to find out. The implications of a global decline in insects are huge, many of us may dislike bugs but for life on earth to continue we do need them.