Stakes is High[er], Gun Violence & Complex Systems Thinking

STAKES is HIGH[ER], GUN VIOLENCE

Every time there's a mass shooting, the line "gun control means using both hands in my land" comes to mind from De La Soul's song, Stakes is High[1]. The possible reasons for the shootings get more nuanced to respond to also.

Decades later, the problems they describe in their lyrics[2] are still here, Despite releasing the album with perspective from Brooklyn in 1996. The big difference is that I (probably you too or we) know more people who are working on solving those problems head-on, some of us even working on it systemically. At the same time, the stakes is high[er] even for discussing these issues.

I know responsible gun owners, including law enforcement officers. I know someone who survived terrorist attacks in the Nairobi, Kenya mall massacre. I know a people whose friends and family have been shot and killed from neighborhood violence here in Michigan. I have friends and family who served in or work with the military. I wish they'd all meet.

I look at gun violence incidents from three levels:
1) Social
(environmental, social, and intentional factors + alternatives via conflict resolution/transformation--what leads up to the event? What is the policy really designed to change in society?)
2) Access
(e.g. rigor & duration of training, ownership, and access to ammunition in Switzerland differs from the US despite similarly high per capita ownership)
3) Capacity
(details about high volume clips & magazines, lethality by caliber, etc.)

Knowing "complex systems thinking" science helps me make sense with "wicked problems" like a mass shooting (or any jarring and political issue). I hope it might be helpful for you too.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS THINKING & WICKED PROBLEMS WITH CAKE

De La Soul's paradoxical grammar in the track's title reflects our relationship to complex events: the risks, stakes, are actually many but as individuals, we live with and look at all of them as a singular entity, the stakes. To get a feel for the science of complex systems thinking: think of a cake.

Eggs, flour, sugar on their own or even added together don't make good cakes. When you mix and bake the three ingredients just right, new characteristics (magical chemistry in your kitchen!) emerge and you get a cake. That's an emergent property or outcome.

We think of the cake, not the all the ingredients and work that goes into them.

A mass shooting is the outcome of the three elements multiplied together.
Without one, it won't happen. That's an easy conclusion that's obviously unfeasible: people have reasons for owning/buying guns, many of which are reasonable and legal, some illegal and not enforceable, etc.

However, we can and do safely navigate and reduce the risks associated with each layer.

I'm certain most contentious debate around a fuzzy concept like "gun control" will revolve around misunderstandings between one or all three elements I outlined above.

Mass shootings are a wicked problem--it's like trying to decipher ingredients by untangling a [wicked] cake that's already been baked and eaten. And by the way, talking about these "wicked problems" at the dinner table or on facebook posts is often frowned upon because a concrete conversation is challenging to facilitate in reverse: the topics will continue to branch out with complexity and people tend to get lost in details essential to ingredients without context for the rest of the process. 

Or, we tend to debate--championing one reality over the other failing to seek where both views come together in a way that works beyond compromising.

Going back to the cake metaphor, this is like trying to choose flour vs. eggs in order to make the body of the cake. You need both, not one or the other, and together a better outcome with new characteristics can emerge.

WHAT CAN/WILL YOU DO?

For now, I think it's better to learn and do focused on improving your life and the lives of others too--peacebuilding relies on very simple (not always easy) skills to navigate complex circumstances. Sharing a meal with neighbors, evaluating conflict with reason, are all within our purview.

As a quick exercise (try answering within 2 minutes--maybe write it down then ponder further later:

1) When you encounter something uncomfortable, how do your behaviors affect interactions with people around you?

2) Assuming every behavior might have a benefit when in the right context, how might it be constructive when applied in other areas of life (at work, in the neighborhood, through government, etc.)?

3) At what point does it become less effective in those environments, and how?

[1] Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj-vPcCfQ6k
[2] For the lyrics, prescient and not quite what you'd hear at the dinner table: http://genius.com/1652793

Coping with tragedy

i humbly reach out today to ask how each of you are dealing with the tragedy facing our world.
in particular, i’m overwhelmed by the Paris attacks, shootings in the U.S., plane bombings, my wife’s mother’s sever depression, Jake’s passing, and the lunacy of Presidential candidates. not to mention the suffering i see and hear in friends and acquaintances on a daily basis.
i’ve lived without a TV and haven't visited News websites for 7 years. recently, i’ve been visiting people with TVs and now i sit in a coffee shop in Upstate NY that’s non-stop “Breaking News” with video of people being carted away on stretchers. i’m getting nauseous and physically overwhelmed by what seems to me a concentration of suffering. is it because i’ve been sensitized by not tuning in everyday? or are others feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly incessant tragedies? are we under attack by fear? how do i cope?
one personal response bubbled up: find a deserted island and move there, build a small compound, and a large wall. y’all can come.
if that’s not probable, what mindsets, practices, inspiration — or lack thereof — do you use daily to grow resilience in this seemingly tragic world?
with love,A

Hi A, Thanks for sharing how you feel and mustering strength to seek support--the key items that really opened my mind and confidence in what people can do despite oppressive or overwhelming circumstances emphasize putting events in the world and what we can do about them into perspective.

Here's a compilation of what I use/developed for myself and often share with others over the years and now up to current events ranging from personal to a broader systems thinking approach:

[personal] 
(1) Embrace an experience/event with a mindful approach to gratitude 

1. Receive and accept what’s given from reality—choose to embrace some aspect of it or the experience as a gift in your own reality (the parts of life you have domain/agency over)
2. Consider what the gift does for you
3. Consider what the gift says about the giver and situation
4. express heartful thanks
   [emotionally sincere to the giver/situation--if the situation is very ambiguous, try to make it very tangible, rationale will follow below in #4]

[existential](2) "You always have choices, even at the moment before death" -my mom supposedly quoting from a marine

Resolve to broader or principled commitments in life, and that we have opportunities to live moments that are a culmination of our choices. I ask/answer three questions to myself:

1) what are 3 choices you can make right now?
2) what is the courageous choice?
3) what are you willing to die for?

It might be counterintuitive and you don't have to share those answers, but it makes a wildly emotional and complex mystery a bit easier to relate to when you frame it in the strategic positive.

[paradigmatic](3) Clarify your relationship to the problem on a systemic level & vice versa
How you can make meaningful impact or intervention with the overarching issue from where you are.

From there, try to collaborate with others (teammates is a great place to start) since I guarantee someone else in the world is also thinking about the same thing from another angle.

[systemic](4) I'll also point you to systems thinking, the notion of "Structure & Agency", and risk governance for navigating complex challenges--no need to get too caught up in the details, it its heart, the two feed into one another:

Structure (environment, institutions ,etc.) influence individual behavior.
Agency (you! your community & capacity to leverage/mobilize it) can influence Structure (the environment).


If music and stories make it easier to remember, there's also the phrase "emotive mechanics":
https://medium.com/hocma-the-science-of-the-heart/emotive-mechanics-in-east-detroit-23a9272d85a1#.ef6kkaq73

It's easier to explain rather than read but here's a guide--also the rationale behind tangible acts for gratitude:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ZWASyBqmHHcGFyVkxWNTEyYTA/view

On recent events, I've mixed feelings about sharing super widely or among acquaintances as it's an early-stage mix of exercise for myself & outreach experiment. Here's how I thought about gun violence with intent to intervene on a systems level--having ways to look at or even frame something as a problem implicates that solutions exist for resolving it: https://iandtran.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/stakes-is-higher-with-cake/

I'd be glad to chat or do a hangout if you'd like to talk. Be well, we're here for you, and take care of yourself in any case.
Ian D. Tran

This Clay Jug

THIS CLAY JUG
by Kabir

"Inside this clay jug there are canyons
and pine mountains,
and the maker of canyons and pine mountains!

All seven oceans are inside,
and hundreds of millions of stars.

The acid that tests gold is there,
and the one who judges jewels.

And the music from the strings
that no one touches,
and the source of all water.

If you want the truth, I will tell you the truth:
Friend, listen: the God whom I love is inside."

...


Initially shared the above with a friend, for full context it was originally found here a month or two ago in the comments section for a book:






"The 15th century Indian poet and mystic - Kabir - writes of what is in all of us, what is in you, Fred Worth ---- unrealized through no fault of your own, but there as potential. Here is Kabir's great poem, "This Clay Jug." We are these "clay jugs."

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3VY0JIQYDRLWQ/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=1556439431&cdForum=FxN2T2ONSPK7E7&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx2PFRJFFVZ9DIA&store=books#wasThisHelpfu

Retrospective Success

Successes are retrospective, it's up to you make meaning of reality along the way. Solidify your most genuine narrative with gratitude, carry forward actions, and share whatever you wish to celebrate along the way.

You can frame endeavors in advance with confidence, and ride on that success, but by then you've already done much of the work through rigorous planning or relationships.


Where the above thoughts about retrospective success came from in my life:
This year, I've had a lot of quiet (some really big) victories which were interspersed with many painful days, weeks, and months.

I've represented the renewable and energy efficiency industry at the state level--getting data cited by the Governor in his State Energy Address.

The Massachusetts chapter of the US Green Building Council reached out to our committee because we seem "pretty organized." This means a lot as the Massachusetts chapter is regarded as one of the most organized and functional in the nation.

At the same time, it was like scraping water on a table with an index card. I learned a lot about managing experienced professional volunteers along the way. more than 75% (more like 94%) of the time it felt like we were failing since it was a rag tag volunteer team contending against industry giants like the American Legislative Exchange Council, chemical and utility company sponsored legislation.

Plus, I had done all of it as a volunteer and struggled to keep myself going enough to secure substantive employment.

Quietly, playful imagination began resurfacing for the first time in several years. I wasn't at my best, but it goes a long way and I barely noticed it until realizing I was laughing as I recalled previous events.

...

Appropriately angry

In reality, when people get angry, they'll do it in whatever way seems to suit their needs.

The only way people can really determine what's "appropriate" is to decide from within whether they believe their actions will align with their values, and if their actions also align with the mutually agreed upon (or yet-to-be-established) parameters of the relationship.

At the same time, having worked with angry people often, myself and family included, I believe I've found a few ways that can make it a little more dignified and mature. In the spirit of living the life I wish already existed in the world, I hope the following guidelines are helpful for you and anyone else you care about.

When angry, you either:

1) Know yourself and the situation accurately (it may take some time to calm down and careful re-examination)

Then: Confront the issue as you recognize it so that the other party/parties can work toward resolving the issue.

2) Don't know what's going on within yourself and/or the situation but need to express yourself

If you need to express your frustration and have yet to figure out exactly what needs to be articulated for other people to engage

Then: Create clear parameters for what and how you choose to express your anger so that other people can better engage or avoid you as you get yourself grounded. Otherwise, it becomes toxic as other people around you don't know how to appropriately respond to your behavior and it risks escalating the situation.

Being aware of both choices conscientiously choosing one of them are the only mature actions I'm aware of at this time.

If/when someone capable of and consents to doing either or both of the above but fails to do so in-the-moment:

Kindly maintain shared responsibility and integrity by helping or reminding them of their choices, to act as their better self, and in the interest of the greater relationship you share.

Return and resume humane resolution when things calm down. After all, you'll probably wish someone would do the same with you if you were in a similar situation and cared about them.

The only judgment needed happens from within, not upon one another. It may be applied internally, and to the relationship, but never imposed upon the other individual.

Anger and actions

This February I walked with someone who noticed an unconscious youth and identified it as alcohol poisoning--when he kept walking by and justified leaving the young man behind with a cynical remark ("survival of the fittest"), and onlookers also left the kid, I became extremely angry--relentlessly angry. It was around then that I realized a lot of the people I was around also kept a similarly apathetic attitude.

I since adapted a framework used for intervening with bias (e.g. racism/unconscious bias) in professional environments (initially developed by Cook Ross) and applied it to doing something a bit better with that anger than trying to destroy things or getting myself into accidents with my rage:

1. Identify
Whatever makes you angry/how it impacted you--(this is a first step where you can take out the anger and feel it through unbridled) -- express it in a way that safely calls attention to the issue, while remaining consistent with your ethical and moral values.


2. Inquire
Ask/humanize/try to empathize with the cause of anger--talk to someone, or investigate (this is where grounding again with reason becomes critical, and disarming the situation with genuine curiosity)


3. Innovate
Create ways to handle & prevent future situations from happening, if appropriate & feasible, invite the person who angered you to come up with a solution together(this is when peacemaking/peacebuilding happens by co-creating solutions)


Since then, I've learned it's exactly what many people do to end abusive behavior or relationships (minus the inquiry step, depending on the situation), especially the subtler kinds of abusive behavior:


For recognizing behaviors that tend to go under-the-radar but eventually don't sit well:
http://coda.org/index.cfm/meeting-documents/patterns-of-recovery/ or (printable version)

For a guide on how to intervene with those tendencies minus a lot of junk psychology (on using anger to inform how to end a codependent relationship, not necessarily ending all relations with the individual):

http://mindfulconstruct.com/2010/07/09/end-a-codependent-relationship-the-healthy-way/

I've yet to synthesize the following article into the above frameworks, though I believe it's worth posting because it was thoughtfully created and includes in-process guides that appear to be written from experience (e.g. don't exhaust your mind + body at the same time when channeling anger):

http://www.fastcompany.com/3048912/how-to-be-a-success-at-everything/how-anger-can-help-unlock-your-creativity

Co-opting common words

Clarifying an ambiguous concept; co-opting a common word

There's a video floating on the internet from a woman who contends she doesn't need feminism and thoughtfully explains why:

What she really highlights is a problem about how nuanced academic concepts get lost in public advocacy--her arguments apply more to feminist advocates and organizations.

To many, she still qualifies as a feminist. Specifically because she's pointing out injustices which men experience that people don't hear. I'll explain:

Feminism (in academia) at the core is about power inequality (doesn't matter for what gender or group of people), and by questioning the way we tend to look at power dynamics [1]. Feminism focuses on prevailing oppression and the injustice that an oppressed/minority group tends to suffer in situations that could be resolved ethically.

Unfortunately, the way the language is used, feminism sounds like it dismisses all the other realities that men face.

It's a lot like how #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtag users run into dispute, or when scholars/social justice practitioners talk about "blackness/whiteness" without giving appropriate context and room for the public to take ownership of a word that seems like it had a common definition.

It sounds divisive because the labels seem to focus on the issues on face (black people and white people--similar to the way feminism comes across as 100% a divide between females and males), rather than the dynamics of the relationship that makes one group dominant or oppressive.

Lauren (the woman in the video) brings great perspective from the practical/advocacy side of things--all the stats and her arguments work, she takes ownership of the word "feminism" from a different (valid) perspective.

I'm willing to guess the core group of people who really drive the "movement" for feminism (or even the racial justice movements) have yet to recognize or acknowledge how the name "feminism" can lead to confusion to someone new to the idea don't realize it can cover more than just the genders implied by the name.

It's a severe flaw in the way we use "fuzzy" language, or when a group of people take ownership of ideas that seemed to have common appeal and understanding.

After this becomes public understanding, developing guidelines with peoples' "rights and responsibilities" for common language seems like the next step for people to take.

The fundamental ethical (and practical) question revolves around asking:
"how much right do individuals, or a significant population of people have for taking ownership of a common word or phrase's meaning?"

Today, conservatism and progressivism exemplify very specific political ideologies and histories in the U.S. Conservatism rarely if ever means including land conservation to a politician unless they want to appeal to the "outdoor sportsman" (AKA Hunting/Fishing) community. Progressive now gets stigmatized with government-sponsored care programs, rather than government policy that breaks out of political gridlock and actually functions to serve the people it's supposed to serve. It's frighteningly easy to associate

It's a subtle but classic example of a "tragedy of the commons" problem in our current events. And yes, we can beat the tragedy of the commons. It requires we trust, then verify to communicate and collaborate.

[1] Feminism, see it in action here! Julie Nelson's critique about how most economists avoid ethics in their considerations, what it means for making "objective" interpretations, and how feminism applies to it. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/32/

Fuzzy concepts, wikipedia has a satisfying enough description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept

Tragedy of the Commons:
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/17/psychology-professors-tricky-extra-credit-question-goes-viral/

Real-life Tragedy of The Commons examples:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-reallife-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-common.html

Beating the Tragedy of the Commons:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8104/Elinor_How%20Communities%20Beat%20the%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons%20(Slides).pdf?sequence=1