►
From YouTube: March 2022 Chapter Meeting
Description
Building the Movement: New Advocacy Science & Strategies
Advocacy expert Chip Pitts concisely reviews the surprising, yet practical advocacy strategies based on scientific insights, especially of the last decade, that can break through the barriers to climate action arising from unprecedented polarization, tribalism, dis- and misinformation, conspiracy theories, and resulting gridlock, so that we can all help build a larger and more effective social movement for climate action.
A
Recognizing
that
exceptional
background,
we
immediately
invited
joy
chip
to
join
our
executive
committee,
where
he's
been
serving
since
last
november.
Chip
and
his
colleagues
at
the
organization
for
identity
and
cultural
development
presented
a
workshop
on
advocacy
methods
that
was
attended
by
over
a
dozen
members
of
our
chapter,
and
today
he's
going
to
give
the
entire
chapter
an
introduction
to
that
methodology.
A
As
chip
has
described
it.
These
evidence-based
strategies
provide
us
with
tools
to
break
through
the
barriers
to
climate
action
that
grow
out
of
the
increasing
polarization
and
resulting
gridlock
that
are
plaguing
our
society
and
our
politics.
These
tools
can
better
equip
all
of
us
to
build
a
larger
and
more
effective
social
movement
for
climate
action.
A
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
roger
for
that
gracious
introduction
and
thanks
to
you
and
the
other
executive
committee
members
and
other
members
of
our
chapter
who
joined
in
that
cohort
that
we
we
initially
had
for
this,
it
was
indispensable
and
thanks
for
the
shout
out
as
well
to
oicd
I'll
start
sharing
my
screen.
If
I
can,
but
it
says
I
can't
now,
maybe
I
can
it
says
I
can't
share.
While
the
other
participants
are
there
we
go.
Let
me
try
again
I'll.
Do
this
portion
of
the
screen
there
we
go.
B
This
as
well,
polarization
is
also
very
relevant,
as
roger
said,
we'll
be
covering
that
and
the
way
it's
limiting
the
climate
movement
growth
so
far,
and
the
results
that
we
seek,
as
shown
by
the
climate
legislation's
currently
stymied
in
congress,
us
versus
them.
Why
can't
we
see
the
truth?
They
see.
Why
do
they
think
we're
crazy
and
vice
versa?
Again,
the
facts
model
information
deficit
is
what
it's
called.
The
idea
that
you
can
just
give
people
facts
and
information
and
they'll
build
a
movement
and
they'll
change
their
behavior
and
change
their
fundamental
social
norms.
B
Facts
actually
help
less
than
you
think,
and
they
can
actually
hurt
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
One
is
motivated
reasoning,
the
identity,
protective
protective
cultural
cognition
that
dan
kahan
from
yale
and
others
have
noted
it's
political,
it's
emotional,
for
these
moral
and
fraught
difficult
issues
of
social
norms.
Another
thing
that
we
need
to
be
aware
of
is
the
backfire
effect,
especially
with
conservatives.
B
Now
what
that
is
is
the
also
called
the
boomerang
effect.
It's
the
idea
that
the
more
you
try
to
convince
people
with
facts
and
figures,
the
more
they'll
actually
become
convinced
that
their
pre-existing
beliefs
are
correct,
which
is
a
real
problem
in
this
area.
Of
course.
So
we
need
new
advocacy
strategies
to
build
a
movement,
and
that
involves
two
things:
using
identity
and
values-based
content.
B
What
I
call
jiu-jitsu
persuasion
or
advocacy,
as
opposed
to
emphasis
on
merely
facts
and,
secondly,
using
stronger
forms
of
social
networks
to
achieve
the
complex
change
and
social
norms
and
building
movements
which
is
needed
here,
that's
actually
much
harder,
it's
slower
than
the
viral
quick
spread
of
simple
information
and
facts,
memes
or
diseases,
as
shown
by
this
fishing
net
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen,
as
opposed
to
the
quickly
spreading
fireworks
pattern
of
simple
information
or
internet
memes
or
diseases
like
covet.
So
we
don't
need
the
fireworks
pattern.
B
We
need
the
fishing
fishing
net
pattern,
please.
The
polarization
has
risen
to
unprecedented,
really
scary
levels
by
some
accounts.
This
is
the
most
polarized
issue
in
the
u.s
harking
back
to.
We
don't
have
the
data,
but
probably
civil
war
times
or
the
1995
oklahoma
city
bombing,
with
a
huge
split
between
democrats
and
republicans
thinking.
Global
warming
is
human
cause,
for
example,
as
you
can
see
on
the
slide
here,
88
percent
of
democrats
top
right
line
think
that
it
is
caused
by
humans.
B
Only
32
percent
of
republicans
compare
that
to
the
bottom
red
line
on
the
left,
52
percent
of
republicans
at
the
beginning
of
the
2000s,
now
the
same
gap
by
the
way
it's
56
percent
between
republicans
and
dems
on
this
issue.
The
same
gap
applies
to
a
lot
of
other
dimensions
to
this
problem,
such
as
whether
this
is
perceived
as
a
threat
to
themselves
and
their
way
of
life,
their
loved
ones
in
their
lifetime.
That's
hugely
significant,
of
course,
because
it
spurs
action
or
opposition
or
inaction.
So
we've
got
to
be
aware
of
the
strategic
context.
B
I
believe,
similarly,
whether
you're
seeing
basic
reality,
as
I
think
most
of
you
know
the
ipcc
report
that
just
came
out
three
weeks
ago.
It's
all
about
impacts.
You
know
the
drought,
the
wildfires,
the
increasing
intensity
and
frequency
of
storms
and
so
forth,
but
that's
gotten
a
lot
less
attention
now
because
of
the
russian
fossil
fuel
finance
invasion
of
ukraine,
sadly
from
the
standpoint
of
climate
change,
but
but
good
for
the
standpoint
of
getting
action
against
that
kleptocratic
petrol
state
and
its
invasion.
B
Now
this
is
it's
replicated
again
and
we
see
this
pattern
in
the
level
of
moderate
to
high
worry
about
climate
change,
which
is
incredible.
We
are
actually
below
even
that
kleptocratic
petrol
state
russia
in
terms
of
moderate,
to
high
worry
about
climate
change.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
united
states
is
under
a
bunch
of
other
countries,
including
countries
like
russia
and
the
czech
republic
same
thing
for
willingness
to
participate
in
the
citizens
campaign.
B
Incredibly
to
me,
we're
below
russia
right
below
russia
on
that,
in
terms
of
willingness
to
participate
in
a
citizen's
campaign
on
climate
action.
In
fact,
only
one
percent
of
americans
are
now
participating,
as
you
guys
are
in
campaigns
targeting
elected
officials
on
this
issue,
even
though
about
20
29
of
americans
say
they're
willing.
B
Now
this
figure
has
been
constant
across
many
years
now
and
whether
you
think
the
tipping
point
for
this
is
three
percent
as
erica
chenoweth
and
extinction,
rebellion
say,
or
whether
it's
10
percent,
as
other
scholars
of
social
movements
say
or
whether
it's
25
percent
as
damon
sintola
argues.
We
know
it's
not
one
percent.
We
also
know
by
the
way
that,
although
that
may
look
that
apathy
at
a
one
percent
level,
it's
not
it's
something
else,
and
that's
this
alarming
level
of
affective,
polarization
or
emotional
polarization.
B
What
is
that?
That's
the
degree
to
which
the
parties
hate
each
other
and
the
us
is
number
one
in
that
issue.
I
don't
think
that's
one.
We
want
to
be
number
one
in,
but
the
us
exhibited
the
largest
increase
in
affective,
polarization
of
all
the
oicd
countries.
That's
the
rich
countries,
the
world
studied
over
that
period
of
four
decades.
B
This
is
a
stanford
and
brown
university
study
and
again
it's
a
real
problem,
because
it's
it's
sorting
us
out
into
not
only
social
media,
echo
chambers
and
filter
bubbles,
but
even
geographically,
you
know,
the
evidence
of
the
big
sort
is
quite
concerning,
because
people
are
literally
not
talking
to
each
other.
I
want
you
to
ask
yourself
when's
the
last
time
you
spoke
to
a
member
of
the
other
tribe.
How
many
friends,
real
friends
do
you
have
from
that
side
anymore?
B
The
fact
that
we
have
fewer
is
largely
a
result
of
the
increasing
propagandistic
identity,
weaponization
on
this
and
other
cultural
war
issues,
misinformation
and
disinformation
and
media
and
social
media
filter
bubbles
and
echo
chambers
that
amplify
the
outrage
based
on
what
algorithms
predict
you'll
you'll
take
up
or
not.
So
this
is
a
very
serious
concern.
B
If
you
look
at
the
us,
the
fact
that
the
polarity
on
affection
and
emotion
between
democrats
and
republicans
has
gone
up
multiple
times
now
in
the
last
four
decades
is
concerning
it's
to
the
point,
and
this
never
was
true
in
human
history
or
u.s
history
before
that
parents
are
concerned
now-
and
this
didn't
used
to
be
the
case-
that
their
sons
or
daughters
may
marry
someone
from
the
other
party.
It's
incredible.
B
What
can
we
do
about
this?
Well,
this
is
our
website.
Unsurprisingly,
in
this
polarized
environment,
people
aren't
talking
about
climate
change
anymore.
It's
a
politicized
topic.
We're
told
not
to
talk
about
political
or
religious
issues,
but
you
know
the
fact
that
we're
not
is
a
problem
when
we're
reaching
the
levels
of
gridlock
and
political
inaction
on
climate
that
we're
seeing.
We
really
must
talk
more,
including
to
the
other
side
quote
unquote.
B
B
That
was
the
popularity
of
of
al
gore's
immunity
and
oscar
award-winning
work
and
programs
in
this
area,
but
they
don't
work
if
you
have
the
backfire
effect
and
you
have
an
increasing
number
of
people
that
are
just
going
to
not
listen
and
especially
when
they
think
of
people
who
are
environmentalists
as
know-it-alls
or
lecturing
and
better
than
now
anyway.
So
we
don't
want
to
communicate
using
just
factual
knowledge
or
any
kind
of
a
top-down
lecture
format.
We
need
more
interactive,
dynamic
formats
and
engagements
so
that
we
can
actually
make
progress
on
this
issue.
B
So,
despite
the
similarity,
for
example,
of
line
on
the
left
of
this
graph,
the
baseline
line
and
the
fact
that
it
matched
his
line
c,
if
you
have
all
of
the
students
or
subjects
in
except
for
one
in
confederacy
with
the
experimenter,
they
will
say
the
other
lines
match.
So
the
subject
can
be
led
to
conform
with
what
the
group
says.
Even
if
it's
not
factually
true.
B
This
relates
by
the
way
to
the
revolution
and
affective
neuroscience
of
the
last
decade
which
lynne
milodenow
has
written
about
in
his
new
book
emotional,
and
it's
really
a
new
insight
as
to
how
emotion
and
reason
interact
and
more
intertwined
in
the
brain
than
we
think,
but
the
reality
that
we
didn't
really
appreciate
to
this
extent
before
is
that
most
of
our
views
really
come
from
groupthink
more
than
individual
rationality
and
we
hold
on
to
them
because
of
group
loyalty.
There
are
a
lot
of
other
social
experiments.
B
I
don't
have
time
to
go
into
here
about
in
groups
and
out
groups
like
cherise,
robert's,
cave
experiment.
That
happened
just
north
of
us
and
in
dallas,
and
it
happened
in
oklahoma
north
of
us
here.
In
dallas,
where
already
taj
fell's
work,
which
showed
that
the
mere
division
into
teams
can
lead
to
in-group
favoritism
and
a
desire
to
hurt
or
punish
the
other
group,
the
the
outgroup
who
is
discriminated
against
and
insulted
so
forth.
B
So
this
is
a
problem
when
you've
got
people
not
seeing
the
same
reality
not
listening
to
each
other
and
it's
a
problem
exemplified
by
the
smoke-filled
room
study.
I
was
going
to
show
you
the
video,
but
we
don't
have
time
to
do
it
today.
But
if
you
google,
it
you
can
find
the
smoke-filled
room
study
on
online
in
the
control
condition.
B
B
It's
analogous
to
climate
change
in
that
respect,
it's
a
risk
to
life,
limb,
health
and
so
forth,
and
yet
in
the
experiment
again
when
all
of
the
other
people
are
in
league
with
the
secretly
in
league
with
the
experimenter
in
the
smoke-filled
room
study,
what
happens
is
that
she
will
sit
there
for
five
minutes.
10
minutes,
20
minutes.
In
fact,
until
she's
asked
to
leave
and
endangering
herself
and
others,
and
that's
analogous
to
what's
happening
in
climate
change
today.
B
Why
is
this
irrationality
happening,
though?
I
mean?
Why
is
it?
Is
it
impossible
for
people
to
reach
the
collective
action
level?
We
need
to
address
this
existential
threat
to
human
existence,
as
we
know
it.
Well,
a
lot
of
you
are
familiar
with
maslow's
hierarchy
of
needs,
which
it
turns
out,
wasn't
maslow's
hierarchy.
It
was
actually
put
into
a
hierarchy
in
a
pyramid
by
someone
other
than
abraham
maslow,
but
the
needs
start
at
the
bottom.
B
With
meeting
your
food
clothing,
shelter
needs
your
physical
security
needs,
which
our
ukrainian
brothers
and
sisters
are
having
a
tough
time
with
right
now
and
the
needs.
This
is
very
important
for
self-esteem
and
for
belonging
and
love,
because
it's
not
a
hierarchy,
because
these
needs
are
interrelated.
The
oicd,
with
roger
mentioned,
the
organization
for
identity
and
cultural
development
that
I've
worked
with
for
years
on
countering
genocides
and
ethnic
cleansing
and
and
excessive
violence
in
places
like
colombia,
with
the
farc.
B
These
are
really
important.
We
are
social
animals,
as
aristotle
pointed
out
over
2000
years
ago,
and
in
group
tribal
identity
remains
more
fundamental
than
ever.
Today.
In
this
polarized
understanding,
because
again
it
affects
our
understanding
of
reality.
It
affects
the
meaning
we
find
in
the
world.
It
affects
our
self-esteem
or
not
over
opposing
groups.
You
may
remember,
for
those
of
you
who
are
philosophically
inclined
that
socrates,
when
he
was
convicted
by
athens
of
corrupting
youth,
supposedly,
he
opted
for
suicide
by
drinking
hemlock
instead
of
being
exiled
or
banished
from
athens.
B
That's
how
deep
and
fundamental
our
evolutionary
needs
for
belonging
and
love
are
so
again
the
backfire
effect.
What
happens
when
you
just
present
people
with
facts,
especially
if
they
know
you're
from
the
other
group?
Like
the
group?
That's
not
there
in
group,
they
don't
trust
you,
and
so
they
double
down.
They
cherry
pick
evidence
to
avoid
the
sort
of
cognitive
dissonance
and
in
the
brain,
the
discomfort
that
they
would
otherwise
experience.
They
have
to
maintain
those
shared
values
and
shared
human
needs,
their
moral
universe,
neuroscientist
tally
chiro
in
her
book.
B
The
influential
mind,
says
numbers
and
facts
and
statistics
are
necessary
and
wonderful
for
uncovering
the
truth,
but
they're
not
enough
to
change
beliefs
and
they're
practically
useless
for
motivating
action.
Why
is
this
so?
Well?
Think
about
the
climate
messages
that
go
against
the
identity
and
values
of
of
the
other
side,
quote-unquote
here
the
climate
contrarians.
B
If
you
invoke
scientific
consensus
that
can
be
seen
as
offending
the
religion
of
a
lot
of
people,
if
you
call
for
government
intervention,
it
can
be
considered
and
is
considered,
it's
labeled
socialism
versus
the
free
market.
If,
if
the
legislation
or
climate
policy
calls
for
lifestyle
changes,
well,
that's
against
liberty.
We
saw
that
also
in
in
great
quantities
of
people
who
were
refusing
to
wear
a
mask
and
social
distance
or
adhere
to
lockdowns
or
mandates
during
the
kovac
pandemic.
B
If
it
calls
for
help
help
for
victims
in
a
place
like
berkeley,
california,
you
know
the
people's
republic
of
berkeley
as
conservatives
like
to
call
it
that's
considered
communism
or
it
can
be
considered
globalism
if
it's
a
in
a
place
like
bangladesh
or
india.
So
this
is
motivated
reasoning.
There
are
literally
dozens
of
books
that
we
reviewed
for
the
oacd
course
last
year
we
did
for
the
chapter
and
hundreds
of
recent
articles
on
this.
In
the
last
decade,
one
of
my
favorites
is
damon
sintolo's
book
from
last
year.
Change.
B
How
to
make
big
things
happen?
This
is
based
on
on
decades
of
research
that
damon
who's
a
site,
a
sociologist
at
penn
who
specializes
in
network
science,
has
done,
for
you
know
for
many
years
with
a
host
of
distinguished
collaborators
and
what
damon
concluded-
and
this
is
in
line
with
dan
kane's
work
at
yale
and
cultural,
cognition
and
so
forth.
Is
that
motivated
reasoning
isn't
a
bug?
It's
a
feature
in
all
of
our
world
views
and
actions.
B
But,
interestingly,
there
are
qualitative
differences
between
conservatives
and
liberals,
just
as
there
are
by
the
way
qualitative
differences
between
the
media
and
social
media
ecosystems.
The
conservative
media
ecosystems,
as
the
berkman
klein
center
at
harvard
and
others
have
pointed
out,
are
a
lot
less.
B
You
know
corresponding
to
reality
and
to
truth
and
facts,
but
that's
no
reason
to
shame
climate
contrarians
that
usually
backfires
again
so
one
example
that
damon
gives
in
his
his
book
and
he's
written
scholarly
articles,
including
on
this
study,
is
the
ability
to
perceive
the
arctic
ice
decline.
Nasa's
30-year
satellite
survey
of
arctic
ice
melt
came
out.
There's
really.
We
would
think
no
way
that
people
can't
see
the
difference
right
and
the
chart
of
this
is
is
quite
decline.
B
This
is
an
updated
chart
from
the
one
he
used
in
his
experiment
of
a
few
years
ago,
but
the
pattern
is
unbelievably
clear
and
yet
that
uptick
at
the
end
the
endpoint
bias
allows
conservatives
republicans
to
say.
Well,
it's
not
really
melting
it'll
come
back,
even
though
this
has
been
a
multi-decade
thing
for
the
last
40
years
in
damon's
experiment.
B
Democrats,
of
course,
saw
the
reality
more
conducive
with
the
science-based
view
that
they're
more
open
to
it
turns
out
that
the
republicans-
and
this
is
again
a
qualitative
difference-
are
actually
different
from
republicans
from
democrats
in
that
they
can't
see
even
the
most
educated,
highly
numerate,
most
scientifically
literate
republicans
see
the
science
to
a
lesser
extent,
they're
more
more
prone
to
motivated
reasoning,
dan
kane's
work
on
this
from
yield.
It's
quite
interesting
so
in
the
network
condition
without
partisan
queues,
though
there
was
more
progress
not
immediately
not
in
the
first
round.
B
Democrats
still
saw
the
arctic
ice
decline
more
clearly.
The
blue
here
on
the
slide
on
the
left,
but
after
three
rounds
of
discussion
without
those
partisan
cues
and
that's
crucial,
they
were
removed
from
the
social
network
platform
that
they
were
communicating
on
90
of
both
democrats
and
republicans
about
the
same
numbers
saw
the
scientific
reality
which
gives
us
hope.
I
think
the
prospect
that
that
structured,
non-partisan
conversations
on
this
can
really
make
progress.
B
Another
scintilla
insight
and
bear
with
me,
because
this
is
really
important
here.
It's
it's
contrary
to
what
I
thought
you
know.
A
lot
of
us
were
persuaded
by
the
six
degrees
of
separation,
the
kevin
bacon
theory
that
stanley
milgram,
who
did
the
obedience
experiments
of
the
60s
and
conformity
to
a
figure
in
a
white
lab
coat
milgram,
actually
tested.
The
idea
in
mark
granovetter
from
stanford,
confirmed
in
studies
that
you
could
take
a
communication
in
the
middle
of
the
u.s
and
through
six
degrees,
get
it
to
someone
on
the
east
coast.
B
This
is
what
happens
with
epidemics
of
diseases,
the
black
death
to
covet
in
2022
or
2020
to
2022
complex
contagions,
though
involving
fraught
emotional,
political,
moral
issues
requiring
behavioral
change
social
norm
change
like
lgbt
rights,
the
civil
rights
movement,
labor
rights
suffrage,
in
fact,
all
social
movements
in
history,
they're
slower.
It's
very
rare
that
you
have
an
immediate.
They
may
seem
immediate,
like
the
arab
spring,
but
it
turns
out
that
there
were
precursors
to
the
arab
spring.
It
turns
out
that
there
were
many
rosa
parks.
B
There
were
actually
many
martin
luther
kings,
but
you
know
the
the
central
leader
the
figure
comes
in,
and
that's
highlighted
historically
in
retrospect,
but
with
blm.
It's
the
same
thing
I'll
talk
more
about
that
in
a
minute
with
the
climate
movement.
It's
the
same
thing.
The
social
contagions
are
more
complex.
They
spread
more
slowly
inefficiently.
B
They
require
redundant,
stronger
ties,
friends
of
friends.
This
is
because
you
need
validation,
legitimacy
when
you're
talking
about
something
as
deeply
ingrained
as
a
social
norm
like
discrimination
against
lgbt
folks.
They
require
more
egalitarian
networks,
not
a
hierarchical,
centralized,
top-down
network
but
more
of
a
fishnet
right
at
the
network
periphery.
So
that's
the
pattern.
B
The
stronger
ties,
multiple
interactions
and
involving
wide
bridges
and
what
are
wide
bridges,
narrow
bridges-
and
this
is
the
way
pandemic,
spread
or
information
spreads-
can
go
quickly
from
one
side
of
the
country
to
the
other
over
an
email
or
a
social
media
post
right.
It's
the
way
diseases
spread.
Someone
gets
on
a
plane
from
the
from
china
or
goes
to
the
u.s
europe,
africa
and
there's
an
explosion
there,
the
pandemic
right,
the
disease,
it
can
happen.
B
Wider
bridges
require
collaboration,
multiple
overlapping
connections
and
social
reinforcement.
It's
not
just
a
single
point
of
connection
for
narrow
bridges,
but
multiple
connections,
and
this
is
crucial
think
back
to
that
arctic
ice
study
with
nasa's
data.
It's
got
to
be
framed,
not
as
a
partisan,
in-group,
polarized
thing.
It's
got
to
be
framed
as
relevant
to
the
people
that
you're
talking
to
to
their
common
interests,
the
common
good
universal
values.
Otherwise
they
just
won't
be
able
to
see
what
you're
talking
about
so
wider
bridges.
B
Fishing
net
networks
are
important,
and
this
is
what
happened
in
black
lives
matter.
You
may
recall,
trayvon
martin
was
was
killed
in
2012
in
spring
of
2012.
That's
when
the
blm
hashtag
was
created,
but
it
was
only
used
48
times
over
the
next
two
years,
when
eric
garner
was
killed
in
new
york
in
20
2014.
B
000
uses
a
day
over
6
million
a
year
even
before
the
2020
murder
of
george
floyd
resulted
in
the
largest
protest
in
u.s
and
global
history.
So
that's
the
way
it
works.
We
don't
want
to
build
fireworks.
We
want
to
build
fish
net
networks
with
redundant
strong,
linked
reinforced.
You
know
approaches
as
damon
said.
Networks
can
either
reinforce
bias,
stabilizing
the
status
quo,
or
they
can
champion
new
ideas
that
overturn
the
status
quo.
We
don't
want
the
fireworks
pattern.
We
want
the
fishing
net
pattern
now.
Why
do
we
see
things
so
differently
right?
B
We
all
have
different
views
on
reality
from
different
perspectives
at
different
times,
and
those
contradictions
among
between
us
they're
normal
to
have
those
contradictions
and
different
views,
and
we
now,
through
science,
have
a
greater
idea
of
how
to
change
the
subjective
views
into
objective
appreciation
of
the
real
facts,
as
I've
just
started
to
describe
how
to
bridge
those
divides,
but
I
think
most
of
you
probably
seen
this
illusion
and
you
can
vacillate
between
the
the
older
woman
and
the
younger
woman.
I
hope
you
can
see
here.
You
know.
B
B
B
Let
me
help
here
there
they
are,
and
if
you
look
you
can
you
can
actually
see
them,
but
sometimes,
as
the
beatles
say,
it
requires
us
to
get
a
little
help
from
our
friends
right.
That's
certainly
more
effective
than
judging
or
insults
or
or
arguing
in
a
win-lose
fashion,
with
those
with
whom
we
disagree,
so
getting
back
to
jiu,
jitsu
or
advocacy,
advocacy
or
persuasion,
that's
working
with
not
against
your
counterparts
viewpoints
and
their
their
moves.
B
No
war
is
the
best
victory,
especially
when
that
war
has
been
ginned
up
with
misinformation
and
disinformation
explicitly
to
divide
and
conquer
on
an
issue
like
climate
change,
so
jujitsu
persuasion
involves
skillfully
surfacing
finding
out
about
listening
to
and
then
using
the
power
of
their
in
the
us
versus
then
their
express
values,
identities,
attitude
routes
which
have
been
weaponized
so
that
these
people,
that
you
know
in
normal
circumstances
and
historically
in
the
u.s
and
around
the
world,
had
more
open
identities.
Fluid
cells,
that's
healthier!
You
can
grow
that
way.
B
You
can
adapt
to
the
context
and
situation.
What's
happened
with
the
propaganda
we've
experienced
in
recent
decades
in
growing
fashion.
Is
that
those
identities
become
narrow,
weaponized
rigidified
in
identity
stasis.
Basically,
we
need
to
reconnect
at
a
human
level
to
open
up
the
narrow
version
of
the
self
into
appreciation
again
of
more
universal
values.
Like
the
golden
rule,
love
open
compassion,
not
just
the
narrow
version
of
care
and
compassion.
B
So
jiu
jitsu
starts
with
values
and
then-
and
only
then
do
you
get
back
to
the
facts.
You
insert
the
facts
only
after
you
re-establish
common
ground
and
connect
with
them
on
what
you
have
in
common
values
like
a
clean
and
safe
environment,
economic
success
and
competitiveness
like
patriotism
in
the
us
from
an
economic
standpoint,
limited
government.
None
of
us
want
to
live
in
the
kind
of
top-down
autocratic
system,
the
system
they
have
in
russia
or
china.
We
want
to
preserve
some
role
for
markets,
but
also
openness
in
general.
B
That's
a
key
differentiator
between
our
system
and
their
systems
that
make
their
systems
more
brittle
as
we're
seeing
hopefully
in
russia.
Today,
national
security
is
a
very
important
one.
None
of
us
want
to
be
subject
to
a
nuclear
armageddon,
which
is
now
a
new
risk
again
to
a
greater
extent
than
it's
been
since
I
was
alive,
except
for
1962
cuban
missile
crisis
and
health.
B
More
than
liberals
do
and
democrats
do
so.
You
know
they're
not
going
to
be
happy
about
pollution.
If
you
draw
their
attention
to
pollution,
anti-pollution
pitches
can
be
very
appealing.
Think
about
the
way
as
well.
That
biden
framed
his
bill
like
better
bill
and
as
an
economic
proposition,
a
jobs
act
for
the
economy
and
then,
and
only
then,
when
you
establish
the
values
connection,
can
you
really
talk
about
clashes
of
fact,
like
the
supposed
trade-off
between
the
economy
and
the
environment
and
get
them
to
see
that
the
economy
requires
resources?
B
It
requires
living
healthy
people,
it
requires
protected
biosystems.
They
may
say
that
climate
action
is
too
costly
and
we
can't
afford
it
well
the
response
to
that
once
you've
established
the
values
connection,
it's
a
of
course.
We
can't
afford
not
to
we're
talking
about
a
threat
to
life,
as
we
know
it
in
the
us
and
on
the
planet,
including
for
them.
You
know
over
a
third
of
americans,
maybe
two-thirds,
depending
on
the
the
statistical
method,
were
affected
by
extreme
weather
events
last
year
in
very
harmful
ways.
B
So
we
can't
afford
not
to
the
world
economic
forum
has
called
this.
The
number
one
threat
to
the
economy
for
many
years
and
they
diverted
from
that.
Only
in
the
last
couple
of
years
when
the
kobe
pandemic
was
prevailing,
but
now
we're
back
to
climate
change
being
the
number
one
threat
they're
for
limited
government,
no
problem
point
to
the
examples
of
community
self-organizing
bottom-up
to
save
energy
resources
like
land
and
water
and
fishing
stocks.
B
But
you
can't
do
that
they're
not
going
to
be
receptive
until
you
make
the
connection
first,
as
vc
john
doerr
from
silicon
valley
said.
If
we
succeed
at
addressing
climate
change's
irreversible
catastrophe
will
not
only
save
the
planet
but
will
create
the
economic
opportunity
of
a
lifetime
now
notice
in
john's
framing.
He
doesn't
understate
the
fearful
reality
of
looming
catastrophe,
but
he
rightly
also
jumps
immediately
to
a
positive
vision,
embracing
hope
and
solutions
which
will
come
from
this
new
economy.
It
makes
a
lot
more
sense
than
a
polluted
economy.
B
That
kind
of
jumping
from
the
bad
facts
and
urgent
need
for
change
to
solution
has
been
confirmed
in
lots
of
academic
research
as
an
effective
advocacy
approach.
Climate
solutions,
we
all
know,
can
empower
groups
like
regenerative
agriculture,
empowering
farmers
as
they
get
paid
to
store
carbon
and
contribute
to
solutions
or
women
and
girls.
I
was
active
and
still
active
with
for
years
with
fair
trade
international.
B
The
number
one
threat
to
the
farmers
around
the
world
is
climate
change
right,
especially
the
small
holder
farmers,
who
are
disproportionately
women
around
the
world,
and
so
empowering
women
and
girls,
as
the
drawdown
project
notes,
is
a
top
solution
to
climate
change,
and
that
should
be
understandable
by
everybody
on
all
sides
of
the
political
aisle.
This
is
why
biologist
andrew
thaler
talks
about
climate
change,
not
in
terms
of
science.
He
talks
in
terms
of
fishing
and
flooding
and
farming
and
faith
in
the
future,
and
that's
a
great
way
to
frame
it
right.
B
Framing
it
in
appealing
ways
that
know
your
audience.
It's
nonsense
to
say
we
don't
want
to
know
our
audience
or
we
want
to
polarize
the
opposition.
We
want
to
do
the
opposite.
We
are
polarized,
we
are
in
a
political,
partisan
environment.
We
must
become
less
partisan
on
this
issue
and
the
way
to
do
it
is
to
use
the
express
values
and
then,
and
only
then
come
in
with
the
facts.
We
all
want
to
conserve
the
american
way
of
life.
In
this
extent,
we
want
to
conserve
our
ability
to
have
nature.
B
That
is,
you
know,
useful
to
us
as
humans.
We
depend
on
it
for
our
food,
our
agriculture,
everything
so
anyway,
if
you're,
if
you're
able
to
connect
on
the
values
level
like
that,
you
can
even
connect
with
someone
like
brett
kavanaugh
of
the
u.s
supreme
court,
the
conservative
justice
there.
This
is
from
a
recent
dfw
media
ad
and
yes,
climate
change
will
make
beer
more
expensive.
So
we
don't
want
that
to
happen.
No
matter
what
we
do.
B
Jiu
jitsu
reframing
can
even
work
at
our
most
fundamental
level
of
the
the
very
powerful
biases
and
they're
about
150
of
them
that
have
been
identified.
We
can
use
those
biases
for
good
versus
harm
biases,
like
in-group
bias
itself
again
by
creating
shared
identities,
to
expand
the
in-group
by
use
of
reference
to
common
values,
open
and
friendly
engagement
and
asking
questions
instead
of
telling
them
what
the
facts
are
and
trying
to
win.
B
Our
response
to
that
is
yes,
let's
conserve,
let's
preserve
like
teddy
roosevelt,
did
right
in
the
early
20th
century,
setting
up
the
national
parks
or
like
reagan
and
thatcher,
did
you
know
they
actually
talked
about
climate
change
as
a
problem
and
the
need
to
have
global
action
against
global
warming,
and
they
did
so
in
global
fora
like
the
un
or
under
nixon.
The
epa
was
created.
The
clean
air
clean
water
act.
This
again
did
not
used
to
be
a
politicized,
partisan
issue,
and
it
need
not
be.
B
You
even
had
newt
gingrich
of
all
people,
doing
a
psa
with
nancy
pelosi
against
climate
change
and
the
need
to
take
action
for
it.
Now,
that's
all
gone
by
the
wayside,
as
the
polarization
has
become
even
more
rigid,
extreme
and
toxic
the
availability
bias.
This
is
the
idea
of
salience
that
you
know
this
is
james
inhofe,
the
senator
from
oklahoma,
holding
up
a
snowball
on
the
floor
of
congress,
saying
you
know
well,
we
can't
have
global
warming.
Look
at
this
snowball
and
you
know
it
can't
be
real.
B
Well,
the
way
you
respond
to
that
is
you
ease
into
actually
showing
them
and
asking
them?
Well,
you
know:
have
you
noticed
that
it's
getting
warmer
here?
Did
you
hear
about
this?
The
hottest
day
we've
ever
seen,
which
is
happening
with
disturbing
regularity,
these
days
same
with
self-esteem,
bias
a
very
important
one,
and
we
shouldn't
criticize.
We
should
lift
up
the
impetus
to
protect
and
defend
the
self
loved
ones,
nations
and
descendants.
B
Hopefully,
we
can
expand
that
to
a
more
cosmopolitan
view
of
protecting
humans,
even
in
so-called
distant
countries
that
aren't
so
distant,
climate
change
affects
all
of
us.
It
doesn't
respect
borders
and
we
can
then
pitch
that
as
seizing
the
gains
and
opportunities
for
self
and
loved
one
of
the
new
cream,
a
clean,
green
economy,
we
can
even
beat
china
and
and
take
on
its
it's.
It's
more
closed,
repressive
system,
other
fundamental
biases.
Just
to
give
a
couple
of
other
examples
here:
hierarchy
and
authority.
B
Again
we
can
use
their
authorities,
people
like
thatcher
and
reagan
and
newt
gingrich,
who
previously
promoted
better
values
and
interpretations.
We
can
recall
shared
values
like
freedom
and
equality
in
our
bill
of
rights.
Our
declaration
of
independence,
loss
aversion
is
universal
to
humans
and
it's
now
solution
aversion
among
climate
contrarians,
where
they
really
try
to
create
fear
of
solutions
losing
the
american
way
of
life
and
the
economy
and
jobs.
But
you
can
slowly
reveal
the
losses
that
are
already
happening.
B
The
taxes
will
be
on
only
those
making
over
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
under
the
biden,
climate
legislation
and
so
forth,
and
you
can
talk
about
the
gains
that
are
available
to
everyone.
If
they're
deep
down
the
rabbit
hole
of
conspiracy
thinking
the
methods
are
akin
to
cult
extraction.
You
know
post-9
11.
B
We
found
that
what
works
in
counter-terrorism
and
countering
violent
extremism
is
to
meet
them,
especially
before
the
radicalized,
ideally,
but
even
once
they
start
to
be
radicalized
or
are
realized,
radicalized
meet
them
where
they
are
use
their
frames,
their
values,
their
authority
figures,
especially
messengers,
who
have
been
radicalized
and
now
kind
of
have
been
clawed
back
from
q
anon
or
from
the
the
you
know.
Extremist
right-wing
militias
use
those
people
as
witnesses
to
show
that
there's
manipulation
and
deception.
B
Here
the
exxon
memos
on
this,
showing
that
they
knew
about
the
climate
change
reality
decades
ago,
were
very
powerful.
Not
so.
These
are
my
last
couple
of
slides.
So
I'm
just
going
to
summarize
the
approach
that
we've
talked
about,
bring
it
all
together.
Please
feel
free
to
take
a
screenshot
or
revisit
the
recording
of
the
session
and
to
the
extent,
this
topic
is
of
continued
interest
in
the
chapter.
We
can
hold
workshops
on
this
to
examine
in
more
detail
the
nuances
and
more
complex
dimensions,
but
starting
with
mindset,
it's
a
different
mindset.
B
B
You
may
not
even
want
to
start
with
talking
about
climate
change.
You
want
to
seek
to
understand,
not
rebut.
In
fact,
my
counsel
is
not
to
interrupt
the
other
side
at
all.
You
hear
them
completely.
Let
them
have
their
say
fully
without
interruption
so
that
they
feel
fully
heard
in
terms
of
preparation.
B
It's
very
important,
as
as
a
negotiator
for
all
my
life.
I
think
that's
a
core
competency
that
I've
brought
to
my
international
legal
dealings
about
international
human
rights
or
climate
treaties,
or
in
my
work
on
business
transactions
or
in
in
nonprofit
coalitions.
You
know
all
of
my
experiences
teach
me
the
value
of
preparation
and
homework
know
your
audience.
It
is
very
important,
despite
what
you
might
hear
from
you
know,
some
progressive
supposed
experts
in
communication
that
say
that's
bs.
B
You
need
to
polarize
your
opposition,
no
we've
seen
what
that
gets
us
right,
the
buildback
better
act-
and
I
take
no
pleasure
of
this.
You
know
but,
as
I
said
a
couple
of
years
ago,
on
these
current
trends,
it's
not
going
to
pass
because
of
the
extreme
polarization
plus
there
are
structural
deficiencies
in
our
political
system
that
we
need
to
work
on
over
time,
like
the
filibuster,
like
the
electoral
college.
B
Like
the
you
know,
the
disproportionate
senate,
where
people
in
wyoming
have
multiple
times
the
votes
of
people
in
places
like
texas
or
california,
you
know,
like
the
gerrymandered
house,
like
citizens,
united.
Yes,
these
are
all
problems.
We
need
to
simultaneously
work
on
because
they're
blocking
climate
action,
they're
blocking
voting
rights
legislation,
the
john
lewis
voting
act.
The
freedom
of
the
vote
act
that
we
really
need
to
get
over,
but
the
way
we
do
it
is
to
reach
out,
including
to
the
other
side.
B
As
barack
obama
noted,
we
only
need
a
small
percent
of
the
other
side.
It
can
be
five
or
ten
percent,
and
that
can
shift
that
can
reach
the
tipping
point
on
critical
issues.
As
we
know,
only
a
couple
of
votes
stymied
those
major
pieces
of
legislation,
so
it
starts
with
connecting
right.
You've
got
to
emphasize
those
common
values
and
beliefs
avoid
the
usual
political
triggers,
like
the
icons
that
damon
centola
had
to
take
off
his
social
platform
and
the
nasa
arctic
ice
example.
You
listen,
you
ask
what
matters
to
them.
You
explore
shared
identities.
B
B
You
know
they
can
be
at
workplaces,
brown,
bag,
lunches
and
using
these
methods
that
are
more
interactive
dynamic.
As
opposed
to
top-down
lecturing.
You
can
co-create
solutions,
it's
not
a
one-time
conversation.
It's
ongoing!
You
have
to
build
the
relationships
right.
That's
what
happened
with
these
social
movements
throughout
history.
Where
do
you
do
it?
B
I
suggest
new
places
online
and
offline
with
unlikely
suspects
when
I
think
about
all
my
activism,
the
aclu
bill
of
rights,
defense
committee,
fair
trade,
international,
it
was
put
putting
together
radically
different
people
like
starbucks
or
unilever,
huge
multinational
companies
with
communist
collectives
in
in
latin
america
or
africa,
for
example,
or
southeast
asia.
That
can
yield
very
productive
snowball
campaigns
and
then
oh,
I
had
one
of
how
do
you
do
it?
Well,
that's
that
previous
slide
and
expanding
coalitions
and
partnerships.
B
So
I
have
this
good
practices
and
I'll
put
the
link
in
the
chat
that
are
do's
and
don'ts
that
we
came
up
during
the
with
during
climate
course
last
year,
that'll
be
available
for
download
for
all
of
you.
If
you
have
questions
or
if
you're
interested
in
pursuing
this,
let
me
know
that's
my
email
address
and
I'll
stop
there.
Thank
you
again
for
your
time.