I was asked if I would pick up Jon Haidt at the University of Alabama, where he was speaking at the law school and drive him to Tallahassee where he was scheduled to deliver two presentations the following evening. Would I like to spend 6 hours in the car with one of the most significant minds in America…all to myself? And right after I had read The Righteous Mind?!

After a short nap, he consented to answer all my questions and patiently engage, for the rest of the trip, on a variety of subjects. One of those brainstorming sessions created The Asteroids Club although I suspect he had been thinking about the concept for awhile. I drove, he wrote on his computer, and the notion of a “Four Asteroids Club” started to take shape. We agreed it would be better not to limit the number to four and he tossed out a dozen ideas about how such an entity could formed and operated. We talked about the club’s motto and logo and sometime during the night after we arrived in Tallahassee he created portions of a powerpoint presentation for the next evening.

He suggested The Asteroids Club at both presentations in Tallahassee and spent a significant portion of his speech at FSU asking the audience about their preferences about a motto. It was evident that audiences found the notion of the club compelling.

–Steve Seibert

It’s really a curious state of affairs that we seem to be so incapable of finding common ground in today’s divisive political slugfest. The uber-partisans remind me a lot of two toddlers fighting intensely over possession of a plastic toy as their tussling moves them ever closer to a busy roadway. No matter how oblivious they are to it, that busy roadway exists and the cars are whizzing by. The toddlers are not really attending to the higher priority problem because of how intent they are about the toy. And these two young lads (let’s face it, they’re probably boys) factually have incredible common ground, their fate is likely the same and may even rest in each others’ hands. Ironic since they haven’t the vaguest idea this is true, trapped as they are in their zero sum game of winning that darn toy. And their failure to see it may well seal their fate.

I make the comparison not just because after spending six years trying to heal the partisan divide, it makes me feel good to call partisan leadership children (and it does make me feel really good). The comparison works because boy do we have real problems, enduring problems, problems that are growing bigger by the day, problems we are applying precious little sustained effort to solve. Like the poor unsuspecting kiddos near the highway, we’re too busy attending to the transient and intense squabble.

The other dynamic is that we’re spending all our time talking – at an ever-increasing decibel level – about the common threat that we see, while threat warnings that come from the opposite side of the aisle barely register as a blip. It’s time to harness “the power of and” – a concept we broke out early on when we noticed the either-or thinking run amok. Both threats can be – and probably are – true. When about 50% of a society it deeply concerned about a coming threat, isn’t it worth our time to at least really listen?

Enter The Asteroid Club, a concept we’re finding genius. America’s looming problems may as well be asteroids, as they are hurtling at us through time, heading straight toward an impact that looks certain to about half of us on planet earth. Pick your asteroid, whether it’s climate change, entitlement spending affecting the deficit and financial stability, the growing divide between rich and poor, or the dissolution of the family. There is substantial data to suggest that each (probably among others) is a legitimate asteroid and they’re heading our way.

Our common threats IS our common ground. And we’d better get busy noticing the asteroids. At the Village Square, we’re going to.

– Liz Joyner

Written by Elena Novak, Contributing Writer

Imagine there’s an asteroid hurtling toward Earth. At its present rate, it will make impact in the year 2022. The human race is doomed; however, there is one controversial solution: raise taxes and cut spending. This would fund a project designed to divert the asteroid’s path.

The harrowing scenario began New York University Stern School of Business professor Jonathan Haidt’s speech addressing FSU students and the Tallahassee public on Sept. 11. His speech, entitled “The Righteous Mind: How morality binds us together and tears us apart,” was delivered to a filled-to-capacity Student Life Cinema on Tuesday evening.

Those who came late to the event were directed to an overflow room, where the lecture could be viewed on a projector screen.

There is no known asteroid bent toward destroying mankind; Haidt made it up as an experiment to gauge the audience’s willingness to implement measures that might go against their political views if it meant saving the world. The majority said they would. (Read the whole article online at FSView.)

The Village Square recently kicked off an initiative called "Our Town," with a goal to revive a local town hall (both in person and online).  Our first event was 225+ standing-room-only, livestreamed by the local newspaper and live-tweeted, so we are off to a good start.  We were lucky enough to have stellar partners in the Tallahassee Democrat and Leader

read more

Six years ago a group of liberal and conservative Tallahassee leaders – who somehow enjoyed enduring across-the-aisle friendships despite enduring political disagreement – started an audacious civic experiment. They were frustrated by the divisiveness of the political dialogue nationally and its increasingly negative impact on local decision-making. And they were nervy enough to think they could fix it.

“The experiment” is now called The Village Square, named after Albert Einstein’s reflection on America’s first nuclear energy debate: “To the village square, we must carry the facts… from there must come America’s voice.”

In the good company of Mr. Einstein, we were doing some Grade A wishful thinking when we decided to elevate facts as central to our mission. Facts, after all (and especially in the internet age), are ripe for motivated cherry picking and human beings are nothing if not motivated cherry pickers.

Using the central metaphor in Civil Politics’ founder Jonathan Haidt’s forthcoming The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, with a founding charter on facts, The Village Square had decided to talk to “riders” on their “elephants.”

Jon writes:

“The mind is divided like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant… The rider is our conscious reasoning—the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes—the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior.”

An encyclopedic volume of facts can drive any particular complex issue – hard for mere mortals (with children, bosses and a mortgage) to absorb. So instead, people make decisions intuitively (and based on others around them), then settle on a set of “facts” that support the decision they’ve already made. “The Righteous Mind” offers overwhelming scientific support for the driving force of “post-hoc” rationalization in our mental processes.

I now suspect our original conservative and liberal friends were unconsciously deluding ourselves that The Village Square would convince our wayward friends on the opposite side of the aisle of the ultimate correctness of our own political views. That didn’t happen.

Instead, in the process of rolling up our sleeves together in common work, we had accidentally put ourselves in the company of a very different group of elephants than our usual herd. That is what has changed everything – including (ironically) allowing us to be naturally affected by a broader range of facts.

Now when our “elephants” lean in the direction our minds choose instinctively – we choose a different direction than we might have without these new and unique relationships. Using Jon Haidt’s construct, in the process of aiming our efforts at what doesn’t work – talking to the rider – The Village Square stumbled on what does work: We changed the path of the elephant.

Jon on Bill Moyers earlier this month:

“…If you bring people together who disagree, and they have a sense of friendship, family, having something in common, having an institution to preserve, they can challenge each other’s reason… wisdom comes out of a group of people well-constituted who have some faith or trust in each other.”

Do we still talk to riders? Sure we do. Riders matter, as servants of the elephant. Riders need good ideas to talk to other people, and try to influence them. But the ingredient essential to our success has always been that we speak to elephants.

More soon on how you get 4 ton pachyderms into a room…

(Photo credit: Cody Simms)

Tom Edsall, a journalism professor at Columbia who writes for the New York Times' "Campaign Stops" blog, recently undertook an illuminating project. He asked a few liberals to say what they think conservatives are right about, and he asked a few conservatives to say what they thought liberals were right about.

read more

A British study released Thursday in Current Biology further supports theories that there far more to political difference than just who we vote for. It’s already been shown that there are differing levels of brain activity in the amygdala and upper brain cortex in liberals and conservatives, but apparently there is also a difference in the size of each part of the brain. Conservatives have more brain mass in their amygdala, the region of the brain associated with fear. Liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex which is associated with managing uncertainty and conflict. It’s anybody’s guess as to whether the political bent affected the size of the brain region or if the brain differences started the whole shebang. It continues to be our assertion that it’s understanding where people are coming from – differences in brain and all – that makes all the difference in having a constructive civic dialogue with them.

An editorial comment: I’ve seen this fascinating study quoted in publications with a liberal bent with the subtle undertone of superiority, but it’s important to realize that fear can be a pretty useful intuition in all sorts of situations (read Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear). Fear can lead to appropriate levels of caution in situations requiring thoughtful action. Fear can save your life. Our CivilPolitics.org speakers last week – Matt Motyl in person and Jon Haidt by Skype – both likened conservatives to the brake and liberals as the gas. Both pretty dang important in how the car functions, eh? So thumbs down on the “we’re smarter than you” line of argument, even if it’s politely covert. Respectfully, that’s part of what’s gotten us where we are, where conservatives know to their core that there are ways that we’re messing up badly in our culture and liberals want to know what degrees earned them the right to make the assertion. Plus, there are some things that require a little certainty and can’t just hang forever in limbo. This is not to mention the broader basis for moral reasoning among conservatives that Haidt & Motyl’s studies show (a topic for another day).

But a take-home lesson for conservatives might be that it’s worth submitting some of the fear mongering served up with stunning regularity to win your vote to a little fact-checking. Your brain is a handy tool for a fear that is real, but might be at risk of being hijacked by the demagogues for fears that simply are not.

I wonder if it’s possible for us to stop hating the differences between us and start appreciating them as a tool in civic decision-making? Our childish squabbling is about as ridiculous as arguing whether the gas or the brake pedal is most important in driving a car. And a stunning number of us seem to be arguing to just get rid of one the pedals.

All students of man and society… are aware that the besetting danger is not so much of embracing falsehood for truth, as of mistaking part of the truth for the whole. It might be plausibly maintained that in almost every one of the leading controversies, past or present, in social philosophy, both sides were in the right in what they affirmed, though in the wrong in what they denied; and that if either could have been made to take the other’s views in addition to its own, little more would have been needed to make its doctrine correct. — John Stuart Mill