from the world's big
Cynicism Is Killing Our Democracy. Only Political Participation Can Save It.
"Hope" and "change" works both ways, says a former Obama campaign leader. It's time to inspire people who believe their voice doesn't matter before it's too late.
Michael Slaby is a global leader in digital and social media strategy, technology and data analytics, and explores how together they can elevate mission-driven organizations. For Michael, it is not only about developing the necessary technological platform, but understanding what it is that brings people together to take action online, as well as offline. Currently, he is Managing Partner of Timshel—a new company working to help solve social, civic, and humanitarian problems via better technology, engagement capabilities development, and creative capital. Previously he was a Fellow at Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
In 2012, when the Obama administration began gearing up for re-election, one of the first calls went to Michael Slaby, who was chief technology officer in 2008—when the historical campaign leveraged the internet and social media to raise funds and organize volunteers in ways that had never been seen before.
Michael helped lead Obama for America as Chief Integration and Innovation Officer in 2012, overseeing the CTO, CIO, and CAO, in order to ensure effective implementation and integration of technology across the entire campaign.
Michael Slaby: I think the 2016 election has been eye-opening for me personally, and there's been a lot of personal reflection around “what does it mean to be involved?” for a lot of people. I think—and I hope—that we take President Trump's victory as a warning of what disengagement can cost us.
And I think our leaders have failed to lead on a lot of different dimensions. I think government has lost a productive culture of public service that makes it hard to participate, it makes it hard to understand the value of engaging in politics. Our first associations with the word “politician” is like, corruption/dishonesty. Public service should be about our highest ideals, it should be about our collective success, it should be about what is best and most ambitious for a group of people working together around a shared sense of purpose.
So I think as people wake up to “Wait a second, how is this possible here?” I think there's a couple of things at work there.
One is: as the country becomes more urban, and urban centers are decidedly more liberal, we have a sense that the country is much more liberal than it actually is. Turns out it's a really big country. It turns out there's a lot of people who still don't live in cities.
It turns out there are a lot of sort of frustrated people who live in cities who believed in Obama because of the promises he made about changing the system that Trump was a much more natural successor to than Secretary Clinton was.
And so I think the concept of someone who is frustrated and anxious seeing President Obama fail to largely change the culture of politics, see Trump as the bull for the china shop and there's a pretty straight line, and this is a lot easier to see in retrospect. I thought Secretary Clinton was going to win, so this is all with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of thought, and a lot of talking to a lot of people in a lot of places that aren't Chicago and aren't downtown New York.
But what I think this has awakened in people is the reality that people have to participate. There's this saying that “history is decided by the people that show up,” there's like nine different versions of that aphorism that are largely true in a participatory democracy. And I think we've gotten a little lazy, and I think President Trump scares a lot of people... and in a way that has been amazing to watch new people engage in politics.
And I think the question, to get back to where the question started, which is: “Okay, where do people begin?” This is where the increased access that technology provides to low barriers to participation are really, really great.
So you can start participating in politics just by being more aware, being more educated, being more plugged in to what is actually happening with leaders, with leadership, with campaigns at a level of just access to that process is so much greater than it's ever been.
But there's a choice and a desire on our side that we have to go and seek out those answers to those questions. And then there are so many ways to start to engage in simple ways: calling congressmen, writing letters, like everything from 5 Calls to Resistbot, and these are all progressive-oriented things but all of the same tactics apply for conservatives, and a lot of what we see with progresses really embracing the power of being face-to-face with elected officials in town halls was something that the Tea Party used to incredible effect ten years ago in the 2010 midterms in terms of particular just post the Obama election.
And so these tools themselves are not particularly partisan, but they've reduced the barrier to participation sufficiently that it makes it easier for sort of first-time activists to get started. And what I would say is that there's a couple of sort of lies at the heart of progressive politics that are super problematic.
One of them is that all politics is local. I would say that when Tip O'Neill said that in the '80s, “local” was meant to be an analog for what matters most to you. The true statement is: all politics is personal, what matters to you is what matters to you and that might be local, or it might not be.
And the thing that I always say to people is to start. Don't wait for... there is no magic way to participate. We live in a republic. We have to win elections to gain power. We don't live in a direct democracy. So like large scale open-source policymaking is interesting as a listening exercise and for understanding communities and for surfacing ideas that we haven't thought of, but we don't live in a direct democracy where open-source policy actually creates policy directly, so we have to participate in all kinds of ways.
I think one of the places where we need more attention is converting this sort of generic resistance participation we see on the left right now into political power.
So in L.A., in the city elections back in March, fewer people voted than turned out for the Women's March on inauguration day. That's maybe just a function of the fact that it wasn't a contested mayoral election and it's sort of off-cycle and not competitive, but an 11-and-a-half percent voter participation turn-out rate should scare all of us.
That's a problem because we do live in a republic, we do need to believe in the value of participating in this process. And this is where leadership matters a lot. This is where reclaiming the sort of joy and optimism and public service about politics and government is something that has to be a coherent priority of the party, of our leaders, of people running for office on both sides, or we're going to be in a place where democracy is a system of faith; and cynicism is extremely dangerous and long-term corrosive.
There's been a lot of talk about the normalization of propaganda and lying since President Trump took office and I think those things are super problematic because the institutions of the system matter a lot more than the personalities. And when personalities start trumping institutions, no pun intended, or pun intended I guess, you start leaning toward autocracy pretty fast and that's nowhere we want to go.
The net neutrality argument usually gets wrapped around things like Netflix and cable television and sort of commercial content distribution, that kind of thing.
I think the place where net neutrality is particularly important is around activism and around governments.
If companies can change the way they route packets and prioritize content based on financial decisions they can also do it based on ideological decisions. And you start inching your way toward government-run media, it's not a long jump between that question and government-managed suppression of participation from insurgent or counter opinion ideas. That's not a long leap. I worry less about the commercial problems because I think, look, if Netflix has to pay more for faster pipes they'll figure it out—like they'll figure out how to make money, they'll figure out how to get more episodes of House of Cards. It will work out for them. They will make money.
Activists not being able to use services like Twilio effectively to call Congress because net neutrality has changed the way that people have access to information is potentially catastrophic for people understanding that their participation is valuable.
And one of the things that these tools, like I said when we were thinking about this question of new activism and giving more access to more participation, if people don't believe that that participation will work or it literally won't work, now we're starting to create barriers to participation, and in a participatory democracy no barriers to participation are good.
Whether they're voting, whether it's content, whether it's listening, whether it's being able to hold leaders to account, limits on any of those things are bad.
"History is decided by the people that show up," and about 60 million people — about 1/5th of the country — showed up to vote for a boorish reality TV star with no experience in politics. It shocked just about everyone, namely the news media and coastal liberals who thought that Hilary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Michael Slaby—who worked for Obama in the crucial 2012 elections—shows that Trump is part of a direct line from the "hope / change" motif of Barack Obama, albeit on a much darker and aggressive tone. So how do we get back to a level of normality? We engage the majority of America—the 65% of Americans that believe Trump is doing a terrible job—and try and get them to actively participate in politics and show that their voice matters.
If machines develop consciousness, or if we manage to give it to them, the human-robot dynamic will forever be different.
- Does AI—and, more specifically, conscious AI—deserve moral rights? In this thought exploration, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, ethics and tech professor Joanna Bryson, philosopher and cognitive scientist Susan Schneider, physicist Max Tegmark, philosopher Peter Singer, and bioethicist Glenn Cohen all weigh in on the question of AI rights.
- Given the grave tragedy of slavery throughout human history, philosophers and technologists must answer this question ahead of technological development to avoid humanity creating a slave class of conscious beings.
- One potential safeguard against that? Regulation. Once we define the context in which AI requires rights, the simplest solution may be to not build that thing.
Duke University researchers might have solved a half-century old problem.
- Duke University researchers created a hydrogel that appears to be as strong and flexible as human cartilage.
- The blend of three polymers provides enough flexibility and durability to mimic the knee.
- The next step is to test this hydrogel in sheep; human use can take at least three years.
Duke researchers have developed the first gel-based synthetic cartilage with the strength of the real thing. A quarter-sized disc of the material can withstand the weight of a 100-pound kettlebell without tearing or losing its shape.
Photo: Feichen Yang.<p>That's the word from a team in the Department of Chemistry and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke University. Their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202003451" target="_blank">new paper</a>, published in the journal,<em> Advanced Functional Materials</em>, details this exciting evolution of this frustrating joint.<br></p><p>Researchers have sought materials strong and versatile enough to repair a knee since at least the seventies. This new hydrogel, comprised of three polymers, might be it. When two of the polymers are stretched, a third keeps the entire structure intact. When pulled 100,000 times, the cartilage held up as well as materials used in bone implants. The team also rubbed the hydrogel against natural cartilage a million times and found it to be as wear-resistant as the real thing. </p><p>The hydrogel has the appearance of Jell-O and is comprised of 60 percent water. Co-author, Feichen Yang, <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/lab-first-cartilage-mimicking-gel-strong-enough-knees" target="_blank">says</a> this network of polymers is particularly durable: "Only this combination of all three components is both flexible and stiff and therefore strong." </p><p> As with any new material, a lot of testing must be conducted. They don't foresee this hydrogel being implanted into human bodies for at least three years. The next step is to test it out in sheep. </p><p>Still, this is an exciting step forward in the rehabilitation of one of our trickiest joints. Given the potential reward, the wait is worth it. </p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
What would it be like to experience the 4th dimension?
Physicists have understood at least theoretically, that there may be higher dimensions, besides our normal three. The first clue came in 1905 when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity. Of course, by dimensions we’re talking about length, width, and height. Generally speaking, when we talk about a fourth dimension, it’s considered space-time. But here, physicists mean a spatial dimension beyond the normal three, not a parallel universe, as such dimensions are mistaken for in popular sci-fi shows.
An algorithm may allow doctors to assess PTSD candidates for early intervention after traumatic ER visits.
- 10-15% of people visiting emergency rooms eventually develop symptoms of long-lasting PTSD.
- Early treatment is available but there's been no way to tell who needs it.
- Using clinical data already being collected, machine learning can identify who's at risk.
The psychological scars a traumatic experience can leave behind may have a more profound effect on a person than the original traumatic experience. Long after an acute emergency is resolved, victims of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continue to suffer its consequences.
In the U.S. some 30 million patients are annually treated in emergency departments (EDs) for a range of traumatic injuries. Add to that urgent admissions to the ED with the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Health experts predict that some 10 percent to 15 percent of these people will develop long-lasting PTSD within a year of the initial incident. While there are interventions that can help individuals avoid PTSD, there's been no reliable way to identify those most likely to need it.
That may now have changed. A multi-disciplinary team of researchers has developed a method for predicting who is most likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic emergency-room experience. Their study is published in the journal Nature Medicine.
70 data points and machine learning
Image source: Creators Collective/Unsplash
Study lead author Katharina Schultebraucks of Columbia University's Department Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons says:
"For many trauma patients, the ED visit is often their sole contact with the health care system. The time immediately after a traumatic injury is a critical window for identifying people at risk for PTSD and arranging appropriate follow-up treatment. The earlier we can treat those at risk, the better the likely outcomes."
The new PTSD test uses machine learning and 70 clinical data points plus a clinical stress-level assessment to develop a PTSD score for an individual that identifies their risk of acquiring the condition.
Among the 70 data points are stress hormone levels, inflammatory signals, high blood pressure, and an anxiety-level assessment. Says Schultebraucks, "We selected measures that are routinely collected in the ED and logged in the electronic medical record, plus answers to a few short questions about the psychological stress response. The idea was to create a tool that would be universally available and would add little burden to ED personnel."
Researchers used data from adult trauma survivors in Atlanta, Georgia (377 individuals) and New York City (221 individuals) to test their system.
Of this cohort, 90 percent of those predicted to be at high risk developed long-lasting PTSD symptoms within a year of the initial traumatic event — just 5 percent of people who never developed PTSD symptoms had been erroneously identified as being at risk.
On the other side of the coin, 29 percent of individuals were 'false negatives," tagged by the algorithm as not being at risk of PTSD, but then developing symptoms.
Image source: Külli Kittus/Unsplash
Schultebraucks looks forward to more testing as the researchers continue to refine their algorithm and to instill confidence in the approach among ED clinicians: "Because previous models for predicting PTSD risk have not been validated in independent samples like our model, they haven't been adopted in clinical practice." She expects that, "Testing and validation of our model in larger samples will be necessary for the algorithm to be ready-to-use in the general population."
"Currently only 7% of level-1 trauma centers routinely screen for PTSD," notes Schultebraucks. "We hope that the algorithm will provide ED clinicians with a rapid, automatic readout that they could use for discharge planning and the prevention of PTSD." She envisions the algorithm being implemented in the future as a feature of electronic medical records.
The researchers also plan to test their algorithm at predicting PTSD in people whose traumatic experiences come in the form of health events such as heart attacks and strokes, as opposed to visits to the emergency department.