Remember, it’s not cool to overreact.
December 13, 2022 10:10 PM Subscribe
How Normalcy Bias Will Define Our Future. Many of us have encountered this attitude daily over the last few years. It’s infuriating. We’ve tried to get those around us to take various threats seriously, whether it’s the coronavirus or climate change. Our friends and family wave us off. It leaves us feeling isolated and unbalanced, wondering if we’re the ones with the problem. We’re not, and normalcy bias shows just how weird people act in the face of threats. Most of the time, they’re predisposed to shrug it off.
Psychologists have observed this pattern over and over again in everything from earthquakes to traffic accidents. It’s practically baked in that 70 percent of people will wait until it’s too late to solve a crisis. […] Until now, I’ve been hoping that activists would have an easier time getting people on board with urgent action as the consequences become more self-evident. But if psychology holds true, we’re going to have an extra obstacle to fight. We’re going to have to recognize people’s normalcy bias and call it out.
Psychologists have observed this pattern over and over again in everything from earthquakes to traffic accidents. It’s practically baked in that 70 percent of people will wait until it’s too late to solve a crisis. […] Until now, I’ve been hoping that activists would have an easier time getting people on board with urgent action as the consequences become more self-evident. But if psychology holds true, we’re going to have an extra obstacle to fight. We’re going to have to recognize people’s normalcy bias and call it out.
When the food runs out, when the power goes out, until then you aren't going to shout them awake.
At least that's what my depressed memories of Bush II tell me.
posted by pan at 10:59 PM on December 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
At least that's what my depressed memories of Bush II tell me.
posted by pan at 10:59 PM on December 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
A devise that has a rather diluting effect is feeding back the "we all suffer because it's too late, don't worry, keep working because we all die" routine, like the Ostrich pecking at your moneybelt.
" ya work then die"
yup, and repeat that back to those who parrot when their world collides.
"oh, you work then die" it has a deadening effect on discourse and relationships.
it's alienating. Smoking on oxygen, imprecise as that may seem, seems to fit the mentality of the addictions to normalcy, I suppose this is why solders sing hymns during war, as normal has become a new definition, a goal, a casualty. There won't be a last Christmas tree in a acre of nettles.
the age of muffled alarms and raging fingers point blurs.
I want my MTV.
posted by clavdivs at 11:14 PM on December 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
" ya work then die"
yup, and repeat that back to those who parrot when their world collides.
"oh, you work then die" it has a deadening effect on discourse and relationships.
it's alienating. Smoking on oxygen, imprecise as that may seem, seems to fit the mentality of the addictions to normalcy, I suppose this is why solders sing hymns during war, as normal has become a new definition, a goal, a casualty. There won't be a last Christmas tree in a acre of nettles.
the age of muffled alarms and raging fingers point blurs.
I want my MTV.
posted by clavdivs at 11:14 PM on December 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
“So why is there normalcy bias? As social beings, we are sensitive to the perception of others viewing us as abnormal.Within social relationships, very few want to be seen as alarmist, overreactive or a fool because if they are wrong about a threat then they will be regarded as less credible in the future. Social shaming reinforces our normalcy bias. It’s not cool to overreact. Every parent has heard that from their adolescent.”
Ross C (2020) Covid-19 Pandemic from a "Normalcy Bias" Approach. J Comm Pub Health Nursing 6: 242. DOI: 10.4172/2471-9846.1000242
posted by Bottlecap at 12:53 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
Ross C (2020) Covid-19 Pandemic from a "Normalcy Bias" Approach. J Comm Pub Health Nursing 6: 242. DOI: 10.4172/2471-9846.1000242
posted by Bottlecap at 12:53 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
This. People need 1) permission to change without admitting they were wrong. 2) someone to hold their hand at each intermeadiate step patiently forgiving and rewarding them 3) the sense that everyone is doing it or that they will be soon.
It sucks. I don't have the social skills to do this and people dont want me to because I look and live wierd. Far from being a role-model, I seem to disuade people. "If thats sustainable, I'd rather die". Ok, i'm fine with you dying, but you are taking out innocent people and spwcies and really, the potentially sustainable lifestyle is fun and not terrible...
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:02 AM on December 14, 2022 [31 favorites]
It sucks. I don't have the social skills to do this and people dont want me to because I look and live wierd. Far from being a role-model, I seem to disuade people. "If thats sustainable, I'd rather die". Ok, i'm fine with you dying, but you are taking out innocent people and spwcies and really, the potentially sustainable lifestyle is fun and not terrible...
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:02 AM on December 14, 2022 [31 favorites]
Shouting at a person and being impolite almost never gets anyone to change their mind.
I was thinking about this yesterday in the midst of an uptick in incivility on my Twitter feed, and it occurred to me to start just pointing out the dickishness and reject it. GTFO unless you can express some citizenship. It should be obvious by now what it looks like when a topic or opinion is phrased or framed with the aim of increasing division. Those people should be marginalized, if not banished.
posted by rhizome at 1:08 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I was thinking about this yesterday in the midst of an uptick in incivility on my Twitter feed, and it occurred to me to start just pointing out the dickishness and reject it. GTFO unless you can express some citizenship. It should be obvious by now what it looks like when a topic or opinion is phrased or framed with the aim of increasing division. Those people should be marginalized, if not banished.
posted by rhizome at 1:08 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
So activism might try to harness this normalcy bias toward a new normal. Instead of shame and tax fines for being child-free, we could throw unbirthdays, like a santa-con mardi-gra for childfree folks, reward positive behavior and make others want to join the fun.
Drivers of odd cars often signal solidarity ( smart car drivers certainly do) instead of middle fingers and honks, for evs, cyclists and walkers maybe thumbs up and peace signs.
Shame is powerful, a few bilboards listing the worlds worst villians might signal the communities approbrium: Nero, Columbus, Stalin, Tillerson.
Its not socially acceptable to say most of the dismissive pejoratives of my youth, we could coin new ones. Make our expletives that someone is a fossil instead of retarded, or filthy polluters instead of filthy ******, etc. People want to be liked, want to be cool, want to be in the in-group. Lets normalize future-prosocial behavior and make folks want to join the club.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:19 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Drivers of odd cars often signal solidarity ( smart car drivers certainly do) instead of middle fingers and honks, for evs, cyclists and walkers maybe thumbs up and peace signs.
Shame is powerful, a few bilboards listing the worlds worst villians might signal the communities approbrium: Nero, Columbus, Stalin, Tillerson.
Its not socially acceptable to say most of the dismissive pejoratives of my youth, we could coin new ones. Make our expletives that someone is a fossil instead of retarded, or filthy polluters instead of filthy ******, etc. People want to be liked, want to be cool, want to be in the in-group. Lets normalize future-prosocial behavior and make folks want to join the club.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:19 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
To be honest I'm not sure how much those short term lack-of-panic responses have to do with the poor response to COVID in certain countries. Some countries dealt with COVID far better than average, some far worse. Did the countries that handled it relatively well really have populations with less "normalcy bias"? Or did they have cultures and governments that were different in other ways?
One thread here recently was talking about the concept of "patriarchal freedom". The overriding moral value, trumping all others, for some is that nobody ever gets to tell a wealthy white man what to do. I suspect that might have more to do with COVID response than normalcy bias.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
One thread here recently was talking about the concept of "patriarchal freedom". The overriding moral value, trumping all others, for some is that nobody ever gets to tell a wealthy white man what to do. I suspect that might have more to do with COVID response than normalcy bias.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
Mod note: I've deleted the bit about shouting, by OP's request, since the post really isn't about that, but it had sort of taken over the whole discussion.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I've seen this in action very clearly when my spouse and I were foreigners living in Britain. As outsiders, we had a bit more immunity to this normalcy or social conformity. In Britain, breaking out and calling attention to some threat is known as "making a fuss" This is a known problem that emergency services have to deal with.
Once was in a theater in London when a fire alarm went off. Only us and some French folks headed to the exit. Everyone else sat in their seats waiting (to see if it was real? for further instructions?) Another time, a restaurant started to flood and of course we got up and started leaving. Everyone else stayed in their seats, with water beginning to pool around their feet. It was a bit bizarre. These weren't isolated incidents. I could point out many more. At some point you do start to question whether it is you who is being too sensitive and perhaps you do too eventually conform or go a bit mad.
posted by vacapinta at 2:38 AM on December 14, 2022 [23 favorites]
Once was in a theater in London when a fire alarm went off. Only us and some French folks headed to the exit. Everyone else sat in their seats waiting (to see if it was real? for further instructions?) Another time, a restaurant started to flood and of course we got up and started leaving. Everyone else stayed in their seats, with water beginning to pool around their feet. It was a bit bizarre. These weren't isolated incidents. I could point out many more. At some point you do start to question whether it is you who is being too sensitive and perhaps you do too eventually conform or go a bit mad.
posted by vacapinta at 2:38 AM on December 14, 2022 [23 favorites]
Shouting at a person and being impolite almost never gets anyone to change their mind.
Here's the thing, though - getting this one specific person to change their mind isn't always the goal. The goal may instead be to publicly demonstrate that their brand of assholery isn't welcome, or to tell the people that are under attack by that person's bigotry that they are not alone and people stand with them. The hyperfocus on trying to change the minds of people who are not in a position to change their mind has been a major stumbling block from my perspective.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:00 AM on December 14, 2022 [29 favorites]
Here's the thing, though - getting this one specific person to change their mind isn't always the goal. The goal may instead be to publicly demonstrate that their brand of assholery isn't welcome, or to tell the people that are under attack by that person's bigotry that they are not alone and people stand with them. The hyperfocus on trying to change the minds of people who are not in a position to change their mind has been a major stumbling block from my perspective.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:00 AM on December 14, 2022 [29 favorites]
I think I've been very lucky to have somehow reached a stage of not really caring what people think of me. I care about what my colleagues think of my work, and I care that close friends think I'm kind. But, I've absolutely no reservations about being the only person wearing a mask in the airport and carrying a CO2 meter. (I know the latter is imperfect, but it's not uncorrelated.) I don't harass people who don't. I do appreciate the mask-wearing head nod.
posted by eotvos at 3:14 AM on December 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by eotvos at 3:14 AM on December 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
I’ve taken my mask off once or twice due to being in a) a new situation and b) the only person there (a pickup at a new sport where I expected just to be at a set of doors but there was a hallway meeting.)
Anyways, one solution is to be in a position of decision-making to set the norms.
In my industry, more than half our competitors were open during lockdowns and ignoring public health rules and sharing tips on papering over their windows. We didn’t, partly because I could advocate and educate and my boss supported me at financial loss (even though pre-Covid, he was anti-vax! Now he’s fully boosted and his kids are on schedule.)
Fortunately or unfortunately, one way you find people who can lead that way is to hire outsiders and have a diverse range of opinion with enough trust and time to empower people. That also means listening to them I am not a buff guy who spent the last 20 years mastering my physicality so I can break concrete blocks, plus I have damage from Epstein-Barr, so for this particular issue, I was a good outsider. As cases and flu season have come on, I have not only continued to wear a mask to normalize it, but I’ve said “mask up!” every time someone is sick, which is A Lot right now, and yesterday I noticed we’re back to 1/2 the staff masking.
I haven’t yelled at a soul, but I enforced public health rules in 45-minute chunks for 700 ppl, through my team.
Another example…I worked for a guy who was a bit deaf in one ear because as a young reporter he’d been next to a pipe bomb when it went off. He’d had the training journalists used yo get to go into war zones. When a gas leak threatened our offices, he had us outside soooo fast…the rest of us were in that frozen state described above.
I know a few young grads of environmental science who are all working on credentials to infiltrate corporations at high levels like CFO. Whether they will become corrupted by salary in the next 20 years I don’t know but I admire their strategy.
Gain power and influence and then use it can work. Not for everyone! But it can. Join the Health and Safety committee.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:15 AM on December 14, 2022 [10 favorites]
Anyways, one solution is to be in a position of decision-making to set the norms.
In my industry, more than half our competitors were open during lockdowns and ignoring public health rules and sharing tips on papering over their windows. We didn’t, partly because I could advocate and educate and my boss supported me at financial loss (even though pre-Covid, he was anti-vax! Now he’s fully boosted and his kids are on schedule.)
Fortunately or unfortunately, one way you find people who can lead that way is to hire outsiders and have a diverse range of opinion with enough trust and time to empower people. That also means listening to them I am not a buff guy who spent the last 20 years mastering my physicality so I can break concrete blocks, plus I have damage from Epstein-Barr, so for this particular issue, I was a good outsider. As cases and flu season have come on, I have not only continued to wear a mask to normalize it, but I’ve said “mask up!” every time someone is sick, which is A Lot right now, and yesterday I noticed we’re back to 1/2 the staff masking.
I haven’t yelled at a soul, but I enforced public health rules in 45-minute chunks for 700 ppl, through my team.
Another example…I worked for a guy who was a bit deaf in one ear because as a young reporter he’d been next to a pipe bomb when it went off. He’d had the training journalists used yo get to go into war zones. When a gas leak threatened our offices, he had us outside soooo fast…the rest of us were in that frozen state described above.
I know a few young grads of environmental science who are all working on credentials to infiltrate corporations at high levels like CFO. Whether they will become corrupted by salary in the next 20 years I don’t know but I admire their strategy.
Gain power and influence and then use it can work. Not for everyone! But it can. Join the Health and Safety committee.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:15 AM on December 14, 2022 [10 favorites]
He’d had the training journalists used yo get to go into war zones. When a gas leak threatened our offices, he had us outside soooo fast…the rest of us were in that frozen state described above.Watching a mentor respond to a plug in a liquid helium storage dewar (which can lead to a very dangerous explosion) was really informative. He ran down the hall to get the tools to solve it and risked his life by standing above the thing with a sledge hammer without hesitating. There are times when doing nothing is the right choice, but when you actually do know what to do, you jump in and do it. At least, that's what I aspire to. Fortunately there haven't been many opportunities to actually practice it. (I've broken up a few fights and helped unarrest a few people, but not alone and usually after a minute of indecision.)
posted by eotvos at 3:26 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
Great point eotvos. I have lifeguard training (v v old) and first aid training as well as martial arts and it makes a big difference in certain situations. Lifeguard drills teach you to asses the situation. I’ve intervened with people who were passed out because of first aid. Maybe something people can do is simply train on things that might help according to their interests and skills.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:05 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 4:05 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I’ve been saying this (about training) for decades but especially since 2016: lots of people like to think that they would not have been the Nazis and fascists, that they would have opposed them - and they potentially could! That historically only a relatively small percentage of people do is not immutable future destiny; but it takes training in the sense of starting small and practicing speaking up against everyday minor little injustices, and normalizing doing that work. Likewise, you don’t hear stories like vacapinta’s fire alarm story much in the US or Canada not because of any fundamental difference in national character or susceptibility to normalcy bias, but because kids go through so many fire alarm drills and training growing up here that responding to the fire alarm is instead the normalized thing to do.
posted by eviemath at 4:21 AM on December 14, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:21 AM on December 14, 2022 [11 favorites]
Bystander intervention training is one component of what we need as a sort of first aid for social injustice training, and there are some good programs for such training that just need to become more widespread to become normalized. But we also need better, more standardized training on responding to everyday systemic inequities and injustice. Like something that trains people to reflexively think “who’s not represented and what voices aren’t being heard here?”, for starters.
posted by eviemath at 4:55 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:55 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
I've seen this in action very clearly when my spouse and I were foreigners living in Britain. As outsiders, we had a bit more immunity to this normalcy or social conformity. In Britain, breaking out and calling attention to some threat is known as "making a fuss"
I've never thought about it, but I (a Brit) do this. If the fire alarm goes off in the office, I will instinctively check to see if anyone else is moving first before reluctantly gathering my coat/bag to make my way to the fire escape. I have also literally sat while someone spent the entire first half of a dance performance with their unwanted hand up my skirt, because I did not want to make a fuss (I was rescued by others in the interval and the owner of the hand was not sitting next to me in the second half.)
posted by plonkee at 4:57 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
I've never thought about it, but I (a Brit) do this. If the fire alarm goes off in the office, I will instinctively check to see if anyone else is moving first before reluctantly gathering my coat/bag to make my way to the fire escape. I have also literally sat while someone spent the entire first half of a dance performance with their unwanted hand up my skirt, because I did not want to make a fuss (I was rescued by others in the interval and the owner of the hand was not sitting next to me in the second half.)
posted by plonkee at 4:57 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
I have a problem with this and Earthquakes: as a Chilean, I'm biased against doing anything when the ground starts moving.
There was a big one back in 1988, 8.0 on the richter scale.
I was on my bed, reading a good book. I noticed the earthquake but just stayed where I was.
My mom was outside yelling at me to get out.
I was all like "okay, mom, I'm coming," but miffed at having to put down my book.
I finally walked outside and we watched the house's walls shake 1/2 meter in each direction and the water jump out of the pool.
Nothing happened to our house except all the crosses and other religious decorations fell down (we're non-religious but my parents like that kind of thing).
posted by signal at 5:07 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
There was a big one back in 1988, 8.0 on the richter scale.
I was on my bed, reading a good book. I noticed the earthquake but just stayed where I was.
My mom was outside yelling at me to get out.
I was all like "okay, mom, I'm coming," but miffed at having to put down my book.
I finally walked outside and we watched the house's walls shake 1/2 meter in each direction and the water jump out of the pool.
Nothing happened to our house except all the crosses and other religious decorations fell down (we're non-religious but my parents like that kind of thing).
posted by signal at 5:07 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ex-Republicans talking about how most Republicans just didn't want to know that something bad was going to happen last January 6.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:23 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:23 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm currently reading Jonathan Freedland's The Escape Artist, which tells the true story of a Jewish man who escaped from Auschwitz determined to tell the world of the horrors he'd seen there. He found it very hard to get people to accept his testimony because the sheer scale of the mass murder being carried out there was beyond what they could imagine. As one chastened man among the Jewish authorities he approached later said: "I knew, but I did not believe. And because I did not believe, I did not know."
I think something similar might be happening with climate change today.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2022 [14 favorites]
I think something similar might be happening with climate change today.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2022 [14 favorites]
I have a problem with this and Earthquakes:
I experienced my first (and, to date, only) earthquake in the middle of the night while staying in an upstairs room of a Las Vegas hotel. For all I knew, the whole building was about to come down, but my fear of looking a fool by over-reacting far outweighed anything else. I listened for sounds of anyone else on that floor evacuating and then, when I didn't hear anything, shrugged and went back to sleep.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:35 AM on December 14, 2022
I experienced my first (and, to date, only) earthquake in the middle of the night while staying in an upstairs room of a Las Vegas hotel. For all I knew, the whole building was about to come down, but my fear of looking a fool by over-reacting far outweighed anything else. I listened for sounds of anyone else on that floor evacuating and then, when I didn't hear anything, shrugged and went back to sleep.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:35 AM on December 14, 2022
I think this piece badly confuses normalcy bias (a bias which keeps us from freaking out every time something's a little off), information gathering (our natural need to ask other people what's going on), and political incentives for not fixing increasingly dangerous structural problems.
There's an enormous difference between how you should react when your house is on fire, and how you can react if, due to generations of racism, the only house you can afford is in a flood zone, and now there is a hurricane coming. It does no good to confuse the two.
We should read this piece with a skeptical eye, putting as it does a great burden on individuals for systemic problems. The pandemic was a disaster not because of individual choices--lord knows, I panicked hard about it, and made a lot of decisions about how to change my life, the expense (both financial and psychological) hanging around my neck even now, although I haven't had so much as a cold for three years due to the precautions--but I am a white middle-class person with an enormous number of options open to me no matter how the government responds. And the government, here in the US, responded profoundly badly. It makes no sense to look at individual choice, at normalcy bias, to portray people as sheep, when the government has proven time and again it cannot handle disasters. We lucked out that private industry was able to help with vaccines; not every disaster has such an out, certainly not most of the climate-related disasters coming our way.
We hear things like, "Why don't people just move where there aren't any hurricanes?" "Why don't people move out of earthquake zones?" As though people are perfectly mobile, as though there are no possible ties that might keep you in place. As though movement is free.
Where is the discussion of race, of class, of disability, of having a duty to care for others? What's this "we"? What's this "evolution" that psychologists all agree on, that somehow doesn't need to take politics and money into account?
posted by mittens at 5:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [36 favorites]
There's an enormous difference between how you should react when your house is on fire, and how you can react if, due to generations of racism, the only house you can afford is in a flood zone, and now there is a hurricane coming. It does no good to confuse the two.
We should read this piece with a skeptical eye, putting as it does a great burden on individuals for systemic problems. The pandemic was a disaster not because of individual choices--lord knows, I panicked hard about it, and made a lot of decisions about how to change my life, the expense (both financial and psychological) hanging around my neck even now, although I haven't had so much as a cold for three years due to the precautions--but I am a white middle-class person with an enormous number of options open to me no matter how the government responds. And the government, here in the US, responded profoundly badly. It makes no sense to look at individual choice, at normalcy bias, to portray people as sheep, when the government has proven time and again it cannot handle disasters. We lucked out that private industry was able to help with vaccines; not every disaster has such an out, certainly not most of the climate-related disasters coming our way.
We hear things like, "Why don't people just move where there aren't any hurricanes?" "Why don't people move out of earthquake zones?" As though people are perfectly mobile, as though there are no possible ties that might keep you in place. As though movement is free.
Where is the discussion of race, of class, of disability, of having a duty to care for others? What's this "we"? What's this "evolution" that psychologists all agree on, that somehow doesn't need to take politics and money into account?
posted by mittens at 5:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [36 favorites]
So why is there normalcy bias? As social beings, we are sensitive to the perception of others viewing us as abnormal. Within social relationships, very few want to be seen as alarmist, overreactive or a fool because if they are wrong about a threat then they will be regarded as less credible in the future.
And with regards to covid, these people who didn't want to be less credible are now crowing they were "right all along." Of course, they are still very wrong, but that is not a reason to change course!
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:37 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
And with regards to covid, these people who didn't want to be less credible are now crowing they were "right all along." Of course, they are still very wrong, but that is not a reason to change course!
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:37 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
This is when I also like to surface the story of Fritz Lang:
posted by vacapinta at 5:56 AM on December 14, 2022 [35 favorites]
“The Fuhrer and I have seen your films,” Lang quotes Goebbels as saying, “and the Fuhrer made clear that ‘this is the man who will give us the national socialist film.'” Feeling no choice but to thank Goebbels for the honor and ostensibly accept the offered (or perhaps insisted-upon) position as the head of state film production, Lang went home and immediately told his servant to prepare luggage “for a one- or two-week trip to Paris,” leaving Germany that same evening, never to return until the late 1950s.Sometimes you have to leave everything behind, even if you feel that you can't, because literally it is everything that is at stake. And you have to do that despite the seeming normalcy you see around you. It takes great courage and most of the refugees in the world are people of great courage.
posted by vacapinta at 5:56 AM on December 14, 2022 [35 favorites]
mittens, that is such a great comment. It helps me put words to what I was feeling while reading the article: the writer seems to not distinguish between criticisms aimed at the emotional valence of someone's reaction vs. criticisms aimed at the effectiveness of someone's reaction. Like. People who led folks to climb out of the hull of collided aircrafts were almost certainly NOT the people who were panicking, but the writer seems to think they were. And from there concludes that panic is good. Utter nonsense.
Anyone who wants to go ahead and panic can go ahead and panic. It's not very useful to do it but you do you! I'm going to be over here trying to act effectively to the extent that I can.
posted by MiraK at 5:58 AM on December 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
Anyone who wants to go ahead and panic can go ahead and panic. It's not very useful to do it but you do you! I'm going to be over here trying to act effectively to the extent that I can.
posted by MiraK at 5:58 AM on December 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
Yeah, panic might be effective at getting you out of a building on fire, but I'm not sure it's a useful response to a long-term threat like climate change.
Also it seems to me that a lot of the people who are most complacent about climate change, are also in a constant state of panic about other things which are mostly non-issues in reality ("Censorship on campus! Crime-ridden cities!"). It's not so much that they're unable to panic, it's that they're panicking over bullshit but in denial of the real threats.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:08 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also it seems to me that a lot of the people who are most complacent about climate change, are also in a constant state of panic about other things which are mostly non-issues in reality ("Censorship on campus! Crime-ridden cities!"). It's not so much that they're unable to panic, it's that they're panicking over bullshit but in denial of the real threats.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:08 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
"To the thinking man nothing is more remarkable in this life than the way in which Humanity adjusts itself to conditions which at their outset might well have appeared intolerable. Some great cataclysm occurs, some storm or earthquake, shaking the community to its foundations; and after the first pardonable consternation one finds the sufferers resuming their ordinary pursuits as if nothing had happened. There have been few more striking examples of this adaptability than the behavior of the members of our golf-club under the impact of Wallace Chesney’s plus fours."
- P.G. Wodehouse, Heart of a Goof
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 6:38 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
- P.G. Wodehouse, Heart of a Goof
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 6:38 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
This was an interesting read. I'm not sure there's a logical corollary or plan of action that can follow, though, when the author is at pains to point out the consistency of the statistics.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:59 AM on December 14, 2022
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:59 AM on December 14, 2022
You seem to have missed the author explicitly saying this is not the same as panicking:
“During any given crisis, you can count on 30 percent of the public to respond appropriately and do the right thing.
About ten percent will freak out.
Those ten percent cause riots and stampedes. That’s why governments and mainstream media work so hard to silence them. Unfortunately, they don’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the ten percent who panic and the ten percent who know what we should be doing.
They get us mixed up.
So does the public.”
posted by Bottlecap at 7:30 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
“During any given crisis, you can count on 30 percent of the public to respond appropriately and do the right thing.
About ten percent will freak out.
Those ten percent cause riots and stampedes. That’s why governments and mainstream media work so hard to silence them. Unfortunately, they don’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the ten percent who panic and the ten percent who know what we should be doing.
They get us mixed up.
So does the public.”
posted by Bottlecap at 7:30 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I think this sidesteps the questions: is there a crisis? And if there is, what is the right response?
posted by haptic_avenger at 7:36 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by haptic_avenger at 7:36 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I've been pondering this situation for a bit now. I have a young friend with disabling health problems from birth. She was warned that it would be bad if she got covid. She went around without a mask to karaoke, got covid. She went to a concert without a mask, says she got covid but just didn't bother to confirm it with a test that time. She just had her third brief bout of covid and even though her medical team at freaking Stanford told her this would mess her up for life in 2020, and they've said it weakened her even further this year, it's taken until bout #3 with covid for her to finally have it sink in that she should be masking up or not going places and acting like everything is normal.
And I don't know what to say other than like well, you knew this was the situation, but you wanted so badly to live life like "normal" again anyway that well...you made that choice and now you have to live with (or possibly die from :( ) that choice. She can't live independently and at least one family member refuses to wear a mask anywhere (apparently even at the hospital when she's in it, good lord) and I suspect the other parent isn't masking up much or at all in most of life either. You'd think if you've been dealing with an ill family member your entire life you'd accept that you need to mask up in public, but apparently not.
People just want things to be "normal again" so bad that they'd literally rather die or run the risk of dying than cover their faces/change their behavior for the rest of their lives.
Me, I'll wear a mask in public forever if I have to, which at this point I think I do, to try to NOT get it, or anything else, and I don't really get how everyone else can just stick their heads in the sand about it. Like I'm still living life "as normal" most of the time except I just have a mask on! It's not the worst thing ever! Most of the time it's totally fine except for glasses steaming up or having to eat (which does suck). But for most people, apparently acknowledging that this is bad and for the rest of their lives, well....they'd rather stick their heads in the sand, run the risk, and go LA LA LA NOT THINKING ABOUT THIS.
On a related note, a reporter wants to interview me today about what it's like to be one of the few who continues to mask. We'll see how that goes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
And I don't know what to say other than like well, you knew this was the situation, but you wanted so badly to live life like "normal" again anyway that well...you made that choice and now you have to live with (or possibly die from :( ) that choice. She can't live independently and at least one family member refuses to wear a mask anywhere (apparently even at the hospital when she's in it, good lord) and I suspect the other parent isn't masking up much or at all in most of life either. You'd think if you've been dealing with an ill family member your entire life you'd accept that you need to mask up in public, but apparently not.
People just want things to be "normal again" so bad that they'd literally rather die or run the risk of dying than cover their faces/change their behavior for the rest of their lives.
Me, I'll wear a mask in public forever if I have to, which at this point I think I do, to try to NOT get it, or anything else, and I don't really get how everyone else can just stick their heads in the sand about it. Like I'm still living life "as normal" most of the time except I just have a mask on! It's not the worst thing ever! Most of the time it's totally fine except for glasses steaming up or having to eat (which does suck). But for most people, apparently acknowledging that this is bad and for the rest of their lives, well....they'd rather stick their heads in the sand, run the risk, and go LA LA LA NOT THINKING ABOUT THIS.
On a related note, a reporter wants to interview me today about what it's like to be one of the few who continues to mask. We'll see how that goes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2022 [9 favorites]
So why is there normalcy bias? As social beings, we are sensitive to the perception of others viewing us as abnormal.
I envy some of my autistic friends for their (relative) lack of this bias. Sometimes I want to apologize for how neurotypical I’m being. “Sorry, I know that is the wrong thing to do and I will try not to do it, but sadly I am allistic and it is almost painful for me not to conform to the people around me.”
posted by mbrubeck at 8:07 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I envy some of my autistic friends for their (relative) lack of this bias. Sometimes I want to apologize for how neurotypical I’m being. “Sorry, I know that is the wrong thing to do and I will try not to do it, but sadly I am allistic and it is almost painful for me not to conform to the people around me.”
posted by mbrubeck at 8:07 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I've been in a disaster or two (fires- saved a neighbor, hurricanes, car accidents) and none of this rings true to me. First, most disasters turn disastrous really quickly, many people are unable to help (young or old, disabilities), some people are literally injured by the disaster and cannot help themselves. Sure, a few people freeze, but nowhere near 30%. Also it assumes that there is a plan that can be followed. But that's not always true. What if each of those people who are panicking and each of the people who know exactly what to do come up with their own individual plans? It looks exactly like chaos. There is no time to assign leadership roles in true disasters.
You can only determine who was correct after the fact. That maybe helps in the next disaster, but doesn't do anything for the current one. What if people are doing the correct thing, and some part of the disaster wipes them out? What do they get described as?
"Why don't people just move where there aren't any hurricanes?" "Why don't people move out of earthquake zones?"
People who say stuff like this are just ignorant. Like 60% of the populated area of the United States in a combined hurricane/earthquake zone. Flood zone maps outside of those zones are 50% science and 50% politics.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:39 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
You can only determine who was correct after the fact. That maybe helps in the next disaster, but doesn't do anything for the current one. What if people are doing the correct thing, and some part of the disaster wipes them out? What do they get described as?
"Why don't people just move where there aren't any hurricanes?" "Why don't people move out of earthquake zones?"
People who say stuff like this are just ignorant. Like 60% of the populated area of the United States in a combined hurricane/earthquake zone. Flood zone maps outside of those zones are 50% science and 50% politics.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:39 AM on December 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I saw this part:
I have slept through or simply failed to notice every earthquake I have ever experienced (there was a 5.4 recently that I didn't notice at all, as I was engrossed in a book), I also slept through a gas leak (thank you Dave for waking me up and making me leave!). So I assume I'm just one of the doomed.
posted by selenized at 8:40 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
"About ten percent will freak out.and my first thought was: do the ten percent who are freaking out know that they are the ten percent that freak out? or do they think that they are the ten percent who know what they should be doing? From the outside that's a pretty important distinction to make, but while you are in it you may be the least equipped recognize it. At least that's what I would be thinking while standing stalk still and engulfed in flames during whatever emergency has overtaken me.
Those ten percent cause riots and stampedes. That’s why governments and mainstream media work so hard to silence them. Unfortunately, they don’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the ten percent who panic and the ten percent who know what we should be doing."
I have slept through or simply failed to notice every earthquake I have ever experienced (there was a 5.4 recently that I didn't notice at all, as I was engrossed in a book), I also slept through a gas leak (thank you Dave for waking me up and making me leave!). So I assume I'm just one of the doomed.
posted by selenized at 8:40 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
People just want things to be "normal again" so bad that they'd literally rather die or run the risk of dying than cover their faces/change their behavior for the rest of their lives.
Yes, I think that is completely correct. People who continually live in a state of 'current acute disaster' has to be mentally breaking [I'd be there is a psychological term for it beyond shock or PTSD], so it cannot last long without one succumbing to it.
So I think the majority of the people are willing to live with a relatively high level of risk to resume their 'normal' life, which they enjoyed (or at least tolerated) before; if they had been interested in change, they would have done so sans disaster. By high level of risk, I'm talking active war zones, random bombings, risky personal activities [ cliff jumping] are not enough to deter 'normal life'.
I also think it's a bit dangerous to describe on-going 'life' as being in a constant state of disaster as living carries risk, so what's really happening is they are simply living based on their personal risk assessment, which may be very different than the one others experience, which is very disorienting for all parties. It also doesn't imply that any one of them is wrong.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:17 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yes, I think that is completely correct. People who continually live in a state of 'current acute disaster' has to be mentally breaking [I'd be there is a psychological term for it beyond shock or PTSD], so it cannot last long without one succumbing to it.
So I think the majority of the people are willing to live with a relatively high level of risk to resume their 'normal' life, which they enjoyed (or at least tolerated) before; if they had been interested in change, they would have done so sans disaster. By high level of risk, I'm talking active war zones, random bombings, risky personal activities [ cliff jumping] are not enough to deter 'normal life'.
I also think it's a bit dangerous to describe on-going 'life' as being in a constant state of disaster as living carries risk, so what's really happening is they are simply living based on their personal risk assessment, which may be very different than the one others experience, which is very disorienting for all parties. It also doesn't imply that any one of them is wrong.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:17 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
and usually after a minute of indecision.)
in my experience, this is a given ... unless you're some kind of superhero. There's always at least a moment of shock, confusion in the wake of some extraordinary event. And then, if we're doing it right (if we have any actual relevant skills/tools), our training kicks in.
posted by philip-random at 9:18 AM on December 14, 2022
in my experience, this is a given ... unless you're some kind of superhero. There's always at least a moment of shock, confusion in the wake of some extraordinary event. And then, if we're doing it right (if we have any actual relevant skills/tools), our training kicks in.
posted by philip-random at 9:18 AM on December 14, 2022
On a related note of "we refuse to adjust for the changing times," I was bitching about my office's complete refusal to deal with the fact that UPS won't deliver to us, and this is STILL GOING ON. We're "supposed" to receive two more packages today that were shipped to our office before management finally caved and changed the address before shipping, and OF COURSE I got a notification today saying that UPS would really rather we change the address again because *coughcough* not going to deliver it there but we won't say *coughcough* I informed management of this AGAIN and got "But we don't WANNA pay AGAIN to change the address AGAIN" and "Let's wait and see another day and be Optimistic! and see if it shows up!" and the manager continuing to make these decisions griping about all the money that has been spent on this. (Note: as far as I know they've spent a total of $22.50. And most likely will need to pay another $35 to have these last two moved.)
I really, really wanted to say, "Look, if you'd JUST LISTENED TO ME WHEN THIS STARTED HAPPENING, and changed the address after package #1 ran into difficulties, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT ALLLLLLLLLLL THIS MONEY (again, $22.50 and they've spent far more on other issues), WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE MAIL, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THESE PROBLEMS." But no! We can't do that, because WE WANT TO PRETEND THINGS ARE NORMAL, DAMMIT! IF WE JUST INSIST ON NORMALITY LONG ENOUGH, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:29 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
I really, really wanted to say, "Look, if you'd JUST LISTENED TO ME WHEN THIS STARTED HAPPENING, and changed the address after package #1 ran into difficulties, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT ALLLLLLLLLLL THIS MONEY (again, $22.50 and they've spent far more on other issues), WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE MAIL, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THESE PROBLEMS." But no! We can't do that, because WE WANT TO PRETEND THINGS ARE NORMAL, DAMMIT! IF WE JUST INSIST ON NORMALITY LONG ENOUGH, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:29 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
>You seem to have missed the author explicitly saying this is not the same as panicking:
Bottlecap, that section you quoted is even more whack than the rest of the article. The writer can't even keep their own made-up percentages straight within a handful of sentences:
> During any given crisis, you can count on 30 percent of the public to respond appropriately and do the right thing.
> About ten percent will freak out.
> Those ten percent cause riots and stampedes. That’s why governments and mainstream media work so hard to silence them. Unfortunately, they don’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the ten percent who panic and the ten percent who know what we should be doing.
The writer then immediately goes on to bemoan the fact that "they" (who?) as well as "the public" get the good 10% (or 30%, or whatever) mixed up with the bad 10% who panic. i.e. the writer is saying that the good people and panicked people are indistinguishable to outside observers. The overall thrust of the article is quite clear. Panic isn't ALL there is to being good but it is a necessary part of being in the good set.
The writer thinks that anyone who isn't panicking is a "sheep". The writer thinks anyone who tries to calm people down (another 10% of people) is literally the devil - indeed the whole article was written as a tirade against the sin of staying calm and refusing to panic.
This type of screed isn't uncommon, it's typical of a certain type of doomer: people who are so roiled and twisted up with inner anxiety, dread, and panic that their activism reduces to a tirade against people having the wrong feelings. How dare others be calm, their normal affect is a sign of psychological inferiority, the fact that they lack my sense of panic and anxiety means that they're a "sheep", and the fact that you're trying to calm others down makes you an enemy of the cause. Nobody can be part of the good set unless they also share my internal state of total panic. Is there ONE word in this article about what to do about anything? Nope. It's all about how good people are the ones who have the right feelings.
posted by MiraK at 9:45 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
Bottlecap, that section you quoted is even more whack than the rest of the article. The writer can't even keep their own made-up percentages straight within a handful of sentences:
> During any given crisis, you can count on 30 percent of the public to respond appropriately and do the right thing.
> About ten percent will freak out.
> Those ten percent cause riots and stampedes. That’s why governments and mainstream media work so hard to silence them. Unfortunately, they don’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the ten percent who panic and the ten percent who know what we should be doing.
The writer then immediately goes on to bemoan the fact that "they" (who?) as well as "the public" get the good 10% (or 30%, or whatever) mixed up with the bad 10% who panic. i.e. the writer is saying that the good people and panicked people are indistinguishable to outside observers. The overall thrust of the article is quite clear. Panic isn't ALL there is to being good but it is a necessary part of being in the good set.
The writer thinks that anyone who isn't panicking is a "sheep". The writer thinks anyone who tries to calm people down (another 10% of people) is literally the devil - indeed the whole article was written as a tirade against the sin of staying calm and refusing to panic.
This type of screed isn't uncommon, it's typical of a certain type of doomer: people who are so roiled and twisted up with inner anxiety, dread, and panic that their activism reduces to a tirade against people having the wrong feelings. How dare others be calm, their normal affect is a sign of psychological inferiority, the fact that they lack my sense of panic and anxiety means that they're a "sheep", and the fact that you're trying to calm others down makes you an enemy of the cause. Nobody can be part of the good set unless they also share my internal state of total panic. Is there ONE word in this article about what to do about anything? Nope. It's all about how good people are the ones who have the right feelings.
posted by MiraK at 9:45 AM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
This type of screed isn't uncommon, it's typical of a certain type of doomer: people who are so roiled and twisted up with inner anxiety, dread, and panic that their activism reduces to a tirade against people having the wrong feelings.
In all fairness, this article is from OK Doomer, "a safe place to doom and chill" and over-reacting is their entire shtick.
Not my cup of tea, tho.
posted by fimbulvetr at 9:55 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
In all fairness, this article is from OK Doomer, "a safe place to doom and chill" and over-reacting is their entire shtick.
Not my cup of tea, tho.
posted by fimbulvetr at 9:55 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
and the fact that you're trying to calm others down makes you an enemy of the cause.
My thoughts were pandemic-related on this. The people who kept telling everyone there was nothing to worry about were indeed hindering "the cause" of not spreading disease.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:04 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
My thoughts were pandemic-related on this. The people who kept telling everyone there was nothing to worry about were indeed hindering "the cause" of not spreading disease.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:04 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Humans evolved in social groups to protect us from starvation and common enemies. Abstract danger is most difficult for a social group to engage because it is has always threatened from the outside, whether bandits or gods. Society offers some protection from hunger and bandits in exchange for conformity and group think, which is now the problem. To reduce this problem we appeal to individual rational thinking in those who are capable of first moves, in order to tally incremental democratic momentum, like any strategy for field position. The rest don't bother with, because they are followers and last to move. This may seem already normal but socially speaking, it isn't. Most see change in terms of a strong man revolution (of personality cult followers) or as conformity by way of personal responsibility, like avoiding or recycling some terrible waste that should have never been made. They also see the problem as too slow and gradual, but they wrongly assume alternatives, and don't see a good start as trust momentum that picks up the pace with success. Gradual is also staying power, and running out of time in a hurry doesn't magically produce better options, just more desperate ones, which sells defeat and eliminates democracy. The other issue is that solutions need money, and money is tax, and taxing social problems by marginal rates of excess is attacking the problem at both ends. It is also relatively easy to persuade a socially conservative majority who aren't the worst offenders to make a small change as a test.
posted by Brian B. at 10:10 AM on December 14, 2022
posted by Brian B. at 10:10 AM on December 14, 2022
> In all fairness, this article is from OK Doomer, "a safe place to doom and chill" and over-reacting is their entire shtick.
Yep! Which is sad because I can see the earnestness underneath. And the thing is, I don't think anyone actually gives a shit that they're "overreacting" - nobody cares to shame doomers for not having properly modulated feelings. The fact that they think we criticize them for overreacting seems to me to be pure projection of their own hyperfocus on feeling the right way. Most criticism I see is about their effectiveness: even I am criticizing their hyperfocus on other people's feelings on the basis that it's not effective activism. It doesn't achieve their goals.
> The people who kept telling everyone there was nothing to worry about were indeed hindering "the cause" of not spreading disease.
Okay. But why were they doing that? And how do we actually correct them? In the case of covid, there was strong right wing propaganda manufactured for purely political purposes. There was *some* capitalistic motive but mostly it was political. So in that case, how do the hypotheses of this article even apply? How effective is this article's thesis in addressing the issue of covid denial? Telling ourselves that anti-maskers are psychologically inferior, or demanding that they should show more panic, or labeling them as "sheep" in the discourse - those are utterly ineffective ways to address the problem. Like, in my opinion, if we want to make sure people wear masks, it's much more effective to get mask mandates in place and make masks look stylish/fun. If we want to combat covid deniers, we need CALM and CREDENTIALED experts on mass media providing official as well as unofficial communication and guidance.
All of this is pretty much the opposite of doomerism. I had and have plenty of doomer friends who were dead-on-balls accurate in their assessment in those early days that Covid would be with us for years, decades, maybe forever. But so what if they were right? How did that help anyone? The fact that they had nothing but pessimism to offer made even the fact that they were right so utterly useless. What a waste! In contrast the people who really made a difference were folks who got together to organize mutual aid groups, who made it easy for me personally to help my neighborhood in safe ways, folks who sewed stylish masks and made it fancy to wear masks with our daily outfits, folks who took to social media to educate people on scientific facts, folks who operated based on hope and offered realistic optimism, can-do attitudes. They were the ones who made it possible to get, for instance, my almost-covid-denier ex-husband to get on board with masks for the kids. Because it wasn;'t about fear, it was about fun and community.
posted by MiraK at 10:18 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yep! Which is sad because I can see the earnestness underneath. And the thing is, I don't think anyone actually gives a shit that they're "overreacting" - nobody cares to shame doomers for not having properly modulated feelings. The fact that they think we criticize them for overreacting seems to me to be pure projection of their own hyperfocus on feeling the right way. Most criticism I see is about their effectiveness: even I am criticizing their hyperfocus on other people's feelings on the basis that it's not effective activism. It doesn't achieve their goals.
> The people who kept telling everyone there was nothing to worry about were indeed hindering "the cause" of not spreading disease.
Okay. But why were they doing that? And how do we actually correct them? In the case of covid, there was strong right wing propaganda manufactured for purely political purposes. There was *some* capitalistic motive but mostly it was political. So in that case, how do the hypotheses of this article even apply? How effective is this article's thesis in addressing the issue of covid denial? Telling ourselves that anti-maskers are psychologically inferior, or demanding that they should show more panic, or labeling them as "sheep" in the discourse - those are utterly ineffective ways to address the problem. Like, in my opinion, if we want to make sure people wear masks, it's much more effective to get mask mandates in place and make masks look stylish/fun. If we want to combat covid deniers, we need CALM and CREDENTIALED experts on mass media providing official as well as unofficial communication and guidance.
All of this is pretty much the opposite of doomerism. I had and have plenty of doomer friends who were dead-on-balls accurate in their assessment in those early days that Covid would be with us for years, decades, maybe forever. But so what if they were right? How did that help anyone? The fact that they had nothing but pessimism to offer made even the fact that they were right so utterly useless. What a waste! In contrast the people who really made a difference were folks who got together to organize mutual aid groups, who made it easy for me personally to help my neighborhood in safe ways, folks who sewed stylish masks and made it fancy to wear masks with our daily outfits, folks who took to social media to educate people on scientific facts, folks who operated based on hope and offered realistic optimism, can-do attitudes. They were the ones who made it possible to get, for instance, my almost-covid-denier ex-husband to get on board with masks for the kids. Because it wasn;'t about fear, it was about fun and community.
posted by MiraK at 10:18 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Just to be pedantic, its 'normality' not 'normalcy'
posted by ianhorse at 10:46 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by ianhorse at 10:46 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
panicking over bullshit but in denial of the real threats
is a super common right-wing pattern.
It's my considered opinion that people who panic about made-up crap like the civilization-ending potential of the woke mind virus or exponentially intelligent machines do so because at some level they're fully aware that almost all of the real crises facing the world today can be traced back to a grotesquely unjust distribution of wealth that they've personally devoted their whole lives to perpetuating at all costs.
posted by flabdablet at 10:47 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
is a super common right-wing pattern.
It's my considered opinion that people who panic about made-up crap like the civilization-ending potential of the woke mind virus or exponentially intelligent machines do so because at some level they're fully aware that almost all of the real crises facing the world today can be traced back to a grotesquely unjust distribution of wealth that they've personally devoted their whole lives to perpetuating at all costs.
posted by flabdablet at 10:47 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
This has gotten so baked into the way politic are discussed in mass media, particularly in terms of how we describe (or don't) the rising tide of racism in this country. It's so baked in for white moderates to avoid hurting another white person's feelings by calling someone a racist. If a congressperson calls Donald Trump racist, that will be described as "divisive rhetoric."
I mean, literal self-described white supremacists praise him for how fucking good he is at being racist. But no, normalcy bias insists that he can't really be that extreme, it's just differing opinions, both sides, etc.
It makes me tired.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:49 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
I mean, literal self-described white supremacists praise him for how fucking good he is at being racist. But no, normalcy bias insists that he can't really be that extreme, it's just differing opinions, both sides, etc.
It makes me tired.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:49 AM on December 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
If not for having an experience earlier this year that confirmed this article’s premise I may have been tempted to pass it off as catastrophizing or doomsaying. I was at a work related conference where one of the early morning presenters was clearly having some sort of medical emergency during his speaking engagement (he appeared to be having stroke like symptoms), yet the vast majority of folks at the conference reacted by sitting on their hands, not taking any concrete action to help. It was a classic “maybe somebody else will step up” situation: the attendees assuming the conference leadership would take action, the conference leadership maybe hoping it wasn’t as big of a deal as it appeared.
Thankfully somebody did eventually call 911 when the guy basically became catatonic onstage, and he is ok the last I heard, but it really felt like it took forever before somebody determined action was required. It really freaked me out in the sense that this in a way felt like one of the “safest” places to have a medical problem, in front of hundreds of people who saw it happen and would all jump in immediately to help, but in actuality most people just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
posted by The Gooch at 10:59 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Thankfully somebody did eventually call 911 when the guy basically became catatonic onstage, and he is ok the last I heard, but it really felt like it took forever before somebody determined action was required. It really freaked me out in the sense that this in a way felt like one of the “safest” places to have a medical problem, in front of hundreds of people who saw it happen and would all jump in immediately to help, but in actuality most people just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
posted by The Gooch at 10:59 AM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Just to be pedantic, its 'normality' not 'normalcy'The Oxford English Dictionary lists usages of “normalcy” going back over 150 years, citing (among others) President Warren G. Harding and philosopher Marshall McLuhan. It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
posted by mbrubeck at 11:11 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Just to be pedantic, its 'normality' not 'normalcy'
Uh, I think you mean "pendancy."
posted by AlSweigart at 11:23 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Uh, I think you mean "pendancy."
posted by AlSweigart at 11:23 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Just to be pedantic, its 'normality' not 'normalcy'
PAGAN : People Against Goodness and Normalcy.
Normalcy is funnier.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:24 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
PAGAN : People Against Goodness and Normalcy.
Normalcy is funnier.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:24 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Mira K, I don't see how identifying this has anything much to do about "what we should do" about these people. I thought the analysis was interesting in and of itself of how people react and how that effects overall response to disaster. Your long comments are kind of coming off to me like "so what" and I think there's value in seeing a situation for what it is, even if that doesn't help change it. I also didn't see as strongly as you did that the article was trying to call anyone emotionally or psychologically inferior, but I am going to read it again.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:35 AM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Shouting at a person and being impolite almost never gets anyone to change their mind.
Right. Fox News and conservative talk radio haven't been incredibly successful propaganda outlets by shouting at individual liberals. They are talking to everyone else. Their listeners don't feel directly criticized, allowing them to adopt politics and pretend they've always had them.
But being polite and trying to use evidence also utterly fails to get someone to admit they were wrong.
A *lot* of people don't want to think for themselves. They want to adopt the position that "everyone else" has. This is why politicians hand out yard signs to supporters and why buying airtime and billboards. They want to be on the side of the bullies, the majority group, the ones with power. It doesn't matter to them how monstrous these bullies are; it's better than being one of the people getting bullied.
The 1946 Adventures of Superman radio show had an episode called Clan of the Fiery Cross where Superman fights the KKK. No one wants to be on the losing side fighting Superman. Conservatives are right to be up-in-arms over Black elves and female Jedi and gay superheroes; these characters make marginalized seem normal but conservatives want them to be marginalized.
It really shouldn't be, but this is an issue of optics over evidence and reason. Don't bother shouting at your racist uncle next Thanksgiving, you won't change his mind. But do argue with them (while keeping your cool) in a way such that the rest of the family views of your uncle as the flailing, overemotional, insecure racist that he is.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:39 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Right. Fox News and conservative talk radio haven't been incredibly successful propaganda outlets by shouting at individual liberals. They are talking to everyone else. Their listeners don't feel directly criticized, allowing them to adopt politics and pretend they've always had them.
But being polite and trying to use evidence also utterly fails to get someone to admit they were wrong.
A *lot* of people don't want to think for themselves. They want to adopt the position that "everyone else" has. This is why politicians hand out yard signs to supporters and why buying airtime and billboards. They want to be on the side of the bullies, the majority group, the ones with power. It doesn't matter to them how monstrous these bullies are; it's better than being one of the people getting bullied.
The 1946 Adventures of Superman radio show had an episode called Clan of the Fiery Cross where Superman fights the KKK. No one wants to be on the losing side fighting Superman. Conservatives are right to be up-in-arms over Black elves and female Jedi and gay superheroes; these characters make marginalized seem normal but conservatives want them to be marginalized.
It really shouldn't be, but this is an issue of optics over evidence and reason. Don't bother shouting at your racist uncle next Thanksgiving, you won't change his mind. But do argue with them (while keeping your cool) in a way such that the rest of the family views of your uncle as the flailing, overemotional, insecure racist that he is.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:39 AM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
It's funny to be discussing normalcy bias on a site that doesn't allow discussions about nuclear war in threads about Ukraine.
posted by MrVisible at 11:52 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by MrVisible at 11:52 AM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's funny to be discussing normalcy bias on a site that doesn't allow discussions about nuclear war in threads about Ukraine.
I guess, I mean how can you tell if you are the one getting in everyone's way with your panicking until the war ends? No-one can truly be sure.
Also from that thread:
Zelensky also called upon Ukrainians to not ignore air raid alerts and take shelter.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:11 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I guess, I mean how can you tell if you are the one getting in everyone's way with your panicking until the war ends? No-one can truly be sure.
Also from that thread:
Zelensky also called upon Ukrainians to not ignore air raid alerts and take shelter.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:11 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's funny to be discussing normalcy bias on a site that doesn't allow discussions about nuclear war in threads about Ukraine.
I think that illustrates the point. You can talk nuclear war all you want in its own thread, and occasionally people do. But mostly they just complain about not being able to discuss the deaths of other Mefites in a thread those Mefites want to be in. Because the point isn't to discuss the subject, the point is get a kick out of spreading anxiety and despair.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:34 PM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
I think that illustrates the point. You can talk nuclear war all you want in its own thread, and occasionally people do. But mostly they just complain about not being able to discuss the deaths of other Mefites in a thread those Mefites want to be in. Because the point isn't to discuss the subject, the point is get a kick out of spreading anxiety and despair.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:34 PM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
> I thought the analysis was interesting in and of itself of how people react and how that effects overall response to disaster.
Really? Surely it was far too slapdash for it to qualify as that. Like, are we supposed to take those categories of responses as a valid set that reasonably fully describes the spectrum of human behavior in a crisis? Take those percentages as a valid estimate? Those ass-pulled mean-spirited descriptions of people's motivations as a genuine attempt at understanding human behavior??? Come on. This was clearly just an informal screed against "keep calm and carry on" ethos. It would violate the spirit of the article to treat it as analysis, there's no way it can be taken so seriously.
>Your long comments are kind of coming off to me like "so what"
Yep, that's an accurate read of my comments and it is a serious question, not a way to be dismissive. It's the most generous way to read this type of screed, right? Okay, you believe in this, so tell me why the rest of us should. If we can be convinced that Die Hard should be categorized as a Christmas movie, we can be convinced that doomer panic is a necessary virtue.
(So many comments on this thread have done a better job of illustrating, contextualizing, and discussing normalcy bias than this article did! Anecdotes about the bystander effect during a medical crisis in public situations, the book about people who escaped concentration camps but no one would listen to them, etc. make a fantastic context in which to talk about how wedded we are to carrying on as normal even when it is harmful.)
posted by MiraK at 12:37 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Really? Surely it was far too slapdash for it to qualify as that. Like, are we supposed to take those categories of responses as a valid set that reasonably fully describes the spectrum of human behavior in a crisis? Take those percentages as a valid estimate? Those ass-pulled mean-spirited descriptions of people's motivations as a genuine attempt at understanding human behavior??? Come on. This was clearly just an informal screed against "keep calm and carry on" ethos. It would violate the spirit of the article to treat it as analysis, there's no way it can be taken so seriously.
>Your long comments are kind of coming off to me like "so what"
Yep, that's an accurate read of my comments and it is a serious question, not a way to be dismissive. It's the most generous way to read this type of screed, right? Okay, you believe in this, so tell me why the rest of us should. If we can be convinced that Die Hard should be categorized as a Christmas movie, we can be convinced that doomer panic is a necessary virtue.
(So many comments on this thread have done a better job of illustrating, contextualizing, and discussing normalcy bias than this article did! Anecdotes about the bystander effect during a medical crisis in public situations, the book about people who escaped concentration camps but no one would listen to them, etc. make a fantastic context in which to talk about how wedded we are to carrying on as normal even when it is harmful.)
posted by MiraK at 12:37 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm currently reading Jonathan Freedland's The Escape Artist, which tells the true story of a Jewish man who escaped from Auschwitz determined to tell the world of the horrors he'd seen there
I recently read this and it is an amazing book. I thought I'd reached the point of diminishing returns on Holocaust literature, whether fiction or non-fiction, text or film, but this book took me into parts of the camps I'd never seen described in such detail before, and introduced me to some extraordinary human beings. Very well worth the read.
Also very interesting for the plot point mentioned above: these two men escaped from Auschwitz to tell the world what was going on in there, and people either already knew, or didn't want to know, or wanted to use the information to their own advantage rather than taking steps to protect Jews who were still free.
posted by Well I never at 12:38 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I recently read this and it is an amazing book. I thought I'd reached the point of diminishing returns on Holocaust literature, whether fiction or non-fiction, text or film, but this book took me into parts of the camps I'd never seen described in such detail before, and introduced me to some extraordinary human beings. Very well worth the read.
Also very interesting for the plot point mentioned above: these two men escaped from Auschwitz to tell the world what was going on in there, and people either already knew, or didn't want to know, or wanted to use the information to their own advantage rather than taking steps to protect Jews who were still free.
posted by Well I never at 12:38 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
MetaFilter: Just to Be Pedantic
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:58 PM on December 14, 2022
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:58 PM on December 14, 2022
I think one of the really excellent examples of countering normalcy bias was how, during the Trump presidency, non-Republicans in USA made a concerted stand to keep pointing out that THIS IS NOT NORMAL and DON'T NORMALIZE THIS. Amy Siskind's list comes to mind as one of the most comprehensive efforts to stand against the normalization of all of that administration's shenanigans. The culmination of that concerted stand has been the Jan 6 congressional hearings: yet another way for people to proclaim that what happened was not normal.
And throughout this effort, it's been astounding how motivated interests on the opposing side went all out to continually normalize outrageous activities and events, and how successful they were (and still are). It went from a handful of powerful people and corporations with a profit motive in normalizing the former administration, to a *lot* of media personalities whose paychecks and jobs depended on normalizing the former administration, to the entire Republican voter base accepting the normalization of the former administration as the price of feeling like they were, personally, good people. That's what it ultimately came down to, right, that the Republican voter base were manipulated into personally identifying with Trump administration *so that* it would be difficult for them to reject and repudiate anything he did without feeling like they were personally admitting fault.
That tactic of encouraging personal identification with the thing they want to normalize, so that support remains strong no matter how much it personally costs people... if we can't defeat that, can we use it instead? It won't be as easy to find powerful parties with vested interests willing to bankroll the propaganda machine to encourage people to tie up their personal identities with always wearing masks but it's one kind of idea. Icky though it may be.
posted by MiraK at 1:04 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
And throughout this effort, it's been astounding how motivated interests on the opposing side went all out to continually normalize outrageous activities and events, and how successful they were (and still are). It went from a handful of powerful people and corporations with a profit motive in normalizing the former administration, to a *lot* of media personalities whose paychecks and jobs depended on normalizing the former administration, to the entire Republican voter base accepting the normalization of the former administration as the price of feeling like they were, personally, good people. That's what it ultimately came down to, right, that the Republican voter base were manipulated into personally identifying with Trump administration *so that* it would be difficult for them to reject and repudiate anything he did without feeling like they were personally admitting fault.
That tactic of encouraging personal identification with the thing they want to normalize, so that support remains strong no matter how much it personally costs people... if we can't defeat that, can we use it instead? It won't be as easy to find powerful parties with vested interests willing to bankroll the propaganda machine to encourage people to tie up their personal identities with always wearing masks but it's one kind of idea. Icky though it may be.
posted by MiraK at 1:04 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
> I thought the analysis was interesting in and of itself of how people react and how that effects overall response to disaster.
Really?
Yes, I did.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:07 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Really?
Yes, I did.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:07 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Nah, that Trump shit was normal. It wasn't good, but any Republican would have done exactly the same as he did policy-wise. Probably would have run their supporters into Congress, too, if they felt that they had been wronged. The problem for the other Republicans is that none of them had the kind of performance skills that Trump had, so they never got into that position. That's all.
Trump was in no way a good person or a good leader but he was made abnormal because the even more frightening prospect is that there are two parties with such differing views of what the world should be (in certain arenas) that one has to inevitably inflict violence on the other's followers. The political situation being what it is, it's probably going to be Republicans on Democrats, and the two party system being what it is, it's going to happen, probably sooner than later.
posted by kingdead at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2022
Trump was in no way a good person or a good leader but he was made abnormal because the even more frightening prospect is that there are two parties with such differing views of what the world should be (in certain arenas) that one has to inevitably inflict violence on the other's followers. The political situation being what it is, it's probably going to be Republicans on Democrats, and the two party system being what it is, it's going to happen, probably sooner than later.
posted by kingdead at 2:48 PM on December 14, 2022
In this, there are big parallels implied between immediate or short-term normalcy bias, like disasters, and long-term normalcy bias, like ignoring covid or climate change. Is there evidence for these parallels? Ain't always a clean generalization..
posted by jeffburdges at 4:37 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:37 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm surprised by the negative reaction here. As an ecologist who has been teaching those unwilling to listen about climate change for over a decade, and as an immunocompromised person who is basically completely isolated right now because my friends all value normalcy over my life, I found this essay so spot on. I work so hard every day to teach folks that it is Not Too Late on climate. I try so hard to be hopeful. And yet if we can't convince people to wear a mask so they literally don't kill their loved ones, how on earth are we going to manage to come together to restructure our entire society to protect one another, people we don't even know, to mitigate and adapt to this changing world?
posted by hydropsyche at 5:52 PM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:52 PM on December 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
Zappa
posted by Pouteria at 8:52 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Zappa
posted by Pouteria at 8:52 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
"Progress? What for?"
My suburban parents, probably
posted by rhizome at 9:55 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
My suburban parents, probably
posted by rhizome at 9:55 PM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
"This is fine."
posted by AlSweigart at 11:46 AM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by AlSweigart at 11:46 AM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older your in a bathroom looking in a mirror looking... | Ukraine war month ten, going into the coldest part... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by armoir from antproof case at 10:34 PM on December 13, 2022 [9 favorites]