Don't Define People by Their Worst Moments
July 5, 2022 8:41 AM   Subscribe

A Cognitive Skill to Magnify Humanity. Krista Tippett of On Being talks to Trabian Shorters. "Shorters is a visionary who has seen and named a task that is necessary for all healing and building, for every vision and plan, whether in a family or a world, to flourish. It’s called Asset Framing — and it works with both new understandings of the brain and an age-old understanding of the real-world power of the words we use, the stories we tell, and the way we name things and people. From everyday social media, to hallowed modes of journalistic, academic, and policy analyses, we have a habit of seeing deficits — and of defining people in need in terms of their problems. This has not only doomed some of our best efforts to failure — it leaves all of us prone to cynicism and hopelessness. What’s exciting is that what Trabian Shorters proposes is not only more effective, it is simple and straightforward to grasp." Also: Trabian Shorters and the Genius of Asset Framing. (podcast)

"That’s right. All that “disadvantaged,” “broken-down,” “at-risk,” “marginalized” — all those are — that’s language you use when you’re trying to cost-control or risk-control. That’s risk-control language. And I just, I like to point out to folks, particularly the folks in the finance industries, there’s a difference between risk management and equity investing. [laughs] And so if you’re talking about being equitable, then you have to define people by their assets. You’ve got to say, what is it we’re investing in? We’re not investing in poverty. Who invests in poverty? You’re not trying to grow poverty. [laughs] You’re trying to invest in people’s aspirations towards wealth; you’re trying to invest in people’s will to make a better future for their children or their community — those are things that are investable, but not poverty."
--

"Yeah. In most cases, “at-risk youth” go to school; not all, but most. And so if you talk about “students” and what their aspirations are — even if they just aspire to graduate, right? — “Students who want to graduate face these obstacles” — then people are much more inclined to say, Well, wait a minute, why should any kid have to deal with systemically underfunded schools, systemically overpoliced communities? Why should — if this kid just wants to graduate, grow up, and contribute to society, why do they have to do it with this level of barrier? And when you asset-frame instead of using this sort of deficit-framing jargon, when you define the student by their aspiration to grow up and graduate, then the unjustness of the obstacles becomes easier to appreciate."

--
On media and how deficit framing hurts progressive work:
"And what I want to underscore in those two different ways of framing — all the facts were accurate. Nobody made anything up. Both framings are true, right? So we didn’t have to invent anything. The first framing, however, about how Latin American folk has always failed in these ways, that framing totally left out all the assets, all the aspirations, all the kind of — it characterized them, literally, without value. The asset-frame version started with their value, yet still told you about all the ways that they’re not where they want to be. So that’s why we suggest to journalists, it is more accurate and honest reporting. When you’re going to tell the story where all you do is point out what’s broken, but you don’t point out what’s working in a culture, well, recognize you’re inclining people to think that all that exists about that culture is brokenness. They didn’t come up with that conclusion on their own; they came up with that conclusion by your reporting. And so that’s what I mean by journalism ends up being a co-author."

--
"I invite anyone listening to take the 100-day challenge and see if I’m right or wrong on this. Honestly, when you start practicing asset-framing, your life gets better. You feel better. You see more life, you see more light, in your day-to-day. You’re more forgiving of people who have faults and flaws in your own family.

And then the litmus for how you think of people is, are you introducing people by their aspiration or contribution? And remember, framing: how you introduce a topic frames the topic. How you introduce a subject frames the subject. It’s just about, how do you introduce it? So you don’t have to ignore anybody’s problems or faults or any of that. But you never start with that. You always start with their aspirations; you always start with their contributions. So that’s two.

Three is, actually think about what is obstructing their aspirations and contributions. And the reason why I throw in bullet three is because I don’t want anyone running around saying, Oh, asset-framing is just focusing on the positives. I’m like, no, no. By definition, you must think about challenges. If you’re not including the challenges, you’re not asset-framing. And the reason why it’s so important to include the challenges is because if you just try to focus on the positives, then you’re going to ignore or diminish or negate the legitimate, systemic obstacles that people have. So we’re not trying to say, Everybody aspires to be free and happy, and so, therefore, there’s no work to be done."
posted by storybored (11 comments total) 69 users marked this as a favorite
 
Huh. That's definitely a neat and relatively low-effort reframing of the way we approach topics. Obviously it won't single-handedly fix all power imbalance and marginalization at a stroke while requiring minimal investment of effort, but it's a useful tool to keep in our toolbox when we're trying to advocate for ourselves and for others.

I find that focusing in on negatives and pain points is kind of a fundamental human problem; squeaky wheels get greased, but we generally don't spend a lot of time sitting and thinking about all the things that are already working pretty well. That means we tend to think in terms of negatives when we're thinking about problems--not necessarily in terms of, say, wasted potential. When Hamilton came out, I was talking to my dad about meritocracy, and he mentioned being awestruck by the odds that this orphan kid managed to make it out of the hurricane and have such influence as an adult, how clever the kid was--and I pointed out to him, look at how much luck and networking was involved in that escape. Imagine how many Hamiltons we're missing out on by not intervening to create more stability for kids all around us now! The argument really seemed to click for him in a way that focusing on equity of opportunity in the abstract didn't necessarily.

That said, I do think it's important to be wary of the tendency to view a new framework or a new set of terms as a panacea for much deeper and more intractable problems. Words are pretty cheap compared to hands or bread or books, you know? I think there's a hunger for One Simple Trick solutions to hard, complicated problems in human endeavor, especially One Simple Trick solutions that just involve changing our thinking or our word choice without having to also invest a lot of money or resources at the obvious but expensive issues that lie underneath the problem itself.

Obviously, via bullet point three, Shorters is well aware of that shit himself, but I like to highlight it too. I really love his emphasis on the way that people who maybe don't have so much to start with are already striving to do their best with the resources at their disposal, and the ways in which people shoved to the margins are extremely capable of providing a lot of good things to our societies if we only give them the tools with which to do so. Lending a helping hand to our temporarily embarrassed brothers and sisters and siblings is a better framework than extending charity to the poor and desperate, you feel? And in that sense I really do think he's onto a really important framework shift in his interview.
posted by sciatrix at 9:35 AM on July 5, 2022 [14 favorites]


Very interesting link, thanks for posting.

I think anything that helps us overcome or at least recognize our inherent negativity/threat bias can be a useful item in our cognitive toolbox. The idea that it is more important to avoid the posed by the snake in the grass than to recognize the opportunity around it is essential for survival, but those simple instincts can work against us in our volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment.
posted by rpfields at 9:51 AM on July 5, 2022


Thanks for this post, OP. I loved the example involving journalism and how a different framework and approach provided broader, more accurate context than the usual lazy approach that unnecessarily reinforces narrow stereotypes. I think this approach to journalism is valuable and critically needed (sez me, sample of one, former journalist).
posted by Bella Donna at 9:52 AM on July 5, 2022 [6 favorites]


I've learned a good phrase to describe something I think is really important in modern society, great article and thanks for posting it.

From my understanding of cognitive psychology the reason framing like this is so important is that it changes the way your brain automatically evaluates things at a subconscious level. It's not a coincidence that we use monetary language to talk about social and moral issues, it's that the brain uses the exact same processes to determine how valuable a stock is and how valuable a high school student is. The big difference is that the "value domain" is very different and the rules for comparing are very different. You can say that it's awful to try and value people's worth at all, but that doesn't make that part of our brain shut off. Humans really love to assign value and it's key to how we think.
posted by JZig at 10:16 AM on July 5, 2022 [5 favorites]


This is something we think about in nonprofit fundraising. Deficit-based framing harms your service population, but brings in the dollars better than asset-based language. It’s a fine line to ride!
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:28 AM on July 5, 2022 [11 favorites]


I shared this article with my spouse and co-workers when I first heard it a few months ago - I found it so revelatory. And - while it's tempting to paint it with the "one simple trick" brush I found that operating in this way both took considerable effort and was astonishingly effective.

I believe it was this same discussion that introduced the approach of presenting shared goals rather than directing actions - that sounds so obvious but when I have the patience and mental capacity to employ it in parenting was when I found the most profound effect.

Presenting "we all want the house to be clean so when Grandma comes over tonight she can get around safely, what can we do to make that happen?" actually resulted in less complaining and more reasoning in the addolescents than "pick up your school stuff, that notebook, the one I'm pointing at, and the pencil, and why are there always socks here? The couch is not where socks go! Pick them up please."

It takes work, the outcomes are better, but not guaranteed. And did I mention the work it takes to think and reframe?

Regardless, thank you for this reminder to try working this way again.
posted by abulafa at 12:51 PM on July 5, 2022 [13 favorites]


I think this starts to resemble (or at least seems complementary to) Non Violent Communication techniques taught by Marshall Rosenberg.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 1:09 PM on July 5, 2022 [2 favorites]


Reminds me of solution-focused and strength-based stances in psychotherapy techniques. It's often observed by practitioners that these interventions are/seem simple to understand but are actually pretty difficult to execute consistently and appropriately.
posted by flamk at 3:51 PM on July 5, 2022 [2 favorites]


This perspective is always nice to come across. Some similar resources that I have enjoyed thinking through and putting to use:
Appreciative Inquiry
Most Significant Change analysis
Getting To Yes
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 11:05 PM on July 5, 2022 [5 favorites]


Thanks, storybored. I have complicated thoughts.

Our area leaders didn't like the vague, fussy way we were writing our annual reports. So they forced us to go to a workshop outside of work hours led by a famous guy. The workshop took 2 hours. The famous guy said that, because we were scientists, we always wanted to state something and then say "however" or "but sometimes" or "possibly". What we *should* do is state something, then say "and" and "and" and then say "therefore". After the presentation we were supposed to break up in groups and practice saying "and", "and" and "Therefore". You can imagine how poorly we took this. As scientists, our value to society is to stick in the "buts" and "howevers" and we worried that the famous guy made more money than we did with this nonsense.

We understood that the people reading these reports (if, indeed, anyone ever did read them) needed things spelled out directly and in a way that could be counted as a victory. AND it is a big problem that regular people don't understand what we say because we are long-winded and cautious about jumping to conclusions. HOWEVER, why should we listen to a guy paid to be enthusiastic for 2 hours tell us how to convey complicated concepts on which the future of mankind depended?

THEREFORE, you understand that I listened to that interview with some skepticism. I can easily see Mr. Shorters being invited to present another workshop to us. HOWEVER, I agree with everything he said. The workshop I attended asked me to fake something diametrically opposed to my training and beliefs. I don't think that is what Mr. Shorters is doing. He is saying we've been sabotaging our good intentions with bad methodology.

POSSIBLY he should had given more examples. HOWEVER, I'd like to break up in groups and try it out.
posted by acrasis at 10:53 AM on July 9, 2022 [8 favorites]


I've heard that using "but" is problematic because people immediately ignore/discount what came before that "but" AND I've wondered how to get around that. Keeping to "AND" AND "THEREFORE" sounds like it might be worth trying. THEREFORE, I thank you acrasis.
posted by storybored at 2:24 PM on July 10, 2022 [1 favorite]


« Older It looks like a great big Lego Tylenol   |   up, up, down, down, charm, strange, charm, strange... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments