Matthew J. Spaniol

Imagine all cars were electric, and then one Volkswagen engineer comes up with another idea …

#EMobility

They catch your attention with an injustice and quickly follow it with the next headline or the new news cycle and we throw up our hands and say, "well I guess it doesn't matter!" How can we fix this to be able to focus our limited resources and attention to fight injustice?

The information channels are overrun with click-noise. We are not given much of a chance to engage and learn from constructive debates that should inform our policy opinions. We are bombarded by partial messages that confuse, divide, and disempower us.

(PDF) Organizing Foresight Tools PDF | Futures and foresight tools support strategy work by structuring inquiry into- and generating information about the user’s uncertain operating... | Find, read and cite all the research you need ...

Here's the paper (with abstract preview): www.researchgate.net/publication/...

Future sight - quiz Turn data collection into an experience with Typeform. Create beautiful online forms, surveys, quizzes, and so much more. Try it for FREE.

I made a foresight tool selection tool based on a paper. I'm wondering what it might be good for and who might use something like this and when. Give it a try - I'd love some feedback: form.typeform.com/to/wF2kHTK3 #Resilience #futures #preparedness

They are in Sptfy?

From my understanding, if you take Pierce's abduction, and then add fallibility, eliminate all induction, and add inter-subjective argumentation, you get Popper's notion of conjecture.

We should pull it into orbit around the moon. Just be careful.

We should pull it into orbit around the moon. Just be careful.

Canada should tariff red states and blue states differently.

Canada should tariff red states and blue states differently.

What if Canada set import tariffs against the USA at 2 different rates - one for products coming out of red states and another for products coming out of blue states?

A new paper just built a much-needed bridge between the #sustainability transition literature and futures and #foresight science.
The Multi-Level Perspective and Voros' futures cone are linked not only the literatures but also by visualization. A much-improved composite: lnkd.in/dbN6-N7C

Redirect Notice

Vance is wrong. Intolerant groups must not be tolerated in a democracy. It is known as Popper's paradox of tolerance www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...

We should move it into orbit around the moon and mine it.

So those are some of my concerns after the first 10 min or so. Would love to hear if I am getting this wrong. Thx!

4) The emphasis on training and education (9:18) seems strange and could be the source of the flawed assumptions to begin with, so is this both the cure and the disease?

3) Great we are celebrating mistakes (NASA example). At 9:35 it seems that we are tasked with coming up for criterion ourselves, instead of deriving the criteria from the theories' explanations of the problem structure. I sense an overall lack of a problem orientation in critical realism.

2) What is the problem that critical realism solves? It seems that the objective is to help us surface our assumptions and be more reflexive in our science (3:39). For that, then, it is a "toolbox" (5:25). One may characterize it as a method for surfacing assumptions. Would that be correct?

OK, so I watched the first 10 minutes, here are my thoughts. 1) Emphasis on falibalism. While this is a point of agreement, the emphasis on the role of observation makes me wonder if inductivism is still haunting critical realism (see 6:38). At 11:31 we are confirming theories (not very falibalistc)

That there is a reality beyond ourselves is similar with Popper. What would you take to be the other core tenet(s) of critical realism?

Is judgmental rationality different from Popper's critical rationalism's notion of "you may be right and I may be wrong, but if we sit and discuss we may both get nearer to the truth?"

YouTube video by Jed Lea-Henry The Popperian Podcast #1 – David Deutsch – ‘Karl Popper and the Beginning of Infinity’

It is well known in my uni, but it seems sometimes like colleagues use it as an excuse for "anything goes." I find Popper much more clear and useful youtu.be/vKO8YRwVVu8?...

For Trump supporters reading this, I'd bet that this technique will also lead to productive conversations with those who are not. But again, one must remain poised, patient, and persistent.
Good luck, and please do let us know how it goes in the comments. /Matt

This technique is by no means a silver bullet, and to do it properly, a genuine effort to understand the other must be made. And a warning that to engage productively with loved ones in the current political climate is risky.

By the end, we all seemed to be more reflective.
The outcomes of these conversations weren’t exhaustive or definitive, but felt like progress. Interestingly, I found myself in agreement with the examples of evidence we identified—evidence that, in their view, would lead them to change their mind.

These conversations typically lasted about an hour and felt far more productive than previous exchanges. We were engaged and actively applying critical thinking to the conversation. At one point, two Trump supporters in the discussion even had a constructive disagreement with each other.

Patience was required because the topics would change so quickly before we would pin down what evidence for an opinion change would have to look like.
Most importantly, I was able to engage in meaningful political discussions initiated by people I care about.

Hypothetical examples of evidence did not come easy, but by the end of the trip, and of the 12 or so topics explored with different people, we were able to identify specific examples of hypothetical evidence for just three.

But I did not insist on an answer from them , but rather I worked with them to try identify what evidence would be needed. This was iterative- I would suggest types of evidence that they then rejected, and using the reasons for rejection, we'd try to find and propose new types of evidence.