The use of a "rival" in literature is a common theme. A lot of the time, a strong rival inspires the protagonist to become better, and does so for the rival as well; they both feed off of being competitive with one another. Thus, a good rivalry is good for the rivals (more on that, and when it is bad, below).

A good rival isn’t an enemy, though – it’s about competing for a shared goal, not about destroying the rival. It can be coworkers competing for the same promotions. Or athletes competing for the same championships. Or political parties deliberating the best way to serve their people. A good rival doesn’t have to be a friend either – it’s a mutually beneficial arrangement between parties based on competition.

“Competition,” though, is a loaded term. For some, it’s a dirty word. For others, it’s the driving force in life. Competition, though, is inherently meaningless on its own. Its value depends entirely on how it is used. Thus, competition is good or bad depending on the situation. In a good rivalry, competition is good. It motivates. It inspires. It pushes people towards greatness. The energy created in a good rivalry helps us focus our efforts and fosters rewards, whether in personal development or material gains.

However, what about the dirty version of competition? What happens when it becomes corrupt? What happens when it becomes a trial by fire? In these extremist circumstances, it means that a few people may thrive and achieve greatness. But many others are destroyed along the way. Think of a corporate environment where failure to receive a promotion means getting fired and replaced by someone new, who will then be used until they burn out and are replaced in turn. A select few, thus, are lauded for their greatness at having survived the corporate ladder, while many others are discarded and “used as components” rather than treated as people.

This type of a negative competitive environment creates toxic and destructive rivalries. But bad rivalries are also created when one or more parties have the goal of destroying the other, as well as by weak or insipid rivals. Thus, a bad rivalry is based on:

1. An environment that fosters win-lose competition,

2. A rival with a win-lose goal/objective, and/or

3. A rival that is weak or incompetent.

Bad rivalries, at best, are mediocre at creating value, and outright destructive at worst. While a good rivalry can inspire both parties to become better people and do better jobs, a toxic (bad) rivalry does the opposite. A weak rival may fail to inspire the best in another, while an incompetent one might accidentally destroy value – remember the adage, “what one should really fear is not a competent enemy, but an incompetent ally.” Furthermore, while a bad rivalry (based on win-lose rather than incompetence) can still inspire people to action and to become great, the act of one rival “winning” means the other rival “loses” (and sometimes with catastrophic results). Think of coworkers fighting each other to keep their jobs during layoffs. Or armies fighting to conquer others. Or politicians bent on defeating other politicians rather than serving their constituents.

How Rivalry Fits into Negotiations

In negotiations, rivalry is best exemplified by the competitive style. A good rivalry in negotiation is two or more parties of competitive negotiators fighting for their share of a pie that everyone can eat. Some may win more than others at times, but everyone is winning something, and usually winning enough that they can feel happy with the negotiated outcome.

A good rivalry in negotiations can also take place in problem-solving/cooperative styles, too. In fact, I would say it might be just as important to “be a good rival” in a cooperative negotiation, because it means you push yourself, and the other parties, to expand the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) and avoid leaving potential benefits behind on the negotiating table. By being a good rival, you can avoid being lazy in situations where being lazy might seem tempting.

When a bad rivalry happens in negotiations, it is often because:

1. A zero-sum or win-lose situation is present,

2. A negotiating party has win-lose objectives (is greedy and wants everything; takes as much as possible and gives as little as possible, if anything, to other parties; or actively wants to harm other parties), and/or

3. A negotiating party is unprepared, inept, poorly represented, etc.

Now, we can’t always avoid bad rivalries, and it’s unrealistic to assume we can always foster good rivalries. Life is rife with situations that foster such negative interactions. The important thing is to recognize bad rivalries and to prepare for how to resolve them. Fortunately, negotiating theory addresses these topics directly, such as:

1. When should I negotiate cooperatively vs. competitively?

2. How do I shift a competitive negotiator into a cooperative/problem-solving style of negotiation?

3. Should I even be negotiating in the first place, and what conflict resolution process should I be using?

(For more on this, check out my article, “Negotiation: Three Questions You Must Ask”)

Parting Words

A good rival is someone you can (sometimes begrudgingly) treasure. They energize you. They push you. They help you push yourself. You can even be your own good rival, setting bars for success that are high, but also achievable. It’s important to recognize when you are in a good rivalry and take advantage of it. But it’s also important to recognize bad rivalries (and because of loss-aversion, some might find it even more important to prioritize identifying bad rivalries).

Most important of all, though: always keep in mind how/if your rivalries are helping you achieve your goals. Perhaps you’re enduring a trial by fire right now and will come out stronger in the end. Or perhaps you’ve been missing out on some friendly competition that might just be the extra nudge you need. Or perhaps you don’t need a good rivalry at all. Everyone responds to external stimuli differently, so make sure you know what you need in order to succeed at what you want.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com

A troll is someone that gains value from the act of causing others to lose value.

Okay, that was a bit dry sounding. How is this: a troll is someone that takes pride and joy at causing misery, anger, and distress in others; a troll derives pleasure by actively creating displeasure in others. However, a troll isn’t just schadenfreude; a troll gains value by being the direct cause of that schadenfreude. Thus, a troll is comprised of two major parts: emotional schadenfreude and personal responsibility.

Emotional Schadenfreude

Trolls operate primarily by causing others to lose value through emotional attacks. The goal is to derive humor and entertainment out of this activity for the troll and the troll’s audience (while an audience might amplify the enjoyment of trolling, it is not, however, necessary). Trolling is viewed as a game to essentially piss others off, and trolls perceive it as being “all in good fun” or “they deserve it anyway.”

Thus, because of the nature of how the troll gains value through emotional schadenfreude, trolling is typically limited to emotional value loss. There are also some additional reasons for this, which can vary from troll to troll. One of the most prevalent reasons, I think, is based on the perception that the non-physical nature of trolling lends it an air of innocence and blamelessness (“it’s all in good fun” or “they’re just words”). Furthermore, if trolling transgresses into physical acts of schadenfreude it seems to cross a vague, ill-defined, yet highly important line that separates the troll from just being a bully or sadist.

Personal Responsibility

A troll is someone that is directly involved in producing the emotional schadenfreude outcome. If someone enjoys the emotional schadenfreude, but aren’t involved in the actions that produce it, then they are simply an observer; they are a member of the troll’s audience.

Being personally responsible for trolling someone is an amplifier of value for the troll. There is a sense of pride and accomplishment in the act of trolling someone, and this direct involvement is important. However, when a troll is unable to be involved in producing the schadenfreude outcome it can reduce the value of that schadenfreude. For example, if someone wanted to be the troll but only ends up being part of the audience, then that want-to-be-troll might gain less value, or even lose value, from their lack of involvement (“I wanted to be the one that did it!”). Thus, personal responsibility is a key component of what makes a troll a troll.

The Audience

Unlike the requirement for emotional schadenfreude and personal responsibility, a troll does not require an audience to be a troll. However, I think that having an audience usually amplifies the effect the troll has. There is a form of validation and appreciation that comes from a troll-appreciative-audience. It feeds into the need to be respected, admired, and to even build a relationship with that audience. However, the audience can also negate a troll’s value, especially if the troll’s value was highly dependent upon the approval of the audience. Thus, the audience (such as society) can not only encourage trolling, but also discourage trolling as well.

A Rose by Any Other Name…

Trolling can serve a purpose, but that purpose isn’t always clearly good or evil. Trolling isn’t always just one person picking on another person. What this means is that moral value of trolling is dependent upon the circumstances involved and the outcomes it produces.

The word “troll” is a most often used as a pejorative word. As you think about what defines a troll, and the moral implications, consider what other words we might use to describe a “troll.” What words might be more slanderous? What words might be more praising?

For example, consider: flyting, spoken word battles, the invective genre of Greek and Roman poetry, libels of the Renaissance, satire, parodies, SNL, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, politicians, comedians, etc. In other words, a troll by any other name would smell just as sweet (if you approve) or stinky (if you disapprove).

So, as you think about what it means to be a troll, keep diction in mind. And, the next time you spot a “troll” out to do business, notice what names (or lack of names) are employed. You might be surprised by how often trolling, whether by you or another person, plays a role in your life.

For more information about schadenfreude in conflict, check out "Value Dependency in Conflict."

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com

Value dependency is about how another person’s value from conflict affects your own value. Whether another person gains or loses value from a conflict can also cause us to gain or lose value as well. Plainly put, whether something makes another person happy or sad, can also make us happy or sad. The degree to which that happens determines the value dependency of a conflict. Value dependency can be examined by 1) the degree to which individual parties are value dependent, and 2) whether that value dependency is direct or inverse.  

Degrees of Value Dependence

The greater your conflict’s value dependence, the more your value from that conflict is affected by whether others in that conflict gain or lose value. When your outcome has no value dependency – is value independent – then your value from that conflict is not affected by whether others gain or lose value. Furthermore, your value dependence (or independence), is not necessarily reciprocated by others in that conflict. A conflict can have mutual value dependence, mutual value independence, or one-sided value dependence:

Direct vs. Inverse

We can also characterize value dependency as being either direct or inverse, and there are four types of value dependencies in total (two direct and two inverse). The two direct value dependencies are mudita (you gain value when another gains value), and compassion (you lose value when another loses value). The two inverse value dependencies are schadenfreude (you gain value when another loses value), and freudenschade (you lose value when another gains value). Here is what these types of value dependencies look like using “happiness” for gaining value, and “sadness” for losing value:

Furthermore, it is possible to hold multiple types of value dependencies towards the same person in the same conflict. And, just as with being value dependent versus independent, the type(s) of value dependency that you experience does not mean that others must experience the same type(s) of value dependency as well.

For example, imagine an office scenario where one employee, Aye, feels freudenschade towards another employee, Bee. However, Bee feels compassion towards Aye. Bee ends up getting a promotion, and is immensely happy. But, because of Bee’s good news, Aye is displeased by Bee’s happiness. Bee notices this, and Aye’s sadness causes Bee to feel some sadness as well. Now, this isn’t enough to discourage Bee from still being happy, but the overall value for Bee is lessened. And, because Aye was also made unhappy, the total value for both together is less than if both were value independent, which is also less than if both had experienced mudita.

However, what if Bee also felt schadenfreude towards Aye? This might seem like a conflict of value dependencies, but what if Aye acted like a jerk towards Bee? Bee’s initial sadness at upsetting Aye might be offset by Bee’s secondary reaction of happiness at having done so as well. Although this sounds contradictory, consider how often people temper their responses with “I know I shouldn’t be happy about this, but….” Or, “I feel kind of bad for them, but they sort of deserved it.” Because conflict can be complex, so too can our value dependencies.

The Moral Value of Value Dependency

Being value dependent or independent, and the types of value dependencies one experiences, are not, on their own, good or bad. That is something for the individuals involved to determine, and can vary significantly from conflict to conflict. Keep in mind that when it comes to value dependency, you must take into consideration how it affects you, and those in your conflict. And, just because people are not immediately involved in your conflict, it doesn’t mean that your actions won’t indirectly affect others as well.

Matching Value Dependency to Behavior

Remember, value dependency is about how another person’s value from conflict affects your own value. Value dependency is not the same thing as behavior, although behavior can affect value as well. Behavior is about the actions you take, within the circumstances of your conflict, to achieve outcomes that are aligned with your values. Your behavior should serve your values, not the other way around. (I’ll be writing more about behavior in conflict in an upcoming article.)

So, the next time you are in a conflict, ask: “how does value dependency affect my goals, and is what I am doing serving those goals?”

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com

1. Should you negotiate?
2. If you do negotiate, what style should you use: competitive or problem-solving?
3. If you decide to be problem-solving, how do you deal with competitive negotiators?

1. Should You Negotiate?

The first question you should ask yourself is whether negotiation is right for your situation. However, instead of asking “should I negotiate?” you should ask the more open ended question: “which conflict resolution process should I use?” For this second question, you must consider:

1. Value creation: what are your goals, and which process is most likely to satisfy those goals?
2. Probabilities for success: what impediments are there to reaching your goal, and which process is most likely to overcome those impediments? (Sander & Goldberg, 1994, p. 50, as cited in Angel, 2017)

Sander and Goldberg’s (1994) article, “Fitting the Forum to the Fuss: A User-Friendly Guide to Selecting an ADR Procedure” is an excellent overview about how to answer these two questions. And, Moore’s (2003) book, The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, provides a great overview of different conflict resolution processes:

Broadly speaking, negotiation is usually useful. You always have the power to end a negotiation and shift to another conflict resolution process. Furthermore, negotiation is often something that you can do concurrently with other processes. For example, many lawsuits involve out of court actions, such as negotiation, mediation, and/or arbitration. So, it is possible to move through multiple conflict resolution processes, which often include negotiation.

However, there are situations where deciding to negotiate can cause more harm than good. For example, Mnookin’s (2010) book, Bargaining With the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight, addresses the question about whether one should negotiate with, or fight against, others that are perceived as being “evil” or as having caused you harm.

Always keep in mind that negotiations can go poorly, and can produce worse outcomes than having avoided them in the first place. However, to avoid negotiations means you also waive the chance to gain information and create value. That is why you must consider whether negotiation is the right process to engage in; it is a strategic decision. If you do decide to negotiate, you must then decide what kind of negotiating strategy you should adopt. We’ll explore that topic next.

2. Negotiating Strategy: Competitive or Problem-Solving?

Two general strategies in negotiations are competitive and problem-solving. Being competitive is more zero-sum, where one seeks to gain for themselves and is unconcerned, to some degree, about what the other side gets. Being problem-solving tends to be more cooperative and often seeks to create value through the negotiation, aiming to meet the needs of all parties involved.

If you decide to negotiate, you must decide whether you are going to be competitive or problem-solving. Latz’s (2010) book, Gain the Edge!: Negotiating to Get What You Want, offers a great overview on when to be competitive and when to be problem-solving. He wrote that you should:

• Compete when others will compete, the ongoing relationship is unimportant, the issues are few in number, and the outcomes are zero-sum; and
• Problem-solve when others will problem-solve, the ongoing relationship is important, the issues are numerous or complex, and there is the possibility for value growing solutions. (Latz, 2010, as cited in Angel, 2017)

So, depending on the nature of your conflict, you might find one style of negotiation to be more appropriate than the other. Neither is inherently good or bad: that depends on how you use them. Keep in mind that problem-solving can often be vulnerable to competitive tactics. This is partly why if you expect the other side to compete, you should also consider competing. However, if you want to create value through problem-solving, what can you do about competitive negotiators? That is the topic of the next section.

3. Problem-solving: How Do You Deal With Competitive Negotiators?

Ury’s (2007) book, Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People, is probably my favorite reference material on how to help shift negotiators from being competitive into being problem-solving. Ury called this the breakthrough strategy, which uses five tactics:

1. Don’t react: go to the balcony,
2. Don’t argue: step to their side,
3. Don’t reject: reframe,
4. Don’t push: build them a golden bridge, and
5. Don’t escalate: use power to educate.

By using the breakthrough strategy, your chances for successfully negotiating with competitive individuals increases when you are being problem-solving. These tactics can also help protect you from common competitive tactics that take advantage of weaknesses in many problem-solving strategies. And, even if a competitive negotiator remains competitive, you can still create a problem-solving negotiation despite their strategy and tactics.

Finally, remember that your style of negotiation is never locked in. You can always shift from being problem-solving to being competitive, and vice-versa. However, those strategic adjustments can be difficult depending upon what tactics have been used so far. If you find a negotiation has stalled, consider whether you are using the right negotiating strategy, and whether negotiation is the right process for your goals.

References and Recommended Reading

Interested in learning more about negotiation? I’ve scratched the surface, above, and below you’ll find some recommended reading (as well as my references), which delve much deeper into the nuances of negotiation.

• Angel, D. (2017). Conflict decision-making: A model for conflict analysis.
• Latz, M. (2010). Gain the edge!: Negotiating to get what you want (1st ed.) [Kindle].
• Mnookin, R. (2010). Bargaining with the devil: When to negotiate, when to fight [Audiobook]. Simon & Schuster Audio.
• Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.) [Kindle]. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Sander, F. E., & Goldberg, S. B. (1994). Fitting the forum to the fuss: A user-friendly guide to selecting an ADR procedure. Negotiation Journal, 10(1), 49-68
• Ury, W. (2007). Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. Enhanced Audio.

For more resources, or if you have some you’d like to recommend, contact me.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com

When talking with someone, it is helpful to know what type of conversation you are in. You can do so based on a conversation's direction of communication (a one-way or two-way street) and its tone/purpose (competitive or cooperative).

If you are in a one-way conversation, you are talking at someone, rather than with someone. If you are in a two-way conversation, participants are both listening and talking. In a competitive conversation, people are more concerned about their own perspective, whereas in a cooperative conversation participants are interested in the perspective of everyone involved.

Based on direction and tone, I grouped conversations into four types: debate, dialogue, discourse, and diatribe.

• Debate is a competitive, two-way conversation. The goal is to win an argument or convince someone, such as the other participant or third-party observers.
• Dialogue is a cooperative, two-way conversation. The goal is for participants to exchange information and build relationships with one another.
• Discourse is a cooperative, one-way conversation. The goal to deliver information from the speaker/writer to the listeners/readers.
• Diatribe is a competitive, one-way conversation. The goal is to express emotions, browbeat those that disagree with you, and/or inspires those that share the same perspective.

To highlight the differences between these types of conversations, let’s use politics as an example:

• Debate: two family members from opposite sides of the political spectrum arguing over politics.
• Dialogue: two undecided voters talking to each other about the candidates, trying to figure out who they want to vote for.
• Discourse: a professor giving a lecture on international affairs.
• Diatribe: a disgruntled voter venting about the election’s outcome.

It is important to know which type of conversation you are in, because that determines the purpose of that conversation. If you can identify the purpose, you can better speak to the heart of that conversation. But, if you misidentify the conversation you are in, you can fall into conversational pitfalls.

Here are a few examples of conversational pitfalls I’ve written about:

• “Talking At, Not With: The Problem of Disconnected Conversations” – sometimes your dialogue might actually be two separate discourses (or diatribes) instead; will you recognize that in time?
• “When Arguing Over Value Issues, Sometimes Facts and Truth Don’t Matter” – sometimes people just want to diatribe; what can you do when that happens, especially when you want to have a dialogue or debate?

If someone appears to be in a conversational pitfall, you can help them climb back out. Regardless of how one climbs back out, the solution always starts with identifying which hole you are in. You must first know the problem before you can find the solution. And, sometimes, just identifying the pitfall itself is enough to draw attention to the problem and correct the conversation.

Parting Thoughts

When you are in a conversation, take a moment to think about which conversation you are actually in. Each of the types of conversation are meaningless on their own; you give them meaning in their use. And, ultimately, it is up to you to decide what type of conversation you want to be part of.

While this article is a discourse (I've been writing, you've been reading) it doesn't have to remain that way. Feel free to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

“What can I do to make the world a better place?” is a question I often ask myself. Right now, my answer is to help people talk with one another, build relationships, and to help people move forward.

“Talking Politics: Moving Forward Post-Election” is a facilitated dialogue I am offering for free. You just need 3–6 participants and 2 hours of time. I’ll come to you (greater Chicago area), and will facilitate for free. Open to anyone and everyone, regardless of who you voted for, or whether you voted.

Facilitated dialogues work well, even when (sometimes especially when) different participants drastically disagree. If you’ve never been part of a facilitated dialogue, they are refreshing because the structure slows the conversation, and no one has to worry about being in a debate, or convincing others about their perspective. The conversation focuses on what happened, why it matters, and areas of uncertainty you might have.

So I invite you to this dialogue; contact me if you’d like to put one together. Like I said, this is my way of contributing back to the world, so I’m glad to help.

Update: If you would like to host this dialogue on your own, I have included both the Facilitated Dialogue Schedule and the Participant Handout, below. Both use Essential Partners’ method, Reflective Structured Dialogue. Additionally, I have been volunteering my time and expertise to facilitate this dialogue for free. If you’d like my assistance hosting a dialogue, or have any questions about hosting one yourself, please contact me.

Downloads (left-click to open pdfs):

For more information, check out davidwangel.com.

To make good decisions, you must be a good steward of risk.

If you were omniscient, you’d never need to worry about risk. You’d know the outcome to every situation, and there would be no uncertainty about the future.

You, however, are not omniscient. You are a flawed creature to which the future is often a mystery. And that’s what makes you, and life, beautiful.

To be a good steward of risk means to be prepared; to take a bit of the “mystery” out of the future. The more you know about your situation, the better you can predict the future, and the better you can make good decisions to accomplish your goals.

The four tenets of being a good steward of risk are:

1. Know who is involved (including yourself), and why they are involved.
2. Familiarize yourself with your situation’s circumstances.
3. Predict how those involved might behave, and what actions they might take.
4. Put it all together in the context of the system that you are in.

(For more detailed information on these tenets, check out Conflict Decision-Making.)

Falling Down, and Getting Back Up

This is easy advice to give, but can be hard to follow. I’ll sometimes fail to follow my own advice, which is both embarrassing and humbling. It is a reminder that when I am in the middle of a conflict, it can be hard to think clearly. This is one reason talking to someone outside of the conflict can provide a clearer and more levelheaded perspective.

So, how do I usually fail at being a good steward of risk? It’s usually by being lazy: I either don’t try to truly understand the situation or I fall back on convenient heuristics (these usually go hand in hand).

Now, heuristics aren’t bad, per se. They exist because they often work, and work well. However, a heuristic becomes convenient when we use it without considering other descriptive alternatives. Convenient heuristics are convenient because they are the quick and easy options. And they are dangerous because they can cause us to fall prey to cognitive biases and make poor decisions.

The important part of being a good steward of risk is being tenacious and self-reflective. We all eventually fall down, and mistakes are inevitable. But, by being tenacious and self-reflective we can ensure that we get back up. One mental trick I use to catch myself when I fall, and to pick myself back up, is the mental TV show.

The Mental TV Show

I use this mental trick to check in on myself: am I thinking about a situation clearly, or am I being a lazy decision-maker?

The mental TV show is exactly what it sounds like. I imagine that I am watching TV, and the show is a sitcom about me and my situation. There are two versions of myself that I am imagining: the viewer-me, and the sitcom-me. And I ask myself, “what would the viewer-me be saying to the TV?”

I pay close attention to what the viewer-me is saying about the sitcom-me. If I am yelling at the TV (usually about doing something stupid, and that I should know better), I know very quickly that I’m doing something wrong. Furthermore, the viewer-me is usually also saying exactly what I need to do in order to get back on track.

The mental TV show is about giving myself the proper perspective to truly understand the situation so that I can be a good steward of risk.

Who’s Your Model Steward?

The four tenets, above, are broad and generalized to fit most situations. However, your specific situation might have a specific model of risk analysis that is more applicable. A good model of risk analysis will address each of these tenets in greater detail, and greater predictive accuracy. A poor model of risk analysis will fall short on one or more of these tenets, and leave you on the ground should you fall down.

So, as you think about being a good steward of risk, consider who might be your role model, and what models of risk analysis might guide you best. And, keep in mind that if you find yourself too close to the situation, a little bit of perspective can do wonders to help clear your mind.

Recommended Reading:

The mental TV show is very similar to William Ury’s (2007) recommendation “Don’t react: Go to the balcony” in Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations, a book I highly recommend.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

When thinking about whether to vote for your preferred third party candidate, or to vote for your second choice, you need to consider: which vote will create the most value for you?

There are two assumptions in this article: 1) the third party does not have a chance to win (different from being able to create value), and 2) it’s a matter of principles (you either really like the third party candidate, or you don’t like either of the major party candidates and want to vote for someone else). 

Note: I'm going to be referring fairly often to the “Should I Vote? chart, from “To Vote or Not to Vote: That Is the Question.” Although you don't need to read that article before reading this one, you might find it to be a helpful primer to the below materials.

So, if you vote third party, are you throwing your vote away? Well, that all depends on how you feel about your other options:

1. Vote for your candidate, if you dislike every other option.
2. When you're indifferent about your second choice, only vote for them if it'll make a difference.
3. Consider voting for your second choice, if you actually like them.

Vote for Your Candidate, If You Dislike Every Other Option

If you gain an immense deal of value from voting for your candidate (some might call you a fanatic, putting you very high in the “I love it!” category), and you dislike every other option, then it makes sense to vote for your third party candidate in two out of three scenarios: when “It’ll create value!” and when “It won’t do anything.” It’s only when your third party vote might actually “do more damage than if [you] hadn’t voted” do you need to hesitate.

When You’re Indifferent About Your Second Choice, Only Vote for Them If It’ll Make a Difference

When you have a third party candidate that you like, to vote for someone you are indifferent about would reduce your enthusiasm for voting from an “I love it!” to a “Meh.” If your second choice were to win you’d be at “Vote!” But, if your second choice lost, you’d be at “Maybe, if you don’t have anything better to do.” And, if you thought that second choice would lose, that “anything better to do” would be to vote for your first preference: third party.

Thus, you should only vote for a candidate you are indifferent about when your vote can make a difference (“It’ll create value!”). Otherwise, stick with your third party.

Consider Voting for Your Second Choice, If You Actually Like Them

If you actually like your second (major party) choice, you would still be in the “I love it!” category. In this case, you should consider voting for your secondary candidate because you’d still be in either “Vote! Win-win!” (better than a vote for your third party candidate) or “Vote!” (which is the same outcome your third-party candidate would receive).

However, even if you like your second choice, if you are highly devoted to your first choice, then it still might be more valuable for you to vote third party, especially if you don’t believe your vote for either candidate will actually matter (see, “Vote for Your Candidate, If You Dislike Every Other Option,” above).

The Example of Ralph Nader, 2000

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, won a very close race against Al Gore, the Democratic candidate. Running for the Green Party was Ralph Nader, a candidate that got stuck with the title of spoiler after the dust had settled (and lawsuits concluded). The primary reason? The common assumption was that more of his voters would have voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, a difference that would have pushed Al Gore into the lead and taken the win. (For more on Nader’s impact on the 2000 election, the Wikipedia article “Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000: The ‘spoiler’ controversy” is a good starting point.)

The example of Ralph Nader highlights the singular question you must answer when considering a third party vote: will voting third party create the most value for you?

Who Should Have Voted for Nader?

I think there were two types of Nader voters: those that were solid voters (three “Vote!”) and those that were soft voters (three “Maybe…”). There were also Nader supporters that didn’t vote for him (such as soft voters that instead voted for a major party candidate; see below for reasons why that might happen) or just didn’t vote (note: on its own, a vote for Nader was not worse than not having voted at all, but that is where the term “spoiler” comes into play; see, “Was Ralph Nader a Spoiler?” below).

Based on the criteria above for “Should You Vote Third Party?” the only time it would have made sense for a Nader voter to vote for a major party candidate would have been if they were either indifferent towards Gore/Bush and thought voting for them would make a difference, or if they liked Gore/Bush and were happy voting major party. In these two cases, voting for a major party would have been a good vote. Otherwise, voting for Nader was a good vote. However, a good vote is not necessarily the right vote.

Only Nader’s “I love it!” voters that disliked both Gore and Bush would have been guaranteed to have cast both a good and right vote, regardless of the election’s outcome. Everyone else’s vote was either right or wrong depending upon the election’s outcome.

Because voting for Nader ultimately did not make a difference (if you go by the criteria that Nader fell short of getting 5% nationally), I believe that this means anyone who voted for Nader because they thought “It’ll create value!” would be shifted right on the chart to “It won’t do anything.” Although this would reduce the value of voting for these Nader voters, it doesn’t mean that they cast the wrong vote.

Was Voting for Nader Worth It?

Did the people who voted for Nader feel like they made a mistake (i.e., cast the wrong vote)? Well, that depends on how they felt about the election afterwards: happy or regretful.

Anyone that voted for Nader and felt happy about that vote afterwards probably cast the right vote. Thus, a vote for Nader, who lost, meant more to them than a vote for Gore (even if it had helped him win) or a vote for Bush. This would include Nader’s “I love it!” voters, his voters that disliked Gore, his voters that liked Gore but felt their vote wouldn't make a difference, and his voters that liked Bush.

Those that felt regret at their vote likely made the wrong decision. This includes Nader’s voters that liked Gore and also felt that their votes could have helped him win (“It’ll create value!”). For these voters, a vote for Gore, to help him win, would have been more valuable than their vote for Nader, which didn’t do anything. Furthermore, the act of being labeled a “spoiler” might have further reduced the value they gained from voting.

As for the Nader voters whose second choice would have been Bush, well, good news for them: they got the best of both worlds. Not only did they get to vote for Nader, but their second choice still won. Furthermore, instead of their vote doing nothing, their vote (might have) made a difference by being a “spoiler.” And, this could have increased the value of their vote from a “Vote!” to a “Vote! Win-win!”

So, as you think about whether Nader’s voters made a good decision, keep in mind that a “good” decision isn’t the same as the “right” decision. In this case, Nader supporters that felt regret might have made a good vote at the time, especially if the probability of Gore winning without their help was favorable (i.e., their vote wasn’t going to matter either way). Only after the election was resolved would it be revealed to have possibly been the wrong vote due to the tight race.

Was Ralph Nader a Spoiler?

Does this all mean that Ralph Nader deserved the reputation of being a spoiler? Well, what I will say is this: consider what the reputation of being a “spoiler” actually means. This is a social negative that is imposed in order to drag down the value of voting for a specific candidate, in this case the third party. In other words, part of society is attempting to reduce the value of voting for a third party candidate by either lowering the inherent value of voting, or reducing the possible value it might create (see, “How Can Voting Cause Harm?” in “To Vote or Not to Vote: That Is the Question”). Both of these tactics are designed to repress voting for that candidate.

Ralph Nader provides an excellent example about how society regulates the “value” of voting. Keep this in mind the next time someone says to go vote, and follows it up with criticism, or praise, for whom you want to vote for. Remember that this is an attempt to manipulate the value of your vote for that candidate, either because they agree with your vote and want your help, or because they would rather see you not vote at all if you won’t vote for the “right” candidate.

So, was Nader a spoiler? I think that really depends upon the actual number of Nader’s voters that both liked Gore and felt that a vote for him would have made a difference. These are the Nader voters that would have gained value from voting for Gore. My impression is that Nader was not a statistical spoiler. Rather, I think his title of “spoiler” was largely dependent upon whether it was a convenient rationale for how the 2000 election played out. In other words, the title “spoiler” brings value to those that use it.

Parting Thoughts

“Whom should you vote for?” This isn’t an easy answer, and a lot of factors go into your decision, not only about whom to vote for, but also whether to vote at all. Just remember that your vote does not live in a vacuum. Others around you impact the value of your vote, and your vote impacts the value of others as well.

Deciding whom to vote for is even harder when your preferred candidate’s value is limited by the fact that they can’t “win” the election. But value isn’t only created by winning the election; value is created throughout the entire electoral process. So when election day comes around, go and vote with confidence. Just make sure you cast a good vote: the one that will bring you the greatest probable value amongst all of your options. Hopefully this article will help you do just that.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

To vote, or not to vote? This is the first, and last, question any voter should ask themselves. Is voting worth your time and effort? Does the act of voting, and the outcome of the electoral process, create value for you?

The Election Is a Process, Who Wins Is an Outcome, and Your Vote Is an Action

In every decision you make, that outcome has value. And that value can, and often is, affected by the actions you take to achieve that outcome.

For example, imagine that you want candy, and that candy is going to make your day feel really good (let’s be honest, comfort food is called “comfort” food for a reason). Now, you could walk four blocks to a nearby convenience store, and spend two dollars for a nice large piece of sweet, sweet, candy. Or, there is an unattended baby in a stroller outside your office, with the exact same (unopened) candy bar in hand.

Now, in both scenarios you can get pretty much the same piece of candy. Same outcome, same value, right? Not necessarily. You either have to spend time and money to get it from the convenience store, or you could save that time and money … by stealing from a baby. Obviously, the action impacts the value of the outcome (for the worse — unless you hate babies, in which case I suppose there could be a twisted scenario where that might be your preferred route, but I’m not going there today).

So, voting itself can be inherently important to the value of an election’s outcome. Even if you don’t believe your vote will have a direct impact, the act of voting can be itself a source of value for you. But what if voting does not create value for you, and is instead a burden? Or what if the value of voting is offset by the outcome of the election?

Should You Vote, or Not Vote?

What is the inherent value of voting? What benefits does it bring? What costs does it extract? Whether or not you should vote depends upon the inherent value of voting (for example, how much you like/dislike a candidate, and how much you like/dislike the process of voting) and the outcome of that vote. The below “Should I Vote?” chart defines three scenarios where you should vote, three where it’s debatable, and three where you should abstain from voting.

Vote!

In these three scenarios, you should vote because it’ll produce net positive value for you. “Vote! Win-win!” has the highest possible value, whereas “Vote!” gains its value through either voting’s inherent value or due to the outcome of voting. Also, you don’t have to (only) find value in voting for your candidate, as you can also find value in voting against a candidate that you dislike.

Maybe Vote

In these three scenarios, whether you should vote or not really depends upon how you feel about voting compared to the value of your vote’s outcome.

Don’t Vote

In these three scenarios, you shouldn’t vote because it’ll produce a net negative value for you. So, instead of voting, do something else that will create more value for you.

How Can Voting Cause Harm?

I find this idea to be very counter-intuitive, because even when all of your options suck you still have, at the least, the ability to choose the least bad option. So, why would you not choose? Why would you not vote? Well, to vote or not to vote is a choice in itself. And there can be situations where choosing to vote is worse than not voting.

For example, imagine a despot is running for election, and you could only vote for that despot. To vote would be tacit approval for that regime, and since you don’t have a choice you’d probably hate the act of voting. So, would you want to vote, or would you rather stay at home, maybe create low voter-turnout, and do something else more worthwhile (assuming there is no penalty for not voting)? Thus, your choice not to vote can be an extra-electoral symbol of disapproval, one that is more valuable to you than the act of voting.

Another way that voting can be worse than not voting is when people criticize and/or punish you based on how you vote. This is an example of vote-specific value destruction: either the inherent value of voting is diminished, and/or the value of the outcomes you would normally favor is reduced.

For example, imagine someone tells you to make sure that you go vote. They then ask whom you are going to vote for. After you answer, with “the wrong” candidate, you immediately get a tirade about how stupid, ignorant, and/or wrong you are (see, “Should You Vote Third Party?”). If successful, they might convince you to ether switch votes, or not vote at all.

However, when people attempt this course of action, it can backfire and create value in the act of resisting coercion and social bullying. Furthermore, this vote-specific value manipulation can also be used for the opposite effect, where someone praises or rewards you for your choice, which can actually increase the value your vote (for that candidate).

So, even though voting is about options, there are times where voting might actually be worse than not voting. Remember, your first, and last, choice when it comes to voting is whether or not you should vote.

A Ballot Is Rarely Only One Candidate or Issue

Here is a very important caveat to the “Should I Vote” chart. Ballots are rarely about one candidate, so you must weigh your primary purpose for voting against the other items on the ballot that you can have an impact upon. It only takes one worthwhile candidate or issue to convince you that voting, in this case, is very much worth it.

That being said, if you look at the “Should I Vote” chart, and come to the conclusion that for every item on the ballot, you will lose value, why would you go and vote when you could instead use your time and energy on other fulfilling actions?

Voting Is Only One Process

Always remember that voting is just one part of the American democratic process. Voting is an action towards achieving a specific set of goals. When you vote for someone, you expect them to work towards your goals, or at least not damage them as much as the other candidates.

What that means is you can achieve your goals through other means. You can volunteer. You can find employment in the right field. You can protest, and draw attention to ignored needs. You can organize your community. You can even run for public office to become the agent of change to reach those goals.

The beauty of voting is that it largely works. The ugly side of voting is that it can be overwhelming, and obfuscate us from seeing the other ways in which we can reach our goals. This is important for both those that believe and don’t believe that voting makes a difference. Always remember that you have other options outside of the voting process.

In other words, American democracy doesn’t only start and end with voting.

A Parting Critique, and Recommended Reading

What I have written about, above, is purely about answering the question: does it make sense for you to vote? However, I have not delved into the social implications of this question, because the choice not to vote can be taken as social defection and free-riding.

For example, if I decide that voting doesn’t make sense for me, then I am letting other people bear the “burden” (as I see it) of voting, and I am letting them decide the fate of my political affairs. Instead, I could use the time I’d otherwise waste voting to go have some fun, or make some money.

If you’d like to delve deeper into the broader impact of voting and the importance of elections, check out social choice theory. It takes this article’s question and examines it in aggregate. If you are interested in learning more, the Wikipedia article “Social Choice Theory” is a good place to start. If you want a bit more to chew on, “The Possibility of Social Choice (PDF)” by Amartya K. Sen (1998) is a really interesting Nobel Lecture on this topic.

If you’d like more resources, or if you have some you’d like to recommend, contact me.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

I have to admit that I sort of like looking through the “List of cognitive biases” on Wikipedia. There is something powerful about being able to put a name to the bias. There’s also something a bit disconcerting about the myriad of ways we can mess up our thinking.

When it comes to the shortlist of common biases, one of my favorites is from Business Insider’s “20 cognitive biases that screw up your decisions.” I actually printed its infographic out and keep it nearby for easy reference. It’s a reminder that, even with my best thinking, there are ways that I can convince myself that I am right, even when I might be wrong.

“How Our Biases Make Us Blind” is a nice reminder that, even when the same data is available for all, we can each still perceive the world differently from one another. For me, the most useful section was “It’s the Structure, Stupid” as it provided some interesting advice on how to overcome the biases addressed earlier in the article. Here’s the quote I took away as something to think about more later:

“Management scholars call the congruence between environmental demands and organizational needs requisite variety: the information entering into the team is complex, so the constituents of the team need to match that complexity in order to operate at a high function.”

Here’s the infographic from “20 cognitive biases that screw up your decisions” that I mentioned, above:

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Next time you get into an argument with someone, especially if it is about politics/religion/value issues, remember that sometimes facts and truth don’t matter. That’s not what the argument is usually about. Instead:

1. Listen

Hear them out without interrupting (but only if you actually care about them, and what they think).

2. If you disagree…

If you disagree, politely say something like, “I hear what you’re saying and, although I don’t agree with everything you said, I appreciate the time you took to tell me about your thoughts on the issue.”

3. Do you want to say something?

If you want to tell them why you disagree say something like, “would you care to hear my thoughts on the topic?”

4. If they don’t want to listen…

If they say no, then you can choose whether to continue the conversation. If you decide not to, then you won’t waste your time because their mind is already closed. You can say something like, “thank you for your honesty; if you change your mind and would like to continue this conversation, let me know.” You can then change the subject, or politely leave. If you decide to try anyway, there is always a chance you might make a difference, you just know in advance it’ll be an uphill challenge.

5. What if they want to listen?

If they say yes, keep your arguments tactful, and when you challenge their beliefs remember that if you challenge their perception of who they are, or a value instead of a fact, they may become entrenched. 

Also, because they said that they wanted to hear your thoughts, as long as they don’t feel personally attacked, you can gently remind them of this if they interrupt (only works if you didn’t interrupt — you’ll get called out on hypocrisy). 

When you are done, make sure you affirm the relationship, and then invite the other person to share their thoughts on what you just said, and let them know that if they need time to think about it that is okay too (last part isn’t always necessary or important, but can be if someone really is considering what you said and might be on the verge of changing their mind).

6. Use your own voice, and good luck!

This doesn’t work 100% of the time, but it usually works a lot more often than starting with, “let me tell you why you’re wrong” (that certainly feels good though, but rarely makes a positive difference in that person’s life).

Finally, remember to speak with your own voice. If the words I used, above, don’t sound like something you’d say, find your own way to say it. When your words are genuine, others will know and appreciate your candor.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

This peaked my curiosity about how Facebook chooses to resolve these types of disputes. Plus, I wanted to see if I could help a friend out. So I started by looking for the answers to two questions I like to ask when a dispute arises between a person and a company:

1. What are the internal dispute resolution mechanisms? and,

2. What are the external dispute resolution mechanisms?

When your Facebook account is disabled, you have one internal option, and two external options:

1. Submit an appeal: this is the primary, and only, internal dispute resolution process Facebook offers you if your account is disabled.

2. Litigation in California: this is the primary external dispute resolution process that you agree to by using Facebook (see, Section 4.4 Disputes).

3. Going public and getting help from the media: this is an external dispute resolution process, and not one you’d find in the Terms and Policies – you are leveraging extralegal coerced decision-making to force Facebook to address your concerns.

In the next sections, I will go into further detail for each of these three options.

(Note, just because I have these three options listed does not mean that they are your only options. If you find that your account has been disabled and none of these seem promising to you, think about what other approaches you might take to resolve your conflict with Facebook.)

Appealing a Disabled Account (Internal Dispute Resolution)

The appeal process to dispute a disabled Facebook account begins with you receiving a notification, usually when you attempt to login, that your account has been disabled. You can then go to the FAQ: Disabled Accounts where you can find the link to the submit an appeal (note: see the screenshot below; if you click this link and are logged in, you’ll just get an error page asking you to log out first).

You are required to provide at least three pieces of information: your login email address or phone number, your full name, and a picture of your ID. The last field, additional info, seems optional and it isn’t clear if that’s where you should state your appeal. Furthermore, it isn’t exactly clear what happens next, except that Facebook will investigate (so, is this the appeal? Or do you have to wait for Facebook to investigate before you can then appeal?).

One thing that stands out to me is that Facebook relies heavily upon its FAQ and automated response bots. For example, one response message my friend got was titled “Thank you for submitting your ID” and said “We can’t help you with your request until we receive an ID or other document that we can use to confirm that you’re the owner of this account.” So, I guess Facebook’s bots have developed a sense of irony (which makes me wonder if they’ll eventually learn sarcasm, too).

Even if you submit an appeal it isn’t clear whether it has been accepted, or how long it will take to receive a reply (do they send any confirmations?). While I waited to see what would happen with the appeal, I continued my investigation as to what external processes Facebook uses for dispute resolution.

Litigation in California (External Dispute Resolution)

The second question I needed answers to was whether Facebook’s dispute resolution clause of its terms and policy calls for binding arbitration or litigation. Turns out, in 2009, Facebook removed its binding arbitration clause from its Terms of Use, and switched over to requiring disputes to be litigated in the “U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County” (see, Section 4.4. Disputes). (Note, Workplace by Facebook also now requires litigation in California; see Section 11.1 in the Workplace Standard Terms of Service. Edited 03/06/19)

Is It Possible to Talk to a Real Facebook Employee?

If Facebook has been building a walled garden for consumers, then they seem to have also built themselves a walled garden from consumers.

Even thought I had found some answers, I didn’t feel satisfied with what I had found. I still had some questions, like “what are my internal dispute resolution options per Facebook’s terms?” And, “if a disabled account appeal is denied, and I wish to dispute that decision, can you confirm the appropriate external dispute resolution mechanism is litigation in California?” These questions needed answers from a real Facebook employee. How hard could that be? Turns out, very hard.

It took a while before I could ask someone those questions, because actually contacting a real person from Facebook is very difficult, especially if your problem is with Facebook itself. Much of Facebook’s help center is an expansive FAQ. And, if your answer isn’t there, you can turn to the Help Community or the Business Help Community for possible answers. However, neither of those communities guarantee that a response will be from someone actually employed at Facebook, and all responses are publicly available (when I tried to submit my questions, I received errors each time saying “this content is no longer available”). There is supposed to be a live chat feature for the Business Help Community, but it was put on hold about a month ago.

[Edit 03/06/19: the live chat feature appears active now, but limited to supporting advertisers: “Businesses that advertise on Facebook now have access to one-on-one support through live online chat. By clicking “Get Help” on the Facebook for Business website, advertisers can chat and screen share with a trained Ads Specialist to get quick answers to their Facebook advertising questions.”]

Facebook, thus, appears to be silent on how to privately get more information directly from someone at Facebook. I did eventually manage to track down a possible email address for Facebook’s Legal Department: legal@facebook.com. But I got this email address from multiple Google searches for Facebook’s Legal Department, rather than from Facebook itself. (For finding pertinent information, it actually seems like search engines have been more helpful than Facebook’s own help center and search features.)

So, while it seemed like it would be a long shot, since I had little else to go on I went ahead and emailed legal@facebook.com:

To Facebook’s Legal Department:

I am inquiring as to the options one has after a disabled account appeal has been denied. My understanding is that an appeal is considered final in terms of internal dispute resolution. If someone contests the basis of that appeal, does Facebook use binding arbitration or litigation? The terms (rights and responsibilities) indicate that Facebook no longer uses binding arbitration and instead requires disputes to be resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County.

Could you please let me know:

1. Is the disable account appeal the final internal process for disputing a disabled account, or are there other internal escalations one can use prior to moving to external dispute resolution processes?

2. Is the appropriate external dispute resolution process litigation at the above mentioned locations?

Thank you for your assistance. The FAQ and community help forums were unable to answer these questions above, and getting in touch with someone from Facebook for answers has been challenging. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

David W. Angel
Conflict Consultant

[If I receive a response, I'll be placing it here.]

Going Public and Getting Help From the Media (External Dispute Resolution)

While waiting for Facebook to respond to the appeal, I also examined other options for getting answers. In other words, if I cannot find a reasonable way to resolve this issue, what else can I do? One solution would be to get help from an organization that would have the resources to help, and a mutually beneficial reason for helping: the media.

A media organization might be interested in this type of story for four reasons: 1) Facebook is well known, 2) a large company making life difficult for everyday people is a problem many can relate to, 3) this is a problem without a clear answer, and 4) although many people won’t face the fear of having their Facebook account disabled, that potential fear makes for captivating content. In other words, this is a story of “that could be me.”

This could be a helpful option because media organizations have more power than the average person. This is due to three reasons: 1) one of their specialties is in finding out information that might otherwise be unavailable to the average person, 2) they have a large audience that will listen and pay attention, and 3) they specialize in making content both captivating and shareable so that the impact is wider than just the initial audience. These factors together provide a decent chance that at least some answers will be found, especially once individual information gathering has been exhausted.

So, as I am getting more information, I am keeping these types of organizations in mind. (For example, programs like NBC 5 Responds, which is a Chicago based program by the NBC 5 Investigates team and is specifically about consumer complaints and problems.)

Facebook Skips the Most Fundamental Conflict Resolution Processes

Facebook leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to its dispute resolution mechanisms.

Facebook successfully leverages its massive size to employ power unilaterally: consumers are ultimately bound by what Facebook decides, and escalation mechanisms appear completely absent. In other words, Facebook uses administrative decisions to dictate its resolutions upon those that are bound by them. And if you don’t like that, you are forced to escalate conflict towards more coercive and win-lose processes, like entering into litigation (legal, authoritative decision-making) or going to a more powerful third party to help you force Facebook’s hands (extralegal coerced decision-making).

Facebook essentially skips through private decision-making processes like negotiation and informal dialogue and problem-solving. It likely weighed the cost of having real people in customer service against the benefit of resolving conflicts early in their development, and then decided that an FAQ was Facebook’s best option. However, by relying solely upon its FAQ (regardless of how comprehensive that FAQ is) and Help Communities, Facebook renders the option to engage in private decision-making by the parties nearly impossible. This puts the entire burden of trying to resolve a conflict almost completely on the party having that problem (i.e., the burden is on your shoulders, not Facebook’s).

The Faceless Giant

By eschewing collaborative problem-solving, Facebook comes across as a faceless giant, one that cares little about seeing your problems, hearing your concerns, or talking to you about your options. I know that Facebook is working on these problems, but until it can successful engage its consumers in a meaningful dialogue then this general perception will last, regardless of whether it is deserved or not.

The Resolution

So, how did this all end for my friend and their disabled account? Well, right around the time a journalist reached out to Facebook to inquire as to the reason the account was disabled, their Facebook account was reinstated. It might have just been a coincidence, but I find it to be a coincidence that would make a pretty good hook for a press piece.

Hopefully, if you ever find your account disabled, this article will help you in the process of recovering your account, and hopefully with less frustration than seems common for those in this situation.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Please note: this article is not intended to serve as legal advice. If you are in need of legal assistance, please contact a licensed attorney or your State Bar Association.

Updated 03/06/2019 - links and document names. Other changes to content are noted in text.

I decided to give myself a challenge during my flight from Chicago to San Francisco: write an article before landing, and then publish whatever that looks like. Once the flight is over, no going back and making changes. What’s written gets published.

For this writing challenge, I decided to write about what writing means to me. It’s a bit meta, but it matters to me. And I’ll tell you why.

A Tepid Affair

I am extremely self-conscious about my writing. Sometimes to the point that writing can be an uncomfortable, and unsatisfying, endeavor. I overly fret about word choice, flow, grammar (which I continue to misspell to this day as “grammer”), spelling, theme, etc. And then there is the editing, revisions, rewrites, and often I am still not completely happy.

Writing has always been a bit of a challenge for me. When I look back on my relationship with the English language, we’ve had a tepid affair. Spelling, in particular, was always my nemesis, and I think I almost failed it in elementary school (side note, I seriously need to look up who invented spell check, and then write them a thank you card). Furthermore, I’ve always hated, and struggled with, the English sections of standardized tests (I’m looking at you, state tests, SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, etc.!).

Frustrations set aside, I can’t say I’ve ever held a grudge against English for all of its idiosyncrasies and foibles that vex me from time to time. So, do I think of myself as being bad at writing? No. But am I where I want to be? Not yet, but I’m getting there.

A Road Worth Traveling

I have a deep admiration for people that excel at writing. Whether it’s prose, poetry, rap, or haiku, I appreciate you wordsmiths. Fortunately, I am under no illusion that to be a good writer means that it must be an easy process. In fact, I am convinced that great writing is a product of years of hard work, dedication, and personal honing. And that gives me hope.

And so, despite my frustrations with writing, I write anyway. I put myself out there in the written word because I won’t continue to grow if I become a barrier to myself. Writing these articles is, for me, an exercise in self-improvement.

A Challenge in Clarity

One of my biggest challenges is in clarity – I don’t want my words to waste your time. When I write, I am taking an amorphous concept that is often tangled and mangled in my mindscape, and trying to turn it into something beautiful that others can relate to. I like to think I occasionally succeed.

Most of the time, I start with a general idea that I lay out in my first paragraph, and that first paragraph rarely survives. Frequently, it is too dense and I must unpack it into multiple paragraphs. Or I’ll realize I’ve written the end, and have to work backwards to find my start. Even in this article, bits of my first paragraph are scattered throughout. But, only by first getting the words out onto paper am I able to clarify them.

Parting Thoughts

If by some grace you don’t see (too many) imperfections and flaws, then I’ll be happy. And if you do notice them, I’ll (try to) be okay with that as well (no guarantees).

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts. I wanted to end on some insightful, or witty comment. But instead, I want to wish you well in your written word journey. If you’re where you want to be, congratulations, and feel free to pass along some advice! And, if you are like me, and still trying to get there, good luck! I’m more than happy to walk the same road with you.

As I write these final words, I must admit that I’m a bit surprised – I was really worried I’d accidentally end with an incomplete sentence. So, I’m going to take a little time to review my words above, and indulge just a few of my insecurities. Then I’ll take a break, let my mind wander for a while, and hopefully take a nap.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Have you ever had a conversation with a dog?

The other day, I had a sarcastic conversation with my corgi along the lines of “aw, you have no idea what I am saying, but since I am saying it in an excited voice you think it’s important!” And my dog, not knowing any better, gave me her full attention. Her head was tilted, her ears perked up; surely there was something important in what I was saying.

When I was done talking, I wasn’t mocking my dog anymore. I was talking about how my day had been. About how it was good to be home. That I was hungry but didn’t know what I wanted to eat yet. And, even though I knew my dog understood none of what I had said, I felt listened to.

That is the power of being present. It tells others that you are paying attention. That you are engaged. That you care. Being present is a gift you can give.

When you are being present, you don’t have to understand everything that is being said. You can use what you don’t understand as an opportunity to learn more from the other person and help you gain an understanding. Being present is just as much about the journey as it is about the destination.

Barriers to Being Present

I find myself sometimes being guilty of being somewhat present instead of completely present. Just because our physical bodies might be in one location, that doesn’t mean our mind is there as well. There are three common barriers to being present:

1. Trying to Multitask,
2. Other important issues on the mind, and
3. Not wanting to be present.

Trying to Multitask

Have you ever felt the urge to check your phone during a meeting? Or write an email while on a conference call?

We can multitask effectively up to a certain point. But multitasking can become a distraction and signal to others that something else on our mind is more important than them.

When the barrier to being present is multitasking then the solution is to encourage single-tasking. When we feel the allure of multitasking, we can be mindful of it and call ourselves out on that temptation. By recognizing the allure of multitasking we can refocus on a single task at a time.

When others are being tempted by multitasking, we can address it is by creating an environment that encourages people to single-task. For example, in a meeting people might put their phones in one location, thereby removing the distraction of using them. Or, meetings might have scheduled breaks to allow people to check phones, use the washroom, get some coffee, etc.

By encouraging single-tasking we can help ourselves, and others, break free from the allure of multitasking.

Other Important Issues on the Mind

Have you ever found yourself distracted by more important issues?

This barrier to being present is very similar to trying to multitask, except multitasking is a conscious choice and having other important issues on the mind is not. Other important issues can simply barge into our mental space and draw us away to other thoughts. Having unrelated thoughts pop into our mind is nothing unusual, and can help with being creative, but when those thoughts begin to create distractions and draw us away from where we need to be then that is when they can become problematic.

When other important issues are creating a barrier for use to be present, we can be mindful of those issues and decide to either 1) acknowledge them and focus on the topic at hand, or 2) reschedule for a better time. If the latter isn’t an option, then sometimes we need to rely upon the former to get us present enough to get what needs to be done, done.

When someone else is dealing with other important issues we can use that as an opportunity to be present for them. Sometimes people find it hard to listen when they also need to be listened to. If they want to talk about what is drawing their attention away, that discussion can help clear their mind to then talk about what we need to discuss. And if they don’t want to talk about it, leaving the door open for them to discuss it can help them refocus on the topic that is at hand. If the distractions can’t be overcome, then rescheduling to another place and/or time can sometimes be effective.

Not Wanting to be Present

Have you ever been in a meeting that you simply hated and couldn’t wait to get out of?

Sometimes we just don’t want to be present. And if we bottle up the desire to disengage, not wanting to be present becomes an important issue that further distracts us. Fortunately, we can control our response to not wanting to be present. When we don’t want to be present we can choose to either stay or disengage:

1. Stay, and find ways to encourage our presence (whether by staying quiet and focusing on what is important, or by bringing the issue up), or
2. Choose to disengage in a manner that fosters later opportunities.

When someone else does not want to be present, we cannot force them to want to be present. When this is the case, their options are the same as our options above: we can give that person the chance to talk about why they’d rather not be present, and the option to leave if they need to. The first option gives them the chance to start becoming present. The second option leaves the door open for them to come back later when they are ready. However, when we attempt to force someone to be present, when being present is the problem, that forced presence can manifest as a negative one.

The Right Time and Place to Address Presence

We must make sure we choose the right time and the right place to address when people are not completely present. When done correctly, we can help cultivate a positive presence. When done poorly, we can instead create a destructive presence. In other words, the present is not always the right time to address presence.

For example, imagine we are leading a group meeting and we notice a coworker doesn’t seem to be entirely present. They’ve checked their phone several times, they seem withdrawn from the meeting, and haven’t said a single word since the meeting began.

Now, we could call that person out in front of everyone: “put the phone down already! If you check that one more time, I’m taking it from you!” But, would that be productive for creating a positive presence? Calling that person out in front of everyone might make them look bad. And what would everyone else think of us calling that person out? Now, if done properly in a group setting this can help improve the group’s dynamics, but when done poorly that person will feel singled out, and resent you for it.

Furthermore, that person might simply be distracted because their favorite team is playing, and they are trying to follow the game. Or, they might have a relative that is ill, and they are waiting for updates on their well-being. It’s hard to know why people aren’t completely present, and discussing why isn’t always best in front of more than just two people: you and that person.

Instead, we could invite that person to become present. In the meeting we could ask them about their thoughts on certain topics, and involve their input. Sometimes inviting someone to engage is enough to get them to engage. Afterwards, we could then take additional steps to address the lack of presence, choosing both a better time and place for that conversation.

Finally, circumstances sometimes dictate that a minimum level of presence is required. When someone cannot be fully present, if we can help them be present enough to get what must be done, done, then that can be good enough. The goal in these situations is to help that person meet the minimum level of presence required, and then encourage greater presence in the future.

Final Thoughts

When we are present, we gain valuable opportunities to learn information, build relationships, and make good decisions. And when we aren’t present, we put ourselves at risk for missing important details, and lose the opportunity to show others that we accept them and appreciate their presence.

So, the next time you find yourself, or someone else, being tempted by multitasking, being distracted by something else, or just not wanting to be present, you have the power to encourage greater presence. Whether that is in the now, or in the future, is up to you.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Are the police corrupt? Should we trust them? What role should they play in society?

This is a topic that is both deeply historical and immediately relevant. This article is about a specific problem in the national dialogue on police: how does the public’s perception about the police impact the public’s trust in that institution?

[Note: I’ve attempted to use relatively neutral language in this article. If you see something that might convey an unintended connotation, please let me know. I’m going to start with an allegory of apples to lay down a basic framework with which to discuss the police and trust in the last sections, “Trust Is Based on Perception” and “Moving Forward.”]

Perception vs. Reality

How many bad apples does it take to spoil the bunch? Well, that depends. How many does it take to actually spoil the bunch, and how many does it take to appear to spoil the bunch? When these numbers match, then our perception matches reality. But when these numbers differ, then we are misestimating spoilage.

Perception involves both verifiable facts and moral judgment. When it comes to bad apples, you need to know both how many it takes to spoil the bunch, and how many bad apples there are. Furthermore, apples are considered to be “good” and (as implied by their name) bad apples are considered to be “bad,” both of which are moral judgments. And, if you don’t like apples at all, then all apples are “bad,” regardless of being spoiled or not.

Overestimating Spoilage

When we overestimate spoilage, we are quicker to perceive the bunch of apples as spoiled, even when it is not. One reason this happens is because we are sensitive to observed phenomena, especially when they cause an immense impact on our well-being. This can lead us to overestimate both the future frequency and probability of those phenomena to occur.

For example, imagine that you got really bad food poisoning from some bad apples in your last couple of bunches. You now expect the next bunch of apples to spoil at 3 bad apples, but it will actually spoil at 12 bad apples. As for the number of bad apples you thought might be in the next batch, you thought there would be 6, but in fact there were only 3. Because you overestimated the spoilage, you thought that this bunch of apples was of a lower quality than it actually was.

Additionally, even if someone tried to show you that the barrel of apples was safe, you might still insist on checking all of the apples. After all, it’s usually better to be safe than sorry when it comes to good food safety.

Underestimating Spoilage

When we underestimate spoilage, we are slower to perceive the bunch of apples as spoiled, even when it has already gone bad. In contrast to overestimating spoilage, if we fail to observe phenomena as it occurs, or if the impact upon our well-being is minor, we can become blind to that phenomena: out of sight, out of mind.

For example, imagine that you have never gotten food poisoning from a bad bunch of apples. So you expect the next bunch of apples to spoil at 10 bad apples, but it will actually spoil with just 1 bad apple. As for the number of bad apples you expected in this batch, you thought there would be 1, but in fact there were 3. Because you underestimated spoilage, you thought that this bunch of apples was of a higher quality than it actually was.

Furthermore, even if you were confronted with the rotten bunch, an argument might break out about what really makes an apple “bad.” Or, about whether one can truly know if the whole bunch is spoiled from just a few bad apples.

Different and Shared Perceptions

Perception is further complicated when the facts are based on experience and involve deeply important values. Once we have a certain perception of the world, we tend to confirm our perception of reality by cherry picking the facts that support us, while ignoring the evidence that we might be wrong (for more on the confirmation bias, see “I Like It When I’m Right, Except When I’m Wrong”).

When we are confronted by someone that disagrees with our perception of reality, we sometimes use labels to describe them, often, along the lines of “you are being ….” However, instead of being helpful, these labels usually drive a wedge between us (for more on the danger of labels, see “Everyone Has Their Reasons: Be Wary of Labeling Others as Irrational”). Instead of using a label, you can recognize the factual error while also recognizing and accepting the other person and their experiences.

When we are only with people that agree with us, we all tend believe that we are right, even if our perception doesn’t match reality. For example, think about how people surrounded by only yes-men tend to suffer from groupthink, tunnel vision, overconfidence, etc. Living in our own little bubble and never venturing outside the comfort of our safety zone can harm both our creative process and decision-making ability.

Trust Is Based on Perception

We base our trust on our perception. So, when it comes to trust, perception often trumps reality.

In “Trust, Deception, and Transparency” I wrote,

At its core, trust is about the uncertainty of what people will do. To be trustworthy is to be predictable. Can you reliably predict what others are going to do? Can others reliably predict what you are going to do?

The question about whether someone can trust the police is about predictability: can I reliably predict when the police will do “right” or “wrong?”

In the spectrum of police favorability (love vs. hate), both extremes tend to trust the police. And that trust can be quite high. For example, one side might trust that the police will reliably do them and society good, while the other might trust that the police will reliably do them and society harm.

So, when the police are reliably “good” or “evil,” then we can trust them to do “good” or “evil” actions. However, when the lines of predictability are blurred, that trust becomes mistrust. And I think this is where we are at as a nation right now: if you look at the national level of society, and aggregate the public‘s feelings toward the police together, you get a mixed uncertainty about the role and behavior of the police.

Furthermore, when we talk about “the police” are we talking about the police in our neighborhood, municipality, state, or nation-wide? One neighborhood might have very good reasons to dislike the police, and expect the police to harass, abuse, neglect, and harm them and their community. However, another neighborhood might have a very positive relationship with the police, affirming the idea of “to serve and protect.”

These different experiences and expectations creates a disconnect between communities in the societal conversation about the police. Where one community might perceive the police as corrupt and abusive, another might perceive the police as upright and honest. And both can be right (for more on disconnected conversations,  see “Talking At, Not With: The Problem of Disconnected Conversations”). When these two conversations are taken together, then society has good reason to mistrust the police because it becomes hard to predict police behavior on an aggregate level.

Finally, we can be very loss averse, especially when it comes to trust. This means that we often find it safer to expect the worst from people than it is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus, it can take significant repetition of doing good for us to trust that someone will reliably do good again in the future. However, just a few instances of wrongdoing can be reason enough for us to trust that person will do wrong again in the future, regardless of prior good acts. It is because of this that we often ask, “how many bad apples does it take to spoil the bunch?” instead of “how many good apples does it take to preserve the bunch.”

Moving Forward

When it comes to the police, trust is a tricky question. When someone says that they trust the police, they usually mean that they trust the police to do both the right thing, and be predictable in doing it.

However, when someone says that they do not trust the police, do they mean that they don’t trust the police to do the right thing, or that they can’t predict what the police are going to next? The former is a moral and ethical issue. The latter is about mistrust.

I wish I had a comprehensive solution, but I believe the issues involved are too complicated to tackle in what I had intended to be a short article. And so I tackled the question about how our perception about the police impacts our trust in them.

To say that there is a problem of trust with the police is not to say that building trust is the solution. Rather, building trust – that the police are a force of good, and that we can trust them to do good – is a goal. The solution is the journey that we must take to get from where we are to where we want to be. And I’m open to suggestions on what that might look like.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

That’s right. It’s your fault that giant spider is living in your home. Do you know why? Because that means you have enough other bugs there for that giant spider to live the fat life.

Well, it’s not exactly your fault. But you certainly contributed to creating a friendly environment for that spider. You wanted a roof over your head? Well, so did that spider (and, more importantly, everything it’s been eating).

And do you know what? That spider might even be doing you a favor by keeping other pests in check (so put the fire down, you don’t necessarily have to burn the house down). That being said, it could also end up biting you, but let’s not jump to hasty conclusions.

That giant spider is your unintended consequence. And life is full of unintended consequences. Some of them turn out better than expected. And some of them end up with a house on fire.

Unintended consequences are problematic because they wouldn’t be unintended if we were able to foresee them. Otherwise, they’d just be desired or undesired outcomes. While we are pretty good at decision-making, we are all pressed for time and can only process so much information. And that limitation is where unintended consequences spawn from.

So what can we do about unintended consequences? Well, I find the answer “just be omniscient” to be pretty unsatisfying. Rather, it is important to be a good steward of risk (more on this in the next article). Briefly speaking, you need to:

1. Know who is involved (including yourself) and why they are involved,
2. Familiarize yourself with your situation’s circumstances,
3. Predict how those involved might behave and what actions they might take, and
4. Put it all together in the context of the system that you are in.

If you can become a good steward of risk, then you will be less likely to find yourself with unintended consequences. And if you do come across unintended consequences, you will be more prepared to act with confidence to mitigate the bad ones, and leverage the good ones.

Further Reading

“On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B,” by Steven Kerr, is a classic article about (often unintended) outcomes created by fouled up reward systems that reward undesired behaviors, while not rewarding (and sometimes discouraging) desired behaviors. Check it out, and think about areas of your life where you’ve been hoping for one outcome, while quietly encouraging a different one altogether.

Kerr, S. (1995). On the Folly of Rewarding A, while Hoping for B. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 9(1), 7-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165235

For more resources, or if you have some you’d like to recommend, contact me.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Trust Is About Risk

At its core, trust is about the uncertainty of what people will do. To be trustworthy is to be predictable. Can you reliably predict what others are going to do? Can others reliably predict what you are going to do?

An honest person is going to be trustworthy because what they say they will do matches what they will do. However, if someone is a reliable liar, then you can still “trust” what they will do, even when their words don’t match their actions. It’s when someone is unpredictable that they become untrustworthy.

Unfamiliarity

When you don’t know whom you are dealing with, you have no way to know how they might behave. Instead of operating under risk, you are operating under ignorance. The best way to overcome this hurdle is to learn more about those you are dealing with. By increasing your knowledge of others, you can increase your ability to predict what they will do.

Deception vs. Transparency

Deceptive behavior uses trust and mistrust as tools (or weapons, depending on your perspective). The goal of deception is to either convince someone of a greater degree of trust than is warranted, or to leverage risk aversion through mistrust. The risk of deception rises when the stakes are high, and when the system encourages deceptive behavior.

Although deception is usually associated with selfish competitive behavior, it can be used for the benefit of someone else, and can sometimes be both a virtue and a vice. For example, Odysseus was a cunning hero for the Greeks in the Odyssey, but a deceptive villain for the Romans in the Aeneid. Regardless for why deception is used, once someone recognizes the deception then doubt is cast upon that deceiver’s future behavior.

Transparency, unlike deception, relies upon trust to build a solid foundation of expected behavior. By revealing the hidden mechanisms of the decision-making process, transparency reduces the unknown and builds predictability by intentionally eschewing deception.

Both deception and transparency are tools. Whether they are a virtue or a vice is independent from the outcomes they produce. The debate about the ethical and moral implications of the means and the ends has a long, illustrious history. But both tools depend upon trust to function, and without trust neither tool would be effective at good decision-making.

Building Trust

Trust is part of your reputation, and building that reputation for being trustworthy takes time and consistency. One of the biggest hurdles comes from the fact that it is often easier to destroy trust than it is to build trust.

Even when individuals are considered untrustworthy, that individual mistrust can be overcome by designing a system that can be trusted. For example, people don’t often trust lawyers or politicians, but we often trust our legal system and political system despite the reputation of those involved (Fisher & Brown, 2009, Ch. 7).

However, systems, themselves, can also become a source of mistrust. When that happens, even when you can trust the individuals involved, the outcomes of the system are suspect.

For example, my cellular network occasionally fails to send/receive text messages. This is a rare occasion, but when it happens it will show text messages as being “sent,” but the text message is not actually delivered. As a result, important text messages have been missed. Before I realized this was happening, it made myself, and others, seem unreliable. It doesn’t happen often, but the rare occasion is enough to make me not trust my cellular network.

Regardless of how you use trust, it is essential to human interaction. Without trust, we would have no way of knowing what others might do. But when you can trust what someone will do, you can make good decisions based on those expectations.

Further Reading

If you’d like to read more on trust, chapter seven of Fisher and Brown’s (2009) Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate provides a fantastic overview of how being reliable (“be wholly trustworthy, but not wholly trusting”) impacts trust in not only a negotiating relationship, but relationships in general.

Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (2009). Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate [Unabridged audiobook].

For more resources, or if you have some you’d like to recommend, contact me.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.

Force Is Both Voluntary and Coercive

For the person using force, it is voluntary. It is the ultimate expression of one-sided decision-making, where one’s personal power is unilaterally utilized.

But for the person force is used against, choice is denied. Force is coercive, and that coercion is force’s trademark. It is the attempt to impose one person’s decision upon someone else.

Force, therefore, contains a sense of irony. It is the use of one’s self-autonomy to deny another of their self-autonomy.

Force: Good or Bad, Right or Wrong?

There are two questions that determine whether the use of force is good or bad, right or wrong:

1. What is the intrinsic value of force? and
2. What is the value of the outcomes force produces?

Because your answer to the first question is (somewhat) independent from your answer to the second question, you might encounter situations where force is both good and bad, both right and wrong.

For example, consider self-defense. On one hand, we might agree that violence (the intrinsic value of force) is not appropriate. However, we might then agree that the use of violence to protect oneself from violence (the outcome of force) is appropriate. So, whether or not we consider self-defense good or bad depends on which factors are more important.

Or, consider the thought experiment of the large man and the trolley (a.k.a., “the trolley problem,” or “trolleyology”), where you must weigh the value of one life against the value of five lives. In this scenario, you have the power to decide who lives and who dies. In other words, your use of force, or lack thereof, determines which of the two terrible outcomes is realized.

The Many Forms of Force

Although physical violence, like in the self-defense and trolleyology examples, is the most obvious use of force, force can manifest in many different forms: physical, emotional, educational, economic, societal, cultural, etc.

For example, consider the use of force by repressive regimes around the world. Not only do these political organizations use force in the form of physical violence, but they often use political power to cause economic, educational, emotional, and societal violence as well. History is ripe with examples of people using the many forms of force to get what they want at the expense of others.

Furthermore, even when the use of physical force is absent, the other forms of force can cause deep, long-lasting harm. In other words, just because someone isn’t physically hurt from the use of force does not mean that there is no harm done in the process.

However, force isn’t always used to harm others. For example, consider the many laws in the U.S. that protect children: child labor laws, the right/requirement to receive an education, the minimum age to purchase tobacco and alcohol, etc. It might seem contradictory, but sometimes people use force for the benefit of another person without the intent to cause anyone harm.

Final Thoughts

In many respects, the use of force has an implicit negative connotation. If you use it to gain what you want, it means you don’t believe the other person would otherwise help you get it. And if you use it for someone else’s benefit, it implies that you do not trust that person to “do the right thing.”

However, the intrinsic value of force must also be weighed against what it accomplishes. To separate the act from the outcome paints an incomplete picture. Ultimately, whether you consider the use of force to be good or bad is up to you to determine.

So, the next time you are thinking of using force, remember to ask yourself this question: while the use of force is always an option, are there other ways you can create value without resorting to force? If the answer is yes, then you can often create more value through those options than through the use of force alone.

Enjoy this article? Want to share your thoughts? Don’t forget to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check out davidwangel.com.