Mediaboss Marketing

When delivering the 17thNelson Mandela Lecture, chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng referred to those living in comfort zones as traitors. His scathing statement was done in a nonpartisan manner, castigating those in power and society for the ever-widening gap between the economic classes, which has created a major crisis in our unbalanced society.

Corruption in Mzansi has reached cancerous proportions. In fact, so pervasive is this phenomenon that it can be labelled the Aids of democracy, which is destroying the future of this generation and the next. The corruption epidemic in our country reflects the more general, and now legendary, climate of unethical leadership and bad governance found throughout the political spectrum.

After 26 years of democracy, our rich country remains a land of peasants, and increasingly of landless urbanised populations living on the margins in squalid squatter camps bursting at the seams; political dynamite waiting to explode. Our silent emergency comes in the form of pernicious killers such as poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy and widespread unemployment. Current statistics do not capture the full and often intangible extent of massive human suffering and lost opportunities.

When democracy dawned in 1994, many hoped for liberty, prosperity and a new beginning. They have been cruelly disappointed. This situation is unacceptable and untenable. Mzansi is a powder keg. Vision, foresight and courage are urgently required to forestall these cataclysmic events.

Farouk Araie

Johannesburg

JOIN THE DISCUSSION:Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail tobusday@bdfm.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.

Originally posted here:
LETTER: Graft is the Aids of democracy - Business Day

We saw an interesting twist to an unambiguous peoples verdict in Maharashtra. The Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena alliance campaigning on an unabashed Hindutva platform obtained a clear mandate, winning 160 of the 288 seats in the state assembly. The BJP won 105 seats of the 152 it contested, a strike rate of over 70%. The Shiv Sena had a strike rate of about 40%, wining 56 of 124 for which it ran. Clearly, it was a win for the worst form of Hindu revanchism, for the Shiv Sena stands for or stood for everything right of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. It was an unambiguous victory for combined retrograde ideologies of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Shiv Sena.

The people of Maharashtra had spoken and, under normal circumstances, their wishes should have been respected. But the election results clearly told the Shiv Sena that their time was running out. The BJP, the once-junior partner of the alliance, was now the engine of the Hindutva front in Maharashtra. The Sena could no longer be sure of its place in Maharashtra politics the next time, so it bailed out of the alliance.

The pre-election alliance of the BJP and Shiv Sena won over 42% of the popular vote, while the two Congresses together won only 32.6% of the popular vote. If there was any morality and decency left in our politics, the rightful government in Maharashtra should have been of the two undesirables. But that was not to be. Udhav Thackeray pulled out of the right-wing formation.

Nationalist Congress Party founder Sharad Pawar has never made any bones that he believed in to old adage that politics is the art of the possible. What Otto von Bismarck said was a little more. He actually said: Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable the art of the next best. In Maharashtras case, it clearly was the less worse.

What was possible in Maharashtra went way beyond what was thinkable. The secondary theme of the BJP-led alliances campaign was to arrest the growth of corruption in the state by promising to arrest Sharad Pawars nephew Ajit Pawar and change his way of life in jail. The suddenly marooned BJP found a lifesaver when Ajit Pawar did an Udhav Thackeray on his family party, the National Congress Party. It had nothing to do with policy or political morality. It was a question of his place in the family pecking order. Like Sonny Corleone, Ajit Pawar too had a tendency towards the rash and went alone to meet his fate.

Now we have the likelihood of a Shiv Sena-led government with the two Congresses supporting it from within. The BJP may very well say it is glad to have the Shiv Sena monkey off its back. Narendra Modi once described the Shiv Sena as a hafta collection party. Now the BJP can hope to muscle into the Shiv Sena base in Indias richest state.

But this is not a simple art of the possible power play. This newly scrambled alliance of a renegade Hindutva group with the two Congresses has major implications for Indian politics. Soon after the Supreme Courts somewhat judicially dubious verdict on Ram birthplace in Ayodhya, many in the Congress welcomed the judgment, just as many of its leaders welcomed the scrubbing of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that gave Kashmir its special status. By deciding to remain quiet on it, the so-called liberal or centrist parties in our political firmament made their ideological choice. They all moved rightwards. Now they are allied with the ugly face of that reality. Allied with a party that viscerally hates religious, ethnic and regional minorities. So where does this leave Indian politics? Do we now have two right wing formations?

When the team led by BR Ambedkar wrote the Constitution, they obviously did not contemplate the capricious disregard for norms and disregard for decency and consistency inherent in our leaders. How we look is a no longer a concern. In the Maharashtra drama, we saw all provisions and expectations of the Constitution flouted and trampled on by all the constitutional authorities.

The Maharashtra governor, Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh apparatchik, willingly accepted signatures by all the newly elected Nationalist Congress Party MLAs on sheets of paper attached to Ajit Pawars letter of support to the BJPs chosen legislative party leader, Devendra Fadnavis. Commonsense would have told Koshiyari that while some support for Ajit Pawar was possible, all was impossible. Did the governor allowed his Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh affiliations that to overpower his sense of morality? Clearly he has shown himself as not fit to hold that position. Prime Minister Narendra Modi took recourse a rarely used provision intended to be deployed during a war or financial emergency to facilitate the daybreak coup leading to Fadnavis being sworn in as chief minister.

What we have witnessed in these past weeks in Maharashtra is a complete collapse of the notion of politics being about vision for a better future and what is best for the people. Instead we saw a sordid drama played out in five-star hotels in Bombay, with money replacing vision and ideas.

The Pawar family schism that so impacted Maharashtra politics is yet another metaphor for the collapse of the party system in the country. From Punjab to Tamil Nadu, we now have a party system that is neither constitutional nor legal. Though the founders of this Republic never used the term political party even once in the Constitution, from day one we were intended to be and are a party-based democracy. When people elect representatives they are in fact choosing parties.

How parties function then becomes critical to our democracy. If parties did not function or are not required to function in a prescribed Constitutional and democratic manner, the leadership inevitably migrates into the hands of an elite, as we have seen in almost all our political parties now. These political parties have come together on the basis of a shared region, religion or caste, with any one of these impulses being the dominating motive for coming together. The only party that claims a pan-Indian appeal has long ceased to be anything but an old feudal order presided over by an aristocracy. None of these parties has a formal membership, a formal requirement for membership, forums for participation and articulating aspirations of their communities, facilities to choose leaders by any formal process other than general and often simulated acclaim.

We have seen the transition of democratic styles in many of the worlds established democracies. The United States saw power passing from a self-nominating convention nomination process to a primary-based system that binds the convention to the choice of individual party members. This kind of a transition did not happen in India. On the other hand, we migrated from a system where parties consisted of equals sharing a common purpose and sometimes goals to one where power passed into the hands of a self-perpetuating political aristocracy. Like the Gandhis, Pawars and Thackerays.

View original post here:
As the losers of the Maharashtra election take power, is democracy really the winner? - Scroll.in

The challenges to democracy and civic order in Brazil, the worlds fifth most populous country, have increased significantly in the past couple of weeks. As dangers to Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president, and his movement grow, so, too, do the threats emanating from them.

Tensions reached a boiling point last week when the former president Luiz Igncio Lula da Silva was released from prison after Brazils supreme court ruled that the constitution bars imprisonment of defendants, such as Lula, before they have exhausted their appeals.

Lula is not only the obvious and most charismatic leader of the leftwing opposition to Bolsonaro but also the greatest prize of Bolsonaros minister of justice and public security, Srgio Moro. It was Moro who found Lula guilty on dubious corruption charges in 2017 and ordered him imprisoned in 2018 at a time when all polls showed that Lula was the clear frontrunner to win the presidential election.

The sight of Lula walking out of prison was a powerful symbolic repudiation to Moro but also a clear threat to Bolsonaros efforts to consolidate the 2018 wave that ushered the far-right movement into power. Lula has strong emotional ties to the countrys poor and is singularly capable of moving them.

Lulas release became a lightning rod for threats of repression. After the ex-president used his first speech to call for protests similar to those taking place in Chile, members of Bolsonaros party formally requested that he be preventatively imprisoned on the grounds that he was attempting to incite violence against the government.

But even before Lulas release, the ways in which Brazilian democracy are imperiled were becoming more acute. In the past, each time the supreme court was set to rule on the possible release of Lula, more extremist members of the Brazilian military posted not-very-veiled threats on their social media accounts warning the court not to do so.

In a country where half the population including all of the supreme courts members remember the brutal military regime that only ended in 1985, such warnings pack a heavy punch.

As the court was set to rule again this time, the same happened, and worse. Along with generals, leading members of the Bolsonaro movement led by its US-based astrologer/philosopher guru Olavo de Carvalho began openly advocating for a return of the dictatorship-era law AI-5 (Institutional Act Number 5).

The mere invocation of that bureaucratic-sounding phrase sends chills down the spine of many Brazilians. AI-5 was an infamous decree issued by the military regime in 1968 that empowered military dictators to close congress, ignore court orders and suspend constitutional rights in the name of order.

That decree is widely credited with laying the groundwork for the Brazilian dictatorships horrific torture of Brazilian dissidents. Bolsonaro and his sons have explicitly praised the regimes most notorious torturers.

In fact, in an interview earlier this month, Eduardo Bolsonaro openly advocated reinstating AI-5. If the left radicalizes to this extent [in Brazil] we will need to respond, and that response could come via a new AI-5, said the presidents son.

After his statement was condemned across the political spectrum and by most mainstream institutions, Eduardo clarified that he was merely speaking hypothetically, and that such a measure would be warranted only if protests, disorder and violence of the kind taking place in Chile came to Brazil.

Small comfort, especially given that his remarks appeared to be a direct threat against leftwing protests.

Previous reporting had already linked the Bolsonaro family to the violent militia that is believed to have been behind the still-unsolved 2018 assassination of my party compatriot and close friend, the city councilwoman Marielle Franco.

But a report earlier this month by the nations largest and most influential media outlet, Globo TV, suggested that the Bolsonaro family may be linked to the assassination itself. Globo reported that hours before Marielles murder, the driver of the car that killed her, an ex-police officer, came to Bolsonaros gated condominium to meet with the ex-police officer who pulled the trigger. The doorman at the gate noted in his records, and then testified to the police, that the ex-police officer gained entrance by saying he was going to Bolsonaros house.

According to the Globo report, someone inside Bolsonaros house authorized Marielles alleged murderer to enter the gated community.

Perhaps as revealing as the Globo report was Bolsonaros reaction. When the report broke, Bolsonaro was in Saudi Arabia meeting with, and showering praise on, Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi autocrat accused of ordering the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Reporting has already linked the Bolsonaro family to the violent militia that rules much of Rio de Janeiro by contract murder

In a rambling middle-of-the-night video, Bolsonaro responded to the Globo allegation with an extended rant against his enemies. Last week he announced he was cutting public funds to Globo, and the justice minister Moro announced that a criminal investigation not against Bolsonaro and his family but against the doorman who said that Marielles killers had gained access via Bolsonaros house.

Perhaps the most revealing incident of all was the widely reported physical assault on my husband, the journalist Glenn Greenwald, by the pro-Bolsonaro, far-right journalist Augusto Nunes.

Two months ago, Nunes said on a widely watched radio and YouTube program that a family court judge should investigate whether our two adopted sons are being cared for, on the grounds that I work as a congressman three days a week in the nations capital of Braslia while Glenn has been working for the last five months on a series of devastating exposs about corruption by Moro and the prosecutors who imprisoned Lula.

When Glenn appeared on the network where Nunes works and Nunes was added to the panel at the last minute, Glenn confronted him about his attacks on our family and called him a coward, which led to Nunes physically attacking him.

While Nuness violence was widely condemned in mainstream venues, the key figures of Bolsonaros circle cheered and called for more. Bolsonaros guru, Olavo, tweeted that it was the most beautiful thing Ive ever seen on Brazilian TV. Two of Bolsonaros politician sons, along with members of congress, also applauded it, with some regretting that it was not more violent.

What all of these events reveal is the true goal of Bolsonaro and his movement: they want and crave violence and disorder because, as Eduardo said, it is what they will use to justify a restoration of the repressive measures of the military regime.

Dont forget that Bolsonaro spent the last three decades in congress relegated to the fringes precisely because he openly praised the military dictatorship (in which he served as an army captain) as superior to Brazilian democracy. That view, once taboo, has been dragged into the mainstream by the Bolsonaro familys open revisionism as well as the use of social media to convince millions of Brazilians that the dictatorship was not shameful but noble.

Bolsonaro and his movement know they cannot end Brazilian democracy without pretexts. They need disorder, protests and violence to justify a restoration of dictatorship-era measures, which will no doubt be depicted as necessary to restore order the same rhetorical framework used to justify the military coup in 1964. And they are determined to bring about exactly that to our once-stable country.

Originally posted here:
Bolsonaro wants to end democracy in Brazil. Here's one way he could do it - The Guardian

U.S. democracy is a very curious beast. In U.S. democracy, it doesnt matter how big the calamity is. It also doesnt matter how many politicians urgently call for reform or how loud the public outcry is in the media.

In U.S. democracy, the law of inverse proportions applies: The louder the public outcry, the more one can be sure that nothing will happen to remedy the actual problem.

This perverted politic logic applies from the Facebook scandal and regularly occurring police killings of African-Americans to all those school shootings. Donald Trumps tenure in the Oval Office makes all this only more deplorable.

A while ago, there were those who believed that the youth protests after the high school shooting incident in Parkland, Florida would transform the political landscape. This time would be different, they said. They learned soon enough that they were kidding themselves if they didnt know it all along.

Later on, there was the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, and now the school shooting in Santa Clarita, California. And yet, nothing much will change on gun control in the United States even though the needed solutions are entirely commonsensical. Such solutions can only prove so elusive in ideology-driven countries. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the Republicans still resort to blaming mental health issues for any shooting.

The cynical U.S.

Under those circumstances, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the United States represents the most cynical country in the history of Western thought. Nowhere is the gap between self-laudatory statements and political realities bigger.

The preferred modus operandi is to operate what might best be termed as fake government. Such a government engages for the most part in pretend actions.

In their unbridled cynicism, Republicans rely on the chronically short attention span of the American public. They count on the fact that any calls for reform, often bombastically presented to satisfy the needs of public arousal, will soon enough fizzle and/or be forgotten.

And the Democrats?

As for the Democrats, they at least try to pursue some reforms, but they ultimately know that they arent going to succeed. For that reason, in some ways they are actually the more frustrating party. They raise the publics hopes and expectations for change and then cant deliver.

As a result, policymaking in the United States has degraded to the level of one gigantic kabuki show, resolving nothing.

Congressional hearings featuring Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg are further evidence of that. The Republicans, eager to turn Facebook with its political advertising power into an ally of the political right, only go through the motions of demanding change from the internet giant.

Notwithstanding the efforts of Elizabeth Warren and AOC, even many Democrats are conflicted, not just by being on the take for campaign contributions from Silicon Valley firms. In the past, they have also often been the chief promulgators of the supposed global soft power of the U.S.-based Internet giants, pretending those were a force for good.

Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley firms continue to operate as uncontrolled control freaks that ruthlessly explore any conceivable angle of human behavior and existence with their search algorithms.

Conclusion

A country where democracy is rendered so dysfunctional, where Republican politicians mostly act as shameless cover-up artists, as well as deniers, aiders and abetters of corporate malfeasance, is really a nation that lives in the permanent state of impotence.

In such a nation, bringing about the common good if it occurs is a matter of happening purely accidentally, not the consequence of serious policymaking.

In such a nation, it is also no surprise that Donald Trump is getting away with so much. The 45th U.S. President is frantically working 24/7/365 at bringing out the basest of instincts in the American public. Congressional Republicans will see to it that nothing stops him. Thats just another sign of American impotence.

This article is republished fromThe Globalist: On a daily basis, we rethink globalization and how the world really hangs together. Thought-provoking cross-country comparisons and insights from contributors from all continents. Exploring what unites and what divides us in politics and culture. Follow us onFacebookandTwitter.And sign up for ourhighlights email here.

More:
U.S. democracy and the age of American impotence - Salon

Humans are susceptible to cons. We're even more likely to fall for larger-than-life personalities. This isn't me writing about the vague "other humans" out there, the ones that you and I (wink, wink) know exist but would never fall victim to. As economist and journalist, Tim Harford the author of the bestselling book, The Undercover Economist recently told me, the con is "baked into" human nature.

Yet, as he explores in his excellent new podcast, "Cautionary Tales," we can learn from past mistakes. Take a few deep breaths, count to 10, make better decisions decisions, he points out on his podcast, that can save lives. We can better educate ourselves to learn about things we think we know about but actually do not.

Part of Pushkin Industries, the company co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg, Harford joins Gladwell and Michael Lewis for a series that explores the meaning behind both historical and modern-day events. In the debut episode, Harford discusses the tragic Torrey Canyon reef crash in 1967, which dumped 120,000 short tons of crude oil into the waters near Cornwall. The captain's inability to change course is, in itself, a lesson about the value of admitting mistakes and putting our new-found knowledge into action.

In episode two, we hear the story of Wilhelm Voigt, a Berlin native that isn't a captain but played one in society, an incredible story that shows us the depths of our beliefs in powerful con men. Harford discusses the political consequences of such cons during our interview. I'm sure you can guess where that conversation ends up.

As with Revisionist History and Against the Rules, "Cautionary Tales" is a welcome addition to podcasting. Humans might fall for cons and be unwilling to own up to mistakes, but we're also animals with a deep love for storytelling. Harford excels at that medium, both in writing and narration. The podcast is a pleasure to listen to and, bonus, you might just learn something along the way.

A powerful way to unleash your natural creativity | Tim Harford

Derek: Your new podcast is on Pushkin, which has this vibe of radio from a century ago. It's not just people talking; there's music, sound effects, and acting involved. Why did you go that route with "Cautionary Tales"?

Tim: One of the things that quickly became clear as I was looking at the stories that I wanted to tell is that very often these are stories where we don't have tape. We don't have a lot of archival footage. Very often there was nobody there when it happened. The journalist showed up afterwards; in some casesthere's one story that's two and a half thousand years oldwe don't have tapes.

What do you do? Well, you can do the usual thing, which is to put an expert in an arm chair and ask him or her to explain what happened. We wanted to do something different. These little historical reenactments are like fresh herbs and spices throughout the podcast. These little scenes include a very different way to access a story that you wouldn't have another way to tell.

Derek: Your show is billed as "the science behind what happens." There has long been a replication problem in science. I know you mostly deal with the social sciences, but what was your training in science and why did you choose what you chose when approaching a topic?

Tim: It's a very good point because of the replication crisisI think crisis is the right word. One of the issues is people looking for the perfectly counter-intuitive results, the thing that's just weird enough to be surprising and yet not so weird that you completely dismiss it. There's a lot of psychology published that has been filtered through that medium. I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle.

Rather than the coolest new study that might surprise you, I'm saying, "This thing happened, this oil tanker hit the rocks or this economist was the most famous economist in the world and he went bankrupt or they gave the Oscar to the wrong movie." Start with that story and then say, "What is it that social scientists can tell us about that story? What are the explanations?" Very often you find there's more than one explanation. There's usually no single cause. Then the question is: What explains it? What do the people who have thought hard about this sort of thing make of these accidents?

I talk about Milgram's experiments, but I try to remind people that a lot of the experiments that he did were not reported. These are very famous electric shock and obedience experiments. I'm trying to pick that apart and think about what modern psychologists now make of those experiments of what they think those experiments really tell usto not to be uncritical in the way that I think about these studies.

Derek: I've read that study in many different contexts. The way you frame it about being an example not of obedience, but of a willingness to admit our mistakes, is really important. Why are we so unwilling to admit when we're wrong?

Tim: That's a big question. In some cases it's a social thing. In politics, for example, you don't want to admit that you're wrong because you're conceding ground to the other side and you don't want to lose faith socially. You don't want to lose political advantage. In other cases, you personally have committed so much to a particular viewpoint that it becomes extraordinarily painful to face up to the error.

This is the old idea of cognitive dissonance, which I explore in an episode about John Maynard Keynes and Irving Fisher, two great economists and their forecasting. Long story short, both are geniuses; both get really into stock market investing. One goes bankrupt; one dies a millionaire. What explains the differences?

One of them is willing to admit he made a mistake and one is not. Irving Fisher is more exposed. He's more publicly committed. He's going to lose face socially. But he's also too deep in debt to admit "I'm getting this wrong, I need to change direction." It's more painful to the sense of who he is, which the guy who doesn't make mistakes.

There's a third problem, which is something I emphasized in Adapt: We didn't know we made a mistake. No one ever tells you that you made a mistake; no one ever gives you the feedback. That's a very common problem.

Derek: Your podcast is supposed to help us learn from our mistakes. How do you help people actually learn what is in their best interest? Is that even possible?

Tim: This is something I explore in the final episode, which is about what happens when we just hand over our process to an authority figure or to a computer algorithm. What happens when we just let our GPS tell us where to go? One of the really interesting groups of studies that I talk about in that episode is what happens when you are forced to stop and think. These studies explore something called the illusion of explanatory depth.

In the initial study, they say, "How well do you reckon that you know how a flush laboratory works on a scale of zero to seven?" People will say, "Oh yeah, maybe six." Then the researchers say, "That's really interesting. Here's a pen and paper. Just explain to us in detail how it works." People get really stuck because they realize they don't know how it works. It was all a bit vague. They weren't lying to the researchers; they were lying to themselves. They felt that they understood this everyday object and they didn't.

The next study asked the same questions but about politics. It's by a different group of researchers. They said, "Tell us how a cap and trade system works. Tell us how the US will apply unilateral sanctions on Iran. How does that actually work?" People often feel they know pretty well what these policies are. Then again, when you ask them to explain, not to advocate, don't tell me whether it's a good idea, just tell me what it is. Again, people go, "Ah hmm. Uh hmm. I thought I knew but I don't know."

What's fascinating is that people's views about politics become more moderate. They think, quite reasonably, "Maybe my previous view that I was willing to die in a ditch to defend cap and trade or to prevent cap and trade, maybe that view that I thought was super important, maybe I shouldn't hold that view so strongly anymore given that I didn't really understand what it is that I'm talking about."

Not in every Cautionary Tale, but it comes up again and again, is that if you can calm down and slow down, whatever terrible thing happened wouldn't have happened if somebody had been able to count to 10 and think about what was going on.

Derek: When I was listening to episode two, I was reminded of a story growing up. There was a sporting goods chain called Herman's. Two men walked in, went to the back of the store, and grabbed a canoe. They put it over their heads and walked out of the store. It took 20 minutes for anyone to realize that they stole it.

Tim: Because they just walked right out as if they had bought it.

Derek: You say the judge, at the end of "The Captain of Kpenick," goes down and shakes Voigt's hand even though he admitted his crime and was a con man. What do we learn from that?

Tim: We're tremendously subjected to appearances. I wish I had a silver bullet for that one, some pill you could take that would cure us of that. I talk about the fact that just being tall is tremendously advantageous if you're running for political office.

Tim Harford: What Prison Camps Can Teach You About the Economy

Derek: I'm six-three, so I appreciated that.

Tim: Yeah, me too. As far as presidents go, that's not that tall. When you look at it, it's like they're picking a basketball team. It's a myth that the taller candidate always wins, but it definitely seems to be an advantage. The example of appearances matching the eye that I just can't get my head around is the adverts where the guy says, "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV," as though it's the most natural thing in the world. And it clearly works! That that advert ran for a long time is absolutely astonishing.

Even this particular con man, Wilhelm Voigt, would not have said, "I'm not actually a military captain. I'm just wearing the uniform." Of course, I can't help but think of a certain president who's most famous for playing a successful business man on TV. He's famous for acting as a businessman. It makes a huge difference to how we perceive the world.

Derek: Do we ever get over that? Is that something we can teach out of ourselves?

Tim: I have never seen a piece of research that says there is a cure for that. That is why, for example, blind recruitment processes and blind audition processes are so powerful. Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse studied what happens when the great American orchestras switched to blind auditions. They thought they were doing it to prevent discrimination against particular students who have powerful teachers; they didn't only want the "in crowd" to be recruited. They put up screens so you wouldn't know who was playing. Surprise, surprise, suddenly a load of women who previously wouldn't thought to be good enough were being recruited.

It's not enough to just tell people, "You shouldn't discriminate against women. Hey, don't be too impressed by uniforms. Treat people who don't look attractive the same way as you treat attractive people." You can tell people that, but I'm not sure it makes a great deal of difference. We can, again, slow down, have a think, and ask ourselves, "Am I overweighting this person's appearance? Am I favoring this person for president because they they look presidential rather than this other person who doesn't seem to look like what I imagined the president to look like?"

I don't think there is an easy cure for that. That's heavily baked in human nature. It's simpler with con artists. If you can slow them down and slow yourself down enough, you can usually spot the con. With a more subtle influence, like who we want to run our companies and who we want to run our country, appearances are always going to matter.

--

Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter and Facebook.

Read the rest here:
How has the internet splintered our democracy? - Big Think