In it, Vick and Surdin write:

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 — Any notion that Tuesday’s election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

This makes me extraordinarily curious about the rationale these voters had on this issue.  Is it religious?  Or is it that we all need to “other” somebody?  A huge body of research talks about intergroup conflict, group affiliation, and the need to establish clear boundaries of others to affirm our own groupness.  This is the same tribalism I talked about in the last post.

I question if it is every possible to overcome this because biologically we’re driven to form groups.  It is important for safety, food gathering, and the survival of our genes (our kids.)  Even though we don’t have to worry about tigers behind every tree, humans also need the psychological connection to flourish.  We know there is cognitive comfort in similarity —and this is not racial but shared perspectives, which can of course be racial, but lots and lots of other things also bring people together into “tribes”: art, music, sports, geography, clubs, status, etc.

If, therefore, we need groups, we probably need to get over this idea that everyone should like each other and just focus on a more basic approach, like right to exist.  I wonder if we took the argument to a more basic level of humanity, if we could get past some of the emotional baggage that accompanies these issues which are predominantly about acknowledging any human’s right to be who they are*. (*With the caveat of not doing others harm of course.)

We talk all the time about framing in the media.  But framing is just the context of any communication.  If gay marriage had not been framed as “marriage,” i.e. challenging a long-standing cultural and religious issues, would it have passed?  Do gays need to call it “marriage” or could a new word be used with equal meaning and legitimacy if it would allow the earlier achievement of being essentially married?  Once you’re legally united, of course, you can call it whatever you want.  I realize that those same cultural values are what embue “marriage” with meaning for everyone, straight or gay and this may not be acceptable to many.  I just wonder if sometimes we need to decide the highest priority and compromise on some of the others.

My mother is old and crazy. She isn’t ever going to change.  This is really unfortunate.  I know her hot buttons and if I need to get something done, I frame it in language that fits her world model.  I don’t care what we call it; I want to get it done.  My sister, on the other hand, still wants our mother to get her point of view.  Not going to happen.  And they have the battle scares and little progress between them to prove it.

For better or worse, there are a lot of old, crazy, or just inflexible folks in the world.  Would we be better able to make some human rights and social progress if we weren’t so determined to get other people to accept a cultural re-definition or our cultural definition?   I don’t know.  I guess it depends on how flexible we are.  Your thoughts?

Why not frame of this finding using a more appropriate (and possibly more accurate) designation such as cognitive inflexibility. This takes away the political baggage and inherent emotion that baggage brings. There have been many studies that link individuals who need cognitive closure and have an intolerance for ambiguity with lack of creativity. (note: links are relationships, not causality).

Given the research premise, these findings should be consistent with anyone who is firmly and unwaveringly committed to ideas and positions without questioning–conservative or liberal or in between. As he notes, there is variation in conservatives. For example, some people are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Anyone reading the headline would assume that much broader definition of conservative than the research supports.

I think in the spirit of the Obama win, we should work toward humanizing individual differences and avoid stereotyping of any group.

Call me an optimist, but I don’t think it’s going to be a problem.  First of all “addicted” is a strong word.  Emotions were definitely high.  But the presumption that emotional engagement and passion leads to a sense of withdrawal and letdown is problematic, if not downright pessimistic.

I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of Americans wanted change.  This election is certainly historic for a number of reasons, but it is emblematic to me of what is best of the American culture: the ability to redefine ourselves.

Americans has been living in a climate of fear and anxiety in recent years, particularly since 9/11.  The fear response has led to policy choices that have restricted American’s freedoms and tarnished America’s image overseas.  America is supposed to be strong and beloved, open-minded, hard-working, the land of opportunity, and “give me your tired, your poor.” The cognitive dissonance of domestic distress and negative global perceptions adds to our sense of anxiety: are we not who we think we are?  Or worse, are we not who we want to be?

This election was historic in part because technology allowed more people to participate than ever before.  And I’m not talking just voter turnout, which was close to 80% in some states.  I’m talking about Blogs, Twitter, email, SMS, Facebook, and the list goes on.  People were actively reaching out, connecting, exchanging ideas, and promoting their points of view.

Social media technology allows people to feel that their voice matters.  Technology allows people to reach across boundaries and connect.  So do I think there will be withdrawal?  No.  There will be some McCain supporters feeling a little dejected, of course.  But the connections people made reaching out across all that social media are real.  Facebook friends and Twitter followers do not disappear into thin air because the election is over.

While humans are biologically wired to detect danger, they are fundamentally hopeful. The election provided an outlet for American’s worries and fears, but the sense of participating has replaced worry with hope.

Unlike other emotionally-charged events, this election was a shared experience.   Shared experiences are emotionally powerful and emotions enhance learning.  I think many Americans, who didn’t believe it before, learned that participating matters.

Psychologically speaking, we know that resilience and optimism are reinforced by self-efficacy.   Self-efficacy—feeling like what we do makes a difference—creates a genuine sense of passion and motivation.  I think that people weren’t addicted to the technology they used to follow an election; they were addicted to the passion of participation and connection.

You submit a report a number of ways:

By Twitter: Post a tweet that includes the hashtag #votereport. More tags.

By Text Message: Send a text message starting with #votereport to 66937 (MOZES).

By Phone: Call the automated hotline at 567-258-VOTE (8683) or 208-272-9024 with any touch-tone phone.

By iPhone/Android Phone: Download the iPhone App or find the “votereport” app in the Android marketplace.

The result is live montoring of collective experience. How cool is that?
So don’t forget to vote, and when you do, report on it!

The study of positive experience, aka positive psychology, was started on the premise that we shouldn’t always focus on the pathologies of human existence and that we should start to learn more about what drives and nurtures positive emotions, behaviors, and attitudes. It isn’t about always being happy. It’s about understanding the context necessary to create subjective well-being, such as how to encourage positive attributes, such as strength, resiliency, creativity, and empathy. And while well-being is individually subjective and therefore, somewhat illusory, it has a measurable impact on one’s physical and mental quality of life. Conferences like “Happiness and Its Causes” brings together scholars, researchers, and practitioners from across multiple disciplines to share ideas and spark new insights and approaches. I’ll write more on this soon, but in the meantime, check out their website.