This interdisciplinary theory developed after a series of realizations regarding human psychology and the current political landscape.
I began my career in advocacy young and optimistic. I was interested in helping solve homelessness. One of my mentors at the time had what I thought was a pessimistic perspective on the cause. As I gained experience, I understood and at times adopted his beliefs long after the mentoring relationship had ended.
In advocacy meetings, I observed a phenomenon in which I had more experience than others and became frustrated with their lack of understanding. In the exact same meetings, I observed people who had more experience than me and met roadblocks with my lack of understanding.
This lack of understanding isn't simply informational- it is emotional. People experience guilt when they realize solutions they thought were working were causing harm. It takes a high level of maturity, internal bandwidth, and empathy to be able to comprehend the weight of a statement, a statistic, an event, or a policy. As an example, a person advocating for homelessness services might have a difficult time understanding the role that services in play in causing homelessness. It would be painful to believe that the only politically acceptable solution caused harm to many people who at no fault of their own were in terrible situations with no options. It would be painful to experience the guilt of having advocated for a solution that caused harm regardless if the percentage of harm was small or big. It would be painful to believe that historical conditions are repeating rather than improving, and homelessness is simply a present-time repetition of an ancient pattern.
Different levels of understanding among people developing solutions cause problems when people are not on the same page. It also damages one of the most important aspects of problem solving- identifying the problem.
Determining solutions to societal problems are often democratic decisions that must be made with people of different levels of understanding. How can similar levels of understanding be quickly aquired when people have such different perspectives and levels of experience?
One way to find out is using a Reality Map.
Graph:
Positive
Untrue Conspiracies Denial Neutral Reality Classified
(True Conspiracies)
Negative
1. Determine the best facilitation conditions.
2. Set the tone 3. Explain the map 4. Pose the prompts
5. Find participants
6. Assess responses to identify reality
7. Develop solutions Determine the Best Facilitation Conditions
The best facilitation conditions will change based on culture. In the United States, socially acceptable solutions are typically developed in the workplace, but in work places it's not socially acceptable to openly discuss solutions. People do not speak honestly when they are around their boss. So where do people speak honestly? Campfires.
The answer changes based on where you live. A campfire is where I have seen people speak their truth, and that's based on my culture. But that's not the only place it happens.
Campfires happen at night, typically on weekends when people don't have to worry about other responsibilities and locations that are remote enough that cellphone coverage problems and recharging ability removes technological distractions. People gather after sharing a big meal, and sit close to each other to feel the warmth of the the fire pit.
This space of human connection in nature removed of distractions, obligations, overbearing social contexts like employment, and energized by a full stomach (and, if you've been camping, a day of fun and relaxing activities) brings out ideas and conversations that people are not willing to discuss in public.
I have found people are willing to briefly mention these topics during 1:1 meetings in the right circumstances, but never speak directly or in detail. There are many workplaces where the thought of a work retreat to solve the world's problems would be met with scoffs, because an overbearing work context in a different location would muffle conversations on solutions the group doesn't have the intentions of achieving.
Facilitating the project takes emotional maturity.
It needs to be done by a third party, and that third party isn't a workplace. The best bet here would be a group of people acting on a voluntary basis without incentive. No volunteer hours, no recognition pictures on a website or social media page. They do the project then present the results to spaces that both have power to solve solutions and the willingness to do so. Results are also presented to the public for accountability, in a manner that is responsible and does not harm vulnerable people.
Set the Tone
You want people to be comfortable sharing. You want this to be a safe space. This is work where people will be discussing things that are not socially acceptable. People will be discussing experiences relating to discrimination, corruption, and propaganda. These conversations are not easy. Be outspoken about this using specific examples, don't be vague.
Explain the map Politics has strong links to mental health. Perspectives in the top right borders manic ideas of how the worlds problems can be solved. Perspectives on the bottom right often come from depressed journalists and intellectuals who see and understand the wrongs of the world. Perspectives on the top left come from those who view the world with toxic positivity, and deny suffering in the world. Perspectives on the far left are often the narcissistic delusions of political propoganda.
****** Write the rest of this as if you were explaining it to a group of people who were actually going to use it *******
Find participants
It is important to gather the perspectives of many people.
It can be done by having a physical map or a virtual map online.
The best way to ensure people are giving their honest thoughts is by having people add their perspectives to the map anonymously.
You want to get perspectives from people that are different from you. There is a large chance that everyone in the group has very similiar views and perspectives because you are all meeting under the same conditions that allowed participation in the group, like availability and interest.
As an example, in the past I was part of an advocacy group that seemed diverse due to people being from different demographic groups, yet many of the members were people who were interested in academics or Jewish. Why is this? Our group was doing work in spaces and with people who used academic language, and anyone who wasn't interested in academics would have gotten bored. Jewish values like tikkun olam, or repairing the world, and the idea of community responsibility over individual responsibility meant that Jewish people would be attracted to advocacy groups like ours.
Participants should be part of the following groups:
People in the group
You want to do this project, go for it!
People invited to work on the map
Send invitations to other groups you are already connected with. Send invitations to a diverse variety of organizations. Examples can be community centers of different demographic groups and religions, different hobby-based clubs, schools, and posts in public spaces.
People who have interest and could not have gotten an invitation
Go out and intentionally seek people you would not normally speak to in spaces you would not normally be in. Make a list of places and people you don't normally speak to with special consideration to demographic groups that have limited ability to participate in society. In the US this would be people who are in poverty, homeless, or disabled. Also consider what groups experience discrimination in your community, which may change based on what demographic makes up the majority and whether your community is considered a haven.
People who have no interest
Thinking about social issues in the context of reality and delusion is something a lot of people don't care about. Find what they are motivated by (ex.money) and ask them to participate with that incentive. Every demographic group has people that have interest and don't. Because it is difficult for people to overcome their own unconcious bias, specifically seek people who have no interest and are people you would not normally speak to.
----------------------------------
*There needs to be a way to decide what is added to the Untrue Conspiracy List. Because you don’t want true conspiracies to actually end up there.
Positive and Negative
There is nothing I’ve found that better represents the judgment of positive and negative labels than this fable from marriage and family therapist Emma McAdam:
"Once there was a farmer whose horse ran away, now he could not plow. His neighbors came to him and said "How horrible for you, this is terrible, this is awful, you lost your horse!" the farmer replied, "I don't know, we'll see" and he went back to work on his farm.
The next day, the farmer's son went to find the horse. Not only did he find the horse, but two additional stray horses followed them home. The neighbors came over, and said "Oh this is wonderful for you, this is so good, you found your horse, and got two new ones!" The farmer replied "I don't know, we'll see", and he went back to work on his farm.
The next day the farmer's son decided to break in one of the new horses, a few days in, he got thrown off of the horse, and he broke his leg. He had to get a cast, and stay off the leg, so he couldn't help work on the farm, and once again all the neighbors come over, and they say, "Oh my gosh this is horrible, this is so bad!" and the farmer replied "I don't know, we'll see", and tried to get back to work on his farm.
Now one of the neighbors insisted, "How can you be so relaxed about this? Without your son's help, you'll have to work long into the night to get all the work done, you don't seem to understand that this is a catastrophe!” and the farmer calmly replied "We'll see", and went back to work.
The next day, the emperor decided to implement a draft for a war that was starting, all of the eligible men in the whole village were dragged off to war, because of his broken leg the farmer's son was spared from the draft. All the neighbors came over, and told the farmer, "Oh my goodness you're so lucky, you're so fortunate, this is so good for you!" and the farmer just replied "I don't know, we'll see", and went back to work."
How is something measured as positive or negative, when these are judgements? Positives and negatives address extremes, and should only be used to identify the difference between things like genocide and world peace, and never the difference between things that have relatively similar QALYs. In the category of what is extreme, positives and negatives can be generically defined in the manner in which our physiology -or the physiology of others- is damaged or is healed. To avoid judgment, it’s best for the graph to be short and wide. As much information as possible should be categorized as neutral.
Reality and Denial EDIT BELOW
Focusing too much on either end of the spectrum causes illness- moderation is the best way to stay centered. (pun) On the negative side, reality is painful. It is sincere pain, unlike the addictive pain of denial. How is the pain of denial addictive? Pain and stress releases chemicals in the brain somewhat similarly to addictive substances. This is why some people find themselves self-harming or seeking situations that cause adrenaline rushes, despite the harm it causes. Fake news about stressful topics creates stress-induced highs as well.
On the positive side, denial presents as toxic positivity. Toxic positivity is about falsely believing things are better than they are. This has serious negative impacts on people in difficult situations when toxic positivity causes victim blaming and worsening the situation when it was never taken seriously. Positive denial can also present as delusions that bring positive emotions. Excessive positive reality is at this point in time under-researched. One example can be excessive focus on what could be described as “science that we don’t yet have the technology to comprehend.” It’s one of those things that is rather difficult to explain with the current lack of research, and it is among the information that belongs in the “if you know, you know” category. Excessive meditation without moderation would go in this category as well.
Untrue Conspiracies and Classified
Untrue conspiracies and classified information are on the extreme ends of the spectrum, and it’s where excessive focus causes the most harm. Untrue conspiracies are often invented stories that have highly addictive qualities. Classified are conspiracies that are true. It is characterized by two additional things- if information was made public, the person presenting the information would be harmed or killed or if information was made public, other people would be harmed or killed.
Sometimes conspiracies and classified are -on paper- the same information. There are some key differences. Untrue conspiracies present the information in a way that is glorified, glamorized, romanticized, or sensationalized. People interested in this information seek it to experience addictive emotions. They have no idea what the information means, they don't understand it, and they don't want to understand it. If the classified, truthful version of the information was exposed, conspiracy addicts would be among the first to harm others. Classified information, while true, is often presented in a manner that is simple and boring. If it’s interesting, it provides no more satisfaction than completing a math problem or reading about a historical event. (outside of the context of workaholism)
The Reality Map in reference to psychology is a band.
I'm a bit short on time so I didn't make a formal graph. I for sure didn't know how to make a graph in the shape of a band. But why is it a band?
When researching classified information I realized that some people focus so much on these topics so much that as they lose their mind, they cross over into Untrue Conspiracies. I came to this conclusion after hearing the stories of right-wing conspiracy followers who started their decent with factual information, but were later unable to determine the difference between fake news and reality in later stages. A real-life representation of this band is seen in two groups of people that move to and exist in the same rural communities: people who wish to escape society because of racist, politically right-wing fears, and people who wish to escape society because they are politically left-wing and wish to live in communally or escape societal discrimination.
Assess Responses
People who deeply believe propaganda may have placed information inaccurately on opposite sides of where the information lies.
When most responses are the same in their areas of the map, it may be difficult to tell if this is the result of not being able to find people outside your bias or accurate perspectives of reality across many different biases.
Comments