Ineed, not my original thinking. I base my thinking on Amartya Sen’s view of human development, Christian Welzel’s view of the human empowerment process, and what I’ve seen in the places I’ve worked at.

I love your comment because this is literally what happens with democratization efforts in societies where there are very strict gender roles or religious duties. It is very easy to preach about democracy and freedom, but it is harder to truly expand people’s capabilities. If someone is to truly be themselves, they need a context that truly empowers them to be free.

Here’s an example I witnessed: I once saw a man lose his house, his job, and his inheritance, because he came out to his conservative family. He went from a comfortable middle class upbringing to being homeless in a matter of minutes. A friend took him in while he found a job, but it was only a matter of time (and money) for him to flee to a more inclusive society.

In the face of this, perhaps it would be easy to just say “well, at least he found out who truly loved him for who he was”, but we shouldn’t romanticize homelessness, poverty, and severed connections. They’re devastating.

So what can we do? At a shelter I worked in, we made darn sure people had a clear path forward before fully leaving their abuse-filled reality. More broadly, we should strive to expand human capabilities.

Talking is easy. Being capable is harder.

As in “nobody acts like you”?

Or as in “nobody’s words but your own words can guide your behavior”?

Or as in “nobody but you can describe your own behavior”?

Something else?

It seems like you and I are both trying to make sense of democracy, how to make it inclusive, and how to have the best decision-making processes so that we, as a society, can have the best decisions possible. In other words, we’re trying to have the best possible democracy.

Now, we both agree that the age filter is imperfect. It’s a heuristic, a rule of thumb. You rightly point this out, and you interpret this fact as if there should be absolutely no filters at all. For you, any filter would be imperfect or problematic.

However, the way I see it, the age filter is a simple, cheap, and good enough heuristic. Age is ridiculously easy to keep track of, with current record-keeping technologies and institutions. In most of the world’s bureaucracies, people’s age appear right next to their face in state-issued documents. It’s everywhere.

Additionally, age is associated with physical and cognitive capabilities. Human children require care and nurture. Socializing children into the abstract world of economics and ecology takes time. I see the fact that children are required to go to school as a success, as a way of assuring that that culture sustains its cultural and scientific literacy over time. Ideally, when children can vote, they understand their world differently. They can see ecological, historical, and social processes around them in different ways. Here, setting a voting age is a heuristic for avoiding children who have not yet developed these abstract worldviews (because, after all, they’re… children).

I believe you will respond that “if the point is filtering for cultural and scientific literacy, then test for that, but not for age. There are children who are brilliant decision-makers and lackluster adults”. And I’d agree with you. Age is an imperfect measure. I’m not denying there are people who are exceptional. But what I am saying is that, for most people, age is a good enough heuristic.

Of course, as a society we could say that we shouldn’t go for the cheapest heuristic. We could say that we should include people in a better way. But you and I agree that the alternatives are tough. I’d say they’re costly, controversial, and probably imperfect.

Could age not be an imperfect but good enough proxy for maturity and capability?

This sounds interesting. I’m just not sure it’s a shower thought. Is it?

Already happening https://youtu.be/evSFeqTZdqs

Same here, but with a different order.

• Turn the heat on.
• Wait.
• Test with water. If it doesn’t sizzle, wait and test again. If it does sizzle…
• Add oil

Indeed.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to have multiple categories. One of them definitely should be “Buildings count too”!

A strong contender!

Oops. Thanks for pointing this out! Strobe lights are a specific kind of flashing light, and flashing lights are what I meant.

Which is why philosophers of science like Lee McIntyre do not use the scientific method as their basis for defining science. Instead, there’s a way to flip the strategy on its head: define science not by its method but by its attitude. Funnily enough, the attitude is precisely what the comment says: embrace empiricism; assume reality is real and that we can understand it.

You have a good point! It does sound like my suggestions only help for repeated behaviors. For example, Tiny Habits seems to indicate that it’ll work for habits but not for novel situations.

You explicitly mention that it’s unlikely that research covers situations that are entirely novel and rare. Do you know about schema theory or relational frame theory? I ask because both of those theories explicitly deal with how entirely new information (such as entirely new situations) is processed in the human brain and how, depending on the schemas or relational frames that a person already had, the person will react in different ways.

But we don’t have to go into the theoretical weeds. The popular books that I mentioned earlier deal with novelty. For example, Lakoff shows how, inside the head of any person, a small set of beliefs can end up guiding most of the person’s moral thinking and therefore their choices. Not only that, but even the book titled Tiny Habits has sections dedicated to one-off behaviors. Heck, the book Drive deals with teams that are at the bleeding edge of knowledge and techniques, technologies and workflows that no human has ever dealt with before, and yet the book is able to show how there is a set of evidence-based principles that consistently motivate (or not) those very teams.

The fundamental issue is whether humans are able to recognize a situation and know what to do about it. Our brains have been endowed with the capacity to derive thoughts, to think up entirely new situations, to imagine scenarios. We can use that to increase the odds of responding effectively to situations we have never been in before.

I understand you’re trying to increase the odds that people will intervene and that this horrible kidnapping would not be successful.

However, the fund for rewards is not the way to go.

Psychological research about human motivation shows that expecting external rewards reduces personal motivation (or, as psychologists would say it, extrinsic motivation can hinder intrinsic motivation). When humans do things because they expect external rewards, they stop doing it for the sake of it and expect higher and higher rewards over time.

Pay children to draw and they lose their interest in doodling or drawing for fun. Pay your team members for being kind and they will be less kind overall.

So what can we do? You talk to people. You understand their concerns and wishes, and you have them understand your concerns and wishes. You use frames that they already have in their head so that they can see your point of view. You set implementation intentions.

It’s a matter of values and the capacity to do the behavior.

Of course, if you’re in a dictatorial regime, stopping a state-approved kidnapping will be illegal and get you in lots of trouble. That’s why activism also seeks to change root causes. What kinds of root causes? That will depend on who you are. Some people blame the electoral system in the USA, so maybe changing that could help. Other people will blame other causes and therefore will suggest other changes.

This may be abstract, and I wish I had the time to make it less so. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now, but you can check out sources that talk about this. Check out Drive by Pink to learn about motivation. Check out Don’t think of an Elephant by George Lakoff to learn about moral reframing. Check out Rethinking Positive Thinking by Gabriele Oettingen or Tiny Habits to learn about implementation intentions.

If you’re going to download it, try the torrent option! That way, you can give back to the community that gives you LibreOffice.

Thank you so much for taking the time to research and share you findings.

As to Atkinson Hyperlegible, I suppose its merit could be, at most, making it harder to confuse characters such as B8, O0, or 1Iil.

Beyond these benefits (and as you mentioned), there is just not enough information on whether Atkinson Hyperlegible definitely helps or not.

Also, thanks for the link on dyslexia. I suppose that, to an extent, promoting fonts like Open Dyslexia could lead to the unintended consequences described in the article.

That’s interesting. I’d love to know if you have the same experience on a desktop and with different font sizes.

I actually changed my Anki to OpenDyslexic a couple of months ago! I changed it again when Atkinson Hyperlegible Next came out, but I agree that OpenDyslexic makes reading a breeze.

My only grievance with OpenDyslexic is that I don’t think I could send reports with this font without pushback. On the other hand, I have sent multiple reports using Atkinson Hyperlegible and nobody has ever said a thing.

A couple of years ago I tried using the original Atkinson Hyperlegible (the one published a couple of years ago, before “Next”) on GNOME and my settings didn’t quite work. I had scaling at around 100% and increased the font size a little bit because I was having a hard time reading the font (the irony!). You inspired me to try again, but now with Atkinson Hyperlegible Next!