"... tech barons and local politicians share a common immune response: they instinctively reject radical overhauls imposed upon them by outsiders. To integrate them, you must deploy a piecewise Columbo strategy. You do not pitch a revolution; you walk into the room, scratch your head, and ask disarming, Socratic questions. You ask the tech executive if a platform demanding thousands of hours of civic design might accidentally generate unprecedented, highly lucrative eyeball time. You ask the politician if visualizing their hard work might finally get voters off their back."
Gene, Fantastic situation focus. Yes, a major disruptive tension that needs to be fixed. I surmise that the high tech platforms and social media target the 90% of the adult population that are capable at Jaques levels 1 and 2 with a maximum time-line of either 3 months or 1 year. And the people with the cognitive capability to help design a governance system starts and level 3 and is strong at level 4. And these busy people generally spent much less time on social media and a small percent may have an interest in helping to design such as system. And yes, the level 1s and 2s are the profitable ones hooked in anger...so the current profit model will likely stay in place. Where are the perspectives? What countries or metropolitan areas have been able to design participative project planning methods? See https://share.gemini.google/lUQ81YDrBfbj
The direct impact of Participatory Budgeting (PB) on hostility at public meetings and social media outrage yields a nuanced picture.
Research indicates that PB does reduce institutional friction and cynicism, but it does not eliminate local conflict or online outrage. Instead, it changes where and how community energy is expressed. 1. The Good News: Shift from "Protest" to "Problem-Solving"De-escalation at Public MeetingsTraditional municipal town halls are structured around reactivity: the city proposes a finished plan, and angry residents get 2–3 minutes at a microphone to air grievances.PB replaces this dynamic with structured, small-group deliberation.Empathy over outrage:
Studies on deliberative civic models show that when residents are placed in facilitated, small-table discussions where they must weigh trade-offs (e.g., "If we spend $50,000 on park lighting, we cannot fix the sidewalk this year"), emotional hostility drops significantly.Increased institutional trust: Empirical studies show that municipalities using PB report up to a 25% increase in public trust in local governance. When citizens feel listened to and see real dollars attached to their choices, the urge to vent at formal council meetings declines.
Reduced Political Polarization Because PB usually focuses on hyper-local, physical capital projects (like bench installations, street trees, or community center upgrades), it tends to depolarize conversations. Discussions focus on practical utility rather than national or partisan ideology, curbing tribal hostility. 2. The Nuance: Why Social Media Anger Persists. While PB calms physical room dynamics, its impact on digital outrage and social media toxicity is far more mixed:
Digital Disconnect: Online commentary on social media operates under algorithms designed to reward outrage and conflict. PB cannot override broader platform incentives.The "Zero-Sum" Paradox: PB explicitly creates winners and losers. When a favored neighborhood proposal loses during the public voting phase, disappointment frequently spills onto social media, with claims that the vote was "rigged" or dominated by special interest groups.Symbolic vs. Structural Money: In many Western cities, PB allocates a tiny fraction of the total capital budget (often 1% to 5%). Citizens quickly realize that while they can choose where to put a playground, they still have no say over major tax rates or massive infrastructure developments. This can trigger secondary frustration on social platforms if residents feel the process is merely performative tokenism.
What the Data Suggests The Takeaway: Participatory Budgeting successfully converts unconstructive anger at government into constructive civic debate among participants in the room. However, it does not serve as a universal quietener for ambient social media anger, which is driven by national politics and algorithmic design rather than local spending decisions.
Whoops! I forgot to look there. Before I read this I asked Gemini what countries had been most successful in mitigating the rage-anger-fear algorithym and got this. Quite impressive. https://share.gemini.google/yP1CkiHD439r
I found the perspectives and I enjoyed reading them feeling more helpful. I'm wondering if in some future version of AMA, after the user describes their situation, AMA asks them if they would like to see research and actions on similar problems. Then asks them what they like or don't like about the alternative paths presented, and then the AMA guides them on how to tailor their preferred combination of actions to their specific situation and guides them to action. There I go again, I have the mindset of an impatient, action-oriented executive, yes to understand relationships but focus on reaching decision and action.
Currently one can continue the dialogue once ama presents the perspectives. The user chooses when to end the investigation, and the results can be fed back in to continue at some later date.
This seems like innovation that needs to be perfected at many local levels, then patched together to link larger geo-political areas. I hope someone is finding working examples and aggregating them in a library that others can learn and borrow from.
Some interesting things developing. I second your hope. All ideas encouraged and accepted.
Some strategy this! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
"... tech barons and local politicians share a common immune response: they instinctively reject radical overhauls imposed upon them by outsiders. To integrate them, you must deploy a piecewise Columbo strategy. You do not pitch a revolution; you walk into the room, scratch your head, and ask disarming, Socratic questions. You ask the tech executive if a platform demanding thousands of hours of civic design might accidentally generate unprecedented, highly lucrative eyeball time. You ask the politician if visualizing their hard work might finally get voters off their back."
I continue to marvel at the things that fall out of the Aha! Mystery Investigations. Would you like to give it a run?
Sure!
do you have a google account as it's required.
Gene, Fantastic situation focus. Yes, a major disruptive tension that needs to be fixed. I surmise that the high tech platforms and social media target the 90% of the adult population that are capable at Jaques levels 1 and 2 with a maximum time-line of either 3 months or 1 year. And the people with the cognitive capability to help design a governance system starts and level 3 and is strong at level 4. And these busy people generally spent much less time on social media and a small percent may have an interest in helping to design such as system. And yes, the level 1s and 2s are the profitable ones hooked in anger...so the current profit model will likely stay in place. Where are the perspectives? What countries or metropolitan areas have been able to design participative project planning methods? See https://share.gemini.google/lUQ81YDrBfbj
From Gemini
The direct impact of Participatory Budgeting (PB) on hostility at public meetings and social media outrage yields a nuanced picture.
Research indicates that PB does reduce institutional friction and cynicism, but it does not eliminate local conflict or online outrage. Instead, it changes where and how community energy is expressed. 1. The Good News: Shift from "Protest" to "Problem-Solving"De-escalation at Public MeetingsTraditional municipal town halls are structured around reactivity: the city proposes a finished plan, and angry residents get 2–3 minutes at a microphone to air grievances.PB replaces this dynamic with structured, small-group deliberation.Empathy over outrage:
Studies on deliberative civic models show that when residents are placed in facilitated, small-table discussions where they must weigh trade-offs (e.g., "If we spend $50,000 on park lighting, we cannot fix the sidewalk this year"), emotional hostility drops significantly.Increased institutional trust: Empirical studies show that municipalities using PB report up to a 25% increase in public trust in local governance. When citizens feel listened to and see real dollars attached to their choices, the urge to vent at formal council meetings declines.
Reduced Political Polarization Because PB usually focuses on hyper-local, physical capital projects (like bench installations, street trees, or community center upgrades), it tends to depolarize conversations. Discussions focus on practical utility rather than national or partisan ideology, curbing tribal hostility. 2. The Nuance: Why Social Media Anger Persists. While PB calms physical room dynamics, its impact on digital outrage and social media toxicity is far more mixed:
Digital Disconnect: Online commentary on social media operates under algorithms designed to reward outrage and conflict. PB cannot override broader platform incentives.The "Zero-Sum" Paradox: PB explicitly creates winners and losers. When a favored neighborhood proposal loses during the public voting phase, disappointment frequently spills onto social media, with claims that the vote was "rigged" or dominated by special interest groups.Symbolic vs. Structural Money: In many Western cities, PB allocates a tiny fraction of the total capital budget (often 1% to 5%). Citizens quickly realize that while they can choose where to put a playground, they still have no say over major tax rates or massive infrastructure developments. This can trigger secondary frustration on social platforms if residents feel the process is merely performative tokenism.
What the Data Suggests The Takeaway: Participatory Budgeting successfully converts unconstructive anger at government into constructive civic debate among participants in the room. However, it does not serve as a universal quietener for ambient social media anger, which is driven by national politics and algorithmic design rather than local spending decisions.
The perspectives are on the investigation link at the bottom.
Whoops! I forgot to look there. Before I read this I asked Gemini what countries had been most successful in mitigating the rage-anger-fear algorithym and got this. Quite impressive. https://share.gemini.google/yP1CkiHD439r
I found the perspectives and I enjoyed reading them feeling more helpful. I'm wondering if in some future version of AMA, after the user describes their situation, AMA asks them if they would like to see research and actions on similar problems. Then asks them what they like or don't like about the alternative paths presented, and then the AMA guides them on how to tailor their preferred combination of actions to their specific situation and guides them to action. There I go again, I have the mindset of an impatient, action-oriented executive, yes to understand relationships but focus on reaching decision and action.
Currently one can continue the dialogue once ama presents the perspectives. The user chooses when to end the investigation, and the results can be fed back in to continue at some later date.
OK, I've never done that. Can one also ask for perspectives earlier? Yes I tried and it worked. Wow! New flexibility I didn't appreciate.
Flexibility you didn't appreciate?
This seems like innovation that needs to be perfected at many local levels, then patched together to link larger geo-political areas. I hope someone is finding working examples and aggregating them in a library that others can learn and borrow from.
I dont recall anywhere participatory budgeting was discussed.