The Four Horsemen of Inaction

Transcript

Introduction

Claude: There are four obstacles to overcome in order to transform the system, to change yourself and change others: you need to have information, you need to believe it, you need to act on it, and you need to have the means to act. And these are four completely different conversations to have.

[Opening theme]

Gwen: Hello and welcome to The Cassandra Project, a podcast for scientists and activists who are warning about the socio-ecological catastrophe but feel they're not being heard.

Cassandra was a Trojan princess gifted with prophecy but deprived of all power of persuasion. Unable to convince her listeners, she was condemned to see her visions come true.

A Greek myth that is sadly contemporary, as it is embodied today in the scientists and activists who are trying to warn us about the ongoing ecological and social catastrophe.

In this podcast, alone or with guests, I decode the blind spots that prevent your messages from being heard, and I share keys to break this curse.

Discussion

Gwen: For this first series of episodes, I'm joined by Claude Garcia. Claude, hello.

Claude: Hello.

Gwen: Thank you for being here, thank you for taking the time. Before I start bombarding you with questions, I'll try to introduce you a bit. And don't hesitate to correct me if I say something wrong or to add anything if I forget things that seem important to you.

Claude, you are an ecologist, specialist in tropical forest management, professor of international forest governance at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and scientific associate at ETH Zurich. For about 20 years you've been traveling through tropical regions to observe how people make decisions about territories, and through transdisciplinary research projects, you've developed with your team a method to transform our way of seeing ecological issues through gaming. You co-founded LEAF, a team of experts in systems thinking and participatory facilitation, with whom you develop role-playing games based on strategy, resource management, and collective intelligence.

And finally, what will be the center of our discussion for this small series of episodes, you are co-author with about ten scientists of the study "Choices We Make in Times of Crisis," published in 2021 in the journal Sustainability.

Claude: Oh! It's almost perfect. Ten years are missing—it's not 20 years, it's 30.

Gwen: You should update your... you should update your biography.

Claude: That's possible, yeah.

Gwen: In the article I just mentioned, you and your team developed a framework for understanding behaviors judged irrational in the climate debate. Can you start by telling me more about this system you call the four-door system?

Claude: Yes, there's a lot to say because... you see, the way you presented it is actually the way that brought us to this position, but it's the apparent irrationality. But you have to start by realizing that what would seem rational to me probably seems perfectly rational to the person in front of me, and that I'm the one who would seem irrational to the person in front of me. So first, you have to realize that there are enormous mirror effects in this story.

Gwen: Yes, it's very subjective ultimately, the rationality of the decisions we make. We never tell ourselves "I'm going to make this decision irrationally," we always have the impression of making a rational decision.

Claude: But just taking that step is already progress, because it means I accept the idea that I'm not the one who has the truth and that maybe there's something to hear from the other side. Not everyone is at that stage. So it's already a first step, realizing that the situation is asymmetrical.

It's not really a study actually, it's a theoretical scaffolding, a reading grid if you will, to put it simply. It's a tool, in fact. It's a thinking tool. It's really a reading grid: when you have someone in front of you that you don't understand, when you have a situation in front of you that you don't understand, well, you pull out the reading grid and it will help you sort things out to understand why it's stuck, why it's blocked.

Well, it's like a Swiss Army knife, it's extremely versatile, it's extremely adaptable. Not a day goes by that I don't use it to dissect a political speech, a position taken on social media, or a scientific article.

Gwen: Yes, it's true that it allows you to choose specific angles of view depending on the subjects, depending on the circumstances, the people you're addressing. It's a tool that's quite accessible, because when I learned about it at a conference, and then by reading the paper, I have zero expertise, knowledge in this field, and yet it's very easy to approach and put into practice.

Claude: Ah, wait, that's super important, what you just said. You read the scientific article? But nobody ever does that, never! It's not meant to be read, it's published, that's enough. [laughs]

So for the benefit of those listening and wondering "what is this?", the analogy I use is that of a house that burned down with people who died inside. We're trying to understand why people died in this tragic accident, and there are four types of people.

The first ones who were caught by the flames are those who didn't hear the alarm. Well, they were going about their business, they were caught off guard, they didn't hear, or maybe the alarm was disconnected on their floor, we don't know. So they didn't have the information, that's it, they didn't get out.

There are those who heard the alarm and said "no but it's a drill, it's not real, they're annoying us with this, it's made to make me leave when I have important things to do." So the people who didn't believe the information, they were caught off guard too.

Then a third type, there are those who heard the alarm, there are those who said "it's not a drill, there's a fire somewhere in the house, I should leave." But I can't right now, I have to submit my report to my boss, I have to stay here to watch the children, no no I... I have better things to do than listen and act. And well, they were caught because they had better things to do until it was too late to do anything.

And the last ones, those who heard the information, who believed it, who said "yes it's urgent" and who still died, are those who were prisoners, those who were behind bars, those who didn't have the key to the doors. Those who had no access door or access to the exit.

And so that's what it's about: when we have a crisis and collectively we can't get out of it, it's because either we didn't have the information, or the information we received, we don't believe it, or it's not important, we have other things, we think we have more serious things to deal with, or we don't have the means to get out of it.

And that's how this analytical grid applies to any transformation of society. There are four obstacles to overcome in order to transform the system, to change yourself and change others: you need to have information, you need to believe it, you need to act on it, and you need to have the means to act. And these are four completely different conversations to have.

Gwen: So that's ultimately what the four doors you talk about in this reading system are, it's to identify the doors, with the idea that at each door, we can remain blocked. We can remain blocked at the information door, meaning we haven't received information. For certain subjects, it's increasingly difficult not to have seen the information, especially when we talk about climate disruption. But then it's also something that's quite granular. We might have heard about climate disruption, but we're not necessarily aware of more specific subjects within it. We're not aware of the problem of ocean acidification or things like that, which are a bit less publicized. So there, it really depends on the specific subjects where we'll remain blocked at one door or another. And so right now we see for example that there are more and more people who remain blocked at the denial door, so the second door.

Can we also go back, can we pass through these doors in both directions?

Claude: We pass through them in both directions, we pass through them continuously in both directions. And I was discussing with a friend recently who pointed out a beautiful quote, which is that the doors of change only open from the inside, it's a very beautiful phrase.

In fact, there are two things: there's opening the door and then there's taking the step. And so I can open the door for someone, I can invite them to take the step, but it's still up to that person to cross through by themselves.

Gwen: Yes, we can't push people through the door.

Claude: Well we can, we try, and we force people and we slam the door in their face. All of this is an allegory, in fact a very powerful one, that will speak to us, allow us to talk about social and political processes, how the media treats information, who owns the media, how it's constructed... What algorithms do, we can talk about an enormous amount of things. How our beliefs are constructed, on what basis, how, who we trust, what attracts our attention, what catches our eye, what is...

For me, there's one thing that struck me a lot, so many of us spend our entire lives trying to promote change. It took Ronaldo two seconds to remove a bottle of Coke and put a bottle of water for half the planet to say "oh yes but maybe we should stop drinking Coke with so much sugar."

So, we can talk about power, we can talk about responsibility, we can talk about influence, there are enormous things. But what you need to understand is that these four doors, if you want to represent them for yourself, for the person who's thinking, you have to see them as a path, which is straight and it's blocked with these four doors.

And in fact, each door corresponds to a different and particular state of mind. Those who don't have information, the best name we have to describe them is "we are ignorant." When we haven't received information, we don't know something, so it's not an insult at all, there are people who get offended, but it's not an insult at all.

Gwen: Yes, ignorant just means: I don't know, I'm unaware of something, it's factual. Before hearing the word COVID, I didn't know it existed.

Claude: Exactly. So, we're ignorant. Now we can be concerned about getting out of ignorance, we can be curious about the world, or we can be apathetic, we can be bombarded with information or on the contrary, we can filter or protect ourselves. There's an attitude to have, but what will allow us to get out of ignorance is this attitude of curiosity. So that's the first state.

The second, we talk about it a lot, and it actually crystallizes a lot of anger and frustration from all sides. We'll come back to this. Those who don't believe it, the incredulous: I received the information and I say it's not true. In fact what I'm saying is that I have other information that I believe is more reliable and that contradicts this one, the one I'm bringing. And I choose to believe what I continue to believe, what I had before, and I refuse to change my beliefs.

Now it's not a conscious process, it can... we can pretend it's a conscious process, but it's not. We'll come back to this.

Gwen: Yes, generally when we're in denial, it's rarely a conscious act, it's rarely a choice. We don't say "ah, I'm choosing not to believe this information," we're convinced that the information is false.

Claude: Ah, I think it's actually much more complicated than that, and I think we have a lot of intuitions about these questions that are very intimate, actually, that are probably wrong. The first thing is that it would seem that our beliefs aren't really our beliefs, but are the beliefs of the group to which we belong.

And this can be measured experimentally. If your neighbors start... well you know, they did studies in the United States, we plant the Democrat or Republican flag in the lawn, but actually people who are surrounded by people who change flags also change their vote. So it goes very far.

So humans, we're social beings. Our beliefs, like our values, so the two middle doors, the door of beliefs and the door of values, are in fact very, very, very much group phenomena. And, we'll come back to this, it has an impact on the reasons that will allow us to pass through a door or not.

Gwen: It's a door that will be very difficult to pass through, I imagine, the door of denial.

Claude: Well again, that's... I think not. Let me explain: defense mechanisms are very effective. And for example, a group can lock itself in, and this is very well explained, we call them epistemic bunkers, to invalidate any information that comes from outside, to listen only to the guru to put it simply. And that, that works very well, we understand that very well. And so yes, I stay a long time in this belief bubble.

But in fact, it's not through a gradual process that I'm going to get out of a belief bubble. It's going to be all or nothing. That is, what's going to make me change my belief is love at first sight, it's revelations. It's of that order, these are words we use in the religious or spiritual domain. But it's really what it's about. The word in cognitive sciences is epiphanies, a revelation. And we demonstrate once again experimentally that someone who has an epiphany, overnight, profoundly changes their behavior because there's been a change of belief that's occurred. And that's a fascinating field.

And so it's a big word, epiphany, but I'll say something that will speak to all listeners. It's if I asked you to get on stage in an improv theater and I asked you, we're doing a casting there, Gwen, we're doing a casting and you're in front of the camera. Gwen, you have to pretend to be surprised. Could you do it?

Gwen: I'm not a very good actress.

Claude: Are you sure you couldn't do surprise? Because it's an emotion that's intimate, that's familiar, we're surprised almost every day by trivial things or not. We widen our eyes, we open our mouth, we have a backward movement. When we have the feeling of surprise, it means that our senses are sending us information that contradicts what our brain expects. That's how beliefs are updated. And no one resists surprise. We're surprised and we can't resist surprise. Afterwards we can work on it.

So there, this door is a sort of tipping point, it's all or nothing. I resist, I resist, I resist, but if I have an epiphany, if I'm surprised by something, it touches me, it means it makes sense. And then I can change. And it will be the same for values.

For example, if I discover that someone close in my family has cancer, I'm going to wonder if I continue working for tobacco production lobbies. And there I'm of course referring to a historical example.

So there needs to be something that each time has a powerful emotional imprint. It's a marker of change.

So we talked about the first door, the ignorant. We talked about the second door, the incredulous. The third door is the one that stops the most people. These are people who are busy, because we lead crazy lives, we have insane schedules, we run left and right. And we decide not to dedicate time to other things, either because we have worries, we have better things to do, or because we're very comfortable with this situation. And we don't want to...

Gwen: It's the famous "but aren't there more important priorities in this country than caring about ecological problems, about problems of systemic racism, about problems of sexism, etc..."

Claude: Exactly: there are other battles that are more important. So there, there are corollaries. It's "we're not the cause." Us it's 1%, look what the Chinese are doing, look what the rich are doing, look what... And well, but in fact all of that is pushing the problem onto someone else. "Let's push the problem to 2050!" We do that very frequently. So all of that is saying: we have better things to do than tackle the problem head-on. Now this kind of problem, it won't be solved right away.

Gwen: This door, I find that precisely the four-door reading grid is very important and very useful, I find, in everyday life, precisely when we listen to political speeches or that kind of thing, because quite quickly, we're going to hear these speeches, and it allows us to have a different reading, that is: "Ah, these people are trying to keep me behind the door of 'I'm busy'." And so as a result, what interest will they have in doing that? And so it also allows us to step back and say: "Ah, there, certainly, there's an interest in people staying busy." And the interest, indeed, is to be able not to make unpopular decisions or to get re-elected, etc. And so I find that this door is particularly useful when we listen, when we confront, precisely, current events and political discourse.

Claude: And so it's the door of priorities, it's the door of values. It's what's important to us? And again, it can change. And it can change overnight. As I was saying, if you fall in love, the climate cause will move to... third, fourth, fifth place, you have better things to do.

Gwen: Yes, so it also fluctuates, really, depending on time. We're going to have... It's not blocked.

Claude: We cross the doors left and right depending on what happens to us, what happens around us, our internal states. And so we need to understand that it's fluid, that it's not fixed.

Another thing we'll discuss: you can't tell me, Gwen, Claude, you're busy. I can't say, Gwen, you're ignorant. I can say, you present yourself as, you act as, you speak as, but I don't have access to your interiority, you don't have access to my interiority. You don't know what my beliefs and values are. You only hear what I say my beliefs and values are.

When someone very caricatural like the President of the United States announces that he doesn't believe in climate change, I can only say that he announces that he doesn't believe in climate change. I don't know if he believes it or not or if he doesn't care, if in fact he's secretly concerned, but that, we don't know. And we don't need to know. It means we can't put a label on people, on the other hand, we can confront them with their inconsistencies.

Gwen: There's an example that immediately comes to mind when you talk about that, which is that I very often hear men say they're feminist. And so present themselves as feminist and then, you look at their actions, you dissect a little bit and you say: "Well no, you maybe present yourself as, but you act differently." It allows us to highlight inconsistencies a bit. Is it lying, is it ignorance?

Claude: Absolutely.

Gwen: It makes me think a bit of what Fanny Parise said, who I believe is an ethnologist who talked about liars in good faith. It relates a bit to this subject. Sometimes we're going to lie, but we're convinced we're telling the truth, when in fact it's not reality.

Claude: There's this quote, it's a play, it's The Life of Galileo, I think, which is by Bertolt Brecht: "He who does not know the truth is an idiot" -- I think that's the term he uses -- "but he who knowing it says it's a lie, that one is a criminal." So there, there's the notion of intention behind, which is... we're talking about the same thing.

So we've talked about three stages, we talked about the ignorant, whom curiosity can save. We talked about the incredulous where it's critical thinking that will allow them to evaluate, to doubt their own certainty and to evaluate. It's not about swallowing everything you're told, it's about being able to judge critically. So it's critical thinking that will allow us to get out of the state of incredulous, to abandon old beliefs and adopt new ones, and not to take everything that comes along either, we have to be careful about that.

Those who are busy, those who are in the middle, it's empathy that will allow them to be interested in something other than their already well-established order of priority... Being able to listen to other things, being able to be interested in things and say "actually yes, it's important," these are notions of empathy and responsibility.

And the fourth, those who are blocked at the fourth door, we talked about it in the burning house, it's those who are behind bars, it's those who are locked up. It's perhaps the most painful situation because they're prisoners, they want a change in the system and they don't have -- so that's what's terrible -- it's that either they don't have the means, the influence, the money, the time, or they're not aware of having them. You know, when you're in the smoke, you may not find the exit, even though it's there.

So this state, I call them preoccupied: would like things to change, but can't find the means to act effectively. And it's a situation that's very difficult to live with, that's where there's eco-anxiety, eco-anxiety is found in there, frustration.

Gwen: Yes, it's ultimately being paralyzed by fear, stress, and so as a result, not acting when we could...

Claude: Ah no, no, it's not even that, because we can be very active, we can deploy treasures of energy, but if we haven't understood how the system works, the right levers of action, we're going to exhaust ourselves. There are lots of situations. Imagine someone imprisoned and scratching at the door, because they don't really know how to open it.

There are a lot of things so, in fact, this state that's morally exhausting, this frustration, it's... This state, we describe it as cognitive dissonance. There are enormous texts, many people talk about it much better than I do, but we have mechanisms to protect ourselves from this cognitive dissonance. And some of these mechanisms are to change what's important to us, to accommodate the situation, that is to become busy. That, that will allow us to... as a result, there's no more frustration to live with.

So, we can convince ourselves that there's no way to change, so we can deny that change is possible. We can become incredulous.

Gwen: We can tell ourselves anyway, it's hopeless.

Claude: Exactly, fatalism, cynicism and all that, these are responses to this frustration, to this incapacity, it seems insurmountable to us, and maybe it is insurmountable. I'll come back to this, there are situations... well, if in the Middle Ages, my goal had been to go to the moon, I would have died of frustration, I wouldn't have succeeded.

So there, but, what's interesting is that if we conceptualize these four doors, if we conceptualize what state we're in before passing through each door, it will also allow us to conceptualize what's behind the fourth door.

And it's this state that I describe as architect. Architects are those who have had the information, who have accepted its reality, who have verified it, who have accepted its validity, who have faced their responsibility, who have said "yes okay, it's important," who have given the problem time, attention, resources, and who have had the creativity -- creativity is the essential element for the last door -- to act effectively on the problem.

Now I don't know what the way to act is, and each of us has their way of acting. Some of us have more responsibilities than others. There are people who have a voice, there are those who have a megaphone, huge speakers. We have responsibilities, we have different means at our disposal, we have different responsibilities on that. But so that's what we call architect of change.

And as a result, it feels good, being concerned about the state of the world, to say, in fact, there's a possible state which is that of architect. And so my goal, and that's what I did with the 10 missing years, is 10 years searching for how to be an architect of change, which allows living much better with frustration, anger. I rely a lot on what I understood from the work of the philosopher Spinoza who says: not to lament, not to mock the actions of others, but to seek to understand them. Not to lament, not to rail, but to understand. And well if I manage to understand others...

Gwen: It's what you often say, ultimately, "you have to create or die," right?

Claude: Well, anyway, in fact it will be both, we'll have to create, then die. That's the bad news [laughs], but as late as possible!

Gwen: Yes, for sure [laughs], the idea is to create to avoid dying right away, from frustration, from despair.

Claude: Absolutely, it's that or abandon the fight. And there... I think that, for once, sorry, I'm making somewhat poorly digested citations, but Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, he solves this problem. We must imagine Sisyphus happy... Sisyphus is grappling with the fourth door, so he was locked up by the gods, there's no way to... him, he can't get out of there, but he continues anyway. So that, that's an admirable characteristic, but there, the possibility of being an architect, and realizing that being an architect is opening the door for oneself, but it's also, in fact, opening the door for others.

I'm an architect when I bring information to others. I'm an architect when I discuss the foundations of beliefs and invite people to have epiphanies. I'm an architect when I set an example, when I give priority to commitment. I'm an architect when I show people how I can do it, or when I help people find how they can do it.

So, there are 1000 ways to be an architect. Being an architect is, in fact, opening doors for others. Because it's not about having a leader here, who with a nod of the chin tells us here's the path to follow. The problems we face are systemic, they're necessarily problems of collective action and so the answer is in collective action.

This theory, this theoretical framework I'm presenting to you, puts a lot of emphasis on individual responsibility. I'm ignorant, I'm... preoccupied, I'm an architect, but in fact the paths I can take, are the doors wide open or locked? In fact, that's a social construction. And we can build a society where women, for example, don't have means, or on the contrary, we can give them means. I can build a society where the media doesn't give information, or even can't even measure what's happening. There where on the contrary I can give access to information, I can give, I can invest in science. So you see, it's at the crossroads between individual responsibility, personal and intimate journey -- I talked about epiphanies, there's nothing more intimate than that -- but it happens in a process of society and collective construction.

Gwen: Yes, so we have our level which is very intimate and very personal, which clashes ultimately with circumstances and which will mean that, depending on both our personal curiosity, or also our convictions which are the fruit of an environment, etc... Confronted with an environment, a certain number of public policies, etc... will mean that we'll more or less pass through, well there. There are a bit of currents that toss us about and that will make things more or less easy, in any case depending on the direction we're going to take, more or less easy, depending on whether we choose to follow them or whether we try to go against them ultimately.

Claude: That's exactly it. And you make me think of something. What needs to be understood is that there, fundamentally, there's a message, which is that all human beings are capable of feeling surprise, all human beings are capable of feeling more or less emotions. Now, some, more or less easily than others, who have more problems, we know that, there's a lot of diversity, but nonetheless, it means that fundamentally, we're all capable of being transformed and becoming architects.

It also helps me look at people in front of me differently where my first response could be a response of anger, because I don't agree with their actions, but it reminds me that, in fact, there's the possibility, now, sometimes, it will be more or less difficult. Some of us are in storms, others in calm waters, all that, but nonetheless there's a... For me, it's a spark of... I believe in the fact that everyone can make it.

Gwen: Yes, also what you were saying, I think, about creativity, it's something that's quite, how to say, positive, since we can often have the impression of being... often when we're preoccupied, which is a bit the situation where we're going to feel the most frustration and powerlessness, and we're often going to have a kind of feeling of fatalism, because we don't have the means, or because we're going to feel too small, etc. The concept of creativity... I find that suddenly it gives back quite a bit.

Now, it's maybe also a bias on my side, because I come from artistic, creative studies. It's a bit like... we don't have oil, but we have ideas, that is to say that faced with not having conventional means, that is influence, money, power, etc. We can always find side doors, if we have a bit of a kind of little spark, like that, of creativity, to find a detour, a different way with the means we have, to say, to make... to... to change, to move things forward.

Claude: The alternative to that is resignation or violence. Now, I like neither resignation nor violence. In my research work, in what I do pretty much everywhere in the world now, is that I see these mechanisms at work, I see doors opening and I see people imagining new ways of doing things. So, it's not... it's not a belief that... for once, that would be ethereal, theoretical, conceptual. I come here to testify that people together manage like that, to imagine things and to change... change things.

Gwen: You see people finding solutions where we didn't see any at the beginning...

Claude: Where we even doubted there were any... well, the starting situation is... there's no problem. So, already, there's "why are you looking for solutions." Denying the existence of the... well, all these situations. I... I was confronted with this with my colleagues, with my partners, and we see how people's attitudes change by thinking about the problem in this way.

[musical transition]

Action Steps

Gwen: Before concluding, I'd like to take a few minutes to synthesize what Claude just shared with us into concrete actions applied to communication.

If you're a scientist, activist, or simply someone trying to get an important message across, the four-door theory can be a powerful tool.

First, by helping you identify where your audience is.

If there's one thing to remember from this episode, it's that we don't address an audience at all the same way depending on whether they're ignorant, incredulous, busy, or preoccupied. So for example, we stop exhausting ourselves giving numbers to a person in denial.

Second, the 4 doors can help you adapt your message.

Each requires a different approach. In the next episodes, we'll explore in detail how to communicate effectively with each archetype. For now, just remember this: understanding where your audience is, that's already half the journey.

Third, you unfortunately won't be able to pull people through the doors.

You can only open the door and invite them to cross. Each person must take the step themselves.

And finally: everyone can be an architect of change, and creativity is your superpower when you don't have money, influence, or power.