Thomas A. Shakely

From Christina Hoff Sommers at Forbes, via Marty Nemko:

Over the past decade the National Science Foundation has funneled $135 million into a “gender bias” program called Advance. Its stated purpose: to advance women in science. In practice it does little to help women, but its potential to inflict lasting damage on fields that drive the American economy–engineering, physics and computer technology–is enormous. …

The Gender Equity project sponsors workshops aimed at transforming American laboratory culture. According to Valian, the compulsive work habits, single-minded dedication and “intense desire for achievement” that typify elite scientists not only marginalize women but also compromise good science. She says, “If we continue to emphasize and reward always being on the job, we will never find out whether leading a balanced life leads to equally good or better scientific work.“

In science, the simplest way to properly explain a phenomenon is usually seen as the best. The Gender Equity project’s premise of transforming laboratory culture seems to ignore Occam’s razor.

Laboratory culture has (presumably) developed more or less organically, but the Gender Equity project is seeking to artificially alter the way an entire field conducts itself.

Isn’t it most likely that laboratory culture is the accumulated product of generations of best practices, of tinkering, of scientists working in ways that produce the best results?

Related: Cal Newport writes about the “grandmaster in the corner office”, where he reveals that great skill requires years of devoted, deliberate practice.

Omar Ahmad, vice-mayor of San Carlos, California, explains, perhaps counter-intuitively for digital natives, why “analog” paper-and-pen are more powerful tools for getting through to your politician than e-mails and calls.

In a quick, direct, six minute talk, Ahmad outlines his thinking. I’ve created an outline of his key points below, though you can watch the full video at TED.

Premise: You Are Passionate About An Issue (but so are many people)
Politicians’ Primary Interests: (1) Reputation & Influence (2) Preservation of Self

Guide To Writing An Effective Letter To Your Representative
Paragraph 1: Articulate Appreciation (of them, their burdens, or their challenges)
Paragraph 2: Get Blunt On The Issue (attack tactics, not people)
Paragraph 3. Leave An Exit (maybe they were misinformed or given poor info)
Paragraph 4. Offer Assistance/Advice As Expert On The Issue
Close With Name & Title (VP, PTA, Rotary Club – demonstrates sphere of influence)

How To Mail & Follow-Up
1. Send your original letter to the district office, and send copy to main office.
2. To develop influence and relationship, write monthly.

***

Parting Thoughts: I know some have the reaction that politicians need to “get with it” and adapt to e-mail and digital correspondence, and that physical letters are an example of outmoded government. This thinking misses the point.

Politicians already have the infrastructure in place to receive vast numbers of phone calls and e-mails. Handwritten letters are a way to cut through the flood and volume of digital petitions and automated e-mails or faxed letters berating decisions via form response.

It’s simply a way to acknowledge and circumvent existing barriers to real impact on elected officials.

Or, as Max Kalehoff put it at MediaPost:

[T]he growing volume of communications in digital form also drives attention deficit, dehumanization and diminishing returns. It’s a tragedy of the commons when digital innovations, celebrated for their improvement on our interpersonal communications, have the opposite effect.

And, from TalkingPointsMemo, an example of what not to do when writing letters to elected officials:`

I just wrote 20 handwritten letters to 10 senators … For each one I made up return addresses in wealthy areas of their respective states.  I used the same formula for each one, saying that I and “my businesses” have long supported them, but I can’t support them with my vote, my money, or my influence if they do not support the most important legislation of our generation.

This example ignores all but the “get blunt” portion of Omar Ahmad’s formula, and fails to demonstrate the writer’s sphere of influence, while vaguely threatening senators and providing no follow-through value.

Nils Gilman: “[The DEA] thinks they’re in the drug eradication business, they’re actually in the drug regulation business. By increasing the risk for the people who are importing this stuff, they actually increase the ability of those who stay in the business to demand premium prices and actually raise the profit margins. …

“So if you’re able to control part of the business by corrupting a border agent, and there have been 80 border agents in the last 3 years just in the U.S. that have been convicted of corruption, then you can make 1,400 percent profits.”

Related: National Review came out in 1996 against the War on Drugs, declaring it “dead”, and publishing an extensive analysis of the thinking behind drug policy and its outcomes.

Last year NR Senior Editor Richard Brookhiser spoke with Bill Moyers, elaborating on NR Founder Bill Buckley’s thinking behind taking a stance on drug policy at odds with much of the conservative mainstream.

Reason Magazine‘s extensive coverage and commentary on drug policy. Mother Jones published Totally Wasted, a special report last summer, on the failure of so-called comprehensive drug policy.