I haven’t posted or read blog posts for almost a week because I was busy with something else. I am a member of a non-partisan volunteer organization called the Citizens Climate Lobby which seeks to create political will for a livable future. As the name suggests we do a lot of lobbying. It is not the kind of paid lobbying that is done by professionals and that is often associated with money. We are average constituents, average voters, with no money, who are visiting our legislators to give them information and opinions on legislation we support or don’t support.
Since we are non-partisan, we visit both Democrats and Republican offices. We just had a CCL conference in Washington DC on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. We were 800+ volunteers who visited 400+ Congressional offices in Washington DC on Tuesday July 22nd.
I visited four Texas Congressmen, including Senator Ted Cruz (R), Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (R), and Congressman Marc Veasey (D). We also had a zoom call with Congressman John Carter’s (R) office. I am the CCL liaison for Senator Cruz’ office and I was the one who organized our visit, from our side, with Senator Cruz and a couple of his staff. Ted Cruz does not always agree with us, or perhaps more correctly, he seldom agrees with us, but we had a friendly and interesting meeting, and he and his staff were very appreciative of us being there.
Ted Cruz is standing in the back between the flags. I am in the front row, second from the right wearing a blue suit. We are twelve people.
Right after our meeting with Senator Cruz I posted the following on Facebook “I am in Washington DC meeting with congressmen. We had an in person meeting with Ted Cruz and we took pictures with him.” along with a photo of the capitol building (not the group photo). Most people left interesting or nice comments but then a far-left Facebook friend of mine left a very hostile comment. He started out saying “so you are finally revealing your true colors Thomas…” and that was followed by an angry outburst in two separate comments filled with F-bombs and how he was ending his friendship with me. I deleted his comments and blocked him. Basically, a centrist on-line friend visiting with a Republican politician for a friendly exchange of opinions enraged him. Naturally I have seen a lot of this on both sides.
Division has become so severe in this country that we are losing our ability to talk to each other. Families are divided against each other, and the rhetoric is overheated. This is dangerous and it is what Amanda Ripley, the keynote speaker at our CCL conference in Washington DC calls High Conflict. High Conflict is a natural psychological phenomenon that sucks us deep into conflict that eventually gets out of hand. She compares it to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. We form kinships and tribes, echo chambers, and dislikes for those with different opinions, we belittle and insult each other, which grows resentment, and we create an us-versus them scenario, which evolves into a good (us) versus evil (them).
Amanda Ripley is the author of the book High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. I think her message and her book are very important, and I have a lot of good things to say about the book. However, the book featured one false and defamatory statement and generalization about environmentalists, which prevents me from giving the book five stars. That claim pretty much ruined it for me , so I am giving the book three stars. I still recommend the book, and perhaps whether I like this book or not is not as important as the topic.
High Conflict the Book Formats
High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out by Amanda Ripley. I bought the hardback format.
- Hardcover – Publisher : Simon & Schuster (April 6, 2021), ISBN-10 : 1982128569, ISBN-13 : 978-1982128562, 368 pages, item weight : 1.26 pounds, dimensions : 6 x 1.2 x 9 inches, it costs $24.98 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Paperback – Publisher : Simon & Schuster (April 5, 2022), ISBN-10 : 1982128577, ISBN-13 : 978-1982128579, 368 pages, item weight : 2.31 pounds, dimensions : 5.5 x 0.92 x 8.38 inches, it costs $13.95 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Kindle – Publisher : Simon & Schuster (April 6, 2021), ASIN : B08LDW7M7J, ISBN-13 : 978-1982128586, 363 pages, it costs $ 15.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Audio– Publisher : Simon & Schuster Audio (April 6, 2021), Listening Length : 9 hours and 50 minutes, ASIN : B0DCCWRMJS, it costs $0.00 with membership on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Amazon’s Description of High Conflict
When we are baffled by the insanity of the “other side”—in our politics, at work, or at home—it’s because we aren’t seeing how the conflict itself has taken over.
That’s what “high conflict” does. It’s the invisible hand of our time. And it’s different from the useful friction of healthy conflict. That’s good conflict, and it’s a necessary force that pushes us to be better people.
High conflict is what happens when discord distills into a good-versus-evil kind of feud, the kind with an us and a them. In this state, the brain behaves differently. We feel increasingly certain of our own superiority, and everything we do to try to end the conflict, usually makes it worse. Eventually, we can start to mimic the behavior of our adversaries, harming what we hold most dear.
In this “compulsively readable” (Evan Osnos, National Book Award-winning author) book, New York Times bestselling author and award-winning journalist Amanda Ripley investigates how good people get captured by high conflict—and how they break free.
Our journey begins in California, where a world-renowned conflict expert struggles to extract himself from a political feud. Then we meet a Chicago gang leader who dedicates his life to a vendetta—only to realize, years later, that the story he’d told himself about the conflict was not quite true. Next, we travel to Colombia, to find out whether thousands of people can be nudged out of high conflict at scale. Finally, we return to America to see what happens when a group of liberal Manhattan Jews and conservative Michigan corrections officers choose to stay in each other’s homes in order to understand one another better, even as they continue to disagree.
All these people, in dramatically different situations, were drawn into high conflict by similar forces, including conflict entrepreneurs, humiliation, and false binaries. But ultimately, all of them found ways to transform high conflict into good conflict, the kind that made them better people. They rehumanized and recategorized their opponents, and they revived curiosity and wonder, even as they continued to fight for what they knew was right.
People do escape high conflict. Individuals—even entire communities—can short-circuit the feedback loops of outrage and blame, if they want to. This is an “insightful and enthralling” (The New York Times Book Review) book—and a mind-opening new way to think about conflict that will transform how we move through the world.
My three-star review of High Conflict
Interesting discussion on conflict but with a lot of interpretation and opinion
“Good conflict” is healthy conflict in which questions get asked, in which there is curiosity and movement in opinions. “High conflict” on the other hand is what happens when conflict devolves into a good versus evil kind of feud. The conflict takes on its own life and draws us in like a tar pit.
The book gives many examples of high conflict and explains how they came to be; the Hatfield’s and the McCoy, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, our current political division, couples getting divorced, gang warfare, guerilla warfare, civil war, etc. The book focuses much attention on Gary, a friendly lawyer who rather solves conflict than benefit from it, as is typically a lawyer’s job. Gary runs for a local office and wins but because he is thinking a little bit too highly about himself and his abilities, he by mistake excludes some really knowledgeable, willing and helpful people from what he refers to as “the old guard”, which leads to a high conflict that he himself created. However, in the end he becomes part of the solution. It is a good story.
The author makes a lot of interesting observations such as; we have group belongings, we form factions, we need belonging, giving people two choices is dangerous, a proportional representation system might be better than the current American system, people have biases that inflame conflict such as confirmation bias, and there’s a conflict industrial complex. There are fire starters, group identities, conflict entrepreneurs, and humiliation. Media and social networking can function as conflict entrepreneurs. The areas in Rwanda where the radio reception was better there were more killings.
To escape high conflict, we need to recognize the conflict entrepreneurs around us, avoid excluding and humiliating people, and recognize that people want to be heard. Getting out of high conflict includes recognizing a saturation point where people had enough, building new broader identities, reframing the situation, and clearing the path for combatants. Welcome former combatants home rather than shaming them. Avoiding conflict involves complicating the narrative from the beginning. Simplifications do damage. I felt all that was pretty good advice.
Then on page 183 a strange claim is made, implying that very few people concerned about climate change would want a “carbon fairy” to solve climate change (that carbon fairy could be nuclear power) because they want to use “climate change” as vehicle for something else. I am volunteering in a climate change organization, and I have never met anyone who isn’t part of it primarily to solve carbon emissions. Half are pro nuclear power the other half skeptical about it being a “climate fairy” (I am pro nuclear). Some are pro-capitalists, others more left leaning, a substantial minority are Republicans, and world views are all over the spectrum. So obviously page 183 makes a false claim probably for sensationalistic reasons.
That’s just one dubious claim, but it alerted me to read the book more critically and I realized that the author is far from objective. She definitely wants to promote her ideas and make her book look more interesting. She is doing that by carefully selecting examples and stories, interpreting those cherry-picked situations, and there’s a lot of opinions, and who knows what she may get wrong or misreporting? It seems at first to be an authoritative work, but it is not a scientific book. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. I believe a lot of what the book claims to be true, but I do not know. It is a journalist’s opinion and interpretation of conflict, and it is therefore less than I expected.
To see the Super Facts click here
Super Facts 
Hi Thomas, I am immeasurably grateful for what you and your friends are doing for us all. We had a huge rainstorm with hail in Johannesburg yesterday. It has never, in all my living relatives’ memory, rained here in July. More rain is expected today. While I was in London and Belgium there were drought conditions. No climate change? How can anyone believe that. I won’t read this book as I am also an environmentalist. But I thank you for the review.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Robbie. Yes, climate change has started to become noticeable in many places. In northern Sweden the snow seasons has become noticeably shorter and the eco zones are changing affecting reindeer herding and fishing, etc. However, hundreds of years of temperature measurement speaks volumes. I should say that the author writes about an important topic, and she is overall left leaning politically, and yet she takes an unfair potshot at environmentalists. She wrote the book before she knew us though. Since then, she must have learned that what she said in the book is not correct (I hope so).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do understand. You have written about the measurement of temperature of decades and centuries before, I remember. I’ve also done some self study on this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is good to educate yourself on a topic before forming opinions. I did not do that before on this topic and a few more, but I try to do better.
LikeLike
I always told my boys that before you consider entering a debate, argument, or even conversation about a specific topic, make sure you know your facts very well. I live by this view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that is good advice. I try to follow that as well. Also if someone is being rude, dismissive, or belittling others in the conversation, politely point it out, and tell them that since they are not interested in a mature good faith discussion you’ll leave.
LikeLike
Yes, that is also good advice. Thanks Thomas
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good review Thomas, i wasn’t expecting the book to end up sensationalizing experiences, but I guess the author is selling entertainment. It wasn’t until covid that I realized how divided the US is. What happened to being able to have a dialogue, listen to the other side and come away with fresh ideas? There seems to be no middle ground. Maggie
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you so much Maggie. The book speaks about an important topic, but the presentation has issues. I hope she has updated her viewpoint on environmentalists since she came to know us. It seems so. Yes, the middle ground has been dying. It is so important not to get stuck in a tribal mindset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing this review, and congratulations on being a member of the volunteer organization Citizens Climate Lobby,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your very kind words Luisa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re more than welcome 🙏💙🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I haven’t said it before, I am grateful for your work on climate change. As for the purity tests, so to speak, it’s unfortunate. I admit, Ted Cruz is not one of my favorite people, but I understand and admire the purpose of the CCL for meeting with him.
The book review was great, as always. Viewing the world in black and white is something children do, which is not to blame them. It’s how they make sense of the world. Adults can see shades of gray. There are absolutes, of course. Also part of being an adult is listening to someone you don’t agree with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much Denise. Yes, we talk to everyone and listen to everyone and try to learn even when we disagree and I feel many of the people (politicians and staffers) do the same if we do that. The book has an important message and discusses an important topic, and the author did a good job on the core topic of the book. I was just disappointed that she took a misguided potshot on environmentalists. Since then, she has learned about us and been a keynote speaker at our conferences twice. She cannot possibly have the same view anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a difficult topic. The fact that Amanda’s creds are all highly left–Atlantic, Politico, WP–your review cut through the noise for me. That appears true for many of her 1100+ reviews.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, you are right, she is left leaning, which shows, for example, when she mentions Trump as a fire starter, while not mentioning the firebrands on the left like Al Sharpton, and others. But I think that makes it even more surprising that she took the unnecessary potshot at environmentalists. However, she’s been a keynote speaker at our conferences twice since she wrote the book so hopefully, she has learned a thing or two since then.
The book brings up a difficult but important topic. We need to listen and learn from each other instead of fighting each other. Not to necessarily changing our minds but growing our understanding and having respect for those we disagree with. Insight and understanding are lacking today as division grows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this review, Thomas. The fact that you are involved with a group working to deal with climate change is admirable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much for your kind words Audrey
LikeLike
Thank you so much, Thomas, for lobbying for responsible and reasonable climate stewardship (my interpretation, but there it is). I’m so glad that you are dedicated to exploring facts, and that you listen and read with a discerning ear and eye.
High conflict seems to be everywhere – definitely in the US. We see it in families, communities, and certainly in the actions of our federal government – domestically and internationally. It’s scary that people have taken such sharp sides that they can’t hear each other, don’t trust each other, and find kindness impossible.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you so much Diane for your very kind words and I like your interpretation. I agree that high conflict is getting worse. I came to the US for the first time in 1987 as an exchange student and later on I ended up immigrating and it certainly was not like this back then. It might have been worse before, like during the Civil War, but we certainly don’t want to go back to that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this and all your hard work that can’t be easy. Yes the fact that sides are unable to talk anymore is what makes me most afraid. I blame trump and his divisive scare tactics that are all too effective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think most people on different sides of the isle can still talk about politics, even though that might not be advisable within families, depending on the maturity level of people. We have a family that is very mixed Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers, and so far, not a big problem. However, then we have these combative and arrogant people on both sides who can’t control themselves, or who try to start fires intentionally. The author calls them fire-starters. There’s a lot of them too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting to me how naming things can be useful…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I agree. She uses the terms fire-starter and conflict entrepeneur and those words explains so much of what is going on. The partisan politicians sending out incendiary texts and emails to people are conflict entrepeneurs and so are the Russian Trolls stirring things up, whether they are real people or bots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great book review Thomas. It was nice to hear about the volunteer work you’re doing. Tragically—high conflict and extreme levels of polarization are in full force right now. It’s a very bad state of affairs for all concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Mindful Mystic. Yes some people are able to handle differences and some are not. A lot of people are very disrespectful, misinformed and uninterested in facts, and some are even hateful, and they are dragging the rest of us with them like a tar pit. Hopefully, the situation can be turned around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Thomas I admire your work and commitment to climate change by actively being a member of the volunteer organization Citizens Climate Lobby…Your comments about that on-line friend are a very worrying trend to me we should be able to have differing views on the same topic without causing friction and outright exclusion by family and friends and it has sadly become a serious problem worldwide…
Climate change is real and so apparent now by various changes in the weather worldwide…so well done again, Thomas 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much for your kind words, Carol, and you are right about climate change. We know it is happening, and we know we are causing it this time chiefly due to our burning of fossil fuels. The evidence has been conclusive for several decades. I did not know that 15 years ago, but now I do.
Like you say, lately it has become very difficult for us to talk with each other when we have different opinions. There are so many people on both sides who are disrespectful and arrogant, and there are fire-starters and conflict entrepreneurs. We dragged into a tar-pit of conflict, which according to the author is normal human response. However, we have to be able to be above it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely it’s just a shame that so often the only option is to delete conversations and block the person who in their mind has the only view that is correct…so sad 😞
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are unfortunately right Carol. When you cannot have a discussion in good faith with someone it is better leave it, and if you don’t know the person personally, block them. Imagine trying to have a discussion with a hostile Russian Troll bot. I think I’ve done a couple of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A house divided against itself cannot stand” is a popular truism dating back to biblical times. As long as high conflict remains, I fear nothing will be accomplished. The book does make some good points, but I agree with you about the author’s comments on climate advocates’ agendas. As you yourself have demonstrated, there are no ulterior motives. Thank you for all you do in this regard!
P.S. High conflict has been creeping into Canadian politics as well. However, thanks to Trump and his ridiculous annexation threats/tariff war proclamations, we are now more united than ever before! Politicians from all parties across the country are working together to ward off the threat from the south.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes even though I agree with Amanda Ripley’s message, and I agree with her, but her unfortunate and untrue statement ruined it for me. I remember reading “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, I think in the Gospels, and I think it is true statement. The final outcome of the division if not halted could be something like a civil war which would be very bad, especially in the 21st century. I’ve read a book called American War about a future American Civil War. I certainly hope we are not getting there. Sometimes external threats can unite people for better and worse. Thank you for your interesting comment, Debbie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry your friend turned on you like that, proving he wasn’t really your friend at all. I’ve met some truly horrible people on Facebook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Dawn. I’ve noticed that many of his posts were incendiary and sometimes misguided but I still did not expect him to explode over the fact I met with someone he doesn’t like. Horrible people on Facebook, that’s what we have the block feature for.
LikeLike
Wonderful post and great review, Thomas. There is so much vitriol these days that I rarely say anything vaguely political. It’s just not worth the emotional energy. By nature and training, I strive to understand people – their biases, fears, needs, and so on. I listen more than I speak. But these days, I’d rather take a long walk – alone. I will write to elected officials if there is something I believe is essential for them to be aware of. Otherwise, as an Independent, I shy away from partisan divides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Gwen. I think that is very wise, staying away from partisan divides. Unfortunately, politics have become so contentious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this intelligent review and your work with the bipartisan climate action group. I appreciate the point that giving people just two choices is dangerous. Along with mainstream media, having only two main choices reinforces the divide. When I read, “Most people left interesting or nice comments (on your fb page) but then a far-left Facebook friend of mine left a very hostile comment,” I realized how easily one hostile comment can get more attention than all the interesting or nice comments. We can’t let the hostile loud voices drown out the voices of reason. We need more people willing and able to bridge the divide. Keep up the good work, Thomas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much JoAnna. You are right and it was a very good way to put it: “We can’t let the hostile loud voices drown out the voices of reason.” One hostile comment and you pay a lot of attention to it, but you shouldn’t let it be a fire-starter. I did not used to think so, but I think you are right, having only two parties can make this worse. I grew up in Sweden, with 8 or 9 or 10 parties, depending on year. They always formed blocks so it was two blocks in the end. However, one good thing with it was that the more extreme people ended up with small parties because the majority is in the middle. Also the anti-Democrat/liberal and the anti-Republican rhetoric doesn’t work when you have 10 parties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have often given too much time to the negative comments, so I understand. It gives me hope to know that at least Sweden can have more evolved elections. It makes sense for the extremes to have less power. I wonder how that could happen in the US. We need a likeable, smart candidate who is moderate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sweden has a parliamentary system and it works a little different. On the right you have the Sweden Democrats a nationalist far right party, the Moderates (Conservative) party, the Liberal party (sort of like moderate libertarians), the Christ Democrats, and then the Centrist party which sometimes switches over to the left. On the left you have the Social Democrats, the Environmentalist party, the Leftwing party, and the feminist initiative, which did not make it into the parliament last time (there is a threshold) but they made it into the European parliament. The two blocks compete but the parliamentary seats (349) have to be distributed proportionally to the votes they get. The winning block gets the entire executive branch but the prime minister cannot pick anyone he wants for the cabinet. That is distributed within the winning block according to the size of the party.
I am not sure switching to a parliamentary system would be good for the US. It is too different. However, I think there are two things that needs to change here in the US to make politics less extreme and that is open instead of closed primaries and gerrymandering. US districts in many states are not competitive. In Texas the politicians pick their voters instead of the other way around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting stuff. We need changes in those directions. Open primaries remind me of something Maine did where only the candidates with the highest numbers of votes continued on. I don’t remember what it’s called though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could it be a run-off? There is also ranked choice voting where you vote for the candidates in the order you want them. For example, if one candidate is really detestible to you, you would give him/her very low rank. This prevents candidates who are popular with some but also detestible to many from winning. I know Maine and Alaska use ranked choice voting in primaries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ranked choice! That was it. Thank you for reminding me. Makes sense!
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS. I sent you a friend request on FB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you JoAnna. I saw that and said yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Java Bean: “Ayyy, we’re sorry about your friend’s response to your post!”Lulu: “Our Dada hasn’t blocked any of his friends on Facebook who post political stuff he disagrees with, and there are a lot of them! Of course he also doesn’t engage with them on any of what they post because he says there’s no point, nobody is willing to listen.”Charlee: “On the other hand he has probably muted at least a hundred people on NextDoor, but like he says, ‘Those are not my friends, they’re just people who happen to live nearby and I don’t have to listen to them rant’.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Java Bean. I should say that I have friends, family, and FB friends with different opinions and it is normally not a problem. I blocked this guy after he left F-bomb filled comments on my post. I think he was about to do the same based on what he said. I just got to him first.
Charlee, muting on Next Doors sounds like a good idea. However, I hardly ever go there.
LikeLike
Nice post
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Satyam
LikeLiked by 1 person