Well, that's what we have to ask them whithout arguing with them.
Q: What do they do and how do they act and what motivates them to do so.
Some local answers from a female Physiotherapist and a Socialist (and a realist) at my table.
P: I want comfort.
S: We need a crash to become active.
S: You can't change the world but you can change your world. It is the only world that exist.
S: Just spread smiles around you and make people happy.
S: Don't make people upset if you can avoid it.
Follow-up discussions were telling me that it is simply how many steps a head they have to think. Logical ability or energy to think. It is not that they don't agree with us, it is just that the logic involves so many steps and energy and different aspects that they never thought about before. They are just more...lazy(comfortable) than us.
They also had judgments of details that after a discussion could be agreed upon, but they seemd to be drained of energy by thinking.
I learned that it is nothing wrong with the idea in itself, but the big uphill is to get people aware of all these steps of logic...or simply offer "a comfortable" solution showing them that change "of their world" is possible in a "comfortable way".
It might be a good idea to "wait for a crash" before presentation. I agree. That would maximize the effect of any campaign we do. How are things at home? Crashed yet?
And we should probably present it in a very positive way, so people will "feel happy" and "comfortable" while sharing our information, not attacking anyone or blaming anyone for crashing the system and "not make people upset".
I guess we should try really hard to present our ideas in a simple way and also make any voting system very easy and comfortable to use.
Please share your own interviews and your own conclusions here!
Well, that's what we have to ask them whithout arguing with them. :D
Q: What do they do and how do they act and what motivates them to do so.
Some local answers from a female Physiotherapist and a Socialist (and a realist) at my table.
P: I want comfort.
S: We need a crash to become active.
S: You can't change the world but you can change your world. It is the only world that exist.
S: Just spread smiles around you and make people happy.
S: Don't make people upset if you can avoid it.
Follow-up discussions were telling me that it is simply how many steps a head they have to think. Logical ability or energy to think. It is not that they don't agree with us, it is just that the logic involves so many steps and energy and different aspects that they never thought about before. They are just more...lazy(comfortable) than us.
They also had judgments of details that after a discussion could be agreed upon, but they seemd to be drained of energy by thinking.
I learned that it is nothing wrong with the idea in itself, but the big uphill is to get people aware of all these steps of logic...or simply offer "a comfortable" solution showing them that change "of their world" is possible in a "comfortable way".
It might be a good idea to "wait for a crash" before presentation. I agree. That would maximize the effect of any campaign we do. How are things at home? Crashed yet?
And we should probably present it in a very positive way, so people will "feel happy" and "comfortable" while sharing our information, not attacking anyone or blaming anyone for crashing the system and "not make people upset".
I guess we should try really hard to present our ideas in a simple way and also make any voting system very easy and comfortable to use.
Please share your own interviews and your own conclusions here! :)