Economic Strategy to Fight Protesters

I've always been skeptical of the benefits of protesting as a way to shout your vote. The infamous Westboro Baptist Church, as I've shared before, is a great example of protest gone bad. This may be the best strategy to get rid of them:

Comedy’s Lovable Queen of Mean Lisa Lampanelli made good on her promise to donate $1,000 to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis for every Westboro Baptist Church member who showed up to protest her recent stand-up show in Topeka, taking to Twitter after the show to say “Thanks to these a-holes, $44,000 will be donated to the GMHC!!!” 

She later bumped it up by $6k, tweeting “WBC inbreds counted 48 protesters, so I won’t quibble. I’ll make it an even $50,000!!!” 

Best part? The donation will be made in the hate group’s name. Thanks WBC!

Apparently this strategy has also worked for Planned Parenthood.

Why Fire and Brimstone Works

Here's the study:

People’s desires to see themselves as moral actors can contribute to their striving for and achievement of a sense of self-completeness. The authors use self-completion theory to predict (and show) that recalling one’s own (im)moral behavior leads to compensatory rather than consistent moral action as a way of completing the moral self. In three studies, people who recalled their immoral behavior reported greater participation in moral activities (Study 1), reported stronger prosocial intentions (Study 2), and showed less cheating (Study 3) than people who recalled their moral behavior.

It recalibrates our moral math.

Benefits of Simplified Morality

I spend a lot of time trying to simplify complicated topics. Everything from immigration, to voting, to WikiLeaks. Like the title of this blog suggests, I'm trying to filter a lot of information into understandable bits. At the same time, I've longed to show just how un-simple many topics are. Everything from charity, to foreign policy, to human/animal relations. This comes from one of my dislikes of oversimplifying issues that are not black and white. But yet we simplify things all the time. We simplify stories to make them convincing. I simplify US History to make it digestible. We all simplify ourselves into clear likable labels. This might be why:

We propose that the rule that is cognitively most accessible during the decision making process (e.g., “Save lives” or “Do not kill”) will influence how people solve these moral dilemmas. Three studies are reported that indeed demonstrate that the most accessible rule influences willingness to intervene within footbridge dilemmas. This effect is found even when the accessibility of the rule is induced subliminally.

By creating a helpful set of personal rules we increase the likelihood we will follow them. We can improve our moral math by simplifying the equations. This is why when the normal rules of society break down, so do our personal moral standards. So have a set of moral rules to live by, but be sure not to overestimate their scope.

The Problem with Being Rich

Since one of my most popular posts (and several since), I've tried to convince my readers that we are rich. My goal is not to show that wealth leads to happiness, but to put financial stress in perspective. If we worry less about money, perhaps we can worry more about what really matters. I recently came across this sermon from a pastor in California. In it he does two things I think should be done more in American churches. He reminds them their rich and then he warns them about it. The Bible is clear that in God's economy, wealth can be a hindrance. I'm usually pretty weary talking about controversial religious topics here (not here), not because it's not important, but because I fear trivializing such vulnerable issues. I don't necessarily endorse everything he says, and it pretty long, but I highly recommended this sermon.

Worthwhile Sentences on Death

From the oldest federal judge in the country: "At this age, I'm not even buying green bananas."

From Justin Scott: "either you cannot bear the idea of a horrific earthquake in Japan (or Haiti, or China) with God, or you cannot bear it without him."

From The Atlantic: "And they never—and I mean never—ask the critical Kantian question: what if everyone in the world consumed these supposedly sustainable alternatives to conventional food?"

From Oprah Winfrey: ‎"Forgiveness is letting go of the hope that the past can be changed."

From Justin Landwehr: "Life is too short to spend it doing things that you wish would hurry up and end."

Update: From Harry Houdini: “Nobody wants to see a man die, but everyone wants to be there when it happens.”

Dedication Begets Dedication Revisited

Last year I mentioned how dedication towards one person, say a child with special needs, increases dedication towards others. Meaning, our ability to sacrifice doesn't burn out, it strengthens. Here's an experiment that supports this idea:

The ability of compassion felt toward one person to reduce punishment directed at another was examined. The use of a staged interaction in which one individual cheats to earn higher compensation than others resulted in heightened third-party punishment being directed at the cheater. However, among participants who were induced to feel compassion toward a separate individual, punishment of the cheater disappeared even though the cheater clearly intended to cheat and showed no remorse for doing so. Moreover, additional analyses revealed that the reduction in punishment was directly mediated by the amount of compassion participants experienced toward the separate individual.

I feel like there is an important religious lesson here.

Charitable Impact of Religion

Recently came across this essay describing the differences in giving between believers and non-believers:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

And this has nothing to do with income or political ideology:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups.

Not only are they donating more often, the religion are donating more total:

The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered.

And this isn't just a measure of relgious giving to religious charities:

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

The article closes with this:

Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside. If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.

Hat tip to Justin Scott.

Don't Give Money to Panhandlers

Finally, a newspaper confirming what so many already know. From The Guardian:

But Thames Reach is citing "overwhelming evidence that people who beg on the street do so to buy hard drugs, particularly crack cocaine and heroin". Outreach team members estimate 80% of people begging do so to support a drug habit. The research is corroborated by the results of drug tests by the police on a group of people arrested for begging in Westminster; 70% tested positive for crack cocaine or heroin.

"Giving to people who beg is not a benign act without consequences," said Mike Nicholas, a spokesman for Thames Reach. "As an organisation that has worked with people on the street for over 30 years, we have seen many lives damaged by hard drugs and alcohol misuse. We have even lost people through overdoses in situations where a significant portion of the money they spent on drugs came from members of the public giving loose change."

Thames Reach is a London-based charity that works with the homeless. Here's how they help:

She escaped her addiction when Mark Smith, an outreach worker, persuaded her to stop living rough and get medical help. It was a huge breakthrough for someone whose life was a cycle of begging, prostitution and addiction and who had spent almost two decades living in office cupboards, a tent on marshland and in a cardboard box under a railway bridge.

"Mark won my trust, he didn't talk down to me," she said. "He was very patient and I used to look forward to seeing him, sharing his fags and having a burger."

After Mark had asked her "14 or 15 times" to think about coming off the streets, Tracy relented and is now off heroin and on methadone.

I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to not be generous with your time or your money. I simply want good intentions to be met with good results. We all desire to do good, but don't let the guilt of not giving lead you to donate to the detriment of the receiver. Here are some suggestions I've gathered:

1. The goal in helping is to move the needy towards less need.
2. Don't give cash, gifts, or even groceries (anything can be traded).
3. Relationships are the best and hardest way to change.
4. I'm afraid often we pay beggars not out of mercy, but so they will leave us alone.
5. Work is inherently good for society and the worker. Finding them a job can be a great place begin for them and your relationship.
6. Know your neighborhood so well that you know what it needs and can decipher between hustlers and the needy.
7. Donate these organizations that help the homeless. Won't make you as warm and fuzzy, but they have a better track record at making others feel warm and fuzzy (or at least warm).
8. Find the local resources in your area (churches, charities, government services). Keep their card and contact information on you.
9. If your area doesn't have a satisfactory resource, make one. 
10. Live in a neighborhood that allows you to help your neighbors. Remember we need to live with those we help.

These suggestions scare me because they require more of me than I am currently giving. Most people agree that we are at least partially responsible for those around us. Starting with family, then community, and so on. We are not only responsible for how and how much we give. Like in the personal example above described, change is hard, change is exhausting, but positive change is worthwhile.

Don't Let You Get in the Way

Although I've been mostly positive about my own blogging, one of my big worries is that once my ideas go public, they will become static. That in an effort to not contradict myself, I will be less likely to adopt different ideas. Even worse, if this is true for me, then maybe it's also true of the billions of other people putting there thoughts and ideas on social networking sites everyday. Though there may be benefits to this (who's to say the new you is better?), I think most personal growth is just that, growth.

Economist Robin Hanson once published a list of "signs that your opinions function more to signal loyalty and ability than to estimate truth" on his blog Overcoming Bias. Here they are:

1. You find it hard to be enthusiastic for something until you know that others oppose it.
2. You have little interest in getting clear on what exactly is the position being argued.
3. Realizing that a topic is important and neglected doesn't make you much interested.
4. You have little interest in digging to bigger topics behind commonly argued topics.
5. You are less interested in a topic when you don’t foresee being able to talk about it.
6. You are uncomfortable taking a position near the middle of the opinion distribution.
7. You are uncomfortable taking a position of high uncertainty about who is right.
8. You care far more about current nearby events than similar distant or past/future events.
9. You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.
10. You are reluctant to change your publicly stated positions in response to new info.
11. You are reluctant to agree a rival’s claim, even if you had no prior opinion on the topic.
12. You are reluctant to take a position that raises the status of rivals.
13. You care more about consistency between your beliefs than about belief accuracy.
14. You go easy on sloppy arguments by folks on “your side.”
15. You have little interest in practical concrete implications of commonly argued topics.
16. Your opinion doesn't much change after talking with smart folks who know more.
17. You are especially eager to drop names when explaining positions and arguments.
18. You find it hard to list weak points and counter-arguments on your positions.
19. You feel passionately about a topic, but haven’t sought out much evidence.
20. You are reluctant to not have an opinion on commonly discussed topics.

Similarly, entrepreneur Paul Graham has written an essay on the topic of "keeping your identity small". He speaks specifically about problem conversations with religion and politics:

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

What does this mean for my desire for perspective and the descriptive terms I have on the top right of this blog?

Economics of Hanukkah

I've done the economics of Christmas, and since I'm an equal opportunity blogger, here's one for you Old Testament only readers:

In case you're lost, here's some economics help and here's some Jewish history help.

The Curse of Volunteering Abroad

Two years ago I posted on the problems of direct country to country aid. Apparently well-intentioned Westerners are also doing harm in another way, volunteering:

The study reveals that short-term volunteer projects can do more harm than good. Wealthy tourists prevent local workers from getting much-needed jobs, especially when they pay to volunteer; hard-pressed institutions waste time looking after them and money upgrading facilities; and abused or abandoned children form emotional attachments to the visitors, who increase their trauma by disappearing back home.

There are also problems of Americans giving money to orphanages which are kept purposely squalid to elicit more pity. These:

"orphans" might have been bought from impoverished parents, coerced from loving families or simply rented for the night. An official study found just a quarter of children in these so-called orphanages have actually lost both parents. And these private ventures are proliferating fast: the numbers increased by 65% in just three years.

And don't just send donations either:

We have seen it with the dumping of cheap food and clothes, devastating industries and encouraging a dependency culture. And now we see it with "voluntourism", the fastest-growing sector of one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet.

And finally, here's why we do it:

Inevitably, the needs of impoverished communities are subverted by the demands of wealthy visitors. Alexia Nestora ran the North American arm of a major "voluntourism" group and admitted such firms loved orphanage stops. "They sell the best and are the most tearjerking projects to pitch to the media. Volunteers come away with the classic picture with an orphan and tell all their friends about their experience

I wouldn't totally negate the value of the experience of short-term mission work. I spend enough time here trying to convince you you're rich, when one trip abroad can do it much more effectively. But my fear is that this becomes a way to pay to remove global guilt instead of actually solving the problem. If you want to go on a trip, go on a trip. If you want to help specific people in need, I'm convinced the only ways are to live with them or have them live with you.

Limits of Human Progress and the Power of Prayer

Earlier this year I posted C.S. Lewis' fictional description of hell, a world without scarcity. Before that I had confessed that a world without death be very challenging to my understand of Christianity. Recently, my good friend Justin posted a great interview with Christian and renowned scientist, Francis Collins. Although the entire conservation is worth reading, I especially enjoyed his response to the question of scientific innovation removing suffering from our world:

In spite of the fact that we have achieved all these wonderful medical advances and made it possible to live longer and eradicate diseases, we will probably still figure out ways to argue with each other and sometimes to kill each other, out of our self-righteousness and our determination that we have to be on top. So the death rate will continue to be one per person, whatever the means. We may understand a lot about biology, we may understand a lot about how to prevent illness, and we may understand the life span. But I don't think we'll ever figure out how to stop humans from doing bad things to each other. That will always be our greatest and most distressing experience here on this planet, and that will make us long the most for something more.

Mankind has come far, but we still have a long way to go. One way to do that is through prayer. Again, Francis Collins:

Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into doing what we want him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of trying to get into fellowship with God. I'm trying to figure out what I should be doing rather than telling Almighty God what he should be doing. Look at the Lord's Prayer. It says, "Thy will be done." It wasn't, "Our Father who art in Heaven, please get me a parking space."

This idea of prayer influencing the prayer isn't just theological, it's measurable:

the participants were randomly assigned to one of four daily activities: praying for the well-being of their partner, engaging in undirected prayer, thinking about positive aspects of their partner or reflecting upon their day. Participants did as they were asked for four weeks, and kept written logs of what they were praying (or thinking). At the end of this period, the team again measured infidelity and how sacred the participants felt their romantic relationships were.

Dr Fincham and his colleagues report in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that although all participants had similar infidelity ratings, averaging 3.5, to start with, at the end those ratings varied considerably between the four groups. People who had prayed for their partners averaged 2.4, significantly lower than their initial scores, whereas those who thought positively about their partners or considered their day both showed ratings of 3.9—significantly higher.

[...]

Scores reflecting participants’ views of how sacred their romantic relationships were changed during the four-week period as well. Values at the start of the study were much the same among all participants, averaging 3.2. However, by the end of the study, those who had prayed for their partners showed stronger beliefs that their relationships were sacred than those who had just had positive thoughts about their partners, with average scores of 3.7 and 2.8 respectively. Dr Fincham suspects that the act of praying about romantic partners leads people to view their relationship as something sacred and not to be damaged. This, he argues, is the force that is reducing infidelity in the study.

Though that data is self-reported, it was confirmed by unbiased observers giving their own assumptions about changes in fidelity.

God Allows for Inefficiency

I recently came across these verses in Deuteronomy 15:1-3:

1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you.

As you might have predicted, it caused some problems:

Seeing that the law which prescribed the release of all debts every seventh year brought about the harmful consequence that people refused to loan to one another and thus violated what was written in the Law, namely, that a money loan should not be withheld because of the approach of the Sabbatical year

A deadweight loss, that is a loss to society, was created. It hurt lenders and it hurt borrowers. This was no surprise to God. Here are verses 7-9:

7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing.

Although the problem was predicted and offered a solution (be generous), the problem still occurred. So much so that Jewish culture created the compromise of an interest-free loan in the seventh year. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. It is certainly something created specifically for the Jewish people's interaction with each other (with the emphasis on "brother" in verse 3). Either way, I think there is a characteristic of God that cannot be missed: He was willing to created inefficiencies in the market to strengthen cultural and relational bonds. And since he is unchanging, he still is.

Guest Post: Rethink Tithing

Brad Jones recently moved to North Africa with his wife and two children. He has agreed to share his thoughts on a discussion we had this summer about giving to the church. Oh and he's my brother-in-law.

If you go to church, you’ve probably heard that you’re supposed to give 10% of your money to them. That’s what a “good Christian” does, right? Well as I’ve studied this issue, the Bible never tells us to tithe to our churches, and Jesus actually criticizes some guys who were religiously giving a tenth of everything they owned.

The believers in the Old Testament were told to give a tenth of their crops and their cattle to the temple, but it’s a significant omission that Jesus doesn’t reinforce this command nor do any of the writers of the New Testament. My big reason for pointing this out is not because I believe that we’re off the hook in giving our money away, but instead to point out that the basis for why we should give has changed in a critical way.

Because of Jesus, lots of stuff has changed for us. The Bible says so. For instance, we don’t have to sacrifice animals to gain atonement for our sins like the people in the Old Testament – Jesus is the final sacrifice. And the Sabbath has been changed from Saturday to the first day of the week to celebrate the day of his resurrection. Many Old Testament laws are changed or fulfilled because Jesus was the climax of their purpose. The command to tithe was a command for us to be like God, who is the ultimate giver. And now that Jesus has come, we see the ultimate picture of sacrificial giving. Jesus gave 100% of himself. The Apostle Paul writes, “He became poor, so that we might become rich”. He died so that we might live. Jesus is modeling God’s desire for us to be generous givers. To think that still giving 10% of our income away is being obedient to God’s desire for us to be givers is like continuing to sacrifice animals and expecting them to atone for our sins. Jesus is a new standard for our lives – and a new standard for giving.

This is so much better, and more satisfying! The old tithing law is like paying rent; you just give a set amount to an exacting landlord. But Jesus is showing us a new way of giving. Jesus has said that we are his ambassadors who should invest our lives (money included) in ways that can change the world! We owe Jesus everything we have, so we have to spend every dollar wisely. Only give away your money to causes that are awesome! And we shouldn’t limit our giving to 10% of our money. The New Testament says we are to “bear one another’s burdens” and we shouldn’t expect to be able to do that unless we ourselves are burdened! If you’re not giving sacrificially, then you’re not giving like God does. Let Jesus be your model.

Tithing is a bad goal because it is an old law that we do out of duty. Good giving will come when we are focused on Jesus and not on a law. And the giving that flows out of our personal relationship with Jesus will be painfully sacrificial and shockingly joyful. Let him be your leader and use your head when giving your money away. The world is at stake and he has chosen you to represent him as his ambassador to the world.

Please contact me if you are interested in a guest post.

Difference Between Humans and Animals, Part X

Conservative Wesley Smith claims it is our morality and what that means for our interaction with the rest of the natural world:

Humans, Smith argues, are the only moral creatures: they have innate moral worth and their well-being always takes precedence over the well-being of animals, who are amoral creatures. Humans do indeed have a moral obligation to promote animal welfare, but they are also entitled to use animals, particularly if the use of animals alleviates human suffering.

What's the difference between humans and animals? Perhaps it the fact that we are even asking that question gives us the right to use the animal kingdom for our benefit. My next question is, in value, how many animals make one human?

Here's part one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of this series.

Role of the Church in the State

Christianity, with over 2 billion adherents, is the largest religion in the world. It is also the fastest growing. Thanks mostly to Africa and Asia, there 25 million believers added each year. Yet in academic circles, religion is often relegated to the background or worse, ignored as myth and fairytale. Religion's importance is hard to ignore, but its role in a diverse democracy is even harder to understand.

For centuries Europe, one of the few places Christianity is shrinking, has decided to combine church and state, with devastating results (Crusades, Spanish  Inquisition, etc). But even today, the strong ties of European governments and their preferred religion have hurt both church and state. The British government, although it gives no direct funds to the Church of England, is much closer than most Americans would be comfortable with. For example, the Church of England gets 26 unelected members in the House of Lords (like our Senate). More recently, the United Kingdom's Big Society plan, though appealing in some ways, could tie the two financially even tighter.

Religious freedom, perhaps one of the United States' greatest exports, has allowed for a flourishing religious and secular society. Political institutions should not hinder or support Christianity (or any religion), because Christians have different perspectives on politics. So what is the role of the church in the state? In a lecture to to U.C. Berkley, Pastor Tim Keller (earlier) describes the role of the church as one that "shows us what human flourishing looks like", then we let the political debate begin.

Burqa Ban Limits Liberty

Spain is considering a ban on burqas, something France and Belgium have already done. There is distinction between freedom from influence and freedom from force. Understandably the veil is a representation of the barrier many women experience, it is still a choice. Like all choices there are repercussions. Liberty by definition is the power to do as one pleases and legal limits, no matter how good the intentions, don't expand liberty.

Reasonableness of God

Within the PCA, the denomination to which I am a member, Tim Keller is well known. He is a bestselling author and pastor at a large church in NYC. He was invited to speak at the Googleplex as part of the Talks@Google series. Though it is long (42 minutes), this talk is one of the best I've ever heard on the topic of logic and religion. Take it from someone who doesn't like to invest too much time into something, this is worth it:


I would love to hear responses from believers and non-believers.

From Anger into Pity

If you've had friends, family, or even acquaintances, then you've surely had tough relationships. We are regularly being treated poorly by those around us. The worst is that most pain comes from those who claim to care the most. Strangers can only do so much damage. It is the people we trust that hurt us the most. This can often lead to anger and bitterness for not being given the dignity that every human deserves. The anger is both understandable and justified, but often not fully informed.

People who hurt others are often hurt themselves. A great example from the school system is bullies. A recent study found that bullies have poor social skills, are overly negative toward others and themselves. They are also more likely to grow up in a home with conflict and do poorly academically. The most interesting part, is that they share all of these traits with their victims. Perfectly happy people do not enjoy inflicting physical and emotional harm on others.

Knowing this can help us when interacting with difficult people. It doesn't excuse their action, but it helps explain it. Turning our anger into pity helps us to forgive them and possibly reconcile with them. If you've ever held bitterness towards some person or group, and I have, then you know how much damage that it can cause for you. And finally, if you're honest with yourself, then you have to admit you're not only on the receiving side, but often on the giving side of pain as well.

Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works

David Brooks nails it on the head:

In a culture that generally celebrates empowerment and self-esteem, A.A. begins with disempowerment. The goal is to get people to gain control over their lives, but it all begins with an act of surrender and an admission of weakness.

In a culture that thinks of itself as individualistic, A.A. relies on fellowship. The general idea is that people aren’t really captains of their own ship. Successful members become deeply intertwined with one another — learning, sharing, suffering and mentoring one another. Individual repair is a social effort

Don't deal with the symptom, deal with the person:

In a world in which gurus try to carefully design and impose their ideas, Wilson surrendered control. He wrote down the famous steps and foundations, but A.A. allows each local group to form, adapt and innovate. There is less quality control. Some groups and leaders are great; some are terrible. But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic.

Alcoholics have a specific problem: they drink too much. But instead of addressing that problem with the psychic equivalent of a precision-guidance missile, Wilson set out to change people’s whole identities. He studied William James’s “The Varieties of Religious Experience.” He sought to arouse people’s spiritual aspirations rather than just appealing to rational cost-benefit analysis. His group would help people achieve broad spiritual awakenings, and abstinence from alcohol would be a byproduct of that larger salvation.

This is also useful outside of the specific problem of alcoholism.