Vision Atascadero is committed to developing proactive, citizen-created solutions to the problems that face Atascadero. We encourage city leaders to speak and act in a thoughtful, reasonable manner whenever they engage in public discourse or act in an official capacity. At the same time, problem-solving requires more than communication between city officials. Community members must come together to develop and represent the diversity of city interests, so that all our stories can contribute to building a common narrative.

How does Atascadero benefit from a deliberative, interactive approach to citizen policy design?

• Deliberation enhances civic participation—one of the crucial requirements of democracy;
• It encourages more thoughtful listening and speaking;
• It relies on empathy and argumentation, leading to more reflective decision-making;
• It facilitates better problem-solving by taking advantage of the diversity of available information.

Facts and Values
We believe that fact-based deliberation is crucial to developing successful policy. The quality and reliability of evidence that warrants us to make conclusions and recommendations about public policy is the foundation of a strong, informative argument. That is not to say that deliberation should not be emotional. Indeed, the distinction between facts and values, or fact-based and emotion-based communication is a blurry one, because facts have value. Public policy requires making moral choices, and we can’t make moral choices without emotional information. Without emotions, we tend to operate out of habit, or on autopilot. Deliberation, or the discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue, requires emotions like urgency to produce alertness, hope to produce inspiration, and self-esteem and solidarity to move us to action.

Emotions can also inhibit interaction and deliberation. Fear can paralyze us, apathy can inhibit expression, and isolation can make interaction difficult. Constructive, fact-based deliberation requires that we counter fear with hope, apathy with urgency, and isolation with solidarity and empathy.

Consider the following examples of destructive (–) and constructive (+) uses of emotional information:

1. – Negatively labeling people who disagree with your position instead of responding to the arguments they make;
   + Being alert to the issues and arguments themselves, rather than the people on one side or the other;

2. – Stubbornly insisting on one approach without evaluating alternatives;
   + Looking for areas of mutual agreement and creative solutions;

3. – Using subjective criteria to evaluate options—e.g., what’s good for me or my group;
   + Using objective criteria to evaluate options—e.g., what has worked well in other cities; how those with different values can be accommodated;

4. – Relying on coercion, deception, or sarcasm to achieve results;
   + Focusing on common principles and arguments backed by evidence.

5. – Reacting negatively when opponents speak; applauding those we agree with;
   + Listening respectfully to people on all sides of an issue.

How Deliberation Works

Language Matters
Whenever we engage in any kind of discourse, whether public or private, our words have power. They can make people laugh or cry; they can promote peace or war. The effectiveness of an argument depends on the use of evidence, logical connections between facts, and shared understanding of those facts. Ultimately the persuasiveness of an argument depends on some level of empathy, or understanding of others, to get them to agree with, or at least understand, our position.

Good citizenship requires us to be active readers and listeners. It’s an essential function in a democracy. To accomplish this task, it’s important to think critically about the issues that we face. We need to be critical, without being coercive. Deliberation is not only about representing interests; it’s about improving the quality of communication. We encourage our fellow Atascadero citizens, whenever they are listening to a speaker, reading a letter or editorial in the newspaper, or speaking and writing themselves, to watch for narrow, inconsistent and unreflective arguments. They often divert attention from the real issues we face. The more we rely on arguments that are based on reliable facts, shared reasoning and empathy, the more likely we are to make good decisions for our city and for ourselves.

Diversity Matters
In his famous Federalist #10, James Madison provided some critical insights into political decision making. He argued that citizens are best served when leaders have to make broad public appeals as a means to achieving their ends. The key for Madison was diversity, where by bringing together “a greater variety of parties and interests, you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.” When multiple interests are actively working toward a collective solution, building a majority coalition takes cooperation. This provides greater incentive to speak to the interests of others, because claims like “this is good for me” or “It’s my right” don’t get much traction. Any one group seeking to advance its agenda must make arguments in language that is agreeable to other groups. Successful policy choices are then based on what groups deserve, rather than what they want, and what policies are good for the community, rather than what is good for any single group.

Deliberation creates better policy by tapping into collective intelligence. As individuals, our knowledge is severely limited. We make better policy if we have more information to draw on, and a variety of information sources leaves us less vulnerable to unanticipated consequences. Just as diverse ecosystems are more productive and less vulnerable than controlled ones, and just as diverse economies are more productive than centrally-organized ones, the capacity to draw on a variety of knowledge sources makes for better long term policy. Our citizens have the diversity of opinion we need. Now is the time to put collective intelligence to work for us.

Endnotes
Marshall Ganz, “What is Public Narrative”
James Madison, “Federalist 10”
Tom Atlee, The Tao of Democracy
Scott Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies

Logical Fallacies & How To Avoid Them

What are logical fallacies?
Logical fallacies are defects that weaken and destroy arguments. Instead of providing supporting evidence for a position, they undermine it. Some logical fallacies are so commonplace that they have been labeled to make them easier to recognize. When people rely on fallacies, instead of facts and logic, they weaken their position.

What are some common fallacies to avoid?

1. Hasty generalization (also called stereotyping when it refers to people)
   This fallacy involves making assumptions about a whole group based on an insufficient sample.

   Examples of hasty generalizations/stereotypes:
   Women are vain.
   Men are thoughtless.
   Teens are irresponsible.

2. Personal Attack (also called ad hominem)
   This fallacy focuses attention on people, rather than the evidence the speaker/writer uses. The arguer criticizes the person making the argument by labeling him or her.

   Examples of personal attacks:
   Those people are liberals/fascists/socialists/elitists/good old boys, etc., so why should we believe them?
   (The issues are the merits of their positions, not who the people are.)
   I’m opposed to any music that snob Mozart composes.
   (Labeling Mozart does not address the issue of how good his music is.)

3. Red Herring
   This fallacy introduces a side issue that diverts attention from the real issue.

   Examples of red herrings:
   Everyone else was speeding too. (The issue is whether you were speeding.)
   Why should we trust any idea from New York? (The place where an idea
   originates is irrelevant; the point is whether the idea has merit.)

4. Slippery Slope
   This fallacy argues that a chain reaction with serious consequences will result if even one step is taken in a certain direction.

   Example of slippery slope: If I don’t get this job, I’ll never find employment again.

5. Either/ Or Fallacy
   This fallacy presents a complex issue as having only two sides. Most serious issues can’t be reduced to two extremes.

   Example of either/or reasoning: Either we do more testing, or public education suffers. (Perhaps there are other issues that are equally important, or more important, to education— like class size, salaries, teaching methods, etc.)

6. Oversimplified Causes
   Most causes have more than one effect; most effects have more than one cause.
   When two events occur close together, one does not necessarily cause the other.

   Examples of oversimplified causes:
   It’s sure to rain if I wash my car. (Rain has different causes.)
   World War II was caused by the Treaty of Versailles.
   (It may have been a factor, but there were other causes that should be considered.)

7. Appeals to Emotion
   This fallacy substitutes emotion for logic. The emotional appeals that are frequently used in arguments are appeals to flattery, fear, pity, authority, etc.

   Examples of appeals to emotion:
   Cindy Crawford wears that perfume, so you should too. (Appeal to authority)
   Buy a Brand X smoke alarm, and your family will be safe. (Appeal to fear)
   (Smoke alarms are important, but this alarm should be compared to others.)

We encourage our fellow Atascadero citizens, whenever they are listening to a speaker, reading a letter or editorial in the newspaper, or speaking and writing themselves, to watch for breaks in logic, such as the fallacies listed above. They divert attention from the real issues. The more we rely on arguments that are based on facts and sound reasoning, the more likely we are to make good decisions for our city and for ourselves.