Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology

The questions of how humankind came to be, and whether we are alone in the universe, have captured imaginations for millennia. But to answer these questions, scientists must first understand life itself and how it could have arisen.

In our work as evolutionary biochemists and protein historians, these core questions form the foundation of our research programs. To study life’s history billions of years ago, we often use clues called molecular “fossils” – ancient structures shared by all living organisms.

Recently, we discovered that an important molecular fossil found in an ancient protein family may not be what it seems. The dilemma centers, in part, on a simple question: What does it mean if a simple molecular structure – the fossil – is found in every single organism on Earth? Do molecular fossils point to the seeds that gave rise to modern biological complexity, or are they simply the stubborn pieces that have resisted erosion over time? The answers have far-reaching implications for how scientists understand the origins of biology.

Follow the phosphorus to follow life

Life is made of many different building blocks, one of the most important of which is the chemical element phosphorus. Phosphorus makes up part of your genetic material, powers complex metabolic reactions and acts as a molecular switch to control enzymes.

Phosphorus compounds – specifically a charged form called phosphate – have a number of unique chemical properties that other biological compounds cannot match. In the words of the pioneering organic chemist F.H. Westheimer, they are chemically able to “do almost everything.”

Their unique combination of stability, versatility and adaptability is why many researchers argue that following phosphorus is key to finding life. The presence of phosphorus both close to home – in the ocean or on one of Saturn’s moons – and in the farthest reaches of our galaxy is strong evidence for the potential for life beyond Earth.

If phosphorus is so critical to life, how did early biology predating cells first use it?

Today, biological organisms are able to make use of phosphates through proteins – molecular machines that regulate all aspects of life. By binding to proteins, phosphates regulate metabolism and cellular communication, and they serve as a source of cellular energy.

Further, the process of phosphorylation, or adding a phosphate group to a protein, is ubiquitous in biology and allows proteins to perform functions their individual building blocks cannot. Without proteins, the existence of organisms such as bacteria and humans may not be possible.

Given how essential phosphorus is to life, scientists hypothesize that phosphate binding was among the first biological functions to emerge on Earth. In fact, current evidence suggests that the first phosphate-binding proteins are truly ancient – even older than the last universal common ancestor, the hypothetical mother cell to all life on Earth that existed around 4 billion years ago.

A mysterious phosphate-binding fossil

One family of phosphate-binding proteins, called P-loop NTPases, regulates everything from the communication between cells to the storage of energy and are found across the tree of life. Because P-loop NTPases are among the most ancient protein families, analyzing their properties can provide key insights into both the emergence of proteins and how primitive life used phosphates.

Although P-loop NTPases are diverse in structure, they share a common motif called a P-loop. This component binds to phosphate by wrapping a nest of amino acids – the building blocks that make up proteins – around the molecule. Every known organism has multiple families of P-loop NTPase, which makes the P-loop an excellent example of a molecular fossil that can provide clues about the evolution of life. Our crude analysis of the human genome estimates that humans have about 5,000 copies of P-loops.

When part of a larger protein structure, the P-loop folds like origami into a shape that is ideal for hugging a phosphate molecule. These nests are extremely similar to each other, even when the surrounding proteins are only distantly related in function. A landmark study in 2012 argued that even if the P-loop nest is extracted from a protein, it can still bind to phosphate. In other words, the ability of a P-loop to form a nest is determined by its interactions with phosphate, not its protein scaffold.

This study provided the first evidence that some forms of the P-loop sequence could have functioned billions of years ago, even before the emergence of large, complex proteins. If true, this implies that P-loop nests may have seeded the emergence and evolution of many of the phosphate-binding proteins seen today.

Interrogating the history of the P-loop

The pioneer of bioinformatics, Margaret Oakley Dayhoff, hypothesized in 1966 that the large collection of big proteins seen today arose from small peptides that were duplicated and fused over long periods of time. Although P-loops may have evolved in a different way, Dayhoff’s realization was the first to clarify how complex forms could have arisen from much simpler ones.

Inspired by Dayhoff’s hypothesis, we sought to interrogate the role that simple P-loops may have played in the evolution of the complex proteins key to life. Our findings challenge what’s currently known about these molecular fossils.

Using computer models, we compared a range of P-loops from the P-loop NTPase family to a control group made of the same amino acids but in a different order. While these control loops are also found in proteins, they do not form nests.

Although the P-loops and the control loops are very different in their nest-forming ability, we found that they both are able to form transient nests when embedded in proteins. This meant that, contrary to popular belief, the amino acid sequence of P-loops aren’t special in their ability to form nests – as would be expected if they alone were the seeds for many modern proteins.

A fossil eroded over time

Our work strongly suggests that while the P-loop is a molecular fossil, the true nature of its form billions of years ago may have been eroded by the sands of time.

For example, when we repeated our simulations in a different solvent – specifically methanol – we found that P-loops situated in their parent proteins were able to regain some of their ability to form nests. This doesn’t mean that being in methanol drove the first proteins with P-loops to form the nests critical for life. But it does emphasize the importance of considering the surrounding environment when studying peptides and proteins.

Just as archaeologists know to be careful in how they interpret physical fossils, historians of protein evolution could take similar care in their interpretation of molecular fossils. Our results complicate the current understanding of early protein evolution and, consequently, some aspects of the origins of life.

In resetting the field’s broader understanding of how these crucial proteins emerged, scientists are poised to start rewriting our own evolutionary history on this planet.

Caroline Lynn Kamerlin receives funding from the NASA Exobiology program.

Liam Longo receives funding from the NASA Exobiology program.

– ref. Molecular ‘fossils’ offer microscopic clues to the origins of life – but they take care to interpret – https://theconversation.com/molecular-fossils-offer-microscopic-clues-to-the-origins-of-life-but-they-take-care-to-interpret-259271

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Remy Dou, Associate Professor of Teaching and Learning, University of Miami

Employers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics – commonly called the STEM industries – continue to struggle to attract female applicants. In its 2024 jobs report, the National Science Board found that men outnumber women almost 3-to-1 in STEM jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree and over 8-to-1 in STEM jobs that don’t, such as electrical, plumbing or construction work.

Despite women being just as academically prepared for many STEM roles as men, if not more so, and the fact that STEM jobs offer higher salaries and greater job security than non-STEM jobs, men continue to dominate this section of the workforce.

I am a social scientist who studies the relationship between education, identity and science, and since 2019, I’ve led the Talking Science research and development group. One question we’ve sought to answer is why employers continue to struggle recruiting talented women to the STEM workforce.

Our team recently carried out a study where we discovered that how caregivers, especially mothers, talk about STEM topics may significantly shape their children’s interest in STEM careers.

Are you a math person?

As a researcher, whenever I give a public talk I like to ask the audience, “Who here is not a math person?” Without fail, several hands shoot up faster than if I had asked, “Who wants free money?”

It turns out that most people are well aware of their own relationship to STEM fields and may see themselves as a math, science or “STEM” person, or, commonly, not a STEM person. Researchers like me call this kind of self-identification a “STEM identity,” and almost everyone has one. Although any given person can have a very high STEM identity or a very low one, most individuals fall somewhere in between.

Having a high STEM identity strongly predicts whether a student will choose to pursue a career in STEM. Research shows that if children don’t develop a high STEM identity by eighth grade, they are unlikely to ever pursue a STEM career.

This finding raises the question: What childhood experiences shape children’s STEM identities?

Individuals come to identify with different groups by recognizing characteristics they share with members of those groups. In many cases, people learn about the characteristics of a group through direct experience. For example, elementary-age children often see teaching as a female occupation when they encounter mostly female teachers at their school. Most children, however, never spend enough time with a scientist to form a stereotype directly.

Children learn most of what they know about STEM professionals indirectly through depictions of scientists in their social environment. Once children have formed a stereotype in their minds, they then compare themselves to these stereotypes to determine whether they are, or could be, a STEM person.

In the United States, five decades of the “draw-a-scientist” studies reveal that children asked to depict scientists overwhelmingly draw them as male – illustrating a persistent stereotype linking science and masculinity. While a growing body of research shows that in recent years gender-based stereotypes of STEM workers have decreased significantly, STEM workforce employment patterns contradict this finding.

A missing explanation?

Since social stereotypes about scientists are becoming less gender-biased, our team realized that something else must be causing children to carry male-biased views of STEM into young adulthood. The Talking Science team believed that understanding why some women see themselves as STEM people and want to obtain STEM jobs held the key to understanding the gap between decreasing social stigma and the persistent lack of women in STEM.

To understand this phenomenon more deeply, our team interviewed 20 college students, 13 of whom identified as female. We intentionally selected these students because of their positive STEM identities and enrollment in college STEM programs.

During 60-to-90-minute interviews, we asked participants to list the various people who positively or negatively shaped their academic and professional interests. We then asked students to label each of them as either a “STEM person,” “not a STEM person” or somewhere in between. Finally, we invited each student to explain why they assigned each label.

The students mentioned 102 individuals – including parents, aunts, siblings, friends and teachers – as influential in shaping their STEM identities. Our team then assigned a gender to these individuals based on pronouns and other descriptors the interviewees used.

A gender gap clearly emerged. Women were only about 40% of those described as STEM people and 70% of the individuals described as not STEM people. This latter group almost always included our interviewees’ mothers.

Updating stereotypes about STEM workers

When first examining the data, we assumed that college students didn’t recognize their mothers as STEM people because of gender stereotypes. Some students were reluctant to describe their mothers as STEM people even when both parents worked in STEM professions – in one case, both parents even held the same college STEM degree.

After closer examination, we noticed that a few students labeled their fathers as not a STEM person. These fathers shared one thing in common with mothers labeled the same way: They all played the role of primary caregiver.

Even in cases where mothers or fathers held a college degree in a STEM field, students consistently diminished the STEM identity of the parent who took on the bulk of the child-rearing responsibilities. As a result, we recognized that something other than gender contributed to students’ perceptions of their parents’ STEM identities.

When pressed to describe why they did not see their primary caregivers as STEM people, our interviewees generally pointed to two things: failure to display STEM interests and failure to display STEM knowledge.

When asked about their parents’ STEM interests, most interviewees described parenting as an all-consuming task that doesn’t leave room for STEM. However, this view generally did not apply to both mothers and fathers, but rather to the parent taking on the role of primary caregiver.

Similarly, most students pointed to the parent who often engaged in conversations about STEM topics as more knowledgeable, and this view also tended to exclude the primary caregiver.

Why what parents demonstrate matters

Children who grow up with the expectation of becoming a primary caregiver may associate their own caregivers’ limited displays of STEM interests and knowledge as par for the course. And because the role of primary caregiver continues to be associated with women, it’s possible for some girls to grow up believing that being a committed parent and a STEM person are incompatible roles.

Of course, STEM workers have families, and many, both men and women, are primary caregivers at home. But stereotypes are hard to break. If STEM industries want to attract more women, or if parents want their daughters to grow up to become STEM professionals, then children need to see parenthood and STEM jobs as compatible.

When parents talk to their children about their STEM-related interests and share their knowledge, children are more likely to learn that they can grow up to be both a parent and a STEM person. This approach can have an outsize effect on young women who grow up with the expectation of raising a family one day.

Creating opportunities for children to encounter female role models who are in the STEM professions is vital for attracting and recruiting women to STEM fields. Our study suggests it’s also crucial for children to see scientists and engineers as parents and caregivers with children of their own.

Remy Dou offer pro bono consulting services to Tumble Science Podcast for Kids and Cumbre Kids.

– ref. Identifying as a ‘STEM person’ makes you more likely to pursue a STEM job – and caregivers may unknowingly shape kids’ self-identity – https://theconversation.com/identifying-as-a-stem-person-makes-you-more-likely-to-pursue-a-stem-job-and-caregivers-may-unknowingly-shape-kids-self-identity-254771

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Alexandra Killewald, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan

Women in the U.S. typically earned 85% as much as men for every hour they spent working in 2024. However, working women are faring much better than their moms and grandmothers did 40 years ago. In the mid-1980s, women were making only 65% as much as men for every hour of paid work.

Women’s wages have improved relative to what men earn in part because of gains in their education and work experience, and because women have moved into higher-paying occupations. But progress toward pay equality has stalled.

As sociologists and demographers, we wanted to know whether changes in American families might also have helped women come closer to pay equality with men. In an article published in June 2025 in Social Forces, an academic journal, we argued that this pay gap is becoming smaller in part because women are having fewer children.

Moms earn less but dads earn more

In the U.S. and elsewhere, ample evidence shows that parenthood affects men’s and women’s wages differently.

Compared to remaining childless, motherhood leads to wage losses for women. And those losses are larger when women have more kids.

By contrast, after men become fathers their wages usually rise.

Because having kids tends to push women’s wages down and men’s wages up, parenthood widens the gender pay gap.

Decline in birth rate plays a role

Americans are having fewer kids in general. Women, including those who don’t work outside the home, had an average of about three children by their 40s in 1980. By 2000, that average had fallen to 1.9, and it has been fairly stable since then.

To see whether changes in how many kids working American moms have affects what they earn relative to men, we analyzed data collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. families. We tracked trends over time in the number of children that employed Americans ages 30-55 have.

We found that employees’ average number of children fell significantly between 1980 and 2000, declining from around 2.4 to around 1.8. That average stabilized after 2000; employees had an average of about 1.8 children in 2018 – the most recent year in our analysis.

At the same time, the pay that women in this age range earned per hour relative to men rose steeply. It climbed from 58% in 1980 to 69% by 1990 and then rose more gradually to 76% by 2018. That is, as people were having fewer kids, the gender pay gap got smaller. For both trends, there was rapid change in the 1980s, followed by slower change after 1990.

We next estimated whether declines in the number of children men and women have can explain the narrowing of the gender pay gap between 1980 and 2018.

We found that, even after adjusting for other factors, such as years of education, prior work experience and occupation, about 8% of the decline in the gender pay gap can be explained by the lower number of children working women and men are having.

Next, we showed that the number of children American employees had declined faster in the 1980s than later on. That slowdown coincided with a deceleration of women’s gains in pay relative to men. Once the average number of children that U.S. employees had stabilized around 2000, so did women’s progress toward earning as much as men.

Questions about the future of US fertility

U.S. scholars and policymakers are debating whether and why Americans are having fewer children today than one or two decades ago, and what the government should do about it.

We agree that these are important questions.

Our research shows that any future changes in how many children Americans have are very likely to affect how quickly women and men reach pay equality. But it’s not inevitable.

The number of children Americans have affects the gender pay gap only because parenthood decreases women’s wages while increasing men’s wages. As long as these unequal effects of parenthood on what men and women earn persist, they will continue to act as a brake on women’s progress toward equal pay.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. US women narrowed the pay gap with men by having fewer kids – https://theconversation.com/us-women-narrowed-the-pay-gap-with-men-by-having-fewer-kids-261811

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

Mortgage fraud is back in the news. Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, is being investigated by the Department of Justice for allegedly making false statements when applying for a mortgage. Members of Donald Trump’s Cabinet are accused of similar wrongdoings. Could any of these people go to prison?

Mortgage fraud is not a new problem. Subprime mortgage fraud fueled the 2008 financial meltdown, when large numbers of very risky mortgages defaulted. Mortgage fraud was also a key feature of the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s.

Mortgage applications are very long, so there’s plenty of opportunity to make mistakes. Plus, they require borrowers to declare that everything is “true, accurate, and complete.” Misrepresentation can trigger potentially large civil and criminal penalties.

As a business school professor, I was curious how many people are convicted of mortgage fraud today. After all, relatively few people went to jail for fraudulent loans back in 2008. Since most mortgage fraud violates federal law, I looked at more than a decade of federal conviction data. What I found was clear: Almost no one has gone to federal prison recently for lying on a mortgage application.

What is mortgage fraud?

Mortgage fraud is when someone intentionally misrepresents facts in order to obtain a property loan. People can lie about many things on a mortgage application, such as their income, assets or employment status, or whether they will occupy the home being purchased or rent it out.

Being caught lying to get a mortgage can be costly. The maximum federal sentence is 30 years, with fines of up to US$1 million. Because more than a quarter of all mortgages are guaranteed by federal agencies, and many are acquired by quasi-government organizations like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, most mortgage fraud is a federal crime.

However, just because there are laws on the books doesn’t mean they’re enforced. For example, I work in Boston, where for years jaywalking has been illegal – but as any visitor quickly notices, no one pays any attention to this rule.

How many people are convicted?

The U.S. Sentencing Commission provides detailed data on every person convicted of federal crimes since 2013. The database is large, since federal courts convict almost 70,000 people each year.

However, very few people are convicted of federal mortgage fraud. Just 38 people in the country were sentenced for such crimes in 2024, and among that small group, four of the convicted got no prison time. A year earlier, just 34 people were convicted and seven avoided prison.

Over the past dozen years, fewer than 3,000 people were convicted of federal mortgage fraud, and the number of people sentenced fell steadily each year.

Three thousand people are a tiny fraction of mortgages issued. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that almost 100 million new mortgage loans were written to purchase or refinance a home over the past 12 years. For those who like precision, 3,000 is only 0.003%.

The Sentencing Commission’s files also offer insight into who gets convicted of mortgage fraud. Three-quarters were men. More than 90% were U.S. citizens. The typical person convicted of mortgage fraud is a man in his late 40s with an associate degree, the data suggests.

The real penalty

While the maximum penalty is 30 years, almost no one serves that long a sentence. In 2024, the maximum sentence handed out was just 10 years. Since 2013, 15% of those convicted got no jail time. The average sentence for people who did get jail time was 21 months, which is less than two years behind bars.

Fines are also much lighter in practice than the maximum $1 million penalty. In 2024, the maximum fine passed down was a quarter-million dollars. Since 2013, the average person convicted of mortgage fraud paid a fine of less than $6,000, with over half of all those convicted paying no fine at all.

Now not paying a fine or only paying a small one doesn’t mean there’s no financial penalty. The courts required most of those convicted to make restitution. In 2024, half of all people convicted had to pay at least a half-million dollars to reimburse their victims, such as lending companies. Over the dozen years I looked at, the average person convicted paid $2 million in restitution for their misdeeds.

More lightning strikes than convictions

It’s impossible to know how common mortgage fraud really is. Some mortgage applications are rechecked in a “post-closing audit.” However, these audits happen within 90 days after the mortgage money is disbursed. Beyond that window, if a loan is paid back on time and without problems, there’s little incentive for a bank or mortgage service provider to recheck an applicant’s information.

What is clear is that while millions of mortgages are written each year, only a tiny fraction of mortgage recipients go to jail for fraud. One way to put this tiny fraction into perspective is to compare it with the National Weather Service estimates of the approximately 270 people hit by lightning yearly. Last year, lightning hit over seven times more people than the federal government convicted of mortgage fraud.

Years ago, I filled in a mortgage application to buy a home. I was consumed with dread wondering if any application mistake would result in my being sent to jail. After looking at the mortgage fraud conviction data, I should have been more worried about being hit by lightning.

Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does anyone go to prison for federal mortgage fraud? Not many, the numbers suggest – https://theconversation.com/does-anyone-go-to-prison-for-federal-mortgage-fraud-not-many-the-numbers-suggest-265242

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

The Federal Reserve is in a nearly impossible spot right now.

Markets are expecting a quarter-point interest rate cut to a range of 4% to 4.25% when the Fed policy-setting committee concludes its latest meeting on Sept. 17, 2025. After all, the slowdown in the jobs market, as well as a massive revision to past figures showing close to a million fewer jobs were created than previously reported, makes a strong case for lower interest rates to shore up the economy.

But at the same time, inflation – the other component of the Fed’s dual mandate – has begun to accelerate again. As rising tariffs squeeze consumer spending in sectors exposed to the harshest tariffs – such as clothing and electronics – other inflationary pressures loom over the horizon.

A slowing economy or rising inflation is a circumstance that policymakers want to avoid. But as an economist and finance professor, I’m increasingly concerned about the risk that they happen at the same time – a horrible economic condition known as stagflation – and that the Fed may be too slow in responding.

Between a rock and a hard data point

The Fed has been under pressure to cut rates for some time – including from President Donald Trump.

The reason markets and the White House are so interested is because what the Fed does matters. The central bank’s decision at its near-monthly meetings helps banks and other lenders to determine rates on auto loans, mortgages, credit cards and more. Lower rates usually lead more businesses and consumers to borrow and spend more, boosting economic activity. This also can drive up inflation.

For the better part of three years, the central bank has been focused on its generational fight against inflation. But now, with inflation down significantly from its 40-year high of 9% reached in 2022 and the jobs market sputtering, conditions finally seemed right to resume cutting rates.

The labor market has seen continued deterioration, most notably with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ revisions to nonfarm payrolls – in effect reducing the number of jobs economists thought the U.S. gained by almost 1 million for the year ending in March 2025.

But a recent uptick in inflation has made the Fed’s call more complicated.

Over the past four months, the consumer price index has consistently ticked up, with the most recent CPI figure indicating year-over-year inflation of 2.9% – well above the Fed’s target of 2%.

Switching focus to jobs

At the Fed’s last meeting in August, Chair Jerome Powell said that the risks to the labor market now exceed the risks of inflation.

For example, for the first time since 2021, the number of unemployed people have outpaced job vacancies as companies have moved to eliminate open positions before laying off workers.

Most compelling is the so-called U6 unemployment rate – which includes those in the regular unemployment figures and people who have stopped looking for jobs, as well as those who are working part time but are looking for full-time opportunities. That has increased over the past three months to 8.1%.

The evidence suggests that businesses are reluctant to add workers as tariff policy and broad economic uncertainty appear to drive hiring decisions.

The worst of both worlds

The short-term risk here is that a quarter-point cut won’t be enough to shore up the jobs market, and it may be too late to prevent the economy from tipping into recession.

The longer-term risk is more concerning: Not only could the economy contract, but it could do so while inflation accelerates.

The last time the U.S. experienced stagflation was in the 1970s, when an oil embargo caused the price of crude to double. This drove up inflation while causing unemployment to soar and the economy to stall. Policies aimed at reducing inflation typically exacerbate slowing growth, and vice versa. In other words, there were fewer dollars to go around – and those dollars were worth a little less every day.

The pain experienced during this previous bout of stagflation convinced a generation of economists and policymakers that the condition was to be avoided at all costs.

The Fed, which has consistently shown its hand and has guided the markets toward this week’s rate cut, now has to make what seems like an impossible decision: cut rates even if doing so will add inflationary pressures.

And there are other potential headwinds for the U.S. economy. For example, it has yet to fully absorb the impact of Trump’s immigration crackdown on productivity and output due to the loss of workers. Waning consumer confidence suggests consumer spending could soon drop. And a potential federal government shutdown looms in September.

In my view, it’s clear that a cut is warranted. But will it drive up inflation? Economists like me will be watching this closely.

Jason Reed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Fed, under pressure to cut rates, tries to balance labor market and inflation – while avoiding dreaded stagflation – https://theconversation.com/fed-under-pressure-to-cut-rates-tries-to-balance-labor-market-and-inflation-while-avoiding-dreaded-stagflation-265361

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lee Bebout, Professor of English, Arizona State University

Shortly following the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many politicians and pundits were quick to highlight the importance of civil discourse.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called for an “off-ramp” to political hostilities, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement condemning political violence. He lauded Kirk’s “commitment to debate,” adding, “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” Political commentator Ezra Klein wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.”

With so many Americans consuming political content via siloed social media feeds and awash in algorithms that stoke outrage, these ideals may seem quaint, if not impossible.

Clearly, murder is a no-go. But what does it mean to practice politics “the right way?” How can people engage “across ideology” in a “spirited” way?

Well, one way to not practice politics the right way is to limit the other side from having a voice of authority. Since 2016, the organization Kirk co-founded, Turning Point USA, has hosted the Professor Watchlist. The online database generated harassment campaigns against professors, leading to calls for firings, hate mail and death threats. To be sure, the left has not been without its own excesses of harassment in recent years.

Kirk was also known for going to college campuses and speaking to students: entering the lion’s den and affably challenging audiences to “change my mind.”

To me, the impulse to shut down the other side, combined with the “change my mind approach” to debate, has only exacerbated political polarization and entrenchment. Instead, I propose a few different ways of thinking about conversations with people whose views differ from your own.

The fantasy of swiftly changing minds

In my forthcoming book, “Rules for Reactionaries: How to Maintain Inequality and Stop Social Justice,” I explore the language strategies used to advance white supremacy and anti-feminism across U.S. politics and culture.

Deliberative democracy is the idea that decision-making and governance are arrived at through thoughtful, reasoned and respectful dialogue. This may take the shape of debates in Congress or robust questioning in town halls. But deliberative democracy also shapes the way all neighbors or citizens treat each other, whether on the street or at the dinner table.

I contend that a big stumbling block that prevents the U.S. from tackling its biggest problems is how Americans conceptualize deliberative democracy: There’s a fantasy that people’s minds can be easily changed, if only they’re given certain information or hear certain arguments.

In the 1990s, this was epitomized through former President Bill Clinton’s Initiative on Race, a program that he framed as a vehicle for social and political transformation. Clinton believed that an advisory board of experts could foster a meaningful national dialogue and produce necessary healing.

In response, conservative political figures objected both to the need for a conversation in the first place and to the makeup of the committee leading it.

By the time Clinton’s second term ended, the initiative quietly disappeared, only to be mentioned in passing in Clinton’s memoir. Yet with each subsequent racial flash point, from the arrest of Henry Louis Gates in 2009 to the murder of George Floyd, calls resurfaced for the national conversation. But race remains a politically and culturally salient issue.

Similarly, many Americans view friends, relatives and colleagues as targets for conversion. Because of the nature of my research, I often get a version of this question from my students: “How do you change someone’s mind if they say they’re a socialist?” Or they may frame it as, “I’ve got Thanksgiving with my family coming up, and my Uncle Johnny is so transphobic. How do I convince him to support trans rights?”

Cultural theorist Lauren Berlant would describe these encounters as moments of cruel optimism. There’s the belief that what you’re about to do is good and worthy. But time and again, you’re met with feelings of futility and frustration.

When debating politics, many people crave a chance to engage with someone they disagree with. There’s the hope of changing hearts and minds. But few minds – if any – change that quickly, and approaching these conversations as small windows of opportunity ends up being their downfall.

Opening minds instead of changing them

There are more fruitful approaches to conversation than merely trying to best someone in an argument by deploying buzzwords or “gotcha!” moments.

Rather than trying to immediately change someone’s mind, what if you entered a conversation with the goal of simply planting seeds? This approach transforms the dialogue from an attempted conversion into a legitimate conversation, wherein you’re merely offering your partner something to consider after the fact.

Another strategy involves remembering that conversations often have multiple audiences.

Consider the Thanksgiving dinner with Uncle Johnny. What if, instead of focusing on trying to convert him, the speaker recognized that there were other listeners at the table? Perhaps they could rethink their encounter not as converting an opponent, but as modeling to relatives how to have a conversation about one’s values with a loved one whom they vehemently disagree with. Or perhaps the speaker could recognize that a cousin at the table may be closeted, and take it upon themselves to model how to push back against transphobia.

In both cases, the conversion of Uncle Johnny ceases to be the objective. Civic dialogue and persuasion remain.

Change is slow but never futile

If the U.S. is going to heal its civic life through dialogue, I think it will require Americans to not just speak with those they disagree with, but to listen to them as well.

Krista Ratcliffe, a scholar of rhetoric at Arizona State University, has written about her concept of “rhetorical listening.” Listeners, she argues, must not simply be attuned to the words a speakers says, but also to the life experiences and ideologies that shape those words.

Rhetorical listening means avoiding the urge to one-up the opponent or convert the unwashed masses. Instead, you’re entering into dialogue from a position of curiosity, with a willingness to learn and grow.

Many people believe that the U.S. is at an inflection point. Will families and friendships continue to be torn apart? Will greater political polarization lead to more violence? Often it feels hopeless.

Like Sisyphus, many Americans probably feel like they continue to push a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down the other side. The error would be for Americans to be surprised when the boulder rolls back down – shocked that there was no progress and that everyone has to start over again.

While the Sisyphean task of deliberative democracy requires that citizens push the boulder day in and day out, they should also recognize that as they push, the weight of the boulder as it’s collectively pushed will gradually and imperceptibly alter the terrain.

Moreover, as the French philosopher Albert Camus once wrote, it’s important to “imagine Sisyphus happy” – to continue to seize what joy can be had as this hard work plods along.

Lee Bebout does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. After Charlie Kirk’s murder, the US might seem hopelessly divided – is there any way forward? – https://theconversation.com/after-charlie-kirks-murder-the-us-might-seem-hopelessly-divided-is-there-any-way-forward-265248