I'd love to talk to you at some point about the process of this. I routinely speak with elected and administrative-state officials and get...annoyed by political dodging. This felt dodgy/uninformed in his responses; did you share questions with him in advance? If so...awful that he (i.e. his staff) didn't do enough research to actually answer you. If not - were you not given the opportunity to do so?
I think your read of this video speaks to the seriousness of the problem we have in Tulsa. (For everyone who doesn't know, Aaron is a Tulsan and an engineer who has lived out of state for some years.) Once you've read the series, and/or if you happen to already be educated about some of the subjects (I know both are true for you), it can be easy to take the knowledge for granted.
In my case, it took three years to feel like I had a comprehensive enough grasp of this wildly technical, complex and interconnected picture to be able to start communicating about it.
Even so, I sometimes forget that most people can't see the picture that took three (now four) years to develop in my own personal darkroom of the mind.
(Side note, the way I think about this is influenced by the book All the Light We Cannot See, which incidentally took 10 years to research and write and is extraordinary, and has one thread in particular in common with this series that I would be delighted to discuss with anyone who wants to talk about it. Shout-out to Watershed subscriber and very dear individual Herb Robb for recommending this book to me last year.)
That being said, if you look at the quality of information conveyed by the city and public officials on these crucial subjects at nearly every opportunity in recent years—it's hard to imagine the public developing a meaningful understanding of this stuff or even knowing that it's something that might impact their lives.
I have seen what appears to be something similar if a bit more meta among public officials, even with some who make big, definitive, enthusiastic public statements about these issues.
With all of that said, I did send the questions in advance. Not because I expected Nichols to come fully knowledgeable (I still haven't even released all of the articles on some of these subjects), but because I honestly fault very few people for not knowing this stuff (at least not any more than I acknowledge my own blind spots). The thing that can help us now is people having the information they need to make different decisions.
Nichols conveyed a couple things that I've seen only rarely among officials with some awareness of their part in our collective plight: That he values critical thinking, and he's interested in making decisions differently than they have been made in the past. If followed to their logical conclusions (right now, they are only statements, at least in this context), both positions would be earthquakes in Tulsa.
So glad you clarified that, Molly. Your comparison to an earthquake is apt. Having read the entire series so far, I Appreciate the fact that Mr. Nichols agreed to the interview. The “political“ approach would’ve been Ms. Keith’s, which appears to be continued avoidance, bordering on ignoring the problem completely.
What you have from Mr. Nichols is essentially a promise to address it, which is more than anyone else in a leadership position has done up to this point.
OK. Listening to this again I want to amend my initial reaction and hope that it was the result of late night cynicism. What I took for dodging may have honestly been "I don't have the answers but I know we have a lack of knowledge and transparency problem". That would be breath of fresh air, for sure; I maybe prematurely assumed that this was political double-speak, but this is a pretty detailed and technical topic that I am sure no one in Tulsa wakes up and thinks regularly about other than you...so it would be very hard to have a formulated and detailed response or plan of action.
I'd love to talk to you at some point about the process of this. I routinely speak with elected and administrative-state officials and get...annoyed by political dodging. This felt dodgy/uninformed in his responses; did you share questions with him in advance? If so...awful that he (i.e. his staff) didn't do enough research to actually answer you. If not - were you not given the opportunity to do so?
I think your read of this video speaks to the seriousness of the problem we have in Tulsa. (For everyone who doesn't know, Aaron is a Tulsan and an engineer who has lived out of state for some years.) Once you've read the series, and/or if you happen to already be educated about some of the subjects (I know both are true for you), it can be easy to take the knowledge for granted.
In my case, it took three years to feel like I had a comprehensive enough grasp of this wildly technical, complex and interconnected picture to be able to start communicating about it.
Even so, I sometimes forget that most people can't see the picture that took three (now four) years to develop in my own personal darkroom of the mind.
(Side note, the way I think about this is influenced by the book All the Light We Cannot See, which incidentally took 10 years to research and write and is extraordinary, and has one thread in particular in common with this series that I would be delighted to discuss with anyone who wants to talk about it. Shout-out to Watershed subscriber and very dear individual Herb Robb for recommending this book to me last year.)
That being said, if you look at the quality of information conveyed by the city and public officials on these crucial subjects at nearly every opportunity in recent years—it's hard to imagine the public developing a meaningful understanding of this stuff or even knowing that it's something that might impact their lives.
I have seen what appears to be something similar if a bit more meta among public officials, even with some who make big, definitive, enthusiastic public statements about these issues.
With all of that said, I did send the questions in advance. Not because I expected Nichols to come fully knowledgeable (I still haven't even released all of the articles on some of these subjects), but because I honestly fault very few people for not knowing this stuff (at least not any more than I acknowledge my own blind spots). The thing that can help us now is people having the information they need to make different decisions.
Nichols conveyed a couple things that I've seen only rarely among officials with some awareness of their part in our collective plight: That he values critical thinking, and he's interested in making decisions differently than they have been made in the past. If followed to their logical conclusions (right now, they are only statements, at least in this context), both positions would be earthquakes in Tulsa.
So glad you clarified that, Molly. Your comparison to an earthquake is apt. Having read the entire series so far, I Appreciate the fact that Mr. Nichols agreed to the interview. The “political“ approach would’ve been Ms. Keith’s, which appears to be continued avoidance, bordering on ignoring the problem completely.
What you have from Mr. Nichols is essentially a promise to address it, which is more than anyone else in a leadership position has done up to this point.
Really well said, Susan.
OK. Listening to this again I want to amend my initial reaction and hope that it was the result of late night cynicism. What I took for dodging may have honestly been "I don't have the answers but I know we have a lack of knowledge and transparency problem". That would be breath of fresh air, for sure; I maybe prematurely assumed that this was political double-speak, but this is a pretty detailed and technical topic that I am sure no one in Tulsa wakes up and thinks regularly about other than you...so it would be very hard to have a formulated and detailed response or plan of action.
Together with Susan we have metabolized all of this beautifully. A really helpful thread for some others, too, I am sure. Thank you.