{"id":1746,"date":"2017-12-07T16:37:11","date_gmt":"2017-12-07T16:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1746"},"modified":"2017-12-07T16:48:18","modified_gmt":"2017-12-07T16:48:18","slug":"a-two-track-tool-for-issues-development-and-campaign-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1746","title":{"rendered":"A Two-Track Tool For Issues Development and Campaign Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0 \"\" <\/strong>(download this blog as a pdf here<\/a>)
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Campaigners will be very aware that not many people spend much of their time bothering about \u201cissues\u201d.\u00a0 For most people, most of the time, what bothers and pre-occupies campaigners, \u2018policy wonks\u2019, political nerds and political scientists, is of little interest to the \u2018mainstream\u2019.\u00a0 Some campaign organisations use distinctions like \u2018elite\u2019 audiences, often meaning those \u2018already in the know\u2019 about the issue, as opposed to \u2018public audiences\u2019.\u00a0 And some will have experienced the quixotic way in which, once \u2018an issue breaks into the mainstream\u2019, it ceases to become \u2018an issue\u2019 (contested, argued about) and becomes \u2018normal\u2019, at which point most of us assume we always knew about it.<\/h3>\n

I\u2019ve been looking at how the \u2018plastics issue\u2019 seems to have \u2018suddenly\u2019 emerged \u2018as if from nowhere\u2019.\u00a0 It\u2019s obviously an \u2018environmental\u2019 or \u2018sustainability\u2019 issue yet until very recently it\u2019s been a hyper-specialised interest, even for most sustainability professionals.\u00a0 My last blog featured<\/a> two new products people can use to stop microplastic (microfibres) draining from their washing machines and getting into drains, sewers, and the sea, where it then enters the food-chain.\u00a0 I showed one of these products, the \u2018Guppyfriend\u2019 wash bag being promoted by clothing company Patagonia, to a room full of such professionals on a Cambridge University Masters Course, as an example of an innovation which Pioneers were taking up and Prospectors and Settlers could be expected to follow, (in this case I guess, quickly).\u00a0 I asked for a \u2018hands up\u2019: \u201chas anybody heard of it?\u201d \u00a0Nobody had. \u00a0Microplastic wasn\u2019t on their radar: it wasn\u2019t in their particular issues silo (though I did notice some people writing it down).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Above: the spread-of-behaviours example slide from a presentation to CISL<\/a> courses in November 2017. \u00a0Illustrates how new behaviours start in Pioneers and if they spread to become \u2018normal\u2019 are next adopted by Prospectors and then Settlers (values groups dynamic).\u00a0 Solar pv\/thermal has got \u2018all the way round\u2019, the trend for \u2018upcycling\u2019 clothes is now adopted by Pioneers and Prospectors, and \u2018going plastic free\u2019 is just starting out.\u00a0 It\u2019s also an example of an issue breaking from obscurity on Track Two and appearing in Track One, in this case manifest in a new behaviour of buying a washing bag to trap plastic fibres.\u00a0 (For other going-plastic-free examples see here<\/a>).\u00a0 A product converts the complex issue into a much simpler choice, enabling participation on Track One terms.<\/em><\/p>\n

My next blog looks in more detail at the way plastics pollution nearly became a big thing (Track One) almost fifty years ago, then languished in obscurity for thirty years (Track Two), before finally surfacing like a fully-formed whale, gradually breaking from the waves (onto Track One).<\/p>\n

This blog proposes a way of thinking about issues in terms of two tracks, which may be applied to any issue.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s one visualisation of the Two Tracks.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Track Two <\/strong>is defined by careful, often painstaking, deliberate thinking and is obscure to those not involved.\u00a0 It\u2019s also not a single track but more a network of tracks or city of connected communities, many obscure to each other.\u00a0 The development of ideas and new behaviours on that track is slow because it depends on analysis, which reveals complexity. Track Two has a potentially infinite \u2018bandwidth\u2019 but no human has the \u2018Renaissance\u2019 capacity to grasp it all. \u00a0\u00a0A working assumption at almost every point on Track Two is that \u201cthere is more to this than meets the eye\u201d.\u00a0 Track Two is the natural home and breeding ground of \u2018issues\u2019.<\/p>\n

Track One<\/strong> is where things can move much faster.\u00a0 Thinking and decision-making here is dominated by unconscious intuition.\u00a0 Behaviour does not have to wait for analysis but is powered by framing, heuristics and values.\u00a0 Track One is mainstream life, and it has far less capacity for complexity than Track Two.\u00a0 Track One errs to simplification.\u00a0 Anything too complicated won\u2019t to get onto Track One, and anything which becomes too complicated may get diverted off.\u00a0 \u00a0Track One works on the basis \u201cWhat You See Is All There Is\u201d.<\/p>\n

Issues can persist on Track Two almost indefinitely but they will not change the mainstream.\u00a0 Issues gaining promotion to Track One, tend get quickly resolved in Track One terms (ie perceived to be resolved), even if those familiar with them on Track Two, see unfinished business.<\/p>\n

The business of campaigns, for otherwise they would generally not be needed, is to get an issue onto Track One, and to do that, they need to be designed in \u2018Track One\u2019 terms.\u00a0 This means campaigners need to understand how Track One works (itself a Track Two task), and planners face the often unpopular task of taking some of the \u2018issue\u2019 as perceived in its full complex glory on Track Two, and finding a way to drive just a bit of it onto Track One, in a way that will produce a useful result.\u00a0 That is campaign strategy.<\/p>\n

A Recap: Two Speed Thinking<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many readers will recognize that the key difference between Track One and Two is the decision-making divide identified by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Above: Kahneman\u2019s System 1 left, and System 2 right.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kahneman and Tversky famously showed that we have two modes of thinking: System 1 is the \u2018intuitive\u2019 easy, reflexive, unconscious autopilot which constantly offers us instant answers that we usually accept. \u00a0System 2 is the laborious, analytical, reflective process, in which we \u2018really think about\u2019 whatever \u2018it\u2019 is.\u00a0 System 1 is dominant, shaping the vast majority of our daily decisions, and when confronted by a need to be analytical, if there\u2019s an easier System 1 option on offer, we usually take it. Kahneman calls this \u2018substitution\u2019 of System 1 for System 2 and the forms that takes are known as \u2018heuristics\u2019 or \u2018rules of thumb\u2019, or in posher language, cognitive biases.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Above: how substitution works in particular ways which generate testable \u2018heuristics\u2019 as studied by Kahneman and other psychologists<\/em><\/p>\n

Evolutionary history has provided us with the basic neural wiring of System 1, acting in Kahneman\u2019s words, as a \u2018system for jumping to conclusions\u2019.\u00a0 This is why I always try to convince anyone whose project needs to \u2018fly\u2019 with anyone outside their specialist community (where System 2 is probably in use), that their communications need to work in System 1 terms.\u00a0 That means using the systematic tools of the unconscious mind, such as Framing<\/a>, Heuristics<\/a> and Motivational Values<\/a>.\u00a0 If a call to action, problem or solution first requires public explanation, it will probably struggle.<\/p>\n

An Example<\/strong><\/p>\n

Below is a slide from a campaign planning presentation for WWF, which is suitably vintage (2003) and so gives nothing away.\u00a0 It proposes reframing an \u2018issue\u2019 (hormone-disrupting chemicals affecting health) from being \u2018about science\u2019, very System 2, to being about the world of consumer goods and consumer choice (operating on well understood System 1 rules).\u00a0 In the terms of this blog, it amounts to shifting (the public part of) the campaign from Track Two to Track One.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In 2003 the WWF toxics campaign was operating in the frame (left) of \u2018science\u2019 and bogged down by industry gaming of the science process.\u00a0 This proposed shifting to a faster track (consumer choice) with different \u2018rules\u2019, to get a better outcome.<\/em><\/p>\n

Shopping, it need hardly be said, operates almost entirely on a System 1 basis, and that\u2019s how advertisers and retailers want to keep it.\u00a0 In this case, shifting from Track Two to Track one involved changing the context or \u2018battlefield\u2019 and thus the actors involved, as well as the proposition (and visuals, engagement and storytelling opportunities etc \u2013 see more on this example in my book How to Win Campaigns<\/a><\/em>, Appendix Two).<\/p>\n

Not Just Individuals<\/strong><\/p>\n

As cognitive psychologists, the work of Kahneman and Tversky was on the individual human mind.\u00a0 Their ideas were tested and verified with experiments which showed how individuals<\/em> think.\u00a0 Consequently most applications of their work have naturally centred on individual behaviours.\u00a0 For instance in \u2018behaviour change\u2019 campaigns, marketing and advertising.<\/p>\n

We tend not to conceive of the two ways of making decisions as applying to \u2018issues\u2019 or to groups of people, whole societies or institutional systems but it seems to me that these have evolved into two quite distinct domains defined by whether System 1 or 2 is dominant, and that the very functioning of those ways of thinking, acts to keep them largely on separate tracks.<\/p>\n

My earlier diagram tries to show the fast Track One as like an elevated urban motorway, running above the largely hidden and far more convoluted Track Two.<\/p>\n

In this case I\u2019ve imagined \u2018traffic\u2019 (eg of ideas, behaviours) which progresses towards the same destination in both cases but which flows along far more easily on the upper Track One.\u00a0 Up there, if it passes the requirements for Track One \u2018traffic\u2019, it can move smoothly with little social friction.\u00a0 For something to be flowing along on Track One, it\u2019s normalised and we don\u2019t question it much.<\/p>\n

Anything routinely and widely accepted is by definition tootling along on Track One, often being done again and again, with much thought being given to it.\u00a0 Plastics as something useful and essential got up there in the 1960s if not the 1950s, and has been there ever since, which is why we can now make so of it much without anybody really noticing.\u00a0\u00a0 (Plastic production now exceeds the weight of all human beings<\/a> alive, every year).\u00a0 That, and the fact that we assume \u2018recycling\u2019 makes it \u2018ok\u2019.\u00a0 More on that in the next blog.<\/p>\n

Down on Track Two, analysis slows things right down.\u00a0 The processes of System 2 thinking put more and more information into play.\u00a0 It has much greater information content than Track One.\u00a0 But establishing what that information means<\/em>, is a long and tedious process with many dead ends and \u2018traffic lights\u2019.\u00a0 I\u2019ve just shown a few indicative examples typical of \u2018science\u2019 led policy processes but you could do the same thing for development of principles of law, in human rights, or in medicine with its double-blind tests.\u00a0 Almost every step of the way creates a waiting game, as research and testing or just debate and deliberation takes place.<\/p>\n

Governments sometimes aspire to \u2018evidence-based\u2019 decision making (Track Two) but \u2018politics\u2019 and needs of the moment (Track One) often get in the way.<\/p>\n

Up on Track One our behaviours and attitudes are largely untroubled by deliberation.\u00a0 The requirements for forward motion simply include, getting \u2018waved on\u2019 by the System 1 mental traffic cops of Framing, Heuristics and Values (not necessarily in that order).\u00a0 If something fails those tests, and becomes too confusing or unrewarding or simply has no visibility, it can drop from Track One to Track Two.<\/p>\n

Debating the details of any \u201cissue\u201d almost always takes place on Track Two.\u00a0 Getting any significant change<\/em> to the issue almost always requires public support, which in order to create political support (aka political space, political appetite or willingness), almost always has to happen on Track One.\u00a0 So to be successful, campaign design usually needs to project the issue onto Track One.<\/p>\n

What defines the difference between Track One and 2 is not information, knowledge, significance or understanding but how communications works.\u00a0 Track One predominantly works on System 1 intuitive communication.\u00a0 Track Two works on System 2 analytical communication.<\/p>\n

None of us are purely Track One or Track Two people.\u00a0 These are not tribes but spheres of activity, places we spend time, although some of us spend far more time in One or Two, than others.\u00a0 Sometimes far too much time, as my partner keeps reminding me.<\/p>\n

The \u2018Traffic Cops\u2019 Of Track One<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Framing <\/em><\/strong>involves being recognized as a \u2018type\u2019 of thing, a mental frame whose operating terms are used by the brain to give meaning to information.\u00a0 If information does not fit the frame, the brain discards it and we are not even aware that\u2019s happened.<\/p>\n

Not everything on the fast Track One is a desirable positive: dominant ideas about what\u2019s bad are also there, such as \u2018pollution\u2019 (never good), and this is why the plastics industry has successfully strived to have plastic debris framed as \u2018litter\u2019, and not pollution (see this blog<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Heuristics<\/em><\/strong> traffic cop has a whole Highway Code of rules to deploy, all defined by being accepted by more people than not, such as \u2018social proof\u2019, meaning that if most others seem to be doing it, then it\u2019s probably right.\u00a0 The more we saw others using plastic, the more we used it, and the more we used it, the more we accepted (the consistency heuristic) the \u2018fantastic-plastic\u2019 frame that says it\u2019s wonderful and harmless [behaviour>opinion].<\/p>\n

Motivational Values<\/em><\/strong> work a bit like a vastly more complex combination of heuristics but they boil down to whether or not something feels<\/em> good or \u2018right\u2019 because it helps us meet our particular set of dominant needs.\u00a0 If I am a Settler, it will feel right if the something ticks a box for safety, security or identity; if a Prospector, it needs to help deliver me esteem of others (eg looking good) or self esteem, and if I\u2019m a Pioneer, it needs to help me innovate, explore new ideas, or be a net benefit in the \u2018bigger picture\u2019.<\/p>\n

Track Connections<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve shown the two tracks as completely isolated from one another but in reality of course this is not true.\u00a0 Major events which disrupt our behaviours (such as disasters, conflicts) and other things such as unexpected big signals from authority (eg government), from \u2018celebrity\u2019 figures and the media, can also promote \u2018new issues\u2019 onto the fast track but only if they present in simple, tangible forms that can be processed by System 1.<\/p>\n

Most of the time though, the \u2018traffic\u2019 from the Track Two world to Track One is information which confirms what is already the conventional wisdom (confirmation bias).\u00a0 Track One is conservative: it sucks up new information which reinforces the dominant perception but ignores what \u2018doesn\u2019t fit\u2019.<\/p>\n

System 1 only works on what we already \u2018know\u2019 to be true or right.\u00a0 Amongst it\u2019s many other effects, it always prioritises going on doing what we are already<\/em> doing (the commitment, consistency heuristics) and used to doing, over diverting to a new behaviour.\u00a0 The overall result is conservatism:\u00a0 it\u2019s a domain of instant autopilot decision-making constituting what\u2019s \u2018mainstream\u2019 because others are doing it (social proof), and because it\u2019s easier to do so (cognitive ease, requiring least effort).<\/p>\n

Compartmentalisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

To remain \u2018sane\u2019 functioning human beings, we also compartmentalise life to limit the amount of \u2018System 2\u2019 thinking required on a daily basis. \u00a0\u00a0Our day job may require us to use System 2, but we look forward to \u2018switching off\u2019 in the evenings. \u00a0\u00a0Likewise we are more likely to try new behaviours when on holiday than when at work, and exploring \u2018new ideas\u2019 may be firewalled by reading a few pages of a book before bed or watching the odd documentary.<\/p>\n

\u2018Education\u2019 and \u2018training\u2019 require System 2 thinking: learning new things is hard, and we need \u2018time off\u2019 from both.\u00a0 Plus when we are very young and most like \u2018sponges\u2019 for new information, we tend to accept what we are told by parents or teachers, and this is an influence of System 1 (the authority heuristic).\u00a0 It gets more exhausting once we are asked to question everything and exhorted to test ideas for ourselves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Thinking about it<\/em><\/p>\n

Yet society needs<\/em> System 2 thinking.\u00a0 The advancement of knowledge and understanding has long been understood to bring benefits.\u00a0 For instance discovering that fatal diseases are not brought about by upsetting \u2018the gods\u2019 or \u2018bad humours\u2019 in the air but things like bacteria and viruses.<\/p>\n

So our social ecosystems have created \u2018think tanks\u2019 and whole domains where System 2 rules, or are supposed to, such as in Science, Medicine and the Law, in which we require testable \u2018evidence\u2019.<\/p>\n

This sort of evidence is not like the \u2018evidences\u2019 provided by advertisers, story-tellers or film-makers.\u00a0 \u2018Evidences\u2019 here mean simply cues, usually visual, which for instance, advertisers know will be immediately taken by our System 1 reflexes to \u2018prove\u2019 something without any analysis being necessary. \u00a0A shot of an egg frying on a pavement signifies that \u201cit\u2019s hot\u201d. Amazon informs us that \u201cpeople like you\u201d also bought x y and z (the similarity and social proof heuristics).<\/p>\n

Compartmentalisation helps maintain the distinction between the Two Tracks, with limited interaction and generally,\u00a0 lower participation on the slow Track Two.\u00a0 The consequences include the scientists struggling to \u2018educate the public\u2019 about \u2018science\u2019, and the overall primitive understanding of how the political system works, in the US and UK.<\/p>\n

In general, although most of us have a fairly good idea what\u2019s happening on Track One, Track Two is largely invisible from Track One. It requires an effort to get into that world.<\/p>\n

And if you are a national political leader and need to deal with an entire waterfront of problems from health care to defence and the economy, or the \u2018news media\u2019, then a category like \u2018pollution\u2019 is likely to end up represented by just the most salient \u2018issue\u2019, that most recognized easily by the public, and so that\u2019s the one to \u2018focus on\u2019 and act on.\u00a0 (Cognitive scientists studying the workings of System 1 call this \u2018single action bias<\/a>\u2019).<\/p>\n

So far as I know, Daniel Kahneman hasn\u2019t really written much about how his System 1 and 2 manifest themselves at group or institutional level or in relation to social trends and dynamics but he does devote an interesting page or two to organisations (417-8 if you are interested) in Thinking Fast and Slow<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u2018Organizations\u2019 he says:<\/p>\n

\u2019are better than individuals when it comes to avoiding errors, because they naturally think more slowly and have the power to impose orderly procedures.\u00a0 Organizations can institute and enforce the application of useful checklists, as well as more elaborate exercises, such as reference-class forecasting and the premortem.\u00a0 At least in part by a distinctive vocabulary, organizations can also encourage a culture in which people watch out for one another as they approach minefields.\u00a0 Whatever else it produces, an organization is a factory that manufactures judgements and decisions\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n

Which describes the \u2018Track Two\u2019 role of campaign groups and policy and research institutes quite well.\u00a0 It\u2019s also one reason why effective campaigns are very hard to run without organizations, and why behind every issue that breaks onto Track One, there\u2019s usually a long tail of activity on Track Two, much of it often by NGOs.<\/p>\n

Applying Track One and Two To Campaign Design<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that campaigns can be started with no \u2018Track Two\u2019 type input.\u00a0 The advent of social media has made it possible for millions of one-person \u2018campaigns\u2019 to be started in Track One terms with a single post, and sometimes by pure serendipity, they spread and become established but only very rarely. Those which do become established, frequently run into subsequent difficulties as the organisers get to know more about the stakeholders, dynamics and details of \u2018the issue\u2019.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Not yet a critical path \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s also clear that a lot of the preparatory work for any public campaign, such as understanding of \u2018the problem\u2019, power and situation analysis, choosing and testing a point of intervention and making a critical path, are very System 2 tasks and hard to share outside an organisation (or even across it internally).\u00a0 Many supposedly \u2018crowd sourced\u2019 campaigns are actually only sharing options around one step of a plan cooked up in a proverbial \u2018back room\u2019, and many which are not, consist of just a single tactical \u2018beat\u2019, perhaps relying on just one heuristic.\u00a0 As such they are usually not strategic or they do have a bigger but hidden strategy.<\/p>\n

Assuming that campaign planners do research, create and test a critical path, the most appropriate point to apply the Two Tracks concept is probably when it is in draft.\u00a0 At its simplest, look at the plan and ask where and how much System 1 type thinking must apply, or whether System 2 type thinking has to apply.\u00a0 A System 1 and 2 Audit if you like.<\/p>\n

This can then be verified by testing propositions intended for \u2018public\u2019 or \u2018mainstream\u2019 audiences with qualitative research: \u2018does it work for them\u2019?\u00a0 That\u2019s a big topic which has been discussed in many of my Newsletters and posts but there are no short-cuts and the old rule still applies: rubbish in, rubbish out.<\/p>\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a summary of some of the differences between Track One and Track Two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTRACK ONE<\/td>\nTRACK TWO<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dominant decision method (thinking)<\/td>\nIntuitive, automatic, unconscious (System 1)<\/td>\nAnalytical, reflective, conscious (System 2)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Operating experience<\/td>\nEasy, natural<\/td>\nLaborious<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Speed (ideas, behaviours)<\/td>\nFast<\/td>\nSlow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bandwidth\/ information capacity<\/td>\nLow<\/td>\nHigh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Internal commonality of experience<\/td>\nHigh<\/td>\nLow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mutual recognition of reference points within Track<\/td>\nHigh<\/td>\nHigh in sub-tracks, otherwise low<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Visibility track to track<\/td>\nTrack Two largely invisible<\/td>\nTrack One largely visible<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Repetition of processes, behaviours<\/td>\nDefault<\/td>\nUnusual<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Common descriptive \u2018handles\u2019<\/td>\nMainstream, public, popular, normal, general public<\/td>\nElite, professional, academic, technical, specialist, disciplines<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Indicators<\/td>\nIcons, symbols<\/td>\nFootnotes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Information acquisition reflex<\/td>\nAcquired where it confirms existing beliefs<\/td>\nSought as needed for analysis<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Default appraisal perspective<\/td>\nWYSIATI<\/td>\nThere\u2019s more to this than meets the eye<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Internal potential for contagion<\/td>\nHigh<\/td>\nLow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumper\/splitter tendency<\/td>\nLumper<\/td>\nSplitter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Complexity<\/td>\nReducer<\/td>\nIncreaser<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Perception tendency<\/td>\nOne world<\/td>\nMultiple worlds<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dominant source of individual status<\/td>\nSalience, prominence<\/td>\nForefront reputation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Books<\/strong><\/p>\n

And here\u2019s a small Track One bookshelf:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(left) George Lakoff\u2019s primer on framing, Daniel Kahneman\u2019s and Robert Cialdini\u2019s books on heuristics, all well worth reading although Caildini\u2019s book is a lot easier going than Kahneman\u2019s, and (right) my book on motivational values. \u00a0All three topics are also summarised in How to Win Campaigns<\/a>. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0 (download this blog as a pdf here) Campaigners will be very aware that not many people spend much of their time bothering about \u201cissues\u201d.\u00a0 For most people, most of the time, what bothers and pre-occupies campaigners, \u2018policy wonks\u2019, political … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1746"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1746\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1762,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1746\/revisions\/1762"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}