Grist28%

Ask a Climate Therapist: How do I avoid getting trapped in the system I hope to change? 79%

By Leslie Davenport0%

6/26/2026, 8:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 57.5% saturation with 347 hits. Analysis detected 1,334 faulty-reasoning hits from 604 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71% and a BS Rank of 79% (4,357 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.

Dear Leslie, 
I work as a civil engineer, and I want to change the way roadway projects are seen, from constant expansion to holistic community-led improvement  but I feel like I don’t have enough traction as an entry-level employee. 
I am scared I will get sucked into the system as it is now and never effect the change I envision. 
How do I make sure I don’t fall into this trap? 
 A Worried Engineer 
Dear Worried Engineer, 
While it might not feel like it, your concern is an asset: It signals that you’re aware of how systems suppress creativity and reward business as usual. 
You’re right that as an entry-level worker, you may need to take the long view and build credibility before you can shift your organization’s culture and policies. 
This approach is called strategic patience  an intentional practice you draw on while you’re working toward values-based change. 
(It’s completely different from capitulation, which involves rationalizing a particular story so you can feel OK about your workplace or industry as it is.) 
Think of this as a time for reconnaissance and field research on your part. 
Keep your eyes wide open to the specific challenges you think your organization needs to overcome in order to adopt the more holistic, community-based approach that you want to see in action  and write about it, to help keep yourself on track and hone your ideas about how to transform some of the established practices in your field. 
The “trap” that you want to avoid also has a name: bureaucratic absorption, the gradual process by which people who enter systems intending to change them are instead changed by them. 
So, how can you avoid falling into that? 
Most climate psychology tools focus on increasing the resilience of our emotions, thoughts, and nervous system. 
That will always be foundational, but it’s not enough here. 
Because bureaucratic absorption works by dulling creativity, part of how you resist its pull is by intentionally cultivating creativity. 
For you as an engineer, this might look like reconnecting with the original impulse and innate skills that drew you to this work: your problem-solving imagination, your ability to plan forward, and your ideas about what a road can do *for* a community rather than *to* it. 
And keep your creativity growing by deliberately engaging with fields outside your own  art, history, fiction  to keep your imagination from narrowing into only what’s technically feasible under today’s constraints. 
You might also try building a “what if” habit: a small, regular practice of asking speculative questions with no immediate utility, almost like calisthenics for the creative mind. 
Finding or creating a community of like-minded people inside or outside the workplace is also one of the most robust psychological strategies for keeping your values front and center. 
That could include joining climate-aware professional networks, seeking out mentors who’ve navigated similar frustrations, or forging a friendship with one or more trusted colleagues. 
This is exactly how social change has always occurred: by people who kept each other honest and imaginative. 
Finally, don’t forget that your workplace exists within a changing world. 
Community-oriented approaches are gaining ground in urban planning, policy, and climate adaptation, which means that the window for this kind of creative thinking may be opening rather than closing. 
Keep an eye out for stories that inspire you  and ones you could share with leaders at your organization  that model the kind of work you want to do. 
In this with you, 
Leslie 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.4%Leslie Davenport: 8.4%Grist: 2.2%Confirmation Bias19.4%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Leslie Davenport: 1.4%Grist: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 7.8%Leslie Davenport: 1.9%Grist: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.8%Grist: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Leslie Davenport: 3.7%Grist: 5.0%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.7%Leslie Davenport: 5.6%Grist: 3.3%Optimism Bias15.7%This article: 5.1%Leslie Davenport: 7.0%Grist: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 3.5%Leslie Davenport: 0.9%Grist: 7.0%Negativity Bias3.5%This article: 6.3%Leslie Davenport: 1.6%Grist: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Leslie Davenport: 3.4%Grist: 0.8%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Leslie Davenport: 1.1%Grist: 1.0%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Leslie Davenport: 3.0%Grist: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 5.6%Leslie Davenport: 3.7%Grist: 1.4%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.1%Leslie Davenport: 1.6%Grist: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.1%This article: 5.6%Leslie Davenport: 9.7%Grist: 4.0%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.8%Leslie Davenport: 2.3%Grist: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion4.8%This article: 5.8%Leslie Davenport: 1.4%Grist: 0.7%Begging the Question5.8%This article: 7.9%Leslie Davenport: 2.0%Grist: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.3%Leslie Davenport: 1.3%Grist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature5.3%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Leslie Davenport: 1.0%Grist: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.9%Leslie Davenport: 3.2%Grist: 0.8%Unattributed Quote12.9%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.7%Leslie Davenport: 7.8%Grist: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice13.7%This article: 57.5%Leslie Davenport: 36.8%Grist: 1.5%Indoctrination57.5%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 2.4%Grist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leslie Davenport: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Leslie Davenport: 1.9%Grist: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.8%

604 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.2%attributed speech603writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageLeslie • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Leslie

0%flagged-word coverage
1 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination-57.5 ptsWriter: 57.5%Leslie: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Leslie: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%Leslie: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Leslie: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.