[MUSIC] Community deliberation is another effective tool for changing harmful or maladaptive practices. The social norms we may come to discuss in collective deliberation are part of a rich web of beliefs, values, ideals, and scripts. Deliberation unearths such beliefs, values and their connections. When deliberating we may become aware of inconsistencies between our own beliefs or between our beliefs and new information. For example, realizing that female genital cutting could result in bodily harm would make one also realize that continuing to practice it would be in conflict with beliefs about protecting the health and life of one's children. We may also come to realize that some of the premises that we accept lead to a logical conclusion that, in fact, we would normally reject. For example, if we believe men and women are equal, we can not consistently maintain that son should be favored over daughters. Discussions are one of the best way to unearth such inconsistencies. After identifying inconsistencies, people are strongly motivated to eliminate the dissonance between beliefs that do not fit together. People do not usually attempt to address conflicting beliefs on their own, but they are more likely to do so in conversation. Recall that in order to change people must have a reasons to do so. And since we’re dealing with social norms, the reasons for change must also be shared. Deliberation when conducted under proper condition is often a powerful tool to provide collective reasons for change. Deliberation creates an environment for people to speak about topics that are otherwise social taboos. It is often argued that a great advantage of deliberation is the lifting of pluralistic ignorance, where people follow the norm because they believe that it is important by the majority of the population, when in reality most people do not support the norm. They obey it, but dislike it in private. Yet if a friendly chat were sufficient for norm abandonment, we would see a quick disappearance of maladaptive norms that are not endorsed by the majority of the population. Exposing people to their group beliefs and making them realize that many others share their doubts about a common practice will not lead them to abandon the current norm, unless they are presented with a superior feasible alternative. Moreover, even if alternatives are presented and one of them is collectively considered superior, changing factor and normative beliefs may not necessarily lead to a change in social expectations. .The liberation in small groups runs several risks. One is polarization. Often participants with similar ideas will radicalize, instead of moderate, their viewpoints, as studies of civil juries show. One remedy would be to introduce some measure of diversity into the discussing group. Many experiences of the liberation promoted by UNICEF, an NGO, the group is not restricted to the population at risk, to women, for example. But is inclusive of all the members of the reference network of the targeted sub population. These may include men, relatives, extended families, religious leaders, and village leaders. For deliberation to be productive, discussion should be sincere and unrestrained, and everyone should feel free to openly express their opinions. One of the factors that can derail such effective deliberation is existence of power dynamics. When some discussion participants are in a more powerful position than others, the less powerful may not feel free to argue against the points brought up by the more powerful. This situation often occurs in discussions between men and women, especially in cultures where women are not accustomed to expressing their opinions. Many of the external factors that can hamper the effectiveness of a discussion can be greatly allogated by having an unbiased facilitator guide the discussion. One of his or her duties will be making sure that everyone has a chance to speak and is respectfully listened to. She can also give underrepresented viewpoints a voice. Discussion can also be derailed by internal barriers. The common barrier to candid discussion is the existence of norms that dictate how we should talk about norms. It has been reported that the mere mention of female genital cutting would be a serious normative breach in some groups, forcing people to talk about taboo topics will back fire. If discussion of the practice is not allowed, a false impression of consensus can strengthen the pluralistic ignorance and give the practice stronger legitimacy. In this cases, too, an external agent may help direct the discussion in a more productive fashion. For example, respected leaders, be they religious or secular, may help people realize that some of their normative beliefs are unfounded. If the issue being discussed is emotionally loaded, arguing about the issue may prompt the listener to resist the argument. This is a case when discussing core values and especially in cases of what we call moral dumbfounding, where people have strong moral reaction, but cannot provide an explanation for their reactions. In many cases of successful deliberation, core values of family, honor, the importance of marriage were intentionally never challenged. Examples of this approach include Tustin in Senegal, the Kembatti Women Standing Together, also known as KMG in Ethiopia, and the institute of human rights education in India. Discussions can explicitly show the reasons why a practice is inconsistent with some core beliefs that we hold, but they can also slowly lead the participants to realize on their own that some of their beliefs are in conflict.