How Are We Addicted?

Let me count the ways. In fact, in the spirit of perspective everyone is invited to give this addiction issue some thought.

With the media and politicians making so much fuss about the opioid epidemic, it’s easy to overlook the other ways we have become addicted.

Smartphones would be a good place to start. I read recently that eighty-seven per cent of smartphone users go to sleep and wake up with their phones, phones that they touch, swipe or tap on average over 2,600 times a day.

This USA Today article emphasizes the negative affect smartphone use can have on sleep patterns. That should be obvious, but the frightening statistics are at the beginning of the piece. “Nearly 7 in 10 children, or a slightly lesser percentage than their parents, kept their mobile device either in bed or within easy reach. And 29% of the younger group actually sleeps with the device, compared to 12% of parents.” In addition, “36% of teens wake up at least once during the night to check the device; about 1 in 4 parents do likewise.”

This is not new. The Business Insider had the same warning with similar statistics at the end of 2012, over six years ago, and the number of users has increased greatly since then. The same was reported at a site called constant contact three years later, and at uberguxmo at the end of the following year.

From sleep we move on to exercise. In another piece USA Today reports that technology may be ruining our workouts. In one extreme example, a woman talks about walking out of the gym if she forgets her fitness tracker at home or if the battery dies. They also report, “Experts say that fitness trackers can motivate us to get moving, however, unfavorable readings can lead to low self-esteem and feelings of guilt. Studies show that smartphones encourage people to hit the gym, while also inhibiting their ability to do so safely and efficiently.” One fitness instructor reports, “when you use your cellphone while resistance training, you’re actually doing less…you’re more likely to spend more time overall engaging in exercise if you left the device at home.”

This need to have smartphones or some other device at hand keeps increasing. The developers come up with a new app or feature that encourages users to turn over control of their lives bit by bit. Ads about taking your entertainment with you are ubiquitous. Banks and credit cards encourage customers to check their balances on the go. There’s even an app to tell when to take a break and get up to move around when we have spent too much time on the computer getting that adrenalin rush from likes, shares or hateful comments from like-minded friends.

We have subcontracted our memories to technology, storing facts and information in the cloud instead of the brain – use it or lose it? Students will argue that all facts are like phone numbers, they don’t have to remember them because they can always look them up from anywhere in the world. But facts are not knowledge; facts are not wisdom.

Years ago, if you had seen someone at the grocery store holding the side of his head or talking to the air, you would have thought he was sick or crazy. Today you just know he left the house with an incomplete shopping list.

With dependence on GPS capabilities, fewer Americans can use a map to find their destination.

Congress is considering a law to control robocalls, knowing that the lure has become so great that people are unable to ignore calls from unknown or blocked numbers. They answer and then are irritated.

Cities are passing laws about texting and walking. Why was there no need for laws about reading a book while crossing the street?

What began as a convenience, has made us dependent. The pity is that instead of being appreciative, we take the new technology for granted, just as we have become so complacent about electricity, indoor plumbing, air travel, air conditioning, microwaves, dishwashers and all the other conveniences we inherited from the last century.

The Future is Here

Some people have expressed the idea that the world depicted in the book 1984 is very close to becoming a reality. With more and more surveillance cameras in public areas, security cameras in homes and businesses, and a camera in everyone’s purse or pocket, Big Brother is always watching.

But there is another way the sci-fi of the past is slowly becoming today's reality, meals in a pill. In many early science fiction novels, the hero never had to slow down to eat. Instead he would pop a pill with all the nutrients, and presumably calories, he needed to continue his mission of saving the universe without missing a beat.

This comes to mind whenever I see or hear an ad for one of those supplements specially formulated for people who don’t have the time or inclination to eat as many fruits and vegetables as they should. They simply go on line and buy a jar of powder or a bottle of pills and, for only about two dollars a day, they can continue their mission of saving their personal universe without missing a beet!

I have heard many customer reviews on the radio over the years and seen some on line as well. Some people seem fairly realistic in their expectations. They admit they are unable to eat enough fruits and vegetables daily, and they believe these products give them nutrition equivalent to what they are missing – although I can’t see much difference between these and an ordinary vitamin/mineral supplement. The only flaw in this thinking is that experts agree that the best way to get nutrition is by eating the actual food.

The companies explain that fruit and vegetables are mostly water. They remove the water and pack the “good stuff” into a bottle or jar. But there is more to a healthy diet than adding the water back and chugging it down. 

The problem is they don’t stop there. By posting the less realistic customer praise and endorsements, they imply that the imaginary benefits some of their customers report are real. This way they don’t run afoul of the FDA or FTC by making promises they can’t keep. But the endorsements imply some miracle power just the same, and they make no effort to deny it.

One company has customers claiming that by using the product, the family has not gotten any colds, aches and pains have gone away, conditions like arthritis and fibromyalgia are no longer a problem, wounds are healing faster, “my hair and nails are growing like crazy,” pregnancy went more smoothly, “my thyroid levels [are] normal again,” blood pressure medicine is no longer needed, everyone can see the difference and everyone feels more healthy and has more energy.

Another brand has customers praising the before and after difference with comments such as: it “cut down on some of my inflammation,” “the congestion in my lungs was clearing up,” “my joints felt better,” it “cleared up lower intestinal discomfort,” and I have “more energy and just feel better."

One customer writes: “Haven't used it long enough for physical effectiveness yet” while another says the change came “almost immediately,” yet another felt a difference in “a couple hours.” Regardless of the time lag, it’s said to be life changing and, of course, awesome.

I’m not a big fan of supplements in general because they are unregulated, and customers have been known to get more, less or different ingredients than what’s on the label; but these particular ones seem like safe products from reputable companies. I suppose these supplements are good for people who unfortunately just can’t figure out how to get enough good food and are willing to pay extra for the convenience. But the ads can easily lead to unrealistic expectations. As one customer review put it: “I was about to order from another company but when it began making claims using people claiming they been cured from cancer and other health problems I decided not and chose this one instead.” He apparently didn't read very closely the similar reviews of the one he chose.

Your New High Tech Best Friend

Although some people would argue that the smart phone has replaced them, I think most still consider dogs as “man’s best friend.” I do feel bad though for my neighbors as they stroll, leash in hand, past my front window in all kinds of weather.

Despite the fact that having a dog as a pet is a major time and financial commitment, people still find the idea appealing. But does it have to be that way?

According to this site, the first year cost of a dog can easily reach between $1500 and $2000. From then on “costs for food, treats, veterinary exams, routine diagnostic testing, vaccines, deworming, preventive medications, licenses and health insurance” can add up to a “total lifetime cost of caring for a dog to $10,000 to $14,000,” with some exceptions running to $30,000 or more. That doesn’t include the value of time spent on those daily walks, the anxiety when your dog gets loose (which seems to happen once a week to someone in my neighborhood based on nextdoor.com emails) and the grief of eventually losing a family member.

Despite the cost and inconvenience, the attraction remains and the latest news reports explain why. This comes from CNN, but the New York Times, Yahoo and several others passed along the story. According to scientists, “'Puppy dog eyes' have evolved to appeal to humans.” By dissecting dog and wolf heads, they discovered that domestic dogs have an extra eyebrow muscle that “allows them to ‘intensely’ raise their eyebrows.” This movement, the look known as puppy dog eyes, elicits a strong nurturing response in humans, like the reaction to a human baby “and also resembles a movement humans produce when they are sad."

Does that mean that dogs evolved in a way that allows them to better appeal to the ones who feed, walk, shelter and play with them? As the lead researcher puts it, "The AU101 movement is significant in the human-dog bond because it might elicit a caring response from humans but also might create the illusion of human-like communication." Hence we unconsciously move from pet owners to “pet parents” by this evolved talent for psychological manipulation!

But the Twenty-first Century question is: Why can’t we have it all without the cost? And technology has the answer.

Several companies have been developing and testing robot pets for use in nursing homes where pets often aren’t allowed or patients don’t have the ability to look after them. The latest entry is a fluffy dog called Tombot, designed by muppet master Jim Henson's Creature Shop. They built the robot to "emulate live animal appearance and behaviors, providing ongoing fun, happiness, and emotional support." Machine learning and artificial intelligence allows companies to design more lifelike, sentient robots to “focus more on human companionship rather than [traditional] task-oriented performance.”

So far tests of robotic companions have focused on their benefit to the elderly. Live dogs still produced better long-term effects than robotic toys, but the gap may be closing. One study from 2016 found only small differences in responses to a dog or a robot at first, but interaction with robot pets decreased more quickly over time. Surprisingly, they found “no measurable benefits of six weeks of interactions with either fake or real therapy animals.”

As advancements continue, though, and robots become more lifelike, act more spontaneous and are able to do more than just respond, this relationship may change. A different brand already claims their robotic pet “keeps on growing and changing, constantly updating its data in the cloud.” As it accumulates a record of the owner’s interactions with it, it will gradually shape its own personality and learn new tricks.

Prices range from $450 to about $2,000. Compared to a real dog, this sounds like a bargain. We may see this trend extend from nursing homes to ordinary homes, especially as the robots develop the same longterm appeal while incorporating new features like security cameras. Kids clamoring for a dog can try out a robot first and possibly be satisfied for the long term. Imagine a future where airline comfort animals are replaced by a robot rented at the origin and dropped off at the destination. No, that will never happen – not until some celebrity turns it into a fad!

Read Science and Heath News Carefully

My usual approach is to look for several examples that on first glance don’t seem to fit together and show how they all demonstrate weak behavior in some aspect of one of the dimensions. Rarely do I use a single source, but today is an exception.

This article has been circulating on social media as if it were some bold new scientific revelation. In fact, the Bona-Fide News Network site features only the headline and links directly to the article with twelve options for sharing the headline. The headline in question: “Prescription: More Broccoli, Fewer Carbs. How Some Doctors Are Looking To Food To Treat Illness,” appears on the WBUR page.

In summary, it tells of “a growing trend” among doctors to prescribe certain food choices to improve their patient’s health. But in medicine, I’d rather look at evidence than trends, so I will draw heavily from the article to highlight some of its weaknesses. (All emphasis in bold font has been added by me.)

After a story of one success where a patient improves his mental health after changing his diet, the article presents the research. Three recent studies “conclude that a molecule in vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, brussel [sic] sprouts and kale really may fight cancer. It seems to help reactivate a gene that suppresses many tumors.” In another study, women “who ate a relatively low-fat diet — rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains — had a lower risk of getting and dying from breast cancer. And in a third, tiny study, [a similar diet] seemed to improve metabolism, boosting levels of proteins that play a role in maintaining cell health and the body’s response to insulin.”

It then makes a huge leap of faith, presenting the opinion of a Dean at Tufts University, “Our food system…is absolutely the number one cause of poor health in our country.” The psychiatrist involved in the first story “thinks that the same switch in energy source [from a different diet] may help combat mental illness” and later “thinks … a strict ketogenic diet … does a better job” than some traditional cures, and “very early evidence suggests” it is effective in treating mental illness.

“In a different study at Northeastern University, researchers are using big data to better understand how individual nutrients affect the body and brain.” But this study is in its infancy and has reached no conclusions.

“Although nutritionists still quibble about the details,” they recommend “vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and some whole grains” and discourage "processed meats and other processed foods, white bread, chips and soda.” Well, that’s hardly a revelation!

The piece then circles back to conclude with the original human-interest story.

What do we learn for sure from such news? What we eat is important. Older women who reduce fat in their diet raise the odds of avoiding breast cancer. Several experts think it is true and early evidence seems to indicate that certain foods may have specific benefits, but confirmation of those benefits is a long way off. Until then we have doctors following trends and news media forced to hype this kind of vague information to meet an obligation to fill the airways 24/7.

The real lesson is that no one else will review the content critically before it gets to you. Headlines are advertising for the articles. The vague details and weasel words come later.

How Can You Believe Those Numbers?

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, or they may be in conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to the 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots.”

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the entire year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports  “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Paying Attention to the Wrong Things

How many Americans spend their lives paying attention to the wrong things and to the wrong people? About once a month I’ve explained how celebrity endorsements of various products are mostly misleading, resulting in wasted time and money, sometimes putting people and their families in serious danger. Vaccine-hesitancy is just one small example of this in the present-day news.

This came to mind when the tomatoes I had raised from seeds in the back window and planted in the garden were devastated by the storms of May in the Midwest – no tornados, but enough wind to tear the delicate leaves of the stems. I was forced to buy hardier replacements at the local nursery. On one pot were the words, “FOODIE FRESH,” whatever that means. I began to wonder, where did all this foodie business come from, and why do people pay any attention?

First found in print in 1980, the dictionary definition of a foodie is a person who has an ardent or refined interest in food. 

Surely this is a new phenomenon, unlikely to be driven by some inherited predisposition from ancient times. I can’t imagine our hunter-gatherer ancestors being overly fussy about the food they ate, perhaps complaining that the wild boar from one jungle was more tasty and tender than one from another field. That would have led to quick extinction of the race – or at least of the foodie-oriented genes. No, they were more concerned with survival, a factor that is easily taken for granted today.

More recently, in the Great Depression, or even in most of the second half of the last century, food was not as plentiful as it is today. Foodies were non-existent and those who were considered gourmets usually came from the upper class, the idle rich.

But in this century things have changed. We have a Specialty Food Association, who sponsored the 2012 Culinary Visions Panel Survey, that gave us the following:

• Three-quarters (76 percent) of U.S. adults enjoy talking about new or interesting foods. 53 percent of U.S. adults regularly watch cooking shows. 
• 54 percent of casual diners are considered foodies because of their desire to always or usually try new menu items when going to a restaurant.

Percentages are likely higher today as being considered a foodie has become a status symbol.

Another, more recent source tells: “A study of 2,000 Americans examined the rise of the foodie phenomenon and found that 62% would go to an event just for the food.” And “Seventy-seven percent say food is important when attending any public event.” Perhaps foodie is more closely related to a gourmand, a word that carries in addition to refined or discriminating taste, the “connotations of one who enjoys food in great quantities.”

The simple promotional statement on the side of a plastic tomato pot plus a little research leads to the conclusion that in the middle of a so-called “Obesity Epidemic” advertisers and consumers themselves are glamorizing the idea of an obsession with food, especially more exotic choices. Being a foodie becomes a source of pride, an opportunity to boast of one's discriminating taste and giving the show-off implicit permission to indulge. And any effort to disparage the movement would be considered shaming.

A little more perspective might make people appreciate the true blessing of having regular access to ordinary food, that is, to pay more attention to the right things.

Opinions, Opinions…

It happened at the beginning of this week. James Holzhauer broke a 32-game winning streak on Jeopardy after winning nearly $2.5 million. 

Many people were puzzled and suspicious by his totally explainable final wager. Some thought he threw the game. Some neighbors agreed with and passed along an idea being circulated on Facebook that another win would move him into a higher tax bracket.

First, his wager in Final Jeopardy made perfect sense. Since he had not hit any of the Daily Doubles, he was unable to risk large amounts at a time, a tactic that led to insurmountable leads on previous shows. This was a bit of bad luck. His opponent was quick on the button, hit the Daily Doubles and managed to have a small lead going into the final question – 26,600 to 23,400. She only needed to risk enough to finish one dollar ahead of him in case he risked everything, which is what she did. He understood that his only chance to win was for her to get the answer wrong. If they both got it wrong, he needed to risk enough to still be ahead in case the third place contestant got it right and doubled his score of $11,000. That is exactly what he did – 23,400 minus his “conservative” wager of 1, 399 would have been 22,001. The amount he bet, conservative or not, was the best decision.

People who didn’t understand this jumped right to a subject they likewise don’t understand, tax brackets!

The US has a progressive income tax; the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. The tax rate on the first taxable dollar is the same for everyone whether you make one dollar or $2.5 million. The tax on the first $100,000 is exactly the same for everyone $13,874. That is about 14%. Anyone making another dollar pays 22% of that additional dollar. Anyone who makes $110,000, for example, pays the same as everyone else on the first $100,000 and then pays 22% on the additional $10,000. That’s how it works as the brackets change. The rate goes to 24% at $165,000, to 32% at $315,000. The highest bracket under the current system is 37% from $600,000 on up. (All examples are for the status of Married Filing Jointly.)

There is no bracket issue in the $2.5 million range. Taxes would be 37% for every additional dollar.

Note how this misunderstanding lets politicians get away with something that is not quite a lie, but is at least a misrepresentation. As the system works, if they lower the rate for the middle class, it lowers the rate for everyone who makes under $100,000, but it also lowers the rate on the first $100,000 for everyone else who makes more than that – even those evil rich people. Fiddling with the lower tax rates to help the middle class, helps everybody, the rich too. It can’t be helped. It’s how the system is set up! 

Now those same politicians have the power to change the system and make it work differently, but they don’t, they just propagandize.

But the biggest takeaway from the Jeopardy story is not the wager or the tax implications. The biggest take away is how inclined people are to form an opinion, defend that opinion, post it on line and spread the word on subjects they don’t understand and apparently are too lazy to do a little bit of research to find the truth. They are so confident that their opinions are right, because they have been constantly reinforced by others with the same degree of ignorance. Bad information spreads like the plague.

Everyone pretends to understand taxes, but they are too complicated for most people to do themselves, which allows politicians to demonize opponents and tax preparation companies to stay in business. But many other more important and complex subjects fall into this same category of confidently held opinions grounded in a woeful lack of understanding: Social Security, Medicare, the healthcare system, economics in general – such as minimum wage and the comparative virtues of socialism vs. capitalism, government spending and the National Debt and the proliferation of deceptive advertising and junk science.

Many Americans can’t even figure out Jeopardy wagers, yet on issues vital to their personal and to the national success they participate in protests and demonstrations, post nasty comments and cartoons on social media and go to the polls to vote for politicians who are often equally mistaken about how the world works.

Making Yourself Smarter Through Drugs

Here is another scam that strikes at the heart of two major worries: the fear of Alzheimer’s disease among older Americans and the competition to be the smartest person in the room among the younger. I wrote a couple of years ago about the troubles faced by the makers of the supplement Prevagen when the advertising overstated its effectiveness as a memory enhancer. Now another product with one name, but multiple formulations and sponsors, has been called out by the FTC for questionable business practices and lack of evidence of effectiveness.

The product is called Geniux and sells for about $50 per bottle. The information gathered from their various websites and infomercials on various networks presents a series of very persuasive claims: 

• Clinical Trials have shown that it “boosts brainpower by up to 89.2% and increases focus by up to 121%.” (Note how the false precision of two-tenths of a percent makes it look like real scientific data. But how do you even measure brainpower?)
• Among other things it is said to use “a scientifically engineered stack of maximum strength nootropics, known as ‘smart drugs,’ to help increase brain activity, mental performance, and vigilance.”
• Presumably because your brain “begins to lose sharpness of memory from as early as [age] 30” you must “take a daily enhancer” to prevent a decline in memory and focus.

There are many other examples of their advertising, shown as exhibits in the legal document, but the FTC concludes: “Defendants’ representations that the Geniux Products improve short and long term memory, increase focus, and increase concentration in users; prevent memory loss and increase short and long term memory in persons experiencing cognitive decline because of age; boost brain power, including by as much as 89.2 percent; increase users’ IQ; or improve users’ speed of information processing are false and/or Defendants did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to substantiate those representations.” [Emphasis added.]

In addition, the FTC states that there were “no human clinical studies…demonstrating any efficacy in users, including increasing focus, increasing concentration, boosting brain power, enhancing memory recall, or increasing IQ.” In plain language, there is absolutely no evidence that it works.

Whoops! It looked too good to be true, and it turns out that they have exaggerated just a bit – actually it was enough to get them hauled into court by the Federal government for “deceptively marketed ‘cognitive improvement’ supplements using sham Web sites containing false and unsubstantiated efficacy claims, references to non-existent clinical studies, and fraudulent consumer and celebrity endorsements” and forcing them to agree to a settlement barring such brain boosting claims in the future.

But we all know that wild promises, celebrity endorsements and the use of pseudo-scientific language is all it takes to dupe many Americans. Isn’t it ironic that they spend good money on ineffective brain-boosting supplements when a little critical thinking, using the brain power they already have, would help them avoid the problem.