The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon

Baader-Meinhof is the name given to the phenomenon of a thing you've just noticed, heard of or experienced “suddenly cropping up constantly from different sources.” A common example is when a person becomes interested in buying a particular brand of car. Suddenly she begins to notice them everywhere. Or a friend mentions a popular song and later it comes up two or three more times in a short period. Also known as frequency illusion or recency illusion, it could be the result of a new awareness or a subconscious reaction to new information causing the brain to become selectively attentive.

Lately many news stories seem to follow the same theme. It wouldn’t be surprising for the entire society to be feeling a sense of this phenomenon and reacting to it. Are examples really more common or just more noticed?

Take for example, the recent story of the female TV reporter covering a fun run in Savannah, GA. The Huffington Post reports that one of the runners, a man wearing a hat and sunglasses, “smacked her backside as he ran past.” The offender “has been banned from future races after a video of the incident went viral.”

Then slapping became groping in this and several other stories: “Runner who groped reporter identified as local youth minister. Instead of a slap, CBS and others began to use the term grope in an effort perhaps to increase outrage.

The New York Post referred to him as the “pervy” jogger and a “creep.” 

In the wonderful world of new technology, technology that carries with it as many disadvantages as benefits allowing, for example, bullying to be raised to a new level of viciousness and relentlessness or one thoughtless comment to incite protests, boycotts and job losses, this grew from a localized incident of bad judgment into a national example of the prevalence of sexual harassment. 

This incident has created another celebrity victim: “It’s not playful. He hurt me both physically and emotionally.” The perpetrator, pervy jogger, creep, groper was given a national platform to apologize not only to the victim, but “to her family, her friends and her co-workers,” saying, “It was an awful act and an awful mistake.”

He’s lost his volunteer position and faced nationwide pillorying to his character and reputation based on a single misjudgment. Had it remained a local issue, he might have been charged with a misdemeanor. Instead he is another offender in the records of the Me-Too movement where examples are “suddenly cropping up constantly from different sources.”

What if a woman runner had done the same to a male reporter? I have met several women over the years who would have thought it both playful and funny. But that doesn’t fit the mold. It’s not confirmation bias or Baader-Meinhof. We are not sensitized to it. It wouldn’t have gone viral. 

And then, there was this story from the Business Insider, although ABC, the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as many other news organizations covered it. “West Point and the Naval Academy are investigating students giving hand gesture tied to white supremacy during Army-Navy broadcast.”

These are not new, unique, hateful hand signals. “Students from West Point and the Naval Academy were seen giving the ‘OK’ sign…during a pregame show.” A hand sign that has been used for almost 2000 years to mean OK (or something similar) was, as of three months ago, “added to the Anti-Defamation League's online database of hate symbols used by white supremacists and other far-right extremists.” I guess if they use it, it’s now off limits to everyone else. 

Talk about tyranny of the minority! According to a site called The Wrap, “White power groups are still decidedly on the fringes of society, especially compared to the prevalence of religious groups that preach positivity and acceptance.” And contrary to popular sentiment, the Southern Poverty Law Center lists fewer hate groups today than in 2013. But when hand signs at a football pregame make the news, the issue comes up again. There has to be an investigation into the intentions of these students.

Who is looking for and reporting hand signs on TV? Who thinks a local incident of acting like a complete jerk warrants national attention? Is life so easy or so boring in America that we have to search for problems, go out looking for reasons to be offended and upset? Do we have no perspective?

Flashback - Ignoring The Facts

[This one comes from January 2012 and is still one of my favorites. People, who are involved in a test that proves that a $30 item is not effective, continue to insist on buying one. Note, they didn't just hear on TV or read on the internet that the item is bogus - they were actually involved in testing it and shown the results. It didn't work as advertised, but they still wanted one regardless of what their eyes were telling them because of all the hype they had heard elsewhere! Being swayed by marketing promotions and celebrity endorsements is not wise behavior.]

While looking for a different article on the Placebo Effect, I found this interesting video. As you know, the Placebo Effect causes people to recover or show improvement even when they are given only a fake remedy, the familiar sugar pill. The power of the mind is amazing.

I recall an article a number of years ago stating that the improvement within the control groups in certain drug studies increased as the power of the real medicines increased. They were getting the sugar pill but believed they were getting the latest, stronger medicine, so they experienced even better results. It was all psychological. It is easy to understand how this reaction could play into the hands of "snake oil" salesmen. They sell you a useless cure and let your mind do the rest. Then they get a few believers who help them sell more. That's why I always say, "Endorsements are not evidence."

Here is the  CBS News video testing the claims of a particular performance wristband, one endorsed by famous athletes, and touted to improve athletic performance. When test subjects were given the advertised wristband, their performance on physical and balance tests did improve. But when they were given a one-dollar replacement band and told it also was special, performance on physical and balance tests improved comparably. The video also explains how the bracelet company sets up tests to ensure the perception of improved performance.

The scariest part is the ending where, despite the fact that the $30-wristband claims had been debunked, shown to be no more effective than the $1 bands or even not wearing a wristband at all, the participants still wanted one!

This is not critical thinking! This is the kind of decision-making that leads people to spend money on worthless items instead of using it wisely. Then they wonder why they get into debt and can't afford to retire. It's the kind of thinking that leads us to vote for candidates based on endorsements or personal appearance or charisma instead of the leadership and ideas we need. It's the kind of thinking that contributes to the decline of America!

Using Perspective to View Gift Cards

While shopping a couple of days ago, I noticed some people gathered around the gift card display at a local store. There were gift cards for a number of other stores and restaurants in town. 

There are a number of ways to interpret this. One is that those people were too lazy to try to figure out a good Christmas gift for some of the people on their list and decided to give them a gift card, which is only slightly more personal than an envelope full of cash. Another is that they didn’t really understand the tastes of the people they were buying for, for example, unable to come up with something appropriate for teenaged grandchildren living many miles away. A third is that it is so difficult to buy for people who have met all their wants and needs. The third is a distinct possibility in a country where nearly everyone has enough stuff. 

Gift cards originated in the mid-1990s. Around that time common ads asked, “What can you get for the man (or woman) who has everything?" Yes, Americans at that time already had most of everything they needed, especially compared to earlier times. When they were popular, the solution recommended by these ads was something exotic or unusual – and probably not what the person really wanted anyway.

Since then the market for gift cards has skyrocketed, growing from just over $80 billion in 2009 to $160 billion last year. Consumers are tempted with special offers and discounts from nearly every store or restaurant. Retailers also love gift cards because a small fraction of them goes unspent, pure profit for the store, and when people use them they typically spend more than the value of the card.

Does this mean that the number of men (and women) who have everything is growing? That could be the case, but we don’t seem to appreciate it. Gift cards are a convenient way to deal with this problem, if it can be called a problem.

This information comes from the Progress Paradox (p. 80) written in 2003: “Average Americans…not only live better than more than 99 percent of the human beings who have ever existed, they live better than most of the royalty in history.” We are better off than ever. In 1900, the life expectancy of an average American at birth was approximately 47 years, and what were then considered luxuries only enjoyed by the very rich are now very common, considered as necessities by nearly everyone. We also have conveniences they never dreamed of. In a historical sense twenty-first century Americans are the people who have everything - making it so hard to shop for us.

A good, healthy reaction at seeing the crowd around the gift cards is to rejoice that those people have it so good that they can afford to buy the gift cards (at an average around $50 each) and that their friends and relatives are so well off that it presents a challenge to those trying to figure out what to get them for Christmas (or any other occasion). 

This good feeling about the state of our society may help to buoy us up over the weeks ahead – at least until Congress is back in session. 

Flashback - Health Insurance

[My argument back in July 2011 was that people needed to better understand how health insurance works to keep from getting fooled by advertisers and politicians. Here is the entry in full.]

A flyer in the newspaper today reminded me how naïve consumers are about understanding the economic process, business and insurance, or at least how naïve advertisers think we are.

An ad from AARP promoting their Medicare supplemental insurance plan states that Medicare pays only about 80% of Part B (non-hospital) expenses and the other 20% is up to you.  (True.)  Right below is the statement that a supplemental insurance plan could save you up to thousands of dollars in out of pocket costs. That looks like a great deal, but where do those thousands of dollars come from, the AARP magic money tree? Perhaps the insurance company, out of the goodness of its heart, is going to make up the difference? – of course not.

The insurance company is going to collect premiums from everyone.  (Since premiums are not out-of-pocket costs in insurance language, maybe they are ignored when counting up the thousands in savings.)  The first thing the insurance company must do if it intends to stay in business is to pay its expenses (including the costs of the “free” brochure and of paying for all the people who work there and of other operating costs).  They also want to make a profit.  So already the total amount paid by everyone must be more than the total amount paid back to everyone (or to their doctor).

There will be winners and losers. The (financial) winners will be the people with high medical expenses for doctor visits, tests, etc. The losers will be the healthy ones. This may fluctuate, so in some years you come out ahead and in other years you may be part of the healthy bunch subsidizing the sickies – paying more in premiums than you receive in return.  Except for people who are chronically ill, this amounts to little more than a smooth-monthly-payment program similar to the installment plans offered by some electric and gas utilities. It is often a good budgeting tool to trade unknown payments for smooth, predictable ones, but you are hardly getting thousands of dollars for nothing as the flyer suggests.

This is a common tactic. It implies that the money is coming from somewhere else - but there is no money except our money. Companies and governments handle it, allocate it, and sometimes waste it, but their only source is to get it from us. Americans must listen to advertisers, news media and politicians with this always in mind to avoid getting tricked by this common something-for-nothing sales pitch that is really a smokescreen to disguise redistribution.

[Note that two and a half years after this posted, Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT and an architect of Obamacare said publicly: "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically [an intentional lack of transparency] was really really critical to get for the thing to pass." According to Snopes, the video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it.]

Fluoridation Facts

I stole the above title from a newly released American Dental Association (ADA) pamphlet on the controversy about fluoridation of public drinking water. This is another area where people with little understanding of science have spread falsehoods leading to some resistance to a beneficial practice. A brief review of the executive summary makes it quite clear; fluoride prevents cavities.

Although I have never had doubts about the safety of adding fluoride to drinking water, twice a year I am faced with the question of whether to pay an extra $35 at the dentist for a fluoride treatment. I know there is evidence that these treatments, along with the fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste, are beneficial for children’s teeth, but I wondered about the effectiveness for adults. 

The fact that my insurance company doesn’t pay for it raises some suspicion. Coverage decisions may be based on cost factors, but one cost factor they must consider is higher future dental bills. Normally they would prefer to pay for prevention than to pay more later.

I began my research on the effectiveness of fluoride treatment for adults at a site billing itself as “the top magazine for dental hygiene professionals.” One hygienist, whose boss wants her to push the treatment to increase business, asks directly whether every patient needs fluoride.

The answer goes to an ADA publication from 2007. (The advisor didn’t know of any more recent updates.) A patient whose risk is low “may not receive additional benefit from professional topical fluoride application.” Low risk is defined as "No incipient or cavitated primary or secondary carious lesions during the last three years and no factors that may increase caries risk." It goes on to say there are other factors to consider, but generally “blanket mandates of fluoride for everyone are not appropriate.”

Consumer Reports gives basically the same answer (with less dentist jargon). “Extra fluoride may be helpful if you’re at increased risk of developing cavities, indicated by frequent tooth decay in recent years, dry mouth caused by medications or disease, or gum recession that exposes the vulnerable tooth roots.” 

They go on to say that home treatments are not effective, and that those in the low risk category should do fine by brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste “especially if your water is fluoridated.”

The National Center for Biotechnology Information site reviews a compilation of research on the “effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults.” They believe that the authors' conclusions favoring the use of fluoride treatments for adults “appear to follow from the results presented, although the paucity of more recent studies and poor quality of the included studies limit their reliability and relevance to current populations.” This vague recommendation (also from 2007) is not very compelling.

A Healthline.com page from 2018 asks: “What Are the Benefits, Side Effects, and Recommendations for Fluoride Treatment?” Again the emphasis was on children and adolescents with some discussions of minor side effects of treatments and real dangers of fluoride supplements. A little new information was that it was “best to get fluoride both topically [gel or toothpaste] and systemically [ingested]” from drinking water.

With several references to the 2007 ADA advice, I went there next. In addition to brushing twice a day, flossing and regular dental examinations, a “key to good oral health is fluoride.” Maximum benefit “is achieved when fluoride is available both topically and systemically.” Treatments from a dentist are recommended for adults with high risk factors such as poor oral hygiene, active caries, eating disorders, drug or alcohol abuse, lack of regular professional dental care, high levels of bacteria in the mouth, exposed root surfaces” and a few others.

In my case it seems I have been correct in saving $35 per visit. I eat most of my meals at home, so I am able to brush three times a day. We use fluoridated tap water for cooking food and drinking. (Bottled water is non-existent in the house.) I have not had a cavity in at least ten years. (Knock on wood.) Nor do I have any of the other critical factors or habits.

It’s interesting what a little research – a factor in critical thinking – can do to help with everyday decisions. 

Flashback - Discrimination

[Here is a posting from June 2011. The original title was Age Discrimination, but the idea is broader.]

Recent news articles presented the fact that the older unemployed are finding it harder to reenter the workforce. In one television interview a man told the reporter that one company directly admitted to him that he had all the qualifications and experience and if he were 20 years younger, the job would be his. This is not only illegal, but a distinct failure in the dimension of critical thinking. It’s illogical and probably a disservice to the owners and customers of the company.

Consider that until recently it was not unusual for a company to have a turnover rate in the area of 20% - much higher in some cases, slightly lower in others depending on the work.  [Today (2019) it might be higher than that considering the number of job openings available to any disgruntled worker.]

At 20% turnover the company is losing it’s entire workforce, on average, every 5 years.  Even a person 55, who expects to retire no earlier than 62, would have a longer than average tenure.  In any economy it's likely that a 55-year-old would remain a loyal employee for those seven or more years until retirement with a company willing to give him or her a chance.

Furthermore some studies have shown that older workers spend more time on the job, with fewer sick days, no lost time due to maternity leave, fewer interruptions with calls from the daycare or school, etc.  Add in the mentoring potential, and arguments in favor of age discrimination become even weaker.  (Here are links to just a couple of articles supporting this position.) Furthermore, older employees have not grown up with all the technology. Those who are successful have shown that they can learn and adapt on the fly.

A company that ignores these realities exhibits behavior based on unwritten policies, past practices and gut feelings. That is both irrational and not in their own best interests – a failure in the dimension of critical thinking.

Reflect on this:  how many other laws are in place, including all other aspects of illegal discrimination, that would be unnecessary if company executives made sound (critical thinking) decisions instead of letting their prejudices short-circuit their brains?  And how many tax dollars could be saved on the development and enforcement of those laws and regulations if people just acted sensibly?

Astrology?

A few weeks ago CBS ran a story about millennials and astrology. The opening paragraph states: “Astrology is booming in popularity, especially among millennials who, according to the American Psychological Association, are among the most stressed Americans. The generation that grew up online is now turning to the ancient practice for help.”

Of course, astrology is not science. Research finds that people born on the same day at the same time do not have the same personality or life experiences. Show people the sort of general descriptions or predictions in a horoscope and they will rate them highly for accuracy, even if they are generated randomly. The mass of a person sitting next to you has a greater gravitational effect than all the planets combined.

Is this growing interest, booming popularity, a sign of poor critical thinking? 

I was ready to be discouraged about another example of behavioral failure until my research led me to a piece from early last year in The Atlantic called, “The New Age of Astrology.” They repeat that although there is “no evidence” to back any claims, astrology seems to provide some relief from a “combination of stress and uncertainty about the future.” Young people especially “find comfort and insight in the zodiac – even if they don’t exactly believe in it.” It can be meaningful and unreal at the same time. In this age of comfort animals and New Age mystical trends, astrology helps people remain calm.

There is a pattern here that goes deeper than astrology. Earlier this year, “American Psychology Association (APA) reported in their annual Stress in America survey that millennials are the most stressed generation.”

Huffington Post in April 2017 reported: Both Gen-X and Millennials “report nearly twice the level of stress that’s considered safe from serious health risk…and it’s affecting their children.” [Emphasis in the original.]

Time, October 2018, wrote: “Members of Gen Z – people ages 15 to 21 – reported the worst mental health of any generation” according to that year’s APA report.

That young people feel stressed is not hard to understand. It comes down to increased speed and reach of communications and the commoditization of audience, not to actual facts. Fifty years ago there were hurricanes, fires, the cold war and political scandals. There were drills in schools (for nuclear attacks), drugs, crime, poverty, bullying and social pressures. In the seventies there was even talk of climate change – another ice age – and don’t forget the oil crisis.

One reason the Boomer generation made it through was the absence of hyperbole and hysteria today delivered 24/7 on handheld devices with the express purpose of keeping the audience intensely engaged. Since then the standard of living has soared, the crime rate is down, there is less war and poverty in the world, families are smaller and houses are bigger. Modern conveniences – dish washers, microwaves, home air conditioning, cell phones, more reliable vehicles and many more – are both taken for granted and allow more time to worry. 

Favorable violent crime and murder trends, longer life expectancies, and diseases cured or prevented by vaccines are not emphasized, leaving the false impression that conditions are growing worse. Reporters give breathless accounts of tragedies and disasters all over the world, as they show graphic pictures and interviews with crying survivors. Thoughtful reporting has been replaced by each new and exciting item of “breaking news” to accommodate a short, Sesame-Street-fostered, attention span. Rumors and opinions from single unverified sources are treated as facts. Exceedingly rare incidents, child abductions and school shootings, are blown out of proportion. Constantly exposing a young captive audience to dire predictions of climate disasters, eyewitness accounts of shootings, pictures of terrorist attacks is bound to drive a sense of insecurity. 

Words are considered weapons. Incidental touching is assault. Every stranger is a potential abuser or abductor. Being offended has become the national pastime sometimes resulting in death threats against the offender. Ordinary life has become a legal mine field leading to the need for more insurance, warning labels, permission slips, hold harmless agreements and institutional overreaction to minor infractions. 

All this naturally leads to an atmosphere of safety paranoia where anxious parents overprotect frightened children.

Politicians have driven the country into opposing camps, painting the other party as a stupid or evil enemy, stressing dire consequences if they come to power. The press then promotes worst-case interpretations to further their interests. Thus everything has become political, and the best way to manipulate people is to use children as pawns by showing them as the ultimate victims and by terrifying them into carrying forth the message. 

Calm voices are ignored. Is it any wonder that a younger generation feels stressed, with constant messages of anxiety exacerbated by the misuse of increasingly powerful technology? The panicky voices, heart wrenching stories, the warnings of overblown dangers and threats expressed by the government, parents, teachers, advertisers and advocates were not something they could adapt to. They were brought up on this dystopian garbage and expected, even encouraged, to participate.

Interest in astrology by Millennials is not something to be mocked as lack of critical thinking by them. It’s their refuge from a world of unjustified panic resulting from a pattern of abandoning critical thinking and insistence on the truth.

Flashback Fridays

Now that the count of these short essays nears 900, it makes sense to review some of the better examples from the past. I explained on November 15 why the Real American Solutions must come from Americans themselves. Most of the crises we face individually and as a society are the direct result of individual decisions, not government action or inaction.

Behavior has consequences. Ill-advised decisions and actions lead to bad outcomes. Individual bad outcomes build on one another combining into what people consider national problems – the country moving in the wrong direction. To turn things around, to mitigate these crises and epidemics that we hear so much about on the news requires better decisions, leading usually to the opposite actions, saving instead of spending, for example, to improve retirement prospects. But that is just a single example. There are so many others.

One way to make sense of the myriad of possible decisions and actions is to categorize similar actions into dimensions, as I have done here. Poor choices in each of the areas of Critical Thinking, Economic Understanding, Perspective, Responsibility and Discipline lead to similar bad outcomes.

The purpose of these essays is to help readers develop two skills: recognizing behavior as the driving force behind consequences either good or bad, and being able to assign problematic behaviors to a dimension to see similarities. The result can be an “ah-ha” moment, identifying and seeing in a new light the errors of our communities and of ourselves. This understanding can lead to better outcomes, less stressful lives and even better voting decisions. 

So, with 900 examples to choose from, it shouldn’t be necessary to provide so many new examples. Some of the older ones will do just as well. It’s not like we’ve seen any significant progress over the past ten years. Americans are still making the same mistakes. The only differences today are that new technologies help to spread bad ideas faster and that almost any current example is far more likely to be politicized, which gives everyone an easy way to place the blame somewhere else and ignore their own contribution to the problem. 

Beginning soon, I will review some of the oldies-but-goodies from these many examples of poor choices and post them as Flashback Friday specials. These are still a relevant starting point to practice the skill of focusing on behavior instead of looking for new policies, promises of miracles and other unrealistic solutions. 

Are Cars Too Expensive?

It’s hard not to feel like a victim when the media keeps reminding us that we are being taken advantage of and pointing out the evildoers. This segment from CBS This Morning is fairly typical.

The question posed and answered was: “Can a middle-class budget buy a new American car? Probably not.” They begin with the fact that the average vehicle price increased by about 38% for a new car or truck compared to 10 years ago. Of course they don’t mention that more than half of that amount can be attributed to normal inflation. Some comes from required and optional safety improvements and some from added amenities. 

That situation will likely not improve in the future as GM just settled a six-week strike with 46,000 union members who will receive $11,000 ratification bonuses along with other contract improvements. This sets the level for negotiations with the other two US automakers. Economic understanding reminds us that those added costs will be passed along to the car buying public, but back to the story…

Armed with the average annual take-home pay and the recommended percentage for car payments, Tony Dokoupil visited a couple of New Jersey dealers to price a typical car. The only way he could meet his presumed budget was either with a 96-month loan or by buying a much smaller car.

Where is the problem according to CBS? “The big three auto-makers are retiring many family sedans while rolling out souped-up SUVs and trucks at premium rates that families often can't afford without taking on loans that are now larger and longer than ever” while “a record number of Americans fell behind on their car payments.”

About this time I’m yelling at the TV that automakers don’t make cars that don’t sell. The reason they are producing bigger cars is to meet the demand. They are not the bad guys.

To back this up I found a site from January 2019 headed: “39 Interesting Car Buying Statistics, Trends, & Analysis.” Two facts near the beginning of the list were: 

• “Passenger car sales dropped below 30% of the market share in August 2018 for the first month ever. (USA Today) 
• Sales of mid-size (15.6% decrease) and compact cars (13.6% decrease) fell in August 2018, while compact crossovers and SUV’s rose about 14.8% of the market share. (USA Today)”

That’s what people are buying.

Later in the list is the fact that the “top three features consumers are looking for in a new car are safety (21%), Bluetooth/USB connectivity (15%), and a spacious interior (11%). (Crimson Hexagon).”

Safety is number one. A reliable source provides the unsurprising information that “new small cars are safer than they've ever been, but new larger, heavier vehicles are still safer than small ones.” Not only does this explain the trend toward bigger vehicles, it also explains why the cost of cars may have risen more than inflation – even the smaller ones are safer than ever, plus customers are expecting more amenities.

Finally, Americans for a long time have had a love affair with larger vehicles. In 2016 we read: “With gas prices relatively low, you might be tempted to buy that SUV you’ve always wanted.” A few years earlier: “larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013” and “88 percent of all pickups sold in the US in 2013 were full-size models” and 54% of the SUVs “were on the larger side.” 

A couple of other observations: the percent of budget given to Tony to spend was a range of 10-15%. In the story he used 10% for his examples resulting in a worst-case scenario. There was no mention of a down payment or trade in, but many Americans are underwater with the car they are driving, so this may be fair. But it also could be an indication of where the problem really lies. With cars and many other purchases, buying now to pay later has become normal. (See my last entry.)

Finally, in the story CBS included statements from GM and Chrysler explaining their decisions were based on a “customer-driven trend to larger vehicles” and “based on what the customer wants,” respectively. Much as it’s popular to blame the big corporations for problems, the real problem is the appetite and resulting behavior of consumers. Saving for a car before stepping on the lot and then not overspending seem to be ideas of the past.