Mythology by Dimension

Last time I wrote about understanding the world by using the lens of mythology.  Everyone has beliefs that they’ve developed since childhood through interactions with parents, teachers, friends, reading and learning.  As this personal mythology matures it becomes a guide for action, a guide for making moral decisions, judging right and wrong.  We each see ourselves as heroes of our own stories, stars of an imaginary movie playing inside our heads.  When we act in concert with our beliefs we are behaving heroically.  Otherwise we are cowards and a disappointment to ourselves.

Our friends, the people we hang out with, what I have called the tribe reinforce these beliefs.  (I purposely use primitive terms like tribe and mythology to emphasize the primitive nature of these reactions.  These core beliefs go deep and are very hard to change.)  When ideas contrary to our mythology arise our tribe helps us combat them by finding examples of how we are right and by shouting down the opposition, portraying them as villainous, evil, stupid, idiotic, naïve, and greedy.  The “others” are purposely lying to us to advance their selfish goals.

But that is usually not the case.  Those we consider villains are heroes of their own mythology, fighting the good fight on the side of what they believe is right.

That’s why we see so much division in the country today.  Everyone is so busy accusing each other of villainy, pointing fingers and calling names, that nothing gets settled.

Now comes the behavioral model.  Behavior has consequences.  If actions hurt you, stop doing them.  If actions cause suffering for others or fail over the long term to relieve their suffering, stop doing them.  We must use these same criteria to adjust our own behavior and to challenge the actions of others.  Name-calling and accusations don’t solve anything.  Behavior is the guide.  Unfortunately personal mythology blinds individuals to many behavioral errors.  Here are a few examples by dimension.

Economic understanding points out that there is no magic money tree.  Money always comes from somewhere, and we can usually trace it back to our own pockets.  When sympathetic juries hand out large awards to compensate for a loss, they fail to understand that insurance companies do not have a big, endless pool of money.  They get their money from us in premiums and will find a way to recoup the loss.  Their competitors will also see how such actions increase their risk and will take defensive action.  Everyone’s premiums go up.  It’s a myth that no one is hurt and only good comes out of this redistribution from the rich companies to the poor victims, but many cling to this myth.

Economic understanding points out that the economic “pie” is not fixed.  It’s not always a zero sum game with winners and losers.  The standard of living for everyone in the US has increased dramatically over the last century – for everyone!  The rich are better off than they were with more luxuries.  The poor are better off than they were with more conveniences.  Delivering fresh produce to a food pantry last year I heard clients discussing the best place to buy an inexpensive microwave oven.  Fifty years ago no one, rich or poor, had a microwave oven!  The rich are getting richer, but that does not imply the poor are getting poorer.  (Note: This Congressional Budget Office report shows distribution of income growth 1979-2007 was skewed toward the higher incomes, but all income levels experienced some growth.)

Many companies and industries are big and powerful.  Barring government interference, companies grow big by getting more customers.  The smart way to get more customers is to give them what they want at a reasonable price.  A bad way to attract customers is to treat them poorly or try to cheat them.  Most companies are smart enough to figure this out or they don’t stay in business very long.  A common myth is that all big companies are greedy and evil based on the actions of a few.  Sure CEOs are overpaid, but so are star athletes, TV and movie stars, super models and rock musicians; but you don’t hear people complaining about George Clooney making too much money.  And you don’t see people planning to skip the next Disney movie to protest how much the CEO is paid compared to the average Disney worker.  Our personal mythology is selective.

(In the interest of your time, I’ll continue the discussion on Friday.)

Disney Backs Down

Walt Disney World is rethinking an exhibit on childhood obesity that was criticized for being insensitive.  They used superheroes to demonstrate good habits with villains to show poor habits such as eating junk food and not exercising.

The primary objection came from an organization called the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA).  I went to their website to research their philosophy.  

Their home page has a banner that reads: “Discrimination is Wrong.”  That statement is totally incorrect.  Illegal or irrational discrimination is wrong, but otherwise we discriminate every day, about the food we eat, the people we associate with, the television shows we choose to watch or skip, the kind of car we buy.  The list goes on and on.  Rational discrimination (or even sometimes emotional discrimination), choosing one thing or one brand over another, is a natural and important human activity.  It’s the way we narrow options for decision making.  I like chocolate and will sometimes make decisions to satisfy my preference, discriminating against other sweets or desserts.  It’s not illegal and it’s not wrong – but so much for nit picking.  There are more troubling things about this organization.

First, I agree with their basic premise that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity.  Those who are otherwise fully qualified for a job should never be turned down on the basis of any non-job-related characteristic.  That’s bad business and just plain stupid.  Bullying in school for any reason is unacceptable.  This ideal of respect for all is a noble mission.

But they go on to say: “This discrimination [against fat people] occurs despite evidence that 95 to 98 percent of diets fail over five years…” Assuming that diets fail at that rate, is it time to give up?  It’s not constructive or responsible for people to declare themselves victims.  Diets fail precisely because they are diets.  They entail following a certain course until the problem is fixed, and then folks go back to old habits.  What if we treated oral hygiene the same way?  We would wait until we got a toothache and then brush and floss like crazy and start keeping dentist appointments.  When the toothache went away we would go back to neglecting our teeth and then scratch our heads wondering why problems recurred.  Diets fail because they are short-term solutions.  The NAAFA solution would be to have government regulate “and closely monitor and control all aspects of the $58 billion+ diet industry” and to ban them from advertising on TV, apparently because they don't work or give false hope.  I say, don't blame the diet; take responsibility.

From the statistics on the failure of dieting they conclude, “Our thin-obsessed society firmly believes that fat people are at fault for their size.”  Well, with the exception of valid medical problems, they probably are.  And the valid medical problems are likely no more common than they were 60 years ago when obesity in the US was far lower than it is today.  So the question is, do we let people off the hook for a preventable problem?  Do we call it an addiction, call for “acceptance” and become enablers, or do we try to support them in their effort to lose weight?  As a comparison, how do we treat smokers?  People addicted to tobacco and have tried and failed over years to quit seem to be treated the opposite.  Since the behavior is bad for their health and general welfare, society takes every opportunity to warn them of the dangers and urge, sometimes nag, them to quit.  They are charged higher health insurance premiums and laws limit the places where smoking is permitted.  Yet you don’t hear an uproar over smoker discrimination.  You don’t hear calls for “acceptance.”

Let’s try this approach with children graduating from high school who cannot read.  These young people have behaved in a way that will negatively affect their overall welfare for the rest of their lives.  It is preventable in most cases.  Do we decide that it could be a medical issue, dyslexia, and excuse it, or do we support and encourage them to change?  Is having high school graduates who can't read acceptable because it adds to diversity in our society?  Ridiculous!

The change model, presented last time, shows that change does not occur unless there is some discomfort or dissatisfaction with the status quo.  The more we try to make people comfortable, even proud of any behavior or lifestyle, the less likely they will be to change to a healthier, more positive one.

Bottom line, I have a problem with the NAAFA, not because they are caring people, but because they promote excuse, apology and rationalization over responsibility, an approach that guarantees no solution, but rather a continuation of people putting themselves in danger of a myriad of physical and medical complications related to obesity.  Presented as a service, it is actually a disservice to both the individuals it claims to support and to society as a whole.