Flashback – Build a Wall?

[Believe it or not, at the end of 2011, long before Donald Trump rode this issue to the White House, I wrote a piece with the title “Build a Fence.” Back then; when a Trump presidency was less than a minor consideration, many other people were talking about the need to control the southern border. Some of them later opposed the idea merely because of who was promoting it.

I also opposed a fence or wall because the issue could not be solved without changing the incentives that drive behavior. As long as illegal action yields positive consequences, it will continue. It called for better policies, and we are still waiting. Here are my thoughts from New Years Eve 2011.]

You are pushing your cart to check out at the grocery store and see ahead of you a man with his young son. The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and the toddler is sitting in the child seat. Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching. His father, distracted with the groceries and embarrassed, tries shushing the kid. Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching. The father is at his wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to everyone in earshot. Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is: “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior." He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future. You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future. Don’t feel guilty. That’s exactly how most people would feel. Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration. People sneak into the United States. They get free public education for their children. They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.” They get free medical care at emergency rooms. If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.

Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country. This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior. If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress. 

There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come into this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free. Most proposals from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.

[Eight years later the government is still trying to figure this out.]

Flashback – Behavior has Consequences

[Over 8 years ago I explained the objective of this site: to get people to look at their own behavior and that of others in light of the five key dimensions. A criticism of behavior is not a personal attack. The national mood of tolerance and acceptance, however sees every criticism as negative. This former attitude is considered caring; confrontation is judgmental. In reality, the former can be more a sign of cowardice, while the latter shows a commitment to living up to higher standards. Under many circumstances, acceptance perpetuates errors, while caring correction of errors promotes success. Here is the original from 2011.]

As I reconsider my main topic, that behavior has consequences, I ask myself how anyone could disagree. Hasn’t this been the message since our youth from parents and teachers, hard work will be rewarded and laxness penalized? The ancient wisdom of the Yoga Sutra states in part that the consequences of an action will be either painful or beneficial (2.14) and that results of actions will be either immediate or delayed (3.22).

It seems that the opposite viewpoint would be very fatalistic, that no matter what you do, say or decide, your fate is sealed.  You are not rich or famous or popular or successful or happy because you were not destined to be.  It’s not what you do or say that makes a difference, it’s what other people decide. That is giving up, not taking responsibility.

True, some Americans rely on prayer to assist in their decisions, but they typically pray for help to make a good decision or to be successful in their actions. Talking to God helps them sort things out, may help put things into perspective, remind them of options, or help them find the courage to cope when things go wrong.  When something is out of control they put it in the hands of God, but not until after they have done everything they can think of. Ultimately, whatever action they take or decide not to take will determine their outcomes.

To follow what I am presenting each week requires acceptance of this basic belief that what we do matters. Bad things do happen to good people and good things to bad people. This tends to challenge our faith. On the other hand, good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people, but without the apparent irony this fact gets little attention. In general, better decisions result in better outcomes. Luck does enter into it, but there is truth in the saying that you make your own luck.

That’s why I am adamant about the information presented here. I continue to see examples of opportunities for better decisions, and hence better outcomes, in the key dimensions. I also see examples of influential people who really do believe that a sizable proportion of the population is at the mercy of forces beyond their control. To overcome this is a double challenge: taking control of our lives away from those (self-righteous) helpers while simultaneously making better decisions in face of the challenges presented by an increasingly technological society.

Whenever people ask the question “What’s wrong with America today?” my simple answer is this:  Our behavior is not consistently strong enough in the areas of Discipline, Responsibility, Economic Understanding, Critical Thinking and Perspective to deserve better outcomes. I see evidence everyday and share it with you twice a week with the hope that more and more people will begin to find behavioral solutions to our societal problems.

Behavior and Consequences

An article in one of my news feeds caught my eye recently. The title was “How To Predict Your Future.” It was based somewhat on the same premise as this blog, except that it concerns itself with predicting individual futures, whereas I have generalized it to apply to the future of society as a whole. Past behavior predicts future behavior, and those behaviors almost always dictate how satisfactory the results will be.

About individual results he says, “It’s not about what you want — it’s about what you do.” Look at your habits and decide whether they are the ones needed to reach goals. Don’t just set goals and assume the good intentions will see you through. The same can be said of societies. 

Just because a couple of us agree doesn’t convince me, so I dug deeper. 

This Psychology Today article claims the maxim is too simplistic and depends on a lot of factors:

•        High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
•        Predictions work best over short time intervals. 
•        The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
•        The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.  
•        The person must remain essentially unchanged. 
•        The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors. 

These are reasonable objections. Of course if a person is not exposed to the same situations or if he has gone through a  change brought about by a personal realization or outside intervention, the same actions will not repeat. People can quit smoking, give up drugs or turn away from a criminal lifestyle.

But these arguments apply more to an outside authority or counselor using records to judge whether someone needs professional help (or incarceration). In daily life though, there are people who almost always drive too fast regardless of the number of tickets issued and people who don't pass up the snack food aisle or the corner coffee shop. It's not the big things that catch up to people in the long run; it's the accumulation of small habits with unnoticeable consequences the lead to obesity, retirement insecurity and car crashes.

An example comes from the medical field.  A study to determine which was a better predictor of statin patients’ adherence to their prescriptions found that attitudes about taking medicine as directed were not as strong as past medication-refill behavior. The conclusion was “that past prescription-refill behavior is a better predictor of medication adherence,” which is fortunate since the refills can be tracked electronically.

In academics a 2018 article states, “Your behavior in high school could predict your income.” The study began in 1960 with 345,000 American high school students, following up with “about 80,000 of them 11 years later and another [follow up] for nearly 2,000 of them 50 years later.” Those who performed well “were all associated with career prestige at the 11-year mark and higher income at the 50-year mark.”

Of course past behavior is not a perfect predictor of future behavior (and the consequent future outcomes), but we don’t usually need to be perfect when dealing with individuals or groups. General trends are enough to predict whether America will continue to head in what most consider to be the wrong direction. Several times in the past eight years I have written about predicting outcomes months in advance. Here is just one called "How to Predict the Future." 

In another case I criticized the panic resulting from an investigative report dubbing lean beef trimmings as pink slime. Anyone with a trace of critical thinking would have passed it off as ridiculous; but people did react, and a few years later ABC News settled a defamation case with the meat processor for $177 million.

Last spring I argued that constantly telling children scary lies is a form of abuse. One example I used was the story about the dwindling polar bear population. This week news broke with the headline: Canadian “University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change.” (The university apparently favors such abuse.)

Likewise, I wrote in early 2015 that we must deal with our own problems by choosing healthier behavior and not “wait for the next election” to solve everything.  How right I was!

There are far too many examples bearing out the behavior/consequences link for it to be ignored or dismissed.

Unintended Consequences

So many times we hear of laws or regulations having unintended consequences, and though unintended, in hindsight many of them seem totally predictable. I was reminded of this when I heard politicians in Washington suggest that the voting age be lowered to sixteen.

The whole argument as to whether sixteen-year-olds have the maturity and judgment to vote is a good debate for elsewhere. After all, the eighteen-year-olds who are allowed, even encouraged, to vote cannot legally buy alcohol. They may not buy lottery tickets in a few states. And here the USA Today advocates, “Raise the federal minimum legal age for tobacco, e-cigarette purchases to 21.” Furthermore, since 2009 “you must be 21 years of age to get a credit card in your own name, unless you have a cosigner or can show proof of steady income.” All these laws and proposals speak to the maturity and judgment of 18 year-olds.

Note: The voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War on the somewhat skewed reasoning that if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to vote – as if following orders and fighting in combat require the same skills as voting. But what of lowering it again to sixteen?

Implied with lowering the voting age is also lowering the age of majority, that is, when you are considered an adult. One of the problems comes back to that question of the draft. Along comes the USA Today again with a suggestion to “Include women in Selective Service registration.” Would that mean boys and girls must register when they reach their 16^th birthday? (Of course, they would not be considered boys and girls anymore, but men and women.)

Another issue is the protection sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds enjoy in courts and criminal proceedings. Debates sometimes break out over whether certain juvenile criminals should be tried as adults. Should they be eligible for the death penalty in states that allow it? Police don’t release names, and the press doesn't publish the names of minors involved in crimes. With such a new law it could be argued that they are adults and must forfeit all this special consideration.

Yet another issue would be activities and purchases other than alcohol and nicotine products where normally an adult must sign for the youth. This might include medical procedures and vaccinations, high school field trips, youth sports, legal contracts and a host of other transactions. How would all these parental permission issues be affected?

If some of these examples seem extreme, consider the college orientation briefing I attended with one of my sons years ago. While they were explaining how parents could afford all the fees and tuition to send their children to college, they added that to see how the students were doing the parent had to deal directly with them. Since they were adults, some privacy regulations prohibited the school from sharing report cards with parents (those same parents whom they assumed would be responsible for paying). Imagine having such privacy restraints applied to a report card for a junior in high school!

I’m sure there are other considerations that I have missed, but predicting, or at least anticipating, unintended consequences is a good exercise in critical thinking.

Behavior Does Have Consequences

Wise choices usually lead to favorable results. Poor choices or foolhardy behavior often leads to trouble. This is not rocket science, yet many people struggle to see the connection, despite the fact that we are surrounded by examples.

The standard example is that of the child touching a hot stove. The child receives immediate feedback, quickly jumps back and learns to avoid the situation in the future. It is an easy, and ordinarily harmless lesson. The first time may be a mistake or ignorance, but after that the child learns to be careful.

The harder lessons come from the actions that have delayed or unpredictable consequences. Teens (and adults) hear many warnings about the dangers of smoking, that it can shorten their lives by several years. Some heed the warnings. Others feel confident about ignoring the warnings because the consequences are so far in the future. They may also have heard of the rare cases of the centenarians who smoked or had other bad habits all their lives and are still going strong at 100 years of age. The lessons are delayed and uncertain, but the odds are strongly against a happy ending.

This came to mind when I heard about the incident before a Backstreet Boys concert at an outdoor pavilion at WinStar World Casino and Resort in Thackerville, Oklahoma. The weather forecasters warned of an incoming storm bringing high winds and rain. The news reported that as the storm hit, a tent collapsed, emergency crews arrived on the scene along with 10 ambulances, and paramedics carried people out on stretchers. They cancelled the show, apologized to their fans and promised to come back at a later date.

But the rest of the story goes like this: "All patrons in the area were asked to move and to seek shelter from the storm. However, about 150 patrons who were standing in line for the Backstreet Boys concert did not heed staff's warning... the storm hit and knocked over the concert entrance trusses with 70-80 mile an hour winds and heavy rain. 14 people were treated at the scene and then transported to local hospitals." (Emphasis added.)

As usual in these types of situations numerous unnamed heroes sprang into action to help the people in trouble. Of course the casino, performers and news media would never say anything so blunt as “behavior has consequences,” but it fits, at least for some. They did not heed the warning and ended up in the hospital.

The typical reaction is to ignore the behavior/consequences connection and to treat the injured as victims, even when they are victims of their own misjudgments.  For example, look at how juries have rewarded smokers (and their surviving relatives) in the past. 

That’s why the child learns the lesson and adults keep making foolish decisions.

Unpredictable Consequences

The premise that behavior has consequences and that the nature of those consequences usually follows from the wisdom of the behavior is accepted by almost everyone (and is common to most religions).  Most consequences are predictable in this way, but some people need to learn the lesson the hard way and many do.

A recent example was the man who had to be rescued two days in a row from Wildcat Creek in Indiana.  On a Thursday he and three others were rescued when their boat capsized on the flooded creek.  The next night he returned to the same spot to try to retrieve belongings that had been left behind, and he drowned.  The consequences of his Thursday misjudgment were not enough to deter him from repeating the risky behavior.  Consequences can be cruel.

More troublesome are those consequences that are harder to predict because the decisions are based on faulty information or grounded in fear.

I read a book a few weeks ago by Gene Stone called The Trump Survival Guide.  In it he criticized the idea of private Social Security saying the stock market might yield a higher return (most of the time) but the Trust Fund was invested in government-backed securities, so although the return was lower, the investment was safer.  Fine, but individual Social Security returns are not based on the investment vehicle of the Trust Fund.  They are based on a set formula that rewards at a higher rate those who contributed less. (See the graph here.)  This assumption also perpetuates the myth that the money you paid as F.I.C.A. taxes are invested in a “lock box” or trust fund and are waiting for you to collect them.  This is absolutely incorrect.

One week earlier I read a book by David M. Smick called The Great Equalizer.  At one point he tells of the difficulty of raising the Social Security cap to get the rich to pay more, thus extending the time before the Trust Fund is depleted (an estimated 15 years from now).  He gives the example of a husband and wife who together earn more than the current cap of about $120,000.  (I couldn't believe an author with his credentials could be so mistaken.)  The Social Security cap applies to individuals.  You can’t file jointly to try to reach the cap sooner.  That’s not how it works.  That couple would not have been affected by such a change unless they were each expecting a huge raise!  Yet such misinformation could easily get them writing anxious letters to Congress.

These may be fine details, but how can voters make intelligent decisions when well-educated people from both sides of the political spectrum (not to mention AARP) don’t seem to understand a system that affects so many?  Faulty information leads to poor decisions, which in turn may lead to poor outcomes we all must live with.

Decisions grounded in fear are also problematic.  I also read in the Trump Survival Guide how the prospect of a Trump presidency was characterized as horrific.  This is simply a kind of fortunetelling, anticipating and worrying about a destructive future that may or may not play out.

As a demonstration of how unpredictable that kind of future can be, consider this scenario.  In 2012 Mitt Romney wins the election.  In 2016 instead of having a 16-way debate among Republican candidates, Romney is running for re-election against Hillary Clinton.  Donald Trump would have no way to throw his hat into the ring.  There is no working class backlash against the establishment and Mrs. Clinton has Romney's 4-year record to run against.  Whatever the result of the election, there is no Trump presidency and no potentially horrific outcomes.

Now if Romney had run on a platform:  If you don’t vote for me, Donald Trump will become President of the United States, people would have called him crazy.  No one would have believed it, no one!  So today we are in a situation no one could have predicted a couple of years ago, yet so many people are stressing about and making decisions often based on wild predictions of future disasters.

Decisions based on inaccurate information or motivated by fear also have consequences.  Inaccurate information may lead you in the wrong direction.  Decisions based on fear of possibilities leads to highly unpredictable consequences and can have a detrimental effect on your health.  Is it really worth panicking about the pessimistic speculation of people with their own agendas who bank on such an emotional reaction from their followers and contributors?  (We know had the election come out the other way,  the same dynamic would be happening on the other side).

For the record:  I supported neither of the major party candidates as was clear from an entry on this page last November.  I still contend that America deserves better.

Advantages and Disadvantages

This is the 600^th entry in Real American Solutions.  I have posted twice a week for almost 6 years.  Each time I look for an example from the news or from current advertising to point out common behavior in America, usually poor choices or a lack of understanding, within the five key behavioral dimensions.

So far it has been easy to find examples, because though it’s commonly accepted that behavior has consequences, the idea seems to elude so many.  People spend money as they earn it and wonder why they don’t have a comfortable retirement.  People overeat and don’t exercise and wonder why they are overweight.  They look to technology and magic diets and wonder why the purveyors of these miracles get rich while they don’t get any slimmer. People have families before they can afford to support a family and believe that gives them the right to demand higher wages.  Some people look to politicians to fix their problems with money the government doesn’t have.  Others hang around malls or coffee shops complaining about the evils of capitalism, unaware that capitalism is the reason the malls and coffee shops exist.  Parents try to instill good values in their children while setting the opposite example in their personal lives.  These are easy things to spot and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

Behavior has consequences for individuals and families, but the consequences to society as these misconceptions spread across American are even greater.  They become the crises and epidemics we hear about in the news every day.  That is why 600 in less than 6 years has been relatively easy.

From the beginning, though, I outlined a few rules for myself.  First, I would not write about political subjects.  There are too many editorials, blogs and tweets obsessed with politics.  Also, my model is based on the premise that the only real, permanent solution to people’s problems, and by extension America's problems, comes through improved, wiser behavior and not government action.  So I avoid politics as much as possible.  Second, I committed to never resort to the kind of labeling, name-calling and insulting behavior so common across our society.  The model is based on the premise “criticize behavior, not the actor” – just like the excellent advice we hear all the time about pets, children and employees.

It is a definite challenge to avoiding political subjects.  As we move into 2017 it seems everything has become political.  It’s harder to find subjects that don’t have some political angle, or at least won’t be twisted around to try to justify some political rebuttal or angry outburst.

One example from a minor news and opinion website makes the point.  They report that a few people including a Yahoo writer accused quarterback Tom Brady of racism.  (That's name-calling).  They base it on the fact that after winning the Super Bowl he posted on line the poem by Rudyard Kipling, titled “If.”  It is one of the best-known poems of the 19^th century written in the form of advice to his son with the message of keeping calm during adverse circumstances (like being down by 25 points at halftime).

Now the detractors said that Kipling was a racist and a white supremacist – a colonialist (in India), who coined the phrase “white man’s burden.”  Quoting him apparently makes Brady the same.  He is also criticized for copying the poem without giving Kipling credit.  Add plagiarism to the charges.

First, if being a colonialist in the late 1800s was a sin, many British and Americans from that era would fall into the same category.  Second, the poem was purported to be inspired by a valiant defeat during the Second Boer War where the British were fighting the (white) descendants of Dutch immigrants in South Africa with, in some cases, the assistance of the native Africans.  It doesn't sound like a basis for calling the British (or the poet) racist.  Also, Kipling is one of the most-cited authors in the Oxford English Dictionary Supplement - do we also label those lexicographers as racist?

And as for plagiarism, since the Boston Red Sox used the same poem at the retirement of David Ortiz late last year, I doubt if Brady was trying to trick anyone into believing he just made it up.  But Brady has a reputation for backing the President and those of the opposite opinion see him as fair game for attacks.  Instead of calmly and rationally working out differences, America is now engaged in a civil cold war, verbally attacking each other wherever they can find any excuse.

That’s how crazy things have become!  But I will continue to look for and publish non-political examples of behavior and their consequences as objectively as possible.

How to Predict the Future

In June of last year I wrote about a proposed beverage tax in Philadelphia.  These were my comments at the time.

“The new mayor of Philadelphia wants to impose a special tax on non-diet soda and other sugary drinks.  The new tax is expected to “generate more than $400 million over the next five years” to help fund a plan for universal pre-K and community schools among other benefits.  Using a good cause will bring goodwill toward paying the tax, right?  I doubt it.  This action is much more intrusive than just requiring warning labels.  The new beverage tax will not only double the cost of soft drinks and juices, it will have some interesting, unintended side effects.  Those who are better off financially can afford to drive outside the city limits to buy their cola.  The ones who will be hurt most are first, the city grocery stores which lose business as the special tax drives grocery shopping out of the city for some and second, the poor whose options are limited, ironically the same people who the universal pre-K programs are intended to help.  When you consider human behavior, the $400 million looks like a pipe dream.”

The overall theme of this June 3, 2016 entry was that if we don’t exercise responsibility and take proper care of ourselves, someone will feel obligated to step in and force the proper behavior on us – on everyone, not just those who need it.  Irresponsible behavior by many leads to across-the-board loss of freedom.

The tax became effective with the new year, 1.5 cents per ounce – that’s per ounce, not per can or bottle.  The people in Philadelphia are upset!  Did they sleep though the discussion and announcement last spring?  It was not a secret and the outcome was easily predictable.  Now the cost of a soda is up more than 50%, about a one dollar increase on a two-liter bottle.

In this Fox News video the host asks the opinions of two sources that they brought in to comment on the tax and the reaction to it.

The first commentator points out that these programs, like cigarette taxes, are designed to change behavior as they are passed along to the consumer.  In doing so the tax is supposed to go away with the change.  The idea of trying to make it more palatable by tying it to a new education program is crazy.  If it’s successful and consumption is reduced, and with it the taxes, the great new programs will quickly become underfunded.  Then what are they going to do?  Also when a tax is limited to a particular locale, those who are able will naturally make short trips to avoid it (as I said above).  It also may encourage smuggling as a black market develops.

The comments of the second individual are interesting in a different way.  She defends not the tax, but the intent and the need to do something.  She insists that obesity due to too much sugar is such “a very serious issue” that it’s the duty of government to fix it.  (That is exactly my point about loss of freedom.)  She goes on saying that we are not healthy in America and that it’s “a fair thing for the city to address,” that the city has to take more responsibility for this.  She believes the goal is a reasonable one, because in our society we give the states and localities police power to keep us healthy and safe.  “They deal with our moral wellbeing as well as our physical wellbeing.”  This tax is not the answer but it’s such a big problem it must be addressed (somehow by government). 

Back to the tax itself, to quote a conclusion they both agree on:  “It doesn’t work.  It’s a bad plan.”  So if it is so obvious now, why couldn’t the mayor and city officials see this coming?  The answer is a deficiency in the dimension of economic understanding.  As long as we have citizens weak in economic understanding, we will elect government officials with the same shortcomings and continue to face the same kinds of problems, while wrongly calling predictable outcomes unintended consequences. (More on this next time.)