MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Flashback – Twenty-Three Months to Solve the Problem

Time’s running out! In early-December 2018 shortly after the last election, with the usual accusations of voter suppression by requiring a photo ID, I suggested that with 23 months to the election, concerned citizens had plenty of time to solve the problem themselves. Here is the original post.

[Generally, I avoid topics that touch even indirectly on politics, but this subject has overtones of responsibility – doing something about a situation instead of trying to blame it on luck, circumstances or another person or group.

I get so tired of hearing about the supposed voter suppression because citizens have trouble identifying themselves at the polls. Now we are 23 months away from the next major election, and it’s time to do something about it instead of moaning or accusing after the fact, as has been the practice for many years. There is a better solution than fighting about whether or not the laws must be changed.

Spread the word. If anyone you know cannot for any reason obtain a photo identification, figure out what is necessary, take some time away from work or other interests and help them out. It probably only takes a couple of hours, depending on the efficiency of the local DMV. 

Another faster, but slightly more expensive option would be to help the person get a passport. Last time I renewed mine, I found a local pharmacy that takes passport pictures, and I spent less than an hour to drive there and leave with my photo. The rest can be done through the mail. (Some UPS locations also have this service.)

Every nursing home I’m familiar with runs a shuttle for these kinds of errands. People confined to their own homes must have someone to check on them periodically. Perhaps the same organizations that arrange for voters without transportation to get to the polls on Election Day could set up one or two ID days for those unable to make their own arrangements. With 700 days left to find a few hours to solve this problem for everyone we know, next time there should be no excuse!

As with so many other problems, we look to the government to fix it when a simple solution is within our reach.]

Now (August 2020) with only 2 months left, I wonder if anyone took the initiative, or will we hear the same cries and complaints from the people who want new laws when all that was ever needed is a little foresight and personal responsibility.

Conflicting Stories About Mind Control

Sometimes all the critical thinking in the world can’t completely resolve an issue, but it can get you closer than gut reaction, Facebook or the news media.

This journey began when I read Outnumbered: Exploring the Algorithms That Control Our Lives by David Sumpter, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. It tells about the effects of technology and the Internet on our lives. “Using the data they are constantly collecting about where we travel, where we shop, what we buy, and what interests us, they can begin to predict our daily habits, and increasingly we are relinquishing our decision-making to algorithms.”

That seems scary, but one reassuring, and somewhat surprising, observation was that commercial and political discussions and arguments on social media and even those by professional persuaders like politicians and advertisers don’t do much to move us off our established positions. You’ll struggle to move someone from one side to the other no matter how good your data; a more likely reaction will be increased resistance (Democrat/Republican, Coke/Pepsi).

Next stop, The New York Review of Books. Here I found a review of The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis, author of Money Ball and other best sellers. In it he “recounts the complex friendship and remarkable intellectual partnership of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, the psychologists whose work has provided the foundation for the new behavioral science.” Their work is summarized in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) that gives numerous examples of how intuition, fast thinking, frequently leads us in the wrong direction. (I referred to this idea last Monday.)

Later in the article the reviewer begins to elaborate: “Lewis does not discuss the ways in which the same behavioral science can be used quite deliberately for the purposes of deception and manipulation, though this has been one of its most important applications.” But wait a minute! That idea would contradict the point mentioned above.

To support a premise that “Lewis does not discuss,” the reviewer spends several paragraphs worrying that Trump’s 2016 victory moved this new understanding of behavioral science from “making the world a better place” to “a darker story in the public mind…. News outlets have claimed that although Obama’s and Clinton’s teams both used social media, data analytics, and finely grained targeting to promote their message, Trump’s team, according to Forbes, ‘delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning.’… If this sinister level of manipulation seems far-fetched, it nevertheless reflects the boasts of Cambridge Analytica, the company they employed to do this for them.” 

The implication is that this must be take very seriously, but four paragraphs later the reviewer concedes that whether Cambridge Analytica did or even could do what they claimed consists primarily of a sales pitch.

Finally, I turned to Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe by Hugo Mercier, a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He believes that people are less gullible than we tend to think. We often hear stories of obvious scams involving Nigerian princes and prepaid debit cards, but, like plane crashes, these stories make the news because they are rare and shocking, not because they are common. Again, people tend to resist rather than blindly accept new ideas.

Mercier also uses Cambridge Analytica, which according to the Guardian newspaper “allowed democracy [to be] highjacked,” as an example. On page 139 he writes, “In fact it was a scam.” He goes on to say, “In reality, its influence was nil” and that the political analysts “never saw ‘any evidence that it worked’” feeling it was based on “pop psychology BS.”

Who do I trust about the power of persuasion generally or Cambridge Analytica’s (and Russian bots') past or future influence on US elections? I trust Sumpter and Mercier, not a NYBooks reviewer speculating on something the author didn’t discuss in the book, then hedging about how true it is. Experience and these authors teach me that swaying people through psychological manipulation is highly unlikely.

It Doesn’t Take Much

A number of weeks ago, one of my loyal readers sent me an email with this excerpt of an article on homeopathy saying I might find it interesting. 

“Something like 5 million adults and 1 million children use homeopathy, remedies that, in fact, contain no discernible amounts of the active ingredients…. Analysts project that the global market for homeopathic treatments will rise 12.5 percent by 2023, and already it’s a $1.2 billion industry. People are beginning to feel cheated: a nonprofit suing Walmart and CVS for hawking such snake oil conducted a survey that found 41 percent of people feel negatively about homeopathy when they learn about the pseudoscience behind it.”

I did find it interesting. I was familiar with the lawsuit mentioned and had referred to it earlier. But this time what struck me was the data from the survey. If 41% are willing to change their minds (and feel cheated) when presented with the fact that there is no science behind homeopathy, that means 59% were unmoved even in the face of good evidence. They were that strongly committed to their opinions. From a critical thinking standpoint, this is very disturbing. Why look for evidence just to ignore it?

My reader thought that those 59% were in trouble, but I responded that we are all in trouble. When more than a majority hold any particular opinion, it is so easy for that to become policy. Cowardly politicians, primarily interested in job security, will go along with any crazy idea.

This phenomenon is not limited to homeopathy or alternative medicine. When I looked through articles on the Post Truth Culture and ignored those that spin the erroneous notion that it began with the Trump presidency, I found this interesting opinion piece arguing that the source lies in the ideas of individual freedom and the trend toward personalizing every experience: especially things like clothing, entertainment and tattoos.

“If you take this culture of hyper-individualism to its extreme, one might come to believe that we have the right to believe whatever we want, to – even if those beliefs are immediately provably untrue… Freedom to believe in one's own, individual universe; freedom to pick and choose facts, and discard those that are disagreeable.”

So we continue to see headlines like this one from last month: “Kindergarten Vax Exemption Rates Up – Again.” The science doesn't matter when people can personalize reality.

Likewise in politics, some recent research shows that “party identification bests ideological identification. And most people will stick with their party long after they’ve abandoned their ideology.”

Critical thinkers would work out their ideological beliefs first and then support the party or candidate that best fits them. They would begin by deciding where they stand on issues before committing.

“The truth, it seems, is closer to the reverse: We choose our party for a variety of reasons – chief among them being the preferences of our family members, core groups, and community – and then we sign on to their platforms.” 

What’s even scarier than this total disregard for information and facts by vast numbers of people is that it takes only a few people, not close to a majority, or a few incidents to incite calls for new laws or even mob action.

In one example, in response to the death of an Indiana woman from strangulation by her pet boa constrictor, the Humane Society of the United States called for legislative action. The news item tells, “at least eighteen people have died from large constrictor snake related incidents in the United States since 1978 – 13 of those since 1990. If less than one death every two years calls for a new law, what of the 350 children who drown in swimming pools each year? 

Another is the legal battle between Oberlin College and a local bakery featured on CBS Sunday Morning. A shoplifting incident by an African American student led to protests and accusations of discrimination and white supremacy, resulting in a substantial loss of business for a local family-owned store. All it took was a few activists using social media to spread a slanted story.

There are so many other examples where a minor action, incident or comment gets people up in arms, demanding changes, revenge or satisfaction, often based not on the facts or intention, but on the firm beliefs of the group. No amount or logic, reason or science will persuade them to change their minds.

Twenty-Three Months to Solve the Problem

Generally, I avoid topics that touch even indirectly on politics, but this subject has overtones of responsibility – doing something about a situation instead of trying to blame it on luck, circumstances or another person or group.

I get so tired of hearing about the supposed voter suppression because citizens have trouble identifying themselves at the polls. Now we are 23 months away from the next major election, and it’s time to do something about it instead of moaning or accusing after the fact, as has been the practice for many years. There is a better solution than fighting about whether or not the laws must be changed.

Spread the word. If anyone you know cannot for any reason obtain a photo identification, figure out what is necessary, take some time off from work or other interest and help them out. It probably only takes a couple of hours, depending on the efficiency of the local DMV. 

Another faster, but slightly more expensive option would be to help the person get a passport. Last time I renewed mine, I found a local pharmacy that takes passport pictures, and I spent less than an hour to drive there and leave with my photo. The rest can be done through the mail. (Some UPS locations also have this service.)

Every nursing home I’m familiar with runs a shuttle for these kinds of errands. People confined to their own homes must have someone to check on them periodically. Perhaps the same organizations that arrange for voters without transportation to get to the polls on Election Day could set up one or two ID days for those unable to make their own arrangements. With 700 days left to find a few hours to solve this problem for everyone we know, next time there should be no excuse!

As with so many other problems, we look to the government to fix it when a simple solution is within our reach.

Raising the Bar

Over the years it seems to be getting harder and harder to scare people, harder to shock them. This is evident in so many ways to those who have enough perspective to stay calm during the constant onslaught of challenges from all sides. It shows up in movies and television, in literature, in daily life and in national and local news.

Violence on television and in the movies is getting more graphic. In the Psycho shower scene (1960), we hear scary music and see a butcher knife slashing the shower curtain as blood washes down the drain. It’s enough to hint at something very gruesome. Today with improvements in special effects the blood often comes spurting directly out of people before washing down the drain leaving body parts behind. They must use more graphic portrayals to hold our attention.

Many years ago George Carlin had a routine he sometimes called the “heavy seven,” the seven words you can’t say on television. In July of 1972 when he performed the routine in Milwaukee, he was arrested and charged with violating obscenity laws. About 10 years later I attended his show at a local club – by then it was a classic, and the audience called out for it. Today those words still don’t appear on network television, except as initialized abbreviations, but are common in movies, on cable, on the stage and all over social media. People are getting more desensitized about the language they hear.

This phenomenon of desensitization spills over into the daily news as well.

A staple of the national news is telling everyone what to be afraid of. The networks apparently think these scare tactics will guarantee higher ratings. People will tune in out of curiosity or perhaps wondering what should be added to the list.

It has finally gotten to the point where attempts to scare us have reached ridiculous levels. Diseases that affect a miniscule number of people are labeled as epidemic and something to guard against. In 2014 as Ebola ravaged western Africa, the news was so intense that some people cancelled planned trips to safaris in countries in eastern Africa, half a continent away. After the final count was in, media reported that only two people had contracted Ebola in the US.  Both were nurses who had treated an Ebola patient and both recovered, but panicked voices had warned us for months of an imminent danger.

Three weeks ago they gave us news of beaches in Florida being closed because two people suffered non-fatal shark bites. But two weeks later the danger was not from sharks but from beach umbrellas.

USA Today ran a story about the problem of flying beach umbrellas turned loose by high winds. They reported that “at least two people have been impaled by the colorful sun shades in recent weeks” one in the ankle and one in the chest. Both were recovering. “According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, about 3,000 people each year are rushed to emergency rooms for injuries involving umbrellas.” (Notice that they weren’t driven to emergency rooms or taken to emergency rooms – no, they were rushed, after being impaled!) They warn us to take precautions against this unexpected danger.

When we hear news like this we must remember a few things. Among them is that the news media are trying to upset us. That is what keeps us coming back – like to a soap opera – to find out what happens next or where this all leads! Another is that with over 300 million people in America, the incredible speed of communications and cameras everywhere, there will always be a crisis or a disaster within easy reach. They can’t tell it straight; they must build it into a shocking drama. (As politicians and social media jump on board to reinforce dire predictions, it's no wonder so many more people seem overly anxious today about every episode in Washington!) 

As all the entertainment and news media continue to raise the bar on shocking stories and images, take a deep breath and don’t be manipulated. Perspective.

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.

Something About Rights

Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls.  Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen few efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite seems to be true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements:  background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly.  There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary.  Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others.  If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out. 

We also have a right to free speech.  Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government.  But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview.  Students are supposedly in college to learn.  Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view.  Instead they protest demanding a cancellation of the event or attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive.  When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago.  It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.  This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students.  Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself.  Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression.  If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions.  If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population.  And on it goes.  Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets.

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same.  Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored and some applied selectively.  Isn’t that worth considering?

None of the Above (2)

It has finally come down to it.  Election day is tomorrow.  Our choices from the major parties boil down to two of the most disliked and distrusted candidates ever to run for the office of president.  Most of their campaigning, and much of the campaigning for other offices as well, over the last 3 months has consisted of each candidate accusing the other of being a bigger liar and a bigger crook.   It was like watching children on the playground where the best defense was to throw more mud.

For those locked into voting for a major party candidate, it is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils.  It’s like being passengers on an ocean liner in the North Atlantic being asked to vote on which iceberg to hit.  Many voting decisions are being driven by fear, fear that one is so bad we must vote for the other to avoid a complete disaster.  (If we could find one other person to vote for instead of one of these two to vote against, that one person would surely win.  But the fear of “throwing away” one’s vote seems to be greater than the fear of either choice.)  Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

How did we get here?  If you have been paying close attention to these entries over the last five and a half years, you will be right in saying, the candidates we have are exactly the ones we deserve.  They are the consequences of our behavior.

Americans have become so lax, so superficial, so easily influenced by hype and empty slogans, so clueless about the real workings of the economy that they voted in the primaries for someone best known as the star from reality TV, on one hand, and on the other, a person whose main qualification is that she might become the first woman president.  The candidates mostly appealed to our fear (of all foreigners) and our victimhood (as women and other minorities).   Meanwhile the press continued to reveal scandal after scandal about both, misstep after misstep, but apparently to paraphrase one of the candidates, either one could shoot a person in the middle of Times Square and not lose a single supporter.  Note that the alternatives in each party were no prize packages either, just the usual parade of professional (and a few amateur) politicians.

Yes, America, we are getting exactly what we deserve by virtue of our laxity in discipline, critical thinking, economic understanding, perspective and responsibility.  We have either not been paying attention, or we have let our personal and public standards slip to such an extent that this is what we end up with in our choice of a leader.   For too long we have let the political parties, the politicians, the media and each other get away with these half-hearted efforts, these half truths and slanted “facts” and now we are paying for it.

So go to the polls tomorrow, hold your nose and vote.  Or don’t go to the polls tomorrow as a protest.  Or vote for a third party as a message to the major parties to clean up their acts. 

Whatever happens tomorrow will make little difference.  Government cannot fix problems that are the accumulated consequences of individual problematic behavior and poor choices.  They cannot and they should not.  But they will try anyway, and all we will see are consequences heaped on consequences.  Americans must take personal responsibility for the situation and act in their own lives to change it or it will only get worse.