The Appearance Trap

I’ve written before about how better decisions occur when we use critical thinking and avoid being swept away by our emotions.  Even searching for rational justification for feelings can be dangerous and costly.  Too often Americans let appearance, visual appeal, overly influence decisions whether they be about buying, hiring or making social judgments.  Evidence of this shortcoming abounds as cute kittens, happy babies and curious bears go viral on the Internet (even on national news), squeezing out substantive issues and real news.  Here are a few more recent examples.

Someone drove past an Iowa farm and snapped pictures of what have been dubbed fluffy cows.  As they hit Facebook and other social media, the farmer who owned the cows saw it as an opportunity to promote the “great people and cattle in the beef industry."  But others are worried “that the focus on ‘fluffy cows’ could backfire,” especially when responses on Reddit and Twitter sounded like this:  "That's too cute to kill" and "That almost makes me want to become a vegetarian."  Cattle are not pets and not comparable to teddy bears, but see how we are swayed by appearance.

A second series of stories focuses on the appearance of our food.  The first tells how some companies are moving toward more natural looking processed food, eliminating the perfect shapes of machine-cut meat for a sloppier, handmade look.  “Americans still love their fast food and packaged snacks, but they're increasingly turning their noses up at foods that look overly processed.”  Less perfect looking food is seen as more natural, wholesome and authentic.  See again the influence of appearance alone.

Beyond this issue of manufacturers trying to trick us with these tactics, grocery stores respond to our purely visual preferences by becoming increasingly fussy about the appearance of their produce.  “Many retailers insist that fruits and veggies meet exact cosmetic criteria, including specifications for size, color, weight, and blemish level — leading to culling and incorporating waste as part of doing business.  The article emphasizes that many are beginning moves to eliminate this waste, but still, according to the USDA:  “Food waste in the United States is estimated at roughly between 30 to 40 percent of the food supply."  Department of Agriculture estimates supermarket losses at $15 billion per year in fruits and vegetables alone.  Much of the overall waste can be attributed to appearance issues either at the store or at home after the purchase.

This reaction to appearance is quite predictable.  When I first saw the news story about the USDA agreeing to inspect a horse slaughtering operation in New Mexico on June 28, I expected a reaction from horse lovers.  In less than 3 days a lawsuit had been filed to stop it.

Horsemeat cannot be sold as food in the US and horses cannot be slaughtered without a USDA inspection.  Congress stopped funding the inspections in 2007.  Horses, however, may be exported as nearly 159,000 were last year.  At that point they may be slaughtered and sold for consumption in countries that allow it or used as feed in zoos.  One opponent argues:  "Horses have been our companions, fought battles with us, worked sun-up to sundown by our sides ... we will not abandon them now."   That’s pretty sweet and squishy and it reeks of the “Bambi Factor," but it’s not an economic argument. 

It’s not even a caring argument.  If horses cannot be slaughtered and are not healthy enough for export, or if the owners just can’t afford to keep them, what happens?  This source tells us that after the 2007 artificial ban (through the cutoff of funding) “the Government Accounting Office of Congress did a study that suggested horses were suffering more with the ban than without it.” 

So where does this love of horses leave us?  It leaves us in the same place as the preference for pretty produce and cute cows.  Gaps in critical thinking, leading with our hearts instead of our heads, result in waste, suffering and extra costs – but in our innocence, we are left feeling like we have done the right thing.

The Bambi Factor

In news from Alaska, one state senator is proposing a bounty on sea otters.  He contends that they pose a threat to shellfish beds and that it is prudent to slow the population growth.  The smart money is on the sea otters.  Not only are they protected under federal law, but they are so cute that countless citizens will take their side.  No matter how justifiable the argument might be, it’s a losing battle.

We see the same reaction when deer invade a neighborhood or geese settle near an airport runway.  In these cases wild animals have become a nuisance and pose a danger of disease or damage to autos and airplanes.  It is reasonable to take steps to avert the problems, but reason takes a back seat to the impulse to protect them from harm or distress.  Advocates tell us to love nature and live in harmony with its creatures.  Deer are beautiful animals with big brown eyes that melt our hearts.

Similarly when Americans hear that horsemeat is being mixed with beef in Europe, they don’t recognize it as a labeling or economic issue, horsemeat as a less expensive substitute.  Instead they react with disgust at the thought of eating a horse.  “Yet horse meat, which is much cheaper than beef, has been eaten happily for decades by some in France who appreciate both the savings and the taste.”  It’s a matter of false labeling, not one of tainted product.  When I lived in Korea, I saw dog meat sold in butcher shops.  That was many years ago and I don’t know if the practice continues, but it reinforces how we are swayed by our prejudices in favor of more appealing animals.  Perhaps it should be called “the Bambi Factor.”

Ask someone if they would rather have a rat or squirrel break into their attic, and they will pick the squirrel every time, based purely on the fact that squirrels are cuter.  The right answer is neither.  They are both wild rodents capable of causing considerable damage.  Why do people feed squirrels, deer and geese thereby attracting these pests to their yards and nearer to their houses?

Critical thinking can be compared to driving a car.  You need power to keep going and controls, like steering and brakes, to keep you on the road.  People need emotions to give them energy and keep them dedicated to a task, but they need logic and reason to keep them from ending up in the figurative ditch.  In society, every time we stand by while an argument based on emotional reactions drives policy, we are headed for trouble, usually in the form of wasted resources, time and money.

So, as this article points out:  "Experts believe more money is probably being spent to save the giant panda than any other species in the world."  And if mosquitoes had big brown eyes, there would probably be outrage against swatting them.  It’s the Bambi Factor.