Throw Out Those Jeans

The word is spreading that buying jeans is stressful and we should not wear them if we are over 53 years old.  Well, that was so crazy I just had to look into it.

The first story I found came from a local TV station in Florida.  It said, “A new survey found some adults may be getting too old for jeans.”  Later they refer to the survey as a “study” adding, “the stress people experience while jean shopping is intense by age 53, with 6 percent becoming so upset they burst into tears.”  It also takes up to 8 days to find the perfect pair and “research showed women spend twice as long as men searching for the right fit.”  So in the course of the article, it has gone from a survey to a study to research, from asking people to fill out a questionnaire to scientists in lab coats with secret cameras or something.

Since it gave a link to the “new study” I thought I would go straight to the source.  The link connected me to the Daily Mail, a British Newspaper, and the article there was dated November 1, 2016 – hardly a new study.  That story told me that most people spend “up to five days looking for ideal fit” with a total average cost of over $45.  (I guess they weren’t talking about designer jeans or those trendy ones charging more for pre-worn holes.)  After all that work and expense of hunting for jeans, about one-quarter said they never found their ideal pair and almost one-third gave up looking.  Finally, the information did come from a survey, not a study, of 2000 people in England.

The Huffington Post picked up the story back in 2016 from the same Daily Mail article when it was still fresh.  They did point out, after complaining about the results, that it was “far from scientific.”  But they put an interesting spin on the information.  Despite the British newspaper having a picture of a man in jeans accompanying their piece, the Huffington Post headlines read:  “Most Annoying Study Reveals Age When Women Are Too Old For Jeans.”  (Giving some women another reason to feel victimized by society or science is a guaranteed winning headline.)

To add fuel to the fire, the Huffington article mentioned another survey putting the cutoff age at 47 based again on the opinions of another 2,000 Brits – unspecified as to whether that survey referred to men, women or both.

The same information was also presented on NBC’s Today show site just a couple of weeks ago, again as a new study, but most of their links took the reader to ads for jeans.

A takeaway should be that, despite what reporters seem to think, surveys are not the same as studies or research and deserve a lot less attention.  Even studies and research have their flaws and are very often published and reported long before we can put any faith in their findings.  This jeans survey may be a silly example, but it demonstrates how critical thinking and personal research can quickly get to the bottom of any news report on surveys, studies or research, especially ones pertaining to more serious subjects.

Another lesson is that Brits seem to obsess about how old is too old to be wearing jeans.  It’s a good thing Americans have a strong sense of perspective.  They aren’t so superficial as to get caught up in trivial subjects, stressing out over the “ideal” pair of jeans with the “perfect fit,” the pressure sometimes driving them to tears – or are they?

How to Think About Survey Results

The USA Today runs a daily feature called USA snapshots.  They are "easy-to-read statistical graphics that present information on various issues and trends in a visually appealing way," addressing a particular issue in a number of different subject areas including politics, money, sports, news and entertainment.  They sometimes refer to a current news item, movie release or sporting event, but the rest of the time they are just random subjects.  They do provide some good examples for the practice of critical thinking.  (Anyone can review a large number of these simple graphs by searching on the Internet for USA snapshots.)

When looking at these graphs and pie charts or any others it's important to consider a couple of questions.  What type of question is being asked, and what is the source of the data?

One category is facts or statistics.  These are easy to look up and verify.  The source of the information may be government or industry records.  Some typical examples from from the daily inserts:  NCAA Division I all-time scoring leaders, top grossing superhero films, most popular cosmetic surgery and soft drink consumption trends.  The first two are straight out of the record books, so to speak.  The third comes from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and presumably they should know.  The soft drink information comes from "Beverage Digest," another reasonable source.

Another category relates to choices or behavior.  They ask people whether they have ever come in late to work or left early knowing that the boss was out of the office.  The sample of 507 workers is not particularly large, but they should know if they have ever done it and may be willing to honestly confess to it.  It is a little puzzling, though, that the pie chart shows 3% who answered "Don't Know."  A question for 1383 adults who have had allergies for more than 3 years asks whether they stick to the same brand of allergy medicine or tend to switch around.  The primary problem with behavior questions like these is that they are self-reporting.  There is no safeguard against lying or  exaggerating.  This is especially a problem as questions get more sensitive and personal, such as the use of drugs, criminal behavior, smoking, drinking or sexual practices.  The above questions seem innocent enough that people wouldn't be inclined to falsify and even if they did, the  consequences of a bad survey result are small.

Other surveys deal strictly with opinions.  Like the behavior category the self-reported nature of the answers is always problematic in that they are not verifiable.  We must take the word of the individuals.  That is something always to keep in mind.  The graphs in this category ask questions like how many episodes of binge TV viewing are too many - asked of 800 people who admitted to watching at least 3 TV episodes in one sitting.   PETA asked 1,234 New York City voters if they favored or opposed the banning of horse-drawn carriages in the city.  Be careful of this result since we don't know how the question was couched, that is, what questions were asked to lead up to it (setting the mood) and how exactly was it worded?  Because it was a PETA survey, it is reasonable to suspect that they favor a particular answer.  (FYI, most opposed the ban.)

Finally, there is a category that seems like an opinion, but it's hard to determine the basis for any opinion on the subject.  A LoanDepot survey of 1000 adults asked if it was easier or harder to get a mortgage today than it was a year ago.  Do people apply for mortgages every year?  That seems unlikely.  It doesn't even specify that these adults were in the process of applying or had applied in the recent  past.  Who are these people and where are they getting their information that forms the basis of such an opinion?  Yet, more than half (78%) had an opinion while 22% answered, "not sure."  This is truly puzzling and perhaps disturbing that so many people form opinions on "gut feel" or, believing that they should have an opinion,just make one up.  On this subject it's harmless enough, but are there implications for bigger issues?  Likewise, it's a problem that the organization doing the survey and the paper printing it don't question it.  How many people would be inclined to form their own  opinion,  based on the opinions of others that were based, in turn, on nothing substantial?  In a democracy where lawmakers follow poll results so closely, it's scary to think about.

Figures Don't Lie, but...

Last time I was enthusiastic about a sign of better discipline among Americans, that 84% of those receiving income tax refunds planned to use them to pay down debt according to a Bankrate article.  Although I hate to put a damper on such good news, I may have to rethink my position and should surely have been a little more careful.

Since this is the week of the tax deadline, other articles and statistics also appeared along the same lines.  From the USA Today/Gannett on Friday (April 11), the chart shown here tells a different story.  About 58% intend to pay down debt or save the refund.  This is more than half, but quite a bit less than the 84% from Bankrate.  This information looks reliable with references listed as: Internal Revenue Service; H&R Block; Tax Foundation; Tax Policy Center; Bankrate.com; Giving USA; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Pew Charitable Trusts.

A few days later on April 15, another small box ran in the USA Today with this information based on a Capital One Bank survey of over 1000 people.  Now only 40% intend to save a majority of it and 42% show up as spenders.  What’s up with all these discrepancies?

The lesson for me and for all of us is one I covered way back in October 2011.  Surveys and polls cannot be totally trusted.  Even if they have an adequate sample size and the professional pollsters have gone to great lengths to ensure a representative sample, other problems may still arise.  When self-reporting, people are not always honest.  Sometimes they want to impress the questioners, as it could be in this case, or even shock them, as may be the case with drug polls of teenagers.  Even when they are trying to make every effort to be honest, the wording of the polling question can influence people – choice of words or introductory phrases can imply the intention of the question.  The order in which the survey presents the questions can develop a mood or a pattern.  Outside events or experiences also can influence the mood or opinion of the survey subjects, for example, opposition to gun ownership peaks shortly after a highly publicized shooting incident.

I’m glad many people are making responsible decisions about the use of their tax refunds, but in retrospect, I’m really not sure if it’s a majority or not.

Don't Trust Opinion Polls

The information from opinion polls is unreliable.  That is not always the result of poor polling techniques, inadequate sample size or leading questions.  The primary reason opinion polls are unreliable is that opinions are unreliable.

Take, for example, the latest release from CBS News analyzing polls about guns laws in the US.  The article provides a table showing the change in opinions over the last two years.  Those who favored stricter gun laws were 46% in January 2011.  After dropping to 39%, they increased to a solid majority of 57% immediately after the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident in Connecticut.  Now, a year later that percentage is back down to 49%, almost where it began.

What facts have changed over that period?  There was a shooting in the theater in Colorado in July 2012 and in Newtown, Connecticut last December.  There were really no major incidents over the last year other than the trial last summer of George Zimmerman for the Trayvon Martin shooting, which occurred in February 2012.  It is impossible to explain such variability of opinion over that period except to say that it was based more on emotions and feelings than on facts.

Such results make it very clear why the news media, advertisers and politicians work so hard to get us feeling angry, scared, insecure, or even inspired.  They count on us to make decisions, make purchases or cast ballots, before the critical thinking kicks in.  In highly charged cases like gun control, for some people the critical thinking never kicks in, but others seem to eventually settle back to their original assessment.  In most cases there is a period, and psychologists have done many experiments to prove it, when feelings and judgments are very much influenced by recent exposure to positive or negative experiences.  These experiences may be personal, or they may be intensive news coverage or peer pressure.  Scientists have even shown that locating polling booths in a school makes voters more likely to favor school-related referendums.

Though it’s clear that opinion polls must be taken with a grain of salt, how many of our laws and election outcomes are a result of this short-lived irrational behavior?

Popular Means Good

Is it true that if something is popular it must be good or right?  Cicero didn’t agree when he wrote, “I am of the opinion, that though a thing be not foul in itself, it cannot help to become so when commended by the multitude.”  Wow, strong words, and even a bit snobbish, but our word vulgar is derived from the Latin word vulgaris, pertaining to the general public.

Although ancient Romans may not have had a high opinion of popularity and what is popular, the opposite is true in modern America.  Advertisers try to get us to buy their products, not based on their merits, but on the endorsement of our neighbors and fellow citizens.  This car is the most popular.  That television show is a surprise hit.  This brand is the best-selling toothpaste.  Another video (of cute kittens or puppies or someone dancing as if he’s riding a horse) has gone viral.  Evening network news programs sometimes close with the day’s most popular video for anyone who missed it, as if this were something wonderful and newsworthy.

Popularity is looked on so favorably that popular people are allowed, even expected to express opinions in areas where they have no expertise.  Celebrities take sides in political campaigns and on political issues like gun control and energy policy.  They tell us which animals to save and which diseases should receive more funding.  As a result, the amount spent on major diseases and conditions in the US does not come close to corresponding with the number of deaths or their overall social impact.  Stars represent products that it’s unlikely they have ever tried – do you think Henry Winkler got himself a reverse mortgage?  People who have become famous by being victims of a crime or tragedy are called upon to give their opinions regarding the situation and to recommend remediation.  Parents of kidnap victims or gunshot victims are treated like authorities on preventing kidnapping or on gun control.

Polls on scientific subjects imply that majority opinion is as good as evidence in a search for the truth.  “At least 75 percent of U.S. adults say global warming has been happening…”  A strong argument in favor of global warming was that the majority of scientists agreed that it was real.  On another topic, polls, not science, drive the decision to establish 20 weeks as a cut-off for abortion laws “based on the theory that this is the point at which a fetus can feel pain.”  These are a few of many examples where, as in advertising, authorities and advocates try to substitute popular opinion for evidence.

The way these stories are presented only adds to the confusion.  Science is not a voting matter.  Back when most people, including the Pope, thought that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that was absolutely not the case.  Voting on a subject may make it the law, but it cannot make it true.  

Movie stars, singers and Facebook friends are no better informed about politics, science or medicine than you or I, especially if we do a little research.  Popular ideas may be right or they may be wrong, but when we start accepting opinions over evidence, the real dangers of social media become clear.  The choice between making a decision based on opinions or based on facts and evidence should be a no-brainer.  It’s OK to go along with the crowd to avoid conflicts or bad feelings about small matters, but on important issues you are more likely to find the truth if you are not persuaded by the popular appeal and think for yourself.  

Changing Direction for Improvement

I mentioned the change process on December 12, 2011, but I’ll give more details today to tie that theory to the subject of these blogs.*

Change happens only when there is sufficient discomfort, dissatisfaction with the status quo.  If I’m happy with the way things are going, I have no incentive to change and will resist.  My attitude will be, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

With dissatisfaction comes a demand for change.  Then someone must present a solution consisting of three factors:  a model, a plan and a cost.

The model says, “Here’s where we would like to be.”  Contrasted with the current state, the model or desired state will yield better results.

The plan then outlines steps to get there.

Finally consider the cost. If a solution is too expensive, a new one must be found.

One simplified example is planning a vacation:

1. Discomfort = you do not want to spend a vacation sitting at home; it’s not exciting enough or restful enough or fun.

2. Model = pick a destination and timeframe that will satisfy the needs identified in step one: theme park, beach, cruise, spa, golf resort, etc.

3. Plan = pick dates, decide whether to drive or fly, make reservations, etc.

4. Cost = check the budget to make sure you can afford it, otherwise you must modify the plan.

The approach to improving America is the same.  For the past 30 years survey after survey has shown dissatisfaction by the majority of Americans with “the direction of the country.”  The 2008 presidential campaign played on this dissatisfaction with a theme of “hope and change,” but recent survey results are unchanged.  It seems there is sufficient dissatisfaction but still no clear model or plan (and the cost keeps going up!).

This blog is about a model and a plan that works.  For over 10 months I have shown how real American solutions are based on our personal behavior in five key dimensions.  Our behavior is the primary source of most problems. Individual consequences accumulate into societal woes.  With almost 90 examples as background, I trust you are beginning to recognize in the news and in your own experience other examples of behaviors that fit into these dimensions.   More positive behaviors yield better consequences; no change in behavior yields what we have now, or worse.

The plan is to recognize these behaviors and start to eliminate destructive ones in favor of positive ones.  The sum of individual behaviors and their consequences build to societal consequences, i.e., our national problems and crises.  When we persuade a “critical mass” of citizens – not everyone, but enough to make a difference – we will begin to change the direction of America.  This is the desired state, more positive consequences and fewer crises, with people depending on themselves (not government or big business) to bring about the improvement.  (If we can’t achieve that critical mass, it means not enough people care enough to change, and we should expect more of the same.)

Surprisingly cost is not a factor.  It costs nothing to eat less and exercise more (discipline).  It costs less to forego the latest fad item - be it a fancier car, tennis shoes, designer fashions or the latest phone - to appreciate what we have and not always be grasping for more (perspective).  It costs less not to throw away money on unproven medical cures (critical thinking).  It costs nothing to admit and take ownership of our errors and problems and teach our kids to do the same (responsibility).   We support wiser and less wasteful decisions by recognizing that you don't get something for nothing, that there is no magic (government or corporate) source of free money (understanding the economic cycle).  Look at all the examples in previous blogs.  None requires an investment beyond improved behavior in those five key dimensions and doing so leads to happier individuals and a better overall America!

 *Change discussion was adopted in part from my book, No-Secrets Leadership.