Critical Thinking in Crisis

American critical thinking is hard to find and completely disappears in the face of a crisis. During the virus scare last spring, two types of info emerged. One, often from the medical professionals, was the calm reasonable kind. It was right to be careful, practice social distancing, wash hands frequently and wear a mask. That message was typically drowned out by the breathless, panicky pandemic warnings seen on the news.

 

We got the daily numbers of cases and deaths. We watched stories of people hoarding Purell, toilet paper and water. During the first week of the 15 days of voluntary lockdown, there were a shortage of coconut water and cellphone videos of fights in grocery stores over paper goods! Even before the disease got to the US, diners shunned Chinese restaurants. Then we were asked to stay in and practice social distancing, but some college students on spring break and others couldn’t be bothered. Today’s fun and freedom took precedence over the possible spread of the disease tomorrow or in a few weeks.

 

On the first Monday that the schools closed to protect students, I went to my local grocery store to pick up a prescription. It was overrun with parents who brought their school-aged children shopping. Did they think a good activity to keep them “isolated” and protected was a family shopping trip?

 

Day 12 brought this from CBS News: “Egg prices triple in 3 weeks amid coronavirus panic shopping.” This wasn’t price gouging; it was a genuine shortage. At the same time the price of regular gasoline dropped to around two dollars a gallon, also a result of supply and demand. Most people were driving much less and, for some reason, stocking up on eggs. Only the first makes logical sense. The CBS headline got it right, calling the run on hand sanitizer, paper products, bottled water and eggs “panic buying.”

 

Politicians and media commentators capitalize on this tendency toward fear and panic, encouraging the same reaction to win elections on one hand or to keep ratings up on the other. It has gotten progressively worse. Manufactured fear quickly turns to anger, then to hatred and to more fear. It makes people easier to control. Thus, politicians count on citizens leaving their brains outside the polling place and voting based on fear and hatred while the media counts on them to be glued to the TV for the next shocking update. Since we fail to remain calm and rational, we no longer receive calm, rational messages.

 

The same kind of "thinking" applies to everyday situations as technology gets more and more sophisticated and the people using it don't. We discover nuclear power and use it for bombs and submarines: but try to use it to produce pollution-free electric power and NO! No one can be serious about climate change and not be a advocate for nuclear power. Chlorine gas is deadly; chlorine in a swimming pool is safe. Nuclear bombs are deadly; nuclear power plants are safe. But the opposition is led by politicians and activists who are either well intentioned and ignorant or who have a financial interest in alternative energy sources. Regardless, they use fear and panic to sell their position, and it works.

 

The internet and cell phones allow rapid communications and information, but they lead to a lack of privacy, more sophisticated scams, cyber-bullying, targeted marketing for legitimate and bogus products, a mindset of finding people guilty before evidence is submitted and without a hearing. This technology which has so many positive applications, is used to incite riots and demonstrations and to spread misinformation and whacko theories.

 

We have more food, and people are overeating. We have more prosperity, and people are going broke. We have more leisure, and people are more stressed. We vote based on fear and hatred. We never calm down to think things through. That’s the America we live in.

Coronavirus Fears

The fears, more so than the virus, are leading people to do strange things. The toilet paper and bottled water hoarding is just one example. I stopped by the grocery store today and it was packed at 1:30 in the afternoon. Schools announced they would shut down for 2 weeks to disinfect, and apparently what you do when the schools are closed to keep the kids from infecting each other is take them to a crowded grocery store instead.

And what the schools are disinfecting is a mystery, since there have been no reported cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in this or any of the surrounding counties. But I guess the schools will be as germ-free as they have ever been.

I don’t think the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is doing anyone any favors. He is undoubtedly very knowledgeable on the subject, but his bedside manner leaves something to be desired. With the country in a panic he told Congress, “things will get worse than they are right now. ”

That is the direct truth, perhaps a little too direct. It is understandable from a purely clinical point of view that diseases spread, especially in a population without immunity, but words like that don’t do anything to get people to calm down. They have the opposite effect (to the great delight of the news media). 

So here is another way to think about it. America is very likely better at dealing with such a problem than China. The first case in China was traced to November 17 of last year.

By February 29, we were seeing headlines like this from NPR: “As New Coronavirus Cases Slow In China, Factories Start Reopening.” They were still having some economic problems, but the future seemed brighter.

By March 12 Reuters was reporting: “The Chinese city of Wuhan, ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak, reported just five new cases on Friday, the second day in a row the tally has been less than 10, while no locally transmitted infections were reported in the rest of the country.” Less than four months after the initial outbreak they seemed to be getting a handle on the problem.

That should be encouraging for the rest of us. Though it will likely get worse as Dr. Fauci stated, the first case of coronavirus was already detected in the US just about two months ago. “On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever.”

Now extrapolation can be a little dangerous, and no one can guarantee that we will be out of the woods less than two months from now. But judging from progression of the disease in China and subsequently in Italy, it seems like a decent assumption. Whether it is or not remains to be seen, but taking that point of view is certainly more comforting (and realistic) than listening to the evening news and then hauling the kids off to the store to buy more toilet paper. 

Flashback - Letting the Media Scare Us Over and Over

[The news and entertainment cycles are so rapid that nostalgia no longer requires a long memory. What was scary or hot just a few years ago has moved on to be replaced by the latest craze, panic or breaking story. It was little more than twenty years ago that the world was stressing over Y2K – what would happen when the computers thought the year was 1900? Since then people have worried about frankenfish, the genetically engineered salmon raised on farms, and the rejection of net neutrality leading to a crisis that never happened, along with many other manufactured fears. 

Every Christmas parents stress about getting access to the “hot new” toy so their kids wouldn’t be disappointed, but where are all the Tickle Me Elmo dolls today? 

Likewise the worldwide epidemics come and go. Just a couple of years ago it was Ebola coming from Africa. Today it’s Coronavirus from China. And don't forget SARS.

One such flash-in-the-pan concern was over a product vilified by some celebrity chef as pink slime, as I wrote back in 2012.]

Now we get the case of “pink slime,” a derogatory term referring to, and gathering support against, the use of beef scraps to supplement ground beef sold in stores, a practice that has been going on for years with no ill effects. Why do people stoop to such name-calling? Either they have no valid arguments or they are trying to catch us up in an emotional reaction to promote their particular cause (or as this news article calls it, a crusade). Who thinks about the jobs lost? Why are people who speak out against waste in other areas silent on this issue? Why would Kroger and the other grocery chains buckle under the pressure of these crusades against a product that is not harmful, less expensive and less fatty, that they have been selling for the last 20 years? This hurts many and helps no one.

The uproar about the coloring ingredient in Coke and Pepsi that I addressed on March 19, [2012] had a similar dynamic - get people all riled up to rally behind a cause or complaint based on poor or sometimes even deceptive evidence. The problem is that with social media it is now far easier to start a crusade or get people fired up about an issue using an emotional appeal. Before you know it governments are banning products or ingredients or the companies that sell them are back-pedaling due to the bad press on Facebook or Twitter. Most consumers have little formal science education in such areas as human biology or experimental design, but they loudly express their “concerns” based on unreliable information on the Internet. The masses are howling, the ringleaders are name calling, and we are moving closer and closer to a kind of mob rule where we end up paying the extra costs, enduring the unintended consequences, and having our choices limited.

In this fast moving society one subject does not stay in the news long, so the following week, "concerns" arose over the use of BPA in food packaging.  At this rate we could be banning or otherwise losing access to 50 products a year based not on science but on public outcry!

Along similar lines a different article tells about how old photos were intentionally used by the press to influence public perception in the Florida shooting case that has sparked so many protests. The article suggests that this type of manipulation by selective presentation of pictures and videos has become common practice in the media. Another article sheds additional doubt on the accuracy and completeness of some news reports.

So my question is, when are we going to stop being influenced, frightened and manipulated, and start thinking for ourselves? One way leads to reasonable outcomes, the other to the consequences of chaotic, knee-jerk reactions to each new manufactured crisis or irresponsible crusade. 

Flashback – Electro-pseudoscience

[In recent news from England “a poster for the charity Electrosensitivity-UK asked, “How safe is 5G?” They oppose the roll out of 5G technology and warned, without any scientific evidence, that it causes a “range of health effects such as ‘reduced male fertility, depression, disturbed sleep and headaches, as well as cancer’”.

This fear mongering is reminiscent of my posting in December 2014 titled “Fear of Power Lines.” This kind of panic based on bad science will keep coming up as long as a gullible public will buy into it.]

If you are old enough, you remember the big scare in the late 1980s about power lines causing cancer. In fact, if you are not old enough to remember the news reports at the time, you have probably heard about this idea from someone who was. There was a great deal of concern, but after over 30 years of further research, it appears to have been a mistaken assumption.  Still the fear persists.

This fairly short (7:46) NY Times Retro Report is worth watching.

It begins with replays of news reports from all the major networks from 1987.  It was big news at the time, and this reminder is very informative showing in retrospect how the news business operates when breaking news has the potential to stir up a lot of fear based on a very limited study.  A voice-over talks about how power lines may cause cancer while showing the picture of a small bald child, apparently battling cancer (but not from power lines) – sneaky.  When seven children in one Denver school developed cancer and parents blamed it on nearby power lines, one reporter said that it could be a “tragedy of enormous proportions.”

The Times calls the episode “Power of Fear” with the message that once this type of fear is introduced into our society it never really goes away.  

The researcher who first suspected the problem now explains that further research has ruled out any problem. With the number and density of power lines, this should have developed into a major health problem, but it didn’t. “That suspicion [of a cancer risk] was simply wrong...The likely impact [of power lines] is zero.”  

Scientists in the 1990s conducted hundreds of experiments exposing rats, other animals and human cells to intense EMFs (magnetic fields around the power lines) over long periods of time with no change in the cells.  “In 20 years of looking, no one has found a way that power line fields can do anything at all to cells of animals; unless it can do something to cells, it cannot cause cancer.” The National Academy of Sciences confirmed this by reviewing 500 studies and releasing their findings in October 1996. Nothing since then has altered the conclusion of no danger.

The association was always “suggestive, but very faint” but correlation does not prove causation. Yet the idea, the fear, persists and is still spread by some public figures, some advertisers who use the scare tactics to sell real estate service and by word of mouth – now enhanced by the reach and power of social media.

Why do some Americans believe these sources and continue to fear the presence of power lines? Psychologists tell us that risks that are invisible, that might cause suffering before death or that might affect children have uncanny staying power, even in the face of firm evidence to the contrary. This highlights the need for critical thinking, to put aside emotional responses and listen to the facts. Don’t we have enough stuff to be afraid of without dredging up errors from the past?

Astrology?

A few weeks ago CBS ran a story about millennials and astrology. The opening paragraph states: “Astrology is booming in popularity, especially among millennials who, according to the American Psychological Association, are among the most stressed Americans. The generation that grew up online is now turning to the ancient practice for help.”

Of course, astrology is not science. Research finds that people born on the same day at the same time do not have the same personality or life experiences. Show people the sort of general descriptions or predictions in a horoscope and they will rate them highly for accuracy, even if they are generated randomly. The mass of a person sitting next to you has a greater gravitational effect than all the planets combined.

Is this growing interest, booming popularity, a sign of poor critical thinking? 

I was ready to be discouraged about another example of behavioral failure until my research led me to a piece from early last year in The Atlantic called, “The New Age of Astrology.” They repeat that although there is “no evidence” to back any claims, astrology seems to provide some relief from a “combination of stress and uncertainty about the future.” Young people especially “find comfort and insight in the zodiac – even if they don’t exactly believe in it.” It can be meaningful and unreal at the same time. In this age of comfort animals and New Age mystical trends, astrology helps people remain calm.

There is a pattern here that goes deeper than astrology. Earlier this year, “American Psychology Association (APA) reported in their annual Stress in America survey that millennials are the most stressed generation.”

Huffington Post in April 2017 reported: Both Gen-X and Millennials “report nearly twice the level of stress that’s considered safe from serious health risk…and it’s affecting their children.” [Emphasis in the original.]

Time, October 2018, wrote: “Members of Gen Z – people ages 15 to 21 – reported the worst mental health of any generation” according to that year’s APA report.

That young people feel stressed is not hard to understand. It comes down to increased speed and reach of communications and the commoditization of audience, not to actual facts. Fifty years ago there were hurricanes, fires, the cold war and political scandals. There were drills in schools (for nuclear attacks), drugs, crime, poverty, bullying and social pressures. In the seventies there was even talk of climate change – another ice age – and don’t forget the oil crisis.

One reason the Boomer generation made it through was the absence of hyperbole and hysteria today delivered 24/7 on handheld devices with the express purpose of keeping the audience intensely engaged. Since then the standard of living has soared, the crime rate is down, there is less war and poverty in the world, families are smaller and houses are bigger. Modern conveniences – dish washers, microwaves, home air conditioning, cell phones, more reliable vehicles and many more – are both taken for granted and allow more time to worry. 

Favorable violent crime and murder trends, longer life expectancies, and diseases cured or prevented by vaccines are not emphasized, leaving the false impression that conditions are growing worse. Reporters give breathless accounts of tragedies and disasters all over the world, as they show graphic pictures and interviews with crying survivors. Thoughtful reporting has been replaced by each new and exciting item of “breaking news” to accommodate a short, Sesame-Street-fostered, attention span. Rumors and opinions from single unverified sources are treated as facts. Exceedingly rare incidents, child abductions and school shootings, are blown out of proportion. Constantly exposing a young captive audience to dire predictions of climate disasters, eyewitness accounts of shootings, pictures of terrorist attacks is bound to drive a sense of insecurity. 

Words are considered weapons. Incidental touching is assault. Every stranger is a potential abuser or abductor. Being offended has become the national pastime sometimes resulting in death threats against the offender. Ordinary life has become a legal mine field leading to the need for more insurance, warning labels, permission slips, hold harmless agreements and institutional overreaction to minor infractions. 

All this naturally leads to an atmosphere of safety paranoia where anxious parents overprotect frightened children.

Politicians have driven the country into opposing camps, painting the other party as a stupid or evil enemy, stressing dire consequences if they come to power. The press then promotes worst-case interpretations to further their interests. Thus everything has become political, and the best way to manipulate people is to use children as pawns by showing them as the ultimate victims and by terrifying them into carrying forth the message. 

Calm voices are ignored. Is it any wonder that a younger generation feels stressed, with constant messages of anxiety exacerbated by the misuse of increasingly powerful technology? The panicky voices, heart wrenching stories, the warnings of overblown dangers and threats expressed by the government, parents, teachers, advertisers and advocates were not something they could adapt to. They were brought up on this dystopian garbage and expected, even encouraged, to participate.

Interest in astrology by Millennials is not something to be mocked as lack of critical thinking by them. It’s their refuge from a world of unjustified panic resulting from a pattern of abandoning critical thinking and insistence on the truth.

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.

Mad Cow Disease

Mad Cow Disease is in the news again after authorities detected it in one dairy cow in California.  A recent article points out how the beef industry reacted quickly to calm any possible panic.  I described the potential for this kind of panic in my discussion of Global Warming (April 27, 2012) and called for moderation in our response to such news.  This article points out that the rapid response to the mad cow “crisis” was motivated by lessons learned from the pink slime commotion (April 2, 2012) resulting in a public outcry and loss of jobs because the industry misjudged the impact of media reporting on consumer behavior.

Another interesting article appeared immediately following the announcement.  It was intended to calm people – admirable but unusual for the news media – but it was in a subscription-only format on the Internet so I can’t provide a link.  The reporter asked for comments from experts at a large university in the Midwest.  The director of the animal disease diagnostic lab said, “This was one isolated cow in California… It was a dairy cow, but studies have shown that BSE isn't transmitted in milk… [T]his case poses no risk to people or other cattle.”  A professor of agricultural economics emphasized that it was an isolated cow that did not move into the food supply, and added, “I believe it will not have any lasting impact [on the market] unless they find more cows or other animals, or there is enough media attention that somehow motivates groups in the United States to say that U.S. beef is not safe.”

I call attention to the last part of the comment.  Have we become a nation of cattle ourselves - or antelope peacefully grazing on the plain until the least sound of a twig breaking or a rustle of trees sends us into a stampede?  It appears that the moderation that comes from perspective is so lacking that honest people who run legitimate businesses providing valued service to society must always be on guard lest a fiery news headline or the ranting of a well-meaning, but misinformed celebrity shuts them down.  This can only happen when the public behaves with a knee-jerk reaction to every new announcement.  This is not behavior strong in perspective, and it does not serve us well in the long term.