Manifesting, Really?

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

 

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

 

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

 

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.” 

 

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.) 

 

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

 

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.) 

 

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

 

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

 

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

 

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque. 

 

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

Another Health Scam

With the coronavirus leading every news broadcast, the networks have begun also to highlight the prevalence of false claims, fake cures and scams. To make the point that this is not new, CBS Sunday Morning (4/26) addressed the history of fake medicines and cure-alls, but was disappointingly vague on some of the current scams, ones people fall for every day, probably from fear of offending both promoters and viewers. They did, however, include a few comments from Dr. Stephen Barrett who pulls no punches in his criticism of modern scams.

In one of his latest investigations into junk medical science, Dr. Barrett addressed a process known as bioresonance hair testing. Practitioners use a device "based on the pseudoscience of radionics to analyze hair samples mailed in by customers" to "detect nutritional deficiencies; overexposure to heavy metals; and food and environmental intolerances” to serve as a “roadmap to better health.” He calls the practice preposterous, in that “hair analysis is not reliable for evaluating the nutritional status of individuals” as well as giving several other reasons why it doesn’t work.

An earlier article on the same subject he warned its use by “chiropractors, nutrition consultants, physicians who do chelation therapy, and other misguided practitioners who claim that hair analyses can help them diagnose a wide variety of health problems and can be used as the basis for prescribing supplements.” 

Since bioresonance is based on radionics, it gets even more “preposterous.” These theories supposedly rely on quantum entanglement, a central principle of quantum physics where information can be transmitted instantaneously at a distance apparently violating the speed of light. Quantum physics is arcane and incomprehensible to non-scientists, yet many questionable products use it to explain action at a distance to add a scientific-sounding aura to their sales pitch. But it's all bogus.

Then it gets more unrealistic. According to this site, “Radionics can be used for humans, animals and agriculture by means of radionic instruments which amplify and 'balance' the subtle energy field of the subject” by using “a photograph, hair snippet or other biological sample.” It works best with a good quality digital photograph because “the image stores the information of the subject and a digital file cannot be contaminated like a biological sample can,” and the light “creates a crystallization of the energy matrix of the subject.” 

Another site says, it’s “a method of healing and diagnosing at a distance using the unique extra-sensory faculties of the operator supported and amplified by a physical instrument, device, geometric pattern, energy or substance.” Since “every person's energy patterns, frequencies, signatures, vibrations or rhythms are as unique to them as their fingerprints,” they can easily detect and help correct any type of “illness, injury, infection, stress, pollution, malnutrition, or poor hygiene.”

In summary, “patients” send a full digital picture or some strands of hair. "Doctors,” using their powers of ESP, run it through their energy detection machine, make a diagnosis based on an individual energy matrix, vibrations and rhythms and recommend supplements to cure what ails them, all using the magic of quantum physics. Remember, the same technique applies to their pets or their houseplants – with a separate charge for each.

But that’s not all! In some cases, their house may be causing the problem due to the presence of “geopathic stress,” which messes with the occupants’ health. That, too, can be cured at a distance by sending a photograph and using the above technique.

This seems so outlandish that I can’t help wondering who would be taken in by it. Then I see the statement that radionics can be a “supplement to other complementary and Subtle Energy therapies especially Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Reiki,” and it all becomes clear.

CBS might mock citizens of the nineteenth century for buying Stanley’s snake oil concoctions or for making a millionaire of Albert Abrams (1864-1924), developer of devices that were the precursors of today’s radionics, but they needn’t look far to find twenty-first-century parallels.

Arthur C. Clark wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” but come on, people! These scams are packaged as advanced technology and sold to people who want to believe in magic.

The Opposite of True

Some ideas are repeated so often that large numbers of Americans believe them without question. This makes a handy tool for politicians, advertisers and fundraisers. They get our support to fix problems that either don’t exist or have been exaggerated out of proportion. I covered some of these, stories about child abductions and clean air problems, about two years ago. Here are a few more examples.

Police killed in the line of duty:

Watch the news and you would believe that this issue is at an all-time high. There is a war on; blue lives matter! But the data tell a different story.

This website lists all deaths in the line of duty by cause and by year. The overall figures match fairly well with this other site, so I believe the information is accurate. 

Ignoring causes like accidents, heart attacks, etc., I looked only at gunfire, assault and vehicular assault, that is, purposeful acts. The total for 2019 was 58, somewhat below average. Of the last ten years, the highest were 2010, 2011 and 2016. The lowest were 2013, 2015 and 2017. There seems to be no pattern or trend.

Naturally, no one should feel good about any number above zero. Every case is a tragedy. The problem is a lack of progress, not an escalation.

Vietnam Veterans:

After so many years the stereotype of the mentally scarred Vietnam veteran still rings true in the public imagination. Reality is surprisingly different.

Research done early this century and summarized by Peter Rowe in the San Diego Union-Tribune found that those who served in Vietnam were “more likely to be married, college educated and gainfully employed than other members of their generation.”

Furthermore, a Harris poll of returned veterans “revealed that 90 percent said that, ‘looking back,’ they were either ‘very glad’ or ‘somewhat glad’ to have ‘served their country.’ Eighty percent said that returning home was ‘about the same or better’ than they had ‘anticipated.’” A large majority rejected the popular notion of the former soldier struggling to readjust, haunted by flashbacks and nightmares. 

Scam Victims:

We hear it over and over on the news and public service announcements: Make sure grandma and grandpa don’t become victims of scams. As a senior citizen who doesn’t answer the phone unless I recognize the number and who dumps in the spam bucket those weekly messages that my email is about to expire unless I follow the link, I resent the implication! The truth is that younger people are more susceptible to scams. 

This is true in the US, but I have seen similar reports from the UK and Australia. Here is an Experian article about a Better Business Bureau report. “Americans ages 18 to 34 were more susceptible to scams (43.7% were victims) than Americans 55 and older (27.6% were victims). However, while occurrences are less for older Americans, seniors still lose more money in scams than younger victims.” (They probably lose more only because they have more.) 

The Inc. website reports the same tendencies.

Going back to the Experian numbers, there is something fishy about their numbers. In the article they show a graph of those scammed by age group, which they took from the original report.

To get 43.7% they merely added 25 + 18.7. That’s like saying if 10% of first graders have red hair and 10% of second graders have red hair, then 20% of the whole group have red hair. WRONG! The right answer is 10% provided the classes are of equal size.

So their report of 43.7% for the younger people is really closer to 22%, and their number 27.6% for the seniors is less than 14%. The conclusion is still the same but the math is pathetic! (Remember, Experian is one of the three companies that calculate your credit score and they have trouble with this simple calculation!)

The overall point here is that we are often fed stories that are no more than stories that someone wants us to believe to raise donations, increase their ratings or get support for passing a new (unnecessary) law. 

Scams and Near Scams

Prepaid cards: It seems like once a week network news comes along with the story of a person, usually elderly, who has lost money to a phone or Internet scam. 

They probably use the elderly as examples because they are closer to the age of the people who actually watch network news, but the fact is that they are not the most vulnerable. About a year ago a survey revealed that Millennials are more likely to become the victim of a scam artist than any other generation.

In any case, almost every time, their money disappeared by way of a prepaid card. They may have been informed of a relative in trouble or that they had won some money but had to pay a service charge to collect. The creativity of scammers is remarkable. The caller or e-mailer presented them with the problem and told them to buy and mail a prepaid card to handle the matter.

This should be a clear give-away, a red flag as big as their house, but scammers keep calling until they find a victim. Obvious defenses include not answering the phone unless you recognize the number. Valid callers can always leave a message; scammers rarely do. (This also works as a defense against telemarketers and robo-calls as I have mentioned previously.) Likewise the written return address on an email should correspond with the actual email address that shows up when the cursor moves over it. But the biggest warning sign is the request for a prepaid card. 

Toxins: In all my years of researching miracle drugs in the form of dietary supplements and other health products, I have yet to find one that lists detoxing or cleaning the body of toxins to be legitimate. They do not and cannot prove that there are toxins in the body that the body does not naturally and safely get rid of on its own. The science that debunks all these claims is consistent on that point.

Despite this easily available evidence, the products just keep on coming. They promise to detox your body and magically make you feel so much better. Their celebrity endorsers and satisfied customers back these claims. But always in the fine print at the bottom of the ad is the required paragraph about how none of these claims have been approved by the FDA and how the product is not meant to treat or cure any disease. I even commented a while ago on shoe inserts that somehow had detoxing qualities – by supposedly causing wearers to use the bathroom more often.

This is beyond crazy, but it remains a big business. Detox, like prepaid cards, should be a clear sign of a pending scam. In this case, however, customers can always convince themselves that they really do feel better, but they are still out the money for a product that relies on the power of suggestion rather than on the power of science or real medicine.

Science and the Game of Telephone: When youngsters play telephone, they sit on the floor in a line. The leader whispers a sentence in the ear of the first, who repeats what he’s heard to the second, and so on down the line. When the last person relates what she heard it often bears no resemblance to the initial message. It’s a common analogy for miscommunication, but I recently heard it to explain science reports.

A scientist writes a scholarly article about a real finding. Even if she includes all the possible flaws or conditions that still need to be investigated, by the time it becomes an article for a popular magazine may be downplayed. The next iteration, a short news or “health minute” segment, omits most details. Finally, it hits social media, where all subtlety is lost, but people like and repost without a second thought. 

For example, how many stories have we heard about whether or not breakfast is important? Is it OK to skip it? In 2012 it was declared optional. Around 2014 there were some studies saying skipping it leads to weight gain, and others saying it wouldn’t. One in August 2017 said how important breakfast was for kids. Last year, everyone in a particular study gained weight, but the breakfast eaters gained a little less. This year a study says skipping breakfast is bad for your heart. 

Which study are we to believe? – How about none of them until the scientists actually pin something down. Until then, the news media will continue to report each one that comes along as if it is the definitive answer and social media will keep us all “informed.”

This degradation of scientific findings as they pass down the “telephone line” is not really a scam, but it’s something to be very wary of. Unfortunately too few people research the validity of posts before passing them on.

One More Time: Detox

It was almost exactly a month ago that I wrote about the potential dangers of the various detox regimens that were being pressed by numerous health gurus. Now, I never intended this to become a health-oriented blog. It really couldn’t be, because to be popular I would be forced to come up with some guaranteed quick and easy formula, packed with endorsements, ancient wisdom, scientific sounding pronouncements and unspecified clinical trials that treats a long list of ailments. The critical thinking in me, not to mention the integrity, wouldn’t have any part of it.

But I always try to pass along some of that critical thinking to readers by citing examples; and to my surprise, in one short month the subject of detox came up again. This time the emphasis was not necessarily on safety, but on the overall effectiveness.

The main source was a brief, four-minute video on the Vox website with the headline: “Products that promise ‘detox’ are a sham. Yes, all of them. Though they have a long history of duping us.” The video is interesting and worth a quick look.

In brief, they say that a research group asked detox marketers exactly what toxins they were getting rid of and none could give a satisfactory answer. It’s based on erroneous historical medical practices; and unless it is used to treat severe alcohol or drug poisoning,  detox is not necessary and worthless. They label it a health pseudo-science and conclude by saying, “Before you succumb to this incredibly appealing notion, you should know that the idea of using some product to ‘detox’ is nonsense. But this hasn’t stopped clever marketers from selling the idea that we can become, somehow, less toxic by using special products.”

Only a couple of days later an ad came in my email linked to a very long video by a former pediatric heart surgeon promoting his dietary supplement. The same video is found here, where it’s described as “a power wash for your insides.” 

According to the doctor, if you have digestive issues, food cravings, weight gain, morning soreness, low energy and all those skin, mood and health issues, he has the answer. Anyone can restore the healthy body he or she used to have, inside and out.

His discovery is based on "shocking new information" and "a remarkable scientific breakthrough!" There is something wrong inside you and it’s not your fault. He bases this on his experience and impressive medical background – even though, according to him, almost all the other doctors don’t understand. He left his practice to promote this product full-time, because 

all those problems start in the gut where toxins leak into the system.

This is followed by a number of stories about ordinary people and celebrities. He wrote a book, but understands that people who are suffering don’t have time to read all the books. So he came up with a supplement that doesn’t require seeing a doctor or going to a lab. It’s an all-natural pill, based on ancient tradition that you can simply buy from him and take everyday. 

Of course, beneath the video is the usual disclaimer: “The information on this website has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

There in one neat package are all the ingredients I have warned about: quick and easy, ancient, natural, celebrity endorsed, revolutionary, scientific, exclusive, a long list of ailments, etc. It is a pill, not the traditional detox, though it did contain the word detox in the headline. Rather it’s based on the idea of “leaky gut syndrome,” which I found on Quackwatch characterized as a fad diagnosis, “not recognized by the scientific community” and a “figment of pseudoscientific imagination."

Several years ago as I was headed into work, I observed one colleague telling another about her fabulous detox weekend – as she sat in the sun smoking a cigarette – enough said!

A More Complex World Requires A Wiser Approach

A couple of years ago, CNN began an investigation based on a government mail fraud case against a Canadian company accused of processing payments for many rip-off artists from around the world with millions of victims in the US. “Many of the schemes are remarkably similar. They prey on the desperate, sick and elderly -- sending out letters that trick people into thinking they've won the lottery or found a psychic adviser who will turn their lives around.” Every year the scammers stole millions and laundered it through that company.

As follow up and as research for a book on the subject, they wanted to meet and interview a famous French psychic whose name is at the bottom of letters that appeared to be handwritten and personally signed. Addressed to the elderly, sick and lonely, "the letters promised that Maria Duval would use her powers as a world-renowned psychic to help solve their problems. They could recover from ailments, avoid terrible misfortune, win the lottery.” They only needed to send her money first. “At least 1.4 million Americans fell for the scam.”

To be convincing, the “letters contained personal details, like a recipient’s name, age or hometown” but this information is easily obtained on line. They bought mailing lists of people who would likely fall for such a scam. These people would then send in about $40 for each letter giving them guidance from the psychic along with lucky numbers and magic charms. The total collected in this one operation is estimated at over $200 million.

This continued for more than 20 years, but was only the tip of the iceberg. When they got an interview with the psychic, they found that she sold the rights to her name for a fraction of the proceeds. The psychic letter ploy along with other similar scams had become big business with professional copywriters and marketers scattered around the world and linked together by the Canadian payment processors.

It’s true that not enough Americans understand that psychic powers don’t exist. Those that can’t distinguish coincidence from the universe sending messages (or some such nonsense) are easily taken in. It’s true that some Americans don’t understand that you can never win a lottery that you haven’t bought a ticket for. But that’s not the main point.

There is a broader issue here. More sophisticated Americans, who scoff at the victims of these scams, follow fads and trends, are taken in by advertising for products of dubious value and respond with fear to manufactured crises. 

Their lack of critical thinking is evident and somewhat frightening. On one hand, they argue that climate change is real, based on the testimony of so many scientists. On the other, they will reject scientific consensus on many other subjects like the safety of genetic engineering, glyphosate (brand name Roundup) and irradiation of food. They will buy into the concept that locally grown and organic produce is always superior. They put their families on a gluten-free diet when there is no medical reason to do so. They believe there is something magical about sea salt. They put their faith in all sorts of untested dietary supplements. Experts warning against these actions are considered corporate shills or just mistaken. They buy products based on nothing more than endorsements from friends, strangers or celebrity spokespersons. They flock to purveyors of “secrets” that drug companies, doctors, credit card companies, Wall Street and the government “don’t want you to know.”

All this goes on as the world gets more complex every day. Incredibly fast communications bring real and false offers and threats. Advanced robots, AI and autonomous vehicles lurk in the near future, while hackers try to steal our identities and influence votes. Are Americans ready for the future? Behavior shows that today far too many are struggling, victims of scams and their own poor decisions.

Why Is This So Important?

The behavioral model is very important for a number of reasons.  One is that the focus on behavior moves the discussion away from personal attacks.  If a person’s behavior is good, it is recognized as such, to encourage more of the same.  If a person’s behavior is poor, the discussion is not about attitude, motives or intentions; it’s about what changes to behavior will make him or her more successful.

Another important aspect of the model is the insistence that we all improve behavior in the five key dimensions.  This is no longer optional.  The world is getting more complex at an accelerated rate.  We cannot face that complexity with the same casual approach that suited our ancestors even a few generations ago.

Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Alphabet’s board of directors, the parent company of Google, made an interesting observation at a technology conference in 2010:  “Every two days now we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003.”  And that was 7 years ago!  He added that he doesn’t believe people are ready for what’s coming in terms of technology.  Of all that information how much is accurate or even useful?  Yet we are exposed to so much more every day at an increasingly alarming pace and must cope with it.

How did our grandparents deal with the fear of phishing emails or identity theft, traffic light cameras or drones and other invasions of privacy?  They didn’t.  Was anyone concerned about teen cyber-bullying or “sexting” even a few years ago?  In years gone by we had locks on our doors instead of security systems, and we thought hacking meant you had a bad cough, not that your savings or personal information might have been compromised.  No one was “addicted” to their “device.”  The frequency and stress level over the latest health news or food warnings were significantly lower.   The world didn't screech to a halt when the computers crashed.  And today credit cards, home equity loans and other financial tools make it so much easier to go into debt and stay there.

What about the avalanche of advertising we face?  The ad-blocker on my browser counts the ads as it blocks them.  One day I made note of the time as I caught up on (and stored and disposed of) personal email.  In 30 minutes the software blocked 97 ads.  That’s someone trying to sell me something at a rate of more than 3 times per minute.  Advertising exposure within our society is exploding.

Here is another example.  Last week I received an email telling me I may be a “Class Member” in a lawsuit against Staples “if between March 24, 2009 and April 25, 2017, you [1] bought a Rewards-eligible product and a non-Rewards eligible product in the same transaction, [2] used an item-specific coupon on the non-Rewards eligible product, and [3] were negatively impacted by Staples’ pro rata coupon accounting.”  If I don’t want to opt out of the settlement and I submit a claim form, I would be “eligible to receive $10 in Staples Rewards.”  (Further reading told me the class representative – I think that means the guy who sued – will get $5,000 and the law firm will receive $500,000 in fees and cost.)

How in the world do I know if I was negatively impacted?  Should I pull out all my Staples receipts for the last eight years to check?  Just reading this and trying to understand it is not worth $10 of my time, no less filling out an online form.  Yet apparently this stuff is happening every day to punish companies for apparently shady activities, although they admit no wrongdoing and settle to avoid the hassle.

I read recently that if everyone took the time to read only the privacy policies on all the websites visited, the annual cost in lost work time would be over $780 billion.  And that doesn’t even address what rights we might be signing away when we check the box without reading the even longer “terms and conditions.”

We must face it.  The world is getting more complex at a speed nearly impossible to keep up with.  People think technology is wonderful as they play games on their phones, but the technology is a double-edged sword with significant dangers.  As the robots are coming for our jobs and the hackers are stealing our data, the degree of critical thinking, discipline, responsibility, economic understanding, and perspective that served humanity in the past will no longer cut it.  We must do better or be overwhelmed.

Superstition and Health

Last time I gave an example of how one food company tried to use modern day superstitious ideas about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to try to hype their tomato products.  They touted the fact that none of their tomatoes were genetically modified, in the sense of being tinkered with in some lab, implying that others were and the only way to be sure is to use their products.  They were caught in the act, so to speak, because there are no genetically modified tomatoes; and even if there were, scientists have concluded that GMO products are safe.  The fear of GMOs is a good example of food-related superstition.  If their errors had not been so obvious, they may have slipped by the critics leaving misinformed people to the mercy of more misinformation.

Closely related to food superstitions are those about health and longevity.  Everyone is interested in living longer and healthier, but different people go to different extremes, some wasting money on worthless and potentially dangerous products.

One example that came to my attention recently is essential oils.  Used in aromatherapy, they are believed to produce numerous health and wellness benefits from pain relief and antidepressant effects to digestion aid and hormone enhancement.  One website shows a grid of over 40 aromas with a check in the box showing which of 27 benefits each provides.  That they may be an effective deodorant is not a stretch, but at least one is listed as having both calming and stimulant effects.

Of course the National Institute of Health (NIH) sees it differently, concluding after extensive study:  “Lack of sufficiently convincing evidence regarding the effectiveness of aromatherapy combined with its potential to cause adverse effects questions the usefulness of this modality in any condition.”  Another website discusses further disappointing study results.

Another area of health that is all the rage is detoxing.  This CBS news item highlights a couple of people who were hospitalized as a result of following the herbal, all natural detox plans.  Experts told them, “while ‘detoxing’ can be a necessary process for people addicted to drugs and alcohol, the average person does not need to take extreme steps to cleanse so-called 'toxins' out of their system. In fact, the body detoxes naturally” nor is there any way to artificially enhance this process.  They also remind readers in the course of the explanation, “Despite marketing suggesting otherwise, all-natural products are not without side effects.”

A second site is even more blunt on the subject.  “Products that promise ‘detox’ are a sham. Yes, all of them.”  It’s not magic; it’s a rip-off and potentially dangerous.

Finally, here is an example from Consumer Health Digest (#17-01).  It describes the website of a doctor (MD) who offered alternative health solutions and was recently charged with unprofessional conduct and refusing to release records to investigators.  “In 2013, the DeOrio Wellness Medical Center Web site offered a ‘comprehensive holistic evaluation and treatment program’ that included ‘specialized laboratory testing,’ Oriental pulse and tongue diagnosis; homeopathic interview and treatment; acupuncture; nutrition and diet consultation; ‘structural and biomechanical integration’; ‘emotion and spiritual counseling’; and ‘infra-red sauna baths combined with IV vitamin therapy for the newest, safest and most effective detoxification program available.’ "

When you see a laundry list of magical health remedies like this, run! 

A century ago it was called “snake oil.”  A slick salesman drove his wagon into town touting the wonders of who-knows-what in a bottle, often arranging for a shill to be in the crowd to praise the product.  Then he would drive away with the cash and disappear before anyone could complain.  Now, even with better education, it’s the same; except the slick salesmen use the Internet with endorsements coming from Facebook to lure the desperate or others susceptible to the quick-fix enticement. 

The ones above and many other wonderful cures based on ancient wisdom and clinically proven treatments are looking to use the placebo effect to separate you from your money.  Due to the web, 24-hour news and social media, critical thinking was never so important in keeping us safe from the health-related superstitions of the day.

Don't Be a Sucker!

The Better Business Bureau, specifically the BBB Institute for Marketplace Trust, conducted a survey of the victims of scams.  Contrary to what might be expected, they found “Millennials are actually more vulnerable to scams than Baby Boomers.”

The stereotypical retiree falling for Internet phishing, suspicious phone call or mail document promising vast riches (if only they pay a small deposit in advance), is apparently in error.  Of more than 30,000 reports to their Scam Tracker reporting tool, “89% of seniors (age 65 and up) recognized the scam in time, while only 11% reported actually losing money. For those age 18-24, however, more than three times as many failed to recognize the scam – 34% reported losing money.”

The reason given for this unexpected result is Optimism Bias, the feeling that others are more vulnerable to con artists than you are.  This is less likely among seniors who have been warned repeatedly about people trying to get their money.  It is more typical to hear stories about the “little old lady” for two reasons:  she’s usually a more sympathetic victim; and seniors are more likely to report being cheated.

I think there is yet another reason.  Millennials have been raised in an environment where critical thinking is optional at best.  They have been exposed to so many questionable sources of information that when a scammer crosses over from borderline ethical behavior to an illegal promise, it’s not as noticeable to them.

Take TV doctors, for example, promising miracle cures, magical advice to improve wellbeing and guaranteed weight-loss programs.  If a doctor were to give only sound advice free of gimmicks and wishful thinking, it would boil down to just a few things we have heard (and ignored) over and over:  eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, reduce stress, use sunscreen and a few others.  Critical thinking reminds us it’s not rocket science.  Yet the shows go on year after year with a loyal audience.

Look at the proliferation of dietary supplements and special food labels designed to give the impression of a healthier option.  There was a time when everyone took substantially the same vitamin as everyone else and was satisfied.  Now there are different vitamins for men and women and men over 50 and pregnant women and the list goes on.  We spend over $20 billion a year on vitamins and herbal supplements, most of which have never been tested and with “no credible evidence they offer any benefits for the average person.”  The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent group of doctors, opted in 2013 not to recommend regular use of any multivitamins. It doesn’t recommend the use of any herbal supplements, and it advises consumers not to take beta-carotene or vitamin E.”  Yet we continue to wolf them down.

I needn’t talk about all the other food-related myths circulating with no scientific background.  I’ve covered it elsewhere (September 2016, January 2016, July 2015, June 2015, April 2014, and many other examples).  Again so many Americans buy into these concepts and needlessly waste money on natural and organic products or are drawn to groceries whose advertising appeals to the latest fad, craze, fear or hope; the market for them continues to grow.

Finally, there is social media.  Millions of pieces of advice, both medical and personal, stories, both cute and serious, and other information flies through cyberspace every second.  It gets read and reposted and few seem interested in verifying its validity.  My wife once pointed out the error in one entry on Facebook and was basically told, “I don’t care about the facts: it was a good story.”

With such a casual approach to life in so many other areas, with this disinclination to question or investigate, and with such general distain for critical thinking, it should be no surprise that the younger generation is more gullible, more susceptible to the scam.  They are merely reacting to the illegal and fraudulent enticements in the same way they do to these many borderline ethical pitches they confront daily.