A Nation Divided

Well, here we are again; behavior has consequences. Poor personal behavioral choices grow into societal problems.

 

For four or five years, responsibility for a divided America has been pinned on Donald Trump. The media and the opposition party led the way, giving him no credit and all the blame. Citizens were drawn in and equally divided by the merciless news coverage and personal attacks on one side and by the bombastic self-promotion and polemic tweets on the other. The media expect everyone to agree that he had not one single redeeming quality or made one good policy decision? 

 

There certainly was a middle ground, but no one was interested in finding it. After the 2020 election, those who claimed to be distressed by the Trump-inspired divisiveness did not let up on their mocking, criticism and name-calling, while those backing the president were equally combative. Neither acted as if unity was an important goal. It's like a habit they can’t seem to break. Irreconcilable differences drive the chatter on social media and in the streets. 

 

Looking dispassionately at the record reveals that President Trump made some good decisions and some terrible ones. Employment and the economy improved at a rapid pace. Operation Warp Speed cleared the way for a rapid approval of vaccines. There's more peace in the world with fewer American troops overseas. But frequently his personal behavior was appalling. 

 

No doubt President Biden will likewise make some good decisions and some poor ones. Those on his side will praise the successes; those on other side will heap on the criticism.

"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.”  – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from The Gulag Archipelago. 

Unfortunately, Americans are not in the mood for a nuanced, nobody's perfect, stance toward our leadership. They are fighting mad and will continue to choose insults over rational debate. The media revels in this attitude, and they will do everything they can to promote and stir it up to keep their ratings high and their audience on edge. By abandoning perspective, discipline and critical thinking, we allow ourselves to be whipped up into these ideological frenzies.

We can choose to be influenced by these one-sided presentations or see them for what they are – blatant manipulation and propaganda. In many cases, journalism has been replaced by editorializing pretending to be reporting along with outright scare tactics. Americans could stop reacting, take control and demand better, but they don't seem interested.

 

Yes, the nation is divided with no end in sight, but it’s no one’s fault but our own.

We Are All Doomed

It’s not nuclear war, population explosion, the Chinese economy or Russian hackers, not from Iran joining North Korea as an irresponsible nuclear power. Forget climate change or which party is in power. We are doomed instead by a disregard for the five dimensions, which leads to poor individual and societal decisions yielding unfavorable consequences. Just look around.

 

In the past the same technologies endured for centuries. Sons did the same work as their fathers and grandfathers. The lot of children was the same as that of their parents. Today, jobs disappear or change radically on a regular basis as new technologies require new skills and habits.

 

Computers moved from occupying a room to a desk to a lap to a pocket in less than 40 years. As each new modern convenience arrives, the time to adapt becomes shorter and shorter. We are doomed because Americans seem unable to use that new power wisely, partially because, as Stephen Hawking put it, “we still have the instincts…that we had in the caveman days.” 

 

Suppose a time traveler told Congress in 1900, “The automobile looks promising, but in a hundred years, building and maintaining roads will cost $150 billion annually. Cars will contribute to major environmental problems and lead to millions of unproductive hours in delays and congestion. Annual traffic deaths will surpass 30,000 by 1946, climb to over 50,000 by 1970 and never again fall below 30,000.” Cars would have been banned; we’d still be riding horses.

 

When automobile-related death rates did drop, the change came not from behavior, but technology and regulations: lap belts, shoulder belts, airbags and improved car design. As people felt safer, behavior got sloppier: speeding, texting, forgetting the children in the back seat. Technology brings new miracles every day, as users become more careless and irresponsible.

 

Similarly, electronic communication advanced as email, social media, Zoom and many other tools brought us together more efficiently. But they quickly spawned negative behavior. People fell off cliffs trying to get more impressive photos. Teens challenged others to dangerous stunts and bullied around the clock.

 

Social media became a better way to send anonymous death threats to strangers, to insult and intimidate, to organize mobs, to silence or cancel individuals and get them fired, to boycott companies. Instead of communicating respectfully, we make up our minds without verifying facts and use our position to express hatred toward “the other side.” Being right is more important than having a relationship.

 

Technology gives us more free time, but we spend it virtue signaling or passing along snide comments. On-line fighting, mindless entertainment and superficial interests crowd out substantive problem solving and real communication. Cute pets go viral. A 7-year-old has 17 million followers with 26 billion views of toy reviews to the tune of $22 million per year while big cities have thousands of homeless people on the streets and multiple murders every weekend. 

 

Everyone should be happier, but that’s not the case. Modern conveniences leave Americans time to develop new addictions and imaginary ills. The medical community is complicit, adding new conditions to the list of diagnoses: occupational burnout declared a medical problem by WHO and obesity called a chronic disease by JAMA. People demand comfort animals on airline flights, and college students protest against offensive material and insufficient coddling. People embrace the  victim role rather than expecting to work through their own problems.

 

Stress is rampant. Levels of depression and suicide are up. A new book tells us, “One in five American adults are taking a drug for a psychiatric problem.” In an effort to overcome boredom, we buy so much stuff that the storage industry has new facilities popping up everywhere – then we buy books about how to declutter. 

 

Many serious diseases have been all but wiped out, but some disparage vaccinations and impatiently turn to charlatans selling products based on fairy-tale science: ancient medicine, therapeutic touch, essential oils, homeopathy and other magic potions to cure minor aches and pains. One mother, following social media guidance, fed her sons bleach to cure their autism. The authorities didn't step in because that’s not considered child abuse, but letting kids walk to school or the park unsupervised is.

 

How many Americans could survive the everyday hardships of just a century ago? Living without cell phones seems unbearable. Try giving up cars, indoor plumbing, central heating and electricity. 

 

Each new breakthrough has both benefits and dangers. We take the former for granted and accept the latter as merely a side effect. We bumble along as artificial solutions hide the urgency. 

 

This lax behavior as the world changes around us does not work. The five key dimensions are shunned, considered passé. Don’t understand economic principles; don’t think critically; don’t be disciplined and responsible; and don’t have perspective. New technology and the government will solve everything – until they don’t.

Flashback – Hating the Rich

Millionaires, billionaires and highly paid executives are favorite targets for someone trying to garner support for a new program. We should hate the rich merely because they are rich. The government should take away their money to help the poor. In this stirred-up state of envy no one wants to think about how the anger is selective. Nor do they want to hear how such a move would dampen motivation at all levels while not really solving any problems. 

I pointed this out right before the 2016 election, and nothing has changed since then:

[Maybe hating is too strong a word for it. Maybe being angry or envious is a better description of those feelings, the feelings various politicians and organizations vigorously promote. But since those same organizations and advocacy groups freely use the words “hate” and “haters,” it’s probably not completely unfair. In this case the hating is not only selective, but also difficult to justify.

Here is a graphic that has been going around on social media. It shows the total compensation of health insurance company CEOs. The caption and comments imply that this is the reason for the sharp increase in Obamacare (ACA) premiums for 2017. Let’s take one example and see what’s going on.

Let's not quibble over the fact that the information is three years old or that they calculate daily pay based on 341 days in a year. If these folks have moved on, they were likely replaced by others who were equally well compensated. Instead take the first gentleman, Joseph Swedish as representative.

He is the CEO of WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states. Here is some information from a CNBC report from 2014. “The company had 37.5 million members at the end of the quarter, up 2 million members from a year earlier.” Apparently he is doing a good job of growing the company and meeting analysts’ expectations. But is his pay driving up premiums?

Take the $17 million shown above and divide by the number of customers, 37.5 million, and get 45 cents per customer. Divide that by 12 to calculate the effect on monthly premiums and we find that if he were paid nothing, each customer might see a 3.8-cent reduction in monthly premiums – 3.8 cents!  (By saving this up for 10 years each customer could afford one trip to Starbucks.)

Maybe it’s the fact that the government forces us to buy health insurance that causes such a negative opinion of these CEOs. By contrast, we never seem to get upset about the amount paid to the Disney CEO or star athletes. We never hear people complaining that the ticket prices would be lower if their favorite quarterback made less money. We give these people our money freely, even line up to do it, in return for a limited amount of entertainment, and they also get rich.

Look at the recent Desert Trip concert in Palm Springs. Most of the 75,000 tickets were gone in less than five hours, with the good seats going for $1599 each. The promoter is expected to gross $160 million for the three-day event, while paying the headliners up to $7 million each (for showing up and playing for a few hours). The LA Times reports that these rock stars from the sixties continue to do very well for themselves. “Since 2000, the Rolling Stones have grossed more than $1.1 billion with their periodic tours, according to Pollstar, the concert-industry-tracking publication. [Paul] McCartney has racked up $761 million, [Pink Floyd’s Roger] Waters has pulled in $592 million, followed by [Bob] Dylan ($293 million), the Who ($200 million) and [Neil] Young ($153 million).”

We love to hate those one-percenters, the people making a lot more money than we do, but the outrage is selective. When it’s Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, Rory McIlroy, George Clooney, Tom Cruise, or Oprah, then it’s OK. Making almost $50,000 a day is very impressive, but it pales in comparison to $500,000 - $750,000 for a single speech or an advance on a book in the millions. We love the ones who perform for us and hate the ones who help us pay our doctor bills. Objections to the rich being rich are both selective and difficult to justify.]

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.

Ducks, Rabbits and Politics

A familiar optical illusion from more than 100 years ago by an unknown German artist asks viewers if they see a duck or a rabbit. Some see a rabbit first and then realize it could also be a duck, and vice versa. It has been reproduced many times for many purposes, but I think it is particularly illustrative of the political situation in America.

Newscasters and citizens puzzle over the divisiveness, and the answer is simple. In politics, some people see a “duck” and some see a “rabbit.” But unlike the optical illusion, many refuse to see both or even admit that the other exists. The Democrats blame the divisiveness on the president, at a convention filled with negative messages and predictions of disaster. They insist it is a “rabbit,” and the president and his backers, misguided “duck” people are dangerous.

The Republicans send the opposite message with no possibility of compromise because it’s definitely a duck. It can’t be both; even if sometimes each side is wrong, those errors are amplified into end-of-the-world scenarios. Divisiveness is inevitable.

It’s impossible to get the truth – that there is a little bit of validity in both viewpoints – because the media is complicit. Here is an observation from a book published thirty years ago called Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be, and if anything, it’s truer today than ever: “The media take the raw material of experience and fashion it into stories; they retell the stories to us, and we call them reality.” Different outlets are creating many different realities, but the realities they create must fit their pre-established stance on each issue – in this example, is it a duck or a rabbit? 

What passes for the news today is more closely related to a morality play from the Middle Ages than to an objective delivery of facts. The stories must have drama, good guys fighting bad guys. And who fits those roles is dictated by the underlying assumptions. So we get similar stories about the same facts that, after the story creation process is complete, bear little resemblance to each other. If there is no easy way to make your side the good guys, the story is buried or omitted.

This is obvious to anyone watching or reading the news carefully. It’s as if CNN/New York Times and Fox exist in different universes. They construct for us different realities without apology. Editors lose their jobs over opinions or headlines that don’t conform. One local television station in Indiana advertising for a news reporter listed as one of the qualifications: must be a good storyteller. The goal of investigation is to build a story in support of their accepted reality.

So we find ourselves in a political power struggle where any concession is seen as surrender, where every event has at least two interpretations, where every single subject and virtually every opinion become political, where last week’s issues disappear in a rush to cover the latest controversy. There is always another side as politicians tell their own stories and accuse others of telling lies or intentionally misleading.

The real events, pseudo-events (like the recent political conventions), behaviors and quotations are fictionalized to promote the designated heroes and villains. Social media compounds the problem not only by repeating favored stories and attacking the other side, but also by acting as a source of fresh stories, memes or opinions for further development. 

As soon as the rabbit-seers take a position, the duck-seers publicize the opposite side, and vice versa. Solving the problems takes a back seat to proving who is right about the rabbit or the duck. And everyone knows they are right, because they heard it from their favorite storyteller, and usually ignore or mock the rival storyteller.

This is not going to change after the election, no matter the outcome. Our enemies and economic rivals around the world are watching and laughing, not at one side or the other, but at the ridiculousness of the self-inflicted chaos. 

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.

A/B Testing in Education

Back on April 20 of this year, I wrote a detailed explanation of experiments. Because we so often see in the press “breaking news” of the “latest study,” it’s important for critical thinkers to have a good understanding of what makes a study valid. Sample size and composition are important. Many press releases are based on less than 100 observations from a narrow population but reported as if they apply to everyone. 

Another major flaw is that when the scientists or doctors report a correlation, a strong relationship between a drug or practice and an outcome, the news reports it as if there is a cause/effect relationship, which is much less likely and harder to prove. That’s why the most common phrase at the conclusion of these studies is that more research is needed, but this may be an afterthought in a news report if it's mentioned at all.

I read lately about a slightly different type of experiment. It is a natural experiment and has become more common in this era of big data. Instead of inviting participants into a lab, dividing them into two groups, giving a treatment to one group and leaving the other alone and  then comparing results; a natural experiment sets up different groups in real life by feeding them different information and measuring the reaction.

Google, Facebook, major advertisers and others with access to a huge population of followers can vary their messages and compare results. They don’t need volunteers, users of the sites become unknowing subjects.

An ad to one group may have a blue background and the other a green background. Which gets the most clicks or likes or referrals or sales? An advertiser may use different pictures or wording in two different regions of the country. Which gets a better response? Someone calls the number and asks for Mary, not knowing that Mary is a code for a particular radio or TV ad in Chicago as opposed to a different one there or somewhere else. This practice is called A/B testing, and it’s happening constantly, especially on the major social media platforms. What are the best colors, pictures, format, headline wording, etc. to get clicks, shares, donations or return visits? 

It sounds like sophisticated manipulation with no apologies – psychological warfare and an invasion of privacy. But there may be several positive uses for it. I thought of this while watching the Jeopardy! Teachers Tournament last week.

According to Everybody Lies, a book about big data applications, a company called EDUSTAR that makes educational software for kids did a kind of A/B test that yielded surprising results. “One lesson plan that many educators were very excited about included software that utilized games” to teach fractions. They found out that a more standard approach, not using games, yielded better student understanding.

On Jeopardy! right after the first commercial break, the teachers sometimes respond to questions by describing their methods in the classroom, and each seems to takes a different approach. They have their little tricks and games, and they are doing what they are comfortable with or what has perhaps worked for them in the past. These ideas seem to get an enthusiastic reception, but who knows if they really work or which is better for producing better-educated kids – presumably the point of our schools.

They can’t all be right about getting the best outcome. This seems like a perfect setting for a similar kind of A/B testing by increasing the sample size from one to many classrooms distributed over many different schools. Maybe some techniques work better than others. It would be interesting to find out. Of course some teachers would be uncomfortable with this, but surely the objective of education is to make kids more competent, not to make teachers comfortable. Just a thought.

Is The News Making Us Sick?

It began one morning with two seemingly unrelated items: a story about mountain climbing on BBC Future and a panel from the comics section of the newspaper.

The BBC article, “The placebo effect is well known for its medical benefits, but there is evidence it could give athletes an edge, too,” began with an experiment where mountain climbers were given oxygen to boost physical performance at high altitudes. In a laboratory simulation, they were first given tanks of oxygen to improve performance. When they were later given empty tanks, their brains expected similar improvement and caused the body to adjust appropriately.

It went on to explain how placebos like this can improve athletic performance in other areas, for example, sugar pills believed to be performance enhancing drugs could have the same effect. 

The effectiveness of placebos applies to many areas. A summary of studies shows that “antidepressants are effective for depression about 31-70% of the time, while placebos are effective 12-50% of the time…. So, while antidepressants appear more effective than placebo, only a fraction of the benefit we see in patients is likely from a direct neurobiological impact of the medication itself.” Effectiveness depends on the amount of faith patients have in the product. Placebos taken as part of a test of more powerful drugs tend to have more powerful effects; and patients often report some of the same side effect as the drug itself.

This led me to another BBC article explaining the opposite effect, sometimes called nocebo. In this example the treatment was merely the words the doctor used. The doctor, talking about serious osteoarthritis, says that he has “bad news,” that the knees are “worn out” and the medicine may “help a bit,” but may damage the stomach lining. The doctor has set the patient up to expect the worst. This kind of presentation can unintentionally cause the brain to deliver the opposite of a placebo effect: less positive, possibly negative, outcomes.

A conclusion is “when prescribing treatments, the doctor should emphasise the positive effects of the medicine, while framing the negative side-effects so they seem less frightening, and being careful not to over-emphasise their risks.” They should be honest, but with an optimistic tone.

This led to yet another BBC article, this one from 2015, about how negative thoughts and ideas can not only make you sick, but actually kill you. This effect applies to any authority figure or respected expert, not just doctors. “In the same way that voodoo shamans could harm their victims through the power of suggestion, priming someone to think they are ill can often produce the actual symptoms of a disease.” Hence, people can die of fright or become sicker based on the message and their faith in the authority of the messenger.

Each of these articles is interesting, but coincidentally they came to my attention on the day I saw “The Flying McCoys” at the bottom of the page of an on-line newspaper. The idea is almost too true and too common to be funny and typical of many news programs.

Based on the information above, what is this doing to the overall health of the American people, this constant barrage of fears and anxiety over the virus and whether opening the economy too soon will be a mistake, the emphasis on the ever increasing number of cases and deaths, the constant skepticism about the actions and predictions of the task force, the criticism of any encouraging remarks – especially if they turn out to be overly optimistic; and for years now, fanning the flames of  divisiveness within the country – all with the express intention of putting us on edge, amplifying the fear and anxiety to get everyone to continue to tune in. 

Remember, placebo, the strong mind-body connection cuts both ways. Between the news media, social media and politicians, it’s surprising we are not all physical and emotional wrecks.

The news can be both addictive and unhealthy. One defense is to watch less. Another is to use critical thinking and see it for what it is, big business trying to attract “eyeballs,” and act accordingly, increase our skepticism, lessen our faith in the source and discount their predictions of a fearful outcome at every turn. 

Flashback – Why So Much Bad Advice

[This message was originally posted over six years ago, but since then the dynamic of bad information driving out the good has only gotten stronger with more fake news, advertising weasel words, political spinning, echo-chamber exchanges, media bias and health fads without any scientific basis.]

Why do bad ideas and bad advice seem to persist in a society with easy access to good science? One reason may be the tendency to cling to beliefs then look for evidence to support them, instead of accepting the conclusions of well-designed experiments. In his book The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt proposes that feelings and emotions come first, and that most reasoning works to justify rather than to test beliefs, that our “intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning.”  John Stuart Mill presented the same thought more than 150 years ago:  (paraphrasing) the more you argue, even while making clear, rational points, the deeper others dig in to protect long-held beliefs. Adding to the sad situation are the effects of scientists and doctors who would rather become famous as authors or TV stars by promoting popular beliefs than risk challenging them, as they should, with the truth.

One case that comes to mind is the persistent belief that artificial sweeteners are dangerous. Simple research is reassuring, but the belief is ingrained in our culture. The National Cancer Institute states clearly and unequivocally: “There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.” The Mayo Clinic’s view is that “there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems.” So who do Americans trust, these authoritative sources or a Facebook friend who watched some guy in a halloween costume on YouTube with scary stories?

Likewise folk remedies of all kinds continue to circulate. One longstanding belief is that magnetism has magical healing powers, leading people to buy bracelets, insoles and other magnetic devices. This is odd because over the past 15 years the FTC has ordered Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, among others, to stop advertising magnets as a cure for numerous diseases or even as a pain reliever. No credible evidence exists of healing powers, and none can be claimed in their advertising. One recent well-designed test of such devices confirms this fact concluding: “Wearing a magnetic wrist strap or a copper bracelet did not appear to have any meaningful therapeutic effect, beyond that of a placebo, for alleviating symptoms and combating disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.” Does that slow the sale of magnetic shoe insoles? – Not for people who don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, a persuasive ad or a celebrity endorsement.

It’s your money to use as you please. You can save it for college and retirement, give it away to companies selling you magnetic health devices, or even flush it down the toilet. Two of those choices make the same amount of sense, but as Paul Simon sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

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. 

Diet Soda Still Under Attack

People using social media too often read headlines and don’t look at the rest of the story or, perish the thought, do a little research to find out the truth. We see articles posted where an event happened in another country but the comments read as if it happened right next door. (I highlighted an example of some of the dangers of this kind of behavior, blindly reposting stuff, earlier this month.)

That is why I wasn’t surprised to run across another condemnation of diet soda being spread on Facebook a few weeks ago when the original news story came out last February 14. (Does the American Heart Association (AHA) always release a story on Valentine’s Day or was that just a coincidence?) This story presented a good example of how a headline can be very misleading, and how 15 minutes of research leads to a different conclusion.

Multiple news outlets reported it, but the Fortune headline was typical: “Drinking Two or More Diet Sodas a Day Increases Likelihood of Strokes, Heart-Attacks, American Heart Association Says.” Although they have been seen as a healthier alternative to sugary drinks, the study shows that “immoderate drinking of the low-calorie drinks is associated with a greater risk of strokes or heart attacks.” 

They go on to say that over 82,000 women participated, which is a very large sample, but it means the findings can apply only to women. Furthermore, and not mentioned in the Fortune article, they were post-menopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79.

Part of the findings correctly reported was that the women “who drank two or more artificially sweetened drinks had a 23% higher risk of strokes in general.”

A more thorough report came from Science Daily. They also report the 23% figure, but add near the beginning of the piece an important reminder for non-statisticians. “While this study identifies an association between diet drinks and stroke, it does not prove cause and effect because it was an observational study based on self-reported information about diet drink consumption.” Also researchers can determine no mechanism by which the ingredients in diet drinks could cause the associated ailments.

A further question arises: How bad is a 23% increase in risk? That depends not on the size of the sample, but on the size of the risk. If, for example, the overall risk of something bad happening is 60%, a 23% increase brings the risk up to almost 75% - a big difference. On the other hand, if the risk is small, say 2% such an increase brings the risk to less than 2.5%. Without specifying the original size of the risk, the unanswered question is: how much behavior should I change to try to avoid it?

The percentage increase says nothing about the real size of the increased risk. To find out how serious it was I went to the AHA Journal article cited in those news stories. I found the data in Table 2 of the study.

The data showed that the risk of a stroke over the twelve years of follow up was about 3% for the group that drank almost no diet drinks and 3.7% for those who regularly drank two or more. Remember, this very small risk applies only to post-menopausal women. And also mentioned in the conclusion of the AHA study, those women in the higher-risk group “were more likely to be obese, had lower levels of exercise, had … lower diet quality… [and] were more likely to be a current smoker.”

A different study with a smaller sample asking the same question was published two years earlier by Harvard Health. It concluded that the risk from diet soft drinks is small. They also referred to a larger study that “detected a slightly higher risk of stroke in people who drank more than one soda per day, regardless of whether it contained sugar or an artificial sweetener.” (That flies in the face of the aspartame urban myth that won't seem to go away.) And agreeing with the conclusion in the AHA study, for people drinking diet sodas, “heightened stroke risk may result from their health problems rather than their beverage choice.”

An honest headline should have read: "Postmenopausal women who drink two or more diet drinks a day seem to have a slightly higher risk of strokes but what they drink might have nothing at all to do with it" - not exactly click-bait.

It takes just a little critical thinking and research to uncover the misrepresentations in so many headlines. If you don’t care enough about the issue to do the research, ignore the headlines. If you do, don’t repost them on social media until you've looked into the matter.

Pursuit of Happiness?

Last week the news broke that Americans spent about $9 billion on Halloween. That’s over twice the budget of the entire National Park Service and included almost half a billion dollars on costumes for their pets.

My first thought on hearing this was that people must be feeling pretty good about their life and their personal economic situation if they are willing to spend so much celebrating what years ago used to be a time for homemade costumes for kids going door to door. Now it has become a full-fledged manufactured holiday along the lines of Valentines Day. 

The overall spending level on Halloween has been consistent for at least the last eight years.

But the original story decries it as out of control consumerism. The writer labels that much spending on a non-holiday as a sign of conspicuous consumption. “Conspicuous consumption is designed to show others you are rich, smart or important.” It used to be a case of having a bigger house or fancier car than the neighbors. Today it’s having a better picture of themselves or their pets on Facebook or Instagram and garnering more likes.

That is also the conclusion of this Fox Business article: “Social media 'pressure' drives Halloween spending.” Their conclusion is based on a survey showing that “48 percent [of millennials] admitted to purchasing Halloween items solely for posting online, and four in ten millennials felt a lot of pressure to spend that money.” They were not alone. Over thirty percent of the generations that bracketed them admitted to having the same motivation.

This idea of conspicuous consumption goes beyond dressing up for selfies as this Forbes article explains in: “What Handing Out Full Size Candy Bars on Halloween Says About You, According to Behavioral Economists.” Stores this year were stocking more packages of full-size candy bars in anticipation of the pressure to out-do or at least keep up with the neighbors. “Your Halloween treats can signal not just what you have, but aspects of your character, such as your generosity.” It’s about social signaling, how we try to shape what others think of us.

This whole dynamic, too, is amplified by social media, the way it sets expectations and the way it makes the spread of a reputation, positive or negative, so much faster and easier.

So it’s conspicuous consumption, a sign of insecurity, that drives people to dress the dog like a cat or a box of cereal. It doesn’t sound like they are spending for the sake of a good time or to celebrate happiness at all.

Finally, this Washington Post story from last March confirms that notion: “Americans are the unhappiest they’ve ever been, U.N. report finds.” The US dropped for the third year in a row to 19^th place among 156 countries in the United Nation’s World Happiness Report, an annual ranking of overall happiness. 

“By most accounts, Americans should be happier now than ever,” writes Jean M. Twenge, one of the report’s co-authors. “The violent crime rate is low, as is the unemployment rate. Income per capita has steadily grown over the last few decades.” It’s hard to believe, except that the news media rarely reports this type of good news. Instead they dwell on the negative, the scary and the sensational to incense the audience and attract clicks and eyeballs. 

Commenters on the report blame the trend toward unhappiness in part on the rise in addiction, but isn’t that more of a symptom than a cause? Is it an increase in screen time, activities that have been linked to increases in depression?

Perhaps one key can be found back in the full-size candy bar story. “Our satisfaction is very subjective…it’s not absolute, but driven by what we expect.” Expectations are set by perspective. If we lack perspective we allow others to judge us and set our expectations, and that can only lead to unhappiness.

Staying Conscious

Last time I explained how people tend to make decisions based on how they are feeling 95% of the time unless they make some effort to stop and think things through. The 5-second countdown trick is one way to pause, to slow down the process and avoid impulse decisions. 

We must be always alert because everyone trying to sell something takes advantage of this tendency to make decisions based on feelings. They play to our subconscious. 

Shortly after that I ran across a related article. It was called “Don’t get fooled or conned again” and presents five more tactics or techniques people or companies use “to get us to do what they want.” In most cases that means buy a product or service, but it may also mean adopting a particular political point of view.

Some of these tactics are obvious, like promising to send a huge windfall, but asking for a handling fee or a bank account number to get the process going. Most of the tactics though are common but more subtle, like offering a third item free when you buy two, even when two or three is much more than you need.

The tactics, referred to as superpowers, begin with understanding that the process of being fooled takes place inside your mind. If you are not alert to what is happening, you can be manipulated to buy whatever they are selling. "They’re trying to sell you on a story, to get you to buy into their narrative.”

The first is misdirection. Misdirection is why “companies and governments often release bad news on Fridays or before major holidays” when they know we will be distracted.

Next come time pressure and opportunity. The two are closely related. We are presented with a limited time to act or a limited number available. Any special sale or limited time pricing falls into the time pressure category. Car dealers have sales with catchy names near the end of each year with artificial deadlines, think Toyotathons and Happy Honda Days. Sometimes they combine the two by saying the sale is over at the end of the month or when they have sold a certain number.

Made up days like Black Friday and Cyber Monday also are examples. Estimates for this year are that those two days will result in sales of $12.3 billion (a 25% increase) and $9.48 billion (up 20%), respectively. And some companies have already started Black Friday promotions, so be careful to think first. Something you didn’t want or need is not a bargain, in spite of the great price.

The last two tactics are also closely related. “Social compliance refers to how we respond to people in authority” whereas “Social proof refers to how we constantly look to others around us for clues as to how to behave.” Both are powerful. Social compliance comes when encountering someone either with authority or perceived authority, such as a recognized expert. Examples include a treatment or pill advertised with a doctor’s endorsement or advice from TV doctors, who depend on hype to keep the audience engaged.

Social proof comes from the many customer endorsements (instead of evidence) in those same ads. It explains why when one person begins to applaud, the rest tend to join in. It drives much of the behavior on social media where likes draw more likes and people tend to congregate on line with others who share their philosophy. 

In one study in 2011, a cognitive neuroscientist at Temple University exposed 32 teens to a series of Instagram photos while they were in an MRI machine. They mixed them with other pictures and randomly assigned ratings. The teens were allowed to like a photo or pass. “Teens were much more likely to like images that seemed popular [and] skip pictures with few likes. And the brain's reward pathways became especially active when the teens viewed their own photos with many likes.” That is how social proof works on both teens and adults, likes draw more likes and memes go viral with hardly the firing of a single brain cell.

The article presenting the five tactics concluded: “Be careful when you feel emotionally moved by the headline, and be even more careful when you agree with the headline or when the headline makes you happy, because that’s when you need to watch out.” The best defense against being fooled and conned is critical thinking.