Flashback – Why Is Color So Important?

My very first entry of 2013 addressed the power of color in decision-making in areas as different as medication and car buying. The point of these examples was to show how Americans are influenced by superficial characteristics, an indication of problems in the dimension of perspective. These many years later the media and certain groups are again focusing on color differences, particularly skin color, treating it as more important than substance and character. It seems we have made little progress since I wrote this.

[This thought about perspective was inspired by recent medical news about the color of pills and by a slightly older story about the color of cars. Perspective is about distinguishing between what’s important and what’s trivial, hence, living according to real values rather than values imposed by society. People strong in perspective look past external appearances and tend to adopt a lifestyle based on moderation. Common examples of poor perspective include the Black Friday stampedes and the accumulation of debt from buying to satisfy our wants and impulses or to impress others.

A key lesson is that appearances are often deceptive when it comes to judging what's really important.  Nevertheless, examples abound showing how people are overly influenced by external factors, in the following cases by color alone.

The first is a health report that came out earlier this week. Studies show that when the color of medication is changed, there is a greater a tendency for people to stop taking it. This occurred 27 to 50 percent of the time, and it is not a trivial problem. “Failure to take a prescribed medication — a behavior known as non-adherence — costs $290 billion annually in additional health complications, according to the New England Healthcare Institute.” Apparently generic medication, less expensive but identical to the brand name drug, may be manufactured by several companies. They don’t coordinate with each other on the color, nor do they take great pains to maintain consistency within each company.  People look at their pills and don’t recognize them or are confused by the color. Over-reliance on visual cues causes them to make poor decisions about continuing medication.

The influence of something as superficial as color extends beyond the health field. As this article points out, “BuyingAdvice.com [has found] that if a car is not available in the preferred color, 40 percent of drivers will decide to change brands.” With all the factors involved in deciding which car to buy:  safety, reliability, fuel economy, price, warrantee, insurance costs, and others; isn’t it surprising that 40% would switch brands – Ford instead of Toyota or Kia instead of Subaru – just because they can’t find the color they want? This is especially surprising since, when sitting inside a car, it’s very difficult to tell what color the car is! The color is visible only to other people. It could be ugly green or bright pink and you’d never know it until you got out.

When making major decisions, it's critical to put substantial factors ahead of superficial ones. Based on these stories alone, color is one of those external factors that wrongly holds considerable sway in decision making. A good New Year’s resolution might be to try to be less influenced by appearance and other external factors. Maybe we can start with pills and cars and work our way up to people.]

Wanted: A New National Anthem

The New National Anthem Committee is accepting applications. The current anthem has several flaws that must be addressed.

First, it is very difficult to sing. Second, the only verse that is usually sung is far too long. This becomes obvious by the fact the fans at sporting events get bored and restless, unable to maintain an attitude of respect and reverence toward the flag and country all the way to the end, whooping and hollering well before the last note has sounded. Starting criteria will be: easier to sing and shorter.

The current anthem is also objectionable for other reasons. One passage in the third verse, a verse most Americans didn’t even know existed until a controversy arose a few years ago, is by one interpretation objectionable and does not reflect twenty-first century values. (Note that this interpretation did not reflect twentieth century values when the anthem was adopted either, but general ignorance of its existence rendered the issue moot for over 80 years.)

The lyrics are about a war, sometimes called the second war for American independence. But the subject of war, any war, can be offensive to some.

Furthermore, the author, also a lawyer, had a mixed background. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but freed some of his slaves in the 1830s, paying one ex-slave as his farm foreman. He publicly criticized slavery and gave free legal representation to some slaves seeking freedom, but he also represented owners of runaway slaves.

When submitting a possible replacement anthem, this is important to remember. It is no longer acceptable to have wrong values and reform or to make a mistake and apologize. Every accusation of wrongdoing is tantamount to guilt in the court of public opinion with no statute of limitations. Mistakes or misstatements 30, 50 or 200 years ago have the same force as if they had happened yesterday. There is no forgiveness, so the work of any author submitted will be judged first by the purity of the author’s actions and reputation.

Finally and needless to say, the inclusion of the word “God” will lead to objections and immediate disqualification. Also, the use of words like “Free” and “Brave” are discouraged, as they are anathema to a society nearly devoid of responsibility, where the first instinct is to “sue the bastards,” or at least find someone else to blame for the slightest problem. Offense, supposed injury and victimhood get attention and sympathy; whereas personal responsibility, which used to be considered heroic based on previous American values and culture, is discouraged. Free and brave don't reflect the ethos of the time.

In short, avoid trying to be aspirational lest it be branded as being unrealistic and unrepresentative.

Send submissions to the New National Anthem Committee. Include email address and street address, the latter in case the Committee finds anything in the submission offensive or  objectionable in any way so that next time we are in your neighborhood we can vandalize your property and call it exercising our free-speech rights to protest.

Flashback – Teacher Pay

[The value of a teacher reflects how much we value education. I wrote about this in January 2013.]

Here is the problem. Teachers have one of the most important jobs in society, teaching our children.  They must have a college degree, but their pay and benefits are comparable to those who work in unionized manufacturing jobs. Professional football players and other entertainers provide a service that is totally unnecessary for our survival, yet they are paid ten to twenty times as much as teachers with top end athletes getting tens of millions of dollars. It challenges our sense of fairness. How could we let that happen?

Maybe the answer lies in behavior, specifically in the dimension of perspective.

If we decide to take our family to a college or professional football game, it could easily cost us around $500. That includes 4 tickets, parking, food and drinks and a souvenir or two. Of course this assumes that we can even get tickets for a single game, because in some places the demand is so high.  This is for a single game and doesn’t even address the idea of season tickets. On the other hand, if the city decided to raise our taxes by $500 per year to pay the teachers better, most people would join the mob storming city hall in protest. (This link shows a non-scientific poll of Massachusetts voters when the governor suggested raising income taxes to support schools and highways. They were very unhappy.) 

But our willingness to support our favorite team doesn’t stop there. We will set aside 3 or more hours each weekend to cheer them on. We buy their clothing, intently watch and critique the players, coaches and officials. Players who miss blocks or tackles, players who drop passes and coaches who don’t make it to a bowl game or a playoff game are fired with our approval. The stars have us hanging on their every word and buying the products they endorse. On the other hand, ask us to commit an hour per month or less to attend a PTA meeting or a teacher’s conference, and we react negatively or indifferently. It seems like an imposition.

Finally, teachers do not do one of the most important jobs in society alone. They are part of a team that provides that service. The team consists of teachers, parents and the students themselves. Asking teachers to do it alone is like asking the offense to win games without a defense. Do parents believe they are part of the educational team or are they too quick to let the teachers do the hard work and then side with their child against the teacher when problems arise? Should parents be held accountable for daily assignments and for student preparation, both in terms of learning and of their attitude toward learning? If there were more parental involvement, if children arrived at school expecting to learn rather than expecting to be entertained, would there be such a cry for smaller class sizes?

Perhaps teachers aren’t paid what they should be based on their contribution to society. Perhaps athletes and other entertainers are paid too much. We are the ones making those decisions by what we choose to support and what we choose to ignore. Again it’s about our behavior: our values, our choices, our perspective.

[Over the past 6 months or so, America has seen many statues torn down. One question might be: how will this affect the 14-year-old African-American student of today? Will a greater percentage be motivated to finish high school with the skills needed to get a good job or go on to college? Will they choose to prioritize education over being accused of “acting white” by their peers? Will their parents actively support the children and their teachers in those goals? Will they perhaps even become role models for all younger students. The answer will come in four years. This may be yet another area to positively channel that anger and frustration to achieve improvements in this tumultuous time.

The message, as it has been for the past 940 entries to all Americans, is how much success we can achieve on our own with strong behavior in the key dimensions.]

Flashback – Perspective and Gas Prices

[In the fall of 2011 I published a piece with that title. At that time, eight and a half years ago, people were looking forward to prices dropping to about where they are today. The point of the discussion was how short memories are, how easy it is to complain when things change for the worse and how quickly we take benefits for granted. Here it is again for your consideration.]

A couple of days ago the AP published an article on lower gas prices. The price has dropped significantly since summer and some people were amazed and thrilled to find prices below $3 a gallon.  If things go well some parts of the country could see prices as low as $2.50 in the near future (or not).

What does this have to do with perspective? To me it’s a reverse example. Here we have people very happy with prices below $3 and possibly headed toward $2.50, whereas not too long ago we were hearing cries of pain and anguish at prices as high as $2.50. But compared to $4.00 it seems like a bargain. People tend to have short memories and get used to things as they are, reacting with some discomfort to changes. In this example it is joy rather than discomfort, but because we have experienced such economic and technological growth and improvements throughout our lives, our expectations are set and any loss or reduction causes discomfort.

Perspective should remind us that how things are today is not the way they always were. Gas was not always three or four dollars a gallon, but televisions were not always digital, with 50-inch screens, surround sound, 200 channels, or even in color (and we had to get out of our chair to change the channels). Less than one hundred years ago most Americans had to live without radios, a second car, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, in-door plumbing, Social Security or any expected retirement, Medicare or any health insurance. More recently people got along fine without home computers, dishwashers, smartphones, moon roofs, garage door openers and home air conditioning. But it’s easy to take these things for granted and feel we could not live without them, when, in fact, people lived for all of history without them. Recognition of this makes it easy to understand how Greek citizens can march in protest over loss of benefits while their country teeters on the edge of bankruptcy.

Perspective is about values, values that keep our wants from morphing into needs (and needs into rights), values that remind us what is vital vs what we can really live without. It’s nice to see the price of gas turn around, but it should also remind us to be grateful for what we have and to consult our core values when we decide how to spend the extra cash. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it very bluntly in his 1964 lecture at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies: “Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually.” I think he was talking, in part, about perspective, and I wonder if we have been progressing or declining since then.

Pets and Perspective

At its core perspective is about having a healthy and realistic system of values. Values are what help each of us separate the important from the trivial to set appropriate priorities, to know what to work for and to know what is worth fighting for. Values determine how we spend our energy and our money. 

One area where this idea of healthy and realistic values seems to be breaking down is the automatic responses of pet owners.

I’ve written before about the family in Oklahoma who wanted to bar their neighbors from a public tornado shelter because the capacity limits would not allow their dog to stay. 

The same story tells of a woman who chose to stay outside with her small dog in the storm when another shelter would not allow it to come in. Although I think it’s foolish, I wouldn’t deny someone the right to risk her own life to comfort her pet. But they have no right to deny a safe haven to other humans for the sake of a pet. It’s no different from the people we read about every winter who risk their lives to save dogs (or other animals) stranded on the ice. The foolish choice rests with them, but their families may be the ones to live with the consequences.

Along those lines, when I hear news reports of a firefighter saving family pets, I wonder if the young family of a firefighter who died in an attempt to save another family’s pet would think it was a justifiable decision. 

I’ve written elsewhere about the thought experiment where people must choose whether to reroute a trolley, where one choice would kill one person while the other would kill five. Among the variations of this experiment is a case where people could save a stranger or their dog. Over one quarter chose to save their dog over another human.

The question arises; do many people really value the life of an animal over the life of a fellow human being? This is apparently the case. Even when it is not a life-and-death decision, more people are choosing the dog.

The headline from earlier this month tells it all. “Survey Finds Over Half of Dog Owners Kiss Their Pooches More Than Their Partners.” Not only that, but the survey conducted by Riley Organics, an organic dog treat company, goes on to say that “over half of dog owners surveyed preferred to sleep with their pet, not their partner, in the bed.” The outcome was 52% in each case, and 61% report kissing their dog on the mouth – I hope we’re not talking about French poodles!

According to another source reporting on the same survey, 94% “said they would rather stay at home with a dog than spend a night out with a human friend.”

I found no indication of the number taking the survey. It may be a small sample size. Also, self-reporting is a less reliable indicator of reality. The participants may also have been their customers, and people who buy organic treats for their dogs are already a little off-center. If that is the case, the accusation about skewed values may not apply to a large part of the population, however, it is suspicious and the behavior seems to be spreading.

If dogs are becoming more popular companions than other people, I guess an addiction to cell phones and texting is not the only reason for the growing interpersonal isolation.

Four Little Thoughts

Many years ago the fear promulgated by politicians and the media was that seniors in poverty would be forced to resort to eating dog food because they couldn’t afford anything better.  This thought crossed my mind as I was leaving the grocery store the other day and saw a poster advertising “all natural” dog food.  Between that and some of the ads on TV, it appears that our pets may be eating healthier (and higher off the hog) than we are.  Soon we may be hearing of struggling seniors forced to feed their dog people food because they can’t afford the vitamin-packed and specially formulated nourishment for the dog.

I expect to never see it, but here is a thought.  What if a receiver on your favorite football team appeared to catch a pass at a critical point in the game, but jumped up and admitted to the official that he actually trapped it?  (You see the opposite happen nearly every week.)  Would there be cheering in the stands for this brave act of honesty?  Would there be cheering in the locker room?  I strongly doubt it.  Yet we expect honesty and integrity from bankers on Wall Street, big drug companies and politicians.  We scream and point fingers when we get the opposite.  Where are our values?  How do we think the bankers and CEOs of the future will act when today, as we bring them up, we expose them to such confusing behavior in terms of values?  Is the message to be honest in life, but if it’s just a game honesty not only doesn’t matter but would be frowned upon?  Or does it only matter when it’s someone else’s integrity and it’s to our disadvantage?

And speaking of football and values:  How long do you think a quarterback at any level would last if he refused to throw or hand the ball to anyone who was not the same race as he is, or the same religion or have the same political opinions?  In this sense we have strong, good-role-model behavior in football that is often overlooked.

I have noticed lately in America a growing number of instances of an evolution from needs to wants and from wants to rights.  Could it be because, when enough people label something as a right, it becomes non-negotiable?  Sometimes individual rights aren’t even specified.  The term becomes a catchall for anything a particular group wants to ban or make untouchable.  How can you have an intelligent debate when any objection is turned into an accusation of you wanting to deny someone, some group or some animals their rights?

Obituary for a Lion

Why do Americans care more about a dead lion than dead humans? 

It was all over the news, print and broadcast as well as social media.  Cecil the lion, part of an Oxford University research project, was killed in Zimbabwe by a Minnesota dentist for sport.  CBS news showed a clip of Jimmy Kimmel choking up as he spoke out against the hunter, proving that “not only is he one of the funniest men on TV, but he is also one of the most decent.”  He went on to ask for donations to support wildlife conservation.  Local residents are laying stuffed animals at the dentist’s doorstep and at his office in protest.

Though the killing of a lion tagged for research purposes is a contemptible act, does it deserve that much attention?  On that same day a remotely detonated blast in Bahrain “targeted a bus carrying policemen near a primary school for girls,” killing two police officers and wounding six.  But the bomber only killed foreign police and endangered Arab schoolgirls – not the same as Americans or a “beloved” lion.  Where is the outrage; where are the late-night tears?

About a week earlier “a suicide bomber with an ice truck lured more than 100 people to their deaths” in Iraq.  But they likewise were not Americans or a beloved lion.  Go to the CBS News website and search on “Iraq-Bombing-Ice-Truck” and the story doesn’t appear.  From that search we do find out that during the same time period “suspected Boko Haram militants have killed more than 20 people including multiple children in their latest attack on northern Cameroon.”  Did social media go crazy?  Were Americans mourning the deaths of these little (black) children in Africa with the same fervor as they were for one lion.  Remember that lion was also in Africa, so you can’t explain the apparent indifference by the remoteness of the act.

The clearest and most direct explanation of these apparent inconsistencies is the lack of perspective and critical thinking by average Americans.  No one has the time or energy to be outraged by everything.  When we react to one outrage, we automatically, though unconsciously, choose to ignore all the others.  When we let the media, politicians and late-night comedians set the agenda for us, we make no conscious decisions.  We merely bounce from one injustice to the next as they decide what counts and what doesn’t.  Our leaders show no sense of perspective and the populace follows along blindly, letting others call the shots by grabbing us emotionally and drawing us in before we have a chance to assess the relative proportions of each situation.  In this case Jimmy Kimmel and others chose to add to their reputation for decency by valuing the life of one lion above the lives of multiple humans.

How does this reflect on our core values as Americans, as human beings?  Does anyone slow down to question what is really important or weigh alternatives?  Does our short attention span coupled with a tendency to react first and think later, if at all, drive most decisions?  Lack of perspective as reflected in our behavior is making reality out of what was once a joke about Americans waking up wondering what we are going to be outraged about today.  There is no shortage of people ready to take advantage of that opening and lead us down whatever path they choose.

Do These Jeans Make My Butt Look Big...Enough?

Not too long ago women were hoping items in their wardrobes were flattering in the sense that they did not exaggerate certain proportions.  A standard joke was about a husband searching for a truthful but diplomatic answer to the question, “Do these jeans make my butt look big?”

Now it appears the shoe is on the other foot, to mix metaphors.  According to NBC News:  Two doctors' organizations have tallied up the cosmetic procedures performed last year, and butt augmentation skyrocketed.”  Why would this situation change so drastically?  Those kinds of questions are getting easier and easier to answer.  For men the influence is usually professional athletes and for women it’s Hollywood.  The number of procedures to add silicone implants or to transplant fat from other parts of the body doubled from 2013 to 2014 driven by an increase in the number of pop stars celebrating their large rear ends in music, stage and television performances and on social media.

Apparently that’s good news for the doctors, but questionable for the rest.  One study in 2013 showed a 30 percent complication rate.  In a short comment back in August 2013, I pointed out that some of those complications could be serious, even fatal.  Having paid the money and taken the risk, what do they do in a few years when those pop stars are washed up and something new becomes the rage?

Here is a good example from a website called MEDPAGE Today from September 2012.  “The need for tattoo removal has burgeoned in recent years. Surveys have suggested that almost one-quarter of U.S. students have one or more tattoos, and that half of them subsequently seek a removal procedure.”  The article describes the success rate of using lasers to remove tattoos, but the point relevant to this bottom-enhancement decision is that the median age of the tattoos was only 4 years.  Certainly tattoos can be more personal and bring back unpleasant memories, but in both cases people are deciding to alter, more or less permanently, their appearance to follow a fad that will supposedly make them more attractive. 

Perspective reminds us to follow our core values, such as, wanting someone to love you for what you are.  It also reminds us about gratitude, being satisfied with what we have rather than yearning for something more or different.  Although little more than 20,000 have undergone this procedure last year, the fact that the trend is growing is disturbing.  It’s a small number relative to the population, but it is also a rather drastic step – both expensive and potentially dangerous.  Even those of us who would never consider such a decision can learn from these people and evaluate our own behavior when it comes to letting hype and pop culture overrule our better judgment.

Life, Liberty and ...Cell Phones?

I was struck by a lengthy USA today article about the long-term unemployed, those who have been looking for work for six months or more.  It is really a tragedy that unemployment has stayed so high for so long with barely enough new jobs to support population growth and many older workers shunted aside.  The number of long-term unemployed has increased 5-fold over the past decade, causing financial and psychological hardship.

The article presents three examples, presumably to elicit empathy and compassion by showing real people dealing with this crisis.  They quote their expert:  “It’s usually a shock followed by a slow downward spiral to a lower standard of living and a radically changed life.”  Unfortunately, the examples given include several instances of poor decisions and seem to indicate that expectations have been set to where Americans have redefined the concepts of sacrifices and rights.

The first couple lost both their jobs and a total $75,000 income.  They lived for 2 years on unemployment and gifts from relatives.  Since then they have gotten by on Social Security disability, food stamps, federal assistance for utility bills and another program that pays most of the mortgage on a three-bedroom duplex.   But they kept their cable TV and “our home” and “our cars” – that’s right cars, plural, with associated maintenance, insurance, registration, etc.

Next is a 46-year-old with an MBA from Chicago, out of work for five years.  After a couple of years he had “exhausted his jobless benefits, and his inheritance was dwindling.”  State aid to pay the mortgage on his high-rise condominium has expired and he lives on his savings.  He got a part time job and “ditched his landline phone and diversions such as two-week cruises and going to the theater.”  He admits turning down training to become a nurse based on his MBA degree – unclear whether that was out of pride or not wanting to see his degree wasted.

Finally, a Florida man, now 60, lost his $97,000 job in 2008 when the company shut down.  Since then he has applied for other jobs and tried consulting.  He lived for two years on unemployment insurance and his savings.  “He’s downsized his lifestyle, dropping a country club membership, forgoing health insurance for now and limiting his penchant for $150-plus dinners-for-two to a monthly indulgence.”  He has pretty much dropped the job search, figuring he can live off savings and Social Security (beginning in 2 years).  He spends much of his time on the beach, reading books and boogie boarding.

So the new American Bill of Rights seems to include:  cable TV, a house, two cars, and a cell phone (“ditched his landline”); and it’s a sacrifice when we are forced to give up cruises, trips to the theater, frequent luxury dinners, and country club memberships!  We can live off government programs and charity while we reorient to the new lifestyle as we continue to be picky about career training even after five years of unemployment.  Remember, these examples are offered as representing typical cases, ordinary situations that we are supposed to empathize with.

In a little more than a decade Americans have faced shocking events that should have moved us to adjust our perspective, emphasizing the importance of core values and downplaying the pursuit of material possessions, readjusting our expectations about what is necessary and what we “deserve.”  Terrorist attacks of 9/11, the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent Great Recession, this long-term unemployment issue, and loss of lives in the Middle East should have been a wake-up call, a reminder about reality, a warning against complacency.  The message seems to have been lost even on many who have been directly affected.