Tell Us Something We Don't Know

A recent report from Health Day tells us about new research on healthy eating.  Results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association and revealed that “home cooking is better than restaurant fare, and that kids who are offered more nutritious food in school cafeterias rarely eat it.”  This is not exactly earth-shattering news.  It seems more like stating the obvious and backing it up with a couple of studies, however, the conclusions should be “viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.”  That means they will not be sure until someone else has duplicated these studies and found similar results, but it makes perfect sense based on experience.

First, the idea that eating out rather than at home can be the healthier choice flies in the face of everything we have been hearing for the past decade.  The government has both pressured and required restaurants to post calorie counts and other information on the menu to give diners a chance to consider their options.  The Internet is filled with tricks and tips about how to eat healthy when away from home, strong evidence that it can be the less healthy option.  Here's a list of tips from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that was reviewed two years ago, which implies that it was out for longer.  It lists activities for preparation, choosing a restaurant, ordering and recommends eating more slowly to avoid overeating.  Restaurants present more choices, more food and the enticement of a dessert – you don’t even have to get up to get it.

The potential dangers of eating too many meals at restaurants have been discussed for many years.  The healthy eating advocates and others have been encouraging more meals at home, especially more meals as a family, for several reasons including this one.  Unless you are very careful, too much restaurant eating leads to excessive weight gain (and it’s more expensive, too).  It’s not like this is a surprise.

Next we hear another example of how the government can’t legislate behavior.  When the government dictates menus to schools, in effect telling kids what they must eat, the kids will avoid or ignore it.  In my personal experience I’ve talked to a couple who volunteered to help feed the “food insecure” children in a summer program.  The program had to follow certain nutritional guidelines, but after the meal the trashcans were full of unopened vegetable cups.  In another case, a mother complained about having to give her daughter enough lunch money to buy two lunches because the girl found a single serving was not sufficient.  These may be single observations, anecdotal evidence, but I’m not surprised to find that it appears to be a universal problem.

Again, lots of experience tells us that it’s a challenge to get kids to eat their vegetables.  Some scholars even argue that it’s the result of ancient genetic programing for survival in case the green stuff is poisonous.  Left unsupervised (or un-nagged) most kids will figure out a way to dispose of the dreaded vegetables.

Thanks to the American Public Health Association we now have research to confirm (pending peer review) what we already knew and observed for many years.  Healthy eating is about behavior for both children and adults.  Researchers can publish studies telling us what we already know and government agencies can institute regulations, but any real and lasting behavior change must come from individuals who are motivated to change.   Until that happens, we will continue to get the same results in terms of overweight and unhealthy citizens.

Back to the Basics - A Review

A few days back I learned that the public’s opinion about the direction of the country was very negative.  I wasn't surprised, but my lack of surprise was not politically motivated.  I was not surprised because I recall seeing these numbers for the last 25 years and rarely do a majority of Americans think we are headed in the right direction.  The chart on this page shows that it never happened over the last 5 years – and these polls come out about monthly.  A chart of New York Times polls shows less than half a dozen instances between 1995 and 2008 where more than 50% had a favorable opinion.  Despite changes in Presidents and Congress, Americans consistently believe the country is headed the wrong way.  So why don’t they do something about it?

That’s a good question.  Usually if something hurts, you try to fix it.  Minor irritations may heal on their own, but serious problems get attention.  If it hurts for 25 years or more, I doubt that any sane person would apply the same solution over and over.  But that’s exactly what Americans have done; expecting results from the government or thinking that changing parties will fix things.  It hasn’t worked because the problems are ours to fix.

Is the solution to the obesity epidemic governmental action, as Mayor Bloomberg and others seem to think, or is it eating less and exercising more?  Do we solve education failings with edicts from Washington or when parents take appropriate responsibility, working with teachers not against them to make sure the children learn both academics and respect?  Do we solve poor saving habits and retirement insecurity with bank regulations, consumer protection and AARP-backed legislation or when ordinary Americans begin distinguishing between wants and needs, passing up tempting offers and spending more wisely and frugally?  Our behavior has consequences.  Sometimes the consequences are unpleasant.  As long as we wait for others to solve our problems, the pain will not go away.

This behavioral model takes a personal approach.  By emphasizing behavior, we eliminate name-calling, instead specifying the error without blaming or demeaning.  Our behavioral errors have led to poor outcomes. Americans must take responsibility for the crises of the day and adjust individual behavior, so that the accumulation of consequences doesn’t overwhelm everyone, as it did a few years ago when too many people bought houses they couldn’t afford.  (Blaming greedy bankers won’t keep a similar problem from arising again.  Changing individual choices, actions and expectations will.)

Real solutions come from better actions and decisions in five dimensions.  With discipline we get control of our weight, our finances and correct poor consequences of other bad habits.  With responsibility we are motivated to do what is required of us, not looking for someone else to blame or to pay for our errors.  Using economic understanding, we realize that governments spend tax money taken from us, that corporations spend the money we pay for their products, and that there is no magic money tree, no free lunch – it all gets back to us.  When we use critical thinking, we are not lured by unsubstantiated claims or tricky advertising designed to play on our hopes and emotions.  Critical thinkers hold the media, politicians and advertisers to a higher standard.  Perspective helps us appreciate what we have instead of forever longing for more.  With perspective we practice moderation and learn to lead calmer and more focused lives.  Together these five dimensions outline behavioral changes that can make us better and happier as individuals and as a nation.

Each week in the news, there are dozens of stories about how people miss opportunities to make their lives better, and by extension to start moving the nation in the right direction.  I choose a couple of these examples to illustrate where we are going wrong.  My hope is that readers will develop the skills, the instinct, to recognize these examples and find more on their own.  Politics is not a factor.  If we can slowly change the mindset of America from one of looking to someone else for an answer to one where Americans take responsibility for how their individual choices determine the direction of the country, we can turn it around.  Otherwise, the conclusion must be that it really doesn’t hurt; it’s just people wanting to complain.

Wisdom?

Behavior has consequences.  Everyone knows it.  Hinduism and other eastern religions call it karma.  Colloquially it’s said, “What goes around, comes around.”  Christians have the concept of heaven and hell as recompense for actions on earth.  The Old Testament is filled with warnings about bad behavior: “But I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 21:14).  When bad things happen to good people we look for some rationale to explain and justify it, because it’s universally accepted that like consequences should follow like behavior.

Another well-accepted truth is that people don’t change unless they are unhappy enough with the status quo to overcome inertia.  It takes more energy (physical, mental or emotional) to move out of your comfort zone than to continue along the familiar path of old habits and routines.  One of Dr. Phil McGraw’s favorite questions is:  “How is that working for you?” as he tries to get people to acknowledge the pain that comes directly from their choices.  Unless they hate what’s going on, they will not change.  They aren’t motivated enough to commit to a new plan.

In most cases, the problem is not a lack of understanding of these two fundamentals.  The real problem is the time lag between them.  If I touch a hot pot on a stove, I quickly learn to use a potholder.  I am motivated to change behavior because the unpleasant feedback is immediate.  If I smoke my first cigarette at the age of 15, knowing that continuing to smoke may lead to a painful death at 55 has minimal motivational value.  If I am living from paycheck to paycheck today, the prospect of retiring in poverty in 30 or 40 years has little power over my decision.  Remote consequences, though well understood, provide less incentive to change.  To quit smoking or save for tomorrow means giving up today’s pleasure and gratification for some vague promise of a better future.  It is easy to disregard distant repercussions.  Change is hard work, and thirty years is a long way off!

Some people do it; most do not.  What is the mechanism that connects the idea of remote consequences to the need for immediate-term change?  What reminds some people to do the hard work today, striving for a brighter future?  It may be a general aversion to risk.  Perhaps it’s maturity or wisdom.  This article suggests that it’s merely a strong imagination to see more clearly a happier self in the future.  Whatever you call it, America needs more.

Our past behavior has developed into today’s problems.  Failures in perspective, critical thinking, discipline, responsibility, and economic understanding have long-term consequences for America,  Examples of these consequences are found in our obesity epidemics, unpreparedness for retirement, frivolous lawsuits, action based on impulse rather than values, wasting money on unproven cures, buying more house, toys or vacations than we can afford, a failing education system, out of control healthcare and college cost.  Meanwhile we expect the government to solve all our problems with money that appears out of thin air.  Clearly poor choices by the many sabotage the overall direction of the country.  We need better choices, not more laws, regulations and bailouts.  We must unite around this behavioral model to find the real solutions – other approaches continue to fail.

Are We Acting or Reacting?

One week ago I wrote about Social Security, that it was not an entitlement with a guarantee attached.  Despite this lack of guarantee, many people have become overly dependent on Social Security for retirement.  Although seniors resent the idea of an entitlement because it implies accepting charity from a system they actually paid into, the prospect of losing any benefits causes panic.  I concluded that at least part of this over-dependency was related to behavioral failings.

The problem begins as a consequence of poor discipline.  In some cases living from paycheck to paycheck cannot be avoided.  But in others, overspending on wants after the needs are met, an unwillingness to delay gratification, leads to minimal retirement savings.  When they are ready to retire, their primary investment is a house, which is not easy to cash in.  Social Security is a supplement, not able to replace a paycheck, so their lifestyle must be drastically curtailed.

How often, though, do they get to within a few years of retirement before they become aware that a problem exists?  A lack of perspective has insulated them from the realities of the future.  Perspective instills a sense of gratitude, appreciation for what we have rather than longing for more.  It encourages moderation and provides the motivation for the discipline of frugality necessary to save for the long term.

Lack of perspective also warps expectations.  Not so long ago, less than 100 years, retirement was a rarity, enjoyed by only a few.  Most people worked until they died, or if they were incapable of work, they were taken care of by their families.  When Social Security was passed, the life expectancy was less than 65.  Now life expectancy is near 80, and we want to believe the AARP when they tell us that retirement is a right along with affordable healthcare, not something we must earn by saving for it.  Considering the overall cost, this is not realistic.

For lack of discipline and perspective Americans have lost the ability to provide for themselves in old age.  Expectations are skewed.  In this and in many other areas we are reacting, without a plan or focus.  When it looks like Social Security is in danger, we have no Plan B.

Years ago this would not have been such a problem.  Changes were slower, allowing more time to adjust.  The telephone, invented in the 1880′s, took over 40 years to become widespread in America.  The first televisions, in the 1920′s, took nearly 30 years to replace radios as the primary source of home entertainment.  Today we have gone from e-mails and instant messages to texting on our cellphones in only a few years.  The pace of change continues to accelerate.  If lack of perspective keeps us living for today and only reacting as crises appear, the danger of serious problems will only increase.  This applies not only to retirement, but to many other issues, both personal and societal.

Disney Backs Down

Walt Disney World is rethinking an exhibit on childhood obesity that was criticized for being insensitive.  They used superheroes to demonstrate good habits with villains to show poor habits such as eating junk food and not exercising.

The primary objection came from an organization called the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA).  I went to their website to research their philosophy.  

Their home page has a banner that reads: “Discrimination is Wrong.”  That statement is totally incorrect.  Illegal or irrational discrimination is wrong, but otherwise we discriminate every day, about the food we eat, the people we associate with, the television shows we choose to watch or skip, the kind of car we buy.  The list goes on and on.  Rational discrimination (or even sometimes emotional discrimination), choosing one thing or one brand over another, is a natural and important human activity.  It’s the way we narrow options for decision making.  I like chocolate and will sometimes make decisions to satisfy my preference, discriminating against other sweets or desserts.  It’s not illegal and it’s not wrong – but so much for nit picking.  There are more troubling things about this organization.

First, I agree with their basic premise that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity.  Those who are otherwise fully qualified for a job should never be turned down on the basis of any non-job-related characteristic.  That’s bad business and just plain stupid.  Bullying in school for any reason is unacceptable.  This ideal of respect for all is a noble mission.

But they go on to say: “This discrimination [against fat people] occurs despite evidence that 95 to 98 percent of diets fail over five years…” Assuming that diets fail at that rate, is it time to give up?  It’s not constructive or responsible for people to declare themselves victims.  Diets fail precisely because they are diets.  They entail following a certain course until the problem is fixed, and then folks go back to old habits.  What if we treated oral hygiene the same way?  We would wait until we got a toothache and then brush and floss like crazy and start keeping dentist appointments.  When the toothache went away we would go back to neglecting our teeth and then scratch our heads wondering why problems recurred.  Diets fail because they are short-term solutions.  The NAAFA solution would be to have government regulate “and closely monitor and control all aspects of the $58 billion+ diet industry” and to ban them from advertising on TV, apparently because they don't work or give false hope.  I say, don't blame the diet; take responsibility.

From the statistics on the failure of dieting they conclude, “Our thin-obsessed society firmly believes that fat people are at fault for their size.”  Well, with the exception of valid medical problems, they probably are.  And the valid medical problems are likely no more common than they were 60 years ago when obesity in the US was far lower than it is today.  So the question is, do we let people off the hook for a preventable problem?  Do we call it an addiction, call for “acceptance” and become enablers, or do we try to support them in their effort to lose weight?  As a comparison, how do we treat smokers?  People addicted to tobacco and have tried and failed over years to quit seem to be treated the opposite.  Since the behavior is bad for their health and general welfare, society takes every opportunity to warn them of the dangers and urge, sometimes nag, them to quit.  They are charged higher health insurance premiums and laws limit the places where smoking is permitted.  Yet you don’t hear an uproar over smoker discrimination.  You don’t hear calls for “acceptance.”

Let’s try this approach with children graduating from high school who cannot read.  These young people have behaved in a way that will negatively affect their overall welfare for the rest of their lives.  It is preventable in most cases.  Do we decide that it could be a medical issue, dyslexia, and excuse it, or do we support and encourage them to change?  Is having high school graduates who can't read acceptable because it adds to diversity in our society?  Ridiculous!

The change model, presented last time, shows that change does not occur unless there is some discomfort or dissatisfaction with the status quo.  The more we try to make people comfortable, even proud of any behavior or lifestyle, the less likely they will be to change to a healthier, more positive one.

Bottom line, I have a problem with the NAAFA, not because they are caring people, but because they promote excuse, apology and rationalization over responsibility, an approach that guarantees no solution, but rather a continuation of people putting themselves in danger of a myriad of physical and medical complications related to obesity.  Presented as a service, it is actually a disservice to both the individuals it claims to support and to society as a whole.

Changing Direction for Improvement

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

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

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

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

The plan then outlines steps to get there.

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

One simplified example is planning a vacation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change

Years ago the smart folks at Harvard put together a change model.  They pointed out that change happens only when there is sufficient discomfort with the status quo (to motivate a change), a clear model or vision (what you want to change to) and a practical plan to get there.  These requirements are multiplicative (DxMxP), which simply means that if any of the three factors equals zero there will be no change.

It worked well for the moon landing.  We were embarrassed by the Russians putting the first man in space and dissatisfied with the situation.  President Kennedy set the vision of sending a man to the moon (and returning safely).  NASA put together the plan walking through the necessary steps:  the Mercury program (one man in space and then in orbit), Gemini (two astronauts in orbit) and Apollo (three in a capsule eventually landing on the moon and safely returning).  All along the way and by design, NASA enhanced and broadened their capabilities.  The desired change, from Russian to American domination of space exploration, happened.

Now consider the Occupy movement in terms of DxMxP.  There is definitely dissatisfaction, a discomfort shared by many.  We feel taken advantage of by the dishonesty, greed and manipulation characteristic of some big bankers and financial executives.  (Whether that is the primary or only complaint is unclear.)  What’s the vision?  What do we want instead?  Is it a nation where those bankers and executives are forced to conduct business honestly and fairy, or one where everyone gets the same share of the pie regardless of effort, talent or contribution?  Can there be a practical plan when the desired outcome is unclear?  Remember, when any of the three factors equals zero, there will be no change.  Constructive change requires much more than camping in parks.  It also requires a specific vision and a plan to get there.