Astrology?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Reason to Ban Drug Ads

The last time I wrote a “Don’t Ask Your Doctor” piece was almost three years ago. It was a follow up to the original in November 2012. 

It seems clear that the many drug ads on TV and in magazines with the punch line “Ask your doctor if [fill-in-the-blank drug] is right for you” are merely an attempt by pharmaceutical companies to bypass doctors to increase sales by appealing directly to Americans with a demonstrated weakness in the area of discipline. The companies try to use the patients to put additional pressure on their doctors to prescribe expensive medications. It often interferes with the doctors’ ability to make a proper decision for fear of getting into an unnecessary battle with or ultimately losing a patient.

A common example of this patient pressure that I have run across in the past is the number of people who have gotten antibiotics from their doctors to fight a cold. Antibiotics are not effective for a cold, because it is a viral infection, not bacterial. Doctors know this. It is a waste of money for the patient and a danger to the rest of us as it promotes the evolution of stronger, more drug-resistant viruses.

I am not alone in my objection to these ads. The Washington Times points out that “only doctors have the training about, and knowledge of, such drugs, as well as insight into their patients’ medical backgrounds that may or may not be appropriate for such medications” and that the ads “contribute more confusion than useful information.” The US and New Zealand are the only countries in the world to allow this practice.

The American Medical Association has been calling for a ban on those ads for many years. Their position “reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices.”

And those marketing costs are high! From 1997, when it was first allowed, to 2016 “spending on medical marketing of drugs, disease awareness, health services, and laboratory testing nearly doubled, going from $17.7 billion to $29.9 billion.” The direct-to-consumer portion increased the most, both in amount and proportion of spending from $2.1 billion (11.9% of total spending) in 1997 to $9.6 billion (32.0%),” while the amount spent in journals directed at the doctors decreased.  That spending adds to the cost.

This is doubly important today when we have such strong evidence of how easily patients, and in this case parents, are influenced by misinformation and make such foolish decisions, pressuring their doctors about vaccinations. 

Here is a subject where the science is clear, while warnings and side effects are not buried in the fine print. It’s simple; measles can kill. Vaccinations work.

In 2015, California passed a law eliminating personal belief exemptions for vaccinations that kids must receive before they can attend public school. They can only get a medical exemption from a doctor. Fearful parents are pressuring doctors, causing this medical exemption category to increase by 250% over the first two years of implementation. Some doctors are even cashing in on this unwarranted fear by charging $300 to $500 to write recurring exemptions. The understanding about measles prevention is clear, but there has been an outbreak on the West Coast (and in Europe). These falsified exemptions and parental beliefs endanger not only the kids with fearful parents, but those who cannot be vaccinated due to valid medical exemptions.

This single example casts doubt on the FDA’s original argument for TV ads, that giving consumers more information would lead to better outcomes. It has more likely led to more unnecessary prescriptions and higher drug costs.

A Closer Look at Spending

Back in June I posted some graphs that I created based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  The point was that the government seems to have the same problems with discipline as many citizens. Their appetite exceeds their resources. They spend for today often without distinguishing between wants and needs while pushing the consequences to the future - sometimes referred to as kicking the can down the road. 

A close look at the numbers shows that moderate austerity should have been fairly easy and that following a more conservative pace would have left the country in a much better position. 

Last time I posted this message on a Friday, and it ran over a weekend.  I thought the information was important enough to show again.

   

My source was the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis website: quarterly government expenditures and receipts, seasonally adjusted from 1^st Quarter 1990 to 1^st Quarter 2018.

The first graph shows government expenditures.  There is an apparent acceleration in spending shortly after 2001. The slope changes noticeably. 

The next graph shows that the increased spending was real and sustained.  By taking the average quarterly increase for the 1990 to 2000 and applying it to the rest of the data, I showed (in red) what would happen if the spending had increased at only the same percentage rate.  It's still an increase but not nearly as steep. (The blue shows actual spending from the above graph, so the apparent increase was real!)

That's the spending story.  Now see what happens when we add government receipts (overlaid in green). There was a budget surplus in the late 1990s and even with the tax cuts of 2001, there would have been another from 2006 to mid-2008, had the spending not gotten out of hand.  And again around the 2013 - 2015 time frame any deficit would have been minimal.

Just like that new car or vacation we can't really afford, the new government programs seem to be too tempting to pass up. It seems painless because borrowed money today doesn't have to be paid back until later. But as we know from our personal experience the consequences are just around the corner. Unfortunately the decision makers may be long gone when any government consequences arrive. It will be our children and grandchildren left to pay the bill.  This shows a lack of discipline, perspective and responsibility 

Effects of Social Media

I recently received an email from an astute reader with a link to an essay by a mom concerned about the negative effects of social media on children and puzzled about how to protect them from these dangers.

It began innocently enough when her daughter asked for permission to use an app called Musical.ly so she can make funny lip-sync videos like her friends were doing.  Before committing, the mom took time to review the app, which turned out to be not so innocent after all.

It was one of many websites without parental controls so she couldn't block overly adult and violent themes. As she points out: “Tweens and teens have an underdeveloped frontal cortex. They’re impulsive and self-centered. They make terrible decisions and they can be meaner than a bull shark.” Some content and behavior is clearly not appropriate for their immature minds.

Yet on this app the children who gain followers are the ones who dress and act in overly adult and sexy ways. “The kids who get it wrong – those not ‘sexy’ enough, funny enough, savvy enough –  are openly ridiculed in the comment section” and may find their embarrassment preserved forever on YouTube. Children are also exposed to subjects like self-harm, suicide and anorexia with no guidance except from other children.

So the answer was “no” on the app, but she has problems with the effects of social media on children in general.  Formerly, any bullying or embarrassment from a bad day at school could be left behind afterward. With social media, the bullying and teasing follow them home and can be with them all the time. “Online, there is no school bell, there is no escape” from reminders of mistakes. The ridicule is permanent. In addition kids may obsess about how many likes they get in this imaginary popularity contest, inspiring them to push the envelope in unhealthy ways.

That mom’s solution is to say no to social media for children and give them flip phones instead, despite the nerdy image.

But that’s just the kids. Don’t we have similar things going on with adults, especially since we’ve learned to weaponize social media?

In a recent example American Greetings was forced to pull a Father’s Day card that they intended as “playful,” when one customer “took to social media” (as the saying now goes).  According to CBS, her “post led to images of the card being circulated online, prompting a stream of commentary on social media and an attempt at making amends by American Greetings.”  The company released a statement saying, "We appreciate the feedback and apologize. It's never our intent to offend any of our guests with the products we sell” but they also felt that objections did not consider the affectionate wording on the inside of the card.

I assure you I am no prude, but I have seen any number of greeting cards on the racks that I would not send to any family member or friend. Someone may have thought the cards were playful but they struck me as crude, in poor taste and mostly not funny. On the other hand, I would never imagine taking to social media to stir up a bunch of disgruntled strangers – and there are plenty out there – to back me up in my attempt to shame the company into pulling them.  I am responsible for my own feelings, not some card company. I also have a responsibility to others whose tastes differ from mine to allow them to buy these cards if they so choose.  (Let the market decide, not a few fusspots with computers.)

But it doesn’t stop with attacks on corporations. Personal attacks abound on social media as those with opposite points of view are accused of being stupid, mean, evil and hateful (sometimes based on faulty information and sometimes based on purposely erroneous information). People excoriate cyber-friends, real friends and even family, arguing, insulting, shaming, un-friending, blocking and trolling. Social media may not have caused this behavior, but it certainly allows and encourages it.

With the speed of technological advances, where is it leading and what are we losing?  Maybe we would all be better off with flip-phones.