Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Energy Stupidity

Perhaps stupidity is too strong a word. Perhaps it’s a combination of ignorance, impatience, an inability to foresee all consequences and a tendency to let emotions override critical thinking. This is not an example from America, but a powerful lesson.

 

US News reports, last weekend in Luetzerath, Germany "hundreds of anti-coal activists staged protests in and around a mine in western Germany.” This is part of an ongoing series of demonstrations against coal mining and the use of coal power plants. “Environmental groups oppose the German government's decision to allow the mining and burning of coal in the country until 2038.” They believe that would be too late to meaningfully affect climate change.

 

This activity is just the latest of many protests against both mines and power facilities. Here is a headline that one outlet labeled the top environmental story of 2017: “Thousands protest German coal use.” I also found news items about similar demonstrations from June and December 2019 and earlier this year. There is no doubt that this recent protest will not be the last.

 

So far it seems reasonable. Coal burning pollutes the air. Phasing it out will clean the air and remove greenhouse gases. Maybe they have a point, except…

 

In 2011 in the wake of the Fukushima accident and with 70 percent of the population opposed to nuclear power, Angela Merkel announced that Germany would close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022. At the time a science reporter for Time wondered how Germany would meet “increasing energy demands while also tackling climate change” as they “shun any low-carbon energy sources, no matter how troubling.” (Nuclear energy is not low-carbon; it’s zero-carbon.)

With the plan in place “to curb greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time...shut down all of its nuclear power stations, which in the year 2000 had a 29.5 per cent share of the power generation mix,” Although Germany has been moving heavily toward renewables, where does the power to fill the need between now and 2038 come from?

The Asia Times earlier this year noted, “Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources” with thousands of wind turbines and over a million photovoltaic installations. “Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on ‘bad days’ it can fall to nearly zero.” That leaves 65% or more unaccounted for.

Forbes lists a few problems with this rapid transition. It imposes increased direct and indirect costs on German businesses and consumers, who already pay “among the highest electricity costs in the world.” The “landscape is being ruined by unsightly wind turbines” virtually everywhere, and the supply from these sources “varies dramatically in the course of a day or week.”

 

Finally, a McKinsey report from last year, that one German newspaper described as “disastrous,” stated that the current “transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply.” At times the country’s grid was close to a total blackout and had to be stabilized by short-term imports. The implementation lags its completion goal by eight or more years.

 

Germany has major problems with all aspects of their renewable energy transition, made worse by the added gap from closing their nuclear plants, plus protests against a coal power industry needed to take up the slack. What else are they supposed to do in the interim, attach generators to exercise bikes and ask citizens to generate their own electricity?

 

Unfortunately, instead of learning from the German experience, other European countries, including France, with 58 nuclear power reactors producing nearly 72% of their electricity, plan to follow their lead. 

 

Critical thinking has taken a backseat to emotional reactions. Nuclear power has always been a safe and pollution free energy source. “The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining.” Modern technology is superior to the plants built years ago. And engineers in France are recycling spent fuel to avoid the need for massive radioactive waste sites. If fluke accidents drove decision making in other arenas we would be riding horses and be forbidden to have a swimming pool or a bucket of water in the backyard (among many other things).

 

In short, the German people have turned their back on a viable pollution-free alternative and then launched protests against the only industry able to take up the slack during the transition – maybe not stupid, but certainly not smart.

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.

New Thoughts on an Old Idea

Looking through my various news feeds, I came across a recent reprint of an article published at Inc.com in 2017. It was called “How to Change Your Life in 5 Seconds” and gives a simple tip on how to avoid procrastination. By merely counting backward from five to zero, mimicking a NASA countdown, you can overcome the inertia that results from feeling unmotivated to do whatever comes next in life, simple decisions like getting out of bed or starting a project.

The thought behind the countdown suggestion references a Harvard Business article from four years earlier that, in turn, presents an interview with a Harvard professor who published a book in 2003, How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. The book is about how to ensure your marketing message gets through to potential customers, based on years of research and “drawing heavily on psychology, neuroscience, sociology, and linguistics.”

So what does that have to do with procrastination, or anything else for that matter? The key discovery is “that 95 percent of our purchase decision making takes place in the subconscious mind.” In fact he suggests, “95 percent of all cognition occurs in the subconscious mind.” In terms of buying behaviors, we leap before we look. Decisions in general are not based on logic or rational thought. “They're based on emotion, on how a person feels about the action.”

It follows that if you give yourself time to think about not feeling like getting out of bed or not feeling like doing whatever needs to be done next, the result is procrastination. The countdown is a conscious effort to block those feelings and, in those 5 seconds, it’s possible to be out of bed already or taking the first step toward any other task that lies ahead.

But this practice could go beyond the simple, everyday decisions. According to the original source, the same appears to apply to buying decisions as well – and we don’t only buy material goods, we buy ideas and opinions.

Take as an example the common tips for selling a house. Some include: half-empty closets; turning on all the lights; clean or new curtains, door handles and cabinet hardware; inexpensive shrubs and brightly colored flowers for curb appeal; cut flowers or cookies in the entryway instead of the more typical coatracks and key hooks. All this is superficial. It targets the emotions, the feelings, the 95%. It’s manipulative, and it works.

This goes far beyond buying a house. Retailers study how they can get us to buy more: One site lists 15 tricks such as:

• Oversized sales signs;
• Shopping carts at the entrance to inspire larger purchases;
• High profit items at the front of the store so you have walk past them to get to essentials, which are in the back of the store;
• Most profitable items at eye-level;
• Music to make shopping fun;
• Plenty of elbowroom;
• Customer rewards cards;
• Low-cost impulse items at the checkout; and
• Limited time offers, vanity sizing, and other psychological tricks.

One age-old piece of advice to overcome these mind games is to make a shopping list (of items, or features in the case of a larger purchase like a house or car) and stick to it. Also, what if everyone did a countdown before putting something in the cart? What if everyone did a countdown before driving into the car lot? What if everyone did a countdown before believing what we hear or see on social media, on ads from purveyors of health and beauty miracle products, on the national news or in political speeches? 

Use the countdown trick as a safeguard to buy just enough time to let the critical thinking kick in. Make it your trick to defend against their tricks. Use it to protect yourself from the marketing ploys and emotional appeals aimed at that vulnerable 95%.

Do We Really Know Our Own Minds?

Well, except for the big-time procrastinators Christmas shopping season is about over. We have made our choices and spent what will probably again be a record amount of money on gifts, food and decorations. But recent stories in the news force me to wonder how Americans made those decisions, how they make buying decisions in general, and to ask the question: Do we really know our own minds?

The subject comes up after a few recent references to “influencers.” According to one business dictionary, influencers are individuals who have the power to affect purchase decisions of others because of their real or perceived authority, knowledge, position, or relationship. In consumer spending, members of a peer group or reference group may act as influencers.

They have power and they get that power because of their real or perceived knowledge or taste. But do they really deserve it? The only way they can get that power is because the ones whose decisions are affected have given that power to them. (I wrote not too long ago about the celebrity-endorsed sneakers selling for $999 with easy monthly payments – these are sneakers, not a car or a living room set!) 

We may listen to friends and neighbors to get some advice and learn from their experiences, but why do we listen to and follow the advice of sports stars or celebrities who don’t even know us? We let them make decisions for us and define what's cool. It must work because influencers are often paid to sway our opinions.

As this piece tells, there is more to the influencer phenomenon than meets the eye. In what the reporter refers to as a “bizarre and shadowy” industry, some companies feel they must pay influencers to speak positively about their products on social media. Despite the fact that “hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands daily” to buy these endorsements, many consumers trust these influencers as they would their friends and neighbors. The opinion of one experienced investor in a new start-up was that “to succeed, quality didn’t matter, nor did customer satisfaction—only influencers.”

It’s big business with the objective of making up your mind for you about what’s in, what’s out, what’s cool and what’s worth paying extra for. (One agency for influencers expects to make $20 million in deals this year.) And some influencers have been accused of buying followers to beef up the appearance of their popularity and raise their earning potential.

Surprisingly, there is some evidence that the influencers aren’t any better judges of fashion than the folks they try to influence.

A good example came from Payless shoe outlets, the discount retailer with stores in many malls. They teamed up with an advertising agency to make over a former Armani store in Los Angeles and fill it with Payless shoes, marking regular prices up by 10 times, rebranding the shoes with the designer-sounding name Palessi.

Next they “invited fashion influencers to get an exclusive first look at the new brand.” Some of these fashion experts “paid $200, $400, and even $600 for shoes that are normally sold for $19.99 to $39.99” 

In the first three hours they sold more than $3,000 worth of shoes. The company returned the money and let them keep the shoes, but will use the sincere and very complimentary comments in an upcoming advertising campaign.

So the question is: do we have the confidence to stop giving away our power, allowing others, who don’t know us and have little or no real expertise, to affect our decisions as consumers and citizens? Can we achieve a level of perspective to judge what is true and important instead of letting someone else do it for us? In short, can we stop acting like sheep, following the crowds as they follow the paid influencers, just trying to be cool or trendy?

Another question to consider: Unless we change this habitual behavior, how much easier do we make it for foreign powers or other nefarious actors to influence us using the same social media tools?

Advertising, Politics and the Behavioral Model

I have written many times before that politicians and advertisers will try almost any argument to persuade us to buy their product or support their point of view.  They are counting on us not to use our critical thinking or rely on the many valid sources of information at our fingertips.  Instead Americans are inclined to just reflexively accept or reject the premise and move on.   This is especially true of scary or sensational news.

Here is a prime example.  Last Friday, while expressing his shock and concern that President Trump plans to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, former Secretary of State John Kerry warned, “kids will have worse asthma in the summer” because of this decision.  With all the strong reasons he could have offered, why did he pick this one?  Citing the health of our children is an attempt to pull at our heartstrings, rather than to present a logical, persuasive argument.  It keeps us in an emotion-charged, reactive mode – the opposite of critical thinking.

But what do the authorities say?  According to WebMD, “the cause of asthma is unknown. Health experts believe that inherited, environmental, and immune system factors combine” to produce the symptoms.  They go on:  “Studies show that exposure to allergens such as dust mites, cockroaches, and animal dander may influence asthma's development. Some experts believe there are more cases of asthma because of pollution and less exposure to certain types of harmful bacteria and other germs.”  Pollution may irritate the airways and the modern, ultra-clean environment we strive for to protect our children may lower their natural defenses.  At this point, however, these are only possibilities.

Don’t trust WebMD?  Mayo Clinic says, “the underlying causes of childhood asthma aren't fully understood.” Triggers for Asthma attacks “vary from child to child.”  Their list of possible triggers includes:  viral infections; exposure to air pollutants such as tobacco smoke; allergies to dust mites, pet dander, pollen or mold; physical activity; weather changes or cold air.  “Sometimes, asthma symptoms occur with no apparent triggers.”

Until recently carbon dioxide (CO₂) wasn’t even considered a pollutant.  Furthermore, every time a child exhales his or her airways are exposed to CO₂.  Since CO₂ is the focus of the climate agreement, it’s hard to tell what bearing any increase or decrease would have on the situation.  Perhaps an increase would cause an increase in flowers in the summertime increasing the pollen.  But pollen is only one of the many possible triggers of asthma; and not all types of plants release pollen in the summer.  The real cause is still unknown.

This is not a criticism or personal attack against John Kerry, just a warning to us all.  Politicians, advertisers and other “influencers” will use any tactic at their disposal to sell a product, idea or a point of view.  They sell political ideas, food, drugs, insurance, dietary supplements, charitable causes, physical and psychological fitness programs, cars, bicycles, performance bracelets – and the list goes on and on.  Each time we turn on the TV or look at our phone or tablet, we are exposed to hundreds of these messages.  John Kerry may be sincere in his belief that the decision to not sign an agreement will lead to an asthma epidemic, but it is still an attempt to gain political backing for his position with a very dubious claim intended to spark worrying rather than questioning.

It takes no more than 3 minutes to research statements like this one, to find a reputable source and think about what is being said instead of reacting emotionally.  How many people actually do it?  How many parents this summer will blame the president (instead of, perhaps, their own insistence on perfect sanitation) for their child’s asthma just because John Kerry planted a seed of suspicion?  And how many other similar beliefs lead us to commit to questionable products, services or ideas, because we fail to think critically and investigate?

With all the reference material we have at our disposal it’s a shame that so many people are so easily manipulated.  We have it in our ability to force all those influencers to be more honest, more careful and more accountable.  Until we do, they will continue this type of behavior.

Critical Thinking About the United Airlines Fiasco

By now everyone has heard the news and seen pictures of the doctor being dragged from the United Airlines flight from Chicago to Louisville.  The Internet and network news went crazy with cell-phone videos of the incident.  The company stock is dropping based partially on talk of a boycott in protest.  The CEO apologized, but it’s too late; the damage is done.  Now Americans are pouring out prayers and sympathy for the doctor, but is this really justified?  

It is clear that the company screwed up to such an extent that they deserve the public relations disaster they are experiencing.  There were clearly other solutions.  Four seats were needed on the plane for crewmembers who had to be in Louisville (and rested) in the morning for uninterrupted service the next day.  Since there were no more flights available that night, the company could have used the thousands of dollars offered in vouchers to pay for ground transportation for the five-hour drive either for the bumped passengers or the crew.  Otherwise, they could have announced that the plane was not moving until that passenger got off and let peer pressure take over.  Instead they called in the airport security goons.

But something is missing.  According to earlier stories, the airline offered vouchers and motel to volunteers but got none.  Then they resorted to a random drawing to choose passengers to give up their seats.  What of the other three passengers?  They were not dragged from the plane, only the doctor.  How was he treated before being forcibly removed and how did he react?  The airline characterized him as "disruptive and belligerent.”  That is an opinion, but in the videos he certainly didn’t appear to be cooperative.

The big question in the midst of this outpouring of sympathy and prayers is, what was the underlying message?  It was there.  If people were alert and thinking instead of emotionally reacting to only the video, they could see it very clearly.  The underlying message from the doctor, and he might as well have stood up and shouted it at the rest of the passengers, was “I am more important than you!”

That’s right.  Three other passengers, who are receiving no media attention, cooperated with the airline in the legal exercise of their authority based on the agreement on every ticket.  “Federal rules dictate a carrier must first check whether anyone is willing to voluntarily give up their seat before then bumping flyers involuntarily if nobody comes forward.”  It’s the law.

So did the doctor react as the others did?  If someone else had been chosen, he would have sat back and enjoyed the flight with the message unspoken.  But when he was chosen, he reacted like a two-year-old who didn’t get his way.  He went limp, forcing security agents to drag him off.  He looked like a protester being removed from a picket line.  But remember what he was protesting – he was protesting his right, his firm belief, that he was better than everyone else on that flight.  If you had been on the flight, the implicit message figuratively being shouted in your face as he was dragged from the plane would have been, “I am more important than you, too!”

With that in mind, give him as much sympathy as you think he deserves, but don’t forget the message.  Also note that one interviewed passenger mentioned that she and her son “were sitting in the row directly behind…the doctor and his wife.”  Wait, yet another solution, if he had patients so desperately in need of attention the following morning, couldn’t he have turned to his wife and said, “Excuse me for imposing, Dear, but you know the situation.  Would you be so kind, and I promise to make it up to you.”  Given that information perhaps the patients were not the issue but merely a pretext for the real message, “I am more important than you.”

Best Tasting Tomato

Every year around the beginning of August, the local Master Gardeners held an open house for the public.  People were invited to tour the gardens, get their questions answered about growing flowers and vegetables, indulge in some free food or snacks, and enjoy activities for the kids.  The attendance over three hours was 200 to 300 and the otherwise very adequate parking lot of the County Extension Office was overflowing.

One popular attraction was the tomato tasting.  The garden usually featured over a dozen different varieties of hybrid and heirloom tomatoes.  Master Gardeners would pick a few of each and slice them up into individual bowls and invite the public to sample as many as they wanted and cast their votes for the best tasting tomato.  At the end of the day, votes were tallied and the winner announced.

Whenever I would describe this activity to others on a garden tour at different times of the year or to people in general, the same question would always arise:  Which variety of tomato won?  This is the typical (and wrong) reaction.

Why is it wrong?  This was just a fun activity.  The objective was to let everyone decide for himself which tomato tasted best.  It didn’t matter if, from this unscientific sample, one particular tomato got more votes than another.  That wasn’t the point of the exercise.  The point was to allow people to sample many different kinds of tomatoes, an opportunity they probably could not find elsewhere, and decide for themselves which they liked the best.  Except for fun, it was not intended to crown one tomato the best.  Yet even those who weren’t there at the time wanted to know.

I’m sure in some cases they asked just out of simple curiosity.  Perhaps some of the other gardeners might want to order seeds for the following year and were looking for some different ideas.  In general, though, I think the reaction was the same as many Americans have to a wide range of issues and purchase decisions.  They let other people make decisions for them.  They react to the hype.  They follow the advice of celebrities and other influential voices about what to eat, what not to eat, what to be upset about, what movies and television shows to watch, how to dress, how to vote, what diet plans to follow, what books to read and what brand to buy, including: cars, sporting equipment, furniture and beverages.

Why would I think that is true?  Last month, after his scandal at the Olympics, swimmer Ryan Lochte lost several endorsement deals.  One relationship was with Speedo.  I can understand a swimmer representing swimming apparel, although I shouldn’t let it influence me.  On the other hand, USA Today reported, “Airweave, a mattress company, said it had ‘ended its partnership’ with Lochte.”  Unless some significant number might let a famous swimmer advise them about what mattress to buy, Airweave was throwing away their money.  Yet this happens.  Celebrities represent products or causes with no relationship to their areas of expertise.  We let others influence us as we respond to ads that a particular brand is the most popular.  We see political candidates seeking the endorsement of singers and actors.

The hype machine is working overtime every day.  Advertisers tend to drop campaigns that are ineffective.  When we see so many using similar appeals, the only logical conclusion is that this stuff works; enough consumers fall for it that the expense is justified.

So remember the lesson from the tomato tasting.  If you get a chance to sample many and decide for yourself which one you like the best, that one is best for you.  What others think makes no difference.  Opinions are not facts.  In matters of taste or opinion, yours is as good as anyone else’s, and a better choice for you.  In matters of fact, like which car is the safest or most reliable, which candidate (if any) is best qualified or which foods are safe, find the facts for yourself instead of following the crowd or putting all your faith in a famous spokesperson (who often has little knowledge of the subject).