Flashback – Build a Wall?

[Believe it or not, at the end of 2011, long before Donald Trump rode this issue to the White House, I wrote a piece with the title “Build a Fence.” Back then; when a Trump presidency was less than a minor consideration, many other people were talking about the need to control the southern border. Some of them later opposed the idea merely because of who was promoting it.

I also opposed a fence or wall because the issue could not be solved without changing the incentives that drive behavior. As long as illegal action yields positive consequences, it will continue. It called for better policies, and we are still waiting. Here are my thoughts from New Years Eve 2011.]

You are pushing your cart to check out at the grocery store and see ahead of you a man with his young son. The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and the toddler is sitting in the child seat. Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching. His father, distracted with the groceries and embarrassed, tries shushing the kid. Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching. The father is at his wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to everyone in earshot. Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is: “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior." He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future. You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future. Don’t feel guilty. That’s exactly how most people would feel. Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration. People sneak into the United States. They get free public education for their children. They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.” They get free medical care at emergency rooms. If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.

Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country. This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior. If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress. 

There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come into this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free. Most proposals from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.

[Eight years later the government is still trying to figure this out.]

The Robots are Coming!

Picking strawberries is hard work. Pickers spend a lot of time on their hands and knees peeking under leaves and straw to find and pick the ripe ones. I know first hand. A few years ago a small team of Master Gardeners at my local Demonstration Garden picked and donated over 500 pounds of strawberries to local food banks in a matter of about three weeks. We spent a couple of hours, three days a week, working our way down the rows. (The following year about half of the older rows were plowed under and not replaced with strawberries! It was too hard to find interested volunteers.)

Picking strawberries is also exacting work. Each picker must determine which strawberries are ready and which to wait on. Unlike bananas and many other fruits and vegetables, strawberries will not continue to ripen after harvesting. And if you don’t get them at the right time, they will rot on the plant. That’s why coming back day after day is necessary.

Besides being difficult and exacting, picking strawberries is delicate work. No one wants to eat a squished strawberry. People who buy them in the stores are usually even fussier than people getting them for free at a food bank.

Why all this discussion of strawberries? A robot is coming to do this difficult, exacting and delicate work and may be in limited operation on strawberry farms within three years. As the article points out “a robot that can pick strawberries may ease the industry’s labor problem and revolutionize the way crops are harvested.” It’s getting harder to find workers, and the ones that show up often move on to other crops before the job is complete.

Some machines are pictured in the article, but a search on “strawberry harvesting robot” yields a number of YouTube videos. Once in operation they will run for about 20 hours a day with the ability to pick up to 8.5 acres in that time. If there is an abundance of fruit, they automatically slow down to get them all. The robots will be able to do the job with more precision than humans; and will be able to pick at night, when cooler fruits are more resistant to bruising and when lower temperatures at picking time increase shelf life and reduce cooling costs. In addition, the “machine is going to know exactly where each plant is in the field” and “be able to have yield data at the plant level.”

Based on personal experience, I was fascinated by the idea of machines harvesting strawberries. Seeing pictures and videos of the huge robotic arms working in auto assembly where hard work and precision are so important is one thing, but having robots do the delicate work of harvesting fruit and vegetables adds another dimension. As one spokesperson for the robot designer says, “We’re not going to stop with strawberries.” 

Fewer jobs are safe anymore from automation. It’s something to keep in mind as the minimum wage debate rages on. As labor becomes more expensive, the option to substitute machines becomes more attractive – especially if they can do the job with more precision while simultaneously collecting meaningful data. Economic understanding reminds us that every day we are selling our skills in competition against others worldwide with those same skills, and more and more in competition against the threat of substitution by machines.

Kids can no longer bank on the idea of working the same low skill job as their parents and retiring after thirty years with a union pension and healthcare. More skilled robots are coming, and they are coming fast.

Behavior Does Have Consequences

Wise choices usually lead to favorable results. Poor choices or foolhardy behavior often leads to trouble. This is not rocket science, yet many people struggle to see the connection, despite the fact that we are surrounded by examples.

The standard example is that of the child touching a hot stove. The child receives immediate feedback, quickly jumps back and learns to avoid the situation in the future. It is an easy, and ordinarily harmless lesson. The first time may be a mistake or ignorance, but after that the child learns to be careful.

The harder lessons come from the actions that have delayed or unpredictable consequences. Teens (and adults) hear many warnings about the dangers of smoking, that it can shorten their lives by several years. Some heed the warnings. Others feel confident about ignoring the warnings because the consequences are so far in the future. They may also have heard of the rare cases of the centenarians who smoked or had other bad habits all their lives and are still going strong at 100 years of age. The lessons are delayed and uncertain, but the odds are strongly against a happy ending.

This came to mind when I heard about the incident before a Backstreet Boys concert at an outdoor pavilion at WinStar World Casino and Resort in Thackerville, Oklahoma. The weather forecasters warned of an incoming storm bringing high winds and rain. The news reported that as the storm hit, a tent collapsed, emergency crews arrived on the scene along with 10 ambulances, and paramedics carried people out on stretchers. They cancelled the show, apologized to their fans and promised to come back at a later date.

But the rest of the story goes like this: "All patrons in the area were asked to move and to seek shelter from the storm. However, about 150 patrons who were standing in line for the Backstreet Boys concert did not heed staff's warning... the storm hit and knocked over the concert entrance trusses with 70-80 mile an hour winds and heavy rain. 14 people were treated at the scene and then transported to local hospitals." (Emphasis added.)

As usual in these types of situations numerous unnamed heroes sprang into action to help the people in trouble. Of course the casino, performers and news media would never say anything so blunt as “behavior has consequences,” but it fits, at least for some. They did not heed the warning and ended up in the hospital.

The typical reaction is to ignore the behavior/consequences connection and to treat the injured as victims, even when they are victims of their own misjudgments.  For example, look at how juries have rewarded smokers (and their surviving relatives) in the past. 

That’s why the child learns the lesson and adults keep making foolish decisions.

Practical Health Advice

I have written in the past about the health advice on TV or the Internet from reputable sources that usually boils down to eating well, exercising, getting enough sleep, not smoking and drinking alcohol in moderation. It includes many of the behaviors showing strong discipline and is never a new revelation. (The health advice from not-so-reputable sources includes all the magic herbs, oils, supplements and ancient secrets and is best ignored.)

One good piece of health advice that is often not mentioned or only hinted at is to minimize stress. Although stress can be good and energizing, most stress is harmful and can lead to serious health problems. WebMD lists these facts about stress:

• Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. 
• Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. 
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually.

 One of the most stressful situations is that of an abused spouse or partner, and it doesn’t even have to be physical abuse. “Nearly half of all women and men in the United States will experience psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. (CDC, 2017)” The abuse and manipulation puts a terrible strain on the individual. Friends often rightly advise her (or him) to leave the relationship for their own good. To the outside observer, it’s a no-brainer, but the person in the relationship has trouble seeing it clearly.

That’s what comes to mind when I see people freaking out on social media and in person over the latest breaking news (whatever that happens to be).  They are feeling stress similar to being psychologically abused and manipulated.  They put their health at risk by taking those news stories personally and reacting just as they have been calculated to react.  (Nothing seems to please a reporter more than the chance to get someone crying on camera.  The viewer reaction drives ratings.)

Nothing brings this home more clearly than the Time Magazine article that required correction when a “photo of a crying Honduran girl used as a symbol of the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented migrant children from their parents turns out to not be as representative as originally believed.” Though the Time editor-in-chief issued an apology that the original version of the story “misstated” what happened, he stood by the overall reporting behind the story and the “larger issues” represented by the photo. So it doesn’t matter if it’s true or accurate, as long as it elicits the desired response.

Another source called the story accompanying the photo “factually incorrect, wildly misleading, and lacking important context” and accused Time of standing by the story because of its “Propaganda Value.” And the photographer didn’t seem to mind that it was misrepresented.

There has been much other, less blatant evidence that the media is less interested in informing than in molding opinions. But if this admission from Time doesn’t persuade people that they are being manipulated, they are like the abused spouse who refuses to see the truth and leave.  The media is not our friend.  They are trying to sell you ideas and sell you products through the ads they can get by keeping you hooked on their soap-opera-like presentation of what they decide to report as news.

It takes a lot of critical thinking – leading with your head and not your heart – to see through this psychological game playing, but your health is at risk.

Apparent Inconsistencies

The thing about these essays most commented about is my tendency to look at things differently enough to get people thinking, whether or not they agree with the conclusions.  Today let’s look at some apparent inconsistencies. 

Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” Perhaps these are justified on the basis that they are not foolish, but they do seem inconsistent.

First, I wonder how some people can argue that individuals have a right to move from one country to another when conditions in the second country are economically more favorable for them – even if the move is illegal; while at the same time objecting to a company moving from one country to another legally for the very same reason.

Then I ran across this article in a regional magazine.  A naturalist writes that the woodcock and grouse are disappearing from southern Indiana.  The problem is not predators, poor game regulations or farming practices, but “forest succession away from young forests to middle and older stages of forest development…the unintended result of misguided timber management.”  The problem comes from a change in forestry practice due to public pressure from individuals and conservation groups to practice “selective” forest harvest.  For sentimental reasons, they favor older trees and forests to younger ones.  It is a political decision rather than a scientific one, as every planned cutting is met with “protesters trying to shut down all timber harvest on state and federally-controlled property.”  Clear-cutting may be ugly, but so is what nature does with lightning-initiated forest fires.  It’s a shame these protesters, who claim to love the trees and animals, work against nature by not taking the time to learn more about it.

Finally, those favoring legal abortion and insurance coverage of all contraception argue that they are “pro-choice” and favor a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.  If that is the case, and a woman indeed has a right to choose what she does with her body, why don’t the pro-choice folks also adamantly favor both eliminating drug laws and legalizing prostitution.  Drug laws restrict a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.  If she wants to take recreational drugs or use prescriptions in any way she desires, the state forbids her to do so.  Likewise if she decides to use her body as a source of income by selling sexual favors to those who are willing to pay, she must risk arrest to do so.  Sabrina Williams uses her physical abilities to earn a very substantial living, as do other athletes, fashion models and others.  If they are allowed to choose, why is there a restriction against those who want to become prostitutes?  Of course, many consider prostitution immoral, but many consider abortion immoral as well.  This seems like an inconsistency, a selective application of a principle.

Just a few ideas to think about.

Say What You Mean

I’ve written before about how choice of words reveals the presenter’s position on a subject or reveals a prejudice.  It could be a marketing trick to increase the appeal of a product, service or political agenda.

Use of the word home has become a pet peeve of mine.  Realtors promoted this alternative to house because it sounds warmer and friendlier, and everyone seems to have adopted it to the point where we read of abandoned homes, foreclosed homes, efforts to redevelop vacant homes.  Can it really be a home if no one lives there?  Can’t a rental with a loving family be as much a home as any house?  Is it accurate to change townhouse, referring to an architectural style, to townhome in advertising material or news stories?

Similarly, when someone tries to sell you “window treatments” or “eyewear,” you are probably paying more than you would for identical curtains or glasses.  

Those who moved from Mexico to the US without permission are described in various ways.  Choices include:  illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented worker, undocumented immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, (just plain) immigrant, or migrant (implying a move, but not a border crossing).  In some cases, the different terms reflect a progression of public opinion or a political bias.

My new e-mail gives a choice of line spacing.  What was once called narrow, regular or wide spacing has been changed to slim, regular or relaxed – like e-mail is the same as blue jeans!  Perhaps the subliminal message is that the obesity epidemic will be cured not by healthier habits but by adopting a new vocabulary.  Perhaps they can’t say what they mean for fear of offending someone. To me this seems crazy.

In an art supply catalog I saw an ad for paint to be used for “contemporary urban calligraphy.”  Is that a polite way of saying graffiti?

Professionals use words to enhance their own importance by diminishing ours.  Medical professionals call us patients.   Lawyers and consultants call us clients (and the client term seems to be spreading.)  If instead they used the word “customer,” it's possible that respect, consideration and the level of service might improve.

Profanity, like antibiotics, loses effectiveness by overuse.  Any shock or added impact is lost.  It's no longer saved for "special occasions" to add emphasis, but dropped into casual conversations, written communications - often by means of not-so-clever abbreviations, and tossed around everywhere except where the FCC specifically bans it.  (Some movies contain little more than 25 minutes of plot and dialog, the rest being profanity and special effects.)  It's cool not to be shocked, and soon no one is shocked.  So it has devolved into the equivalent of troglodytical grunts.

Critical thinking rebels at this imprecision and laxness.  There may be no cure for the rappers, reporters, politicians and advertisers, but it would be helpful if we didn't pick up their bad habits and just said what we mean.

This Really Works!

This is my 100^th blog – 2 per week for 50 weeks.  In each I have discussed the direction of the country by relating our problems to faulty behavior in the five key categories.  Recently I noticed a couple of articles reinforcing this belief.

On December 30, I wrote “Build a Fence” arguing that the approach to illegal immigration was not to spend a lot of money trying to wall it off, but to find ways to lower incentives for people to come to the US illegally.  In April I find an article about the drop in illegal immigration tied to a less vibrant economy and to stricter enforcement, two things that lower the incentive.  (There was no mention of having a better fence.)

On April 20, I wrote “Healthcare Cost” enumerating at least 8 reasons for the rise in costs and elaborating on two of them.  One was the variation in services among providers and pure, somewhat arbitrary pricing differences.  I argued that the system must be more akin to an automobile check up where you know what to expect and get a cost estimate as opposed to the current system of somewhat secretive negotiations between care providers and your insurance. The following week, the headline from AP was:  Medical sticker shocks: ‘No method to the madness’ telling how the system is broken and that there is no way to explain vastly different costs for the same basic medical procedure.

I am getting to these solutions not because of any particular genius on my part (though I’d like to think so), but because the model I am using works.  Behavior has consequences, and individual behavior accumulates, leading to societal consequences.  Look at what you don’t like about America and trace it back to faulty decisions and detrimental actions and habits of our society in the five dimensions:  discipline, understanding the economic cycle, critical thinking, perspective and responsibility.  If we want to find solutions we will look for them not from the government or other big institutions, but here in individual behavior and posted on these pages twice each week.  So tell your friends, tell your enemies, spread the word!

Build a Fence?

You are pushing your cart to the checkout at the grocery store and see ahead of you in line a man with his small son.  The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and his son, maybe two or three years old, is sitting in the child seat.  Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching.  His father is distracted with the groceries and embarrassed and tries shushing the kid.  Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching.  The father is at wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to you and everyone in earshot, which by this time is about half the store.  Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is:  “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior."  He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future.”  You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future.  Don’t feel guilty.  That’s exactly how most people would feel.  Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.  Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration.  People sneak into the United States.  They get free public education for their children.  They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.”  They get free medical care at emergency rooms.  If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.  Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know:  behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.  Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know:  behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country.  This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior.  If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior.  You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress.  There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come to this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free.  Most proposal from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.