Lack of Perspective and Critical Thinking

The news sure keeps us on our toes. There are always examples of perspective issues. Likewise, some information is just passed along by the talking heads without applying any critical thinking. Here are a few examples.

In England, “Kleenex will re-brand its ‘Mansize’ tissues after consumers complained the name was sexist – touching off a social media conversation about what's in a name.” True, this is a story from London and not directly related to a Real American Solution, but it’s not a stretch to imagine the same kind of thing happening on this side of the ocean. These tissues have been going by the same name for over 60 years, and suddenly someone is offended and contacts the company. The company folds under the pressure even though about 99.9% of their customers probably don’t care.

This is a typical case of one or two people having too much time on their hands and not even appreciating the fact that being offended by a tissue box is a much smaller problem than most of their neighbors are facing. Clearly, in this case, perspective has taken a long holiday.

Meanwhile back in the US, “Pet owners will spend nearly half a billion dollars on animal costumes this Halloween,” according to Marketwatch.com. Just admit it, pet costumes for Halloween have got to be in the luxury category, clearly a want and not a need. But it doesn’t end there! “The National Retail Federation says Americans will spend $9 billion celebrating Halloween this year.” 

Things must be pretty sweet, if we can afford to drop $9 billion on one day of celebrating what was originally a pagan holiday. Despite an average credit card debt per household of $5,700, Americans can’t seem to help themselves.

But the situation is similar to the offensive tissues. When this kind of spending tops the to-do list, perhaps it’s time to appreciate how good we have it instead of fighting over trivia on social media and agonizing over petty annoyances. That's what lack of perspective looks like - taking all we have for granted while focusing on the trivia.

Finally, there was this story to challenge critical thinking from AAA. The opening paragraph reads like this: 

"As National Teen Driver Safety Week kicks off (October 21-27), the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released new research which found that when a teen driver has only teen passengers in their vehicle, the fatality rate for all people involved in a crash increased 51 percent. In contrast, when older passengers (35 or older) ride with a teen driver, overall fatality rates in crashes decreased eight percent. Considering the increased risk created by a combination of teen drivers and teen passengers, AAA emphasizes the need for teen drivers to gain adequate supervised training, especially in different driving scenarios, before taking what could be a fatal drive."

All of the reporters read it pretty much word for word.

Does this report actually present any evidence that teens riding with teens are more dangerous? I would tend to believe it is true, but this tells us nothing about it! They didn’t look at the different scenarios: teens with teens, with young adults and with people older than 35, for all miles driven or all trips. They only looked at the crashes to see how many people were killed.

That only means that when a crash happens it’s more dangerous, but it doesn’t mention the frequency of the crashes and is mute on the instances of teens driving alone. Their conclusions and recommendations assume that frequency is higher, but the analysis does not show it. Nice try, AAA. 

Why does no one else raise this question? Could it be because it fits their model of the world – that teens really are more dangerous? That probably is the case, but the news media aren’t paid to think or question, just to pass along information, accurate or not.

Some Odd Thoughts for the New Year

1.  The opioid epidemic rages.  “More than 63,600 people died from drug overdoses in 2016” with 66% of those deaths coming from opioid abuse.  The most publicized initiatives are:  increasing availability of naloxone (narcan) to revive people who have overdosed; and needle exchange programs to reduce the risk factors for AIDS and hepatitis.

This New York Times article explains the first.  “Every day across the country, hundreds, if not thousands, of people who overdose on opioids are being revived with naloxone. Hailed as a miracle drug by many, it carries no health risk; it cannot be abused and, if given mistakenly to someone who has not overdosed on opioids, does no harm. More likely, it saves a life.”

Perhaps an important question to ask is whether these programs are doing anything to change behavior.  One FDA study from a few years back, when the problem wasn’t as widespread, estimates that almost one in five patients are receiving naloxone not for the first time.  This was based on EMT data.  With it now available to many private citizens, spouses and roommates, such incidents could be higher.  Some people are so seriously addicted that a brush with death is insufficient disincentive, while some taxpayers are asking how many second chances should be allowed.

Needle exchanges are likewise controversial.  Some programs recommend a one-for-one swap, but don’t enforce it.  Others receive objections from neighbors about an increase in discarded needles on the street.

But this from the LA Times almost 4 years ago:  “Alcohol is responsible for about 88,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to a new government report on the toll of excessive drinking.”  That’s 88,000 compared to 63,600. 

What's the deal?  Why is only one considered a crisis?  Is it because alcohol is legal?  Is it because we have been fighting (and losing) the war on drugs since 1970 but quit fighting a war on alcohol in 1933?  Is it because an overdose death is immediate but an alcohol-related death is often gradual?  Or is it just another instance of "shark attacks" where what makes the best headlines gets attention?

2.  Back in November I wrote that when looking for reasons to be offended, some people aren’t satisfied citing ordinary matters.  They will dig deep and use plenty of imagination to uncover the most obscure examples.  In mid-December we learned of a Boston University professor “who has researched the origins of the popular Christmas carol ‘Jingle Bells’ [and] says she has found proof that the seemingly-innocent song is steeped in racism.”  Why not add White Christmas to the list, pretending it doesn’t snow around Boston?  Forget white; a quick search of the Internet reveals that using the C-word to describe the holiday is not politically correct and may be offensive.

3.  A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that the pentagon spent $22 million on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program to investigate UFO sighting.  A pet project of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the funds were hidden in the budget.  Coincidentally, most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by one of his personal friends.  Shouldn’t revelations of such waste and abuse of power be as disturbing as a senator mock-fondling an actress?  Yet it goes in and out of the news cycle with almost no comment except for a few lame UFO jokes.

 A couple of other comments on the UFO investigations:  one on cost, the other on value.  First, I heard in one report that the program was discontinued in 2012, but the government employee running it resigned only this year - good work if you can get it.  Second, with cell phone cameras everywhere and the tendency to take pictures of and post every unusual (or ordinary) event, what is the likelihood of having aliens in our midst without evidence being spread all over social media?

4.  Wildfires in California have burned about 300,000 acres of mostly trees and brush.  The Governor conceded that this kind of devastation will become a new normal due to changing weather patterns.  How would the situation improve if the State and the people who so loved trees allowed logging companies to harvest a reasonable number to build new houses instead of leaving them all in place to help spread the fires and to act as fuel, destroying occupied houses?  The Governor’s real message is that they are consciously choosing to continue yesterday's policies, knowing they will get the same result.  Critical thinking, anyone?

Searching for (More) Ways to be Offended

On the day before last Halloween I wrote about how careful everyone must be in the choice of theme or costume so as not to offend.  Some schools and universities were cancelling events or changing them to exclude costumes to accommodate the hypersensitive.  It has come to the point where people are searching for ways to be offended, and everyone else must be constantly vigilant.  If they don’t already have some kind of celebrity or platform, they can always turn to social media to air their complaints and blast the offending party.  I noticed further examples in the following weeks.

The third stanza of the national anthem is offensive.  “California's NAACP is pushing for state lawmakers to support a campaign to remove ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ as the country's national anthem.”  According to the state NAACP president, it’s racist, and kneeling or sitting is an appropriate protest.  But it happened the other way around.  The real news was that the protests actually “led her to look at the lyrics of the anthem - finding a little-noticed third stanza.”  No one cited that as a reason until this woman dug deep to search out offensive matter with a reference to slaves and hirelings.

Was it the intention of the poet to demean or degrade anyone?  I looked it up.  “It doesn’t appear that Francis Scott Key ever specified what he did mean by the phrase [about slaves and hirelings], nor does its context point to a single, definitive interpretation.”  It’s offensive only if you take the initiative to look it up and decide to interpret that way.

On the other hand, some choose to be offended by those who kneel during the playing of the anthem.

Then there is the Washington Post headline from May 2016: “Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t.”  They continue to take it personally despite findings from a “Washington Post poll indicating that the vast majority of American Indians aren’t offended by it.”  This probably applies to many non-Native Americans not in the media as well.  It’s really cool to be offended on behalf of someone else even if they are willing to let it drop.  It is the sign of a truly caring person – moral superiority rules!

From there we turn to Chicago where instead of the news media being offended, the shoe is on the other foot.  “Now in her eighth month of pregnancy, Kristen Nicole, co-anchor of Good Day Chicago on FOX32, says that three women sent her emails complaining that the sight of her baby bump was ‘offensive.’”  Wow, don’t be pregnant on TV, you might offend someone.  Apparently fat-shaming is forbidden, but pregnancy-shaming is fair game!

Finally we turn to news out of Boston where a mother is “furious” that a New Hampshire mall Santa refused to accommodate her daughter because he was allergic to her service dog.  She went home and took to Facebook complaining that her daughter’s visit with Santa was ruined, saying of the experience, “It was horrible” and “It was awful.”  Local news picked it up, because a story like this brings tears to the eyes of viewers.

When the mother finds out that it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act that states “allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals,” she’ll probably sue Santa and the mall for “damages.”  (Her daughter might sue her later when she finds out the truth about Santa.)

Has the perspective of Americans, their ability to differentiate between the trivial and substantial, gone bonkers?

Have a Correct Halloween

Speaking of tolerance, as I did last time, along comes news of offensive Halloween costumes.  They are not offensive in themselves, but have been declared offensive by various groups of teachers and other authorities.

As we learn here, “From first-graders to college seniors, schools are cracking down on a wide swath of Halloween costumes.”  The list of banned costumes is long and varied.  Anything considered controversial is disallowed.  Some elementary schools have cancelled Halloween in favor of an “orange and black” celebration with no costumes involved.

The schools are walking on eggshells prohibiting any dress that can be considered racist by anyone!  Superhero costumes are discouraged for violence or carrying pretend weapons.  “Tufts University last year threatened investigations by campus police against any student whose costume was deemed offensive, especially if the outfit is thought to be culturally appropriated or ‘relating to tragedy, controversy, or acts of violence.’”  Imagine being detained or arrested for your choice of costume based on one administrator's hypersensitivity!

Halloween is a big holiday.  Last year spending on candy, costumes and decorations was projected to be $9.1 billion in 2017.  But maybe the fun is coming to an end.

The only fun left seems to be trying to guess what is acceptable and what will get you sent home, or worse.  Based on the vague guidelines one writer opined that students are “presumably restricted from dressing up as samurais, hombres, geishas, belly dancers, Vikings, ninjas, rajas, French maids, Bollywood dancers, Rastafarians, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Zorro, or Thor.”  The list goes on.  It reminds me of the story about magician Penn Jillette going to his daughter’s preschool party dressed as a ghost and suddenly realizing he might be mistaken for a Klansman.

“The company HalloweenCostumes.com recently pulled an outfit of Holocaust victim Anne Frank from its website after it was hit with a slew of criticism.”  Personally, I wouldn’t recognize an Anne Frank costume if I saw it, but someone objected.  Clowns are out, because of recent creepy-clown incidents.  A hobo was a favorite years ago, but it could be interpreted as disrespecting the homeless.

Remember from last time:  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.  What one person thinks is cute or funny, can be banned by a single complaint.  What’s worse is that the “injured party” is free to go on social media to try to exact revenge by destroying a reputation or a business or even indirectly calling for violence.

The reaction to this by schools is understandable.  They too are required to guess what a single person might find objectionable and do “everything possible” to avoid it.  (These are the institutions with zero tolerance policies.)

Think of how well off one has to be, how unconcerned with survival, how sheltered from conflict, to let someone else’s choice of a Halloween costume for a day out of the year cause such upset as to drive that person to complain!  But being offended and complaining is the new national pastime.  Some are so needy that they will be offended on behalf of a group they don’t even belong to.  Where is the perspective?  Where does the insanity end?

What We Line Up For and Other Perspective Examples

Last time I wrote about perspective with an emphasis on gratitude.  Another aspect of perspective is living according to core values.  Living according to your values means that what you profess to believe or hold as important is reflected in your words and actions.

We often see contradictions to perspective in what we line up for.  It is not unusual for a television reporter to ask, “How long have you been standing in line?” or “What have you been doing while waiting?”  The typical scene is a long line at a store or entertainment venue waiting for the opening or the opportunity to buy tickets.  Publishers often release new books at midnight expecting lines, as was the case when lines of children formed for Harry Potter books.  Sometimes the first in line are in tents, having camped out overnight.  Virtual lines form in Internet waiting rooms for tickets to sporting events and concerts.  Some sell out in minutes.

Yet when voter turnout is below 50%, the politicians argue that Election Day should be made a holiday because people are too busy to make it to the polls.  It’s a big inconvenience.  How many parents would wait in long lines to talk to their child’s teacher at the regular conference?  When the Pope visits, it’s a big deal in the US as in other countries, but I’ve never seen a line outside a church to get into mass, where Catholics say they believe God is present.

But what about smartphones?  ABC reported recently, “Despite [the fact that the company said it had already sold all available iPhone 7 Plus models through pre-orders], lines had still formed at Apple's retail locations across the country hours and -- in some cases -- days ahead of the phone's release.” Some lined up because they wanted one for themselves.  Others admitted to being scalpers, expecting to cash in on the demand by selling the phone at a marked up price.

I commented back in February 2013 about observing over a dozen eager customers lined up at the mall waiting for a shoe store to open.   The first in line sat in a folding canvas camping chair playing on his phone.  When I looked it up later I found this line signaled the return of the Nike White/Infrared Air Jordan 6, listed at $170 a pair.  I was grateful that the competition wasn’t as vicious as it was in other places, for example, Madison, WI last March where police had to be called to breakup fights.  (For many more examples and pictures, Google: waiting-shopping-fight, or anything like that.  It’s definitely not limited to basketball shoes.)

Perspective is not, “It’s OK to hurt other people as long as I get my bargain.”

Perspective also is not, “I worked hard to get into a good university and that gives me the right to be offended by the least little thing – and the college administration must object to anything that makes me unhappy or uncomfortable and require everyone else to change their behavior to suit me.”

From Fox News:  “A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student had a serious complaint for his campus’ official ‘Hate Response Team’: he was ‘very upset’ by a Harry Potter mural in a college dorm.”  The mural represents a character from the movies changing from nerdy-looking to mature-looking as a result of college experiences.  The objection was that it represented white power, man power, cis power, able power, class power.  (I hope, at the risk of offending someone, he or she didn’t accidently omit any other victim class!)

And speaking of he or she, “to help foster inclusiveness” the University of Michigan announced that students could choose the personal pronoun they want faculty and staff to use when talking with them.  The choices are listed as:  “he, she, him, his, ze, etc.”  (“Ze is a gender-neutral, third-person singular subject pronoun used in place of the masculine he or the feminine she, according to Dictionary.com.” – Is “it” also third-person singular gender neutral – or is it only neuter gender?)  When I talk to someone, I usually say “you.”  If they are not there, and I refer to them how can they be offended?  But to be on the safe side professors must comply.

The “etc.” implies more options.  I wonder if they are allowed to make up their own.  If I were a U of M student, my personal pronoun would be “Wolfman”!

But seriously, maybe these students should look around and see how lucky they are to be given the chance to get a great education in a great country.  They weren’t born in a country at war or where the vast majority otherwise fight for survival everyday.  Maybe they should get a hobby other than being offended.  Maybe they should be preparing for the real world where everyone is not required to walk on eggshells for fear of offending – although the “real world” also seems to be moving in that direction.  Maybe they need some perspective, and the rest of us, starting with college administration, need to start leading by example.

What is Perspective?

What is perspective and why is it so important? 

Perspective is primarily the ability to distinguish needs from wants.  In our modern era of excess and comfort, this is not an easy thing to do.  It has two aspects.  The first is the ability and inclination to look outside yourself, to look beyond your current situation.  The second is a natural feeling of gratitude for what you have.

Looking outside yourself may come in the form of looking at history or looking at conditions in other countries.  As I pointed out many times, even those considered poor in America today have conveniences that were unheard of in the past.  Microwave ovens and color television did not even exist when I was born.  Now they are considered necessities.  A high percentage of households, including poor households, in America (over 90%) have both these items.  It doesn’t require a trip into the distant past to find a time when most Americans had no indoor plumbing.  Toilet facilities were outside and water for cooking and cleaning had to be carried in from the pump in back – at all times of year and in all weather.  Now we have running water and electricity and it’s a major hardship when they don’t work at the touch of a switch or the turn of a faucet.

Looking outside the US, we find 2 billion people still without access to a toilet.  More than half of the top 1% by income, relative to the world, live in America.  Looking worldwide Americans are the top one percent, the category we are encouraged to envy and hate in America.  You can see in the news everyday a long list of places you should be glad you don’t live, many of them in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.  Even in the ones not at war people endure hardships most of us can’t imagine.  It is only by some fluke of nature that you ended up here (or are alive at all).

All these considerations should lead to a feeling of gratitude, an appreciation for what you have.  Gratitude leads to contentment and to the ability to accurately distinguish needs from wants.  This is perspective.

Perspective is important because it protects you from making poor decisions in general.  It mitigates panic in the face of an endless stream of anxiety-filled news reports.  It enhances the ability to save money by not wasting it on unnecessary or fad items.  It allows a calm reflection and response to potentially insulting or offensive material.  It counters attempted manipulation by advertisers.  It promotes a wiser and wider choice of role models.  It leads to a proper valuation of products, services, and relationships.

Evidence of a lack of perspective is widespread.  This item from CBS News makes a good point.  Facebook is in a battle with the makers of ad-blocking software that removes commercial messages from your Facebook page.  Facebook gets their revenue from advertisers.  For all the noble talk about connecting the world, they are really in the business of helping other people sell you stuff.  Users ability to block ads is a threat to their business model.  The only reason companies would pay Facebook to post the ads is that the ads have some effect, either getting people to buy on the spot or influencing them to select those brands at the store.  Here is where perspective comes in.

Letting ads on Facebook, TV or anywhere else have that kind of influence is like going to the grocery store without a list.  You become vulnerable to your impulses and buy more than you should, more than you need.  They try to pressure you with fear or competition – telling you that everyone else is doing it.  They try to lure you in and hold your attention with jokes, mini-dramas and celebrities.  If you can’t see their ads, advertisers would stop using Facebook as a medium.

Perspective is your defense against this onslaught of ads, not only on social media, but also on radio, television and elsewhere on the Internet.  Tools to keep needs and wants in perspective include these ad blockers and the mute button, but especially a conscious perspective, which gives you the ability when all else fails to just turn them off in your mind.  Mentally tuning out the pressure, the anxiety, the come-ons and the hype yields so many benefits:  physical, psychological and financial.

Perspective on Campus

Last time I described perspective as the ability to distinguish the important from the trivial, to put proper emphasis where it belongs to help make sound decisions and to keep calm in the face of an apparent crisis.  Taking a careful, but realistic approach to the annual health-related news that the media is eager to turn into an annual crisis was only one example.  Perspective has more to it than health scares.  Lack of perspective is widespread.  Each time advertisers, the news media or advocacy groups beat the drum about some new must-have product, new crisis or societal injustice, we need to be grounded to avoid falling for the hyperbole and emotional excesses that usually accompany these complaints.

Here comes a story from University of Wisconsin at Stout about two “harmful” paintings on the interior walls of one of their buildings.  “The paintings by Wisconsin-born artist Cal Peters were created for the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression” in 1936 and recently restored.  The paintings show trappers and Native Americans in canoes on the Red Cedar River and a frontier trading post.  After complaints from some Native American students that viewing the pictures kept students in the past and “stood in the way of an effort to create an inclusive and comfortable environment for everyone,” the Chancellor agreed to put them in temporary storage until they can be moved to a more appropriate location.  (The paintings seem to depict trappers and Native Americans working together.  How this stands in the way of "inclusion" is puzzling.)

The Chancellor insists that this is not a concession to political correctness.  (The chancellor doth protest too much, methinks.)  After meeting with several campus groups, he decided to move the paintings to a location where people would be exposed to them only if they chose to be.

One of the professors got anti-censorship groups involved explaining, “moving the painting[s] does not educate anyone or stimulate any learning or dialogue,” and “hiding them doesn’t change the past or the future."  The chancellor, however, apparently believes that the feelings of each student or group of students should carry precedence over freedom of expression.  This is not unusual.  Many campuses are establishing safe zones where students don’t have to hear or see anything that might upset them.  As the NY Times puts it, “Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being ‘bombarded’ by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints."

What does this have to do with perspective?  As Americans have gotten richer over the last few decades with bigger houses, more conveniences, more technological advances (and toys) and generally more leisure, Americans have become more sensitive, touchier and more on guard against anything they find offensive or uncomfortable.  It’s a trend, a fad, a hobby, even a contest – I can get more offended than you can!   People are programmed to look for offense around every corner.

These are supposedly mature, responsible college age students.  (Remember the arguments back in the 70s for lowering the voting age to 18?)  They are being educated, among other reasons, to allow them to take their places in an adult world, a world without safe places, a world that unfortunately doesn’t always provide a comfortable environment for everyone.  They are privileged enough to be receiving a college education and don’t appreciate it unless it’s also safe and gentle. 

Instead of looking at these pictures and deducing some hypothetical slight – the fear that these pictures will somehow inhibit efforts to create an inclusive environment, they should look at these pictures, one of trappers and First Nations people in canoes and the other of a crude frontier fort, and reflect on how lucky they are.  When they finish college they will likely work in an air-conditioned office with indoor plumbing.  They will take their smartphone home to a place with these same conveniences plus modern appliances, cable TV, Internet access and all the other things we’ve come to expect.  The only time we will find them in canoes or living in the wilderness will be by choice on their vacations – not for survival!

Are college Chancellors working to educate students to grow up and see the world through the eyes of perspective or are they encouraging them to continue their childhood of isolation and protection from the real world?  Are they creating an environment where every student who is offended by a piece of art or a book or a comment by a teacher, is expected to organize a protest demanding changes and apologies?  As enough of these children graduate, will these values continue to be forced upon the rest of us until we are all walking on eggshells, censoring ourselves for fear of offending, unable to air and debate hard subjects to reach tough decisions.  Look around; it’s already happening.