The Power of Numbers to Deceive

Large numbers are impressive, so people often fail to put them into perspective. That’s why advertisers and advocates love to use them to get more sales or to garner support for a cause. Examples pop up daily, especially in this age of COVID-19.

 

Every day the local and national news media blast out the latest coronavirus totals. Millions of cases and over one quarter million deaths get our attention. In fact, relative to other causes they are very big numbers. It is a serious problem, but no one reminds us that 15 million is less than five percent of the population. Furthermore, I have never heard a news organization report on the number of people who have recovered. It’s sure to also be in the millions. It seems that people come out on two extremes: they either don’t take it seriously enough or they are unnecessarily terrified of catching it and dying. Perhaps if the news gave a more honest, measured account, more people would have an appropriately moderate reaction.

 

I found another example in a health report. “The Federal Trade Commission is sending 70,142 checks and PayPal payments totaling $3,864,824 to consumers nationwide who bought Quell, a wearable device that supposedly would treat chronic pain throughout the body when placed below the knee.” The company was fined almost $4 million for misrepresenting their product! Consumers who were gullible enough to buy the product will be reimbursed. That’s about $55.10 each for a device that is advertised on sale for $99 – not exactly a money-back guarantee – but the $4 million fine seems impressive.

 

Class action lawsuits are also typical. Chipotle, accused of falsely advertising its food as GMO-free, settled for $6.5 million. After the lawyers took 30%, that left their customers with a claim of $2 per meal with a cap of $30 per household, but it “could be less than this depending on how many claims are made.” Again a big number reduced to peanuts per person.

 

Similarly Johnson & Johnson, a favorite target for lawsuits, was ordered to Pay $6.3 million in the Infant’s Tylenol Settlement. That came out to $2.15 a bottle.

 

The number of home burglaries in 2018 was 685,766, about half of total burglaries (1,230,149), and about half of those happened when people didn’t lock their doors. But when buying a home security system you will hear, “A burglary happens once every 26 seconds.”

When big numbers are spread across many people, it doesn’t add up to very much.

 

In some cases, the news media implies big numbers just in their tone. A couple of years ago they wanted us to believe that school shootings were common, but what happened to school shooting news when the presidential campaigns got into full swing? The problem didn’t go away, but the news did. 

 

According to Education Week, twenty-five incidents occurred on school grounds or during school-sponsored events resulting in five student deaths, only one under the age of 14. Any such deaths are tragic, but that’s five out of 56.4 million students. Should anyone panic over such minuscule probability?

Headlines about these extremely rare events like shark attacks are easy to ignore, but when kids are involved, it’s different. Parents are terrified at the prospect of their child being abducted. Nosey neighbors report them for letting kids walk alone and authorities respond. An elementary school in South Carolina won’t let the kids whose mother wants them to walk home, leave school without an adult. “Today, only 10% of American kids walk to school, down from about 50% in 1969.” 

Reuters tries to assure parents: “Kidnapped children make headlines, but abduction is rare….On average, fewer than 350 people under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers in the United States per year since 2010.” Then Parents.com tells them, “Every 40 seconds in the United States, a child becomes missing or is abducted.” But they don't tell them that 0.1% are abducted by strangers, over 95% simply ran away and 99.8% are later found alive. 

 

It’s an endless battle against the media, politicians and charities selling products or ideas and raising  funds using big numbers. The best defense is perspective.

MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.

Ducks, Rabbits and Politics

A familiar optical illusion from more than 100 years ago by an unknown German artist asks viewers if they see a duck or a rabbit. Some see a rabbit first and then realize it could also be a duck, and vice versa. It has been reproduced many times for many purposes, but I think it is particularly illustrative of the political situation in America.

Newscasters and citizens puzzle over the divisiveness, and the answer is simple. In politics, some people see a “duck” and some see a “rabbit.” But unlike the optical illusion, many refuse to see both or even admit that the other exists. The Democrats blame the divisiveness on the president, at a convention filled with negative messages and predictions of disaster. They insist it is a “rabbit,” and the president and his backers, misguided “duck” people are dangerous.

The Republicans send the opposite message with no possibility of compromise because it’s definitely a duck. It can’t be both; even if sometimes each side is wrong, those errors are amplified into end-of-the-world scenarios. Divisiveness is inevitable.

It’s impossible to get the truth – that there is a little bit of validity in both viewpoints – because the media is complicit. Here is an observation from a book published thirty years ago called Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be, and if anything, it’s truer today than ever: “The media take the raw material of experience and fashion it into stories; they retell the stories to us, and we call them reality.” Different outlets are creating many different realities, but the realities they create must fit their pre-established stance on each issue – in this example, is it a duck or a rabbit? 

What passes for the news today is more closely related to a morality play from the Middle Ages than to an objective delivery of facts. The stories must have drama, good guys fighting bad guys. And who fits those roles is dictated by the underlying assumptions. So we get similar stories about the same facts that, after the story creation process is complete, bear little resemblance to each other. If there is no easy way to make your side the good guys, the story is buried or omitted.

This is obvious to anyone watching or reading the news carefully. It’s as if CNN/New York Times and Fox exist in different universes. They construct for us different realities without apology. Editors lose their jobs over opinions or headlines that don’t conform. One local television station in Indiana advertising for a news reporter listed as one of the qualifications: must be a good storyteller. The goal of investigation is to build a story in support of their accepted reality.

So we find ourselves in a political power struggle where any concession is seen as surrender, where every event has at least two interpretations, where every single subject and virtually every opinion become political, where last week’s issues disappear in a rush to cover the latest controversy. There is always another side as politicians tell their own stories and accuse others of telling lies or intentionally misleading.

The real events, pseudo-events (like the recent political conventions), behaviors and quotations are fictionalized to promote the designated heroes and villains. Social media compounds the problem not only by repeating favored stories and attacking the other side, but also by acting as a source of fresh stories, memes or opinions for further development. 

As soon as the rabbit-seers take a position, the duck-seers publicize the opposite side, and vice versa. Solving the problems takes a back seat to proving who is right about the rabbit or the duck. And everyone knows they are right, because they heard it from their favorite storyteller, and usually ignore or mock the rival storyteller.

This is not going to change after the election, no matter the outcome. Our enemies and economic rivals around the world are watching and laughing, not at one side or the other, but at the ridiculousness of the self-inflicted chaos. 

Conflicting Stories About Mind Control

Sometimes all the critical thinking in the world can’t completely resolve an issue, but it can get you closer than gut reaction, Facebook or the news media.

This journey began when I read Outnumbered: Exploring the Algorithms That Control Our Lives by David Sumpter, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. It tells about the effects of technology and the Internet on our lives. “Using the data they are constantly collecting about where we travel, where we shop, what we buy, and what interests us, they can begin to predict our daily habits, and increasingly we are relinquishing our decision-making to algorithms.”

That seems scary, but one reassuring, and somewhat surprising, observation was that commercial and political discussions and arguments on social media and even those by professional persuaders like politicians and advertisers don’t do much to move us off our established positions. You’ll struggle to move someone from one side to the other no matter how good your data; a more likely reaction will be increased resistance (Democrat/Republican, Coke/Pepsi).

Next stop, The New York Review of Books. Here I found a review of The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis, author of Money Ball and other best sellers. In it he “recounts the complex friendship and remarkable intellectual partnership of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, the psychologists whose work has provided the foundation for the new behavioral science.” Their work is summarized in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) that gives numerous examples of how intuition, fast thinking, frequently leads us in the wrong direction. (I referred to this idea last Monday.)

Later in the article the reviewer begins to elaborate: “Lewis does not discuss the ways in which the same behavioral science can be used quite deliberately for the purposes of deception and manipulation, though this has been one of its most important applications.” But wait a minute! That idea would contradict the point mentioned above.

To support a premise that “Lewis does not discuss,” the reviewer spends several paragraphs worrying that Trump’s 2016 victory moved this new understanding of behavioral science from “making the world a better place” to “a darker story in the public mind…. News outlets have claimed that although Obama’s and Clinton’s teams both used social media, data analytics, and finely grained targeting to promote their message, Trump’s team, according to Forbes, ‘delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning.’… If this sinister level of manipulation seems far-fetched, it nevertheless reflects the boasts of Cambridge Analytica, the company they employed to do this for them.” 

The implication is that this must be take very seriously, but four paragraphs later the reviewer concedes that whether Cambridge Analytica did or even could do what they claimed consists primarily of a sales pitch.

Finally, I turned to Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe by Hugo Mercier, a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He believes that people are less gullible than we tend to think. We often hear stories of obvious scams involving Nigerian princes and prepaid debit cards, but, like plane crashes, these stories make the news because they are rare and shocking, not because they are common. Again, people tend to resist rather than blindly accept new ideas.

Mercier also uses Cambridge Analytica, which according to the Guardian newspaper “allowed democracy [to be] highjacked,” as an example. On page 139 he writes, “In fact it was a scam.” He goes on to say, “In reality, its influence was nil” and that the political analysts “never saw ‘any evidence that it worked’” feeling it was based on “pop psychology BS.”

Who do I trust about the power of persuasion generally or Cambridge Analytica’s (and Russian bots') past or future influence on US elections? I trust Sumpter and Mercier, not a NYBooks reviewer speculating on something the author didn’t discuss in the book, then hedging about how true it is. Experience and these authors teach me that swaying people through psychological manipulation is highly unlikely.

Is The News Making Us Sick?

It began one morning with two seemingly unrelated items: a story about mountain climbing on BBC Future and a panel from the comics section of the newspaper.

The BBC article, “The placebo effect is well known for its medical benefits, but there is evidence it could give athletes an edge, too,” began with an experiment where mountain climbers were given oxygen to boost physical performance at high altitudes. In a laboratory simulation, they were first given tanks of oxygen to improve performance. When they were later given empty tanks, their brains expected similar improvement and caused the body to adjust appropriately.

It went on to explain how placebos like this can improve athletic performance in other areas, for example, sugar pills believed to be performance enhancing drugs could have the same effect. 

The effectiveness of placebos applies to many areas. A summary of studies shows that “antidepressants are effective for depression about 31-70% of the time, while placebos are effective 12-50% of the time…. So, while antidepressants appear more effective than placebo, only a fraction of the benefit we see in patients is likely from a direct neurobiological impact of the medication itself.” Effectiveness depends on the amount of faith patients have in the product. Placebos taken as part of a test of more powerful drugs tend to have more powerful effects; and patients often report some of the same side effect as the drug itself.

This led me to another BBC article explaining the opposite effect, sometimes called nocebo. In this example the treatment was merely the words the doctor used. The doctor, talking about serious osteoarthritis, says that he has “bad news,” that the knees are “worn out” and the medicine may “help a bit,” but may damage the stomach lining. The doctor has set the patient up to expect the worst. This kind of presentation can unintentionally cause the brain to deliver the opposite of a placebo effect: less positive, possibly negative, outcomes.

A conclusion is “when prescribing treatments, the doctor should emphasise the positive effects of the medicine, while framing the negative side-effects so they seem less frightening, and being careful not to over-emphasise their risks.” They should be honest, but with an optimistic tone.

This led to yet another BBC article, this one from 2015, about how negative thoughts and ideas can not only make you sick, but actually kill you. This effect applies to any authority figure or respected expert, not just doctors. “In the same way that voodoo shamans could harm their victims through the power of suggestion, priming someone to think they are ill can often produce the actual symptoms of a disease.” Hence, people can die of fright or become sicker based on the message and their faith in the authority of the messenger.

Each of these articles is interesting, but coincidentally they came to my attention on the day I saw “The Flying McCoys” at the bottom of the page of an on-line newspaper. The idea is almost too true and too common to be funny and typical of many news programs.

Based on the information above, what is this doing to the overall health of the American people, this constant barrage of fears and anxiety over the virus and whether opening the economy too soon will be a mistake, the emphasis on the ever increasing number of cases and deaths, the constant skepticism about the actions and predictions of the task force, the criticism of any encouraging remarks – especially if they turn out to be overly optimistic; and for years now, fanning the flames of  divisiveness within the country – all with the express intention of putting us on edge, amplifying the fear and anxiety to get everyone to continue to tune in. 

Remember, placebo, the strong mind-body connection cuts both ways. Between the news media, social media and politicians, it’s surprising we are not all physical and emotional wrecks.

The news can be both addictive and unhealthy. One defense is to watch less. Another is to use critical thinking and see it for what it is, big business trying to attract “eyeballs,” and act accordingly, increase our skepticism, lessen our faith in the source and discount their predictions of a fearful outcome at every turn. 

The Opposite of True

Some ideas are repeated so often that large numbers of Americans believe them without question. This makes a handy tool for politicians, advertisers and fundraisers. They get our support to fix problems that either don’t exist or have been exaggerated out of proportion. I covered some of these, stories about child abductions and clean air problems, about two years ago. Here are a few more examples.

Police killed in the line of duty:

Watch the news and you would believe that this issue is at an all-time high. There is a war on; blue lives matter! But the data tell a different story.

This website lists all deaths in the line of duty by cause and by year. The overall figures match fairly well with this other site, so I believe the information is accurate. 

Ignoring causes like accidents, heart attacks, etc., I looked only at gunfire, assault and vehicular assault, that is, purposeful acts. The total for 2019 was 58, somewhat below average. Of the last ten years, the highest were 2010, 2011 and 2016. The lowest were 2013, 2015 and 2017. There seems to be no pattern or trend.

Naturally, no one should feel good about any number above zero. Every case is a tragedy. The problem is a lack of progress, not an escalation.

Vietnam Veterans:

After so many years the stereotype of the mentally scarred Vietnam veteran still rings true in the public imagination. Reality is surprisingly different.

Research done early this century and summarized by Peter Rowe in the San Diego Union-Tribune found that those who served in Vietnam were “more likely to be married, college educated and gainfully employed than other members of their generation.”

Furthermore, a Harris poll of returned veterans “revealed that 90 percent said that, ‘looking back,’ they were either ‘very glad’ or ‘somewhat glad’ to have ‘served their country.’ Eighty percent said that returning home was ‘about the same or better’ than they had ‘anticipated.’” A large majority rejected the popular notion of the former soldier struggling to readjust, haunted by flashbacks and nightmares. 

Scam Victims:

We hear it over and over on the news and public service announcements: Make sure grandma and grandpa don’t become victims of scams. As a senior citizen who doesn’t answer the phone unless I recognize the number and who dumps in the spam bucket those weekly messages that my email is about to expire unless I follow the link, I resent the implication! The truth is that younger people are more susceptible to scams. 

This is true in the US, but I have seen similar reports from the UK and Australia. Here is an Experian article about a Better Business Bureau report. “Americans ages 18 to 34 were more susceptible to scams (43.7% were victims) than Americans 55 and older (27.6% were victims). However, while occurrences are less for older Americans, seniors still lose more money in scams than younger victims.” (They probably lose more only because they have more.) 

The Inc. website reports the same tendencies.

Going back to the Experian numbers, there is something fishy about their numbers. In the article they show a graph of those scammed by age group, which they took from the original report.

To get 43.7% they merely added 25 + 18.7. That’s like saying if 10% of first graders have red hair and 10% of second graders have red hair, then 20% of the whole group have red hair. WRONG! The right answer is 10% provided the classes are of equal size.

So their report of 43.7% for the younger people is really closer to 22%, and their number 27.6% for the seniors is less than 14%. The conclusion is still the same but the math is pathetic! (Remember, Experian is one of the three companies that calculate your credit score and they have trouble with this simple calculation!)

The overall point here is that we are often fed stories that are no more than stories that someone wants us to believe to raise donations, increase their ratings or get support for passing a new (unnecessary) law.