Opposites Confuse

Observing the news and everyday choices, I find a series of opposite reactions that seem confusing. In one case, Americans have an overwhelming sense of safety, while being constantly on guard against a multitude of possible dangers. In another, they praise diversity while at the same time seem averse to the idea.

The first thought comes as a result of a news item on a proposed law banning texting while crossing the street in New York. As the USA Today reports, “The law would be simple enough, the bill states: ‘No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any point while using any portable electronic device.’ ” Police could issue tickets charging from $25 to $50 for a first offense – “unless you can prove it was an emergency.”

Here is the contradiction. Americans were constantly reminded that texting and driving can be very dangerous. Now they must be told that texting while walking across the street is dangerous. Apparently “look both ways” is just for kids. We are too busy for that! States feel they must add the threat of a fine to get people to comply. The same applies to the 10% who still do not wear seatbelts on a regular basis. As a driver or pedestrian, Americans act as if they are indestructible.

Now shift the scene to the grocery store, and some of the same people go to the opposite extreme. Advertisers and food packaging attract customers by boasting that their products have none of the ingredients that have, usually erroneously, been tagged as scary or dangerous. Walking down the aisles we read of foods that contain no artificial ingredients, are gluten-free and contain no GMOs. They have no high fructose corn syrup but do contain sea salt and are locally sourced or organic. These scare tactics must be working because they spread with new fears being invented by influencers, celebrity chefs and marketing departments.

How can we be so casual about truly dangerous behavior while being so hyper-vigilant about details that make little or no difference?

The second example came to light from a CBS This Morning report. “West Point says the class of 2019 is its most diverse ever, both by race and by gender,” including 34 African American women, the most ever to graduate. That is very nice, but look closely at the comments of a couple of the representative cadets.

"We don't want everybody in the Army to look like me," says First Captain David Bindon.  He believes that working with people who don't look like him “brings different perspectives” leading to better solutions. (That, of course, assumes that diversity of gender and skin color is always a reliable indicator of diversity of thought and experience.) 

Immediately following came the opinion of another cadet that “it really helps if you can look up to a leader who looks like you who comes from the same background as you." Everyone nodded in agreement.

Which is it? Does the army, and everywhere else, need diversity for different perspectives or do we need diversity so that those who identify a certain way can feel more comfortable? Do we need role models who look like us or role models who show that hard work and perseverance pay off?

The news media often celebrate firsts by race and gender to achieve certain milestones and positions. Those firsts had no mentors or role models that looked like them, yet they made a difference. Are we teaching our children that they are not capable of doing the same? Especially as society recognizes so many more ways to identify, that seems like a negative, defeatist message.

Instead of pulling everyone together to share perspectives and come up with better solutions, is the current emphasis on diversity actually highlighting and emphasizing differences, acting as a subtle divisive force?

Opposite reactions to similar situations can be very confusing, and it can’t be sorted out without some critical thinking.

Why Be Responsible?

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times.  In fact I probably have said it one hundred times, because out of about 630 little essays here, this is the 107^th that refers to the subject of responsibility; specifically, when you don’t exercise responsibility, you give up some of your freedom because someone is always eager to step in and take over the job for you.

In many cases the helper, the one seeing to it that your careless actions don’t hurt you or someone else, is the government.  In those case the irresponsible actions of a few result either in an additional cost to everyone, an additional restriction on everyone’s actions or both.  In the latest case it is probably just a minor cost, but the example is revealing.

It seems a few people buckle their children into the child safety seat in the back seat of the car on a hot day, drive to their destination and walk away, forgetting the child is locked in a potentially dangerous car.  According to Reuters this has resulted in 800 accidental deaths since 1990.  Now that’s a long period of time, but small steps may save the lives of about 40 children a year.  (It has happened 9 times already this year and the summer temperatures are just beginning in many parts of the country.)

In response, three lawmakers in Washington have proposed a new regulation requiring that automakers install “devices to remind drivers to check their back seats for passengers before getting out.”  Safety experts agree and General Motors will already include this feature in a few high-end 2018 models.  This should not be much of a challenge or a cost.  It requires a bell or a light on the dashboard as a check-the-back-seat reminder when the car is turned off.  It should be easy as there are so many lights and bells in cars today warning of open doors, unfastened seatbelts, front airbags, etc.

One concern would be whether such a system would be easy to grow accustomed to and ignore, although some might find it helpful to remind them of a briefcase riding in the back seat.  Also, unless all the cars were recalled, it would take about 20 years to be universally installed and in that time we could lose hundreds more children.

Of course, true to the new American mythology of an excuse for everything, we are assured that it’s not really our fault.  We are too stressed out.  From Consumers Union:  “Dr. David Diamond, the director of the Neuroscience Collaborative Program and Center for Preclinical and Clinical Research on PTSD at the University of South Florida, noted that competing brain functions can cause a parent to lose awareness that their child is in the car.”  He blames the negligent acts on “flaws in the brain.”

The cost is unknown.  Congress rarely thinks about these small costs when imposing more regulations.  But if this simple fix costs less than five dollars per car, then based on annual sales of about 10 million vehicles with back seats (16 million minus some pickups and sports cars), the total cost would be under $50 million, less than or about $1.25 million for each child saved.  This would be reasonable, based on the assumption that no one ever knowingly leaves a kid in the carseat to run a quick errand. 

But that’s $50 million per year not available to spend on other things – there’s always a trade off.  What would we rather spend that money on if a few people didn’t have this "brain flaw" that interfered with their behavior as responsible parents?

The final concern is that when this is successful in saving a few lives, Washington will continue to feel duty bound to take on more of our irresponsible behavior with costs and restrictions, like this suggestion by a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine.  She believes sugary drinks should be regulated similarly to alcohol.  “We regulate alcohol… We do not sell alcohol to children. We tax it and you can’t drink while you are working.”

Some fail in the dimension of responsibility and we all lose.  Little by little we pay more and we give up our freedom.

Credit Card Fraud

Since November when 40 million Target customers had their credit card information compromised, the focus has turned to the fact that the US leads the world in credit card fraud due in part to the use of “decades-old” technology.  The new technology, used in most of the rest of the world, features smart cards, debit and credit cards with an encoded computer chip in place of the magnetic strip on the back.  The chip changes the encryption with each use, making it significantly more difficult for criminals to steal information.  This CBS Evening News story gives all the details, but gives some pretty meaningless numbers as well.

The meaningless numbers come near the end.  The reporter says that smart cards are only effective in stores and may cause criminals to shift their attention to online transactions.  Supposedly, it happened in England when, after issuing smart cards, on-line fraud increased from 23% to 65%.  What seems like a large increase may or may not be.

Think about it using hypothetical numbers.  If there were 1000 cases of fraud in Year 1 and 1000 cases in Year 2, then on-line fraud did jump from 230 to 650 (23% to 65% of 1000).  On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that the total cases decreased.  Since there were 770 cases of fraud not on line (1000 - 230) and most of those went away due to the better technology, there might have been only 300 total cases both on line and at stores.  In that case in Year 2 there would have been 65% of 300 cases on line or 195, which is a decrease from the original 230 cases.  So there might have been no discernible shift of attention by criminals at all!  If this had been one of those standardized test questions, the answer would have been “e.  Not enough information given.”  But it wasn’t a test question; it was a serious news story, one using incomplete data to imply a still-lurking danger.

Another example comes from Reuters about seatbelts saving children’s lives.  The news is good, 43% fewer children killed on the highways due to increased seatbelt usage over the last 10 years.  With one in three deaths occurring when children are not buckled up the CDC urged parents to “make sure their children use appropriate-sized car seats, booster seats and seat belts on every trip."  The study points out that deaths of improperly secured children differed by race, “nearly half (45 percent for blacks and 46 percent for Hispanics) versus a quarter (26 percent) for white kids."  Is this really necessary?  Are they implying that minority parents are less careful?  I don’t think so.  But the added information not only distracts from the primary message, it also falls into the same “not enough information” category of the credit card fraud example – 45% of how many vs. 26% of how many?

Cases of meaningless or incomplete numbers are not unusual in the news business.  They obviously don’t think it through.  They are counting on us to join them in not thinking it through and to automatically trust their assumptions and come to similar conclusions or, in more sinister instances, to mindlessly accept a false or misleading impression.  It’s critical thinking; not paying attention leads us to go along with rather than analyze and question many false conclusions.