Flashback – The Blame Game

Many Americans stumble through life following rules of thumb they heard somewhere while making no attempt to verify their effectiveness: drink 8 glasses of water a day; avoid eating fat; wolf down Vitamin C for a cold; shun fast food, etc. They take the same attitude toward so many myths: fear GMOs and food additives; fear nuclear power; fear fluoridation of drinking water; fear vaccines; worry about (extremely rare) school shootings and child abduction and more. When anything goes wrong they look for someone else to blame and to the government to fix it. Many legislators understand and relish their role as savior, which allows this lack of responsibility to continue.

 

Here from almost 7 years ago are my comments on this tendency to blame and depend on others to help.

[I just finished reading a book called Scapegoat:  A History of Blaming Other People. In it the author tells how, back as far as the Garden of Eden, we have been finding others to blame for our problems and shortcomings. We have blamed foreigners, other religions, the rich, the poor, bankers, God, Satan, witches, priests, kings and animals, even the weather. I think he left out all the “Bigs”: big business, big pharma, big tobacco, big oil, big government, big banks and the rest. No one takes responsibility and it began with Adam blaming "the woman" and Eve blaming the serpent.

This was coincident with two news articles: one about a common whipping boy, MacDonald’s, and the other about our lack of faith in the government.

The first is in the form of a video.  A high school science teacher from Iowa challenged his students to develop a diet for him based purely on the menu from McDonald’s. They were instructed to vary his meals and keep the total intake of calories and fats to within set guidelines. After eating three meals everyday from MacDonald’s and beginning an exercise program where he walked for 45 minutes a day, he lost 37 pounds and his cholesterol dropped from 249 to 170. This flies in the face of popular opinion and documentaries like “Super-size Me” that try to shift the blame from individual behavior to the fast food industry. As the teacher says, “It’s our choices that make us fat, not MacDonald’s.” Behavior has consequences.

The second related piece of news is the results of a recent poll showing that about 70% of Americans have little faith in government. “The percentage of Americans saying the nation is heading in the right direction hasn't topped 50 in about a decade.” Many are looking for fundamental changes in the structure of government, as “61 percent are pessimistic about the system of government overall and the way leaders are chosen.” The underlying premise here goes against the idea of responsibility as we look to the government to solve our problems and worry about their inability to do so, instead of being more self-reliant.

Perhaps it’s time to stop looking for someone else to blame, whether it be the government, fast food, or any of the other popular targets. It’s time to start solving our problems with better choices all the time.]

Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Flashback – Twenty-Three Months to Solve the Problem

Time’s running out! In early-December 2018 shortly after the last election, with the usual accusations of voter suppression by requiring a photo ID, I suggested that with 23 months to the election, concerned citizens had plenty of time to solve the problem themselves. Here is the original post.

[Generally, I avoid topics that touch even indirectly on politics, but this subject has overtones of responsibility – doing something about a situation instead of trying to blame it on luck, circumstances or another person or group.

I get so tired of hearing about the supposed voter suppression because citizens have trouble identifying themselves at the polls. Now we are 23 months away from the next major election, and it’s time to do something about it instead of moaning or accusing after the fact, as has been the practice for many years. There is a better solution than fighting about whether or not the laws must be changed.

Spread the word. If anyone you know cannot for any reason obtain a photo identification, figure out what is necessary, take some time away from work or other interests and help them out. It probably only takes a couple of hours, depending on the efficiency of the local DMV. 

Another faster, but slightly more expensive option would be to help the person get a passport. Last time I renewed mine, I found a local pharmacy that takes passport pictures, and I spent less than an hour to drive there and leave with my photo. The rest can be done through the mail. (Some UPS locations also have this service.)

Every nursing home I’m familiar with runs a shuttle for these kinds of errands. People confined to their own homes must have someone to check on them periodically. Perhaps the same organizations that arrange for voters without transportation to get to the polls on Election Day could set up one or two ID days for those unable to make their own arrangements. With 700 days left to find a few hours to solve this problem for everyone we know, next time there should be no excuse!

As with so many other problems, we look to the government to fix it when a simple solution is within our reach.]

Now (August 2020) with only 2 months left, I wonder if anyone took the initiative, or will we hear the same cries and complaints from the people who want new laws when all that was ever needed is a little foresight and personal responsibility.

Staying Conscious

Last time I explained how people tend to make decisions based on how they are feeling 95% of the time unless they make some effort to stop and think things through. The 5-second countdown trick is one way to pause, to slow down the process and avoid impulse decisions. 

We must be always alert because everyone trying to sell something takes advantage of this tendency to make decisions based on feelings. They play to our subconscious. 

Shortly after that I ran across a related article. It was called “Don’t get fooled or conned again” and presents five more tactics or techniques people or companies use “to get us to do what they want.” In most cases that means buy a product or service, but it may also mean adopting a particular political point of view.

Some of these tactics are obvious, like promising to send a huge windfall, but asking for a handling fee or a bank account number to get the process going. Most of the tactics though are common but more subtle, like offering a third item free when you buy two, even when two or three is much more than you need.

The tactics, referred to as superpowers, begin with understanding that the process of being fooled takes place inside your mind. If you are not alert to what is happening, you can be manipulated to buy whatever they are selling. "They’re trying to sell you on a story, to get you to buy into their narrative.”

The first is misdirection. Misdirection is why “companies and governments often release bad news on Fridays or before major holidays” when they know we will be distracted.

Next come time pressure and opportunity. The two are closely related. We are presented with a limited time to act or a limited number available. Any special sale or limited time pricing falls into the time pressure category. Car dealers have sales with catchy names near the end of each year with artificial deadlines, think Toyotathons and Happy Honda Days. Sometimes they combine the two by saying the sale is over at the end of the month or when they have sold a certain number.

Made up days like Black Friday and Cyber Monday also are examples. Estimates for this year are that those two days will result in sales of $12.3 billion (a 25% increase) and $9.48 billion (up 20%), respectively. And some companies have already started Black Friday promotions, so be careful to think first. Something you didn’t want or need is not a bargain, in spite of the great price.

The last two tactics are also closely related. “Social compliance refers to how we respond to people in authority” whereas “Social proof refers to how we constantly look to others around us for clues as to how to behave.” Both are powerful. Social compliance comes when encountering someone either with authority or perceived authority, such as a recognized expert. Examples include a treatment or pill advertised with a doctor’s endorsement or advice from TV doctors, who depend on hype to keep the audience engaged.

Social proof comes from the many customer endorsements (instead of evidence) in those same ads. It explains why when one person begins to applaud, the rest tend to join in. It drives much of the behavior on social media where likes draw more likes and people tend to congregate on line with others who share their philosophy. 

In one study in 2011, a cognitive neuroscientist at Temple University exposed 32 teens to a series of Instagram photos while they were in an MRI machine. They mixed them with other pictures and randomly assigned ratings. The teens were allowed to like a photo or pass. “Teens were much more likely to like images that seemed popular [and] skip pictures with few likes. And the brain's reward pathways became especially active when the teens viewed their own photos with many likes.” That is how social proof works on both teens and adults, likes draw more likes and memes go viral with hardly the firing of a single brain cell.

The article presenting the five tactics concluded: “Be careful when you feel emotionally moved by the headline, and be even more careful when you agree with the headline or when the headline makes you happy, because that’s when you need to watch out.” The best defense against being fooled and conned is critical thinking.

Unintended Consequences

So many times we hear of laws or regulations having unintended consequences, and though unintended, in hindsight many of them seem totally predictable. I was reminded of this when I heard politicians in Washington suggest that the voting age be lowered to sixteen.

The whole argument as to whether sixteen-year-olds have the maturity and judgment to vote is a good debate for elsewhere. After all, the eighteen-year-olds who are allowed, even encouraged, to vote cannot legally buy alcohol. They may not buy lottery tickets in a few states. And here the USA Today advocates, “Raise the federal minimum legal age for tobacco, e-cigarette purchases to 21.” Furthermore, since 2009 “you must be 21 years of age to get a credit card in your own name, unless you have a cosigner or can show proof of steady income.” All these laws and proposals speak to the maturity and judgment of 18 year-olds.

Note: The voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War on the somewhat skewed reasoning that if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to vote – as if following orders and fighting in combat require the same skills as voting. But what of lowering it again to sixteen?

Implied with lowering the voting age is also lowering the age of majority, that is, when you are considered an adult. One of the problems comes back to that question of the draft. Along comes the USA Today again with a suggestion to “Include women in Selective Service registration.” Would that mean boys and girls must register when they reach their 16^th birthday? (Of course, they would not be considered boys and girls anymore, but men and women.)

Another issue is the protection sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds enjoy in courts and criminal proceedings. Debates sometimes break out over whether certain juvenile criminals should be tried as adults. Should they be eligible for the death penalty in states that allow it? Police don’t release names, and the press doesn't publish the names of minors involved in crimes. With such a new law it could be argued that they are adults and must forfeit all this special consideration.

Yet another issue would be activities and purchases other than alcohol and nicotine products where normally an adult must sign for the youth. This might include medical procedures and vaccinations, high school field trips, youth sports, legal contracts and a host of other transactions. How would all these parental permission issues be affected?

If some of these examples seem extreme, consider the college orientation briefing I attended with one of my sons years ago. While they were explaining how parents could afford all the fees and tuition to send their children to college, they added that to see how the students were doing the parent had to deal directly with them. Since they were adults, some privacy regulations prohibited the school from sharing report cards with parents (those same parents whom they assumed would be responsible for paying). Imagine having such privacy restraints applied to a report card for a junior in high school!

I’m sure there are other considerations that I have missed, but predicting, or at least anticipating, unintended consequences is a good exercise in critical thinking.

Why We Get The Government We Deserve

It’s OK to go to the library just to browse.  Taking your time, going through the stacks to see what catches your eye is often a rewarding experience.  You may see a title that rings a bell or an author you have heard of or are familiar with.  It may just be the appearance of the cover that attracts attention.  Perhaps the library has a bulletin board near the entrance, as mine does, showing new arrivals or recommended reading.  All these methods are excellent ways to find some entertainment or broaden your horizons.

In some activities this approach works; in others it’s a recipe for disaster.

Last Monday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a law in Minnesota that prohibits voters from wearing inside polling stations T-shirts or other apparel with slogans or other messages regarded as overtly political.  They will decide if a law, which “forbids political badges, buttons or other insignia inside polling places during primary or general elections” applies to such apparel.  Officials have already extended the law to include all campaign literature and material.

The voting booth is not the library.  You don’t go there to browse or to pick up new ideas on the way in.  The right to vote should be taken more seriously than picking out a book for a couple of weeks.  Voters should know the issues and what candidates stand for, with the act of voting merely a confirmation of a set decision.  Apparently the lawmakers of Minnesota (and several other states) either don’t understand this or don’t give their citizens credit for taking the right to vote seriously.

There is ample evidence that they are right to assume the latter, that many voters don’t take it seriously.  Why else would political parties organize bus or van trips to the polls on Election Day?  It’s not like Election Day comes as a surprise to anyone who is paying attention.  Even housebound people serious about voting have sufficient time to arrange for their own transportation or apply for an absentee ballot.  But who in their position would pass up such a field trip, a social opportunity – and, by the way, get to vote.

Talk of making Election Day a holiday, because voters can’t find the time to vote when they are working, also reinforces this idea that they don’t care enough to make an effort.  In third-world countries, voters walk for miles to vote.  Here the polls are generally open at least 12 hours, and again, if someone has a valid reason, absentee ballots are usually available.

Another difference between the library and the voting booth is that the library requires a card to check out a book.  But to have identification to vote is considered a burden.

If Americans are so easily swayed in their political beliefs that t-shirts and buttons must be banned, so lackadaisical about voting that other commitments and conflicts win out, must be herded to the polling place for lack of planning and can’t be asked to present valid identification, it’s no wonder we get the choices and results we do.  It’s also no wonder that most political parties appeal to anger, fear, hype and other emotional manipulation rather than factual arguments.  It’s a failure of responsibility and critical thinking that leaves us with a bloated and ineffective government wavering from one special interest to another without regard for the greater good.  Rights carry with them responsibilities.

The government we have is the one we deserve due to a cumulative failure in the five key dimensions.  Better behaviors lead to better outcomes.  Otherwise, we have no right to complain.

Something About Rights

Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls.  Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen few efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite seems to be true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements:  background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly.  There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary.  Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others.  If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out. 

We also have a right to free speech.  Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government.  But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview.  Students are supposedly in college to learn.  Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view.  Instead they protest demanding a cancellation of the event or attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive.  When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago.  It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.  This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students.  Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself.  Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression.  If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions.  If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population.  And on it goes.  Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets.

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same.  Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored and some applied selectively.  Isn’t that worth considering?

Getting Out the Vote

It’s wrong to badger, nag or shame people to vote.  It is their right to vote, but no one says they must vote.  Some folks may not feel like it or just don’t care enough.  Some may think their choices in the big races are equally bad and are not voting as a silent protest, though this doesn’t seem to have improved the quality of the candidates we keep getting.  For some reason, the major parties and the news media seem to think that these people should vote anyway just to exercise their right.  (They also have a right to own a gun, but you don’t see public service announcements urging people to go out and exercise this right, that it’s something they should do, and that they are lazy or unpatriotic if they don’t!)

If someone doesn’t intend to or might forget to vote, will this same person, if reminded or nagged take the time to do the research to get educated about the candidates and their relative positions on the issues?  I suspect those odds are quite low.  They will vote for the most familiar name – that’s why, as much as we complain about Congress, incumbents are consistently reelected well over 95% of the time.  They will vote on gut instinct or appearance, such as culturally favored facial features.  “There is no evidence that these facial features actually predict how well politicians will perform in office.  But studies of the brain’s response to winning and losing candidates show that we are biologically predisposed to reject candidates who lack the (physical) attributes we value.”  (Source:  D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. 2011, p.91)  Other studies have shown similar results.  We use the same rationale to elect senators as we do for homecoming queens.

What we get then are uninformed voters heading to the polls to make selections based on irrelevant criteria, but that does not stop the public service announcements and other tactics.  The major parties in key states are even going so far as to try to shame people into voting.  They usually contact them through the mail listing their voting records.  “One of the mailings lists two other people from the recipient's neighborhood, with data about whether they voted in the last three elections” with names and addresses removed.  Apparently in Florida they have become even more blatant and include the names and addresses of neighbors.  The flyers imply that someone is tracking and reviewing these records to make sure you vote this time.  They also try to use social pressure, including Facebook, to get to the polls those voters most likely to favor their party based on demographics.  Many voters resent this intrusion into what they consider their private lives, but they don’t know who to blame.

Just as people who own guns, because it is their right, have an obligation to understand the proper use, storage and safety aspects of gun ownership; those who vote, because it is their right, have an obligation to understand the issues and be able to see through the negative ads and misrepresentations of opposing candidates and PACs.  It is irresponsible for the media, political parties or anyone else to herd a bunch of uninformed voters to the polls for the sake of exercising a right.  Those who want to vote will usually have enough interest to become informed voters and will get there on their own.  The rest should stay home.