Mythology by Dimension

Last time I wrote about understanding the world by using the lens of mythology.  Everyone has beliefs that they’ve developed since childhood through interactions with parents, teachers, friends, reading and learning.  As this personal mythology matures it becomes a guide for action, a guide for making moral decisions, judging right and wrong.  We each see ourselves as heroes of our own stories, stars of an imaginary movie playing inside our heads.  When we act in concert with our beliefs we are behaving heroically.  Otherwise we are cowards and a disappointment to ourselves.

Our friends, the people we hang out with, what I have called the tribe reinforce these beliefs.  (I purposely use primitive terms like tribe and mythology to emphasize the primitive nature of these reactions.  These core beliefs go deep and are very hard to change.)  When ideas contrary to our mythology arise our tribe helps us combat them by finding examples of how we are right and by shouting down the opposition, portraying them as villainous, evil, stupid, idiotic, naïve, and greedy.  The “others” are purposely lying to us to advance their selfish goals.

But that is usually not the case.  Those we consider villains are heroes of their own mythology, fighting the good fight on the side of what they believe is right.

That’s why we see so much division in the country today.  Everyone is so busy accusing each other of villainy, pointing fingers and calling names, that nothing gets settled.

Now comes the behavioral model.  Behavior has consequences.  If actions hurt you, stop doing them.  If actions cause suffering for others or fail over the long term to relieve their suffering, stop doing them.  We must use these same criteria to adjust our own behavior and to challenge the actions of others.  Name-calling and accusations don’t solve anything.  Behavior is the guide.  Unfortunately personal mythology blinds individuals to many behavioral errors.  Here are a few examples by dimension.

Economic understanding points out that there is no magic money tree.  Money always comes from somewhere, and we can usually trace it back to our own pockets.  When sympathetic juries hand out large awards to compensate for a loss, they fail to understand that insurance companies do not have a big, endless pool of money.  They get their money from us in premiums and will find a way to recoup the loss.  Their competitors will also see how such actions increase their risk and will take defensive action.  Everyone’s premiums go up.  It’s a myth that no one is hurt and only good comes out of this redistribution from the rich companies to the poor victims, but many cling to this myth.

Economic understanding points out that the economic “pie” is not fixed.  It’s not always a zero sum game with winners and losers.  The standard of living for everyone in the US has increased dramatically over the last century – for everyone!  The rich are better off than they were with more luxuries.  The poor are better off than they were with more conveniences.  Delivering fresh produce to a food pantry last year I heard clients discussing the best place to buy an inexpensive microwave oven.  Fifty years ago no one, rich or poor, had a microwave oven!  The rich are getting richer, but that does not imply the poor are getting poorer.  (Note: This Congressional Budget Office report shows distribution of income growth 1979-2007 was skewed toward the higher incomes, but all income levels experienced some growth.)

Many companies and industries are big and powerful.  Barring government interference, companies grow big by getting more customers.  The smart way to get more customers is to give them what they want at a reasonable price.  A bad way to attract customers is to treat them poorly or try to cheat them.  Most companies are smart enough to figure this out or they don’t stay in business very long.  A common myth is that all big companies are greedy and evil based on the actions of a few.  Sure CEOs are overpaid, but so are star athletes, TV and movie stars, super models and rock musicians; but you don’t hear people complaining about George Clooney making too much money.  And you don’t see people planning to skip the next Disney movie to protest how much the CEO is paid compared to the average Disney worker.  Our personal mythology is selective.

(In the interest of your time, I’ll continue the discussion on Friday.)

Modern Day Mythology

The key to understanding a society is understanding its mythology.  This was the wisdom of Joseph Campbell, who studied ancient mythology and pointed out how many common threads arose from diverse civilizations.  Now I think I understand something of what he was talking about.

Mythology is defined by my Apple Dictionary as a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution or situation, especially when exaggerated or fictitious.  In the past it was used to explain how the world worked, often assuming gods were in control.

Today things are much the same but the stories and assumptions are different.  Some maintain that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, despite reams of evidence to the contrary.  Others believe that vaccinations cause autism despite reams of evidence to the contrary.  There are hundreds of such stories in the American culture that people either cling to or reject.  In doing so they form into tribes, groups of like-minded people who share their mythologies. 

As our own tribe identifies more arguments in favor of our chosen mythology, beliefs are reinforced and convictions more strongly adhered to – confirmation bias.  Likewise when other tribes challenge us, with opposing beliefs, the tribe sticks together and fights back, sometimes with ideas but often with personal attacks.  The tribe accuses outsiders of being stupid or evil.  The outsiders must be stupid and evil because why else would they have such irrational beliefs when we are so sure of ours?  If we can’t persuade them with reason, we shout louder, pass around petitions and have parades, demonstrations and rallies to make the point.

So the prolife people are stupid and evil because they oppose a woman’s right to choose.  The prochoice people are stupid and evil because they think an unborn baby is not really a human being with a right to life from the moment of conception.  Surely one side can persuade the other with rational arguments, signs, demonstrations, bullying or popular power.  Surely there is room for compromise.

But thinking about these issues as a mythology, a strongly held belief that informs our personal stories and our sense of morality, where is the room for compromise?  How can an unborn baby be a human being and an object of choice at the same time?  There is no middle ground.  How can the government grow to provide more services for those in need and also shrink to reduce interference, to allow more individual freedom and avoid fiscal bankruptcy at the same time?

Those who believe in these and so many other positions are not arbitrarily or casually picking one side and expecting the results of the debate to settle the issue.  They are committed to a set of beliefs that makes sense to them as they define their lives.  They are not necessarily stupid or evil, though many are uninformed or misinformed.  They are telling themselves a story about how the world works based on those firmly held and long cherished beliefs. 

And they are the heroes of their own stories!  Each day they live out their personal mythology, making heroic decisions, like the Greeks of old; except instead of winning in battle, they are buying organic produce to keep their family healthy.

To become heroes they must invent villains, like packaged food companies, or the favorite of many – Wall Street.  This battle of ideas brings meaning to their lives.  Any favorable evidence confirms their heroism; contrary evidence is easily rejected with the support of the tribe.  To compromise, to give in to the other side even a little, becomes a sign of cowardice, of betraying one’s principles.

When Bernie Sanders shouts about Big Business, his tribe understands and feels in their guts that this is a villain to be defeated.  When Donald Trump shouts about building a wall, his tribe sees it as a heroic act on their part to support this idea.  The other side in each case, and in hundreds of other cases, will usually respond to these same ideas by calling out “stupid” or “idiot” or “hater.”

Where does that leave us?  So far we are fighting to a stalemate.  One political side wins an elections and the majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.  The other side gets into office and the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction.  Political parties encourage tribalism with instant rejection of opposing ideas followed by personal attacks and name-calling.  They don’t want to solve problems, only to win over as many as they can to membership in their tribe.  (The media does the same in more subtle ways to retain the appearance of impartiality.)

That’s where the behavioral model comes in.  It rejects the name-calling, demanding that each side talks about behavior.  Although rational arguments don’t stand much of a chance against the religious fervor of these modern mythologies, the five key dimensions are the only source of hope.  Next time I’ll look at the five dimensions in terms of some of the popular mythological beliefs that fit into each one.

One More Time: Gluten-free

I have met people who are dedicated to following a gluten-free diet and persuading their family to do so.  I have been at functions where food was served with the assurance that it was gluten-free.  I want to turn to the host and say, “Thank you, but fortunately I don’t have celiac disease.”  I’m sure they wouldn’t get it.

A gluten-free diet (GFD) has become a fad with people strongly committed to it to the point where more and more companies are advertising that their products are gluten-free.  I recently heard an ad on a public radio entertainment show where a brand of vodka closed with the words “and it’s gluten-free.”  Thereupon I could hear in the background light laughter from the audience, who apparently thought it was a joke as part of the show, but the ad was totally serious.  The audience was right to chuckle though.  Scientific American (among others) points out:  “Distilled spirits, because of the distillation process, should contain no detectable gluten residues or gluten peptide residues.” 

But all those companies know their potential customers are getting information that gluten free is healthier from celebrities and other unreliable sources.  “The gluten-free industry enjoyed a growth of 136% from 2013 to 2015, reaching estimated sales of $11.6 billion” unrelated to any increase in celiac disease.

But where is the harm, besides paying more for something you don’t need?  According to this article in The Pediatric Journal, “there are no data supporting the presumed health benefits” of a gluten-free diet.  “Gluten-free packaged foods frequently contain a greater density of fat and sugar than their gluten-containing counterparts,” which can lead to problems for children such as obesity and new-onset insulin resistance.

Furthermore, a gluten-free diet for children can delay a real diagnosis of celiac disease, which has been linked to anemia, osteoporosis, diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease and intestinal cancers.

The article goes on.  “There is emerging evidence that those consuming gluten- free products without sufficient diversity may be at greater risk of exposure to certain toxins than those on an unrestricted diet. Arsenic is frequently present in inorganic form in rice, a concern for those on a GFD given that rice is a common ingredient in gluten-free processed foods. Serum mercury levels were 4-fold greater among adults with CD consuming a GFD than controls not restricting gluten.”

So what many uninformed or misinformed people see as a panacea is potentially a danger.  But it seems that bad information drives out good information and once the superstitions get a foothold, they are hard to dislodge.  (More about the new mythologies and the battle with critical thinking in the near future.)

Correcting Colorblindness?

An article in an alumni magazine caught my eye.  The headline read:  “Recent graduate focuses on myth of color-blindness correction.”  The clear implication by labeling it as a myth was that colorblindness correction was impossible, or at least not within the reach of current technology, and that some people may be wasting their money. 

The recent graduate was part of a research team investigating whether red-green color vision defects can be corrected using commercially sold glasses that filter different wavelengths.  The brief article goes on to say that this latest research has not yet been published but stated that a controlled study led to the conclusion that “not only do the glasses not help, but they can makes some aspects of color vision worse.”  (Since the findings have not yet been published, there is no way to tell the sample size or how carefully the study was designed.)  They only summarize their findings that some people are “desperate for a ‘cure’ and [this study] can potentially save people from wasting their money.”

Wasting money on myths is one of my favorite signs of problems with critical thinking, not doing the research before investing in a “miracle cure,” so I went on to investigate.

I found a Forbes article from April 2015:  A reporter decided to try the special glasses, and said yes, there was a difference.  But he added:  “As vibrant as [green] leaves and [red] bricks now appear, when presented with a color blindness test, both my brother [who is also colorblind] and I still fail it. And there’s another major issue that needs to be addressed: These things ain’t cheap. Non-prescription versions of [the seller’s] color blindness glasses range from roughly $340 to $440.”  He concludes by referring to them as a luxury item that allows some men to get the effect of seeing better color.

The ads for these glasses consist of customers raving about their personal experiences, and similar testimonials.  According to another source their “viral marketing success” has been fueled in part by a product testing program, “where would-be wearers can apply to earn a free pair through participating in certain company initiatives (like talking to the media).”

The author of that second article, who is also colorblind, gave them a try.  He was disappointed at first when he didn’t experience the overwhelming emotion he had seen in the promotional videos, but after some time he became very satisfied.  Though he still cannot pass the standard Ishihara colorblindness test, and the company clearly states the glasses will not allow this; he feels they are very helpful in, for instance, allowing him to better identify the color of green and red traffic signals.  Based on his own experience in elementary school, he thinks the glasses may help children do better at color-related tasks and not be automatically labeled by teachers as slow.  (Not all schools regularly test children for colorblindness.)

It appears the jury is still out on the colorblindness correcting glasses.  True, they don’t make it possible to pass the standard numbers-on-flashcards type of test and are quite expensive, but some who have tried them (and not been financially influenced by the company) say they have noticed a difference.  It will be interesting to see the latest scientific findings when they are finally published.