Four Little Thoughts

Many years ago the fear promulgated by politicians and the media was that seniors in poverty would be forced to resort to eating dog food because they couldn’t afford anything better.  This thought crossed my mind as I was leaving the grocery store the other day and saw a poster advertising “all natural” dog food.  Between that and some of the ads on TV, it appears that our pets may be eating healthier (and higher off the hog) than we are.  Soon we may be hearing of struggling seniors forced to feed their dog people food because they can’t afford the vitamin-packed and specially formulated nourishment for the dog.

I expect to never see it, but here is a thought.  What if a receiver on your favorite football team appeared to catch a pass at a critical point in the game, but jumped up and admitted to the official that he actually trapped it?  (You see the opposite happen nearly every week.)  Would there be cheering in the stands for this brave act of honesty?  Would there be cheering in the locker room?  I strongly doubt it.  Yet we expect honesty and integrity from bankers on Wall Street, big drug companies and politicians.  We scream and point fingers when we get the opposite.  Where are our values?  How do we think the bankers and CEOs of the future will act when today, as we bring them up, we expose them to such confusing behavior in terms of values?  Is the message to be honest in life, but if it’s just a game honesty not only doesn’t matter but would be frowned upon?  Or does it only matter when it’s someone else’s integrity and it’s to our disadvantage?

And speaking of football and values:  How long do you think a quarterback at any level would last if he refused to throw or hand the ball to anyone who was not the same race as he is, or the same religion or have the same political opinions?  In this sense we have strong, good-role-model behavior in football that is often overlooked.

I have noticed lately in America a growing number of instances of an evolution from needs to wants and from wants to rights.  Could it be because, when enough people label something as a right, it becomes non-negotiable?  Sometimes individual rights aren’t even specified.  The term becomes a catchall for anything a particular group wants to ban or make untouchable.  How can you have an intelligent debate when any objection is turned into an accusation of you wanting to deny someone, some group or some animals their rights?

Not Another Magic Bullet?!

Last time I wrote about how many Americans try to fight aging and poor health by following the constant parade of food crazes instead of the tried-and-true, but more difficult, practices of eating a reasonable diet and getting regular exercise.  This kind of “magic bullet” approach is very appealing when advertisers promise great results with little or no effort.

But it doesn’t end with physical health.  We have other health concerns as shown by this headline:  “Americans Rank Alzheimer's as Most Feared Disease.”  A poll from 2012 revealed that 44 percent cite it as the most feared disease compared to 33 percent for cancer.  Couple this with other types of dementia and other age-related mental problems and the population is ripe for exploitation in any number of ways.

One example came to light this week as the news broke that one of the leaders in the “brain training” industry, Lumosity, has been fined $2 million by the Federal Trade Commission for preying “on consumers' fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer's disease."  It was reported that the fine should have been larger, but the company could not afford to pay more.  The entire industry has estimated sales of over $1 billion per year and continues to grow.  Experts were cited in the article as concluding:  "The aggressive advertising entices consumers to spend money on products and to take up new behaviors, such as gaming, based on these exaggerated claims."  Those exaggerated promises caused the FTC to take action.

Scientific American covered this problem about one year ago reporting on a statement released by the Stanford University Center on Longevity and the Berlin Max Planck Institute for Human Development, that there is no solid scientific evidence to back up promises made by these companies.  The statement by 70 prominent neurology and psychology researchers was critical of the entire brain training industry, citing "frequently exaggerated" marketing.

For those interested in more information the entire SA article is worth reading.  To summarize for the rest:

The bottom line is that there is no solid evidence that commercial brain games improve general cognitive abilities. But isn’t it better to go on brain training with the hope, if not the expectation, that scientists will someday discover that it has far-reaching benefits? The answer is no. Scientists have already identified activities that improve cognitive functioning, and time spent on brain training is time that you could spend on these other things. One is physical exercise. In a long series of studies, University of Illinois psychologist Arthur Kramer has convincingly demonstrated that aerobic exercise improves cognitive functioning. The other activity is simply learning new things.

Sorry, no magic bullets from brain training either, just another opportunity to throw away time and money – more evidence that critical thinking (to find the right answer) and discipline (to stick with it) are so necessary to us all.

Looking for That Magic Bullet

When it comes to health and diet, Americans more and more are looking for the “magic bullet,” one or two easy answers to let them stay healthy and live forever.  That is the only rational explanation I can come up with to explain the constant parade of generally irrational food crazes.

On this CBS This Morning segment they hit on the “craft food craze” by reference to a high-end chocolate company that found itself in hot water for adding re-melted chocolate from another brand to their artisanal candy bars (that sell for $9 each).  The Mast Brothers responded “they only did so in their early days and never lied to consumers. This has sparked a larger debate about so-called ‘artisanal’ products and why consumers are willing to pay more for them.”

During the course of the discussion with a Wall Street Journal reporter, they mention other such crazes:  natural, GMO or gluten-free.  Apparently 59% of consumers look for “natural” on products, apparently not understanding that the FDA has never defined the use of the term.  Natural can mean whatever the company wants it to mean.  Yet shoppers look for the word believing they are getting something of better quality and last year spent $40 billion on food products labeled as such.

Likewise 66% look for “locally produced” products.  I wrote last month about how Chipotle, after loosening their original definition of locally produced by expanding the radius, then moved away from the concept toward more centralization to ensure better quality after a few embarrassing incidents of contamination.  The fact is that food moves around.  For every local farmer you try to support, there is a truck driver hoping for a shipment.  Time from farm to table is controlled not only by the travel time, but also the time between picking and loading (usually unknown), time unloading and sitting on the store shelf (usually unknown) and time it sits at home before being served (known, but how well managed? – unless someone goes grocery shopping on a daily basis).  Very little of this makes sense when examined closely.

Along a similar line, about this time last year CNBC (and others) reported:  “A full 88 percent of consumers say they're willing to pay a premium to some degree for foods with healthy attributes, according to Nielsen's online poll of 30,000 people in 60 countries.”  The all-natural or non-GMO labels were considered very important in this decision by about 43 percent.

Because we are reacting to the advertising, I have called these trigger words.  But the advertising must be appealing to something already in the grocery shopper’s mind, planted there by blogs using scare tactics (like if you can’t pronounce it – don’t eat it) and television doctors promising miracles.  It’s a vicious cycle where shoppers get ideas about healthier food that businesses use to think up alluring labels.  The underlying cause of the whole thing seems to be a search for some kind of shortcut. 

A few years ago the food was not dangerous.  It didn’t kill or harm people.  It may not have been “all natural” or “organic” or “artisan,” but it was perfectly safe to eat and most were OK with it that way.  A few years ago we did not have 66% of Americans overweight or obese either.  I am not saying that these new crazes for “healthier” food are responsible for the obesity.  Rather, it seems the buzzwords on food labels offer a promise, a promise of a better life for just a few dollars more, and that is a lot easier to stomach (pun intended) than the really hard work of hitting the treadmill, reducing serving sizes and making better basic choices of regular food without regard to the buzzwords.

Personally, when grocery shopping I will continue to avoid labels like all-natural, non-GMO, organic, and the rest; because I have done the research and know that I am getting very little, if any, benefit for the extra money.  Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder.  At the same time that we hear politicians and local charity organizations talk about the problem of food insecurity among some, the rest are buying into all these crazes, abandoning foods that don’t meet these new definitions of healthy, thereby causing manufacturers to adapt, pushing the prices up for everyone; and again the poor are the ones who are hurt the most. 

Critical Thinking in an Election Year

Welcome to 2016.  Now is the time to be on our toes in terms of critical thinking.  Over the next ten months we will be exposed to all kinds of ads, sound bites, speeches, analysis and opinions.  Here are some critical thinking watch-outs for the days and months ahead.

When one party (candidate, reporter, supporter, commentator, etc.) labels the solutions proposed by another as simplistic, it is only a label.  There is no other content, no counter-argument.  It implies that the position of the other party is wrong, but does so in a glib way without presenting any evidence.  The speaker expects the audience to nod in automatic agreement, but don’t buy it.  Require more.

When one party counters the position or programs of an opponent by accusing him or her or being greedy, racist, sexist, homophobic or simply evil, that is not an argument against the position or in favor of an alternative.  It is merely a label used to demonize the opponent, a shortcut used by the speaker instead of dealing in facts or evidence.  It shows a certain laziness on the part of the speaker to attribute motives rather than saying, “My opponent is mistaken, and here is why.”  After the election it will be results of these programs, not the real, imagined or proclaimed motives of anyone that make our lives a little better or a little worse.  Remember, we have had many representatives at all levels who have been very nice people, but not very competent at their jobs.  In passing this kind of judgment, they expect the audience to nod in unthinking agreement, but don’t buy it. Expect more.

Sometimes we hear, not usually from the candidates themselves but from other interested spectators, that an opponent of their ideas is stupid or naïve or crazy or some other label attached not to motives but to abilities, a label attached directly to the person, an ad hominem attack.  As more people get their political insight from late-night comedians, there is no telling what insults and throwaway joke lines might take the place of valid criticism.  These, too, are cheap shortcuts, easier than dealing with real facts, data or issues.  They expect the same kind of robotic reaction from followers and supporters.  (It applies equally to empty praise of the candidates’ strengths or motives, unsupported with results or behavioral examples.)  Again, don’t buy it.  Demand more.

As citizens and voters we deserve better, but we will not get it unless all those parties get the message that some significant group is thinking critically, immune to this kind of blatant propaganda.  I’ve heard many people comment about the upcoming elections, that our choices have gotten progressively worse – “can’t we vote for none of the above and start over?”  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.  Just like almost everything else, the quality of candidates and information we get is a direct consequence of voters’ behavior in the past.

The behavioral model requires behavioral examples as evidence to any attribution, not mere name-calling and accusing.  Critical thinking reinforces this requirement.

Happy New Year

Every year around this time, it seems I run into a story about champagne.  I don’t think it is a coincidence.

In 2012 I wrote about price deception, how the expensive bottles are not significantly better than those of average price.

In 2013 I told of people with unusual perspective who pay outrageous sums, collect and hoard bottles of “rare” vintage.

So in keeping with what has become a tradition, almost – what was I thinking last year? – here is another sample of bubbly news.

From a 2013 study: “Scientists at Reading University say that a regular dose of bubbles can help in the fight against brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s and dementia.”  They did some experiments on rats.  “The rats that had no Champagne had a 50% success rate [rerunning a maze], but this went up to 70% in the rats that had Champagne in their diet.”  At the time they were looking for volunteers to participate in the three-year study to see if humans would experience similar benefits.  Critical thinkers would not be surprised at the last sentence pointing out that it was the first time such a link was found and that a lot more research is needed.

Another posting, undated unfortunately, list half a dozen benefits of champagne from an ingredient in a skin treatment to a surefire way to improve your mood – they don’t seem to be too embarrassed to state the obvious.  It also features health benefits from a study at (you guessed it!) Reading University.  “Champagne and other sparkling wines can reduce your risk of heart attack and stroke because the polyphenols (plant chemicals with antioxidant properties) in bubbly help lower your blood pressure.”  Again further study is probably needed.

So that’s the reminder of the day from a big champagne fan.  Now, if you’ll excuse me, I am going to spend the rest of the day filling out a job application to work at Reading University.

The Perspective Trick

Part of the skill of perspective is the ability to slow down and evaluate what is really important, to take a deep breath and not panic over the small things.  To do that it is necessary to be able to identify the small things, to distinguish the important from the trivial.  There is no better time than Christmas, when we are reminded of the real meaning and discouraged from spending money on lots of things, instead spending money and time on the important people in our lives.  We should appreciate what we have in terms of relationships, stepping away from the competition at work and within peer groups.

So for a tip on perspective I turn to my three-year-old granddaughter.  Last weekend we were watching a movie together on DVD.  It was a musical comedy, which I thought would keep her amused.  When one of the first musical numbers came on, she said, “Get up and dance around the chair.”  Now that might not sound like much, but I think it is excellent advice.

Think about how much better off the country would be, if whenever someone was feeling a little sad, they just got up and danced around the chair.  When things aren’t going well in the office, the computer is getting fussy again or the boss is on your case, get up and dance around the chair.  Don’t be a couch potato spending all afternoon glued to consecutive professional football games or bowl games, take a break and dance around the chair!

If the practice catches on, it might even improve the overall health of the country, reducing obesity and diabetes while stimulating the brain with added blood flow.  This could be the answer to the entire healthcare crisis! – or just a way to take a break, slow down and consider whether all the fuss and anxiety are justified.

Try it right now.  I promise not to point and laugh.  It’s Christmas Day; and whether you observe it or not, there is no excuse not to have a merry one!  All you need is a chair.

Confirmation Bias

I heard a commentator recently describe Americans as living in silos.  They get their news from their favorite source, and it is their favorite source because it tells them something they already believe.  They choose their friends based on how much they agree with them.  They “un-friend” those on social media who disagree with their own world view.  They just live in the silo where everything is peaceful and calm, where there is never conflict or disagreement, but where also there is no longer any growth or learning.  The point of the comment was politics, but these days everything is politicized and the comment can easily be extended to all aspects of life and daily decisions.  This activity of believing what is comfortable and consistent with current beliefs and rejecting or ignoring what is not, is known as confirmation bias.

Here is another example of the kind of information that will be accepted by some and rejected out of hand by others.  NBC reports that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was unlikely to cause cancer in humans.  Now policymakers in Europe must decide whether to extend the current approval period beyond the end of the year.  This comes while environmental groups have been calling for a ban and some businesses have begun to limit its use.  But the EFSA spokesman says:  "This has been an exhaustive process - a full assessment that has taken into account a wealth of new studies and data…unlikely that this substance is carcinogenic."

EFSA scientists worked with experts from EU member states and focused specifically on glyphosate, whereas the study supporting the environmentalists’ objections assessed groups of related chemicals.   Therefore, the findings of toxicity could be related to the other chemicals or some interaction. 

What is interesting in this case is that the EU is typically far less tolerant than the US when it comes to environmental issues, choosing to err on the side of extreme caution, for example their stance on GMOs.  Therefore, for them to make a statement exonerating (in a sense) Roundup is more significant than if it came from another source.  (This information is not inconsistent with my Master Gardener training which does not discourage the use of glyphosate, as long as it is used for the proper purpose according to the label instructions.)

Nevertheless, some groups will dismiss this report out of hand.  The great thing about confirmation bias is that it requires no evidence.  In fact when you disagree, evidence becomes a nuisance.