Okay, I think we all need to take a deep breath. Yes, crazy, unexpected things have happened. And yes, there are several times in the past election season and since that I have been genuinely scared for the future. But it is going to be okay in the end, especially if we take this election as a lesson.
For the record, I did not vote for Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Yes, I live in Pennsylvania, and yes, I know that makes me terrible to some people. But my vote is my vote and I would like to politely ask you to mind your own business. I include this in this article only to point out how I disagree strongly enough on certain things with both of the candidates and have enough issues with both candidates' character that I could not vote for either of them in good conscience.
Immediately after Trump won, I was shocked. Then I got a little depressed. I mean, a large percentage of our population voted for someone I kind of find despicable. And another large portion voted for someone else I find despicable. Then people started protesting and I got more depressed. What are you protesting? That unlike in so many nations in this world, we had an election with relatively little criminal activity (even if it was nastier than usual and the criminal activity of the actual candidates higher than usual) and that the loser of said election is conceding defeat and transfer of power is going from one political party to the other relatively peacefully? Are you trying to make sure it isn't peaceful? And then some of the disgusting variety of people in the county started acting more publicly and confidently disgusting to minorities. And then the Hitler card started to get thrown around in complete seriousness. And by this point, I was feeling more down about my fellow Americans than just the numbers from a vote could ever make me feel.
I didn't agree with either of the candidates to a point that I couldn't vote for them. But I have friends that voted for both sides. And they are good people. None of them are these crazy people threatening minorities or plotting to kill Trump. And this is what has made me feel a lot better about the whole thing: While the vast majority of the population of this country voted for individuals I found I could not vote for due to moral and ideological objections, it is still quite possible (and dare I hope likely), that the vast majority of people are still good people.
We need to all calm down enough to understand a few things. These points make me feel a lot better; hopefully they will help someone else too. Since Trump is the one elected, I am going to stop discussing Clinton at this point, but much of the same ideas would apply if the tables were turned.
Not everyone who votes one way is in complete agreement with others who voted the same way or even the candidate they voted for. There is a big difference between people who voted for Trump and the angry, hateful, racist, misogynistic, stereotypical Trump supporter. While that person does exist (stereotypes do come from somewhere), he or she is not 46.5% of the population. For example, I know people who voted for Trump who also work on a volunteer basis to help refugees, which is bizarre if we believe that the caricature of Trump voters is the rule for all of them.
Not everyone who has a different opinion than I do is wrong. It is fun to be right. And by definition, if I have an opinion, I think I am right. But it is also important to allow for the possibility that I am wrong or even in some cases if I am right that others are right too. Our government (and many other governments) were built based on the assumption that people are wrong sometimes. Everyone will at some point be wrong. So yes, I think deporting all illegal immigrants and building a wall is a ridiculous solution to our illegal immigrant situation, but it is possible I am wrong. We need to listen to the people we disagree with and be open to the possibility that they might actually be right--if not entirely--about some aspect of the issue. Otherwise, we are just being rather full of ourselves and will still eventually have to admit that we were wrong about something when the results of our inevitable mistakes play out.
Not everyone I disagree with is evil. I am none too happy with a lot of what Trump says. His behavior toward women would be one example. But even if this specific behavior is in fact wrong or even evil, it does not make Trump necessarily evil (though believe me, I don't think he is any pillar of the community). But more importantly it certainly doesn't make everyone who voted for Trump evil. We often make the other side out to be pure evil: This Republican is the literal reincarnation of Hitler or that Democrat sold his or her soul to the devil and now carries around this tube of demons like Rasputin in Anastasia. And yes, people can do evil things and there are always evil things happening in the world. But people can also do good things and often some of the bad things people do are just misguided attempts to do good. Furthermore, what is in fact good or bad can be a matter of opinion (giving money to beggars on the street for instance) and, as we already discussed, our opinions can in fact be wrong.
Our government was specifically designed to allow for the people in the government to be flawed. Of course it would be great if our leaders were perfect. If they were, we would hardly need the convoluted checks and balances we have. But as the government is organized no one person has that much power and the most productive people are those that are willing to work with others by listening to those they disagree with and admitting to being wrong sometimes. While the Republican Party had a seeming considerable victory, the Republican party has been far from united recently. Trump may have won, but if he is going to get anything done he is going to have to get people to agree with him, and not the crazy stereotypical Trump supporter, but members of congress of both parties, some of whom who have publicly denounced him. And the greater the refusal to cooperate between these public servants, the slower the progress (or digression) of the government will be. There is only so much Trump can do in 4 years, and that amount will be greatly reduced unless he learns to play nice. Furthermore, if he steps entirely out of line and ticks off enough people, congress can actually remove him from office.
In the end, we are the ones with the power. You can claim #notmypresident all you like, but we as a country elected that president. And we as a country get to decide what happens next. Yes, this is a new era, and I didn't get the hand I would choose if I got to stack the deck, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad era. Our government was initially set up to be run more on a local than federal level and it can still function that way. So if you don't like what is happening in Washington D.C. and can't move there to change it, change what is happening where you live; ultimately, that will have the greatest impact on your everyday life.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Friday, October 28, 2016
Wasted Votes
I have been working on this post for a few months at this point, but finally got around to finishing it.
I have not decided who I am voting for but it is going to be a third party. Apart from my disagreement with a lot of her policies, Hillary Clinton is either a) extremely stupid or b) a crook and I don't believe for a second she is really as stupid as she acts sometimes; I have noticed her "stupidity" only shows up when it is convenient. Her most recent relevant job experience resulted in an investigation that cost millions of dollars and resulted in the conclusion that she didn't do what she was supposed to do. Furthermore, whether she did what she did because she is a) extremely stupid or b) a crook can be debated, but what cannot be debated is that the behavior is extremely dangerous to our country and after she did it she lied about it. Furthermore, either reason (stupid or crook) does not inspire any kind of confidence that she won't do something like it again. In all the time she has had her eye on the White House, Hillary Clinton has never been less electable.
I have not decided who I am voting for but it is going to be a third party. Apart from my disagreement with a lot of her policies, Hillary Clinton is either a) extremely stupid or b) a crook and I don't believe for a second she is really as stupid as she acts sometimes; I have noticed her "stupidity" only shows up when it is convenient. Her most recent relevant job experience resulted in an investigation that cost millions of dollars and resulted in the conclusion that she didn't do what she was supposed to do. Furthermore, whether she did what she did because she is a) extremely stupid or b) a crook can be debated, but what cannot be debated is that the behavior is extremely dangerous to our country and after she did it she lied about it. Furthermore, either reason (stupid or crook) does not inspire any kind of confidence that she won't do something like it again. In all the time she has had her eye on the White House, Hillary Clinton has never been less electable.
Not to be outdone, however, the Republicans looked far and wide to find someone equally as repulsive and un-electable and found it (where else?) in reality television. Donald Trump is an all around disgusting individual who spreads hate, cares about no one, and evidently has no idea how life works. I cannot figure out how people would ever want to vote for him. When he first announced his intentions, I thought there was no way he would be nominated. I have decided my view of people in this country was evidently much too optimistic. I strongly disagree with him on foreign policy, and watching him, I just can't shake the feeling that the chances that he would either a) fly off the handle and send nuclear bombs somewhere, or b) fly off the handle and offend someone who would send nuclear bombs at us are quite high. He is a loose cannon and I can't feel confident he will do anything he claims he will do, so not even the things he says that I can agree with make me want to vote for him.
I have heard from several people that the above points of view are just me being unforgiving. But this is an absolutely ludicrous argument. I am not refusing to vote for them because I am just upset by some mostly irrelevant thing that they did that I am holding against them. For instance, while I find adultery reprehensible, I am not refusing to vote for Trump over it. I am refusing to vote for Trump because I disagree with a lot of what he has said and done during his candidacy. Hilary similarly stands for a lot of things I disagree with in policy. And as for "forgiving" the server thing--while I am not going to be bitter and angry about what she did, I am not going to vote to put someone so completely unapologetic about such a serious breach of law and security back into a position of power. That would be like moving back in with an abusive spouse who doesn't even claim to have changed.
I have heard from several people that the above points of view are just me being unforgiving. But this is an absolutely ludicrous argument. I am not refusing to vote for them because I am just upset by some mostly irrelevant thing that they did that I am holding against them. For instance, while I find adultery reprehensible, I am not refusing to vote for Trump over it. I am refusing to vote for Trump because I disagree with a lot of what he has said and done during his candidacy. Hilary similarly stands for a lot of things I disagree with in policy. And as for "forgiving" the server thing--while I am not going to be bitter and angry about what she did, I am not going to vote to put someone so completely unapologetic about such a serious breach of law and security back into a position of power. That would be like moving back in with an abusive spouse who doesn't even claim to have changed.
I haven't decided who I am voting for, but there is a large part of our population that would have me believe that the above are my only options--that anything else is "wasting my vote." I respectfully disagree.
But first I want to respond to people who claim that not voting for A is the same thing as voting for B. No it isn't; voting for B is voting for B and not voting for A does nothing to how many votes B gets. Furthermore, I think people who use this logic are misunderstanding something very important about the current political situation; neither A nor B is preferable. I have no obligation of loyalty to any candidate or party and neither does anyone else. I am not going to be inspired to support a candidate I don't agree with based on peer pressure. If you must know, if you held a gun to my head at the polls and made me vote for one or the other, I would vote for Hilary, but if you are holding a gun to my head at the polls and no one did something about it there isn't much hope that anything I did would actually mean anything anyway.
I view my ability to vote as a responsibility to be taken very seriously. It is my opportunity to give my input. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't see it this way and begin to enter this complicated and truly unpredictable realm of election strategy. We are told our opinion only matters if we have others who agree with us. Our government is admittedly set up in a way that sucks people into this since the electoral college certainly complicates matters. Furthermore, once an individual is elected, he or she often has to engage in this kind of behavior to get what they want done--essentially by trading votes. Trading votes makes sense for public servants with public votes, but there is no way to ensure you will get what you want by agreeing to vote for someone else's candidate because they assure you that you agree on the so called important stuff.
I do understand the idea behind a party; after all the likely reason Trump received the nomination was that too many other individuals were splitting the rest of the vote. It makes sense to find people who agree with you and you can all agree to vote for one candidate. Otherwise, a more organized minority could win. Unfortunately, I don't identify with either party at the moment, and if my understanding of the situation is correct, neither do most of my fellow Americans.
Here is the thing: the reason we have only the two ridiculous candidates that we have is because of the ridiculous mindset that we have to vote for someone who we judge has a chance of winning. That means that before we cast a vote, instead of researching candidates and issues and judging with our own intellect who best represents us, we spend our time figuring out who our neighbors are voting for. The entire election system is based on peer pressure, not policies. And then when someone of a particular party (or basically clique) wants to do something else from what was once decided (nominations), the rest of the party pressures them back into conformity, just like high school. This is a ludicrous way of deciding who you are going to vote for and is exactly what got us in this position in the first place. The majority of the country doesn't truly want to vote for either Trump or Hillary and could by numbers actually elect someone else if we dared to use our votes, but this ridiculous structure has us holding our noses and handing our votes over to someone else. If you are holding your nose to do what someone else is telling you to do with your vote, don't do it. Otherwise, you are basically Karen and Gretchen from Mean Girls.
When inauguration day comes and Hilary (most likely) begins doing the stuff I disagree with, I want to be able to say I didn't vote for her. If by some strange turn Trump takes office instead, I want to be able to say the same. I want to have put my voice behind something I agree with, not followed the sheep and taken part in electing who I was told I was supposed to like better (or dislike less). The time for trying to agree with a group to get someone I agree with mostly has definitely passed and something needs to be done about these two parties that obviously no longer represent a majority of the population (even together). That can only be done by people striking out on their own. It might not make a difference to the outcome of this election or even any elections in my lifetime, but I will cast my vote for the candidate I judge most worthy; Anything else would be wasting my vote.
I do understand the idea behind a party; after all the likely reason Trump received the nomination was that too many other individuals were splitting the rest of the vote. It makes sense to find people who agree with you and you can all agree to vote for one candidate. Otherwise, a more organized minority could win. Unfortunately, I don't identify with either party at the moment, and if my understanding of the situation is correct, neither do most of my fellow Americans.
Here is the thing: the reason we have only the two ridiculous candidates that we have is because of the ridiculous mindset that we have to vote for someone who we judge has a chance of winning. That means that before we cast a vote, instead of researching candidates and issues and judging with our own intellect who best represents us, we spend our time figuring out who our neighbors are voting for. The entire election system is based on peer pressure, not policies. And then when someone of a particular party (or basically clique) wants to do something else from what was once decided (nominations), the rest of the party pressures them back into conformity, just like high school. This is a ludicrous way of deciding who you are going to vote for and is exactly what got us in this position in the first place. The majority of the country doesn't truly want to vote for either Trump or Hillary and could by numbers actually elect someone else if we dared to use our votes, but this ridiculous structure has us holding our noses and handing our votes over to someone else. If you are holding your nose to do what someone else is telling you to do with your vote, don't do it. Otherwise, you are basically Karen and Gretchen from Mean Girls.
When inauguration day comes and Hilary (most likely) begins doing the stuff I disagree with, I want to be able to say I didn't vote for her. If by some strange turn Trump takes office instead, I want to be able to say the same. I want to have put my voice behind something I agree with, not followed the sheep and taken part in electing who I was told I was supposed to like better (or dislike less). The time for trying to agree with a group to get someone I agree with mostly has definitely passed and something needs to be done about these two parties that obviously no longer represent a majority of the population (even together). That can only be done by people striking out on their own. It might not make a difference to the outcome of this election or even any elections in my lifetime, but I will cast my vote for the candidate I judge most worthy; Anything else would be wasting my vote.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Saving Money
I am always seeing articles "25 Easy Ways to Save Money" or "10 Simple Things to Stop Doing to Get Out of Debt." I keep finding a frustrating problem with most of these articles: I am already doing most, if not all, of the things in the article. Of course, that might be the reason we are not in fact in debt, but as we are trying to save money for a house and car, I am searching for good ways to save.
Evidently, I can save a lot of money if I just stop going to Starbucks and make my coffee at home. Of course, when you don't drink coffee in the first place and can't really remember for sure the last time you went to a coffee shop at all, this tip doesn't really get you anywhere.
Turning your heat down 10 degrees at night will really rack up the savings--unless of course your pipes freeze because you already have it down to 60 and it is below zero outside.
Packing your lunch to the office will really save you money as well--except for when your husband already just takes last night's leftovers anyway.
Making a meal plan and shopping list and going to the grocery store only once a week will reduce impulse spending. Does most of the world only get enough food for a day or two and pick up random stuff that looks good in the moment? I guess this really must be so because I see things about this on pretty much every list. I understand that a lot of people (myself probably included) don't meal plan well, hence the number of articles written to help people do it better, but the idea of not doing it at all is a little crazy to me if for no other reason than I just don't want to spend time going to the grocery store every day.
And, my personal favorite: cutting back your haircuts from once a week to every other week will save you half the money you spend on haircuts--unless no one in the family gets a haircut more than once a month, if that, and said haircuts are done in the bathroom. (To be fair, the last one was only in one article. Are there a large number of people who really get their hair cut once a week? Really?) Also, I don't think it is bad to spend money on haircuts, but once a week is more than a little excessive.
I have every so often happened on some good tips I can incorporate and have sometimes found suggestions I am not doing, but am not willing to do either (I keep my house at 68 during the day during the winter. 60 is too cold). But most of the time, I just get a list of things I pretty much consider plain common sense, especially if someone is in debt.
In all fairness, there are a good number of frugality blogs and such that have all sorts of great suggestions, it is mostly the list articles that I find unhelpful, probably because anything that requires little effort--which most of the things on these lists are--I started doing long ago.
Evidently, I can save a lot of money if I just stop going to Starbucks and make my coffee at home. Of course, when you don't drink coffee in the first place and can't really remember for sure the last time you went to a coffee shop at all, this tip doesn't really get you anywhere.
Turning your heat down 10 degrees at night will really rack up the savings--unless of course your pipes freeze because you already have it down to 60 and it is below zero outside.
Packing your lunch to the office will really save you money as well--except for when your husband already just takes last night's leftovers anyway.
Making a meal plan and shopping list and going to the grocery store only once a week will reduce impulse spending. Does most of the world only get enough food for a day or two and pick up random stuff that looks good in the moment? I guess this really must be so because I see things about this on pretty much every list. I understand that a lot of people (myself probably included) don't meal plan well, hence the number of articles written to help people do it better, but the idea of not doing it at all is a little crazy to me if for no other reason than I just don't want to spend time going to the grocery store every day.
And, my personal favorite: cutting back your haircuts from once a week to every other week will save you half the money you spend on haircuts--unless no one in the family gets a haircut more than once a month, if that, and said haircuts are done in the bathroom. (To be fair, the last one was only in one article. Are there a large number of people who really get their hair cut once a week? Really?) Also, I don't think it is bad to spend money on haircuts, but once a week is more than a little excessive.
I have every so often happened on some good tips I can incorporate and have sometimes found suggestions I am not doing, but am not willing to do either (I keep my house at 68 during the day during the winter. 60 is too cold). But most of the time, I just get a list of things I pretty much consider plain common sense, especially if someone is in debt.
In all fairness, there are a good number of frugality blogs and such that have all sorts of great suggestions, it is mostly the list articles that I find unhelpful, probably because anything that requires little effort--which most of the things on these lists are--I started doing long ago.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Dietary Logic
I have seen a lot of nutrition articles lately along the lines of "10 that are really not as good for you as you think." I am not saying there is no truth to any of them. But there are quite a few of these articles that make some incredible leaps in logic.
The most ridiculous example of this was an article that had a section against tomatoes. The entire section was actually about ketchup and the condiment's high fructose corn syrup content. I still have no idea if tomatoes are really actually bad for me and I learned very little from the article; I was never under the impression that ketchup was a health food.
A more common failing I see in these articles is the argument that some people with disease A get sick when they eat B and, therefore, people should not each B. Really, this argument makes absolutely no sense. If you followed this logic religiously, you would be unable to eat anything.
I knew someone with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) who had a really small number of vegetables that she was able to eat. They gave her special trouble raw, but even cooked vegetables caused gas. I am pretty sure most nutritionist would advise me against following her diet.
I had a roommate with phenylketonuria (PKU) who got approximately half of her calories from a special incomplete-protein shake (it didn't have phenylalanine, the amino acid that would cause brain damage for her), and limited all other protein intake. Phenylalanine deficiency, however, leads to "confusion, lack of energy, depression, decreased alertness, memory problems, and lack of appetite", so I am pretty sure it is better for other people to not follow her diet. We have the enzyme to process phenylalanine, so there is no need to worry about it.
I think there are problems with following each of these diets if you don't have the respective disease that makes it necessary, but think about what would happen if I followed the initial line of logic; I would have to actually follow both of these diets simultaneously (along with a bunch of others, but we will go with this for now.) I have no idea how people with IBS would tolerate the special protein shake of the person with PKU (though a quick google search indicates many protein shakes give people with IBS problems), but we will assume they can eat this one to be as conservative as possible in our criticism. Even so, between these two diseases (based on the admittedly less than perfect sources of the internet and my memory of my friends' diets) we are going to have to cut out raw vegetables, some cooked vegetables, meat, most grains, beans and other legumes, anything fried or spicy, dairy, eggs, nuts, raw melons and citrus fruit (and any other fruit that may give a person with IBS trouble), avocados, many dried fruits, and any other food with over 2 grams of protein per serving. In other words they can eat some fruit and vegetables--more often if they are cooked--and an incomplete-protein shake. Funny that both of these things are "processed." The second certainly does not occur in nature at all. I am also wonder that our chances of developing the above mentioned phenylalanine deficiency is not quite high.
I am not a dietary expert, I am just trying to follow the logic in the argument that lots of people have peanut allergies or some people have celiac disease and therefore no one should eat the offending foods and it ends in a really pitiful dietary place if you apply it across the board. With just 2 diseases we are drinking a processed shake for half our calories and eating soggy fruits and vegetables for the other half.
I am not saying there are no foods that really are bad for people. I am pretty sure eating ketchup for dinner is not a healthy choice and I am certainly willing to believe we shouldn't be frying everything. I am not, however, going to stop eating something because someone somewhere feels sick after eating it when I have personally no ill-effects. If you can show me how it is bad for me or members of my immediate family I am responsible for feeding please let me know. Otherwise there is no harm in us eating it.
The most ridiculous example of this was an article that had a section against tomatoes. The entire section was actually about ketchup and the condiment's high fructose corn syrup content. I still have no idea if tomatoes are really actually bad for me and I learned very little from the article; I was never under the impression that ketchup was a health food.
A more common failing I see in these articles is the argument that some people with disease A get sick when they eat B and, therefore, people should not each B. Really, this argument makes absolutely no sense. If you followed this logic religiously, you would be unable to eat anything.
I knew someone with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) who had a really small number of vegetables that she was able to eat. They gave her special trouble raw, but even cooked vegetables caused gas. I am pretty sure most nutritionist would advise me against following her diet.
I had a roommate with phenylketonuria (PKU) who got approximately half of her calories from a special incomplete-protein shake (it didn't have phenylalanine, the amino acid that would cause brain damage for her), and limited all other protein intake. Phenylalanine deficiency, however, leads to "confusion, lack of energy, depression, decreased alertness, memory problems, and lack of appetite", so I am pretty sure it is better for other people to not follow her diet. We have the enzyme to process phenylalanine, so there is no need to worry about it.
I think there are problems with following each of these diets if you don't have the respective disease that makes it necessary, but think about what would happen if I followed the initial line of logic; I would have to actually follow both of these diets simultaneously (along with a bunch of others, but we will go with this for now.) I have no idea how people with IBS would tolerate the special protein shake of the person with PKU (though a quick google search indicates many protein shakes give people with IBS problems), but we will assume they can eat this one to be as conservative as possible in our criticism. Even so, between these two diseases (based on the admittedly less than perfect sources of the internet and my memory of my friends' diets) we are going to have to cut out raw vegetables, some cooked vegetables, meat, most grains, beans and other legumes, anything fried or spicy, dairy, eggs, nuts, raw melons and citrus fruit (and any other fruit that may give a person with IBS trouble), avocados, many dried fruits, and any other food with over 2 grams of protein per serving. In other words they can eat some fruit and vegetables--more often if they are cooked--and an incomplete-protein shake. Funny that both of these things are "processed." The second certainly does not occur in nature at all. I am also wonder that our chances of developing the above mentioned phenylalanine deficiency is not quite high.
I am not a dietary expert, I am just trying to follow the logic in the argument that lots of people have peanut allergies or some people have celiac disease and therefore no one should eat the offending foods and it ends in a really pitiful dietary place if you apply it across the board. With just 2 diseases we are drinking a processed shake for half our calories and eating soggy fruits and vegetables for the other half.
I am not saying there are no foods that really are bad for people. I am pretty sure eating ketchup for dinner is not a healthy choice and I am certainly willing to believe we shouldn't be frying everything. I am not, however, going to stop eating something because someone somewhere feels sick after eating it when I have personally no ill-effects. If you can show me how it is bad for me or members of my immediate family I am responsible for feeding please let me know. Otherwise there is no harm in us eating it.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
My Thoughts on the "Football" vs. "Soccer" Debate
In America, where I happen to live, football refers to a generally over-praised sport in which two teams of large individuals in foam and spandex run at and smash each other with the intention of getting a squashed-looking ball into an area at the end of a 100 yard patch of grass and preventing the other team from getting it to their end. Though the timer only times one hour, the game stops so much that it takes roughly four hours to play. In pretty much every other country, football refers to a game in which two teams of people in shorts kick a ball back and forth with the intention of getting it to go into a frame with a net attached and to prevent the other team from getting the ball into the other net. There is usually an awful lot of bad acting involved and the patch of grass is so big and the ability of the players to accomplish their objective so limited, the majority of the game is spent sending the ball back and forth without scoring. Americans refer to this same exercise as soccer.
A lot of other countries claim that Americans do not play true football (as the other countries' football is the one actually played with feet) and that the game Americans refer to as football is in every way inferior to rugby, which is basically a rougher version of American football where they wear less padding, supposedly stop less, can't pass the ball forward, and occasionally do a cheerleader formation (in order to block the ball, or something). I say it supposedly stops less because in the rugby I have watched, there is still a considerable amount of time spent setting up and standing around. Americans in turn tend to tell the other countries that they are being silly and should use soccer for the sport played with feet because it is less confusing given American football doesn't have another name by which to call it.
As you might have deduced, I don't have much fondness for any of the sports that are called football. Still, I have to at least partially side with my fellow countrymen. Soccer, as it turns out, is actually a British term used originally as a colloquial name for association football in order to give it a shorter name, but still distinguish it from rugby football, which is the rugby game described above. More on this can be read about here. What I find important about this information is that now the count of sports that are or have been referred to as football is up to three: rugby, soccer, and American football.
My husband loves a game called handball, but this is not the Olympic sport where teams of people hit a ball back and forth at each other with their hands. No, this is handball where you play it like racquetball, except that you replace all rackets with hands. I bring this up because it is another instance of the point I am going to make: naming a game after a body part and following it up with the name of the object that a large number of sports use in some form is a terribly unspecific way to name a game. It gets confusing because any number of sports could be described that way. It is like calling desserts "baked sugar" or "whipped sugar;" I really have no more of an idea of what the dessert is and I can't be sure you don't mean some other dish in which sugar is baked or whipped.
To me, names should distinguish and football really fails to do that; soccer is really only used to refer to one game, thus I consider it preferable. The thing I disagree with other Americans on is that once the net game in shorts is referred to as soccer, football should then be used to refer to the sport with the foam and spandex described above. As I have discussed, it is a really useless name. Thus, I think it would be much better to come up with a new name entirely. So far, my husband and I have come up with merrer (derived from American like soccer is derived from association), but we are not sure that is the best name. Any other suggestions?
A lot of other countries claim that Americans do not play true football (as the other countries' football is the one actually played with feet) and that the game Americans refer to as football is in every way inferior to rugby, which is basically a rougher version of American football where they wear less padding, supposedly stop less, can't pass the ball forward, and occasionally do a cheerleader formation (in order to block the ball, or something). I say it supposedly stops less because in the rugby I have watched, there is still a considerable amount of time spent setting up and standing around. Americans in turn tend to tell the other countries that they are being silly and should use soccer for the sport played with feet because it is less confusing given American football doesn't have another name by which to call it.
As you might have deduced, I don't have much fondness for any of the sports that are called football. Still, I have to at least partially side with my fellow countrymen. Soccer, as it turns out, is actually a British term used originally as a colloquial name for association football in order to give it a shorter name, but still distinguish it from rugby football, which is the rugby game described above. More on this can be read about here. What I find important about this information is that now the count of sports that are or have been referred to as football is up to three: rugby, soccer, and American football.
My husband loves a game called handball, but this is not the Olympic sport where teams of people hit a ball back and forth at each other with their hands. No, this is handball where you play it like racquetball, except that you replace all rackets with hands. I bring this up because it is another instance of the point I am going to make: naming a game after a body part and following it up with the name of the object that a large number of sports use in some form is a terribly unspecific way to name a game. It gets confusing because any number of sports could be described that way. It is like calling desserts "baked sugar" or "whipped sugar;" I really have no more of an idea of what the dessert is and I can't be sure you don't mean some other dish in which sugar is baked or whipped.
To me, names should distinguish and football really fails to do that; soccer is really only used to refer to one game, thus I consider it preferable. The thing I disagree with other Americans on is that once the net game in shorts is referred to as soccer, football should then be used to refer to the sport with the foam and spandex described above. As I have discussed, it is a really useless name. Thus, I think it would be much better to come up with a new name entirely. So far, my husband and I have come up with merrer (derived from American like soccer is derived from association), but we are not sure that is the best name. Any other suggestions?
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Sensationalism Is Not an Acceptable Substitute for Scientific Reasoning
I read this article recently. "Female-named hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes because people don’t respect them, study finds." At first I thought it was an entertaining article. Now it kind of bothers me a bit.
I get that it is popular to find sexism in everything, but that is no excuse for publishing garbage science. Or presenting such a misleading headline. The study just found that female hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes when comparing 2 very unequal sample groups and that when asked about hypothetical hurricanes, people tended to estimate that ones with male names were more devastating. We will discuss the hypothetical storms first.
People consider hypothetical storms with female names less threatening than hypothetical storms with male names. I concede that I may just not be understanding what they did, but from the description in the article, it seems like they just asked people how threatening different storms sounded to them and how likely they would be to evacuate if Hurricane Danny (or Hurricane Debby) was on its way (I borrowed these names from the actual 6 year rotating list you can find here. I don't know if the study used these names, but they probably should have). Apparently people said the female storms were less threatening.
Okay, if this is indeed what they did, all they did was prove that people found female names less threatening (which may be sexist, but it still has nothing to do with hurricanes). They did nothing to show that people actually behaved differently as a result of these names. If you asked me how dangerous I thought an imaginary hurricane was I would have to base my answer on the limited information given me, which seems to be mostly a name; this study found that people perceive male names as more dangerous. If you asked me how dangerous I perceived a real hurricane is I would base my answer on pretty much all the information but the name. In a study room with no real threat, I may be perfectly content to base my assessment of the imaginary off of completely arbitrary things like my dislike of that kid Dean in my 3rd grade class; hey, I decide who I am rooting for in sports that way all the time. In real life, I would never base a decision about evacuating entirely on a name.
Maybe I am alone in this and other people regularly decide whether to risk their lives based on something completely unrelated to the problem at hand. Still, I don't accept that finding that people assess female names that they happen to be told are hurricanes as less threatening than male names they happen to be told are hurricanes as proof that naming a storm after a girl makes it more likely to kill people. There is just a bit too much of a leap there for me. Of course, if you could compare real male and female storms and control for all other variables (besides the name) and you found female storms were significantly more deadly, then you might have something.
So, without further ado, we move on to the study's comparison of male and female storms.
"Researchers at the University of Illinois and Arizona State University examined six decades of hurricane death rates according to gender, spanning 1950 and 2012. Of the 47 most damaging hurricanes, the female-named hurricanes produced an average of 45 deaths compared to 23 deaths in male-named storms, or almost double the number of fatalities."
So let me get this straight: you took a period of 62 years, took only the 47 most devastating hurricanes (which is a bit of a suspiciously random number by the way. I guess the results were less interesting if they used the top 50), and then used it to determine that people are sexist when it comes to hurricanes. Of course, for the first 29 years, they only gave out female names, so any differences could just as easily be credited to advancements in life-saving technology by the time any male storms were christened. It says it discounted Katrina and Audrey as outliers, but it should have discounted everything before 1979.
Bigger samples are usually better in statistics, but this is one instance where it made the entire thing less credible. In my mind, including storms before 1979 is roughly similar to comparing men and women on eating habits when your samples consist of 25 men found in the mall food court and 75 women, 25 of whom were also found in the food court and 50 of whom were found in a women's gym down the street and then declaring women eat healthier than men. You can't get your samples from unequal places and consider your results sound, particularly when there are obvious reasons that the subjects in one place are likely to produce drastically different data than those in another.
In the latter decades, a really bad hurricane had a 50/50 chance at being named a female name because every other hurricane was given a female name. Before 1979, all hurricanes were female, hence the number difference of 75 to 25 in the analogy above; these researchers are drawing from data where female hurricanes outnumber male ones roughly 3 to 1 (depending on how many hurricanes actually occurred each year). Statistics has ways of dealing with differences in sample size in 2 compared groups, but generally it is still better to avoid large discrepancies; the methods don't eliminate the effects of the differences, they just minimize it. Still, I will let that slide for now. What I will not let slide is the differences in where the information is from.
Think about 1950 for a second. TVs were black and white and by no means something everyone had. Cell phones were the stuff of science fiction and telephones were often party lines, which meant you could only use the phone if none of your neighbors were doing so already. Radios were a common method of obtaining news. Meteorology has also gotten much better in the last 60 years. According to Wikipedia (humor me here) besides the naming of hurricanes, 1950 brought the first successful numerical weather prediction experiment; really, we were just getting started. It isn't until the 1970s that radars are really standardized and organized into networks. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) was also established in 1970. Doppler weather radar didn't become common until after 1980 meaning that before then we didn't really know how fast a storm was traveling; that is kind of a big deal. Now digital satellite, radar, and surface observations are analyzed to predict storm patterns. A lot has changed.
So let's line up this information regarding technological advancements with hurricane naming practices. We have 29 years of female hurricanes and then 33 years of half male and half female hurricanes. We have 20-30 years of very little radar use that aligns with the 29 years of all female hurricanes. Then, 1-10 years after male names begin to be used, we finally started widely using technology that tells us how fast a storm is going. In other words, most male names have been given out after Doppler radar and most female names (that 50 versus the 25) were given out before. Add to that the significant advancements in being able to communicate with the general public, and what we have is roughly 2/3 of the female hurricanes coming from an era where it is quite logical to assume more people would die in a hurricane than now and all of the male names coming from an era where technological advances hopefully minimize deaths.
Not convinced? How about this handy comparison of two hurricanes, Audrey in 1957 (the death toll of which can't be entirely determined but is somewhere between 300 and 700 from the figures I have seen) and Rita in 2005 (note both female hurricanes). "Rita hit the same region of coast with weaker winds (Category 3, 115 mph), but a storm surge even higher (15 feet). Rita destroyed virtually 100% of Cameron, whereas Audrey destroyed 75% of the town. Nearly two years later, Cameron is mostly just concrete slabs and trailers, thanks to Rita. However, Rita caused only one direct death in Southwest Louisiana--a drowning in Lake Charles. The answer is preparedness. Rita was a massive Category 5 hurricane several days before landfall, giving people plenty of time to receive the warnings and evacuate. Warning systems are much better now than in 1957, and Cameron was deserted when Rita hit." To be entirely fair, Audrey formed ridiculously fast, so even today the death toll would likely be higher than Rita, which as the quote points out, gave plenty of warning (though arguably some of that warning was due to better weather tracking). Also, it is important to note that Rita came just after Katrina in 2005; with that devastation fresh in the nation's mind, lack of respect for a hurricane was not really a problem. Still, the difference here was likely the ability to prepare--be it because of more time or more technology--not the lack of respect for a female name versus a male one.
Still not convinced? Okay, we will go about this a different (and simpler) way. This article addresses the falling number of fatalities due to hurricanes in the US. The sharp increase in 2000-2010 is pretty much entirely due to Katrina, by far the deadliest hurricane during these six decades, which even the original study declared an outlier. This table shows the breakdown by year, which showed me two things: first we are generally talking about not really all that many people in the grand scheme of things which means statistical analysis is greatly affected by small variations and second, we are really making progress in dealing with hurricanes.
No, none of this proves that sexism does not play a role in how seriously people take hurricanes, but I would say that it does cast reasonable doubt upon the conclusions made by a poorly designed statistical analysis. As seems to always be the case on this blog, the lesson is one of logic; while statistics are a great tool, it takes logic to use them correctly and logic to determine if another individual has used them correctly. In this case, logic seems to have been entirely missing from the analysis. It does make for an entertaining article though.
I get that it is popular to find sexism in everything, but that is no excuse for publishing garbage science. Or presenting such a misleading headline. The study just found that female hurricanes kill more than male hurricanes when comparing 2 very unequal sample groups and that when asked about hypothetical hurricanes, people tended to estimate that ones with male names were more devastating. We will discuss the hypothetical storms first.
People consider hypothetical storms with female names less threatening than hypothetical storms with male names. I concede that I may just not be understanding what they did, but from the description in the article, it seems like they just asked people how threatening different storms sounded to them and how likely they would be to evacuate if Hurricane Danny (or Hurricane Debby) was on its way (I borrowed these names from the actual 6 year rotating list you can find here. I don't know if the study used these names, but they probably should have). Apparently people said the female storms were less threatening.
Okay, if this is indeed what they did, all they did was prove that people found female names less threatening (which may be sexist, but it still has nothing to do with hurricanes). They did nothing to show that people actually behaved differently as a result of these names. If you asked me how dangerous I thought an imaginary hurricane was I would have to base my answer on the limited information given me, which seems to be mostly a name; this study found that people perceive male names as more dangerous. If you asked me how dangerous I perceived a real hurricane is I would base my answer on pretty much all the information but the name. In a study room with no real threat, I may be perfectly content to base my assessment of the imaginary off of completely arbitrary things like my dislike of that kid Dean in my 3rd grade class; hey, I decide who I am rooting for in sports that way all the time. In real life, I would never base a decision about evacuating entirely on a name.
Maybe I am alone in this and other people regularly decide whether to risk their lives based on something completely unrelated to the problem at hand. Still, I don't accept that finding that people assess female names that they happen to be told are hurricanes as less threatening than male names they happen to be told are hurricanes as proof that naming a storm after a girl makes it more likely to kill people. There is just a bit too much of a leap there for me. Of course, if you could compare real male and female storms and control for all other variables (besides the name) and you found female storms were significantly more deadly, then you might have something.
So, without further ado, we move on to the study's comparison of male and female storms.
"Researchers at the University of Illinois and Arizona State University examined six decades of hurricane death rates according to gender, spanning 1950 and 2012. Of the 47 most damaging hurricanes, the female-named hurricanes produced an average of 45 deaths compared to 23 deaths in male-named storms, or almost double the number of fatalities."
So let me get this straight: you took a period of 62 years, took only the 47 most devastating hurricanes (which is a bit of a suspiciously random number by the way. I guess the results were less interesting if they used the top 50), and then used it to determine that people are sexist when it comes to hurricanes. Of course, for the first 29 years, they only gave out female names, so any differences could just as easily be credited to advancements in life-saving technology by the time any male storms were christened. It says it discounted Katrina and Audrey as outliers, but it should have discounted everything before 1979.
Bigger samples are usually better in statistics, but this is one instance where it made the entire thing less credible. In my mind, including storms before 1979 is roughly similar to comparing men and women on eating habits when your samples consist of 25 men found in the mall food court and 75 women, 25 of whom were also found in the food court and 50 of whom were found in a women's gym down the street and then declaring women eat healthier than men. You can't get your samples from unequal places and consider your results sound, particularly when there are obvious reasons that the subjects in one place are likely to produce drastically different data than those in another.
In the latter decades, a really bad hurricane had a 50/50 chance at being named a female name because every other hurricane was given a female name. Before 1979, all hurricanes were female, hence the number difference of 75 to 25 in the analogy above; these researchers are drawing from data where female hurricanes outnumber male ones roughly 3 to 1 (depending on how many hurricanes actually occurred each year). Statistics has ways of dealing with differences in sample size in 2 compared groups, but generally it is still better to avoid large discrepancies; the methods don't eliminate the effects of the differences, they just minimize it. Still, I will let that slide for now. What I will not let slide is the differences in where the information is from.
Think about 1950 for a second. TVs were black and white and by no means something everyone had. Cell phones were the stuff of science fiction and telephones were often party lines, which meant you could only use the phone if none of your neighbors were doing so already. Radios were a common method of obtaining news. Meteorology has also gotten much better in the last 60 years. According to Wikipedia (humor me here) besides the naming of hurricanes, 1950 brought the first successful numerical weather prediction experiment; really, we were just getting started. It isn't until the 1970s that radars are really standardized and organized into networks. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) was also established in 1970. Doppler weather radar didn't become common until after 1980 meaning that before then we didn't really know how fast a storm was traveling; that is kind of a big deal. Now digital satellite, radar, and surface observations are analyzed to predict storm patterns. A lot has changed.
So let's line up this information regarding technological advancements with hurricane naming practices. We have 29 years of female hurricanes and then 33 years of half male and half female hurricanes. We have 20-30 years of very little radar use that aligns with the 29 years of all female hurricanes. Then, 1-10 years after male names begin to be used, we finally started widely using technology that tells us how fast a storm is going. In other words, most male names have been given out after Doppler radar and most female names (that 50 versus the 25) were given out before. Add to that the significant advancements in being able to communicate with the general public, and what we have is roughly 2/3 of the female hurricanes coming from an era where it is quite logical to assume more people would die in a hurricane than now and all of the male names coming from an era where technological advances hopefully minimize deaths.
Not convinced? How about this handy comparison of two hurricanes, Audrey in 1957 (the death toll of which can't be entirely determined but is somewhere between 300 and 700 from the figures I have seen) and Rita in 2005 (note both female hurricanes). "Rita hit the same region of coast with weaker winds (Category 3, 115 mph), but a storm surge even higher (15 feet). Rita destroyed virtually 100% of Cameron, whereas Audrey destroyed 75% of the town. Nearly two years later, Cameron is mostly just concrete slabs and trailers, thanks to Rita. However, Rita caused only one direct death in Southwest Louisiana--a drowning in Lake Charles. The answer is preparedness. Rita was a massive Category 5 hurricane several days before landfall, giving people plenty of time to receive the warnings and evacuate. Warning systems are much better now than in 1957, and Cameron was deserted when Rita hit." To be entirely fair, Audrey formed ridiculously fast, so even today the death toll would likely be higher than Rita, which as the quote points out, gave plenty of warning (though arguably some of that warning was due to better weather tracking). Also, it is important to note that Rita came just after Katrina in 2005; with that devastation fresh in the nation's mind, lack of respect for a hurricane was not really a problem. Still, the difference here was likely the ability to prepare--be it because of more time or more technology--not the lack of respect for a female name versus a male one.
Still not convinced? Okay, we will go about this a different (and simpler) way. This article addresses the falling number of fatalities due to hurricanes in the US. The sharp increase in 2000-2010 is pretty much entirely due to Katrina, by far the deadliest hurricane during these six decades, which even the original study declared an outlier. This table shows the breakdown by year, which showed me two things: first we are generally talking about not really all that many people in the grand scheme of things which means statistical analysis is greatly affected by small variations and second, we are really making progress in dealing with hurricanes.
No, none of this proves that sexism does not play a role in how seriously people take hurricanes, but I would say that it does cast reasonable doubt upon the conclusions made by a poorly designed statistical analysis. As seems to always be the case on this blog, the lesson is one of logic; while statistics are a great tool, it takes logic to use them correctly and logic to determine if another individual has used them correctly. In this case, logic seems to have been entirely missing from the analysis. It does make for an entertaining article though.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Living "Chemical Free": Something that Both Concerns and Baffles Me
I, like many, have a pinterest account. I was on pinterest one day when I came across a pin linking to an article about cleaning your house "without chemicals." I found this intriguing. Given that everything in this world that is a substance of any kind is in fact a chemical, I wanted to know how to clean something without using anything, except maybe willpower and magic.
The article was a bit disappointing. It included a list of different ways to clean stuff without the use of store-bought cleaners. Their favorite substitute was vinegar. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but vinegar is a chemical. As a mater of fact, it's primary ingredient is acetic acid, also known as CH3COOH.
In all seriousness, I do get what the article was going for; I understand why it would be desirable to have household cleaners that pose the smallest health risk possible, and something that is perfectly okay to use in recipes is also probably perfectly okay to accidentally eat off of a counter due to residue or inhale (though in the case of vinegar my nostrils may beg to differ). Furthermore, I probably won't have to call poison control if I catch my kid drinking it.
That said, I also won't be making a switch any time soon. For one thing, vinegar stinks. For another, I worked as a custodian on my college campus for 4 years to help pay for school and became well versed in how to clean efficiently. We did in fact use vinegar at work, and as such I know its strengths and limitations well. I am not content to scrub something with vinegar when I know I could get the same thing cleaner in less than half the time using something else. I learned early in my custodial career that the trick to safe cleaning is to make sure you are using (and storing) cleaners properly much more than it is making sure everything you use is edible.
Still, I am perfectly fine with someone using primarily vinegar on their own house. You can clean your house with mud for all I care. But there is still something about this all that does concern me, and it is actually one specific logical fallacy.
Natural is Best
For some reason, there is a prevailing belief in our society that what is natural is what is best and by that reasoning what is not natural is therefore bad. This applies to everything from cleaning supplies to behavior, from medicine to clothing. Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy known in logicians terms as the "appeal to nature." I see this fallacy almost everywhere and have certainly seen a pretty penny made off of marketing it. The rest of today's post will be dedicated to some of the ways I see this fallacy appear, but this is by no means a complete list. It is merely the ones that come to mind right now. So without further ado (we have already had too many paragraphs of ado) and in no particular order, I give you three common uses of the appeal to nature.
Animals do/don't do it so it must be good/bad.
For some reason, animal behavior is sometimes used to justify or condemn human behavior, something I cannot for the life of me understand. I am not a dog (or dolphin, chimpanzee, or platypus), so why should I use this animal as a model for my behavior?
I have been told that I shouldn't drink cows milk because we are the only animal that drinks milk after being weaned and it is therefore unnatural. Apart from the fact that this statement is false (a large number of animals--cats come to mind--will drink the milk of other animals if they can get it), animals display a large number of habits I don't wish to take part in. We are also the only animal that cooks chicken before we eat it, but I don't plan on giving that up. My Dad was once told that a certain behavior (I can't remember for the life of me what it was) was desirable because someone's dog did it; my Dad quickly pointed out that dogs also eat their own vomit. It is possible that drinking cows milk is bad for you (though no one has convinced me yet) and that whatever behavior this dog exhibited is desirable, but the fact that animals do or do not do something is not relevant to determining the value of that thing.
It's an herbal remedy so it is safer than medicine.
This one actually concerns me a fair deal because there are so many people who buy into it and there is considerable risk if you take it too far. The basic idea is that anything you buy in a pharmacy is bad for you, so you should instead use teas, oils, salts, etc. to take away your ills.
I am all for not drugging yourself up unnecessarily. I took Percocet after removal of my appendix and had the weirdest, most unsettling dreams of my life. Consequently, I have refused prescriptions for narcotic painkillers both after having my wisdom teeth removed and after giving birth, though I took a few doses before leaving the hospital with the second. I was also on a medication for a period of time that made me extremely irritable and generally unpleasant to be around. I once took this knock-off of a popular cold medicine and felt like I was groggy and floating for about 24 hours. I totally get why people would want to avoid drugs; they can do scary things to you.
So why do I have a problem with "natural" remedies? It is really quite simple: they are still a drug, but so many people don't think of them that way. While it is true that you probably won't have hallucinogenic dreams from most things you can buy in a store food section, there is still a possibility of side effects. When you start to buy these remedies other places, who knows what is really in them. And frankly, I feel much safer taking something that I can look up studies on than something some lady swears by at a farmers market. You are still medicating yourself. I am not totally against using natural remedies, in fact, my favorite cold medicine is actually an herbal remedy. I am, however, against using these remedies as a medicine "alternative." Just because it hasn't gone through the regulation system of the FDA as a drug does not mean that it isn't one. By all means, use your teas to fix what ails you, just make sure you do your research just like you would with any other drug. And if you are using multiple "natural" remedies multiple times a day, consider if you really need to drug yourself that much.
It only includes ingredients found in nature so it must be good for you.
For some reason, many people think that just because something grows or exists on its own it is better for you than something that has to be manufactured.
I really wish I didn't have to point this out because I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has thought about this idea at all, but here it is: there are actually a lot of really harmful substances that grow naturally. There are a large number of plants that will kill you if you eat them and quite a few that will give you quite the rash if you so much as touch them. Many hallucinogenics grow in nature, but I hardly think that makes them healthy. Furthermore, just because something is manufactured does not inherently make it a hazard to your health. In fact, many things we have been able to manufacture have increased life expectancy which, while not equivalent to health does suggest that a substance won't kill us, which is obviously better than some plants.
Conclusion
I am not against natural things. I have used home remedies and I rarely buy boxed snacks. What I am against is assuming that because you can place the label "natural" on something it is necessarily the best and because something doesn't occur naturally it is necessarily inferior.
The article was a bit disappointing. It included a list of different ways to clean stuff without the use of store-bought cleaners. Their favorite substitute was vinegar. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but vinegar is a chemical. As a mater of fact, it's primary ingredient is acetic acid, also known as CH3COOH.
In all seriousness, I do get what the article was going for; I understand why it would be desirable to have household cleaners that pose the smallest health risk possible, and something that is perfectly okay to use in recipes is also probably perfectly okay to accidentally eat off of a counter due to residue or inhale (though in the case of vinegar my nostrils may beg to differ). Furthermore, I probably won't have to call poison control if I catch my kid drinking it.
That said, I also won't be making a switch any time soon. For one thing, vinegar stinks. For another, I worked as a custodian on my college campus for 4 years to help pay for school and became well versed in how to clean efficiently. We did in fact use vinegar at work, and as such I know its strengths and limitations well. I am not content to scrub something with vinegar when I know I could get the same thing cleaner in less than half the time using something else. I learned early in my custodial career that the trick to safe cleaning is to make sure you are using (and storing) cleaners properly much more than it is making sure everything you use is edible.
Still, I am perfectly fine with someone using primarily vinegar on their own house. You can clean your house with mud for all I care. But there is still something about this all that does concern me, and it is actually one specific logical fallacy.
Natural is Best
For some reason, there is a prevailing belief in our society that what is natural is what is best and by that reasoning what is not natural is therefore bad. This applies to everything from cleaning supplies to behavior, from medicine to clothing. Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy known in logicians terms as the "appeal to nature." I see this fallacy almost everywhere and have certainly seen a pretty penny made off of marketing it. The rest of today's post will be dedicated to some of the ways I see this fallacy appear, but this is by no means a complete list. It is merely the ones that come to mind right now. So without further ado (we have already had too many paragraphs of ado) and in no particular order, I give you three common uses of the appeal to nature.
Animals do/don't do it so it must be good/bad.
For some reason, animal behavior is sometimes used to justify or condemn human behavior, something I cannot for the life of me understand. I am not a dog (or dolphin, chimpanzee, or platypus), so why should I use this animal as a model for my behavior?
I have been told that I shouldn't drink cows milk because we are the only animal that drinks milk after being weaned and it is therefore unnatural. Apart from the fact that this statement is false (a large number of animals--cats come to mind--will drink the milk of other animals if they can get it), animals display a large number of habits I don't wish to take part in. We are also the only animal that cooks chicken before we eat it, but I don't plan on giving that up. My Dad was once told that a certain behavior (I can't remember for the life of me what it was) was desirable because someone's dog did it; my Dad quickly pointed out that dogs also eat their own vomit. It is possible that drinking cows milk is bad for you (though no one has convinced me yet) and that whatever behavior this dog exhibited is desirable, but the fact that animals do or do not do something is not relevant to determining the value of that thing.
It's an herbal remedy so it is safer than medicine.
This one actually concerns me a fair deal because there are so many people who buy into it and there is considerable risk if you take it too far. The basic idea is that anything you buy in a pharmacy is bad for you, so you should instead use teas, oils, salts, etc. to take away your ills.
I am all for not drugging yourself up unnecessarily. I took Percocet after removal of my appendix and had the weirdest, most unsettling dreams of my life. Consequently, I have refused prescriptions for narcotic painkillers both after having my wisdom teeth removed and after giving birth, though I took a few doses before leaving the hospital with the second. I was also on a medication for a period of time that made me extremely irritable and generally unpleasant to be around. I once took this knock-off of a popular cold medicine and felt like I was groggy and floating for about 24 hours. I totally get why people would want to avoid drugs; they can do scary things to you.
So why do I have a problem with "natural" remedies? It is really quite simple: they are still a drug, but so many people don't think of them that way. While it is true that you probably won't have hallucinogenic dreams from most things you can buy in a store food section, there is still a possibility of side effects. When you start to buy these remedies other places, who knows what is really in them. And frankly, I feel much safer taking something that I can look up studies on than something some lady swears by at a farmers market. You are still medicating yourself. I am not totally against using natural remedies, in fact, my favorite cold medicine is actually an herbal remedy. I am, however, against using these remedies as a medicine "alternative." Just because it hasn't gone through the regulation system of the FDA as a drug does not mean that it isn't one. By all means, use your teas to fix what ails you, just make sure you do your research just like you would with any other drug. And if you are using multiple "natural" remedies multiple times a day, consider if you really need to drug yourself that much.
It only includes ingredients found in nature so it must be good for you.
For some reason, many people think that just because something grows or exists on its own it is better for you than something that has to be manufactured.
I really wish I didn't have to point this out because I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has thought about this idea at all, but here it is: there are actually a lot of really harmful substances that grow naturally. There are a large number of plants that will kill you if you eat them and quite a few that will give you quite the rash if you so much as touch them. Many hallucinogenics grow in nature, but I hardly think that makes them healthy. Furthermore, just because something is manufactured does not inherently make it a hazard to your health. In fact, many things we have been able to manufacture have increased life expectancy which, while not equivalent to health does suggest that a substance won't kill us, which is obviously better than some plants.
Conclusion
I am not against natural things. I have used home remedies and I rarely buy boxed snacks. What I am against is assuming that because you can place the label "natural" on something it is necessarily the best and because something doesn't occur naturally it is necessarily inferior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)