A Most Revealing Pyramid

Posted on March 11, 2010 by Josh

Another great post from JR prompts a follow-up piece by me.

This one is about food subsidies by the Federal government, the Farm Bill. It comes from The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Hopefully, I’m not violating anything in reproducing this chart they created:

These Pyramids Weren't Built By Aliens!!!!

As PCRM’s post points out, the Farm Bill not only provides food subsidies, but also decides much of what will constitute school lunches.

With a Food Pyramid like that, who needs enemies?!

The most recent post on the Neuroanthropology Blog discusses Obesity and family medicine – and the fact that some family physicians are starting to recognize family and environmental factors as decisive in treating childhood obesity.

I point this out in my comment on their site, but the author (and the physicians) forgot to include governmental subsidization of different food products (and governmental leadership, generally) in their factor-analysis.

As I’ve said before, the body follows the head. This is true in organisms, cultures, and governments.

In cultural/organizational terms, the Federal government is often the “head” of the social-body. It leads via policy (such as subsidies, land-usage policies, etc.), and also by example (accruing massive amounts of debt, etc.).

Further, much of what constitutes “popular” media takes its cue from the Federal government. “Truth in advertising” relies on governmental moderation. The nullification of the Radio Fairness Doctrine in 1987 had serious repercussions as to what type of messaging has dominated radio advertising since (see my post on the anti-smoking campaign of the early ’70′s and how the Fairness Doctrine was a decisive part of that movement).

I’m happy that MD’s are not as “isolationist” in their thinking as they may have been in the past, but the issue needs to be sussed out in its full depths – which includes holding governmental bodies, and the bodies (i.e., people) who make up those “bodies,” responsible for the way food is produced and marketed in our country.

Mind Programming – Book Review

Posted on March 6, 2010 by Josh

I’ve been meaning to put this review up for a while, and haven’t had the time. Now’s the time!

Mind Programming, by Eldon Taylor, is a book about persuasion techniques, marketing methods, and self-change.

I SEE YOU!!!

While Eldon is a little redundant at times, and pulls from many other sources in the first half of his book, his summary of mental manipulation techniques is a good one, and worth reading.

The second half of the book is devoted to Eldon’s discussion of the subliminal self-help programs he has created, along with other methods for creating self-responsibility and feelings of self-affirmation.

They say that “knowing is half the battle” (thank you, G.I. Joe), and I agree completely. The other half is taking action on that knowledge. To that end, I really like Eldon’s book, and his presentation of the knowledge, and the know-how to make change.

On the “critique” side, I do think the book is a little redundant and stream-of-consciousness in places. It also begins to promote Eldon’s own views/methods more and more as the book continues.

While there are many facets to recognize in order to achieve true autonomy in our society (if that’s even possible), Eldon’s book does a great job of pointing out the main, media-driven, detractors from autonomy, and for that reason, I highly recommend this book.

Kick the habit

Posted on December 1, 2009 by Josh

It’s so hard to get people to exercise, they say. But I think it might be because they’re going about it the wrong way.

I’d like to draw an analogy, between the effort to get people to start exercising, and the effort to get people to stop smoking.

The anti-smoking effort has had a tremendous impact on public health within the past fifty years, and had a HUGE impact on health between the years 1947-1974.

As Kenneth Warner, PhD, points out in his article (warning, this hot-link will start a download of the article) “The Effects of the Anti-Smoking Campaign On Cigarette Consumption” – “Cigarette smoking is generally acknowledged to be one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality” (pg. 645).

But the details are what matter. Here’s Dr. Warner’s footnote:

“The anti-smoking “campaign” is not a single orchestrated program. The term is used here to refer to the collective, mostly uncoordinated activities of a variety of organizations, including government agencies, private voluntary agencies, and for-profit business firms, united only by their objective of encouraging people to quit or to reduce smoking. The 1964 “starting point” for the campaign is somewhat arbitrary; it was selected because the Surgeon General’s Report initiated the first period of significant sustained anti-smoking activity and public consciousness of smoking and health issues. During the early 1950s, evidence linking smoking to disease produced the first smoking-health “scare” in recent history, but a major sustained anti-smoking campaign did not materialize.”

Ok, that’s great! Well, the Surgeon General released a (another download link here) report on Exercise. Read it and weep! Does that mean we’ll all start exercising?!

As Dr. Wagner points out, part of the impact was due to publicized “health scares” that cigarettes cause cancer. Then came the Surgeon General’s Report. Then, states began to tax cigarettes (or tax them more heavily).

On the last page of his research, Dr. Wagner makes a couple of points that I think are most salient. The first is that the radio ads that were most effective were repetitive in nature. There wasn’t a one-time event, but several repeated messages.

The second point is that the anti-smoking ads were much more effective than the pro-smoking ads produced by the cigarette companies.

The anti-smoking groups were able to produce these ads thanks to something called “The Fairness Doctrine,” which “required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.” [Note, that doctrine was vetoed in 1987, and has not been reintroduced].

What’s important there, though, is the idea of repetition. Repetition, as they say, is the mother of learning. It is also the bread-and-butter of advertising and marketing. Everyone in sales knows “it takes seven no’s to get to a yes.”

The second point, though, is the one that I think is most important.

People love to be AGAINST things. ANTI anything always stirs up more energy, people, and effort, than “pro” anything. Think about it. Who are always the more energetic, the more violent, the more hostile? It’s the ANTI guys. It’s the Dark Side of the Human Force. It’s where the Power lurks.

Yes, we try to fight it, but why? Why not admit it. If you want to WIN, you must be AGAINST something!

So perhaps we’re going about this exercise thing all wrong.

Instead of being “pro-fitness,” we need to be “anti-fatness.” We need to be “anti-laziness.” We need some “anti-out-of-shapeness.”

While cigarettes are deadly, physical inactivity is devastating.

The World Health Organization recognizes that “Globally, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are increasingly recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The World Health Report 2004 had indicated that NCDs account for almost 60% of deaths and 47% of the global burden of disease.”

What’s included in the risk factors of NCDs? How about:

Alcohol and alcohol-related illnesses
Blood pressure
Cholesterol
Diet
Overweight and Obesity
(lack of) Physical Activity
Smoking
Diabetes
Oral health
Visual Impairment

At least six of the above factors can be mitigated through regular, vigorous, healthy physical activity.

So I’d like to issue a warning. You can print this out and put it on anything you like – the TV, the sofa, the Wii, the computer, the fridge…

Creating Markets

Posted on October 9, 2009 by Josh

Hello! It’s me again!

I’m not a doctor…but I play one on TV!

Vicks 44

Yes…that’s right. Blah blah blah, buy Vicks, dummy…blah blah blah, Vicks, blah blah, Adult, blah blah, formula, blah, you’re under, blah, my, blah, command, blah, blah blah…

Sure, Vicks might help you to feel better. But is it medicine? It’s mostly alcohol. It’s the same stuff parents have been giving their kids (or themselves) for years to keep them quiet and peaceful while the cold wages war in their body.

You can drink Vicks, or you can drink something tastier…a hot toddy, perhaps.

I’m not saying this with absolute certainty, so don’t quote me. But I’ve never seen any scientific validation for Vicks. Or for any cold medicine, for that matter.

Have you?

If it’s out there, please send it to me. This article seems like a fairly good summary of the research, and ends up saying that over-the-counter drugs have no effect versus traditional (or any other) methods for treating the common cold.

So why Vicks? And why a guy who is not a doctor, but plays one on TV?

Well, it’s the same reason your running shoes exist. There’s no scientific (or other…except cultural) validation for those, either. Also see this article.

Neither, in fact, is your choice of a hybrid vehicle. When you total the costs of design, production, shipment, etc., of your hybrid, you come up with something that is probably a little more expensive than the car you’re driving now.

Let alone the fact that a hybrid is made predominantly of plastic (hi, petroleum product, doesn’t degrade, chokes the oceans), still uses gas (albeit less…though probably insignificantly less), has a ton of batteries in it (can’t just throw those out), uses tires made of rubber (that’s a petroleum product too) and has oil that needs to be changed just like a regular car.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7rNYzSH-BA&hl=en&fs=1&]

I don’t want to piss on your candle, but it’s time to wake up. The auto industry is as interested in saving the world at their expense as a tiger is. That’s right. A tiger. You can’t even communicate the concept of “saving the world” to a tiger. Try communicating it to an industry.

So what am I saying?
All of these things have something in common. Your running shoes exist because Nike figured out how to create a market for something non-essential. The same thing Starbucks Coffee did. The same thing the auto-makers do now. The same thing Vicks cough syrup does. The same thing your local gym does (you don’t need a gym to work out…you don’t need a treadmill to run, you don’t need any of that crap, and in fact, you’d be much healthier/more fit without it).

They create the feeling in you of need, that doesn’t truly exist, in order to get you to buy something.

“I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV,” is pure genius. First, he’s being honest, albeit in a smarmy way. Then, he’s a face you (or your mother, who watches the soap opera he’s on, and who buys the groceries/cold medicines for your house) recognize. Finally, he represents the concept “doctor.” He says the word. You look at him and think “doctor.” He plays one. He is a nice guy. He’s trying to help me.

He’s trying to help me to buy something with red food coloring, with possibly toxic substances, bottled in a plastic shell that will choke the oceans – the source of life on this planet – forever.

Stop.

Stop watching TV.

Stop believing what people are selling you.

Stop buying shit. I mean, anything. Buy food. That’s good. Try to get food that’s not been run through a petroleum-powered processing plant, or grown on a petroleum-farmed field, or pumped full of Vicks cough-syrup because it’s crammed into pens tighter than your office cube.

Start thinking.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Closer to Nature

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Josh

When I attended Tom Brown’s Trackerschool a few years ago, one of the things Tom said was that the only cure for our civilization was to get people participating in nature again.

Mick Dodge, the Barefoot Sensei, has a similar belief (though alternate means).

Do I need to say that I agree with them? Okay, then I will – I agree with them.

Our current culture is so far removed from nature that it’s scary.

By “nature” I mean “what is natural.” Not man-made “nature.” That’s called “culture.” I mean, cycles of seasons, cycles of moons, cycles of years. I mean tides.

I mean “ecosystems” – but not in the sense of a closed-off “ecosystem.” I mean it in the sense of the-thing-that-you-live-within.

Why do I think this is important?

Well, we come from this nature. All of the things that we do rely on it. Our ideas about things are largely constructions these days. They’ve been built up over years, decades, eons. Society, and civilization, and our various cultures, are largely constructions that have taken on lives of their own. Now, many people are hard-pressed to say what is “natural.”

But it’s actually the simplest thing to do. Here’s how you do it:

Take away.

Strip things away, until you get to the place where there’s nothing left. No TV, no cell-phone, no computer, no clothes, no books, no cars, no sidewalks, no toilets, no buildings, no politics, no religion.

There is nature.

It is still there. It is there while you read this.

I’m advocating that we all get closer to nature. I think we need to become less and less, as far as our material and mental possessions go. I think we need to reduce entirely, and return.

I’m full of optimism and hope that this can occur right now…for a few reasons.

First, the focus on “the environment” (kind of a silly phrase – which environment? – but hey, it sticks) has led people to a greater awareness of ecological issues (if not their own environments…sometimes…).

That concern by “consumers” has led corporations to take greater interest in the environment. While this is a double-edged sword, with car companies pushing hybrid vehicles (it’s still a “new car” folks – pollution due to construction, fabrication, and transport of the vehicle hasn’t changed a bit – and the gas mileage is really insignificantly lower than that of regular cars), and other companies pushing other new “green” products (made of plastic, which is a petroleum (read, oil) product…anyone out there? hello?), it still has led to (albeit, mostly weak) initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and an infantile level of thoughtfulness about ecological responsibility.

Second, there seems to be a loss of faith in some regarding the general state of things. People are starting to question, and to feel comfortable questioning, the way things are.

While Michael Moore’s most recent foray may not be everyone’s cup of tea (don’t know if it’s mine, I haven’t seen it yet), he is indicative of this movement…this push to seek better alternatives.

The problem we face is our existing culture, which will seek to subsume any efforts, and absorb them into itself.

That’s how systems work. Any system takes the energy that is given to it and uses it for its own ends (not for the ends that the “energy itself” would’ve hoped for). For instance, when you eat dinner. The spinach or steak you eat may have had its own intention. But your body will use it for its goals. Beyond that, your cells will use that spinach or steak for the goals they see fit (perhaps, grimly, cancer) – not for the goals you might have in mind yourself (6 pack abs, anyone?) – even though those cells comprise you!

Systems speak aside…it’s time we return. Is it too simple? Is there a way to package simplicity, so we can sell it? Is there a way to market “nothing?”

Scapegoats, Blamecasting, and Excuses

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Josh

Scapegoating, as you may already know, is the act of selecting a single person and putting the blame for some ignominious action on their head. Typically, it is done to spare a larger group of people who are actually guilty of the bad deed. The term comes from the Bible (according to Wikipedia), and refers to the practice of a village placing the sins of their people on a goat and sending it into the desert/wilderness to die (and their sins die along with it).

Blamecasting is something similar to scapegoating, but slightly different. Blamecasting needs two parties who are trying to reconcile an issue. A mediator will then coerce the party that is not complying with the proposed solution to the problem by threatening to blame them for the entire issue. This is called “leverage.”

We all know what excuses are. They’re the reasons we make up so we don’t have to do things.

These tendencies (really all one tendency – the tendency to cast blame) reveal a strange aspect of human thought and behavior. Namely, that we (the human animal/individual) are somehow separate from ourselves or our environment – be it a kingdom (as in, human beings are somehow not a part of the animal kingdom), a community/village, an ecosystem, a corporation, a national banking system, a global economy, or anything else.

Not only that, but blame also assumes that, by blaming something outside ourselves (separate from us), we can escape our own part in the thing that has been done.

This type of behavior has been commonly used among public figures in the past fifty years. I don’t want to enumerate all of the instances I can think of, because you’ll get even more bored than you are now, but here are a couple that come to mind. Enron – blamed on the CEO’s. Who was really to blame? FERC, and everyone working at Enron who didn’t blow the whistle. What about the recent banking crisis? Well, the SEC surely should have been paying closer attention, but are they to blame? And anyone working at Madoff’s firm, and any of the people who knew what was happening at the large investment houses, surely must have known. But are they really to blame? You can blame sub-prime mortgages, but that’s just a “thing,” it doesn’t “do” anything on its own.

The problem with the banking crisis is that we’re suddenly confronted with this tendency. We’re confronted with the fact that every individual is in no way “separate” from the rest of the world.

It seems strange to have to say it, and even stranger because of how difficult it is to say.

Have you ever heard that “you are your environment?” This goes down to something as fundamental as the ability to move. You cannot develop the ability to move without an environment. In a vacuum, you’d never move. And the environment you’re in will dictate the type of movement you actually do, once you do start moving. I’m talking strictly about the physical environment, not the psychological environment, which is equally large an influence. You will develop different styles and patterns of movement depending on what your environment is like – you’ll move differently if you live in a jungle than you would if you lived in a desert.

Your psychological environment will also dictate how you move. People who feel threatened will naturally assume a “defensive posture” – which means that their normal posture will tend toward the fetal position. Have you ever seen someone who is depressed? Their head falls forward, their shoulders slumped, their belly and chest sunken. If they sat down, they’d curl up into a ball. How do you think that affects the way you walk? How do you think that posture affects the function of your internal organs? How does it affect the types and quantities of hormones that are released into your body? Their psychological state, due to their environment (because, again, most of us don’t “make up” our psychological states, they’re a result of our daily interactions with our environments and ourselves), is leaving these people crippled.

What about your relationship with yourself? Excuse-making is no different than scapegoating. Frequently, our excuses use ourselves as the scapegoat – “I’m not good enough,” “I’m too out of shape to work out,” “I’ve never been good at [insert thing you've never even tried to do before].” Here, “I” am the blamer and the blame-e. Some close friends of mine used to always say “Oh, we’re all fat in this house.” It was a way to escape their own responsibility for their physical state. By saying it out loud, the blame had been cast. There was no need to do anything to resolve the underlying problem anymore. The goat had been sent out into the desert.

Scapegoating, blamecasting, and excuse-making, I argue, should not be seen as the fundamental problem we face. Instead, we should recognize that it is a dissociation between us and ourselves/environment – and I do mean the entire world when I say “environment,” not just the living room or office you might currently sit in – that is at the root of the problems we face as individuals and as a society.

You and your actions are not in any way separate from the giant pool of floating plastic that is suffocating the ocean. You are not in any way separate from the betting taking place on Wall St. (as some of us found out the hard way) – whether you take part in it or not! You are not separate from starvation in Rwanda, oppression in Tibet. Similarly, you are not separate from the good things happening all around you. You are not apart from the beautiful trees and plants growing in your area. The elements they exhale are the ones you inhale. You are intimately connected with everything in the world, at every moment.

Television, mass media, marketing/advertising, are huge distractions from you feeling, understanding, and believing in yourself and your own capabilities. They are the ghettos of the mind. They are “the Man,” keeping you in a state of self-doubt and subservience. Shy away from their messages.

What does this have to do with exercise? You tell me. I’d say it has everything to do with it.

Fortunately, we have the tools to explore, understand, and deepen our connections with our world. Unfortunately, in our culture (which is the dominant culture), this idea must first be seen as being profitable, before it will be shared and accepted on as broad a scale as “Judge Judy,” “Dr. Phil,” or “LOST.”

I need to end this rant, so let me do it by saying this – Watch out for blame, in yourself, your surroundings, and in the world. When you see it happening, uncover the source. Most often, it will be used as a way to keep two things appearing as if they’re somehow separate, when they aren’t.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Entitlement

Posted on February 23, 2009 by Josh

In his book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell talks about a child-psychologist’s perspective of “entitlement” as being slightly different from what we hear about in the press these days. Entitlement, in psychological terms, is the feeling that you are allowed and capable of doing the things you want to do. Nowadays, we take it to mean the most extreme case – where people think they are entitled to do whatever they want whenever they want, and have everything handed to them.

That’s something different…that’s extreme egotism.

Feeling a sense of true entitlement (that you are able and allowed) is actually a great gift to any human being, and is something we should all carry within us. It is related to self-respect and dignity. Unfortunately, it is something our society does not teach. Instead, our culture teaches that we’re all lacking in some way, or somehow deficient. The culture of Capitalism, and mass-marketing, approaches things from a negative perspective.

Danger lurks everywhere – or so they’d have you believe. Your house is full of germs, your car isn’t as safe as a [insert German car manufacturer of your choice here]. Or, they can “help” your busy life by making it more “convenient” – microwave everything, three-minute abs, etc. You aren’t something enough – diet pills, botox, Viagra, etc. Or a combination of any or all of these.

It’s certainly not the case. In fact, this feeling of deficiency has to be manufactured. And it is. It is the goal of every advertisement to make you feel like you are somehow not complete without the thing being advertised.

I think we need to take a new perspective on these things.

Try this experiment – from now on, when you see an advertisement, or hear someone tell you that there’s something you must have, or that you are not really “cool” or “in” without something, ask this question – “What part of me, physically, will improve through the acquisition and use of this thing?”

If there’s a really positive answer, you might consider buying it. But I’ll bet, for most things, the answer is – “no part of me will improve.”

I would push the inquiry even further, to include the world. If you do get a positive answer, ask “How does the world improve through my purchasing and using this thing?”

Now, here comes the good part, because I’m not a Luddite. I honestly believe that the iPod has enriched my physical being. I’m able to access the most beautiful music I’ve ever heard, whenever I want it. I’ll extend those praises to my computer, and the iTunes store (which has made a lot of that music accessible to me). Music makes me feel good, which improves the quality of my life. By making me happy, it makes others happy, because I’m able to spread that joy wherever I go. Further, my computer has helped me to stay in closer contact with my family and friends, which is invaluable to me.

I guess the point of this post is this – stop thinking about what’s wrong with technology, or your situation, and start thinking about what’s right with it. And if you can’t make it right, stop doing it. Realize that you are full and complete in and of yourself, as you are, right now. You don’t need anything external to make you “better.” In fact, nothing external can make you “better,” only you can do that, by choosing things that are good for you and your world. Most of the time, you’ll get “better” by doing a lot less – being barefoot, working fewer hours, decreasing stress, watching less TV, eating less, eating more simply…

And here’s the spot by Lewis CK, on Conan O’Brien, that prompted this little rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus