Do public health scare stories lag behind people's actual behaviour?

From Reason here's a quote about the decline in soda (that's pop to us Brits) consumption:

"Over the last 20 years," Sanger-Katz reports, "sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted by more than 25 percent." In other words, the downward trend began more than a decade before the soda tax debates in New York state (2009), Washington state (2010), and Philadelphia (2010). Americans began drinking less soda nearly two decades before Berkeley approved a soda tax and San Francisco rejected one, both of which happened last year.

So the great debates we see about sugar loaded fizzy drinks have been presaged by a profound shift in consumer behaviour. Yet this doesn't stop the public health scare story:

It will help explain why childhood obesity rates have risen so dramatically within a generation: in the US, where a third of children are overweight or obese, the average weight of a child has risen by more than 5kg in three decades.

Put those two quotes together and you get a "just a second, are you sure?" response to one or the other. On the face of it both can't be true.

So a question - are the scare stories about diet, about drinking or other choice behaviours a reflection of behavioural changes that are already happening? The great scares about alcohol in the UK - "Binge-drinking is getting out of control in Britain" or whatever - started flooding the newspapers and airwaves during a time when alcohol consumption was falling rapidly. It's almost as if these scares simply reflect people's changing habits - almost a means of society dealing with cognitive dissonance.

....

The Internet is corrupting our youth!

****

Or so says celebrity brain expert, Baroness Greenfield. After all it has been a few weeks since her last national news headline! Children are being damaged by Twitter she says:

Baroness Greenfield, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, said a decline in physical human contact meant children struggled to formulate basic social skills and emotional reactions.

She criticised the “unhealthy” addiction to Twitter among some users who resort to increasingly nasty outbursts under the “sanitised and often anonymous guise of the web”. 

Did someone have a go at the Baroness on Twitter? Or is she merely surfing on the Twitter brand - after all, her main beef is about the social development of children. And Twitter is full of children!

Baroness Greenfield quoted figures showing that more than half of 13- to 17-year-olds now spend more than 30 hours a week using video games, computers, e-readers, mobile phones and other screen-based technology. 

Apparently all this stuff is making children less well-behaved, is turning them into a bunch of narcissists and creating a generation of cyber-bullies. Doubtless something must be done!
 

“To have this ultimate beauty contest showing how much better you are than everyone else can only lead to sadness because there will always be someone who scores higher than you," she said. "It means you are constantly lacking in self-esteem, over narcissistic and, at the same time, in constant anxiety.”

Baroness Greenfield also warned that social networking websites were fuelling bullying, adding: “The anonymity of the web can make it easier to do and also removes the constraints that would normally apply for what one might regard as human nature.” 

The good Baroness presents no evidence at all to support her contentions - not a single study, nothing that has been through that pesky peer review process. This is just comment made in an interview ahead of Baroness Greenfield presenting her "findings" (also known as her "opinion"). The only piece of "evidence" is a report of an opinion survey of English teachers who think kids have shorter attention spans. Now I love opinion polls but this isn't evidence of anything other than the informed prejudice of one set of teachers.

What seems to be bothering the Baroness is that children are less likely to sit like supine sheep awaiting the latest dollop of whatever their elders and betters believe they should be fed. The choice and liberty that "screen-based technology" provides makes it harder to socialise young people into a particular set of behaviours. It seems to me that young people can (and do) pay attention but that having alternatives to hand means that they are less tolerant of boring lectures.

Finally, Baroness greenfield seems to think that children are spending the sixty-odd hours of the week when they aren't looking at a screen or sleeping doing absolutely nothing. Perhaps gazing blankly into space or wandering zombie-like round the house. Funnily enough those children are spending that time in a social environment surrounded by and interacting with their peers, their parents and their teachers.

The Internet  - whether its Twitter, Facebook or something with penguins - isn't corrupting our youth. In fact it might just be liberating them!

....

I'm not sure social media do 'nuance'...

****

How on earth can we include uncertainty, conditionality and nuance in an instant gratification medium built around popping 140 characters into a box on the Internet? Twitter isn’t an equivocal medium, it is a place for the definite, the certain.

Even those who have managed to order the system so as to create doubt and an open-ness to other positions cannot buck the medium. The reader – or most of the readers – arrive perceiving twitter as a place of absolute certainty: “god is dead”, “abortion is wrong”, “Tories are scum”, “Arsenal are shit”. A veritable cacophony of conviction, a place where “I’m not so sure about that can you explain” doesn’t really have a place.

This soup of competing but equally unconditional truths worried some folk. Here’s Peter Beaumont writing in The Guardian:

Because of the measures of success in the new online world, including how many comments are attracted and the number of page views, it has been inevitable, some argue, that the loudest and most partisan voices seem attractive. Which leaves a burning question unanswered. How to quantify what all this means for those engaging in public debate, including bloggers, writers, journalists and commenters.

Part of Patrick Ness's argument was that the often brutal nature of the online world has started to impose a culture of self-censorship as some have sought to avoid inevitable flame wars. Other writers have remarked the opposite to me, describing how, in reviewing his writing, he had gradually used fewer qualification in his arguments.

We see here two competing responses: “I don’t like the game in that sandpit, so I’m not going to play there any more” and “I don’t like the game in that sandpit but everyone I want to play with is there so here goes”. Both are correct but define the person – there is no requirement to ping out tweets all the live long day, to record every last second of your life on Facebook or to scribe angry little pieces on a blog read by seventy people (on a good day). Yet in the discourse about the Internet – or more specifically the social aspect of the Internet – no-one states the obvious: you don’t have to be there.

At the same time, we should be able to distinguish between styles of communication and how places (if we can truly call Twitter and so forth: ‘places’) change the nature of our speech. The way I talk to a bunch of mates down the pub will be very different from the manner in which we talk at work. How often have friends and family rung you at work and been surprised by your ‘posh work voice’? And have you ever been shocked at bad language from someone (like a teacher or local councillor) you’ve only ever heard in a formal context?

Places like twitter are growing up as the users get to understand them. The etiquette, the behaviours and the language evolve. Not from some heavy-handed set of rules but from the manner in which that community polices its own behaviour and defines its own boundaries. Indeed, when heavy-handed rules crash into social media we get the nonsense of the ‘twitter joke trial’ or the lunacy of arresting some kid because he offended a celebrity.

The other part of Peter Beaumont’s worry is equally confused – sectarianism. By this he means, I guess, the tendency of humans to cluster into idea-reinforcing and like-minded groups rather than Orange Order marches or Glaswegian football violence. Beaumont suggests – in referring to the work of US academic, Cass Sunstein:

...while the internet was efficient in bringing together virtual communities of interest, it also encouraged participants "to isolate themselves from competing views... [creating a] breeding ground for polarisation, potentially dangerous for both democracy and social peace".

In other words, virtual communities, unlike physical communities that are under constant pressure to compromise, are at risk of a tendency to organise around confirmatory bias.

It seems to me that this is perfectly normal human behaviour. For sure, the Internet provides more opportunities for that ‘confirmatory bias’ but we have always sought out places and things that confirm our position, that affirm our world view. Perhaps the liberation lies in the fact that a young conservative in Grimethorpe (there may be one) or the budding Marxist in Steppingley can engage with respectively other young Tories and emerging Marxists. The assumption that on-line engagement means a new universalist idea evolving from some primeval internet soup may indeed appeal but surely it is nonsense?

Finally – and this really is important – there are more people on-line who prefer chatting about the X-Factor, football or the simple minutiae of an ordinary life. Perhaps Beaumont’s assumption that on-line activity is all about politics and media is simply his own form of confirmation bias?  While there was plenty of robust debate around Julian Assange on assorted social media channels, I’m prepared to bet that there were more pictures of cute puppies and kittens posted on various social media sites than coruscatingly insightful remarks about wikileaks. And this is how the world should be.

....

Haggle! A comment on behavioural pricing.

When you buy some Euros or Dollars for your trip abroad, you probably do a little research. You check out on-line financial information aggregators, you’ll look at your own bank and maybe some well know high street finance brands. And you’ll pick the one offering the lowest rate and buy your currency.

It will never have crossed your mind to haggle. You simply take the price you’re offered – it’s the best rate after all! Well you should haggle and if you do the chances are you‘ll get a better rate.

However, as consumers we are trapped like rabbits in the headlights – we believe too often that the price we’re given is the price we’ll pay. Which means that the seller can play differential or discriminatory pricing games with us. And behavioural pricing is just the latest in a long line:

What if when you bought a new Mac book, the price was higher because your tweets constantly referenced your love and devotion for Apple? What if Orbitz used the fact that your Facebook Likes include “Party Rocking in Miami” to charge you more for a flight to Miami?

This is called online behavioral pricing. It’s a consumer’s worst nightmare as it uses the traces of your online identity to maximize prices on the products and services you want most. It’s also an ecommerce merchant’s dream.

Now I guess that some folk will see a problem with this practice – I can hear the calls for “price transparency” linked to cries that the government must act to stop innocent consumers getting ripped-off by wicked marketers playing with their “data”. And the response will look like this:

The Labour leader says that the Government must take a more positive approach to stop British consumers from being exploited by “predatory” companies.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says a tough new consumer watchdog should be created to limit pension fees, car parking charges and airline levies.

The kind government will take away that consumer “nightmare”. And, of course, we’ll all pay more. People who plan their travel well-ahead will pay higher rail fares because it’s not ‘fair’ that the latecomers pay more. You won’t be able to pay a premium rate to jump the queues at Alton Towers because some mums can’t (or won’t) pay that extra. Everywhere we look prices will be higher, choice will be poorer and all because we were suckered into believing we are being "ripped off".

The alternative is for us to learn how to haggle (unless like me you’re fortunate enough to be married to someone who gets a thrill out of a little haggling). Why should we take the price that Apple thinks we should pay? Right now they’re using the information available to them as a means of setting a price maximum – they’ve no interest in setting this below their price minimum. Therefore, we should set about finding out what that latter figure might be – they’ll sell the new Mac Book to us at that lower price for sure!

And when you’ve found that price, pick up the phone, speak to the merchant and say you’ll buy it for a little bit less! We don’t need Ed Miliband’s “tough new consumer watchdog”, we don’t need to be frightened away from on-line markets by scary “consumer’s worst nightmare” stories, we simply need to start with the idea that the price we’re given is the starting point not the end.

....

Checkout queues - not quite what you thought...

Queuing is important. I know you all hate it but it really is important. I’ve blogged before about this matter – in a little moan about the value and importance of differential pricing. So now we’re going to consider the checkout.

Now one of the things about queues (other than the fact that the other queue always moves faster) is that we make an assumption that the shorter queue will take less time. Now this is – on the basis of the information available to us and our common sense – a rational decision. However, it could also be wrong.

Here’s a mathematician studying the issue:

There are easily a dozen variables affecting the line speed that have nothing to do with the number of customers in each line or the number of items in their baskets.

And the other variables tell us that:

Cheque is slower than credit which is slower than cash – not really a surprise and perhaps explains (the rapidly vanishing) cash-only lines

The y-intercept is non-zero – in other words:

It should take you zero seconds to purchase zero items but you can't ignore the fixed time cost of the pleasantries ("Hi. How are you doing? Do you need any help out?") and the transaction itself.

The express lane isn't faster.

You attract more people holding fewer total items…when you add one person to the line, you're adding 48 extra seconds to the line length … without even considering the items in her cart.

So this answers the question about “express” queues – they are not a strange privilege for people who aren’t buying very much but a means by which these people are removed from the main queues – thereby speeding up your passage through with a trolley while making no difference to the customer with but a few items. In truth the rational decision is to separate different queues (i.e. different customer behaviours) in the knowledge that the asymmetry of understanding will improve the rate of throughput. Not only does this make your customers happy but it also reduces the supermarket’s costs (which – in a benign cycle of benefit – further increases the customers’ happiness by helping reduce prices).

Today, there is a further complication with the introduction of self-service checkouts. Again these will remove some customers from the checkout queues (and leave them standing frustrated while the machinery doesn’t work). And the jury is out on this wondrous technology:

It’s easy to see why retailers are turning to more and more self-service kiosks. They put the customer in control, they can reduce operational costs and they save on staff costs. When they are designed well they can improve customer experience because customers grab their goods and leave the store with minimal fuss. When they are designed poorly, they can be time consuming and frustrating having a negative impact on customer experience.

And they might not have cut queues either (although this might not have been the point):

Figures compiled by The Grocer magazine show that average queuing times for staffed tills at Tesco and Sainsbury's, the retailers with the most self-service checkouts, have increased over the past two years. At Tesco, which has 6,000 self-service checkouts in its 1,200 stores, the average wait for a staffed till lengthened from 5min 15sec in 2008 to 5min 42sec this year. Sainsbury’s saw a smaller rise, from 5min 30sec to 5min 35sec.

Although the supermarkets say these figures are nonsense (and they do seem to originate in some way from USDAW, the shopworkers’ union who aren’t going to be in favour of automation). My guess is that there's a befefit to be gained but both the technology and also the customer's familiarity have yet to reach the point at which that benefit is realised.

...

On sheep...

Sheep. Trotting along dutifully behind whoever heads for the gap in the fence. Proferring received wisdom as if we'd just thought of it yesterday. Following blindly the latest fad or fashion, unthinking, unquestioning - assuming that the crowd is right.

Today we have new words for sheep-like behaviour, words that make it seem terribly clever, awfully trendy - terms like "crowd sourcing" and "the wisdom of crowds". We've convinced ourselves that we can replace our critical facilities with opinion polling, focus groups, surveys and questionnaires. We can count references or word frequency and pretend that somehow this gives a profound insight into deeper truths. We replace thinking with counting.

Sheep. Bleating about safety, security, the comfort of groupthink, the blanket of conformity. We pretend we're oh so radical when, in truth, we're just tagging along with the crowd. Whether it's the latest political fad, the newest music or the trendiest film, our behaviour is to snuggle up to the big crowd.

And, if we stand alone? Proudly saying we won't flock? What happens? Ah, yes - that flock gets together attacks us, condemns us for difference. The flock may even break off from doing down another flock long enough to cast the lone ram out into the wilderness or worse still to pen that independent beast up safely away from any corruption that might come from actually thinking differently.

Sheep. Thoughtless, careless and lost without the flock around them. I think sheep would want "fair votes".

....

We won't stop bullying until we stop promoting bullies

***

Bullying is the deliberate and persistent targeting of an individual or individuals to achieve a given end – most commonly their collapse into tears, resort to violence or departure.

There has been a great deal said, much speculation and a great deal of unpleasantness surrounding Gordon Brown’s behaviour. Now I don’t know whether Mr Brown is a bully, whether he condones or encourages such behaviour in others or whether his alleged bursts of violence should be seen as a major problem or not. But I do think we have a problem with bullying in our political culture – indeed, in our wider society. Put simply, we are very tolerant – even praising – of behaviours that are typical of the bully.

John Terry is celebrated for his forthrightness and “strong-leadership” as he praised Didier Drogba’s attempt to bully a referee over a particular decision. And it’s not just the former England captain at fault – such behaviour is common-place as this BBC report from 2003 about Manchester United players “refusing to bully” referee, Andy D’Urso. Bullying tactics are rife in football, have crept into cricket and I’m sure will begin to arise in other sports.

Examine some of the persistent targeted attacks on particular individuals – be it the Daily Telegraph’s assault on Nadine Dorries, the #kerryout campaign on Twitter or Labour’s constant smearing of Lord Ashcroft. These are attempts to use bullying as a deliberate campaigning tool. None of these targeted individuals are without fault – but that cannot justify these sorts of bullying tactics, surely?

In a world where malicious gossip, the unattributed briefing, the marshalling of attack messages through such hideous ideas as “mob Monday” and the joyous celebration of the aggressive, unheeding, shouting leader - look at Sir Alex Ferguson, at Sir Alan Sugar, at Alistair Campbell. These are our roles models of leadership – vulgar, ignorant, aggressive, selfish and often just downright unpleasant. Step back and ask how anyone could condone - let alone employ - a man as unpleasant and bullying as Tucker from In the Thick Of It. Is it any surprise that those at the bottom of that slippery pole think the way up is to climb over the crushed careers of others?

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of an unjustified, malicious and unpleasant campaign of political bullying – a straightforward attempt to destroy someone’s career – will know that there is no defence. Nothing you can do to stem the tide of snide, the avalanche of maliciousness. The bullied person ends up isolated – who would risk all that nastiness rubbing off on them. As was said of me by a senior Liberal Democrat (not to my face, of course, he’s too chicken to do that): “Simon finally ran out of friends”.

All the anti-bullying websites, all the well-meant “resources” for schools are useless besides a political and social culture that thinks targeting and destroying an individual – because we can – is acceptable. Instead of discussing the stuff about Gordon Brown, should we not be talking about the bigger issue of bullying? Should our leaders not be setting an example rather than taking advantage?

...

Class - you'll know it when you see it

***
I’m fed up with the politics of class – not only is it awful, divisive politics but it reinforces our gross misuse of the word.

Class is…

Writing a personal note of thanks to all the speakers in your group after every Council meeting

Walking out from a vote because you know someone on the opposition isn’t there because their child’s ill with cancer

Putting your child’s education ahead of a political party – even if it gets you the sack or results in ridicule

Trudging three miles through the snow to a meeting
because you’d said you’d be there – and not complaining

Handing back embarrassing papers to someone and
refusing the chance to exploit what those papers contain

Sticking anonymous allegations and complaints in the bin – the only place they deserve to go

Understanding the difference between personal insult and the rough and tumble of politics – and apologising if you get it wrong

Class isn’t about where you were born. It isn’t about your school. Or your university. Or the clothes you wear. Or how much money you’ve got. Or who your friends are. Class is doing the right thing – a matter of attitude not origin. Norman Tebbit has class; Cecil Parkinson doesn’t. Ernest Bevin had class: Aneurin Bevan didn’t. Bobby Moore had class; Vinnie Jones doesn’t.

Perhaps if we worried more about how we behaved. If we stood more on our own hind legs. If we looked to ourselves to solve our problems. If we looked out for others. Perhaps, if we tried not to find excuses or to blame…we mind finally find out what class means.

...