Dan Erwin

"Don't Follow the Money"

Just how much impact does money have on an election? There's been a lot thrown around for this election.  I weighed in on the Supreme Court's recent money fiasco in Mocking the Supreme Court decision on election finance.  However, David Brook's analysis of campaign spending and its influence on elections brings a different perspective on the role of money.  Brooks' research found that Democrats, most of whom are incumbents have been "raising and spending far more than the Republicans."  Despite their largesse, the Democrats have been sinking in the polls.  Brooks' conclusion is that the advertisement buys just don't make that much difference.

Political scientists have studied campaign spending for years, Brooks says, and found that campaign spending has no outsize role on the election--in spite of what candidates, the consultants and the political press imagine.

There are numerous situations in which money seems to have made no impact whatsoever.  As Brooks points out, when Phil Gramm and John Connally ran for president, money just didn't make much difference.  In 2006, Republican incumbents raised over $100 million more than Democrats, but still lost the election.  Today's NYTimes has an article about Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina's financial investment.  Whitman and Fiorina have put in far more money than their Democratic rivals, yet it seems to no avail.  In fact, Whitman with all her billions is running 10 points behind Jerry Brown.  She will be the third wealthy candidate to lose a major California election.  Fiorina is still a bit behind Ms. Boxer.

The most significant media coverage is about the the skyrocketing spending of independent groups.  Although Democratic incumbents have raised far more than the their rivals, the spending of independent groups for Republicans far outweighs the Democratic groups.  Thanks to the Supreme Court. 

Will Karl Rove and all the independent monies reshape the election?  I think yes.  Brooks says no.  Should I trust Brooks' research?

So what do you do when a writers's research findings differ from your gut?  Of course, if it's unimportant, you probably ignore the research.  But elections are important to me.  When the summary of research is a rejection of my gut, my intuition and my emotions--and it's important--I look for more research and another expert.  Fortunately, I happen to know another expert, Dr. Phil Shively of the University of Minnesota, who is an expert on US voter behavior and finances. 

Here's what Shively had to say about Brooks' rsearch:  "Brooks had it right.  Generally speaking, beyond some threshold level huge additional amounts of money for a campaign don't make that much difference.  Just do a thought experiment--how much effect do you think the last Michelle Bachman ad you saw had on you?"  My response to his question?  Zip. Nada. Absolutely no effect whatsover.  I still wouldn't vote for her if I lived in her district--which I don't.  So with both Brooks and Shively in agreement, I've learned something.  I was wrong about the Supreme Court's decision.  The money from independent sources won't impact an election significantly.

But Shively went on to say something even more important about the money chasing.  "The really corrosive effect of the big spending, I think, is the effect it has on public oficials.  They can't resist raising as much money as possible, just in case it does make a difference.  And that means that they spend much of their time in office chasing donations, and feel beholden to those who have given."  So in the final analysis, that's the real issue of importance.

Well, what do you think?  How do you respond to the research? 

How I've Learned to Laugh at Alzheimer's

The latest issue of Time has a major section on Alzheimer's, its effects and profound misery.  Maria Shriver has a family history of Alzheimer's and tomorrow, Sunday the 17th, she'll break her silence even more to discuss with Christiane Amanpour how Alzheimer's effect family members. 

Not all experiences of Alzheimer's are sad.  Over the last few months my daughters and I have learned to laugh at some of the effects of Alzheimer's on my wife and their mother.  We decided a long time ago that when the occasion was pure nonsense and startling we were going to laugh.  Although I still walk away from her with a tear in my eye, there are other times that as soon as I leave the residence I laugh out loud, get on the phone and let my daughters laugh with me.

On three occasions, now, it's been part of a morning or evening phone conversation.  Typically, I phone my wife in the morning when before she goes for breakfast and then in the evening when before she goes to bed.  We'll talk about nothing . . .the weather, the bagel she and I shared one day, or the cranberry oatmeal cookie.  Once in a while, when D'Amico happens to have its famous key lime crostata, I grab two and go over to the residence for desert.  She loves the crostata, but more, she loves eating it with me.  They are such little things, but seemingly so very important.  So I talk about them on the phone. 

Then, toward the end of the phone conversation, comes this from my wife.  "I want to thank you for calling me.  It's so very nice.  Would you tell your wife how much I appreciate her sharing you with me and how very kind she is?  Sometime, I'd like to thank her.  Tell her it's very kind of her to let you spend time talking to me." 

I used to tell her that she's my wife, but that doesn't work anymore.  Now I just say, "I'll be sure to tell her." Then I hang up the phone and laugh out loud, typically calling one of my daughters and telling them that she's done it again.  We all laugh.  It's their mom and my wife.

On several occasions, unsolicited, people have told me how very "kind" my wife was and how "kind" they remember her being.  It's strange.  Although I know that she's a kind person, I've never thought of her that way.  I always admired her for her intellectual smarts, her love of music, love of me, her children and grandchildren, and ability to teach children, no matter the situation.

It's amazing how even a disease like Alzheimer's can reveal something about a person that you've missed, in spite of the fact that others noticed it.  But I know eventually even those conversations will come to an end.

Quotation of the Week: Dr. Martha Daviglus, on Alzheimer's

I was surprised and, at the same time, very sad.  This is something that could happen to any of us, and yet we are at such a primitive state of research.

--Dr. Martha L. Daviglus, Professor or Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University

According to an article in today's NYTimes, the National Institutes of Health recently sponsored what amounted to a science court in order to answer one question about Alzheimer's: Is there any way to prevent Alzheimer's?  The jury was commissioned to hear all the research evidence about the dread disease.  They heard from leading researchers from major institutions around the country.  They looked at hundreds of research papers.  The studies included nearly every proposal to prevent the disease: exercise, mental stimulation, healthy diet, nutritional supplements, etc.  The research presented even included differences in personality traits.  The jury concluded that there was no significant research indicating the possibility of Alzheimer's prevention.  Thus the comment by Dr. Daviglus.

Still, though there is a vast literature on the disease, the quality of research evidence is very low.  Since I've intereacted with leading specialists in the field from the University of Minnesota Med School as well as Mayo Clinic, I'm not at all surprised by the court's conclusion.

To me, one of the suprising insights was that it was not until the mid '80's that scientists realized that Alzheimer's was actually a disease.  It was thought to be dementia that was merely a normal part of aging.  Of course, the demographics of the boomer generation and the potential for a huge proportion of the  population to live much longer, make the disease a high priority. 

As my regular readers know, my beloved wife is now in long-term care with Alzheimer's.  One of the intriguing facts about the disease is the discomfort so many have in talking about it.  But when I broach the subject, then people open up.  To some, it's a terrorizing disease.  Prior to learning of her mother's diagnosis, my eldest daughter began working part time in development for an Alzheimer's research funding organization in the Boston community.  She told me that when she wrote about her mother's diagnosis in a publicity letter for the organization, people started "coming out of the woodworks."  They wanted to talk with her because of her knowledge-base, to share their family stories and to learn more about the disease and the research.  Recently in a conversation with our youngest daughter, I thought her response, though I might not use the cliche, was most appropriate.  In discussing our pain, her comment was . . . well, prosaic: It is what it is, Dad.  I'd put it differently.  I'd say that to life lived to its fullest has both its credits and its debits.

In February, I wrote a blog on our experience with the disease and my own reflections and commitments.  Although I took what many saw as a unique position on the experience, I've been shocked by the size of the response.  And no, I haven't changed my attitude toward the disease and life.  Here's the posting:   My wife's Alzheimer's, The Notebook and my humanity. 

Is There Something Peculiarly American About the Rejection of Science?

Sharon Begley, a superb science writer and senior editor of Newsweek, has a recent article on an issue I've been curious about for years: Why scientists are losing the PR wars.  Why do Americans, and especially evangelical Americans, ignore and distrust science so much? 

In my early years as a minister in Pasadena, Boulder, Colorado, and Flagstaff, I occasionally met people who distrusted science, but the issue didn't seem so widespread then.  Part of the reason was that those were college towns and there were a lot of faculty in the congregations.  Scientists tend to trust science. But by the mid 1970s a number of the "religious" were gaining attention for their views on (against) evolution.  Inevitably, the scientist/physicians caught hell from the anti-abortion movement, and from there the conversation around climate change became more raucous.

Begley offers a number of intriguing reasons for the American rejection of science.  Scientists are lousy communicators. They mimic their training and appeal to people's heads, not their guts.  So when smarter-than-thou condescension by scientists surfaces in arguments between evolutionary biologists and creationists, the latter almost always win.  It's a rare scientist who understands persuasion and can tell good motivational stories.

The statistics against climate science (and other sciences), for example, show there is far less backlash in Europe and Japan.  The U.S. is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who believe that humans evolved.  There really is something peculiarly American about the rejection of science.

Charles Harper, a devout Christian and scientist who ran the program bridging science and faith at the Templeton Foundation thinks he knows why Americans reject science.  We Americans are anti-elitist and anti-authoritarian, so when we're told we have "to think in a certain way there is a backlish."  And as with climate science and evolution, we refuse to bow to authority.  As an immigrant nation, we are fed up with hierarchy, and so it's the American way to distrust those who set themselves up as authorities.  It's the American way to reject authority.

A final reason for the rejection of science is the growing belief in polling, the growing belief in the wisdom of crowds.  Americans seem to have decided  it doesn't take any special ability to pick apart climate science or evolution, and so they don't respect well-trained scientists.  They do, however, respect the smarts of the ordinary guy, but there's a lot of difference in their minds between the ordinary guy and the elitist.  Polls, therefore, are a trustworthy barometer for most any important issue.

My business, in contrast to most consultants in personal development, is heavily research oriented.  I emphasize behaviors from the standpoint of research, challenge conventional wisdom, and am quick to pooh-pooh a client's ideas when they won't stand up to scrutiny.   I reject client ideas with a smile and a laugh, but I do it.  That's part of our initial social contract.  Clients know my reputation and I suspect there's quite a bit of self-selection of my services as a result.  Indeed, occasionally a client will ask whether an idea I'm propounding has a research basis.  My hope, for their sake, is that they continue to ask that question, and that evidence-based management and behavior becomes their modus operandi.  Good theory makes for good practice which makes for good profit.  And when it doesn't, the thoughtful person can explain that failure from a research perspective.

Quotation of the Week: David Shenk

Forget everything you think you know about genes, talent, and intelligence.  In recent years, a mountain of scientific evidence has emerged suggesting a completely new paradigm: not talent scarcity, but latent talent abundance.

--David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us

I intend to keep printing these reminders because the conventional knowledge, the very opposite of this quote, is so deeply ingrained within our psyches that 95% of the population remains either unaware or unwilling to believe the research.

A part of this rejection of even a mountain of scientific evidence is based upon the very human and very selective exposure in which we all participate.  Often, that selective exposure causes us to dismiss as fake the evidence that doesn't jibe with our views.

But dismissing this highly important research is also dismissing huge opportunities for us as workers and as family members.  Because the implications of that are that we all--with a lot of hard work--can create a far bigger niche in life than we once thought.  Indeed, the research, as Shenk writes, shows us that all of us can have a much more enriching life.

Here's my post, The fuel for genius, which addresses similar issues.

Quotation of the Week: Ibn al-Nafis

"When hearing something unusual, do not pre-emptively reject it, for that would be folly.  Indeed, horrible things  may be true, and familiar and praised things may prove to be lies.  Truth is truth unto itself, not because people say it is."

Ibn al-Nafis, 13th century pioneering Muslim scientist  and physician

What the New Neuroscience Tells Us About Stress Management

Reading a science article in this morning's NYTimes magazine, I was struck by how much new and useful information on stress relief is available today.  More than 25 years ago I taught an occasional night school course on stress management.  At that time we knew a lot about biofeedback, the skills of emotion management and how our perceptions play a huge role in building or deescalating personal stress.  I knew that I usually felt stress in my gut first, often long before I could name it.  That, of course, made it possible for me to start managing my stress before it built up.  I also knew that if I was on a creative jag and had come to a dead-end, there were several basic options: sleep, exercise and good nutrition.  

For example, project development can be stressful.  My modus operandi has been habituated over the years.  When working on a project, I usually dig up as much data as possible and start writing.  Usually the act of writing surfaces all kinds of issues, makes mental connections, offers other suggestions, and pushes me to dig up further data.  The rule is obvious:  stop thinking and planning and just start writing. 

But sometimes the ideas won't come.  When that happens, I set the material aside, go about my business, and shortly before bedtime, run over the data and material again for 30 minutes or so, and then hit the sack.  Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, either in the middle of the nite or when I wake in the morning, the issues have clarified themselves--and resolved my stress.  Scientists tell us that though the body is asleep, the brain is busily making connections.  And that's my experience. 

I've also learned from practice that no matter how stressed I am about business issues, my project work or even personal or family issues, exercise is key to relieving that stress.  I am constantly amazed at how effective a brisk walk of 30 minutes to an hour (I can no longer jog because of an idiopathic neuropathy) can clear out the mind, suggest resolutions and enliven me. 

Scientists have known for sometime that exercise stimulates the creation of new brain cells as well as enhances the connections of those brain cells.  In effect, exercise remodels the brain, enabling us to deal more effectively with stress.  Cool, eh?

The Times article reported on fascinating findings by researchers at Princeton University.  As I noted previously, scientists have been aware that exercise stimulates the creation of new brain cells, but not how that took place.  In the research, the scientists permitted one group of rats to run, but the other group were not permitted to exercise.  Then all of the rats were placed in cold water, requiring them to swim, which rats don't like to do.  Afterward they looked at the brains.  What they found was that swimming activated neurons in both sets of rats.  However, the brains of the rats that had been on the exercise regimen were less likely to bear the marks of stress.  Generally, they remained quiet.  What they concluded was that the rats that had been running had developed brain cells that essentially buffered those rats from stress. 

In a related study at the University of Colorado, rats that had run for several weeks . .  were less anxious and helpless despite the stress placed upon them.

The lesson is clear.  Don't quit your running (or in my case, brisk walking).  You won't get the magical reduction of stress after your first jog if you haven't been running.  But the molecular and biochemical changes will begin.  As I found out years ago, eventually the changes  become profound.

Successful careers are not built merely upon the so-called work skills, but also upon good nutrition, regular sleep, and REGULAR EXERCISE.

The Dumbest Idea I've Ever Heard

One of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard is the hostility to knowledge, reason and research.  NPR had a discussion about climate change issues with two scientists and they both commented that many people believe that knowledge, reason and research are not the basis on which to make environmental policy.  Dumb!

In public matters and media conflicts, there's a recurring mistake by the audience.  It fails to distinguish between balance and proportion.  The media typically presents two sides of the conflict--say, climate change.   "We're presenting a "balanced position."  What the audience hears is that there are 50% of the scientists on one side and 50% on the other. 

As a result, a great deal of the public pays little attention to the conflict.  They think scientists can't agree, so politicians can't agree, so why should we agree.  On climate, like a great many other issues, there's a terrific amount of agreement by scientists--more than 95% agree on the seriousness of the problem.  The public will never know because of the confusion between balance and proportion--and its rejection of knowledge, reason and scientific research.

Be very careful in your media consumption.  And just as careful in your decision making--in any context.

Rule 1:  Play close attention to so-called balanced perspectives.  They may not be proportionate, and the impact on decision making could be a horrible mistake.

Rule 2:  Whatever the decisionmaking context--business, family, environment-- we know that empirical analysis of results makes for the best decisions.

Should You Apologize?

It all depends.  But in some situations, according to a brief article in the current issue of Businessweek, the answer is a definite yes.  Researchers at Britain's School of Economics wanted to find out the best way to deal with complaints about a defective German product, something small like a set of salt shakers.  They tracked negative and lukewarm comments posted by the company's customers and responded to more than 600 complaints.  For half of the complaints they offered a brief apology, and to the other half they offered a "good-will gesture" of a small cash rebate.  All this was based on the condition  that the customer remove the complaint posted online. 

The result?  About 45% of those receiving the apology withdraw their negative ratings from online, compared with only 21% who were offered money to do so.  And the apologies were effective even though they were brief, impersonal and asked for something in return?

Why do you think this was?  Before you answer the question, here's another piece of research not reported in BusinessWeek.

A Colorado surgeon was sued for malpractice when one of his students accidentally punctured an artery during an appendectomy.  The surgery was eventually success, but there were complications resulting in an upset patient. 

The surgeon took the advice of his lawyer who recommended no response and no interaction between him and the patient.  The patient sued because the surgeon "just didn't care."  In the final analysis the suit was brought not because of the surgical error but because of the failure to apologize.

Since 2002, hospitals in the University of Michigan Health System have been pushing their doctors to apologize. The result?  Attorney legal fees have dropped by two-thirds and the number of malpractice suits have been halved.

Why does an apology work?  Although there are a number of possible reasons, the best answer is based on human evolution:  "Apologies trigger this biological instinct to forgive that is hard to overcome."  And, the people who accept apologies feel better about themselves because of our own human love of magnanimity.

How Nonsense Sharpens Your Smarts

The latest Science section of the Times, in an article by Benedict Carey, reports on a study that suggests that nonsense, experience which violates logic and expectation, primes your gray matter to sense patterns it would otherwise miss.  It's a well-known fact that we cling tightly to our personal biases, looking for predictability, when we feel threatened.  Travis Proulx at UC Santa Barbara and Steven Heine at U British Columbia, argue that nonsense works the same way: we want to maintain coherence, predictability and consistency.  Our brains have evolved to predict and create our own theories about how our world works.

FYI:  For those unacquainted with basic research process, theories are attempts to explain or represent an experience.  They are ideas of how something happens.  Everybody uses theories.  We can't live without them.  My underlying interpersonal theory, for example, is that if you treat people well, they'll treat you well.  Scientists develop theories from observing and questioning and if they think their theory is valuable, then they'll set out to test that theory.  Research essentially tests theories--our hunches about how something works.  Theories are the way we understand and organize our knowledge.  They focus our attention on important variables and relationships.  

"Invaluable Nonsense"

Creativity and innovation are among the key drivers of business success in today's world.  That will be more and more true.  Uniquely, that's one reason understanding nonsense is so very important to your/our future. 

Back to the notion of how nonsense works and why it just might be a valuable theory.  The researchers argue that nonsense breaks the patterns of coherence, meaning and consistency and that when this happens our brains grope for something, anything that makes sense.  Inevitably, when things don't add up, the mind goes into high gear.  We're motivated to to look for patterns far more than when looking at ordinary things. 

Thus far, the scientists have done brain imaging studies of people who are trying to make sense of an anomaly and working out dilemmas.  What they've found is that the imaging shows that the more activation, the greater the drive to seek and correct errors (the nonsense) "the greater the motivation or ability to seek and correct rerrors in the real world."

What isn't known thus far is whether exposure to nonsense can help people learn more effectively.  Thus far, however, the research supports what novel seekers have always insisted:  "At least some of the time, disorientation begets creative thinking."  That may well pose significant career and organizational opportunities.