By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, censorship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, propaganda, Psychology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , ,

This may be a new level of stupidity. Murdoch-owned publishing behomoth HarperCollins actually prepared and started to sell an atlas that does not show Israel. At all. Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank are there.

No big surprise, there was lots of pushback when word got out, and HC removed the atlas from circulation and said it would pulp any remaining copies. Even the UK Bishops’ Conference Department of International Affairs condemned the publication as a blow against peace in the region.

The company sheepishly withdrew, saying,

HarperCollins sincerely apologises for this omission and for any offence caused.

But the company is talking out of two sides of its mouth. Earlier, as reported in the Washington Post, it tried to justify the omission:

Collins Bartholomew, a subsidiary of HarperCollins that specializes in maps, told the Tablet that it would have been “unacceptable” to include Israel in atlases intended for the Middle East. They had deleted Israel to satisfy “local preferences.”

HarperCollins has quickly found out that it’s also unacceptable to abandon truth in a volume that claims to offer

“in-depth coverage of the region and its issues.” Its stated goals include helping kids understand the “relationship between the social and physical environment, the region’s challenges [and] its socio-economic development.”

Ummm, hello, and just how do you intend to put the region in context if you ignore the most conflicted issue it faces? Do you really think students in Arab countries haven’t heard of it? Did you really think this would stay a safe little conspiratorial secret just for the cognoscenti?

HarperCollins would have been totally justified in marking the West Bank and Gaza as disputed territory held by Israel, following conquest. But there’s no dispute about Israel being a nation.

This is a time when we all have social media at our disposal. That means it not only should have been totally obvious that this would backfire, but HarperCollins had the tools at its disposal to make the governments demanding this absurdity to be the ones looking ridiculous. If any governments insisted on refusing entry to accurate atlases, the company could have had a skilled social media manager explain why HC would no longer sell atlases into these countries, and create a pressure movement both from outside the country and from those inside who recognize that not knowing geography is a handicap in the global economic arena, and the Gulf states would have lifted the restriction.

Instead, what HarperCollins has done is to eliminate its own credibility. It’s hard to imagine anyone in the future trusting any reference materials from this publisher. Blatant and deliberate repudiation of truth is not a recipe for success in the world of reference books—especially reference books about the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business-general, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Green Business, localism/locavore Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, two long-awaited and seemingly unrelated milestone events occurred in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts (where I live) and Vermont.

  1. Passenger train service was restored to Northampton and Greenfield, MA. The first commercial passenger trains since 1987 to use the Connecticut River tracks between Springfield, MA and Brattleboro,  VT made initial northbound and southbound runs between New York City and St. Albans, VT (a tiny village at the Canadian border). While only one train per day in each direction will make this run, it marks a rare expansion of long-distance passenger rail service in the US. Plans call for adding a stop at Holyoke, MA once that station is rebuilt in 2016, and there’s discussion of running several commuter trains a day at some point in the future—which would allow people to actually substitute train travel for driving.
  2. The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, opened in 1972,was taken off the grid and permanently shut down. This GE Mark I plant, which uses a reactor design nearly identical to Fukushima’s, has been operating unsafely since its earliest days—I’ve seen an excerpt from the long, long official government safety issues report of March, 1974, and it isn’t pretty—and illegally under Vermont law for nearly three years (since March, 2012).

The forces that created these two events were very different: government efforts for the train, a combination of citizen activism and market conditions for the shutdown. But several common threads across the wider map of society show that these victories are actually linked. Both were responses to growing perceptions that:

  • We need to think bioregionally
  • We have to create energy and resource sustainability
  • Both of these milestones will create the kind of economic impact we want to see: moving toward conservation, renewable, safe energy sources and transit-oriented development boosts, smaller, local businesses and encourages changes in consumer use patterns
  • Both are better for the environment (do NOT let anyone try to tell you that nukes are environmentally benign—the claim of lower carbon footprint is false if you count the entire fuel cycle, and the environmental consequences of an accident are catastrophic)
  • Citizens, individuals, can make a difference—in our use patterns as well as our advocacy
  • Change is possible, even when it looks hopeless

Of course, there’s more work to be done.

To make the train viable, they really need extend service to Montreal, as was true in the distant past. Reasonably priced service between NYC and Montreal  (also serving population centers en route: Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford, CT; Springfield, MA; Burlington, VT) will keep a lot more of the seats occupied and create economic viability that will be hard to find if the train ends in nowheresville. Even from NYC, when you count time driving to the airport, time at the airport, and time getting from the airport to an inner-city final destination, train travel within a few hundred miles would not be that much slower than flying, and a good deal more pleasant. From Northampton or Greenfield, MA, it’s a no-brainer. Rather than drive 40 or 60 minutes south to the airport and getting there 90 minutes before a flight, ride the comfortable train in the direction you want to go. By the time you would have boarded the plane, you could already be in central Vermont, half-way to Montreal.

And to really boost the economy without Vermont Yankee, we need even more activity on solar, wind, geothermal, deep conservation, etc. We have to make up the loss to the power grid, and replace the jobs the plant had provided. The good news? Investment in these technologies creates a lot more jobs—22 times as many if you count construction jobs, and 148 times as many permanent jobs—than the same expenditure in nuclear, and a lot of that filters down to the more economically marginal who can get good jobs in these sectors.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Environment, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

I rather hoped we’d won the clean air vs. smokers fight. There’s certainly been huge improvement, but it crops up all over the place.

We were just in Panama, and were greeted at the airport with an optimistic sign announcing that it’s a smoke-free country. Not a reality, but I must say smoking was a very small inconvenience there. Far, far worse in many other countries I’ve visited.Welcome to Panama: Country Free of Tobacco Smoke (Sign in Panama City International Airport)

One of the things I’m really proud of in my life is that I initiated the first nonsmokers’ rights regs in Northampton, Massachusetts, back in 1983. We made restaurants set aside 25% of seating area for nonsmokers, and within a few years, not only had most restaurants gone nonsmoking, but a whole lot more had opened and they were drawing from a 50 mile radius–because once they didn’t have to gag on other people’s smoke, a whole lot more people started going out to eat! Actually, the very first bit of activism that I can remember engaging in, at age THREE (yes really), was taking cigarettes off the coffee table and breaking them in half, during a party my parents were throwing. It wasn’t out of malice but out of a very clear sense of self-protection.

From there came a lifetime of social and environmental activism. I just turned 58 this week, so I’ve been at it for 55 years! It;s nice to be able to claim a few victories, one of which was that nonsmoking law more than 30 years ago.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Politics, Psychology Tagged with , , , ,

Jumping in on a long discussion about online bullying in LinkedIn discussion groups and people hijacking discussions, I found a need to add my two cents. (You may need to be a member of that discussion group to see it–not sure).

 

OK, I write as a US-American who has traveled widely and made a point of meeting and talking with people of the cultures where I was visiting (often through homestays, as well as through conversations on bank lines and public transit, etc.)

1. Yes, like every other country, the US has its share of boorish, know-nothing, blinders-on bigots. The difference: in the US, they tend to have more money and power, and more influence on the news media and the political, umm, “process.” And the media, in turn, influences those citizens who get their news from TV toward a very distorted worldview, driven by celebrity “news” and the things that TV execs think hold people’s interest in a newscast: fires, terrorism, natural disasters, and all the other “if it bleeds, it leads” crap.

2. However, the US also has millions of people who care deeply about the world, actively work to learn more about it, and engage in citizenship in a deep and true way (as do most other countries). Many of these folks have at least a functional grasp of one or more languages other than English—unlike the mainstream US population.

3. I’d encourage several of the posters to get out more. Meet your neighbors. Find people who agree with you, and those who don’t. Have open-ended, nonjudgmental conversations. You may be surprised at what you find. I know I was, when I started doing just that back in the mid-1970s. I have many friends with whom I acutely disagree on politics. Sometimes we argue. Sometimes we find other topics where we have common ground. The way to break down stereotypes is to engage with people.

I’ve done this an an organizer, too–for example, running for City Council on a platform focused on affordable housing, traffic safety, and honest/open/transparent government: “Mom and apple pie” issues that cross all demographics. If I had come out right away with an agenda of peace, economic justice, and environmental restoration (back in the 1980s and early 90s when I was a candidate), I would have been dismissed as “too radical”–but we could build consensus around the need for stop signs and crosswalks at dangerous intersections.

Later, I founded a successful campaign to save a threatened local mountain. Once again, I was able to make common cause with people who vehemently disagree with me on a host of other issues. But they could agree on saving the mountain.

And meanwhile, I go out to coffee with my Republican neighbors when I happen to be free on a Wednesday morning. We have fun, share stories of the neighborhood and its past and present residents, and sometimes get into it about politics.

The person who I disagree most strongly with is a fascinating guy, retired from a career as a TV news cameraman with a major network, including much experience abroad in various hotspots. I consider him a friend, but our views are worlds apart. He is a true Tea Partier, and I am basically a Green who usually votes Democratic since there are no viable third parties in the US. I think the others who attend these gatherings are actually amused when we have at it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren, @ElizabethForMA) speaks to me far more deeply than anyone named Clinton. On domestic policy, she’s a wonder (foreign policy, not so much), and I’m proud that she’s my Senator. However, I think if she or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) ran for President, they would be leaving a platform where they can be the conscience of the country, highly visible and highly effective, into a position of acutely marginalized and quickly forgotten.

I’ve certainly been involved with plenty of quixotic progressive presidential campaigns, most recently former Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (@Dennis_Kucinich). The problem is–as our political system is currently structured, when these folks are shut out of debates, underfunded, stretched waaaaay too thin, etc., they make the case to the center-right that the Left can be safely ignored.

I’d much rather see Warren leading a challenge to a Hillary candidacy to push leftward from a position of strength, offering positions and cabinet names and being taken seriously. I’d also like to see Warren provide the same kind of gravitas and deep analysis to her own foreign policy that she so cogently brings to domestic economic issues; there’s room for quite a bit of improvement there.

Also, for Warren but not Sanders, there’s the issue of inexperience. She was elected in 2012, which means when the campaign starts to heat up in 2015, she’ll have only had two years and change of experience as an elected official. That’s significantly less than Obama had–he was a state senator before moving up to the federal level–and I think that was one of the things that really got in the way of his effectiveness.

Had Obama been more experienced, he might have taken the huge organizing momentum of his 2008 campaign and actively translated it into a people’s movement for real change. I think, in the aftermath of that election, if GOP lawmakers had been hearing from thousands of their constituents daily about a set of chosen issues (maybe two or three at a time), they’d have crumbled, and Obama would have been seen as one of the most effective Presidents ever. But Obama and the Democrats threw that rare chance overboard without a struggle. Remember “public option is off the table,” and single-payer never being on the table in the first place? Just one of many squandered opportunities to do what he was elected to do: make change.

Had Obama been more experienced, he would have understood–as LBJ did–when and how to push hard for real reforms. He would have marshaled resources for a massive shift in the way we do energy, closed the festering sore of Guantanamo, exited rapidly from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

And had he been more experienced, he might have taken more risks with his Cabinet, and not put so much faith in the Clinton- and Bush-era politicos who were suddenly making policy again.

Neither Warren nor Sanders has an effective national base. While they are a very visible part of our nation’s conscience, I don’t think they’d remain so in a presidential campaign. Let’s keep them where they are so they can build that base. And maybe, by 2020, mobilize it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Environment, People Helping People, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

I saw “42” when it came out and liked it a lot.

It is hard to stay focused on changing the world when you look around and see not only the same battles all over again, but in many cases the same increasingly elderly activists joining those battles. For me, the wave of youth activism that started with Seattle in 1999 and crested with the Occupy movement–and will return when we least expect it—is very exciting, because it means there IS a critical mass for social change one and two generations younger than us.

I also avoid burnout by regularly thinking about all the areas where we HAVE made progress. And while police violence is an area that needs a LOT of work (since the 1960s, I haven’t understood why they reach for bullets instead of stun guns first), I think about what it was like for blacks in South Africa, Rhodesia, and the American South in my own lifetime…the way the environmental movement has gone from fringe to mainstream…the shattering of the idea common when I was a kid that the only appropriate careers for women were teaching and nursing and domestic work…the relatively new understanding that domestic violence and hate speech and school bullying are crimes we don’t have to tolerate…the string of fallen-dictator dominoes around the world, from throwing off the shackles of colonialism in Africa to the Arab Spring. (We may not always find the replacement governments an improvement, but the truth is, when the people say ENOUGH, governments topple and there is a brief space for something better. Once in a while, as in Mandela’s South Africa, that better thing actually emerges victorious.)

In other words, I look around and I see that within the brief span of my own lifetime (I turn 58 on Wednesday), we’ve made very real change on many fronts, even if it feels like we’re running in place or even backsliding.

These are what gives me hope and keeps me working for peace, justice, and the planet.

The above is my response to a friend posting her response to the movie, “42,” about Jackie Robinson and the integration of baseball. She wrote,

Black Lives Mattered in that struggle against racism in baseball–perhaps the beginning of the civil rights movement…Sixty years later, same struggle. Oh, God help us win this time ’round. Does the arc of justice bend?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

I got sucked into a debate on Facebook following a high school classmate’s posting a meme of some of Obama’s  economic achievements: Dow Jones increasing from 7949 to 17,830 (that’s more than 124 percent, if I’m figuring correctly); unemployment down from 7.8 to 5.8 percent; GDP from NEGATIVE 5.4 to POSITIVE 3.5 percent; and consumer confidence from 37.7 to 94.5 percent from the time Obama took office.

But as these kinds of discussions often do, it quickly turned toward non-economic politics. And good progressive that I am, I put in this comment:

Robin, you wrote, “OH I know Bush had his share of crap also but at least he proudly and openly loved this country.” I am sorry, but if loving your country means bringing it illegally into wars under utterly false pretenses, wrecking the economy, suppressing dissent (continued, to his shame, by Obama), instituting torture, dissipating international goodwill, etc., this is a “love” that needs serious social-work intervention. When an abuser says “I love you and I’ll never hit you again,” we’re skeptical. Bush was an abuser.

The person I quoted than asked me if I didn’t remember 9/11, and wasn’t Bush justified in going to war. She also asked me if I was “also a Jewish Democrat that thinks Obama is good for Israel or do you care”

I responded:

1. Of COURSE I am aware of the horrors of 9/11. I spent two weeks afterward trying to find out if my ex-housemate from Brooklyn days was OK; she was living two blocks from the WTC (she was uptown at the time, fortunately, and now lives in Colorado). And I’m one degree of separation from a couple of people who died that day. BUT Bush made war on Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with it (it’s well documented that Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other)–and, it turned out, didn’t have WMDs either. The terrorists were mostly Saudi. Afghanistan, along with Pakistan, actually did shelter the terrorists–but the appropriate response to a criminal conspiracy and criminal acts is not to destroy an entire country but to go in with a police action, capture the perps, and put them on trial. You talk about “an arrogant and narcisitic man who has tunnel vision and refuses to listen to the American people.” That would describe several US presidents, including both Obama and Bush, as well as Nixon, among others. I was out there as part of the largest peace demonstrations in history, urging Bush NOT to make war on Iraq. It was totally predictable that this would only create instability, blow away our foreign allies, and provide lots of recruitment material for terrorists. I think the Iraq war may be the worst foreign policy debacle of all US history.

2. As for Israel: I was just there this summer, and spent a LOT of time talking to all sides (including my Israel-right-or-wrong West Bank settler family members). This is not a simple situation, but ultimately, the repression and racism from Israel against the Palestinians is a far more destabilizing influence. Netenyahu’s policies do not encourage peace. They inflame hatreds. Then the Israelis cry that the Arabs hate us. There have been horrible crimes on both sides–but revenge is not the answer. Somehow, we have to get past that and make peace, as happened in Ireland/Northern Ireland and South Africa. Wallowing in the hatred just boils the cauldron harder. I do think that the majority of Israelis AND Palestinians actually want peace–but the extremists on both sides look for any wedge they can. I take hope from groups like Combatants for Peace and Neve Shalom, and it made me very sad today to hear that a joint Jewish-Arab school was torched by anti-Arab extremists. You make peace with your enemies, not necessarily your friends. Obama showed some leadership early in his presidency and then largely ignored the whole issue. He should show some more.

So, at the risk of throwing kerosene on the flames, let me ask you: what do you think of these two presidents’ foreign policy legacies? I will not censor dissent, but I will block name-calling and uncivility—so play nice, but tell me what you think.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Democracy, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with ,

This week, a judge ruled that the Business Improvement District in Northampton, Massachusetts was organized without following certain laws. The judge ordered the immediate dissolution of the BID, putting several people out of work and leaving the city bereft of services it had performed.

For the past few years, the BID has cleaned the streets of downtown Northampton, maintained its planters, helped the city with snow removal, funded the holiday light decorations, and organized or assisted with various special events to promote the downtown business and arts  communities.

No one doubts that the organization did great work. But from its inception in 2009, it’s been fraught with controversy. Northampton BID was empowered by the City Council to negotiate contracts to perform these services in March, 2009—and just five weeks later—even before the BID was officially formed in July, 2009—a group of dissenting downtown property owners filed a suit claiming the petition signatures for the formation of the BID were not properly collected or certified. The BID could only form if at the owners of at least 297 properties within the proposed district agreed.

There was controversy over whether the enabling law wanted the count based on parcels or property owners—an important distinction, since many property owners owned multiple parcels. As the BID collected them, owners were allowed to vote once for each piece of property they owned or controlled in the district. One owner signed 15 times.

But there was also controversy about several other areas:

  1. Had enough diligence been expended to verify that the signatures were legible and that they were from people with ownership or delegated authority? The judge invalidated 63 that he could not read, bringing the critical mass well below 297, and strongly criticized the city government for failing to check the signatures carefully.
  2. Was it ethical to redraw the district’s boundary lines prior to formation, to include more properties owned by supporters (including Smith College, by afar the largest landowner in the downtown area) and exclude several owned by opponents?
  3. Membership fees paid for all the services the BID performed. When the BID was accepted in 2009, membership was voluntary. But a change to state law in 2012 made membership compulsory.
  4. A July, 2014 vote on whether to extend the BID’s charter through 2019 used voter eligibility rules that excluded all the people who were forced to join in 2012, and passed 40-0.

As someone who has written two books and used to write a column on business ethics, I find that these other issues sway me. No matter how much good the BID does, it cannot justify its actions as an organization that tramples on the rights of its opponents.

When you tell people that an organization has a voluntary membership, and then you make it mandatory to join and pay dues, that’s wrong. And it’s even more wrong to then exclude the recalcitrant members from voting on the organization’s future. It brings to mind words like “deceitful” and “slimy.” And yes, when your charter depends on certifying participation, you make sure those participants are properly certified.

The Sky Won’t Fall

It is a hardship when people are put out of work just before the holidays, with no notice. I feel sorry for the BID’s workers, and I hope the business community steps forward to hire those folks, even if the jobs are temporary.  While it would have made more sense to me if the judge had ordered a more gradual phaseout, letting the organization honor its commitments and its payroll for a couple of months to deal with past obligations and commitments already made, I disagree with BID proponents who seem to think the sky will fall.

Yes, it will be a scramble to get a holiday lighting program in place in time for the retail season. But it can be done. Presumably, it will not be difficult to transfer the contract from BID to the Chamber of Commerce or some other organization.

Yes, it’s going to impact the downtown when the BID employees who’ve been picking up trash stop doing it. But the city has a Department of Public Works.

The BID did not exist until five years ago. And the downtown thrived. When another program, the Northampton Honor Court, stopped picking up the downtown trash, it was a hardship and the downtown definitely looked more tired. But others stepped into the breach.

Again, I support the good work that the BID performed. But I do not support a process that’s tantamount to bullying, don’t support a double standard for BID supporters and opponents, and think it’s completely immoral to bring the organization in as a voluntary effort and then change the rules. Yes, I recognize that it was the state, and not the local BID, that changed the rules, but the blame for rigging the election to continue under the new terms is most definitely local, and deeply unfair.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Branding, General Commentary, Innovation, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

In yesterday’s post, “Does Making Decisions Lower Our Math Skills?” I looked at Paul Petrone’s article, “The Genius of Wearing the Same Outfit Every Day.” He describes why President Barack Obama (to simplify his day) and Steve Jobs (to brand himself) wear similar outfits day after day. Yesterday, I looked at the part of Petrone’s article that supported Obama’s reasoning, claiming that too many decisions weaken our brains. I took issue with that, as you’ll see if you click through.

But I’m basically in agreement with the other part of Petrone’s article: there can indeed be solid branding reasons behind keeping a wardrobe choice to a bunch of identical black turtlenecks, as Jobs did. For jobs, the black turtleneck made a lot of sense, for several reasons:

  • It’s sleek and modern looking, like Apple’s product line (at least if you stay trim, as Jobs did)
  • It reinforces the “think different” culture at Apple, a company that has built its brand from the beginning on not being the corporate-zombie persona that wears conventional business attire and buys conventional (IBM) computers; the very first Macintosh ad said, “you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984.’”

So now, let me jump into uncharted (and maybe shark-infested) waters: let’s look at President Obama’s wardrobe choice from a branding perspective. And let’s start by looking at the wardrobe choices of his own bed partner, First Lady Michelle Obama.

Michelle’s fashion choices for formal occasions are quite dramatic. Typically her outfits combine three elements: they’re bold, elegant, and surprising. She’s the most fashionista First Lady I can remember, surpassing even Jacqueline Kennedy.

Her husband Barack Obama, however, tends to dress “safe,” in conservative dark suits. When he wore a sharp-looking tan suit, he was heavily criticized—but I thought it was a good move, though years too late. (In fairness—the commentator who started it all said he didn’t care that the suit was tan, but he didn’t think it fit properly.) Still, in typical Barack Obama fashion, he retreated with his actions and went back to his power suits.

The problem is, those “safe” dark suits are at odds with the brand of his 2008 campaign: “change.” The boldness of his rhetoric wasn’t matched by the drab sameness of his attire.

I empathize with him. I don’t spend a lot of energy thinking about the clothes I wear, and I usually dress for comfort. I’m not particularly comfortable in suits and abhor neckties. But I do wonder—and here’s the big heresy:

Would President Barack Obama have had an easier time pushing an agenda of “change” if he had dressed the part?

If, starting on the campaign trail in 2007, he had emphasized Michelle Obama’s three wardrobe attributes of boldness, elegance, and surprise, would he have been better able to marshall support for his initiatives? Is the conformist wardrobe secretly saying “I’m not serious about change”?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Branding, General Commentary, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Here’s an odd one: Paul Petrone’s article, “The Genius of Wearing the Same Outfit Every Day,”  describes why President Obama (to simplify his day) and Steve Jobs (to brand himself) wear similar outfits day after day—and then supports Obama’s reasoning, saying that too many decisions weaken our brains. It’s gotten more than 1000 comments.

Leaving aside the flaw in the Obama example—he’s often photographed wearing something other than a suit—let’s look at Petrone’s claim, based on an L.A. Times article, “Too many decisions can tax the brain, research shows,” that too many decisions can lower math skills:

Two college professors…both found that a person has a limited amount of brain power in a day, so the more decisions they have to make, the weaker their decision-making process becomes…

Vohs…asked a group of random people how many decisions they made that day, and then asked them a series of simple math questions. The more decisions they made in the day, the worse they did on the math questions.

I was instantly skeptical.  1) I’d guess the more we train our brain to make interesting, challenging, important decisions, the more of those we empower it to make. But yes, if we fill our brains up with trivial decisions, we limit them.

And 2) there are many different kinds of decisions. Exercising critical thinking skills–or for that matter, intuitive snap judgments a la Gladwell’s “blink” theory–might actually boost our math performance. Other types of decisions could sharpen or weaken our math performance.

So I went back to the original article. The logic is far more nuanced than Petrone implies. What’s fatiguing is not how many decisions we make, but overwhelming choice in a single decision:

…When people have too many decisions to make — consumers end up making poor decisions, are more dissatisfied with their choices or become paralyzed and don’t choose at all.

And as the complexity of a decision increases, a person is more likely to look for ways—often erroneous—to simplify the choosing process. If there are 100 kinds of cereal, instead of looking at all of the characteristics, people will evaluate a product based on something familiar, such as brand name, or easy, such as price.

Now this actually does make sense. Marketers know fewer choices = more purchases.

Come back tomorrow for a look at the branding (Steve Jobs) part of Petrone’s argument. (Subscribe to this blog so you’ll be notified.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail