The Skeptical Consumer - Part 2: Assembling a Tool Box for a World of Information

By Anne-Marie Hoskinson, Ph. D. Candidate, Conservation Biology Program, U of MN Wedge Board of Directors

Editor's Note: Here is the thrilling conclusion of the topic Anne-Marie first wrote about in the February/March 2005 Newsletter.

In the last article, I claimed that we humans are barely rational decisionmakers, and we're even more impassioned about our food choices. Friends and acquaintances proclaimed, "interesting article!" "But you realize I'm a lot more logical than 'those people' you were writing about, right?"

Perhaps, but probably not. I mentioned that our irrationality had some predictable patterns. Remember that we don't deal with statistics very well, we overestimate our predictive powers, and we don't change our decisions, even in the face of contrary evidence. It turns out that our irrationality about evaluating information and making decisions, follows certain patterns too.

In the last article I began a story about a friend who warned me of the supposed dangers of polycarbonate water bottles - those indestructible and brightly-colored containers many of us use now. In his e-mail, my friend war ned that dioxins could leach from the containers and poison me. After all, it had happened to Victor Yushenko, now president of Ukraine. What I found in the course of my investigation of the "dioxins in water bottles" claim illuminated several common fallacies we all make.

First, and maybe because we are such social creatures, we rely heavily on anecdotes. Ever tried a new pair of jeans, or a new rice mix, or an herbal supplement, because it worked for a trusted friend? We all have - the "dioxins in water bottles" story is one such anecdote. It turns out that it is not at all true: polycarbonate bottles do not have dioxins, or any chemical that could turn into any one of the dioxins, under any circumstances. Chemicals also become less active the colder they get, so freezing a liquid should make it less likely to leach its container. In fact, it takes several years to decades for polycarbonate to leach anything - far beyond the life of our water bottles - and it's unclear whether the leachate is harmful or not. The anecdote itself is simply false - but that's not the end of the story.

This rumor kept going for two reasons. First, the internet makes information easily available, but there's no "truth test" to anything you find out there. Our easy acceptance of information is amplified in the face of the overwhelming amount of information. Second, it persisted because none of the recipients ever asked for independent confirmation of the facts. In fact, most internet hoaxes, scares, and spam count on this human fallacy. It's much easier to forward the message than to run even a cursory check. Lest you think you're immune, fess up: how many of us have forwarded the e-mail about the latest computer virus, or a free computer from Bill Gates, or ketchup tainted with blood, or (my personal favorite) rat feces in raisin-and-bran-flakes cereal? We all have - fortunately, there are several powerful tools available to check some facts. The web site www.snopes.com tracks rumors, hoaxes, urban myths, and claims of miraculous cures for disease. It and other web sites describe the claim and whether the claim is verified or not. It also lists the source(s) of its verification, so you can check those independently.

Many of the claims we cooperative grocery shoppers are interested in, are not so quickly checked. They take a little more time and thought, but in our quest to be skeptics we can apply a few more tools. Many of the choices we make about our foods and supplements come because we don't care for ambiguity. Do the phytochemicals and fiber in fruits and vegetables help ward off cancer and some diseases, or not? Can nitrates in preserved meats, cheeses, and wines cause cancer, or not? Do herbal supplements relieve symptoms, or not? The evidence is not yet in for these and many other questions, but that's not good enough for us. In essence, we've decided that something that hasn't been proved false, must be true. Don't fall for this appeal to your ignorance. You're smarter than that! Skeptical consumers look for independent confirmation of the facts.

And independent confirmation comes from reputable sources. Part of the reason this "dioxin in water bottles" hoax spread so far was that a group opposed to any plastic use anywhere, put up a web site with unfounded claims about the "dangers" not just of dioxins leaching from polycarbonate (false), but the dangers of microwaving plastic wrap (true only if you heat the plastic to its melting point), re-using plastic storage containers for food (false), and out-gassing from having these items in your house (maybe true). The "scientific" studies this group cited tur nedout not to exist, or had been entirely made up. As skeptics, we're open to the ideas, but we don't accept authorities and we apply our skepticism to all the claims.

Which leads us to our last fallacy and countering tool. Perhaps the tendency we're most unaware of is our inconsistency. As a nation, we argued for the last two years about whether to send troops to a nation purported (but not proved) to have large-scale weapons. The dominant basis for this argument was the uncertainty - over whether such weapons already existed or were being developed, over whether they'd be used. In the end, agree or not, we sent troops. At the same time, we as a nation argue about whether to drill for oil in ANWR or not. Each camp in this argument points to the uncertainty in the other camp as a justification for its own agenda. Closer to our own personal lives, we're poor risk assessors. A friend of mine won't let her toddler son talk on a cell phone, for fear of radiation poisoning, but her son wears a child's digital watch and rides 23 miles to and from day care in the family minivan each day. Many of us think we're more likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash. And a recent poll found that we ascribe far more danger to our food choices than to our other lifestyle choices. In other words, we think we're more likely to die (or live longer) based on our food choices, than based on how we spend the other 23 hours in a day!

This is probably the most challenging attribute of our human irrationality. Not only are we often unaware of it, but even when we become aware, we cling to our inconsistency. My friend is now aware that her toddler is about a million times less likely to be affected by the cell phone than the digital watch and 46-mile-per-day commute, but the cell phone ban continues. This is not criticism, but observation. Resolving this inconsistency involves not just making different choices, but thinking differently. That takes practice; skeptics are made, not born.

Like moths around a street lamp, we seem to be both attracted and repulsed by reason. Our President is a Harvard and Yale educated man who scored big by describing himself as plain-spoken. Scientists, we think, take too long to figure things out, then won't tell us exactly what's going to happen. Friends chastise us when we think too much, and urge us to trust our guts. Advertisers depend on our emotions for effective pitches, and we buy them. None of us are immune. Yet we demand rationality from our leaders, from our scientists, and from our friends. Being skeptics does not mean we abandon our passions and beliefs for reason. It means we choose the way we approach the problem based on how likely that path is to give us the best outcome.