Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Your Commonplace Or Mine?
I told you this 2,000 years ago.
In persuasive presentations, we often appeal to commonplaces — opinions, attitudes, or perceptions that are widely held by a particular group. Like common sense, these attitudes are (supposedly) common to all members of a group. As persuaders, we can speak to a common point of view. We’re on common ground and we can move forward together.
The problem, of course, is that commonplaces aren’t so common. Indeed, many commonplaces have equal and opposite commonplaces to counterbalance them. One commonplace advises us to look before we leap. Another reminds us that he who hesitates is lost. On the one hand, we root for the underdog. On the other hand, we admire the self-made man – who is anything but an underdog.
It seems that we can find a commonplace to suit almost any argument. Want to lower taxes? There’s a commonplace for that. (The government is inefficient. You earned it. You keep it. etc.) Want to raise taxes? There’s a commonplace for that. (We’re all in this together. We need to help each other. etc.) And “good” commonplaces can be twisted to support “bad” causes. As Shakespeare reminds us in The Merchant of Venice, “The devil can cite scripture for his own purpose.”
In my persuasion class, I ask students to write papers in which they argue a point. By and large, my students are quite adept at deploying commonplaces to support their arguments. I notice that they often deploy commonplaces that they believe in. To be persuasive, however, we need to consider the commonplaces that the audience believes in. I shouldn’t assume that you think like me. Rather, I should seek to understand what you think and use that as a starting point for building my argument.
The concept of using the audience’s commonplaces is as old as Greek rhetoric. It got a boost last year when the sociologists Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg published their research on argumentation and moral values. Their basic finding: we are more persuasive when we frame arguments for a political position around “the target audience’s moral values.”
Feinberg and Willer point out that liberals and conservatives have different moral values (or commonplaces in our terminology). They write “…liberals tend to be more concerned with care and equality where conservatives are more concerned with … group loyalty, respect for authority and purity.”
They then tested how to persuade conservatives to take a liberal position or vice-versa. For instance, how would you persuade conservatives to support same-sex marriage? They found that conservatives are more likely to agree with an argument based on patriotism than one based on equality and fairness. Conservatives tended to agree with an argument that, ““same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans … [who] contribute to the American economy and society.” They were less likely to agree with an argument couched in terms of fairness and equality.
(Feinberg and Willer’s research article is here. A less technical summary is here).
Aristotle taught us that the best person to judge the quality of food is the one who eats it, not the one who prepares it. The same is true for arguments. You can’t judge how effective your argument is. Only the audience can. The moral of the story? Get over yourself. Learn what the audience is thinking.
Us Versus Them
“The school bus broke down!”
How easy is it for an us-versus-them situation to arise? How often do we define our group as different from – and therefore better than – another group? The short answers: It’s surprisingly easy and it happens all the time.
In my professional life, I often saw us-versus-them attitudes arise between headquarters and the field. Staffers at head-quarters thought they were in a good position to direct field activities. People in the field thought the folks at headquarters just didn’t have a clue about the real world.
Headquarters and the field are typically separated by many factors, including geography, planning horizons, rank, age, academic experience, and tenure. Each side has plenty of reasons to feel different from – and superior to – the other side. But how many reasons does it take to generate us-versus-them attitudes?
In the early 1970s, the social psychologist Henri Tajfel tried to work out the minimum requirements for one group to discriminate against another group. It turns out that it doesn’t take much. People who are separated into groups based on their shirt color develop us-versus-them attitudes. People who are separated based on the flip of a coin do the same. Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm is quite simple: The minimum requirement to create us-versus-them attitudes is the existence of two groups.
Us-versus-them attitudes are completely natural. They arise without provocation. There’s no conspiracy. All we need is two groups. I sometimes hear managers say, “Let’s not develop us-versus-them attitudes here.” But that’s completely unnatural. Something about our human nature requires us to develop such attitudes when two groups exist. It can’t not happen.
We can’t avoid us-versus-them attitudes but we can dissolve them. We can’t stop them from starting but we can stop them once they have started.
The pioneering research on this was the Robbers Cave Experiment conducted in 1954. Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif, professors at the University of Oklahoma, selected two dozen 12-year-old boys from suburban Oklahoma City and sent them off to summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park. The boys were quite similar in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. None of the boys knew each other at the beginning of the experiment.
The boys were randomly divided into two groups and housed in different areas of the campground. Initially, the groups didn’t know of each other’s existence. They discovered each other only when they began to compete for camp resources, like playing fields or dining halls. Once they discovered each other, they quickly named their groups: Rattlers and Eagles.
So far, the boys’ behavior was entirely predictable. The research question was: How do you change such behavior to reduce us-versus-them attitudes?
The researchers first measured the impact of mere contact. The researchers thought that by getting the boys to mingle – in dining halls or on camp buses, for example – they could overcome negative attitudes and build relationships. The finding: mere contact did not change attitudes for the better. Indeed, when contact was coupled with competition for resources, it increased friction rather than reducing it.
The researchers then moved on to superordinate goals. The two groups had to cooperate to achieve a goal that neither group could achieve on its own. For example, the researchers arranged for the camp bus to “break down”. They also arranged for the water supply to go dry. Rattlers and Eagles had to work together to fix the problems. The finding: cooperation on a larger goal reduced friction and the two groups began to integrate. Rattlers and Eagles actually started to like each other.
The research that the Sherifs started has now grown into a domain known as realistic conflict theory or RCT. The theory suggests that groups will develop resentful attitudes towards other groups, especially when they compete for resources in a zero-sum situation. According to Wikipedia, RCT suggests that “…positive relations can only be restored if superordinate goals are in place.”
The moral of the story is simple: you can’t prevent us-versus-them attitudes but you can fix them. Just find a problem that requires cooperation and collaboration.
Enclothed Cognition
Dress like a philosopher, think like a philosopher.
I’ve written at various times about embodied cognition – the idea that the body influences the mind. (See here, here, and here.) In other words, our mind is not limited to our brain. We think with our bodies as well. You can improve your confidence by making yourself big. You can brighten your mood by putting a smile on your face. Want to feel morally pure? Take a bath.
How far does this extend? The clothes you wear, for instance, touch your body and mediate between your body and the world around you. It’s fair to ask: do the clothes you wear influence your thinking?
The answer is yes. Hajo Adam and Adam Galinsky introduced the term “enclothed cognition” in an article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in July 2012. (Click here). They write that enclothed cognition describes, “…the systematic influence that clothes have on the wearer’s psychological processes.” They also suggest that two factors come into play: “the symbolic meaning of the clothes and the physical experience of wearing them.”
Many clothes have symbolic value. Take the humble white coat. In a hospital setting, we might assume that someone wearing a white coat is an expert or an authority. We behave differently towards her because of the coat’s symbolism. In other words, the coat affects the perceiver’s cognition and behavior. But does it affect the wearer’s cognition?
Adam and Galinsky conducted three experiments to find out. In the first, they divided randomly selected participants into two groups, one of which wore white lab coats, the other of which did not. The two groups then performed the Stroop test in which the word “blue” is printed in red or the word “green” is printed in yellow. The groups were asked to identify incongruities between the words and colors. The group wearing white lab coats performed about twice as well as the other group.
The second test used three groups. One group wore a white lab coat and believed that it was a doctor’s coat. The second group wore an identical white lab coat but believed that it was painter’s coat. The third group wore normal street clothes. The experimenters asked the three groups to spot discrepancies in a series of illustrations. Those who wore the doctor’s coat found more discrepancies than either of the other two groups. The symbolic value of a doctor’s coat had greater impact on attention than did the painter’s coat.
The third experiment was similar to the second except that some groups didn’t wear the doctor’s or painter’s coat; they merely observed them. Those who donned the doctor’s coat performed best.
The study suggests that the symbolic nature of clothing does indeed affect our cognition. Merely observing the clothes does not trigger the effect (or does so only mildly). Actually wearing the clothes has a meaningful impact on our thinking and behavior.
These studies suggest that our clothes not only affect how others perceive us. They also affect how we perceive ourselves. Even if no one sees us, our clothes influence our cognition. Perhaps, then, we can dress for success, even if we work alone. Similarly, wearing athletic clothes may well improve our chances of getting a good workout. Dressing like a member of the clergy may make us behave more ethically. Dressing like a slob may make us behave like a slob.
There’s one other wrinkle that was brought to my attention – oddly enough – by my spellchecker. When I wrote “enclothed cognition”, the spellchecker consistently converted it to “unclothed cognition”. This raises an interesting question. If clothes affect our cognition in certain ways, does the absence of clothes affect our cognition in other ways? Time for another study.
Animal Fats and Multiple Sclerosis
Maybe not.
As a person who has multiple sclerosis, I read with great interest “STAT”, an article by Maria Bustillos that appeared recently on the Longreads website. (Click here to access the article). Bustillos describes her very unpleasant experiences when her 24-year-old daughter was diagnosed with MS. She also advances the hypothesis that animal fats are an important and overlooked factor in the cause and progression of MS.
If Bustillos is right, then removing animal fats from your diet should alleviate – or even eliminate – many symptoms of MS. I hope she’s right. Controlling MS through diet would be much simpler and less costly than many other alternatives. However, I have my doubts and want to summarize them here.
By way of background, I am a sixty-something Caucasian male who was diagnosed with MS in 2008. I have the remitting-relapsing form of the disease and have not had a relapse for almost eight years. I am also an active volunteer for the National MS Society (NMSS). I participate in their fundraisers – Bike MS, Walk MS, etc. – and I currently serve on the Board of Trustees for the Colorado-Wyoming chapter. It’s worth noting that the opinions stated here are mine alone.
The Animal Fats Hypothesis
Bustillos proposes that animal fats are a significant factor in causing MS and/or exacerbating its symptoms. She writes, “Animal fats appear to play a significant role in making MS patients sicker; fish oils help keep them healthier.” Based on this analysis, Bustillos recommends a vegan-plus-fish diet to manage MS. Let’s call this the animal fats hypothesis or AF for short.
Other Hypotheses
While the AF hypothesis is useful, many other hypotheses about MS exist. One that I find especially intriguing is what I’ll call the clostridium hypothesis as proposed by Dr. Timothy Vartanian and his colleagues at the Weill Cornell Medical College.
The clostridium hypothesis derives from research conducted in the Faroe Islands, an isolated chain in the north Atlantic. Prior to World War II, the inhabitants of the Faroe Islands – the Faroese — had never recorded a case of MS. During World War II, the British established a naval resupply station in the islands and brought in scores of troops and pack animals, especially mules. The first recorded case of MS occurred in 1943 and heralded the beginning of an MS epidemic. Researchers have documented three successive epidemic waves since then. (Click here for more detail).
What changed in the Faroe Islands to enable the rise of MS? Dr. Vartanian and his colleagues suspect – but certainly haven’t proven – that the cause is a specialized subtype of the bacterium clostridium perfringens. The subtype produces the epsilon toxin, which can degrade the myelin sheath that protects the nervous system. Degraded myelin is a hallmark of MS.
Clostridium is associated with grazing animals and is often found in the soil where they feed. Vartanian’s team has found the epsilon-producing form of clostridium in soil samples from the Faroe Islands and also in stool samples of people who have MS – both in the Faroes and elsewhere. Dr. Vartanian and his team suspect that British pack animals introduced clostridium perfringens to the Faroe Islands and created an environmental trigger for MS. There’s no conclusive proof of this hypothesis but clostridium is certainly a bacterium of interest.
MS has traditionally been viewed as an autoimmune disease. For unknown reasons, the immune system attacks the body and degrades myelin. The clostridium hypothesis suggests that the immune system is reacting to a bacterial infection. It’s a very different model and potentially yields very different therapies.
Could a change in diet have caused the eruption of MS in the Faroe Islands? It’s possible but I haven’t found any evidence that the Faroese changed their diet substantially during or after World War II.
I’ve highlighted the clostridium hypothesis because I think it’s intriguing. But there are many other hypotheses as well. One, for instance, suggests that MS is related to a deficiency in Vitamin D. This is based on the observation that the incidence of MS is higher the farther one is from the equator. Presumably one gets less Vitamin D from the sun in far northern or southern latitudes. (Click here for more detail). My point is that there are many hypotheses and we shouldn’t consider the AF hypothesis in isolation. We can compare hypotheses to determine which one explains our observations best.
(Click here, here, here, here and here for more articles on the clostridium hypothesis).
Norway and Colorado
Bustillo’s argument relies heavily on a study of the incidence of MS in post-war Norway. The study, by the neurologist Roy Swank, was published in 1952 in The New England Journal of Medicine. As Bustillos writes, Swank found that “…the incidence of MS in remote, mountainous dairy-farming regions, where there was a high consumption of beef and dairy products, was eight times higher than on the coast, where the predominant diet was based on fish.”
Bustillos and Swank conclude that diet was the causal factor behind these differences. That’s certainly possible but I’m not convinced. The evidence I would point to comes from my home state of Colorado, which also has an unusually high incidence of MS. In Colorado, the incidence of MS is about 182 cases per 100,000 people. In the United States as a whole, the ratio is 135 cases per 100,000 people.
Why the difference? Perhaps it’s Colorado’s altitude. That would fit nicely with the Norwegian study, which found that highlanders contracted the disease more frequently than coastal dwellers. Or perhaps it’s the fact that Colorado is the center of a large livestock industry. We have millions of grazing animals and I suspect our soil is chockfull of clostridium. This would lend credence to the clostridium hypothesis and the Faroe Island experience.
I can’t think of any dietary differences between Colorado and the rest of the nation that would account for the differences. As far as I can tell, the Colorado example doesn’t support the animal fats hypothesis — but doesn’t refute it either.
As Bustillos points out, Swank did considerable research on the vegan-plus-fish diet. Indeed, it’s often referred to as the Swank diet and is promoted by the Swank MS Foundation. (Click here for more detail). Bustillos claims that the National MS Society does not provide information on this diet. That’s not quite right. Here’s an article from 2008 on the NMSS website that summarizes a variety of diets, including Swank’s.
Beef Consumption and MS
If the AF hypothesis is correct, one surmises that there should be a correlation between beef consumption and the prevalence of MS. But I can’t find such a correlation in the available data.
Here, for instance, are the top five countries in terms of beef consumption per capita.
Hong Kong 123.51 pounds per capita per year
Argentina 96.95
Uruguay 81.59
Brasil 60.40
USA 53.84
(Click here for the full table of 61 countries)
On average, the worldwide prevalence of MS is 30 cases per 100,000 people. Yet Argentina has only 18 cases per 100,000 people. Uruguay has 26. Brasil has 15. The USA has 135. (I couldn’t find data on MS in Hong Kong).
At the other end of the spectrum, Sweden and Norway don’t even rank in the top 61 countries in terms of beef consumption. Yet Norway has 160 MS cases per 100,000 people and Sweden has 189.
The data here and here support the Vitamin D hypothesis much more than the animal fats hypothesis.
Other Diets
Based on the animal fats hypothesis, Bustillos concludes that a vegan-plus-fish diet is a good way – perhaps the best way – to manage MS. Let’s remember that other diets have also been proposed to manage MS.
In a popular YouTube video, for instance, Dr. Terry Wahls attributes her success in managing her MS symptoms to a diet rich in leafy greens, colored fruits and vegetables, seaweed, meat from grass-fed animals, and organ meats. She also stresses the need to reduce sugar and gluten as well as the need to reduce stress. Dr. Wahls’ MS symptoms were severe enough that she could no longer walk and was chronically fatigued. When she switched to her new regimen, she regained her energy and her ability to walk.
What intrigues me about Dr. Wahl’s diet is that it includes meat. In fact, her diet is quite similar to the popular paleo diet. Numerous testimonials suggest the paleo diet can help manage MS. (See here, here, and here, for instance).
All of these diets include meat, which a vegan-plus-fish diet excludes. If the AF hypothesis is correct, it seems that the paleo diet should exacerbate MS symptoms rather than alleviate them. It seems that either the vegan-plus-fish diet or the paleo diet might work to alleviate MS symptoms. But I’m hard pressed to explain how both could work. But perhaps we’ll soon find out as the National MS Society recently announced new research into both the Wahls and Swank diets. In cooperation with the Univeristy of Iowa, NMSS is investing $1 million in a 36 week clinical trial to measure the effectiveness of “…a low saturated fat diet (Swank diet) or a modified paleolithic diet (Wahls diet)”. Stay tuned. (Click here for more information).
Evidence Based Medicine
Bustillos writes a long critique of evidence-based medicine or EBM. She clearly believes that we should not accept EBM as the be-all and end-all of medical research. I agree. So does the medical establishment.
For some years now, medical researchers have used a hierarchy of evidence that includes at least four levels. The most stringent level of evidence – Level I – involves randomized, double blind experiments that are replicated in multiple locations. This is the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.
The least stringent level of evidence – Level IV – includes testimony from a panel of experts. Ideally, the panel will include experts from multiple institutions and represent multiple disciplines. The panel reviews the existing evidence and presents it in a public forum where interested parties can question their findings.
Based on what Bustillos writes, it appears that the animal fats hypothesis does not yet rise to the Level IV standard of evidence. Perhaps a useful next step for AF proponents — while we await the results of the NMSS/Iowa study — would be to organize a panel of experts and present their findings in public.
(Click here for more detail on the four levels of evidence or here for an alternate version that includes five levels).
Character References
Bustillos offers sterling character references for researchers who agree with the AF hypothesis. She describes them as “distinguished”, “eminent”, “prominent”, and “highly qualified”.
I’m sure she’s right. I would similarly like to offer sterling character references for the neurologists, biologists, researchers, and clinicians that I have met in the MS community. Many of them have close personal connections to MS. Indeed, many of them have the disease themselves. On the whole, I find them to be highly professional, creative, and open-minded. They’re looking for answers and they’ll pursue any clue that seems promising.
I made my career in the computing industry and I recognize the Not Invented Here syndrome when I see it. I don’t see it in the MS community.
Medical Therapies
There are currently 14 FDA-approved disease modifying therapies (DMTs). None of these is a magic bullet that stops or reverses the course of the disease. However, the DMTs can slow the progression of the disease and produce useful outcomes in both the short term and long term.
Generally, the sooner one begins treatment with DMTs, the better off they are in the long run. Mark Freedman’s research, published in the journal Neurology (click here), suggests that, “…that early optimal treatment aimed at reducing disease activity can improve longer-term outcomes by delaying disease progression.”
My Case
Like Bustillos, I believe that good diet is essential to good health. I’m intrigued by the vegan-plus-fish diet. Yet, I’ve managed my MS symptoms successfully without it.
I eat a healthy diet but it’s not nearly as strict as vegan-plus-fish – or paleo for that matter. I follow the recommendations of various heath organizations like the American Heart Association. I don’t each much sugar but I don’t worry too much about gluten or dairy. I eat a lot of fish and vegetables but I also toss in a hamburger every now and then. Why? Because I believe that occasional pleasures are essential to good health as well.
I also do a lot of yoga. Perhaps that’s what makes the difference for me. Perhaps we should research yoga’s impact on MS more thoroughly. I think we could build a strong case for yoga – perhaps equally as strong as the case that Bustillos presents for the AF hypothesis.
The Newly Diagnosed Experience
Bustillos writes about her experiences in the immediate aftermath of her daughter’s diagnosis. By and large, she describes it as a nightmarish period in her life.
My own baptism into the MS world was more benign. The first thing my doctors told me was that there’s a lot that we don’t know. I accepted that and did a lot of research on my own. I discovered various therapies including the paleo diet, yoga, massage, and acupuncture. I adopted those that made most sense to me.
I’m sorry that Bustillos and her daughter had a negative experience. But I don’t think that’s relevant to whether we accept or reject the AF hypothesis. I think we should share as much information as we can about as many therapies as possible. But I don’t think we should promote the vegan-plus-fish diet as the one true solution. There’s just not enough evidence.
Where To?
I’m interested in the vegan-plus-fish diet but not yet ready to convert. I’m well versed in Pascal’s Wager and I don’t require Level I evidence to pursue a potential therapy. But I would like to see some evidence that’s at least at Level IV. I have an open mind here but I need to know more.
I hope that Bustillos — and others who are intrigued by dietary therapies – will also keep an open mind about disease modifying therapies. The evidence is quite clear that it’s better to start DMT therapies earlier rather than later. It’s Level I evidence and it’s quite convincing.
Perverse Incentives and Wells Fargo
But don’t read the comp plan.
The papers today are filled with the story of the “brazen sham” at Wells Fargo. Apparently, 5,300 employees opened “566,000 phantom credit card accounts” and charged customers $1.5 million in fees for accounts that they didn’t know existed. Why did employees do that? Because their compensation plan told them to.
Wells Fargo seems to have spawned a set of perverse incentives in the credit card division. Rather than incenting employees to do the right thing, the incentives led employees to cut some ethical corners in order to earn bigger bonuses. The company professed one set of values but paid employees to abide by another. That’s perverse but not uncommon.
(For more on perverse incentives, click here, here, and here).
Why are perverse incentives so common? In my opinion, it’s poor message discipline. The company delivers different messages to different audiences.
As it happens, I’m a Wells Fargo customer (though not of the credit card division). I receive a lot of their information and, being a student of branding, I actually read it. I’ve always been impressed by the consistent tone and content of their communications. The messaging managers are doing a good job and building a good brand.
I’ve also had a number of students who work for Wells Fargo as junior to mid-level managers. Without exception, they speak highly of the organization. They report that Wells Fargo uses the Strengths Finder tools to help employees identify their strengths and weaknesses and to help managers build well-balanced teams. They also report that the company has a diverse employee base and a very positive culture. In short, my students who work at Wells Fargo seem to love the place.
The messaging is remarkably consistent, whether it’s coming directly from the company or indirectly through employees. As the New York Times reports, the message consistently focuses on trust: “Wells Fargo has long tried to separate itself from Wall Street…..the bank has sought to portray itself as a bank for Main Street. Its entire ethos, Wells Fargo has long suggested, is one of trust and ethics.”
That message came through clearly and consistently for me. But the people in charge of message consistency missed one critical document: the comp plan.
It’s often said that a company speaks to its sales force through the comp plan. In other words, the comp plan is a messaging document and requires the same discipline as any other messaging document.
Sales people don’t read company brochures and websites to learn how to behave. Instead, they read the comp plan. If the brochures focus on a culture of trust but the comp plan focuses on closing deals at any cost, we almost automatically get perverse incentives. The company is saying two different things to two different audiences. The best that can be expected is confusion. The worst is fraud.
Can Wells Fargo recover? I suspect so. In fact, though somewhat disappointed, I’m still a satisfied customer. They’ve done a good job by me and I appreciate their attitude and, yes, their ethos. Now they have to deliver one consistent message to all audiences, both internal and external.
My Social Media
