Super Super Bowl

Original post:  Feb 2, 2015

What a whipsaw of emotions. I could not believe how many swings of fate there were in the game. To make matters more interesting, my seven year old had declared earlier in the week that he was rooting for the Seahawks. He even brought home an art project with a "football guy" in blue and green. All through the game, he kept up a steady stream of needling comments. When Seattle jumped ahead in the second half by ten points, it just added salt to the rapidly developing wounds. As the Patriots slowly fought back, he still remained confident. He was very sure that they would repeat their heroics at the end of the first half and score the winning touchdown. As they flew down the field and added a miraculous circus catch, he was certain of victory. To be honest, I completely expected it. Then the impossible happened and the Pats got an amazing interception by a rookie to pull out the win.

While the rest of the family started to celebrate the unbelievable finish, my wife noticed the sobbing heap in the corner. My little guy was inconsolable. It took a good 20 minutes before he was composed enough to get to bed.

As silly and inconsequential as sports seem, they still have an ability to tap into some of our deepest emotions. They can draw us in and find ways of making us care in so many ways--often even more than we would care to admit. For a little while, they can even help us feel more alive. Of course, tying your fate to the unpredictable nature of professional sports can also expose us to crushing defeats. Having survived both sides of the equation, I can speak from personal experience. Still, I'm glad my boys are becoming sports fans. Life itself has its share of ups and downs. As devastating as the losses can be, our ability to persist in the face of adversity can help guide us toward ultimate victory.

Once we had safely tucked the boys in bed and lights were out, my wife decided to call it a night. She went upstairs and then came down again fairly quickly. In the darkness, she had heard my older son (the Pats fan) climb into his brother's bed and console him. I could not have been prouder of him.

Putting things into perspective

Original post:  Oct 22, 2014

Fear is a powerful emotion. Once unleashed, it can overwhelm our rational side and become an all-consuming beast. Today's headlines scream out warnings about potential dangers. Much of it is aimed at grabbing your attention to earn more advertising revenue. There are even some who hope to profit off our insecurities. Witness the story of a scavenger who claimed the "ebola.com" URL and wants to sell it now for $150,000!     Entrepreneur tries to sell Ebola.com for $150,000 - Telegraph

We often lack objective evidence that will help us keep some of these potential threats in perspective. This article from Vox actually ranks a number of different threats to Americans. It is interesting to see the comparison of the threats that are hyped on the nightly news compared against actual results from other "everyday" occurrences that are, in fact, much more deadly. To give just one example pulled from the article, ebola has only sickened a handful of people and resulted in one high-profile death. By contrast, a severe flu epidemic in 2004 killed 48,000! Despite the disparity, the level of alarm was far less. Some of it may be due to the lesser effects of 24 hour news networks and social media back then. Much of it is due to the relative unknowns about ebola which make it much harder to comprehend.

One other example is the fact that about 40,000 Americans are seriously injured by falling furniture in their own homes! Cases of "tip-over" caused a little less than 30 deaths last year. That makes it a much more serious threat than ebola!

Here is a link to the full article:  Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype) - Vox

Emotion trumps reason

Original post:  Apr 16, 2014

We like to believe that people are rational. We often argue that if we can marshal enough evidence to prove our point that we can win the day. The truth is actually much more complicated than that. It turns out that people are often guided by their emotions as much as their intellect. We often bow to tradition even when we know it might not be the correct path.

Doctors are no different than everyone else. Despite their long years of training, many of them are also subject to this effect. In this article from the Atlantic, many of them are demonstrating that it is often extremely difficult to undo years of practice even in the face of contradictory evidence.

David Jones tells the story in his book, Broken Hearts: The Tangled History of Cardiac Care. At first, cardiologists believed that coronary artery disease was due to cholesterol and other substances building up blockages. Bypass surgery, balloons, and stents helped to increase oxygenation and clean out the clogged arteries. These procedures became the gold standard in care. However, there were others who felt that heart attacks were due to ruptures caused by plaques built up with cholesterol and other substances. They felt that statins could help relieve these conditions and help reduce heart attacks.

Jones has other theories about why practice is slow to change:

Jones readily admits there are financial reasons for the continued use of these procedures. Bypass and angioplasty make money for physicians and hospitals. But other explanations—what he terms “emotional and psychological”—are more interesting and especially relevant to current debates about treating high cholesterol and hypertension.

The physician who wrote the article also adds his own opinion:

....Quite simply, it is hard to practice medicine one way for so many years and then change. I have become adept at mixing and matching medications to get to the old recommended levels while minimizing side effects. And while I do not do formal outcome studies on my patients, and some have clearly experienced heart-related issues, I can generally state that those that take their pills have done quite well.

But Jones’ research provides a cautionary tale for my type of reaction. Studies that asked cardiologists why they continued to recommend elective bypass and angioplasty despite the plaque hypothesis revealed emotional and psychological reasons of dubious validity. For example, some justified their decisions because they had a “zero tolerance” policy for angina. Others worried that they would have “anticipatory regret” if a patient who had not been revascularized had a heart attack. Others were disinclined to leave the catheterization lab without doing “something.” Finally, others feared lawsuits. None of these opinions, Jones correctly asserts, should carry the day.

We should keep these types of issues in mind as we develop new techniques and systems that might run counter to current practices. Even with documented proof, it will still require an extensive campaign to change hearts and minds!

Here is the link to the full article:  When Doctors Act on Tradition and Emotion Over New Science - Barron H. Lerner - The Atlantic

Open debate

Original post:  November 11, 2011

I enjoy matching wits with others. I think it really started in college. There is something invigorating to me about listening to an argument and searching for the logical flaws. It's even better when you point those out and then your adversary finds a way to reverse that situation and challenge you in return. Some of these discussions can get rather heated. I don't think I'm alone in generally believing that my ideas are correct. I will passionately defend my points of view. At the end of these contests, I am generally willing to set our differences aside and move to the next topic with no animosity. I find that I can separate the person from the argument fairly well.

That quality has not endeared me to my in-laws. They are not as fond of this style. It might seem that all of that debate is arguing. In a way, they are right. I guess I don't see that type of verbal sparring as a negative. I like to be challenged because it forces me to test my own beliefs. Sometimes I learn that I am wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, I actually will admit that from time to time! I'm not so sure that they appreciate such spirited exchanges. As a result, I really try to rein myself in to avoid offense. I find in those situations that the clever retort is probably best left unstated.

Perhaps what makes this type of animated conversation so challenging is that it is often difficult to argue so vehemently without invoking emotion. As soon as an argument turns from logic to emotion, there are bound to be hurt feelings. Sometimes it is not possible to avoid these types of situations. Collateral damage, I guess....

If you are ever in a situation like that and I am arguing the other side, I'm warning you in advance that it is all business (nothing personal)!