This week, I explore the power of asking 'Why?' to challenge assumptions, beliefs, and societal norms. Demanding explanations of why our politicians, thought leaders, and ourselves believe what we believe can lead to deeper understanding and meaningful change.
Mentioned this week:
This American Life: Come Retribution
Popular Information: Publix Versus the Public
Hannah Ritchie's Sustainability by Numbers
As you may recall last week, I talked about how pretty much awful we are at predicting the future and I played a clip of John Stewart's rant on The Daily Show about how journalists should forget about asking hypothetical what-if questions of their guests and focus on their positions on important issues and their opinions about things that have actually happened. Well, last week I was driving up to pick up my son from college and I listened to a recent episode of This American Life called "Come Retribution", which happened to be all about what people thought would happen in a hypothetical second Trump administration. They interviewed former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. And former Director for European Affairs for the US National Security Council Alexander Vindman. Now those two are very concerned that Trump will follow through on his promises to seek retribution against them for their perceived disloyalty to him when he was president. But then at the end, they interviewed a few people at a Trump rally in New Jersey, and folks there were pretty certain that Trump wouldn't seek retribution even though the centerpiece of his campaign is that he is his followers' retribution. Now, I know This American Life isn't really meant to be journalism per se, it's more human interest storytelling, and it's not really their thing to challenge everyday folks who are just sharing their opinions. But one question stuck in my head after listening to that episode. Why? I wish the interviewer had asked those Trump supporters why they thought he wouldn't seek retribution on his perceived enemies, given that that's what he talks about doing more than just about anything else. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized that all of us, journalists and non-journalists alike, need to be asking why a lot more often. So this week, I want to take a look at the ungaslighting power of asking "Why?" Stay tuned.
I'm Craig Boreth, and this is The Great Ungaslighting, a podcast about the ways we all get conned into accepting a human culture that's out of sync with our human nature, and how we can fight back and put the kind back into humankind.
But first, a word about a sponsor.
This week's episode of The Great Ungaslighting is not sponsored by Publix, Florida's largest supermarket chain with stores across the Southeast. And it's not just because a disproportionate amount of "Florida man" incidents seem to take place in and around public stores. It's because while pharmacies around Florida decreased their opioid prescriptions by 56% between 2011 and 2019, publix increased theirs by 67% surpassing CVS in oxycodone prescriptions and trailing only Walgreens for scripts filled in the state. And yet in 2018, Florida sued CVS and Walgreens. Not Publix. Accusing them of quote dispensing, extremely large amounts of opioids from their retail pharmacy stores in Florida.
In 2019, Florida got a new attorney general Ashley Moody. And then in 2022, CVS and Walgreens settled with the state for $630 million and $440 million respectively. In fact, Florida even got a settlement with Walmart for $215 million, even though Walmart was never formally sued by the state. And yet, publix was never sued and never paid a dime. Well, that's not exactly true. It turns out that from 2016 to 2022, Publix donated $10.6 million to Florida politicians, the vast majority of which were Republicans. During that same time, donated $208,000 and Walgreen's donated $637,000. And as far as donations directly to Attorney General Moody, CVS donated nothing, Walgreens donated $8,000, and Publix donated $125,000 to the state's attorney general. When asked for comment, a Publix spokesperson said, "The issues addressed by our elected officials are simply too important for us to remain on the sidelines." Yes indeed they are. And while Publix may be known for its superior customer service and great prices. Nothing can beat the bargain basement deal it certainly appears it may have gotten for purchasing Florida's attorney general.
BREAK
And we're back.
In an early episode of this podcast, I answered the question, why are engagement rings supposed to be diamond? The answer is because DeBeer's diamond company just made up the idea as a marketing gimmick, and a hugely successful one at that. And yet, the diamond engagement ring con continues unabated, showing no signs of stopping. This is just one example of the countless ways we engage in certain customs and behaviors for at best no good reason. Like I remember back at our wedding, we decided that we were going to do all of our formal photos before the ceremony. We told our photographer this, and he was like, well, it's usually done after the ceremony. And we were like, well, why? I mean after the ceremony, there's the party. So why would we want to delay that while you corral dozens of family members to pose for photos? So we told all of our extended family, if they wanted to be in pictures, they had to get there early. If they couldn't get there in time, well, so be it. And it worked out great. We had a great time partying with our family and friends uninterrupted by formal photography. And by the way, for anyone who's planning a wedding anytime soon, here's a little secret. Do whatever you have to do so you have a good time. If you're having a blast, I guarantee everyone else will too.
So you really can't go wrong asking why. Whenever you feel yourself mired in the tyranny of the shoulds, as in you should do this, you should think that, try to answer the question "why?" And if you can't find a satisfactory answer, maybe you should consider why you're doing this or why you think that. Now, obviously when it comes to big contentious issues in the world, it makes sense to demand a rationality from politicians, thought leaders, and yourself. But what might be even more interesting is to look at issues that seem settled, that we so thoroughly considered a sort of settled law as to not merit any further contemplation whatsoever. These are the things that make up the water that we fish swim around in to use the David Foster Wallace metaphor. For a couple of examples, in my mind, it seems pretty unambiguous that we should minimize or eliminate altogether the use of plastics and Palm oil. I mean, unless you're aligned with those industries in some way, it seems indisputable. But is it? I found recently through reading Hannah Richie's book, NOT THE END OF THE WORLD that asking why we might want to keep using those products was actually a useful exercise. So with regard to plastic, Richie reminds us that plastic wrap is hugely important to preventing spoilage and waste of produce and meats. And with regard to Palm oil, while I learned a long time ago that oil palm plantations destroy rainforests and sensitive animal habitats, I did not learn that oil palms are insanely productive plants, and getting rid of them would certainly lead to even more deforestation with oil producing plants that require way more acreage to produce the same amount of oil. Now that's not to say that plastic and Palm oil aren't problematic and we shouldn't be careful with how they're produced and used. It's just to say that asking why those products are so ubiquitous in the first place can help us better understand the nuance or trade-offs of their use. So then we can move forward and make changes that will on net improve the sustainability of our environment, rather than just make us feel good while we implement what we believe to be a solution that might actually make things worse.
BREAK
Ultimately asking why forces us to justify our positions and beliefs so that we don't just rely on reasons like, well, we've always done it that way. As a parent. I've tried really hard to not perpetuate the, let's say sub optimal parenting traditions of previous generations. I can't say I've always succeeded, but I have managed to avoid one pitfall.
I've never used the argument, "because I said so," to justify some demand I've made of my kids. And I'd like to think I do a pretty good job of backing up my beliefs with some evidence that I think is pretty solid. Not all the time, of course. Like everyone else, I don't like to admit that I don't really have a good reason for believing what I believe.
So in the past, I've just made stuff up to sound like I've got a good reason. But I never really felt good about that. So I've tried as often as possible to ask why I believe whatever it is, and look for valid evidence to either back it up, or convince me to reconsider my belief. And over the years, I've had some help nurturing that habit. Way back when I was living in Somerville, Massachusetts many years ago, I lived in a group house with a bunch of other people, including a German guy and a Dutch guy who love to start the day with a good argument. Back then I was dating my now wife and we lived together in that house. She had no patience for these arguments, especially before having her coffee, but I kind of enjoyed them. And every argument was based on the same simple rule. If you were going to express an opinion about something, you should expect to be challenged to back it up. You should expect to be asked why you believe what you believe. I think maybe that should be a new golden rule we should all be willing to live by. If you believe something, you should be able to explain why. And if you can't. Or if your explanation boils down to, because that's what I've always believed or because it just feels right, then you should be willing to accept that nobody else should be required to respect that belief and value it as much as you do. I think comedian Patton Oswalt summed it up pretty well this way:
“You’ve gotta respect everyone’s beliefs. No, you don’t. That’s what gets us in trouble. Look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: 'That is f$%#ing stupid. Are you kidding me?' I acknowledge that you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not going to respect it."
Well, that's it for this week. If you liked this episode, please share it with anyone else you think might also enjoy it. And until next week, be kind to yourself, cut each other, some slack, and use your f$%#ing turn signal.