When is it OK to steal?

Cheap Fares

Several recent news items caught my attention over this holiday weekend. In the first, it was reported that Delta airlines sold many tickets at a ridiculously low fare, and will honor those ticket sales regardless (they may have no choice because of a federal law requiring truth in advertising for airlines). As word of the cheap fares spread on Twitter and Facebook, people flocked to Delta’s website to buy these cheap tickets, even as they were aware that the pricing was an error.  They were very cheap: “A roundtrip flight between Cincinnati and Minneapolis for February was being sold for just $25.05 and a roundtrip between Cincinnati and Salt Lake City for $48.41. The correct price for both of those fares is more than $400.” In essence, they took advantage of an error and got something for much less than market value.

People did not seem to mind, and viewed this is ethically defensible. Consider this sampling of comments after an NPR article about this event: “The published price is the published price. It’s not like the passenger hacked into the system. Come on folks!” or “How did this airline’s mistake turn into us being unethical for buying their tickets? Their normal prices are the only unethical part of this situation.” or “They change their prices minute-to-minute based on their hidden math. If that math turns out to be wrong, I’ll sleep just fine.”

So most people, it seems, would buy the ticket, would not feel bad, and would not feel that they had made an unethical decision. I will come clean as well. I would absolutely buy a pricing error ticket, even if I knew it was an error.

Wells Fargo Kills a Homeowner

The second item was posted on Facebook by a friend of mine. It seems that years ago, a simple typographical error by Wells Fargo bank created a series of events that ended up with Wells Fargo erroneously foreclosing on a home, even after they realized their mistake. They billed the owner for unpaid property tax (it was actually his neighbor that was behind).  In order to collect the back taxes, they doubled his mortgage payments and as a result, he fell behind in his mortgage, and so they foreclosed and sold his home. Incredibly, Wells Fargo admitted their own error, but rather than correct it, they sold his home anyway! Eventually, the owner literally died in court trying this fight this. Naturally, we are all incredulous. Wells Fargo knew it made a mistake, but foreclosed anyway. They are the epitome of a heartless, cruel corporation and this is all reminiscent of a bureaucratic dystopia like Brazil.

But at the core, are these events really that different?  In each case, a technical error caused the sale to happen. In each case, the items should not have been sold. There was never a real $25 fare to Salt Lake and back taxes were never really owed. In both cases, the buyer benefits and the seller suffers. Why are we almost all OK with Delta being screwed out of airline fare but deeply offended at Wells Fargo? It seems like these events should be equivalent. Wells Fargo should not have sold  the condo, and Delta should not be required to honor those fares.

Clearing the Shelves at Wal-Mart

One might argue that the Wells Fargo case is different, the error was discovered before the sale. And so these events are not equivalent. So a third news story might be a better example. A few months ago, a technical error allowed people on food assistance (food stamps) to use their benefits cards without a limit. The error was made by by Xerox, who runs the EBT program in many states. In Louisiana, customers at a Wal-Mart, realized that the cards had no limit, word spread, and they cleared the shelves. Police were actually called, though Wal-Mart (much like Delta) said they would honour the sales, as no laws were broken. Card users knew this was a result of an error. But unlike  the Delta case, in which people are nearly universally accepting of the cheap fares, the benefits card incident was widely condemned. Comments like “No matter how you cut it, it was theft and those who took advantage should be prosecuted!” or “This is absolutely disgusting and everyone who used one of those cards and “stole” stuff should go to jail and forever have their EBT benefits cancelled for life.”, were common in the news reports.

I’m left with the same questions. Why is it alright to steal a fare from Delta (paying $25 for a $400 fare is stealing $375 worth of air time from them) but it is absolutely not aright to steal from Wal-Mart. Both are big corporations. Neither will be hurt by this minor glitch, and any tiny bit lost revenue would be passed on to another consumer anyway. Does this dichotomy exist because the Delta shoppers were on-line whereas Wal-Mart shoppers were loading up in person? Does this dichotomy exist because the Delta shoppers were from all walks of life, but the Wal-Mart  shoppers were “welfare types”. Is it more OK for a savvy traveler to steal from Delta than a welfare bum to steal from Wal-Mart? Would we condemn the Delta ticket buyers if it were revealed that all were on public assistance?

I do not have a quick answer, though I feel like a properly controlled experiment might be in the works.

Thanks for reading, and thoughtful comments are welcome, of course.

Music and the Mind

As I am sitting down to write this blog entry, my younger daughter is practicing her piano lessons for the week. She will put in twenty minutes of practice, paying extra attention to counting (her teacher really likes her students to count). In the short term, she will progress to being able to play more complicated pieces, to play music (rather than just notes) and our living room will be filled with the sounds of elementary piano music.

Hearing our children play music is an undeniably wonderful thing.

But in the long term, there is increasing evidence that the time she spends on music instruction may have long lasting and beneficial effects on cognitive function, social behavior, and academic performance. That seems to be the conclusion of much of the contemporary research on the effects of music on the brain and mind.

Full disclosure, although I study cognition and thinking, this is not my area of expertise. I’m interested as a psychologist, but also as a parent and music lover. So I’m not endorsing anything in my professional capacity, I just find this work really fascinating.

The study music and the mind had a dubious moment of fame in the 1990s, and everyone has heard of the “mozart effect”. The idea, which was wildly over interpreted by many, was that listening to music (specifically to the music of Mozart) will “make you smarter”. Of course, the original paper did not make this claim, and the authors were clear that these were short term effects of listening to a piece of music and subsequent  performance on spatial reasoning tasks. But  the public was so enamored by this finding that a whole industry was spawned (“Baby Einstein” DVDs) and the governor of the state of Georgia actually set aside money to make sure that every baby that was born in that state was given a classical music CD.

Although the idea that passive listening to classical music would make babies and kids more intelligent and more creative is erroneous, interest in music and the mind has not disappeared, and a few weeks ago, I came across several popular science articles that suggest a renewed interest in the topic. And this time, the claims are more credible and the possible benefits much more long lasting.

But what effects does music–either listening to, or playing–have on the mind?

There is robust evidence from Glenn Schellenberg’s lab at the University of Toronto that music instruction is directly linked to higher IQ scores. A paper from 2005 summarized this work, and found that music instruction was correlated with improvements in spatial, mathematical, and verbal tasks. He writes , “Does music make you smarter? The answer is a qualified yes.” The reasoning is that music instruction seems to have these effects because it is school-like, requires attention, is enjoyable, and engages many areas of the brain. Learning about music also requires and encourages abstract thought.  The suggestion here is that a person can identify the same tune even if played in a different tempo, instrument, or key because that they have processed it as an abstraction. The  “qualified yes” is that it is not clear if music lessons are the only way to get this improvement and Schellenberg suggests that other kinds of private lessons (drama, for example) might show similar cognitive  benefits.

But other research has begun to track the academic performance and brain function of students who engage in music instruction. A longitudinal study being run by Nina Kraus at Northwestern University is looking carefully at long term benefits of school-based music curricula (as opposed to private lessons as in the Schellenberg study). In essence, music instruction in school seems to improve children’s communication skills, attention, and memory. Kraus’s team is also examining the neural correlates to these benefits and even finds that the auditory processing advantages and neural changes that come from music instruction are robust into adulthood. In other words, if there are cognitive and perceptual enhancements from studying music as a child, these changes may persist long after music instruction is over.

Finally, a recent editorial in the New York Times asked “Is Music the Key to Success?” The author notes that many very successful people benefited from extensive music training.  Allen Greenspan, Stephen Spielberg, Larry Page, Paul Allen, Condoleezza Rice, and others were (and are) trained musicians. This is not to say that piano lessons at age 6 = future Secretary of State, and of course the Op Ed  asks “Will your school music program turn your kid into a Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft (guitar)? Or a Woody Allen (clarinet)? Probably not.” But the correlations are there, and the evidence (including the more rigorous studies above) is compelling.

The message is: Learn to play music,  or have your children learn an instrument.

Obviously, there is no evidence that instruction in music will produce negative effects. None. So why do schools and school boards sometimes look cutting to music and arts programs as a way to make ends meet? Just this year, the Toronto school board decided (controversially) to make some severe cuts to its music program, and this problem is province wide (though thankfully, not our kids’ public elementary school…we have a great music program).  And this problem is not unique to Ontario, of course. California has seen its school music program decimated.

This is not a good idea.

My point is, there is ample evidence—even when viewed with a skeptical eye—that music instruction has tangible benefits and there is literally no downside. If anything, I’d argue for more music instruction in schools. We’ll likely see wide-ranging cognitive and academic benefits as a result. But if nothing else, we’ll maybe create more musicians.

Gladwell versus the academy (a modern David and Goliath)

I’ll start with an admission: I have never read any of Malcolm Gladwell’s books.

It’s nothing personal or principled, but I just never got around to it;  I tend to prefer reading fiction in my spare time anyway. I have enjoyed some of his essays in the New Yorker, but that’s about it. So I am not writing about the content of his books.  I’m writing about the reception that his book receive, the criticisms, and the apparent belief by many that he’s a scientist. This, it seems, really bothers some actual scientists.

Malcom Gladwell is an enormously successful and gifted writer. No one can argue with this. His books Blink, and The Tipping Point, and Outliers have have made accessible to many people outside the academic and scientific world an understanding of some of the most interesting and exciting ideas in cognition, social psychology, and neuroscience. He has a long career as a journalist, is well read, and he’s no Jonah Leher….

With each book, Gladwell’s stature has grown, but I have noticed the reaction from academics has been less than enthusiastic. Many feel that he misunderstands (or worse, misrepresents) the scientific studies upon which many of his books are built. Dan Simons and Chris Chabris are two of the more vocal critics, and they are both well-respected and well-known scientific psychologists. They argued (in an article posted in the Chronicle of Higher Education that many people were overly enthusiastic about the premises in Blink, namely that intuition can produce better outcomes than analytic cognition. It’s not that they necessarily thought the book was wrong so much that they felt everyone was misinterpreting what it was about. In fact, Simons and Chabris are the authors of The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us, which argues that human intuitions can be very deceptive. The title, by the way, refers to one of Simons’s most well-know experiments.

They are not the only vocal critics. Steven Pinker is probably closer to Malcolm Gladwell in terms of being a public intellectual (and he has received his fair share of criticism as well). And he too is critical of Gladwell’s books for some of the same reasons. In a review of Outliers,  Pinker writes that “The reasoning in “Outliers,” which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle.”

So now Malcolm Gladwell has a new book, David and Goliath.  As I mentioned before, I have not read this book, so I make no attempts to provide my own critique. But one anecdote in particular seems to have garnered a lot of attention. Gladwell discusses several stories of people who became very successful despite having dyslexia. His thesis seems to be that having dyslexia made it just a little harder for these people to get by, and so maybe they worked a little harder and compensated for the dyslexia and thus achieved greatness. Gladwell calls this  “the theory of desirable difficulty.” He bases this (apparently) on a study from 2007 in which subjects who read a mathematical reasoning problem in a hard-to-read typeface actually outperformed subjects who read the same problems in an easier to read typeface. So there may be a connection, but there may not be.

In a recent review in the WSJ, Christopher Chabris takes Gladwell to task. He points out that the 2007 study in question has not replicated that well. He wonders why Gladwell does not point this out. He wonders why Gladwell asserts as “laws” phenomena with many possible interpretations. The review is critical, and very good, and points out what I really think people should be aware of  when they read Gladwell’s book, namely that  it contains interesting anecdotes mixed with science, and that the writing is very good and persuasive. This need not be a bad thing, and Gladwell and his supportive critics point out that this is a great narrative form, and is exactly what makes Gladwell so good. Stories matter. Narrative matters. But the expanded version on Chabris’s blog went further, and Chabris worries that Gladwell knows full well that people over interpret his books and he simply does not care. He writes “I can certainly think of one gifted writer with a huge audience who doesn’t seem to care that much. I think the effect is the propagation of a lot of wrong beliefs among a vast audience of influential people. And that’s unfortunate.”

Ouch.

Is this envy? I do not think so. Dan Simons and Chabris are successful authors in their own right. So is Steven Pinker. But the difference is that they are also successful academics and researchers. Chabris makes the point that many people simply consider Gladwell to be an authority, rather than an author. The term “Gladwellian” exists.

The review was critical enough to cause Mr Gladwell to respond on Slate.com. Gladwell suggested that “Chabris should calm down”, and  he even takes a mild swipe at Mr. Chabris’ wife. Why so personal? I will confess, that I did not find Gladwell’s Slate response to be very flattering. It came across as arrogant and dismissive. Does Gladwell imagine himself as the David and the Academy as the Goliath? Possibly, though I’m inclined to think the opposite. Gladwell’s “brand” is so big that he is very likely the Goliath in this this fight. And (in keeping with the these of his new book)  his gifts–his incredible writing talent– may very well be what could bring him down.

In the end, I’m glad that this debate is even able to happen. I’m glad that there is a journalist and writer like Malcolm Gladwell  who is interested and exited enough by human behavior and psychology to write best sellers. I’m glad that there are serious and respected scientist like Chabris and Simons to call him out when the claims go to far.

In the course of following these criticisms and counter criticisms  I’ve become much more interested in reading this work. I fully plan to read Gladwell’s book of Essays (What The Dog Saw)  and some of his books. As well, I’m planning to read Simons and Chabris book too. All concerned parties can rest assured  that I’ll be checking them out of my public library soon, and that no actual cash will flow.

%d bloggers like this: