False Equivalencies: The Danger of Treating All Information Equally

False equivalencies—presenting two sides of an argument as if they hold equal merit, even when one side is not grounded in facts—erode public discourse and trust. Whether in discussions about climate change, vaccine safety, or political violence, this action has damaging consequences for how the public engages with science, policy, and reality.

They’ve always been a pet peeve, but I was especially irritated when I read Malcolm Gladwell's interview with The New York Times about his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point. At first, I was delighted when he said, “I don’t have any great hesitation about saying I was wrong. If you’re reading a book that is 25 years old, stuff should be wrong. If you don’t recognize that the world has changed in 25 years, there’s something wrong with you.”

I couldn’t agree more. The world constantly shifts, and we must adapt our thinking to new evidence and circumstances. Gladwell’s humility in admitting his mistakes is refreshing, particularly in today’s polarized climate, where admitting fault is often seen as a weakness. 

It’s what he said later that troubled me: “People increasingly want uncurated expertise. Now does that sometimes create problems? Yeah, a lot of people didn’t take the Covid vaccine that should have and died as a result. That’s really unfortunate. I am fully aware of what happens when you let a thousand flowers bloom. But I’m also aware that there is at times something beautiful about the fact that we are opening up access to people in a way we never did before.”

Unfortunate? It was tragic. It was political and medical malpractice. Millions died.

Yes, access to ideas is crucial, but without proper vetting or curation, it becomes dangerously easy for disinformation and propaganda to spread unchecked. The challenge is to balance the need for open dialogue with the responsibility to prevent the amplification of dangerous or unfounded claims.

The Politicization of Science

One of the most disheartening trends I’ve observed over the past few years is the politicization of science to the point of toxicity. A discipline rooted in creativity, curiosity, and fact-finding has become demonized; science is openly ridiculed, trivialized, and held in contempt. If not checked and reversed, this will have a growing impact on discovery, education, public health, and US competitiveness. 

The idea of “trusting the science” is under attack. Public confidence in science—particularly biomedical science—has declined significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey revealed that only 27% of Republicans/lean Republican and 43% of Democrats/lean Democrat citizens have a great deal of confidence that medical scientists will act in the public’s best interest. This erosion of trust is partly due to the failure to communicate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

Science, by its nature, is fallible and self-correcting. It evolves as new evidence emerges. This is its greatest strength, but to the public, it can often seem like inconsistency or unreliability. This was evident during the pandemic when evolving guidance on social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccines was often met with confusion and skepticism. 

Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, has expressed regret that officials didn’t adequately convey that recommendations would evolve as new information emerged during the pandemic. This failure to communicate the provisional nature of scientific knowledge only deepened public distrust. For many, the changing advice felt like dishonesty rather than the natural course of scientific discovery. This misunderstanding about the nature of science created a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation.

And it will not get better. Not in the next four years, anyway. The public should be angry, even terrified, that objective science will be scrapped if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the like-minded are confirmed by the US Senate and assume roles of enormous national and global consequence.

Social media platforms have given, should I say, a booster shot to the amplification of numerous scientific falsehoods. Elon Musk’s behavior on his X (formerly Twitter) is particularly troubling. According to a recent New York Times analysis, nearly a third of Musk’s posts in a five-day period were found to be false or misleading. X enables conspiracy theories and misinformation to spread unchecked. While Musk claims to support free speech, the reality is that false information spreads faster and reaches more people than the truth. Even when others attempt to correct the record, a debunked conspiracy post sits alongside a credible one, and for many people, it all looks the same.

Reclaiming the Narrative 

The public’s trust in science shouldn’t rest on believing in specific experts or static truths; rather, it should be grounded in understanding the scientific process itself. As Dr. Art Caplan, the head of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, explained, trust in science requires belief not only in the message but in the process that generates it. Caplan argued that scientists need to better explain their work with accessible language, relevant examples, and local engagement through schools, community organizations, and grassroots efforts. This is key to rebuilding public confidence.

I used to believe that presenting solid evidence would be enough to convince people of the facts. But I’ve come to understand that facts alone are not enough when false equivalencies dominate the conversation. The truth is that not all opinions deserve the same weight.

At the same time, we must hold those with power and influence accountable. Whether it’s Elon Musk spreading false information or Malcolm Gladwell embracing uncurated content, the truth matters. If we cannot differentiate between what is factual and what is false, we are in serious trouble.

So yes, I agree with Gladwell that more voices should be heard, but I cannot follow him down the path of always accepting unfiltered content as part of the solution. If anything, we need to take more care and responsibility in communicating the facts. Because right now, the stakes are too high to get this wrong.

The Failure of Joy: The 2024 Election and the Power of Fear

Democrats should spend less time blaming each other for their loss and more time on why Republicans won.

In the wake of the 2024 election, political analysts, journalists, voters, and interested observers worldwide are grappling with how Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party lost despite running a campaign imbued with joy and optimism. As The New York Times reported, “The nationwide repudiation of the party stunned many Democrats who had expressed a ‘nauseous’ confidence about their chances in the race's final weeks. As they sifted through the wreckage of their defeats, they found no easy answers as to why voters so decisively rejected their candidates.”

Not true. The circular firing squad assembled quickly, and the headlines screamed their verdict: “This Is All Biden’s Fault,” “Dems rage against Biden’s ‘arrogance’ after Harris loss,” and “Democratic strategist says her party has lost ‘common sense’ and the ability to speak to ‘normal people’.”

Sure, there are plenty of ways to blame the Democrats for their massive defeat. The party needs to learn a few crucial lessons. But people must remember how Rupert Murdoch/Fox, Elon Musk/X, and others amplified the flood of lies and distortions, which found no counterweight in the mainstream or legacy media. The muddle contributed to tens of millions of people choosing not to vote, abdicating their privilege and responsibility. 

And there’s one more critical factor: Joy alone cannot stand against the power of fear, which Republicans wielded effectively to secure victory.

The Limits of Optimism

Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, chose “joy” to set their campaign's tone and emphasized hope, unity, and progress. The Vice President highlighted a woman’s right to choose, economic growth under Democratic leadership, and floated new incentives for home ownership and business development. Walz’s persona—the Coach—complemented this strategy, projecting confidence and unwavering belief in a brighter future. 

In a New York Times opinion piece written during the campaign, Charles M. Blow noted, “‘Joy’ Is Working for Harris, but Can It Close the Deal?’” We know the answer. Another NYT piece pointed out that this hopeful approach often fell on deaf ears among undecided and swing voters. One voter said, “I’m not looking for a leader who just tells me everything will be okay. I need to know they understand what I’m worried about.” Another added, “Optimism is nice, but it doesn’t pay the bills or make me feel safer.”

I am a believer, a supporter of joy, and an optimist. However, for months, I have said that the Harris strategy needed to change. The campaign spent significant time talking about unifying the country and the many misdeeds of the 45th President when they should have focused on issues that matter most to middle-class, middle America and efforts to get out the vote. 

In our hyperpolarized world, too few will accept facts, listen to arguments, or ask probing questions. And history shows that two other “happy warriors” failed to win the presidency: Al Smith (1928, losing to Herbert Hoover) and Hubert Humphrey (1968, losing to Richard Nixon). 

The Politics of Fear

History and legend show that fear motivates more effectively than joy or optimism. In the book “Camelot, Inc.,” I discuss how those plotting against King Arthur recognized that emotion—particularly anger—is the most potent unifier. It was understood that to gain traction, people needed an emotional rallying point: “It has to be something broad and popular, which everybody could feel…so that everybody can be angry” (T.H. White, The Once and Future King). Modern-day Republican strategists have mastered this lesson, using the emotional glue of fear to build their base.

Consider how policy debates are framed not as opportunities for growth but as existential threats. During the Obama era’s debates over the Affordable Care Act, opponents shifted the conversation from increasing access to healthcare to an infringement on personal liberty – “taking away” Americans’ choice. Similarly, efforts to regulate firearms meet fierce rhetoric about assaults on constitutional rights, evoking a protective response that overrides fact-based discussions.

The 2024 election highlighted this dynamic. While Democrats emphasized what they could add to the richness of Americans’ lives—greater equality, better access to services, social progress—Republicans positioned their platform as a defense against perceived losses: the erosion of freedoms, security, and identity.

While the abortion issue resonated with many voters, it did not offset the Republican platform of fear. The Republican campaign amplified worries of economic instability, rising crime rates, and the erosion of traditional values, painting a picture of an America under siege. Their messaging resonated powerfully with the public, who sought certainty and protection. Slogans like “Take Our Country Back” and “Never Surrender” reinforced the narrative that the nation needed saving from immediate threats.

The Role of the Media: Sanewashing and Shaping Perception

The news media significantly influenced the 2024 election. While Democrats struggled to energize voters with optimistic messages, mainstream media often sanitized or “sanewashed” Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. The coverage overlooked inflammatory or incoherent statements and emphasized a more favorable narrative. 

This approach significantly affected public perception. While Democrats focused on facts and future-oriented policies, media coverage that downplayed the divisive aspects of GOP rhetoric allowed fear-based messaging to become normalized. This created a political environment where emotional, fear-driven narratives easily overshadowed messages of hope and unity.

On a critical policy issue, a New York Times headline announced that “Public Health Could Be Recast in Second Trump Term.” Recast? Slashing CDC funding, breaking up the NIH, and ending vaccine mandates would demolish public health. Undermining institutions, politicizing science, demonizing scientists, and shattering trust in vaccines will lead to a less informed, less healthy America.

The Need for a New Democratic Strategy

The Harris-Walz campaign fell into a common trap: assuming facts alone would inform and influence perceptions. Facts are crucial, but we see repeatedly that public perception, driven by emotion, often holds more sway. Climate change is real, vaccines don’t cause autism, and fluoride strengthens teeth and helps prevent cavities – widely known facts, yet millions choose to ignore them and sometimes fight against them.

If Democrats want to regain electoral ground, they must face an uncomfortable truth: joy alone is not enough. The GOP’s approach consistently demonstrates that fear, anger, and protectionist themes more effectively energize voters. Democrats should not abandon their values; instead, they should integrate emotional narratives into their strategies. To break the cycle of electoral disappointment, they must combine their vision of hope with the raw power of perceived threats.

Noble ideals must be matched with an emotional strategy that galvanizes as effectively as it inspires. Only then can Democrats hope to break the cycle and harness the energy needed for sustained political momentum.

Presidential Humor: 2024 Edition

Next to power without honor, the most dangerous thing in the world is power without humor. – Eric Sevareid

The only thing I found humorous about a recent NYT opinion piece called Trump Is Losing the Humor War was the title. OK, it’s more ironic than funny because the whole thing implied that Trump was winning the humor war at some point.

The author, Professor Leif Weatherby at NYU, wrote, “Over the past decade, there’s one truth that liberals have been loath to admit: Donald Trump is funny. …when you watch him at a rally, you can see he’s playing for laughs: jabbing at his opponents[…].”

Here’s the problem: playing for laughs does not always equate to being funny. Being funny is to amuse, to be comical. Hurling insults, making sarcastic comments, or mocking others are not humorous. They’re, well, insulting, sarcastic, and mocking; all of it is at the expense of others. Trump might be “playing for laughs,” but it is not through humor. 

Also problematic is the professor’s critique of the other side of the political spectrum. “The Democrats have been many things over the last few decades, but funny has rarely been one of them,” he said.

That right there is funny. In my 2011 book Camelot, Inc., I remarked that Democrats had humor pretty well sewn up. Look at the vast majority of stand-up comics and the long-standing successes of figures like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Republicans, on the other hand, are masters of fear and anger. 

I agree with Professor Weatherby’s statement that “There’s something interesting about humor: We don’t get to choose what’s funny.” In a 2016 article, I wrote, “Be careful with humor in serious times. What’s funny to you may not be funny to someone else. It comes down to knowing your audience and having some compassion.” Compassion, like humor, is not one of 45’s strong suits.

Dr. Weatherby spoke about acknowledging the “truth.” But the truth is subjective. My truth about what’s funny, artistic, or cool will be the same for some and different for others. Facts and data, however, are not. Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway blew many minds when she said White House press secretary Sean Spicer “gave alternative facts” about the inauguration crowd size during a 2017 interview on Meet the Press. Host Chuck Todd responded, “Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.” 

Will jokes or the manifestations of humor – Harris’ belly laugh or Trump’s happy dance – change any votes? Probably few, if any. Humor is a component of who we are; it’s one pixel in a complex picture. But there’s no doubt it’s essential. Michael J. Fox said, “I think the scariest person in the world is the person with no sense of humor,” and Robert Frost noted, “If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.”

The Power of Not Knowing

The importance of asking questions and being curious cannot be overstated. A Harvard Business Review article by Allison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John said asking questions “spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, fuels innovation and performance improvement, and builds rapport and trust among team members. And it can mitigate business risk by uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards.”

When we know, we should want to know more. But what about when the well is dry? What do we do when there’s no foundation to formulate a plan or express an opinion? In my experience, a lot of people will make it up. They’re too embarrassed or their ego is too big to say, “I don’t know.” Too many people are conditioned to show no weaknesses or, worse, they’re plain ol’ bullshitters. Unfortunately, the B.S. artists frequently get away with their shams because others are too embarrassed (or too fearful or too much of a sycophant) to challenge them.

I like to surround myself with people who are comfortable – contented, really – about saying they don’t know, they don’t have an answer. They have a genuine interest in gathering facts and ideas.

I was reminded how important this was by my friend David. It wasn’t, “Hey, Paul, you should think about writing an article about the importance of having a curious mind.” The inspiration came from a long conversation about family, people we like (or don’t), food, books, music, movies, and politics. We got to a certain spot in the discussion, and he said, “I don’t know enough to have an opinion about that. What do you know?” 

I still feel refreshed when I think of that. His openness and honesty were, well, an inspiration. He’s a very smart guy, and smart people – confident and curious people – ask questions, dig around for facts and data, and seek out knowledgeable individuals for their perspectives. 

Einstein didn’t come up that day, but it hit me later that he said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity.”

A questioning, fact-finding mindset goes beyond friendships, of course. It should be a societal imperative. It’s a mentality that can lift everyone up. And it’s an essential element in mentoring. Good mentors know this, even in legend. When the future King Arthur asked, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin (the wizard who was also his teacher and advisor) answered, “It is what I am for.” 

We should all be for it.

The Abnormality of the New Normal

Over the past couple of decades, we've experienced events that created a so-called “new normal”: 9/11, the Great Recession, and COVID-19 are examples. While I understood the use of the term, I never liked it; it rubbed me the wrong way somehow. But after thinking about what the new normal represents to me, the repulsion became clear. It’s the alarming rise in the normalization of intolerance and cruelty across our society. Political violence deemed "patriotic," exploitative workplace environments, plummeting civility, and justifications for the use of deadly force are disturbing shifts in our collective values and ethics.

The Cultural Shift Towards Intolerance

The rise of hyper-individualism, prioritizing personal success and self-interest over collective well-being, plays a significant role in the growth of intolerance and cruelty. Media portrayal of aggression and power as virtues (or even goals) further normalizes these behaviors. Reality TV shows, for example, often glorify ruthless competition and backstabbing. The pervasive influence of social media amplifies these trends. Platforms that thrive on sensationalism and outrage can desensitize users to violence and spite. The echo chambers created by algorithms often reinforce extreme views, making empathy and compassion seem like weaknesses rather than strengths.

Political Violence Is Not Patriotic

The attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, starkly illustrates how influencers can rebrand acts of violence as expressions of patriotism. For many, these acts of sedition and insurrection were profound assaults on the democratic process. However, a significant chunk of the population views it as a patriotic act, a defense against perceived governmental overreach and a “rigged” election. As Donald Trump fired up the crowd at the Ellipse in Washington DC, he said, "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." At a different event, he said, "We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections."

This dichotomy reflects a broader societal trend that increasingly views violence and lawlessness as acceptable methods of political expression. The repercussions of this mentality are profound, undermining the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent for future civil unrest.

Success Does Not Require Ruthlessness

In the corporate world, the relentless pursuit of success can come at the expense of employee well-being. Some CEOs and business leaders justify overworking their employees as essential to achieving corporate goals. For example, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, X (Twitter), and SpaceX, is known for promoting punishing workplace environments. In an email to Twitter staff, he said they “will need to be extremely hardcore" to succeed. "This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade." A Tesla employee said, “Many of us worked tirelessly for him for years and were tossed to the curb like a piece of litter without a second thought.” 

The culture of overwork pervades many industries, masking employee exploitation as dedication and commitment. The glorification of such practices overlooks the severe mental and physical toll on workers, contributing to burnout, stress, and a deteriorating work-life balance. The noted organizational psychologist Adam Grant said, "Screaming at employees doesn't make you a tough boss. It makes you an asshole. Great leaders are demanding, not demeaning. They set high expectations and create accountability without abuse. Yelling is unprofessional. Treating people with dignity is not optional – it's required."

While some can keep pushing boundaries, there are limits. It appears that some potential Tesla buyers are snubbing the brand because of Musk’s reputation and penchant for promoting extreme political views.

We Need Just Plain Normal

Addressing these disturbing trends requires a fundamental shift in valuing and practicing empathy, compassion, and justice. Education systems should emphasize emotional intelligence and conflict resolution skills from an early age. Corporations should care more about employee well-being, recognizing that healthy, motivated workers are the foundation of sustainable success. Political leaders and influencers need to advocate for non-violent methods of protest and change, upholding the principles of democracy and the rule of law. 

The news media must concentrate more on facts and less on opinions. The public needs to recognize false equivalencies and news organizations must abandon them – no more giving equal time to, say, climate deniers when 97% of climate scientists agree that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth. Let's do more to highlight the virtues of kindness, cooperation, and ethical behavior. Let's celebrate stories of resilience, community support, and altruism. 

Our society's growing coarseness and cruelty demand urgent attention. Whether in parenting, politics, corporate environments, or self-defense laws, normalizing harsh and aggressive behaviors reflects a more profound erosion of empathy and moral values. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member." We can stop trying to win points by staging events meant to embarrass others or spitting out carefully word-smithed insults. I'm sick of the attention-seeking behavior of elected leaders. Let's foster a society that values compassion, justice, and mutual respect over spite and exploitation. 

Normal is kind, not cruel. It's inclusive, not exclusive. It's positive, not punitive.

1980: The Lesser-Known Inflection Point

There have been many inflection points in US history – events that significantly changed our future and behaviors – in the last hundred years. Throwing out some key dates affecting the trajectory of US history – 1929, 1941, 1945, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008, 2020 – I'm betting most of you will understand their significance. (This is a small, subjective sample and my rationale is at the end.)

What about 1980?

My "This Day in History" email from the HISTORY Channel this past week reminded me of a lesson I covered when I taught Strategic Communication at NYU. In a discussion about crisis management, I said public relations tactics could only help rescue a reputation if systemic problems were addressed. I used the catastrophic explosion on BP's Deep Water Horizon oil drilling platform as an example. (The same situation when then CEO Tony Hayward famously, selfishly said, "I want my life back.") After discussing how PR Band-Aids wouldn't fix the underpinning safety issues, we pivoted to a related topic – how the media covered the story and how people consumed the news. I projected a multiple-choice question on the classroom screen:

After Deep Water Horizon in 2010, what was the biggest ocean oil spill in history?

A) Ixtoc 1 oil well, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico

B) Atlantic Empress – Aegean Captain collision, Trinidad and Tobago

C) Exxon Valdez grounding, Prince William Sound, Alaska

This was repeated in at least a dozen classes and every one of the graduate students chose the Exxon Valdez. The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is A) the Ixtoc 1 disaster in 1979. 1979 also saw the collision of the two oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez, occurring in 1989, didn't even make it into the global top 10.

Why the outsized memory of the Exxon Valdez? One could speculate on the recency effect but I'm going with CNN. CNN was born in 1980 and without its real-time, continuous, global coverage, the world missed a lot of news. 

Impact on Public Perception and Behavior 

Exxon (now ExxonMobil) stayed in the news because we were wired in – the impact on the Alaskan ecology, the investigation into the company and the ship's crew members, the months of tracking the clean-up progress, the lawsuits, the push for new regulations. It had an impact on legislators, policies, and public opinion. Several scholars called this and similar constructs “The CNN Effect.”

While the constant stream of news can shine a megawatt light on important issues, the effects on the public can vary. It can sharpen the focus for some and lead to positive interventions during natural or human-shaped disasters. But sensationalized headlines and the onslaught of breaking news alerts can create anxiety in others. How many have turned off the news because we wanted to limit the amount of negativity in our lives? As psychologist Mary McNaughton-Cassill noted, "The relentless exposure to distressing news can elevate stress levels and lead to a state of learned helplessness."

More Can Lead to Less

CNN, obviously, was on to something. Other dedicated cable outlets followed, with some focused on news while others honed in on sports, finance, cooking, the weather, etc. 

However, any network with a strong partisan bias can create echo chambers where some viewers are only exposed to information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist, has argued that this kind of selective exposure can exacerbate partisan divisions, increase hostility toward opposing viewpoints, and undermine democratic discourse.

Projecting news through an ideological lens can also lead to increased disinformation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News personalities frequently downplayed the severity of the virus and questioned the efficacy of vaccines and public health measures. Viewers were guided to mistrust the science and its messengers. This misinformation likely contributed to lower vaccination rates among its viewers and may have exacerbated the public health crisis. A research study found that regions with higher viewership of Fox News had lower compliance with public health guidelines, illustrating the real-world consequences of its editorial stance. 

This decline in trust is problematic for a functioning democracy, as a well-informed citizenry is essential for making informed decisions on policy and elections. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that "people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to participate in the democratic process.”

Further Into the Unknown

Like so many inflection points, it's difficult to forecast where this arc of history will ultimately take us. CNN's arrival in 1980 – and the model it pioneered – has undeniably transformed news consumption and its impact on society. 

The world is broken in so many ways and the society that needs to repair it seems harsher and more divided. But I'm hopeful the state of journalism can one day return to the sentiment founder Ted Turner expressed at the network's launch. Call it woke or naïve, but he wished CNN would "bring together in brotherhood and kindness and friendship and in peace the people of this nation and this world."

------

1929, stock market crash

1941, invasion at Pearl Harbor

1945, end of WW II, liberation of Nazi death camps, first atomic bomb

1954, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka

1955, polio vaccine

1957, Sputnik

1963, JFK assassinated

1964, all in on Viet Nam, Civil Rights Act

1968, RFK and MLK assassinated

1969, men land on the moon

1973, Roe versus Wade

1974, Watergate, Nixon resigns

1981, CDC publishes first report on AIDS

1991, Gulf War

2001, 9/11 attacks

2008, Barak Obama, first Black president elected

2020, COVID-19

What Pfizer’s Super Bowl Ad Should Have Been

There’s been a lot of discussion around Pfizer’s decision to spend an estimated $14–21 million on its “Here’s to Science” Super Bowl ad. I’d like to boil it down to two questions: Why did they do it? Did it accomplish their objective?

For the question of ‘why,’ STAT News reported, “The ad comes as the pharmaceutical company celebrates its 175th anniversary and looks to promote a dynamic, optimistic message about Pfizer’s future to the general public, investors, and the company’s own employees.”

Pfizer spokesperson Faith Salamon said the goal was to “celebrate science in a fun, engaging and uplifting way.”

Unfortunately, The New York Times didn’t buy it. In their review of Super Bowl ads, the NYT placed Pfizer in the category entitled, “The Flagrant Missteps: Famous people and millions of dollars that together can’t quite amount to mediocrity.”

Flagrant sounds too intentional. This is a case of missed opportunity (except for the soundtrack — who doesn’t love Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now”?).

I had an array of reactions, but these were the key moments:

Most horrifying: A corpse comes alive, with his arm dissected from shoulder to fingertips — depicted in Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp — looking like he wants to get off the table.

Most confusing: The inclusion of a tartigrade (“little water bear,” an eight-legged creature about one millimeter long) swimming across the screen.

Most inspiring: The positive message sent by highlighting four women scientists, one of color.

Most overreaching: It seems the ad makers knew most of the public couldn’t differentiate between famous scientists or science disciplines, so they threw some recognizable names out there. The relevance was questionable since half of the science luminaries depicted were mathematicians and physicists, yet Pfizer is a healthcare company.

Most jarring: The words “Here’s to the next fight” come across the screen but don’t connect to anything seen previously. The next words are “LetsOutdoCancer.com” followed by some video of a little girl being applauded for what must have been successfully completing treatment. (A lovely moment, to be sure.)

The Let’s Outdo Cancer website details Pfizer’s research pipeline and product portfolio. There’s also important information on how to participate in a cancer clinical trial and a partnership with the American Cancer Society to “improve health outcomes in medically underrepresented communities across the United States.”

There is no doubt that we’re benefiting from the discoveries made by Pfizer and their partners. We’re living better, healthier lives. There’s a ton of good information on the site but it doesn’t have much to do with “Here’s to Science.”

A one-off effort like a Super Bowl ad can help achieve specific objectives but, in my experience, plans need follow-through and messages require repetition. I don’t know their actual plan, of course. I’m not an insider. But if Pfizer seeks to promote a positive message and increase engagement with stakeholders, I have a suggestion. They have an enormous opportunity to create a more receptive public if they work towards increasing trust in science.

Engaging a wide array of audiences on the value of science is critically important to elevate trust. Dr. Marijn Dekkers, former CEO of Bayer and former Chairman of Unilever, pointed out at a financial conference several years back that “even the most outstanding ideas and scientific breakthroughs have no chance if people do not accept, appreciate and support them. All too often, people are afraid of — or uneasy about — new ideas, inventions, processes or products.”

The public acceptance of innovation is clearly at risk according to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual trust and credibility survey. It found that respondents believe innovation is poorly managed by nearly a two-to-one margin. And while technology as a whole is trusted by 76 percent, gene-based medicine is only at 50 percent. (It gets worse. GMO foods are trusted only by 32 percent.)

The issue goes far beyond industry interests. Poor science literacy can eat at the core of our democracy. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that “people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.” He continued that for many issues affecting society, “if you don’t know a little science [it’s] hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism [will] not make sense to you.”

So, here we are. The current state is that science and scientists are under attack. Facts are being denied and misinformation proliferates. Critical thinking is being abandoned. Education is underfunded. Science is politicized and weaponized. It must stop.

It’s not a problem that can be addressed by a one-year budget cycle or even a five or ten-year plan. It will take a generational blueprint that needs to be comprehensive, coordinated, and well capitalized to see a return on the investment.

Getting the message out is only one side of the coin, though. Ensuring the message is received requires the same sort of effort. The Super Bowl ad should have been the kick-off of an ongoing effort to engage, inform, and educate the public about science and scientific principles. But it’s not too late. We need conveners. Partners need to be assembled and resources gathered. Objectives must be determined and milestones assigned.

Let’s get started.

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

Incremental Is Fundamental

Many of us are in occupations where innovation and creativity are essential. But an unnecessary divide exists between the valuation of sweeping changes and incremental advances. We should not need to choose – this isn’t a case of mutual exclusivity. Of course, we need big ideas and bold moves. Sure, throw the bomb for a touchdown, swing for the fences. But small things, measured steps, can be important and inventive, too. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” 

Upsides to any method or process cannot be guaranteed, of course. It’s important to acknowledge that incrementalism can fail us or derail us, just as big ideas can. One of the most notable (and shameful) examples is the nearly hundred-year span from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (and then another hundred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act). And while Lincoln deserves high praise for his role, we need to remember it took him a couple of decades to fully embrace freedom and citizenship for Black people. 

Fortunately, his vast and open mind let in powerful, righteous voices like Frederick Douglass, the freedom seeker who became one of the most important leaders in the fight for abolition and civil rights. It’s notable that Douglass wanted rapid change with the “brave march of a storming party” but came to grips with the “slow progress of a cautious siege.” He and Lincoln understood the political realities. The President knew he had to bring as much of the nation along with them as he could – what he called the “necessary preparation of the public mind.” 

Modern political leaders seem to be catching on to incrementalism but for the wrong reasons. While they often campaign on platforms of big ideas, political rivalries, limited resources, and the complexity of most problems squeeze progress into watered-down initiatives. Or, more common these days, an agreement to simply keep the lights on; passing a stop-gap budget is now viewed as a big win. Reaching across the aisle, finding common ground, and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement have become rarities or even signs of weakness.

Politicians are also helping to accelerate our ever-shrinking attention spans. Ideas are being crushed into attention-seeking social media posts. There is a lack of interest, will, or ability to explain complex ideas and to inspire wider acceptance. Ideologic pandering is replacing idea generation. If it can’t be turned into a catch phrase (“America First”) or a chant (“Build the Wall”), complicated, multidimensional ideas have little chance of being turned into a plan or program.

Preparation requires good communication, using messages that combine both rational and emotional elements. There are too many leaders, though, who get it terribly wrong. Deciding to make a change is often done without thought as to how the change will be communicated. They confuse change communication with checking off a couple of boxes. Sending out a memo to employees or a press release to the public overlooks the reality that change communication is a process – a process to be managed. 

The details, the message, and the messenger all influence the individual and the organization. It can rally a group around an idea or it can alienate the very people required to generate a successful outcome. John Kotter had it right in his book, “Leading Change.” Condensing and paraphrasing some of his eight incremental steps, leaders need to establish the need for change, gather and empower advocates, articulate a vision for what awaits, communicate up and down the organization, define the roles people will have and the processes needed for future success, and demonstrate wins along the way.

It’s great to have big ideas, it's OK to be impatient, we should embrace change. At the same time, we need to be thinking strategically and develop a plan about what needs to be accomplished, over what timeline, and with what resources. We need to define the milestones and recognize each accomplishment as we maintain a focus on the ultimate goal. Civil rights activist Alice Wine had wise words: “Keep your eyes on the prize.”

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

Stopping Ourselves from Mattering Less

Oh boy, was I wrong. “Who needs these humanities requirements?” I asked as a college student. I was going to be a scientist and wanted to place my attention on (what I thought was) my ultimate goal. 

Sure, I learned to appreciate the genius of Shakespeare and enjoyed the scrum in my political science classes. But I loaded up on the hard not the social sciences. I bought the promise that technology had the answers to everything. One couldn’t be a whole person without a rock solid background in math, chemistry, physics, biology.

Whole person, huh? I said I was wrong, right? I’m not sure I can say it enough. I’ve come to hate mutual exclusivity and false equivalencies and yet, there I was. It took me years to figure out (with no small contribution from my wife) that interesting people, valuable people, are a package. We should have an appreciation – a facility, even – with a multitude of subjects spanning STEM subjects to the liberal arts.

We need to know enough about both the humanities and science to be capable citizens. With the politicization of so many topics – vaccines, evolution, climate change, stem cells – a more roundly educated public is essential. 

We need to expect and demand more of our leaders, too. I wonder how many of them read books like David McCullough’s 1776 or John Adams that chronicled how the founding fathers built a nation on progressive values; Peter Watson’s Ideas with two million years worth of language, thought, and invention; Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll on the evolution of faith and systematized prejudice; Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time to make your head ache when contemplating the enormity of our universe, or Abe by David Reynolds to show us how personal evolution and compromise gave rise to one of our greatest presidents.

Social media and cable news echo chambers have made it all too easy to receive what the algorithms are trained to feed us. We suffer from inertia, from a lack of curiosity, from what used to be the common practice of debating the issues (and not the facts). If the facts don’t fit the person’s worldview or “frame,” as the cognitive linguist George Lakoff termed it, the facts bounce off like bullets shot at Superman’s chest. Your opponent deflects all the data, swears on what they believe to be true, while you get blue in the face.

But now comes the latest assault on holistic education. The New York Times recently reported that West Virginia’s “flagship school will no longer teach world languages or creative writing — a sign, its president says, of the future at many public universities.” What the WVU administration is calling a “transformation,” others are calling a “blood bath.” It’s frightening to think this could be the beginning of a very dangerous spiral.

The questions of how to educate, what to teach, and with what money are not new. But this is different. We’re looking at institutional changes that could take years, generations to repair. If we’re not careful, if we don’t invest in expansive, accessible education, we will be less able to govern, less capable of informed, civil discourse, and less capable of maintaining our competitiveness on the world stage. The hollowing out of education, and the under-budgeting and the reversal of opportunity are as grave a threat as any facing our country.

Author of Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me on Threads.

Aaron Sorkin and I Have an Understanding

My eyes widened when I read the review in The New York Times. I was on the same page as Aaron Sorkin, writer of some of the most celebrated works of television, film, and Broadway. Well, the “same page” when it came to understanding what was really beneath the centuries old story of King Arthur and Camelot. 

A new version of “Camelot” is scheduled to open on Broadway in a few weeks, with its book rewritten by Sorkin. The NYT article said, Sorkin “has made the production one of the most anticipated on Broadway this year...”

A bold decision was made to eliminate the story’s supernatural elements. “That means Merlyn, who in the original is a magician who can remember the future... is now a wise tutor.” Yes! The hocus pocus in the Arthur stories is fun but there are much more serious and contemporary lessons to be drawn from Camelot.

“The most common description of Merlin is that of an elderly wizard with a long white beard, wearing a pointed hat and a flowing costume accented by stars and moons. He’s synonymous with magic and sorcery. But Merlin’s significance was not his ability to conjure or foretell the future. Above all else, this archetypal sorcerer was a mentor and adviser.” That was from my 2011 book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Merlin’s real mission was to educate Arthur, to expand his horizons, and prepare him for the challenges ahead. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King (from which the play and Disney’s Sword in the Stone were derived), a young Arthur queried, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin replied, “It is what I am for.” 

The magical part of Merlin wasn’t all fantasy writing, though. It helped tell the story of Arthur’s evolution from roughhousing boy to empathic leader. As a wizard, Merlin didn’t need to bring Arthur to other parts of the world to experience the different religions, cultures, and customs of humankind. Merlin turned him into a badger, fish, hawk, goose, and ant – creatures very different, more ancient, and with much wisdom to impart on the youngster.

The transfigurations into fur, fin, and feather (and bug) were a big part of the Merlin’s mentoring technique, which turned the learning process into adventures. Arthur was immersed in some dangerous places where he had to observe, adapt, and think quickly in his new surroundings. His abilities to react swiftly and smartly weren’t only important; they were essential. Later, as king, Arthur would leverage these experiences not only to better understand and connect with others, but also to win over doubters and adversaries.

Of course, much of the Camelot story revolves around the tortured relationships between King Arthur, Guinevere, his Queen, and Sir Lancelot, his best friend and general. “People think the show is about a love triangle, which of course it is,” said Alan Paul, artistic director of Barrington Stage Company. “But I really think it’s about the birth of democracy…”

Close, but not exactly. First, democracy was created in ancient Athens and second, Arthur wasn’t at all about abdicating in favor of elections. Arthur did, however, form a strategy of Might for Right – a way to channel the power of the knights to enforce his doctrine of fairness. But the people did not react well to what was coercion. 

“You will find,” he explained (in The Once and Future King), “that when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too. If I don’t stand for law, I won’t have law among my people. And naturally I want my people to have the new law, because then they are more prosperous, and I am more prosperous in consequence.”

Arthur did something we don’t see often enough in leaders today. He took ownership and had the courage to jump the rails when he saw the strategy failing. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method. He realized the populace needed to embrace change, rather than have change forced upon them without proper communication. He evolved Might for Right into Equal Justice – the creation of a new civil code to change the very nature of civilization, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings – personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. The enduring qualities and complexities of human nature gave us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Searching for Optimism in 2023

I’m trying really hard to remain an optimist. As we grow older, conversations become graver. Life gets more complicated and less certain. There’s less talk about hopes for the future and more about missed opportunities. 

Our world gives us too many reasons to complain and I do my best to pull out of what is sometimes a very appealing spiral. Sometimes it takes a conscious, sustained effort to remain on a positive trajectory. When others try to engage me in a grumble session, yes, I will most likely join in – at least for a while. Then, I’ll usually catch myself. 

It’s not about ignoring the negative; this is not an exercise in mutual exclusivity. We must continue to confront and address personal and societal problems. 

But, let’s face it, there’s always something to whine about. If there’s no constructive effort to discuss a potential solution, I give people room to vent but then will likely ask, “Tell me something good.” (I adapted this line years ago from the movie Apollo 13. After an explosion rocked the capsule, alerts and alarms spewed at Mission Control and in space. Trying to get hold of an increasingly panicked situation, flight director Gene Kranz said, “What do we’ve got [sic] on the spacecraft that's good?”) 

It’s often a heavy lift to pick up and place yourself onto a different track. Complaining is easy, generally satisfying, and attracts a crowd. Once re-railed, though, new opportunities can open. Happiness for another’s good news might overwhelm your schadenfreude. Smiles can replace frowns. Hope may supersede regret. 

What passes for optimism, though, is largely in eye of the pessimist. It might take a little or it might take a lot but it shouldn’t always have to take years and cost billions of dollars. 

"Reasons for Optimism in 2023" (The New York Times) recognizes that we’re in “a world facing many challenges” but proclaims “there are reasons to be hopeful about next year and beyond.” Some of the reasons mentioned in the article are not exactly cheap or around the corner, however. Among the highlights listed include moving “a little closer” to nuclear fusion, advances in AI that “probably won’t take your job,” and “getting closer to cancer vaccines.”

That mislabeled article is not a prediction for breakthroughs in the next 12 months. It’s much better viewed through the lens of hopeful incrementalism. We limit our happiness and our satisfaction if the only measure of success is a home run or a touchdown.

We can enhance our lives exponentially if we remind ourselves that the little stuff matters – a lot. We need to invest in the essential steps along the way to a larger goal and celebrate when each are accomplished. Politicians, business leaders, and our friends and loved ones should consider expanding their definition of what is good cause for optimism. Searching for optimism in 2023 and beyond could get a whole lot easier.

The 4 R’s of Strategic Thinking

Thinking, like many other activities, occurs across a spectrum. We can think in ways that are concrete and narrow or we can be creative and visionary. There’s a lot in between, of course (and I’ve covered that in other articles). 

There’s another continuum, though: Time. Sure, there are plenty of occasions when you want things to speed up (like when you’re crawling along in a sea of traffic or sitting with your mouth open in a dentist’s chair) but we mostly wish for more time. 

Having, finding time is often the key to so many things and strategic thinking is among them. Dorie Clark wrote “If Strategy Is So Important, Why Don’t We Make Time for It?” in a recently reposted Harvard Business Review article. She cited a survey where 97 percent of senior leaders said, “…being strategic was the leadership behavior most important to their organization’s success.” Unfortunately, another study found “96 percent of the leaders surveyed said they lacked the time for strategic thinking.”

We should care that people don’t spend enough time thinking. We tend to focus on the actions, the tactics, before thinking about the strategies and objectives they’re supposed to support. What passes for thinking is often unfocused busywork, a churning of un-prioritized activities.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of one of the best pieces of advice he ever received about strategic thinking at a Stanford Graduate School of Business seminar several years back; it was from former President Bill Clinton. The president gave him one word: Scheduling. Mr. Blair channeled the guidance he received and remarked, “Where’s your thinking time? Where am I going? What am I trying to do? You have to create the space to be thinking strategically all the time.” 

Strategic thinkers ask questions and gain insight through rigorous analysis of information. They look around the corners, predicting outcomes and the potential unintended consequences of a particular course of action. They prepare scenarios, from those with high probability but little impact to those with low probability but a high potential for damage. They evaluate who might be an advocate and who could be an adversary. They make conscious, timely decisions about where to play offense and where to allow things to go undefended.

Carving out the space – the time – to think strategically takes effort; it’s much too precious to waste. That’s why we need a way to optimize, to guide and focus the strategic thinking process. Here are my 4 R’s of Strategic Thinking for your consideration:

1.     Risk – potential impact of doing, not doing

2.     Range – short, medium, long term issues and influences

3.     Requirements – data, time, money, personnel

4.     Return on investment – financial, reputation, safety/security

In fast-paced environments, we’re often driven more by deadlines than the importance of the task or issue. Using the 4 R’s, we can make more informed decisions and apply resources more effectively. So let’s not be too put-off by a little process; it’s not a dirty word. Discipline is needed in finding creative solutions to our challenges and opportunities.

But perspective and flexibility are crucial to finding success with this or any other methodology. The weight placed on any of these components may depend on where you are in the organization, your responsibilities and their scope, and what you have to lose or gain. 

Remember what George Bernard Shaw said: “Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week.” With some dedicated time and thought, you have an opportunity to join ranks with the greats.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

What Bad Apologies Might Say About PR People

People screw up apologies all the time. I’ve studied this for years and published the 6 A’s of apologies in 2015 to help people remember to Acknowledge something happened; have an Authentic expression of regret; use Appropriate tone and language; choose an Acceptable venue; Act in the right timeframe, and Announce next steps. 

This advice could have come in handy to those profiled a recent Washington Post article: The 10 Weirdest Celebrity Apologies of 2021. These serve as reminders of how botched apologies can make situations worse and keep them in the news longer. 

It’s sad – but no surprise – that the classic non-apology apology appears in this piece. It’s what actor/comedian Harry Shearer once called the "ifpology." You know. These are the “If I offended you… If I hurt you… If I said something insulting…” lines that practically define the term cop-out. People need to have the courage – to be accountable – and change the “If” to “I”.

It’s hard to find an excuse for the self-inflicted wounds caused by thoughtless, hurtful, and unnecessary language. You’d think celebrities (and politicians and business leaders), who have access to staff and outside advisors, could avoid the avoidable. The Washington Post piece noted how “plenty of stars… [were] calling their publicists” to deal with their messes. 

So, here’s the question: If professional publicists were involved, how did these celebrities compound their mistakes and create even more problems? Possible answers include:

1. They said they were seeking counsel when they were not

2. They received bad advice and used it 

3. They received good advice but refused to implement it

We’ll never know, of course. But if the celebs (or others) received good advice and didn’t use it, could the public relations counselors have been more persuasive? Did they have the trust of their clients? Did they build support or alliances to bring additional, competent, compassionate voices to the table?

I’ve faced scenario #3 a number of times and tried my best, and I’m sure many who are reading this can say the same. At the end of the day, though, the clients did what they wanted; the outcome didn’t match what we got paid to do. If people knew we were involved, well, it didn’t look good for anyone. And you can’t always publicly distance yourself from the debacle; there might be contractual or ethical constraints.

A phenomenon seen in too many public pronouncements is when one can see right through an apology – the work of a PR advisor being so obvious. Here are a few examples where good apologies are undermined because they’re either visibly forced or fake, or both:

• Heather Chase from the “reality” series Below Deck apologized for saying the N-word (more than once) in front of her Black co-star Rayna Lindsey. Her statement posted on Instagram: “I am sorry for the hurt my ignorance caused Rayna in tonight’s episode. While I apologized to Rayna throughout the season, I cannot express enough how truly remorseful I am. Part of my responsibility as Chief Stewardess is to provide a welcoming, safe environment for the crew and I fell short. Over the past nine months since this episode was filmed, I have learned how my words and actions can affect others and I vow to do better in the future.”

• Justin Timberlake apologized to his wife, Jessica Biel, after being seen holding hands with Palmer costar Alisha Wainwright. His statement was posted, like the example above, on Instagram: "A few weeks ago I displayed a strong lapse in judgment — but let me be clear — nothing happened between me and my costar. I drank way too much that night and I regret my behavior. I should have known better. This is not the example I want to set for my son. I apologize to my amazing wife and family for putting them through such an embarrassing situation, and I am focused on being the best husband and father I can be. This was not that."

• A contestant on the “reality” series The Bachelor, Rachel Kirkconnell, came under fire for past racist behaviors. Her statement was posted – you guessed it – on Instagram: “While there have been rumors circulating, there have also been truths that have come to light that I need to address. I hear you, and I’m here to say I was wrong. At one point, I didn’t recognize how offensive and racist my actions were, but that doesn’t excuse them. My age or when it happened does not excuse anything. They are not acceptable or okay in any sense. I was ignorant, but my ignorance was racist. Racial progress and unity are impossible without accountability, and I deserve to be held accountable for my actions. I will never grow unless I recognize what I have done is wrong. I don’t think one apology means that I deserve your forgiveness, but rather I hope I can earn your forgiveness through my future actions.”

If you’re going to write an apology for someone, it should be made in their voice. And do more than release a prepared statement on social media (for crying out loud) and do it quickly, not days or weeks later. If your spewed on a broadcast, get back out there and clear it up. If a group or organization was the target, find a meaningful activity to support that community. If an individual was involved, go and make it personal, face-to-face. Bottom line: If you truly want to try and right a wrong, do more than check a box.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

10 Leadership and Management Lessons from John, Paul, George, and Ringo

Unexpected "Bonus Features" from Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back Documentary

Attention: This contains spoilers to The Beatles: Get Back documentary appearing on Disney+

Four hundred sixty eight minutes went by quickly but some reviewers said the run time for Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back was excessive. I wanted more.

This massive three-part "documentary about a documentary," as Jackson put it, envelopes you in the lives and interactions of John, Paul, George, and Ringo during the development of a TV show/film/album/concert in January 1969. It's chaotic, dramatic, eye opening, and inspiring. This crescendo of activity during a tight, self-imposed deadline gives me some fresh insights into the business, personal dynamics, and (unintentional) teachings of the one of the greatest rock and roll bands in the 20th century:

1. Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The initial goal of the project was amorphous. No one really knew what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to accomplish it. All they had was a deadline. The lack of direction was exacerbated by the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, often referred to as the "fifth Beatle." Paul tried to pick up the mantle of boss and it was clear that his style generated some resentment with the other "lads." But Paul had perceptive and in a brief period was able to evolve from dictatorial boss to engaged leader. It wasn't perfect but it was easy to see less autocracy and more conversation, more give-and-take. Eventually, Paul successfully gained agreement on what would and would not be acceptable project parameters.

2. Process and Time Management. I mentioned the deadline. Real deadlines are supposed to be hard and fast. As disagreements and confusion to what the end product(s) would be, however, timing slipped. Paul made numerous attempts to corral the attention, creativity, and energy of the band. He tried to emphasize the importance of discipline and the need to string all the individual gems they were creating into a coherent story. But with a combination of mixed messaging and confidence, he noted that "The best bit of us, always has been and always will be, is when we're backs-against-the-wall."

3. Humor. I didn't appreciate how much of a goofball John was until I saw this mini-series. To be fair, they all had their bouts of silliness. Their deep knowledge of rock history and musical versatility really came through during those playful scenes. I found it distracting at times but, thinking deeper, it was absolutely essential to their maintaining a bond and creative process. We all need relief valves; we all need some fun; we need moments to break things up in order to remain fresh.

4. Repetition and Drilling. For all the goofing around (see Humor above), these guys were pros. The Beatles knew they had a product to produce, fans to please, money to make, and increasing musical competition. One way to keep their edge was to perform flawlessly and to exteriorize the musical visions swirling around in their heads. While they discussed developing a set of 14 songs, they pursued quality over quantity - partly because they were diverted by some serious disagreements and blew past their deadlines - and ended up performing less than half of the songs they planned. (The good news is that - many of you know - the other material did get more fully developed later on.)

5. Risk Taking. The group hadn't performed for an audience for a few years by the time 1969 rolled around. Their compositions became more complicated, more physically isolating, and more reliant on technology gimmicks. The new project forced them back into close contact and to develop a playlist where it was all on them, live - no fancy effects, no back-up band. They felt exposed; it felt risky. But they agreed to take it on, which meant the need to iterate and test everything multiple times in order to gain assurance it would all work in a real-world scenario.

6. Compassion. One of the most dramatic moments occurred when George, feeling ignored and bullied, decided to call it quits. John and Paul acknowledged they hadn't adequately addressed "the festering wound" inflicted on George and, together with Ringo - I love that they call him Rich - set up two interventions to patch things up. They knew things went too far and had to acknowledge their part in what could be referred to as the Beatles break-up, Take One. Through the ups and downs, the creative differences, the sometimes heavy-handedness, and now the break up, we feel the camaraderie, the compassion. After all, their lives were entwined for years and one senses genuine affection they shared.

7. Giving and Receiving Feedback. Paul changed after that episode. He was much more careful about the way he delivered feedback. And he at least gave lip service to receiving it, too. But everyone joined in; they all gave each other notes and suggestions. Ringo, being the most placid, the most eager to stay out of the fray, was the most receptive. I'm speculating but the rediscovered collegiately, enhanced communication, and mutual respect might have been helped by a decrease or pause in drug use  --  a diversion caused by their newfound purpose and increasingly rigid schedule.

8. Seeking and Accepting Help. While they wanted to maintain a fresh, live performance, the group realized they needed some help - a fifth hand to round out some of their new creations. In came fresh-faced Billy Preston, whom The Beatles met during their days performing in Hamburg. (Preston was backing up Little Richard at that time.) Starting with some friendly jamming, John pushed to give him a seat at the table for the rest of the project. Paul worried initially that working with four was hard enough. Now, you can't imagine the song Get Back (or others) without his keyboard riffs.

9. Outside Life. Some of the most touching and humanizing moments came when family members and loved ones spent time in the studio. Yoko was a constant presence, practically joined at John's hip. (When a complaint surfaced about her, Paul voiced an immediate defense saying, essentially, that they were in love and it wasn't their place to judge.) But the biggest surprise was seven year-old Heather, Linda Eastman's daughter. One could see the stabilizing influence they both had on Paul. He was joyous, attentive and, as you probably know, ended up adopting Heather when he married Linda. It can't be work all the time. We need outside interests and outside support to make us whole.

10. Teamwork. While there is a clear need for individual thought, creativity is no one's personal domain. Yes, The Beatles had different strengths and this docuseries put that into plain relief. You need reality checks, pressure tests, and a group capable of refining and sharpening concepts. Baseball Hall of Famer Casey Stengel had it right when he said, "Getting good players is one thing. The harder part is getting them to play together." The Beatles saw the consequence of that - the risk of wasting efforts, raising conflicts, and alienating and demoralizing your most precious resources.

Go ahead and name a great leader or a great teacher and you'll always find flaws. The Beatles, one of the greatest, most creative musical groups in modern history are no different. "There's no goodies in it, there's no baddies," Jackson said. "There's no villains, there's no heroes. It's just a human story." Not just, Mr. Jackson. The resonance with the listening public, the impact of the lads from Liverpool will live on for a long time.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Nice or Kind: What’s the Best Choice?

“It’s nice to be nice to the nice.” That’s what the Frank Burns character said during an awkward social encounter in a 1974 episode of M*A*S*H. Even though a hypocritical, less than competent TV doctor delivered the line nearly 50 years ago, it still makes sense. Right?

According to The Hazards of a “Nice” Company Culture by Timothy R. Clark, “niceness hides dysfunction.” The author says, “What’s touted as niceness is often nothing more than the veneer of civility.” He sees this as a danger to organizations because “in a nice culture, there’s pressure to go along to get along,” which “can lead to chronic indecisiveness.”

Yes, sugarcoating a message can make it incomprehensible. And feeding staff a steady diet of feedback sandwiches – criticism surrounded by praise – can obliterate the message, not just kill the taste of bad news. 

We’ve all seen it at some point; people want to be liked and will do almost anything to avoid conflict. I’ve written about this before – we shouldn’t seek conflict but we need the courage to address it. Clark makes the case that niceness squashes “intellectual honesty, candid feedback, and tough questions.” And if we don’t address issues in a timely manner, we create a classic boiling over situation where “people wait until a problem becomes too big to ignore.” 

The need to modify our behavior – not matter how you characterize it – has never been bigger. We’re in a world of never-ending political fights and rants by the billions on social media; it’s a non-stop, global food fight. Meanness – provocation and threats emanating from all parts and levels of society – is a real threat to order and safety. But if Clark thinks niceness carries its own hazards, where do we turn? 

While some might call it semantic hair-splitting, the answer could be “kindness.” If being nice is conflict avoidance, then kindness is the ability to “channel and manage the tension.” It’s being frank and forthright while being respectful and courteous. In isolation, niceness misses the chance to ensure accountability. Kindness doesn’t have to be tough love, though. Compassion and humanity – not being self-serving and expedient – are part of the delineation between the two constructs. 

I usually find mutual exclusivity to be an irrational choice. But let’s consider that it’s nicer to be kind.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

No Easy Fix: Opinion and Belief vs. Facts and Truth

We’ve all experienced the feeling. Our hopes get raised and then... splat. No payoff. No satisfaction. 

I got excited when I saw the title of Adam Grant’s recent article, “The Science of Reasoning With Unreasonable People,” published in The New York Times. Could “motivational interviewing” help win over people who choose beliefs, faith, and opinions over facts? What wonderful news! We need a breakthrough when it comes to persuading people to accept the facts around a host of science-based issues including climate change and vaccine safety. 

Alas, it was not to be. In one example detailed in the article, an intensive effort managed to get an anti-vaxxer from negative to, well, a tiny bit less negative. At the end of his piece, there was a tinge of resignation. Grant wrote, “All I can do is try to understand their thinking and ask if they’re open to some rethinking. The rest is up to them.”

All I can do? There has to be more, right? 

It turns out that motivational interviewing might have a limited role in addressing the vaccine hesitancy of some new mothers. A study cited in the article demonstrated a seven percent (statistically significant) increase in vaccination coverage in a subset of infants. While a good outcome, the authors recognized a number of study design limitations. And in actual practice, there’s a huge amount of ground to gain.

The chasm between hard data and belief exists because facts don’t matter to a big chunk of the population. We’ve known this for years. If facts were all it took, we’d be done: People wouldn’t smoke cigarettes, abuse drugs, be racist, or refuse to wear motorcycle or bicycle helmets. If the facts don’t fit the person’s worldview or “frame,” as the cognitive linguist George Lakoff terms it, the facts bounce off like bullets shot at Superman’s chest. Your challenger deflects all the information while you get blue in the face.

So, it’s clear that information and insight by themselves don’t produce change. It’s the desire to change and seeing the value in change that drives us forward. 

One desire killer is inertia. We’ve heard the excuse: “That’s the way we’ve always done things.” There may be no consequences: “Who’s going to notice, who’s going to care?” We may feel powerless: “I don’t have the resources, I don’t have the access.”

A second drag on change is simple ignorance and, on this issue, I’m having déjà vu. I wrote about “Swine Flu's Teachable Moment” nearly a dozen years ago: “It was disturbing to read about a growing public health threat in "Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases" in this week's New England Journal of Medicine (Omer et al.). The bottom line is that there is a critical need for new education and policy efforts to protect children (sometimes from their own parents) and the general public.”

Dr. Marijn Dekkers, former CEO of Bayer and former Chairman of Unilever, pointed out at financial conference several years back, “Even the most outstanding ideas and scientific breakthroughs have no chance if people do not accept, appreciate and support them. All too often, people are afraid of – or uneasy about – new ideas, inventions, processes or products.” Dropping information – even crucial or compelling data – onto the heads of an unprepared public, or expecting a response to another “call to action,” is unproductive and unrealistic.

We’re in this situation partly because our science literacy is abysmal. The United States ranks 18th out of 78 countries, according to the most recent analysis by the National Center for Education Statistics. China, Estonia, Japan, Korea, Canada, Poland, Slovenia, UK, Netherlands, and Germany are among those ahead of us.

And it’s an even bigger issue than the public health or economic competitiveness. Poor science literacy can eat at the core of our democracy. Professor Jon D. Miller (now at the University of Michigan) told The New York Times in 2005 that “…people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.” He continued that for so many issues affecting society, "if you don't know a little science [it’s] hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism [will] not make sense to you."

It’s not a problem that can be addressed by a one-year budget cycle or even a five or ten-year plan. It will take a generational blueprint that needs to be comprehensive, coordinated, and well capitalized in order to see a return on the investment. Let’s get started.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me @pauoestreicher.

Predicting Change in the Age of Trump - We Need a T.H.E.M.E.

How long is too long to wait for change? If you’re at a red traffic light for more than a few minutes, you’re probably wondering if it’s broken and contemplating an isolated break with a societal norm.  

But what drives us to wait or to move on? I wrote about the change many predicted Donald Trump would make following his victory in the Republican primaries nearly five years ago. Surely, conventional wisdom dictated, he would pivot quickly from fiery agitator to energetic statesman. After waiting the duration of a campaign, a presidential term and then another campaign, I think it’s safe to say the wait is over. Change is not coming and it never will.

In 2016, a New York Times editorial (The Donald Trump Pygmalion Project) focused on Donald Trump’s behavior and how “Mr. [Paul] Manafort’s ambition is to turn this Eliza Doolittle into a candidate more acceptable to decent society, in time for the general election.” 

But too few were paying attention when Mr. Trump said, “I sort of don’t like toning it down.” That rare, honest admission should have been a clue. More questions needed to be asked; intentions should have been probed.

I love checklists and acronyms, and this looks like the perfect place for both. In politics, as in personal and business relationships, we need think about and evaluate others in terms of a THEME:

Transparent. Do we have a clear view into this person and his or her intent? Is what we see what we get?

Honest. Are rules, and the rule of law respected? Are we getting the facts, the truth or some belief, some wishful thinking? 

Empathic. Does this person really care about me, about others and the common good? What is this person’s motivation – is he concerned about helping others, greedy, or a narcissist?

Moral. What does this person value? Is there an understanding how his or her actions might affect others?

Ethical. What is the character of this person? Is this a principled person with a consciousness of his or her actions? 

This is the lens through which we need to view our leaders, colleagues, even friends and family members when it comes to gauging the probability of change. Of course, we need to remember that no one is perfect and giving the benefit of the doubt is generally better than immediately cutting off relationships. 

But when it comes to the current President, we already had years of answers to the questions in my THEME. We should have been able to avoid the mistake of the fabled frog. I’m referring to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog where the scorpion, unable to swim, asked a frog to ferry it across a river. The frog responded that it was afraid of being stung by the scorpion. The scorpion answered in logical terms: If I sting you, he said, then we’d both drown. Thinking the scorpion wouldn’t risk its own life, the frog allowed the creature on its back. Well, you guessed it. In mid-crossing, the predatory arachnid stung the frog. As they began sinking toward their deaths, the frog asked, “Why?” The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it. It's who I am." The echo of 2016 Donald Trump is loud and clear.

The frog did ask, though. He questioned. Sadly, he believed the lie. He hoped and trusted when he should have been skeptical and suspicious.

Too few challenged Donald Trump and still don’t, even after all the facts were in plain view: the self-dealing, the hush money, the loyalty tests, the muzzling of scientists, and the targeting of the news media as “enemies of state.” The passivity of some and the enabling by others empowered an unabashed, unaccountable, downright lawless Administration. After hundreds of years of steady though non-linear progress, our country has actually devolved. Americans are worse off now than in decades past. Our people are sicker, more polarized, less trusted. The planet is unhealthier, more fragile, less stable.

It’s not too late to reverse course. The whole country won’t respond right away and some people never will. But what differentiates us as human beings is that we’re able to learn, adapt, and progress. Let’s do that.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me @pauoestreicher.

Biden Won – So Did Science

The most anti-science, science-denying president of our lifetime was defeated by, you guessed it, science. While the election was close, it still has to rank as one of the biggest ironies in history.

Even so, seeing how tens of millions of people voted against their own self-interest is one of the most baffling and infuriating phenomena I know. It helps to prove that a belief can overpower a fact, how a lie can (shall I say it?) trump the truth. 

The facts and allegations are painful to repeat but, briefly, Donald Trump failed to disclose taxes or foreign entanglements; destroyed immigrant families; encouraged white supremacists; belittled women; covered up ties to Russia; illegally used campaign funds; threatened allies; praised dictators; created economic hardship with a trade war; killed environmental protections; undermined funding for education and the arts; enriched himself and his family at taxpayer expense; threatened political adversaries; mocked disabled persons; disparaged soldiers; attacked the news media; rammed through lifetime appointments to the judiciary; advocated voter suppression and intimidation efforts, and lied to the public – according to fact checkers – approximately 25,000 times.

But put aside his long list of self-serving, amoral, unethical, and likely illegal activities for a moment. It was the COVID-19 issue that Donald Trump handed to Joe Biden. While Trump won in some of the states hit hardest by the virus, the pandemic cost him the election. He and tens of millions of others may have ignored the science, but a bug less than 0.000004 inches across tipped the scales to Biden. 

Trump cowed Republican leaders, tossed the Obama “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents” and all but disbanded the White House Coronavirus Task Force. He called Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the world’s top infectious disease specialists, a “disaster,” said scientists were “idiots,” and falsely claimed “doctors get more money if somebody dies from COVID.” 

Despite all of that and the desperate efforts to gaslight the public on the seriousness and deadly scope of COVID-19 – a White House press release claimed the president ended the pandemic – Trump could not alter the science of a viral infection. He couldn’t bully the virus away.  He couldn’t short-circuit the careful research and development process required for new vaccines and therapeutics. 

Joe Biden did push a few other campaign issues: Trump’s lack of character, morality, and empathy (“The Battle for the Soul of America”); the assaults on affordable healthcare and attempts to strip protections from those with preexisting conditions, and the diminished standing of the United Sates around the world. In fact, some reports had the economy and health care out-polling COVID-19 as key election drivers.

Yet the Biden team ended up displaying some remarkable consistency in messaging on the COVID crisis. Why? The economy and health care are complex issues. COVID-19 is not. It’s impossible to ignore. The virus is surging again and predictions are the worst is yet to come. Some will continue to claim it’s a hoax, that the numbers are inflated, and it’s not much worse than a bad cold. But the number of cases, positivity rates, hospital admissions, and deaths are hard to argue unless you’re locked into a belief system where no facts will ever penetrate. 

Trump couldn’t help but to respond, not with actions to protect the public health but with more derision. “With the fake news, everything is COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID,” Trump complained at a mostly maskless rally. It was painful to see how he politicized science and it used as a wedge, driving people further apart.

A platform based largely on science, medicine, and public health won this election – barely. We will win the battle against this coronavirus with the right leadership and resources; naming a new coronavirus task force on November 9 was the president-elect’s first major announcement. But the fight comes with a terrible, sometimes irretrievable cost, the result of missteps and misdeeds from a malign, incompetent Administration. 

Like hundreds of millions of others around the world, though, I’m hopeful that in the days and years ahead that facts will matter, and our scientific, political, educational, and journalistic institutions will again be held in the highest regard.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.