Touchy-Feely Boogeymen

Can you remember being afraid of the dark? It's probably a normal part of childhood. As a child, I was sometimes afraid of "the boogeyman." I never really SAW him, but I knew he was there ... in the shadows ... waiting. The stories had made him real.

Even as adults, our lives are heavily influenced -- sometimes even driven -- by kinder, gentler boogeymen. But they're just as "touchy-feely" as those of childhood, and we can't pin them down with any more success. I recently came across a good example.

Two U.S. government organizations have released conflicting statistics on global warming. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that 1997 was the warmest year this century with the earth's average temperature being 0.75 degrees F above "normal."

On the other hand, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) purports that 1997 was only the twelfth warmest in their 19-year history of satellite measurements. Furthermore, their data indicates a decrease of 0.7 degrees F for the century, almost an exact offset of NOAA's figure. Interesting.

Is the earth heating or cooling? Don't ask the experts; they can't agree because there's no standard way of measuring global temperature. Nevertheless, we're flushing billions to prevent something that may not be happening at all ... all for the lack of a standard.

Let's look at another boogeyman who pops up when we don't have standards -- opinion polls. These polls are virtually omnipresent, but we need to look at their conclusions with a fishy eye. Here's a typical scenario.

Not long ago ABC News conducted a one-night poll based on telephone calls to 505 adults. The responses of those 505 were then extrapolated to conclude that 49 percent of people think that President Clinton "lacks the honesty and integrity to serve as president." Regardless of the mathematical foundations, that's a pretty authoritative pronouncement considering all the potential errors.

Polls are far more than numbers; they can actually change behavior. It was reported, for example, that President Clinton went into hiding after Monica Lewinsky's story first began to filter out and his approval ratings plummeted. A few days later he surfaced, however, galvanized by other polls that gave him a pat on the back with higher-than-ever approval ratings.

We were called by a pollster who abruptly terminated the conversation when the answers he was getting weren't the ones he was wanting. Are some polls commissioned to reinforce a particular point of view?

While there may be some comfort in numbers, must we rely on the fickle opinions of "the people" to determine behavior? Wouldn't adherence to reliable, predictable standards negate the shadowy boogeymen of whim and feeling that whip us around from poll to poll? Are there no touchstones that transcend personality, political persuasion and the need for approval to faithfully lead us to good decisions?

We could revert to a tried and true list: don't commit murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't lie.... But how quickly we forget.

Copyright 1998 James McAlister

Printer friendly version