Common myths and misconceptions

There are a lot of commonly held beliefs that have no foundation in fact. Many of these are held to be true even though they are now proven to be quite untrue. I will try to shatter some of these myths below.

  • We only use 10% of our brain.

This is false on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. This was first stated just over 100 years ago and has been promulgated from generation to generation and is absolutely false. We use all of our brain and as modern science will tell you the brain is a complex and diverse beast with each area looking after quite unique functions. When even the smallest pert of the brain is damaged it effects our cognitive function. The brain is extremely adaptable in that the brain can utilise other parts to perform the function of the damaged part, as long as the injury is not too severe. In any case we actually use 100% of our brain.

  • Prohibition does not work

The oft quoted example is the prohibition on the sale of alcoholic beverages in the US in the 20s and 30s. The interesting thing about this example is that it actually achieved what it set out to do. In the early part of the 20th C in the US alcoholism was an extremely serious social issue. The common belief was that wowsers got the ear of government, but this is far from the truth. There was a runaway increase in the rate of consumption of alcohol and it was of a major concern to society. The fact that there was a constitutional amendment illustrates the perceived severity of the problem.

Studies have shown that the consumption of alcohol decreased dramatically during prohibition and that the common belief that all of the legal drinking houses went underground is not supported by the facts. Even after prohibition was repealed the rate of consumption per capita did not reach anywhere near the level it was before prohibition. In fact as of the early 90s the rate of consumption was still well below pre-prohibition rates. This is not to say that there were other serious issues that occurred either directly or indirectly as a result but we can say that this does prove that prohibition works.

  • Private industry does things more efficiently.

You will find that the proponents of this theory is private industry. I have worked in the public and private sector and can say that in my experience that this is not true. People will rort the system if they can despite best efforts. In any case private industry’s primary motivation is profit so that it will necessarily increase the cost if only because they want to return money to the shareholders. I am not saying that we need to repeat the post war privitisiation blitz but that we should not privatise merely because we believe it will lead to increased efficiency.

  • Universal health care results in spiraling costs due to over servicing.

I will tell you one of the causes of spiraling costs. Oversubscribing of drugs. There is a huge industry that depends on the over subscription of drugs. I recently read a report that stated that statins (used for reduction of cholesterol) should be given to all diabetics over the age of 50. I was horrified. The side effect – which are very common – can be horrendous, despite the increasing evidence that they actually do not decrease the risk of coronary disease. In fact it is probably that the only people to benefit from this are the drug companies.

Getting back to my original point, over servicing occurs whether you have universal health care or no. What needs to happen is that procedures have to be put in place to reduce the prevalence regardless of the system. In any case the slight rise in over servicing (which by the way is tiny compared to other rorts that are driving up the cost of health care) is an extremely small price to pay for the provision of health care to all ones citizens. One of the signs of a civilised society is that we take care of the needy and disadvantaged, and on that basis the richest country in the world could be regarded as one of the least civilised.

Conclusion

Critical thinking is the practice of looking at issues and beliefs from all sides and analysing those issues in a critical way to determine the truth or otherwise of the claims. I often take the opposing point of view from my own and argue as if I was opposing myself. This sometimes leads to interesting results.

I recently had a lengthy email discussion with my son about GM foods and took the pro GM line in order to show him how critical thinking works – not because I necessarily support GM.

We need to always question what we are told, not just accept as face opinion – especially if it comes from someone we trust.