Pi-Consulting

Economic downturn? What economic downturn? Paris Hilton went on a New Year shopping spree in Sydney, Australia, spending $4,000 in less than an hour. The world’s news media erupted, fingering the self-publicizing socialite for “callous disregard” of the deprivations that ordinary folk were going through. This kind of negative coverage has resulted in a furtive change of behavior among some shopaholics who still have plenty in the bank. Kathy Fuld, the wife of the deposed Lehman Brothers chief Dick Fuld, seems to have salvaged much of the wealth he amassed before the firm’s demise, including the $13 million home he recently sold her for $10. Anxious not to draw enemy fire while trawling the mall, she has reportedly evolved a new form of “stealth shopping,” instructing sales clerks in ritzy apparel stores like Hermès to put her merchandise in plain shopping bags rather than the orange ones with the conspicuous Hermès brand name on them. It’s the return of the “plain brown wrapper”. As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd acerbically comments about the anonymous shopping bags, “Americans are suffering from luxury shame. …A practice once reserved for men’s magazine pornography is now being used to mask the ‘pornography’ of spending”. Source: NYT

Homo Sapiens is defined by rationality. Since we mutated into Homo Consumiens, economists believe we are all supposed to be even more logic-driven in our pursuit of self-interest. Really? Maybe somewhere out there super-intelligent extra-terrestrials are monitoring our eBay bids and online purchases, checking the human race for signs of innate common sense. They should perhaps not hold their breath; (or chlorine gas, or whatever it is they breathe).

Faced with rational choices, the options we humans go for can be downright weird. At the supermarket checkout, a self-described thrifty, health-conscious shopper will pat herself on the back for choosing low-fat, no-added-sugar foods at bargain prices. Yet, just as her right hand is handing her money-off coupons to the checkout girl, her left hand is impulsively scooping up a high-priced gossip magazine and a handful of sugar-filled candy bribes for her fractious kids.

Such self-contradictions follow us as we try to “save money” online. We found the book we wanted, reduced. Just as we go to hit the checkout button, up comes a message saying “You qualify for this week’s special purchase. Spend another $19 and get free shipping”. We obediently agree to an additional item that we never intended to buy, to “save” $3.99. Hmmm. Define “free”.

These examples may seem trivial and random, but in fact they are neither, according to Dan Ariely, an MIT professor of behavioral economics, and author of “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions”. The all-too-human propensity for kidding ourselves betokens “irrational behaviors (that) are neither random nor senseless …but systematic”, says Ariely. “We make the same mistakes over and over”.

These ‘mistakes’ can be life-changing. Rationality says we should be minimizing debt, and saving for our retirement years. So why do we borrow to the hilt and spend virtually all the money we can lay our hands on? Last year, according to The New Yorker, Americans had $10.184 trillion in disposable income. They spent $10.132 of it. That’s 99.5%. Needless to say, a sizable proportion of the money went to credit card companies in late fees and interest payments.

As the report had it, “Americans, having reviewed their options, collectively resolved to spend virtually all the money they have”; proof that “people have trouble acting in their own self-interest”. Some theorize that this is because we are ‘loss-averse’, even when the ‘loss’ from our monthly pay-packet would be going into a savings fund. But how does that explain people who fail to enroll in company retirement plans even when no employee contribution is required?

Homo Sapiens means “Knowledgeable Man”. Yet we seem oddly incapable of perceiving the dividing lines between what we know and what we believe. Perhaps the best-measured example of this is the arresting fact that 60-70% of adult Americans believe the literal truth of Bible stories like the creation and Noah’s flood. Indeed, a 2007 Gallup survey reported 31% saying the Bible is “the actual words of God”. Yet when Gallup fielded questions about the Bible’s contents, half of respondents were unable to name its first book as Genesis; two-thirds did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount – many thought it was Billy Graham – and 60% failed to name even half the Ten Commandments. 12% thought Noah was married to Joan of Arc. What we know and what we believe, it seems, can diverge.

Of course we have a new excuse for this. The internet has expanded the world’s supply of verbiage, and this fact allows us to dismiss things we don’t like the sound of as “too much information”. The cyber-avalanche of unsifted intelligence, inference and rant impedes real facts from reaching a wide audience. Last year the number of active blogs on the Net passed the 100 million mark. Their readers now vastly outnumber those who read serious, unbiased sources which have to filter their output through a team of fact-checkers. The result is that many of us now only read the ‘facts’ and opinions that actively appeal to us.

A case in point is the battle between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, (which the latter has resoundingly won, if eyeballs on screens is the measure; it claims 2.5 billion page-views per month). Britannica’s contributors have included Einstein, Freud, the economist Milton Friedman and more than 100 Nobel laureates. Wikipedia, by contrast, is a ‘wiki’, the type of website that allows visitors to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit content at their whim. Being voluntary, Wikipedia has no real editor. Its driving principle is “This is my truth; what’s yours?”. The aim is not necessarily truth per se, but the warm, fuzzy feeling of consensus. In consequence, Wikipedia offers more “knowledge” on Pokemon characters than on quantum mechanics.

Do we humans really want to know the truth at all? The way the majority of us vote in elections implies, for instance, that we believe saving jobs is more important than productivity and the prosperity it engenders. The folly of this was recently pointed out by a story in The Economist’s Lexington column. An economist inspects a dam-building project, and sees hundreds of workers with shovels. “Why not use a mechanical digger?” he asks, to be told that this would put people out of work. “Oh, fine, if it’s jobs you want, take away the shovels and give them spoons”. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Yet politicians figured out long ago that “job-protecting” xenophobia and protectionism mobilize more voters than genuine economic stimulus and fiscal common sense, however much better off those would make us. A candidate’s aim, after all, is to gain and keep power, not to fix things. We behave just as irrationally when choosing our leaders as we do when spending money.

All in all, it shows we humans are prone to endearingly muddled thinking. If asked by a clipboard-wielding canvasser to agree or disagree with the statement “Either something makes sense, or it doesn’t”, we seem disposed to reply “Uh… what was that middle one again?”

The average American adds a tip of between 8% and 37% after an enjoyable meal. Yet 40% of Americans profess to hate tipping as a practice. They are not alone. Australians have a long history of hating the whole idea of tipping, on the basis that “The person’s doing their job and getting paid, so why should I pay them even more?”. Sydney taxi drivers have been known to give tippers a nasty look, throw the tip money on the sidewalk, and shout “Think you’re better than me, eh, cobber?” (Source: Cornell University, Pi).

To dub? Or to sub-title? Movies on TV are supposed to be entertaining, and Spanish-speaking viewers don’t feel they should have to work too hard at having a good time. For mainstream American audiences, of course, the question scarcely arises, since foreign-language movies from beyond the US domestic market only hit the national consciousness with extreme rarity, if at all.

Views can vary in the dubbing vs. titles debate. In Latin America, for instance, large numbers of the films and TV shows aired are American in origin, but preferences for translation formats are far from uniform. Overall, dubbing seems to win by a comfortable margin. However, a surprising number of TV viewers and moviegoers in Argentina and Mexico say they prefer the original English soundtrack, and reading the sub-titles. This seems to correlate with (a) a higher proportion of the population professing to speak English, and (b) a sense of pride in taking Anglo-Saxon cultures on board undiluted. Upscale Mexicans, for instance, will be at pains to seem comfortable with Hollywood Americanisms in the original English. For their part, Argentineans notoriously regard themselves as more European than the Europeans. In Buenos Aires, the overwhelming practice in movie theatres is to show foreign films in their original version, with Spanish subtitles only provided for those ‘ignorant’ enough need them.

Curiously, in Brazil they tend to ‘dub-title’ movies, i.e. viewers get much English-language material dubbed into Spanish, with Portuguese subtitles added as well. This can get ferociously confusing. Your Pi blogmeister has sat on planes to Rio or São Paulo, and realized that the two simultaneous translations of the in-flight movie not only mis-represent the English original, but are also totally different from each other.

With dubbing, something always seems to get lost in the translation, and the quality of the movie-watching experience can suffer. Puerto Rican viewers, many of whom are bi-lingual in Spanish and English, complain that Hollywood fare dubbed into Spanish is often so badly done that the movies and series seem more like parodies of themselves. The same voice-over artists’ voices come back, thinly disguised, again and again. “It’s awful”, says one viewer in San Juan. “Serious programs come across as screamingly funny, while supposedly funny ones simply aren’t”. Sounds like “The Unwatchables”.

Paris is where good Americans go when they die, it used to be said. The same is true about Miami and the Latin Americans. People from all over Hispanic America speak of Miami with a wistful sigh and a flutter of the eyelids, as if it were some kind of earthly paradise. Instead of pronouncing the name “Mee-ah-mee”, Spanish-style, they call it “My Yammi”, much as Americans used to refer reverentially to “Paree”. Anyway, your blogmeister used to live overlooking Biscayne Bay and South Beach, and, with the curiosity that comes naturally to a Pi executive, studied up on what makes the place tick.

Pi knows that the most absorbing of all sciences is that of human behavior and interaction. All the really interesting places on earth are where races, colors, beliefs, languages, cuisines and tastes collide, and then collude. Rio de Janeiro is one such spot. Xenophobia rarely gets a toe-hold in countries whose populations are mostly immigrants. Such places also frequently have ports attached. Puerto Rico is another cheerful ‘melting pot’, given its kaleidoscopic – and mostly benign – racial and linguistic mix. New York used to be like that, and ought to be today, but somehow isn’t. Someone once acerbically described NYC as “White people in brown shoes exchanging sidelong looks with brown people in white shoes”. The different groups there seem to slide sullenly past each other like oil and water in a Petri dish, even within ethnicities. This may in fact have something to do with socio-economic stratification, or perhaps the concentration of lots of people in a small and very expensive piece of turf. (The imbecilically-named “War on Terror” sure didn’t help, enlarging latent mutual suspicions exponentially). Anyway, by comparison with NYC Miami is big and spread out, and everyone rubs along pretty much okay. (By the way, has anyone ever noticed the unusually high concentration of “Star Trek” fans in New York City? My theory is that Trekkies respond to, but fail to perceive, that venerable TV show’s real underlying themes, ie. [i] the very American concept of obedience to authority and [ii] the ultimate impossibility of any real accommodation with aliens, however liberal your persuasions).

So what about Miami? Definitely another ‘melting pot’ market. You’ll hear Spanish in ten different dialects, (some mutually incomprehensible), plus Portuguese, French (and its Creole derivatives — all the taxi drivers are from Haiti), even Russian. Oh, and English, though it’s not always immediately recognizable as such. Miami is one of the few places where you will encounter Americans making a serious effort to speak a foreign language, whether it be Spanish or, of course, English.

Miami as a city is a jigsaw of different cultures, languages, tastes, diets and shopping habits. Older retirees from the North-Eastern US and sun-seeking newcomers from all over the States rub shoulders with conservative Cubans, dance-mad Dominicans, nostalgic Nicaraguans, and folk from every other corner of the Americas. Burger King vies for your lunch-money with Pollo Tropical (spicy chicken, yellow rice, fried bananas and salsa) and innumerable Cuban and Caribbean-style eateries, serving rice, beans, ‘yuca’, fried plantains and roast pork. Oh, try the “Vaca Frita”, why don’t you? It means “Fried Cow”.

When the writer moved to Miami, he was told how lucky he was to be living here. “What makes Miami such a terrific place”, said my witty NYC-bred informant, “is that it’s so close to the USA”. Indeed, the city has been chosen as Latin American HQ by big hi-tech and service companies, media conglomerates, ad agencies and dozens of manufacturers. (Despite this trend, some Chicago- and Minnesota-based corporations frankly shuddered at the thought of having to mix with all those flaky, unpredictable and tempestuous Latins. Realizing that you can’t easily run a Latin American business from the shores of the Great Lakes, such outfits tended to opt for an HQ in Fort Lauderdale, forty miles up the coast from Miami, on the basis that “At least that’s still the real United States”).

Anyway, the melting-pot thing really works. Miamians turn out in market research surveys to consider themselves 70% friendlier than the rest of the USA. Oh, and nearly two-thirds luckier: Miami Latinos outscore the nation by +63% on weekly purchase of lottery tickets. ¡Mucha suerte, damas y caballeros!