The Real Bruce Lee

You're smart. So why don't you write that way?

2009-11-18T12:12:00.000-08:00

Business Speak (closely related to “politician speak”) is an inferior way to communicate. It uses inappropriate, often made-up words that obscure the intended message. Characteristics of Business Speak often include making nouns of verbs (learnings; agreeance) and verbs of nouns (languaging; impact). It relies on tired clichés (think outside the box; new paradigm) in a failed attempt to project an image of self-importance.

The people who use Business Speak are not stupid themselves. They have simply never learned the skills necessary to communicate clearly to people outside their own peer group.

Who can blame them? Pity the Manager of Product Development who is called upon to make a presentation to a boardroom of people who have little technical expertise. The Manager is used to working with her own team, a group which naturally develops its own vernacular, acronyms and verbal shorthand. Trained as an engineer, not as a public speaker, her presentation takes one of two possible paths: 1.) She falls back on the familiar, peppering her speech with terms that, while natural and appropriate when dealing with her team partners, leaves her present audience confused and bored. Or, 2.) She makes the mistake of using the language she thinks is used by members of audience. She uses Business Speak.

Either way, the results are the same: miscommunication, misunderstanding, wasted time.

Business Speak infects more than presentations. You see it in reports, in web site content, some folks even use it in verbal communication. (I’ve heard with my own ears people use phrases such as “That project was not of my genesis,” “Let’s look at the investagory nature of this,” and “That’s not a firm fit for my core competencies.”) Ugh.

Man is a pattern-seeking, story-telling animal.

Remember that when preparing to communicate.

Effective communication takes an idea from one person’s head and puts it into another person’s head, with a minimum amount of translation error. If that’s your goal, then it is counterproductive to use words unfamiliar to your audience, or words that obscure or detract from the message you intend to convey.

Clear communication is not “dumbing down” language. On the contrary, it is the result of appreciating the wants and needs of your audience. If you’re making a presentation, writing a report or web site content, your focus should be on giving people what they want to know. If that’s a room full of theoretical physicists who want to know about Higgs Boson detectors in the Large Hadron Collider, effective communication will compel you to freely use the acronym LHC and casually throw around terms such as Electroweak Symmetry.

On the other hand, if you’re speaking to a high school general science class, you would avoid acronyms and arcane facts in favor of explaining general concepts and using anecdotes that would be interesting to a group of this knowledge level.

Regardless of the audience, illustrative stories and appropriate metaphors are excellent ways to communicate effectively and memorably. Remember, man is a pattern-seeking, story-telling animal. Take advantage of that when preparing to communicate.

I believe clear communication shows you are aware of and respect the time and interests of your audience. Viewed that way, Business Speak is disrespectful and wasteful.

Do Paranormal Healing Techniques Work Better Than Placebos?

2009-09-25T12:17:00.000-07:00

NOTE TO READER. Here's another lively exchange. This time it's between a self-described Clinical Herbalist, Master Energy Therapist, Foot Reflexologist, Aromatherapist, Sound and Light Healer and myself. I have changed the names and places to ensure privacy. Again, the important discussion here is not about the adherents, but about the subject, in this case, the efficacy of paranormal healing techniques. To make it easier to track the exchange, I have colored "Linda's" responses in blue.

Bruce Lee September 11 at 9:10am

Linda, I'm a friend of Jeff and saw your comment. Question: What forms of "complimentary/alternative" medicine do you practice?

Linda September 11 at 12:29pm

Hi, Bruce, I am a Clinical Herbalist, Master Energy Therapist, Foot Reflexologist, Aromatherapist, Sound and Light Healer (energy medicine.) The only thing I CANNOT do is: Acupuncture. Most of my gifts of Spirit are "innate", but I put myself thru 2 years of training at a Healing School in (state) to "qualify" what I do, and can call myself an "Holistic Health Care Practitioner" now. Many people are interested in these therapies (they work!), but cannot pay out of pocket. I can't JOIN the AMA, nor do I want to do so . . I do have a Master's degree as well, so I have been formally trained as an Educator. I taught school for many years, so I can EDUCATE re: nutrition, and the herbs. Thanks for writing ~ I hope you live in (city)! I need new clients . . .;-))

Bruce Lee September 13 at 4:52pm

Thanks very much for the reply Linda. I'm afraid that "alternative" healing practices such as those you mention could benefit from someone within that field taking the lead and proving, through the use of standardized scientific testing, the efficacy of those treatments in curing disease. The huge breakthroughs of modern medicine (curing polio, typhoid, tetanus, yellow fever, smallpox, diphtheria, malaria, measles, etc.) happened only when treatment-based-on-anecdote was shown to be inexact and most often, ineffective. Too, modern medicine is refined every day by new discoveries, just the opposite of "ancient wisdoms" that seem to resist improvements in light of new knowledge. The evidence that scientifically substantiated medical practices have advanced the health of mankind is overwhelming. If someone makes a claim that a certain procedure or medicine cures the symptom of a disease, or even the disease itself, then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And in the 21st century, in America, that means (for good or ill) that the claim needs to be substantiated scientifically, and show real promise, in order to qualify for research dollars or insurance claims. Lots of people believe in the healing powers of alternative therapies. It can only be in the best interests of everyone to determine, once and for all, if these therapies are true cures, or simply manifestations of well-understood phenomenon such as the placebo effect. Folks such as Depak Chopra and Andrew Weil have deep pockets – perhaps the alternative treatment community should pressure them to invest in the necessary research that would legitimize the treatments. Just an idea...

Linda September 13 at 9:40pm

Well, my friend. You are entitled to your "position" re: alternative medicine. I RESPECT THAT POSITION. My sig other is a SCIENTIST with a Ph.D. He was the ULTIMATE SCEPTIC until I "affected" multiple cures for his ills. There IS no proof to what I "do", and I will never try to convince you to BELIEVE. We Healers have been granted an incredible gift. I never asked for it; it just arrived, and I was confused for YEARS about what to do with it. Call it the "placebo effect", or whatever you wish. THER IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. We are working in another "arena" of healing / another DIMENSION, if you will. Most people seek me out because SCIENCE has not worked for them. REMEMBER: THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED by Pharmaceutical Cos. M.D.s learn how to PRESCRIBE pharmaceuticals. END OF TOPIC. That's a FACT, JACK. What I offer is: TIME, caring, concern, appropriate treatment. I HAVE BEEN WELL TRAINED. I would like to pursue INTERESTING CONVERSATION about my world. BTW: I am practicing CATHOLIC, and my "ways" are in SYNC with my Church. Jesus said: "GO OUT AND DO WHAT I DO; any of you can do this ". . . LET'S become "friends", and pursue this dialog ~ I LOVE TO DEBATE any and all topics . . Blessings, Linda

Linda September 13 at 9:48pm

I LOVE great debate. I have met Jeff, and he knows I am "legit". Let's keep the conversation going, SHALL WE??? :-))

Bruce Lee September 14 at 11:03am

Perhaps I misspoke. What I was trying to address is your concern that health care doesn't currently reimburse the costs of many alternative treatments because such allotments are based only on scientifically proven techniques. I guess I was simply commenting on this fact. I do have a question, however, and please forgive me if it seems so simplistic: Why aren't alternative health treatments shown objectively to work any better than placebos? I mean, we're talking about reality here–either someone gets better or they don't. Why can't, say, homeopathy, be clearly shown to work better than distilled water? If it works, it should have solid evidence that it works. (e.g.: more people with a disease would get better after homeopathic treatment than from some other treatment. This has never been shown to be the case.) And again, we can't rely just on anecdote. For centuries, people got well after sessions of bloodletting, and anecdotally, the treatment appeared to work. Of course, now we know that people got better, not because of the treatment, but in spite of it.

Linda September 14 at 1:06pm

I could write a THESIS about my "world", but I will keep it short. :-) The body has an INNATE ability to HEAL ITSELF. The body SEEKS homeostasis. Even the Med. school students are taught: 90 per cent of your patients will get well, EVEN IF YOU DO NOTHING FOR THEM. Much of what we alternative people DO cannot be proved. There is simply too much MYSTERY in why / how our "medicine" works. Partly, it's the ATTITUDE of the patient, and partly it's my (our) connection to other "realms" / dimensions. My elevator speech is: "I am able to fascilitate / accelerate the body's innate ability to heal itself THROUGH THE POWER OF GOD (the Universe . . whatever you wish to call "IT.") Albert Einstein said "There are two ways to view the world. One is: EVERYTHING is a miracle. Another is: NOTHING is a miracle. Only ONE of the two views brings HAPPINESS." When you think of the world as ENERGY; (EVERYTHING is energy in this dimension and other dimensions); one cannot offer PROOF of action (what is observable and repeatable) in the world of quantum physics. That's part of the beauty of this work. SOMETIMES we cannot explain the "how." IT JUST IS. A HUGE part of the healing process requires the BELIEF that the therapy will work, AND belief in the THERAPIST. I guess I am back to the placebo effect . . but if a client feels BETTER after a treatment, IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's placebo, or the POWER of God, or ?????? . . it WORKED!!!

Bruce Lee September 14 at 3:44pm

I guess I would respond by asking, if people get better whether it's a placebo pill or chakra stone or healing touch, how can one determine the difference? Without evidence, how does one make a decision on determining cause and effect? If a person feels sick one day and undergoes healing touch and the next day feels better, is their illness responding to the treatment, or just the fact that the earth spun around again? Without testing and evidence, there's no way to know. Conversely, if a person is in a coma and has syphilis, and penicillin is administered, the syphilis is cured. No placebo effect necessary. Evidence-based medicine has a spectacular track record for curing disease, but I can think of no disease eradicated by so-called alternative treatments. I also can't imagine any reason why the purveyors of alternative forms of medicine would eschew evidence. After all, they are making a clear-cut claim: "Our methods work." It's entirely reasonable for those practitioners to want to substantiate those claims, thereby advancing the state of health for the benefit of all. Finally, if these treatments are indeed "mysterious," then why not do the research in an attempt to unravel that mystery? Mankind hasn't advanced its knowledge of the universe by being content to look at nature and say, "well, that's just the way it is–a mystery." (Religion does that.) Acceptance without inquiring is what people did in the Dark Ages, and life then was brutish and short. I guess what I'm saying is that, if tomorrow, a scientific study indicated that homeopathy (for example) cured people of disease, would homoeopathists reject the findings or embrace them? What if the reason the homeopathic medicine was found to work was based on clear adherence to known material behavior? Would practitioners reject that too, and insist instead that the cause should remain a "mystery?" One final thing: Perhaps no theory in the history of science has been tested as thoroughly and proved to be more predictable than the standard model of particle physics. If it was a "mystery," you and I would not be able to communicate via a computer. Such devices would never have been developed if not for the unerring accuracy and predictability of quantum theory.

Linda September 14 at 3:50pm Report

I want you to hear from my partner who is quite an accomplished Professional. His opinion will make more sense to you. He is a Research Scientist, and Human Factors Consultant, with a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology. He will put his particular "spin" on this weighty topic ~ I will have him write to you from here.

Linda’s Friend September 15 at 12:18pm Report

Bruce, I have read your discussion with Linda regarding alternative forms of health care. It is clear to me that you are well schooled in science (perhaps an engineer) and are asking valid questions. I have worked as a Research Psychologist (Ph.D. level) for most of my professional life and have had strong formal training in chemistry, physics, biology, statistics, experimental design, as well as human behavior. I also enjoy following the popular descriptions of progress in Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

As a scientist this is how I feel about the many modes of alternative health care. When we carry out experimental tests designed to determine the efficacy of various pharmaceuticals, we usually employ at least two independent variables: the pharmaceutical under test and a placebo. The placebo, by definition, is a chemically neutral substance that creates a belief on the part of a subject that they are in fact receiving something capable of cure. In this context, the placebo becomes “Belief.” Thus, the finely tuned experiment has two independent variables; a “drug” and “belief.”

As you know, many well designed experiments find that “Belief” (placebo) is more effective than the “drug” under test. From an experimenter’s perspective, the variable of Belief is shown to be statistically significant in terms of its effect.

At this juncture let’s address cause and effect. When we analyze our pharmaceutical we can separate-out the several substances that make it up and we can manipulate them intelligently. However, when we try to do the same with Belief, the causative factors are subjective in nature and subject to the individual differences of the subjects. As a result, the observability, repeatability, and describability of the Belief variable are compromised.

Given this situation we have only one alternative, to accept the demonstrated power of Belief to affect a change without knowing the several reasons why. This is not satisfying, but this is always the case when we are dealing with unknown phenomenon. Good example, we hypothesize that much of our cosmos is made up of dark matter. Further more it appears to be pulling our cosmos toward some predetermined spot in space. We can see the effects, but we have no notion of the cause.

I have come to believe that alternative forms of health care depend upon and manipulate one primary variable; Belief. This is true for acupuncture, hypnosis (accepted by the AMA), aroma therapy, energy therapy, etc, etc. Oh yes, let’s also throw in incantations by witch doctors! Anything that is “believed” can have a positive (or negative) observable and repeatable effect. We may not have precise control over the effect, or we may not be always be able to create belief on the part of a recipient, but if the belief is there good things can happen.

Beyond this we may never really know. But we do know that the effects of BELIEF---when it is in place--- can be demonstrated in a scientific laboratory. >>> (Linda’s Friend), Ph.D., 9/2009

Bruce Lee September 22 at 3:27pm

Good stuff. Thank you for taking the time to prepare this response.

A couple things:

Regarding the placebo effect (what you appear to find equivalent to belief). Evidence does seem quite convincing that such an effect exists, but not everyone agrees. (I point you to a 2001 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Is the placebo powerless?” in which the researchers found “no justification for the use of placebos.”)

Regardless, “belief,” while it may provide a certain percentage of patients with relief, that relief is by far most commonly associated with subjective, self-reported maladies such as pain (albeit with expected measurable factors such as lower blood pressure or pulse rate.). No placebo has ever been shown mend a broken limb. Placebos work only if the patient is awake and aware.

That we don’t yet know exactly how the placebo effect may work (if indeed it exists), that’s no reason to give up and say, as you do, that “we may never know” anymore than we should give up trying to determine the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Indeed, our lack of understanding should make us redouble our efforts to find out.

I often hear believers in the paranormal claim that “science doesn’t know everything!” Exactly. That is science’s greatest strength. Unlike religion or belief in the paranormal or superstition, science doesn’t ever claim to have all the answers. It is the act of questioning that drives science and human knowledge forward. Without questions, science would cease to exist.

What I understood most about your response however is your acknowledgement that all of these beliefs (“…aroma therapy, energy therapy, etc, etc. Oh yes, let’s also throw in incantations by witch doctors!”) are, at their core, all simply manifestations of the same source as the placebo effect.

Which brings us to a question of ethics. Is it ethical for a doctor to prescribe a placebo? How about a psychic healer? Or a witch doctor? What difference does it make if the practitioner is ignorant of the placebo effect and sincerely believes that some imaginary energy (or spirit) is facilitating the treatment? What if the practitioner is fully aware of the placebo effect and is simply trading on the gullibility of the patient?

More important, however, are the consequences to those who have very real health issues (e.g. disease; mental illness; malnutrition) yet eschew the treatments proven effective by modern, scientifically substantiated medicine. How long will the woman wait to seek medical attention for the lump she feels in her breast while she undergoes orgone energy blasts or herbal or homeopathic rituals? In such cases, what is the responsibility of the “care giver,” especially one who really believes such things may affect a cure?

(Again, it’s probably worth noting here that none of those “treatments” has ever shown any evidence of efficacy higher than that predicted by the placebo effect.)

Ignorance can be bliss, but it can also be dangerous and outright harmful. Personally, I may feel it’s foolish to believe in, for example, astrology, but there’s no law against being a fool. (Besides, it’s unenforceable.) And telling someone that, because the moon is in the seventh house, they should be especially careful when traveling today, is probably harmless.

That said, I believe that those who position themselves as counselors, therapists and healers based on tenets that are entirely non-physical, and “treat” people who may be suffering from a very real physical or mental problems are tragically deluded at best and dangerous at worst.

Linda’s Friend September 23 at 7:05pm

"Bruce, It is a lot of fun to have conversations like this. As you know, many of our "heros" in science spurred each other's thinking as they sent letters back and forrth arguing their points-of-view. In a word, I don't disagree with any of your major points... they are well taken and represent typical scientific attitude. What I have come to apprreciate through the years is the importance of TLC (tender loving care) and the tremendous impact stress has on the health of body and mind. I don't believe there is any argument in this arena. From the vantage point of "woo," I support their efforts if they provide TLC and reduce stress. These two variables alone increase quality of life and decrease many causes of physical disability. Certainly, the "World of Woo" should only act in support of our best western medicine; but, when TLC is provided and stress is reduced, our best medicine has its best effect. Beyond this, there is mystery. But, life would not be much fun without mystery. There would be no more theory, no more hypotheses, and no more wonder :-)) My very best...

Is organically grown food better than conventionally grown food, or is it all just marketing hype?

2009-09-22T21:29:00.000-07:00

TO THE READER: About three weeks ago, I received a mailed solicitation from a company offering the service of weekly delivery of freshly harvested produce. The company boasts that all the produce is raised organically, which means compliance with federal regulations regarding (among other things) the application of pesticides and fertilizers according to clearly defined "organic" practices. I contacted the company to inquire about some of the claims made in the mailer. They replied to my inquiries almost immediately and were exemplary in their graciousness and effort to address my concerns. These are just plain good folk, and I wish them the best. However, the exchange did present the opportunity for closer examination of some nagging issues regarding the credibility of some of the claims made by those promoting organic food production.

In this exchange, my e-mails are in blue and the responses from the producer are in black. I have purposely not included the name of the producer. The individual is not at issue here, but rather the claims being made by the industry.

FIRST COMMUNICATION – FROM BRUCE TO THE PRODUCER
Dear G – I received your mailer a couple of days ago and had a question regarding the copy headlined "EAT ORGANIC."

In it, the copy states, "It's just plain common sense; organic food is good food and contains more antioxidants and higher nutritional content than factory-farmed food."

I've looked seemingly everywhere, but I can find absolutely no scientifically backed evidence that indicates that food grown with organic farming standards is in any way more or less nutritious than factory farmed food. (Indeed, I discovered that nearly all "organic food" is produced by the same huge farming conglomerates who produce regular crops, often simply on a different portion of the same fields. I applaud your independence.)

Doesn't "organic" define the methods by which the produce is cultivated, not the the produce itself?

As a cooking enthusiast, I certainly appreciate the flavor difference of fresh-from-the-garden vegetables versus those that have been stored for long periods, but that seems to have nothing to do with how the vegetables were grown.

I suppose what I'm wondering is: Nutritionally, isn't a carrot a carrot, regardless of the type of fertilization and pesticides that were used during its growth?

Thanks for your time.

Bruce

_______________________________________________________________________

FIRST RESPONSE – FROM THE PRODUCER TO BRUCE

Hi Bruce,

We received your inquiry about the nutritional value of organic food and do appreciate your interest in discovering the difference between conventionally and organically farmed fruit and produce.

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'factory farmed' organic food and yes, indeed, the nutritional content of that produce is likely the same as any conventionally produced food.

What we see as a major difference is the rate of growth of a fruit or vegetable which contributes to the different nutritional/flavor content of any produce.

In order to produce produce that sells well in this country, farmers must produce a product that is large for its particular variety. As an example, let's say a cherry will normally grow to 10 grams in size with minimal fertilizer inputs. However, Americans want cherries that grow to 15 grams and will pay more for them. So farmers are obligated to overnitrate and overprune (overstimulate) our cherry trees so they'll produce larger fruit. This results in a fruit/vegetable that contains the same amount of cells as its smaller counterpart but the cells are larger. And where the difference in nutritional value comes into play is that larger celled produce contains about the same nutritional value as the smaller one.

If, on the other hand, a product is 'factory farmed' then the nitrogen inputs become the same as a conventional farm which essentially negates any advantage an organic product may have over a conventional one. And the lack of flavor is almost the same as anything produced conventionally.

The case we always make for the products we grow is that they're not overnitrated and our inputs are low enough to bring out the flavor that the fruit/veg was intended to have. They may not be king-sized but they sure taste good! Another analogy to nutritional content is how quality dog food manufacturers make a case for their dog food...their argument goes something like this...cheap dog food has all kinds of fillers in it and it takes a lot more volume of food for the dog to get the same nutritional value. That's kind of the same argument for properly grown organic food.

And one more thing that most consumers never think much about is that organic farms are inspected to make sure they comply with all the rules of growing organic food. And that goes for large farms as well. We are limited to a very small number of safe products we can use for pest control etc. but one thing is for sure...they're safe and won't kill anyone. That certainly can't be said for conventional farmers.

I make it a point to stay away from conventionally farmed products just for my own safety. I don't want to get sick and I don't want anyone in my family to get sick either. And having been a conventional farmer many years ago, it's almost scary how poisonous conventional pesticides are and what they can do to make us sick or kill us.

All conventional pesticides arrive on the farm in a concentrated form and are mixed with water before they're applied to crops. One drop of many of these pesticides will kill a human outright. What if the operator doesn't get the concentration right? What if he applies 3 gallons of a product to the tank mix instead of 3 ounces? This is not something to take lightly and think it can't happen. Many spray operators can't read. Many spray operators don't care. Many spray operators can't take instructions properly. Many spray operators make mistakes almost daily.

We're taking chances everytime we eat conventional food because 1. It's sprayed with deadly poisons and 2. The farm and produce is not inspected.

So if the nutritional value of organic produce is not enough to convince you to see a difference, then quite possibly the safety factor might be a good reason to consider always choosing organic for the health and safety of your family.

Thanks for thinking of us and thanks for taking the time to contact us.

All the best,

G

________________________________________________________________________

SECOND LETTER – FROM BRUCE TO PRODUCER

G – Thank you very much for your comprehensive response. It's a rare pleasure nowadays to have a company respond so quickly and with such care.

However, I couldn't help but note that some of the claims and concerns contained in your response don't appear to be substantiated with the information I have found. Specifically:

• You note your concerns about food safety. At least in the United States, the evidence seems to indicate that all foods (conventionally and organically farmed) have become much safer in the past thirty years or so. Ironically, this may stem from the growth of factory farming and the strict regulations enacted and enforced to ensure public safety. Also, food cleanliness is much better than in the past. Indeed, it appears that most of the food recalls (for salmonella and e-coli contamination) of the past decade or so were attributable to "organic" produce. How that happens exactly is probably tough to determine, but one possible source is the difference in using composted manure vs. chemically refined fertilizers, but it could be from any number of sources (dirty hands; bird or other animal contamination).

• Although I certainly appreciate your concern regarding farm worker safety and the potential hazards of "conventional" pesticides, I don't seem to be able to find any evidence that 1.) such poisonings actually occur frequently in the United States (in fact, I couldn't find a single instance; I was able to find instances of poisoning in undeveloped countries where handling regulations are probably more lax) and 2.) evidence that harmful levels of these pesticides remain on produce commonly available in the United States. Again, it appears that regulation and oversight has led to farming practices where farm workers are properly trained in the use of these potentially harmful chemicals. It looks like the dangers of other farm-related activities (such as driving the truck to market or climbing a ladder to pick fruit) may present a much greater level of real danger than the proper handling of pesticides.

• You make the claim to the effect that larger cherries have the same number of cells as smaller cherries, and seem to imply that, due to this, flavor is more concentrated in the smaller fruit. Really? I've been able to find no evidence that larger cherries have bigger cells. In all cases I can find, if an animal or plant is bigger, it's due exclusively to simply having more mass, attributable to more cells.

• Finally, the issue of taste. Again, in every controlled (blind) test that I have been able to find, it was determined that, generally, there was no clearly discernible difference in taste between organic and conventionally farmed foods. In my own experience, I do sometimes seem to be able to discern a flavor difference between foods that I believe might be attributed to freshness – a classic example being an apple picked directly from the tree versus one that has been stored in a Wenatchee warehouse for twelve months. But, just to be fair, I've not conducted even a simple blind comparison to test this. (I will soon.)

In summary, the benefits most often claimed for organic foods (some of which you appear to endorse) don't seem to have direct scientific evidence to substantiate them. As a matter of fact, looked at globally, it seems unequivocal that changes in farming technology, from genetics to chemically processed fertilizers and improved pesticides (safer and more specific), along with increases in distribution efficiencies, have resulted, not in higher incidences of harm, but quite the opposite. These techniques can reasonably be cited as the key factors in saving literally hundreds of millions of human beings from the terrible fate of death from starvation.

I have absolutely no issues with anyone, for whatever reasons they may have, preferring to spend their money on organically grown produce. However, with the information I have at the moment, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that, regarding issues of taste, safety and environmental impact, the term "organic" may be little more an effective marketing/advertising device benefitting the sales of American food producers' profits more than consumers' health.

__________________________________________________________________________

SECOND RESPONSE – FROM THE PRODUCER TO BRUCE

Hi Bruce,

Got your message about my response and it sounds like you're fairly well convinced that there's no difference between organically farmed or conventionally farmed.

I can't give you any more perspective than I have in my previous correspondence and having farmed both ways for a long time at each, all I can tell you is what I already have said and that is that the safety issue is the number one reason I stay away from conventionally farmed produce. Those pesticides may not affect you or your family or anyone you know but the chances of killing someone or making someone sick is very real for the reasons I have already outlined.

I understand the reasons you have found and the research you have done to make convincing arguments to support conventional farming vs organic.

But just remember that you're talking to an expert in this field and that is me!!

It's just like when you want the best legal advice or the best doctor, you go out of your way to make sure you're making the right choice. Well you just found the best in this particular field and any of the answers I have given you are in fact the correct ones.

Good luck with your continuing research and I hope you will understand that the answers I have given you are based on observation from both sides of the fence over a long, long, way too long a period of time!! I just wish I had a much less experience because if that was the case then I would be a lot younger and would have way more time to talk to you about this (in some cases) very controversial subject!!

All the best!

Oprah’s fat again and she doesn’t know why.

2009-07-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire. She is certainly the most influential, if not the most powerful woman alive. She has a personal chef. She has a personal physician. She has a personal trainer. She has built her empire in large part on the promotion of self-improvement. Her magazine and television programs are filled with inspiring stories of people who summoned the will and energy to make positive changes in their lives.

Recently, Oprah admitted that she had, once again, lost her personal battle with her weight, gaining over forty pounds over a couple of years, going above 200 pounds. She did this while daily being viewed by millions of admirers and true believers. She asked in a related article, “How did I let this happen again?”

I'm considering that she “let that happen” because she had no choice. Oprah doesn’t lack willpower, she lacks free will. We all do. I’m writing this sentence because it was ordained that I do so, back during the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang, back at the only time in the history of time where indeterminacy made a big difference in the stuff from which we're made.

Cosmology is a science always in flux, but there appears to be consensus that some period of time after the Big Bang, the universe cooled down (a "phase change" is a term often used) and more-or-less locked in what we call the Laws of Physics. Today, when we look back in time, using telescopes to see the universe as it was billions of years ago, we don’t see anything that indicates that the laws of motion and energy have changed over that time. Mass has gravity. The spectrum of burning sodium has remained unchanged (since the initial creation of sodium). Entropy has always increased.

If it wasn’t for the behavior of the super-small, it would appear that the universe acts totally in lockstep with entirely predictable physical laws–a Newtonian clockwork. (This old philosophy states that if, somehow, for an instant, you could determine the motion and inertia of every atom in the universe, you could, in principle, deduce the future behavior of all of those atoms, in the same way that an expert billiards player can determine from the position of the balls on the table how they will fall when she takes her shot.)

Two Twentieth Century discoveries undermined this deterministic view of nature. Einstein introduced relativity, which proved that time and space are not constant, but are perceived in a relative fashion affected by speed and mass. Atomic physics revealed the reality of indeterminacy.

Take at close look at a group of 100 atoms of uranium 235 (take your time, you’re gonna need it). Every once in a while, you’ll see an alpha particle buzz off and in doing so, change the atom it came from uranium into lead. Wait around about 704 million years (I warned you), and half of the atoms will have changed identity. Here’s the rub: During that entire time, no matter how hard you tried, you’d never be able to accurately predict which of those atoms was going to emit the alpha particle. All the evidence we have (and it seems pretty unequivocal) says that this inability to predict isn’t our fault, for not knowing enough about some hidden forces bouncing around in the atom, for example. No, this is just how it is. We can, with 100% confidence, know that, after 704 million years, half of the uranium will have turned into lead, but we can never, I repeat, never, know when and which atom will transmute during that time.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle proves that how we choose to observe an object determines how much we can know about it. Gödel showed that there are some propositions that cannot be proved. Chaos theory, though still young, reinforces that there are some initial conditions that preclude predictions of subsequent behavior.

However, we, as humans, don’t appear to be subject to, say, quantum effects. Way before we get up to the size of organic cells, the quantum statistics have accumulated overwhelmingly toward a state of matter that makes up the stuff we can manipulate. (In somewhat the same way we can absolutely know the half-life of a radioactive element, by stepping back from observing the behavior of single particles or atoms, to observing how they are assembled into molecules, we can unquestionably determine not just their momentum and direction, but how they interact with other molecules to make, say, plastic and chocolate milk. Another analogy: look at a photograph in the newspaper with a powerful magnifying glass. You see tiny dots of ink, but can no longer see the picture. It’s only when you remove the lens that the dots coalesce into a comprehensive image. The world we live in is one of images, not the tiny dots that form it.)

So I, along with every respected scientist (perhaps the only time I’ll be able to make the comparison) believe that quantum effects have virtually no effect on our being. (The only exceptions being random events such as cosmic rays, X-rays or other stray high-energy particles that may knock around bits in the DNA molecules that determine physical characteristics.) Again, by the time you “step back” to the size of the cells that make up our bodies, quantum effects can be ignored.

Here’s the deal: When you get past the unpredictable stage of reality (the super small), you’re left with the predictable. You’re left with Oprah.

Predictability is a good thing. It lets you do…oh, I don’t know…everything. (I even predicted that I would write that previous sentence, before I actually wrote it.) Because levers and pulleys and inclined planes and Bernoulli effects work the same way, every time, we get to build bridges and omelets and airplanes. When it comes to manipulating the stuff around us, we rely totally on predictability. We even rely on the predictability of reality when we want to end our reality–that’s why the suicidal jump off high places on to hard surfaces.

But, for some very persuasive, but–I contend–very misleading reasons, we make a special exception from this physical predictability. We make the exception for ourselves.

For no scientifically valid reason that I’ve discovered, we have this ephemeral thing within us (exactly where remains a mystery) that we believe directs every voluntary movement of our body. (I won’t get into here the dualism of mind and body vs. a more coherent view of human consciousness because, for this discussion, it doesn’t matter. Whether you’re the Pope or the Dali Lama, you still believe “you” decide to pick up the remote control and change the channel.)

“I” don’t believe you have a good reason to think you determine what to think and how to act. “I” speculate that what you’re thinking right at this instant is an inevitable result of all the events that preceded it. Indeed, there is really no “you” (or “I”) in the equation. What you’re experiencing is no more or less than the movement of the billiard balls, first set in motion fourteen billion years ago, and destined at that time to respond according to the laws put in place at that time.

Why the deception? Why the absolutely undeniable perception of this “ghost in the machine” that seems to pilot our bodies? I contend that it is a result of another inevitability of nature: evolution. Everything we know about life indicates its remarkable ability to adapt and move itself forward in time. (I don’t mean to imply in any way that life or its evolution has a “direction.” It is simply a characteristic of this particular assemblage of matter to avail itself in a way that tends to preserve its existence through time. Time, being defined here as the direction pointed to by the “arrow” of entropy.)

In other words, consciousness and the accompanying conviction that free will exists, is nothing more or less than an adaptation that has evolved in response to environmental pressures. Our ancestors who first conceived of the “I” tended to survive at a greater rate than their competitors. Look around at the genuinely astounding permutations of life that have developed over the past 3.5 billion years or so, from octopus suckers to hummingbird beaks to HIV. Given that extraordinary range of adaptations, it suddenly doesn't seem as far-fetched that the form of consciousness we experience is just another evolved characteristic.

I’ll be the first to admit that such a conclusion brings forth feelings of disappointment and (literal) disillusionment. But I can’t seem to find a way around it. Perhaps it’s something like Göedel’s model (which I don’t pretend for a moment to comprehend beyond the most basic level) where, since we are part of the “set,” we can’t get “outside” the formula to observe and ultimately know. We are incomplete.

What such a situation does to issues such as ethics and the concept of sin, I don’t care to get into right now. Maybe later.

But it does one thing for certain. It answers Oprah’s question.

Crawling Out From Under the Bushel

2009-04-21T16:24:00.000-07:00

OK. I've been advised to "not to hide my light under a bushel." Something I was entirely unaware I was doing. (A bushel of what, exactly?) However, it was explained to me that there may very well be companies out there that would be interested in hiring my company, if they only knew, 1.) My company existed and 2.) My accomplishments. Toward that end, here are some of my accomplishments. Please feel encouraged to share this information. b

Bruce Lee Career Accomplishments

• Masterminded the development of a large relational database and used it to generate many millions of dollars in incremental sales.

• Directed an annual of media budget in excess $10 million.

• Created from scratch an in-house advertising department that grew from three people to twelve, at a time when sales grew from $7 to $150 million, and markets grew from one to six (Seattle/Tacoma/Everett; Spokane; Portland: San Francisco; Santa Rosa; Sacramento). Contributed to media strategy for Los Angeles, but left before actual store openings. Developed and administered media strategies in all markets.

• Developed media strategy and created all concepts and copy for print, outdoor, direct mail, radio and television, which resulted in the company for which I worked becoming the top volume cellular phone dealer in Washington.

• Was in charge of advertising for many consecutive years of monthly double-digit sales increases (with occasional increases as high as 40% over the previous year).

• Developed an ongoing system for precisely tracking advertising effectiveness.

• Wrote, produced and directed over 1000 radio commercials.

• Wrote hundreds of direct mail pieces.

• Wrote many thousands of newspapers advertisements. (For a number of years, the company for which I worked was the third largest advertiser in the Seattle Times and Seattle Post Intelligencer.)

• Wrote and produced approximately 30 television commercials.

• Created and maintained a successful company employee newsletter.

• Wrote all issues of a quarterly consumer newsletter.

• Responsible for all decisions relating to the purchase of all computer hardware and software for advertising department. Also all photography department purchases.

• Responsible for hiring and managing all department employees.

• Worked regularly with media representatives.

• Worked regularly with outside service providers, including database, print, radio and television production facilities.

• Worked with many outside service providers on development and execution of market research projects.

• Worked closely with counterparts in the PRO Group, at the time the second-largest buying group in the American consumer electronics industry.

• Worked extremely closely with a counterparts in purchasing and administration.

• Spent countless hours on in-store merchandising, signage and display.

• Assisted in countless negotiations with vendors for market development funds.

• Worked closely with Girvin to develop new logo.

• Aided in training hundreds of salespeople.

• Developed strategy, creative and handled all placement for Jorve Roofing.

• Continue to create all direct marketing, newspaper and magazine advertising for Bjorn’s Audio Video in San Antonio.

• Wrote television scripts for Puget Sound Health Partners.

• Wrote, produced and directed radio spots for Windermere Realty.

• Wrote, produced and directed radio spots for Franciscan Health System.

• Developed brand identity and web site for KARA Imports.

• Wrote web site content for Susan Youngsman & Company.

• Wrote content for web site for Groundingpoint Financial Consulting.

• Wrote content for web site for Bill McKay Consulting.

• Wrote content for web site for Ken Carson Creative.

• Wrote content for web site for High Dive Marketing, Research & Design.

• Wrote content for web site for Lenora Edwards Business Development Consulting

• Created magazine ads and catalog content for Time Warner.

• Wrote “infomercial” scripts for GB Woodcock packaging.

• Created print, online and radio for Definitive Audio.

• Created radio spots for HD radio.

• Created newspaper and magazine advertising for Entertainment Solutions.

• Created magazine advertising for Wilshire Home Entertainment.

• Created marketing materials for Pentabosol.

• Created web content for Envision Response.

Off With Their Headers!

2009-04-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

I remember a conversation I had with an older fella back in the Seventies. He claimed that, growing up, he could sit on his front porch with his eyes closed and identify the make of nearly every automobile that passed by, simply from the distinctive sound of its engine and exhaust note. I had no reason to doubt him. I had been a semi-serious motorhead from grade school, and believed I could reliably discern, if not a Chevy from a Pontiac, at least six- from an eight-cylinder-powered car. (And maybe a GM product from a Ford from a Chrysler.) Of course there was no problem blindly identifying the loose-chain flatulence of a VW.

There were a few weirdoes in junior and high school who posted on their bedroom walls photos of foreign “sports” cars. Those cars were OK I guess, but never gained mental prominence among my peer group, certainly in part because we rarely if ever saw them in our small town. (I don’t think I saw a real Ferrari or Maserati until I was in my twenties, when I moved to the Big City.) No, to those of us who wore out our copies of Car Craft, Hot Rod and the JC Whitney Catalog (with its extraordinary line art), there was nothing like Detroit Iron.

The cars we loved had names, not cold Teutonic model numbers. Quien es mas macho? Super Bee or Super Bird? ‘Cuda or Cobra? Charger or Challenger?

What grabbed at my loins were the rough trade twins Horsepower and Torque.

The modest little 1997 European sports sedan (with just a model number) I now drive to the store for pinot gris comes within a half-blink of the quarter-mile time of a 1969 335-horsepower Cyclone Cobra Jet (Cyclone Cobra Jet! Can you imagine being in the meeting where they decided on that name? They must have been doing flaming shots of pure testosterone) and would quickly lap it on a road track. But back when I had lots more testosterone, I didn’t care one whit about shit like braking and steering. What grabbed at my loins were the rough trade twins Horsepower and Torque.

I clearly remember getting into the passenger seat of a friend’s canary yellow Challenger. It had the optional Hurst shifter with the faux-wooden handgrip. As he released the clutch, I looked over at the instrument cluster. The tachometer needle rushed toward redline. The speedometer showed we should be moving at forty miles per hour or so. But we weren’t. Instead, we were nearly stationary, scraping hundreds of miles of tread off his Wide Ovals, creating an opaque cloud of brilliantly white smoke. The tires didn’t squeal like some whussy girl. Instead was a submissive “whoosh” nearly masked by the roar of air entering three two-barrel carburetors (a “six pack”) and passing through glass-packed mufflers and exiting from dual exhaust tips, each of which could swallow a dozen of those puny chrome fifes that stuck out the back of a Bug.

Mach 1? Hurst/Olds?

Boss 351 (with “Shaker” hood)?

We hardly knew ye.

Just as guys like me were beginning to land jobs where we might possibly be able to afford the payments on a used Road Runner, the oil embargo and Earth Day happened. And Detroit did something for which we never forgave them: they stopped making the cars we wanted.

Now, let me clarify something: With few exceptions, Detroit never made really good cars, at least not during the fifties and sixties, the period with which I was obsessed. We knew that a Mustang was just a Falcon with a different body style, and that a Camaro and Firebird were twins. Hood scoops were rarely functional and plastic wheel covers weren’t magnesium. We recognized the hideousness of the tonneau roof and the ridiculousness of stuffing a 426 cubic inch Hemi into what would have otherwise been our parents’ Dodge Satellite. We saw the misaligned body panels of even new cars and the doors on two year-old models already beginning to sag. Didn’t all cars squeak?

But this was the time of planned obsolescence. I knew many successful people who traded-in and bought a new family car each and every year. My high school parking lot was full of Buick, Oldsmobile and Studebaker hand-me-downs.

Most important, Detroit was giving us what we wanted. Big cruisers for the old people. Plain vanilla boxes (Falcons, Novas, Darts, Ambassadors, etc.) for the plain vanilla people and muscle cars for those with unthinking passion.

I don’t remember anyone asking Chevrolet to build the Vega and Chevette or American Motors to bring us the Pacer.

Whether Detroit and Madison Avenue were jointly responsible for creating that market is a separate (very interesting, maybe even important) question. But the reality was: We asked, and we received.

However, come the Seventies, I don’t remember anyone asking Chevrolet to build the Vega and Chevette or American Motors to bring us the Pacer. Or for the Corvette to be emasculated (better it should have been discontinued than to suffer the indignities of the Seventies.) I swear I saw Mercury Marquis (single the same as plural?) and Ford Fairmonts disintegrate before my very eyes. No, I don’t recall market surveys indicating that Americans wanted overweight, underpowered, filigreed, unreliable and just plain ugly cars. Was the best solution to meeting C.A.F.E. standards improving gas mileage or bolting on a bunch of heavy, performance-killing anti-smog devices? Just how disconnected from reality do you have to be to produce an abomination such as the Cadillac Cimarron? The answer: Pretty goddamn disconnected.

And they never woke up. Even with the Japanese and Germans openly pilfering their lunch, a seemingly comatose Detroit continued to produce the cars we never asked for and never wanted. Instead of looking to innovation to provide long-term profitability, they cut quality even further and rode the gravy train of legislation that gave suburban soccer moms driving humongous SUVs tax breaks intended for truck-driving farmers. Why come up with a new car, when it seems all you have to do is put different body styles on the same old chassis and drivetrain? Have you driven a Ford lately? I have, and it feels remarkably similar to my first car, a 1956 Victoria. (Which shouldn’t surprise me, as there’s a likelihood that many of the parts are identical.)

I read an article recently about the 2009 New York Auto Show. The pretty girls hired to add eye candy to the displays were having to field the chides of hecklers. One attendee, in front of a Chrysler electric car display, exclaimed: “Why now? How come you’ve got to nearly go bankrupt before you come out with a car like this?”

Me? I think there have always lonely voices deep within the halls of Chrysler, Ford and GM. Voices that proposed ways to beat back the invaders through clever use of domestic brain- and manufacturing-power. But these voices weren’t in a position to lead. And the leaders never listened.

As far as I’m concerned, the trust is broken and at this point I honestly can’t think of a way that The Big Three can get it back. Maybe they should be combined and reorganized to produce something such as bullet trains. You know, big, heavy things that carry a lot of passengers and go really fast.

Why I listen to conservative talk radio

2009-04-12T12:51:00.000-07:00

I live in the most indigo blue neighborhood north of San Francisco's Castro district: Seattle's Capitol Hill. "Baghdad Jim" McDermott is my congressman. Everyday, I still see dozens of Obama campaign signs and bumper stickers (and absolutely none for McCain). My daughter is a student at uber-liberal The Evergreen State College. I greatly admire sex columnist Dan Savage. I want drugs decriminalized. I am an atheist.

And I also enjoy listening to conservative radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt , Bill (Poppa Bear) O'Reilly all the Michaels: Medved; Savage; Gallagher. (However, even I have my standards, so I avoid Hannity and I haven't yet been able to figure out Glenn Beck, who seems more like a harmless buffoon being pulled along by forces much larger than he can comprehend. And is it merely a coincidence that I've never seen Ann Coulter and Montel Williams in the same room together?)

Now, you may be thinking "Ah! Know Thine Enemy." That I'm eavesdropping on the "other side" the better to anticipate their nefarious plots and prepare a counter strategy. Honestly, I suppose there's a bit of that, but the fact is I tend to agree with a number of positions championed by traditional conservatives (e.g.: economic frugality; the sanctity of individual rights; a deep appreciation and trust in the concepts laid down by the Founding Fathers; a genuine love of country). Tuning in, I often find myself nodding in agreement (especially with Hewitt).

But the main reason I tune in is the same reason most folks do: it's entertaining. The talk show hosts listed above command huge audiences, and certainly (hopefully) all the folks who tune in are not accurately represented by the brainless wingnut "Dittoheads" who make it past the call screener. No, we of the masses tune in because it's fun to listen to the wingnuts and fun to hear how the host bats them around like a cat toy. It's fun because it scratches satisfyingly against the rash of political correctness from which so many of us suffer. It's the illusion of danger–without the risk–that we enjoy. And the danger here is represented by how close the host and his callers will get to taboos such as racism, sexism, and advocating the armed overthrow of the government.

Make no mistake, I have a lot of admiration for the talents of these radio hosts. Sure, they stack the deck a bit. They have call screeners who know in advance the position of the caller. They have admins who evaluate those positions and quickly feed related statistics, quotes and headlines to the host's video monitor. The result is that the host can sound always in control as the authority, the Wizard who has deigned to allow the Simpleton Strawman to address him. And, of course, the host can curtail the call anytime it threatens the host's position or (worst of all) gets boring.

Because the most important part of a talk radio host's job is to keep listeners listening. But let's boil that down just a bit more. The only job of the talk radio host is to convince people to listen to his show. If he doesn't do that, advertisers won't give money to the radio station, and the radio station won't give money to the radio host. Simple as that.

But let's put this in

proper perspective:

Just because John Wayne played

a Marine doesn't make him one.

I'll single out Michael Medved here, for no other reason than that he lives in Seattle, has a show on Bonneville's local KTTH ("The Truth") and appears to be willing to be the shill of any advertiser. Seriously, there are ad "clusters" (those logjams of radio spots you commonly hear every seven minutes or so on talk radio formats) where you'll hear MM as the featured voice/endorsement in nearly half the spots. Now–good on him. He has to pay for his kids' tuition same as me and there's not the slightest thing unethical about him selling his services like this. (I do, however, sometimes question the judgement of the advertisers who want their spots to sound virtually indistinguishable from others).

No, my point is that Michael Medved, et. al are first, foremost and unequivocally entertainers. I don't know what any of these guys really thinks in their heart of hearts. They're playing the role of conservative pundit right now because that's what sells. But let's put it in proper perspective: Just because John Wayne played a Marine in the movies doesn't make him one. His job was to sell movie tickets. Rush's job is to sell advertising. For all I know, Rush clandestinely contributes to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the Al Franken senatorial campaign.

I don't want to be stupid about this. I know that these guys have influence beyond bumping up sales of the advertiser's products they hawk. That what they say can feed fear, hatred and desperation to people who already have enough fear, hatred and desperation to float a boat. I don't yet know how I feel about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (which would probably result in these guys losing their jobs). But I suspect that they also might fulfill some valuable purpose in this raucous democratic republic.

And I like a lot of John Wayne's movies.

Super sensitive smell

2009-04-10T16:49:00.000-07:00

I wrote about this experience and submitted the story to Dr. Oliver Sacks (author of books such as Awakenings, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Musicophilia), but, understandably, I've not received a response. (I'm certain he receives thousands of stories each year.) I hope that readers here might provide some insight.

Some years ago, I was in the habit (as virtually all inhabitants of Seattle are) of stopping off at an espresso shop on my walk to my downtown office. To this day, I greatly regret not taking closer note of the chalkboard behind the counter, which indicated the name and source of the “coffee of the day.” I do recall clearly, however, that I had to wait a few moments as a new pot was prepared, and the cup I was given held the very first 12 ounces to drain through the grounds. I seem to recall noting to myself after the first sip that the coffee seemed exceeding rich.

I suppose I had downed about half of the drink when I got to the office. As I entered, I was immediately struck by the odor that seemed to emanate from the hallway-adjacent room that held the copy machine. I had never smelled it before. After a few steps, I found myself distracted and a bit put-off by the odor of unclean carpet. There was a runner of carpet in the hallway and I made a mental note to suggest a cleaning. Like the copy machine, this again was an odor I had not sensed even the day before.

It was when I headed toward my desk that things started getting weird. It’s hard for me to believe myself, but I could clearly smell the difference between the computer at my workstation (a Macintosh) and those on nearby desks (PCs). Suddenly I could easily distinguish other odors at the different workstations, and associate them unmistakably with the people who usually occupy them. (I was as yet the only one at the office.)

I tried very hard to concentrate and restore mental order, but within moments became literally overwhelmed by the “cacophony” of smells around me. I needed fresh air. On exiting the office through the backdoor into an alleyway, I was not met with relief. Instead, I was accosted by an extraordinary range of smells. Even with a light morning breeze blowing, I could smell rodents, the contents of broken bottles, chipped brick, oil and wet paper as clearly (in fact more clearly–much more clearly) than if I had held each item within an inch of my nose.

But what was most astonishing was the breadth and complexity of the odors. Many things were familiar, but more were not. Or perhaps I should say that I was sensing them with a degree of detail that I had never before experienced. It was so acute, I could almost believe that I could distinguish, not just wet paper for example, but even differences among a variety of wet paper types, or the kind and quantity of ink printed on them. At the risk of sounding psychedelic, I can say that it seemed as my nose could distinguish odors as well as my eyes can discern color.

I sought out a public balcony that overlooks Puget Sound, hoping that the sea breeze would offer some degree of relief and, thankfully, it did. The smell was a bit more homogenized, although I could still pick out distinct “notes” of ships, seagulls and the like. I stayed there for twenty to thirty minutes, during which time, the acuity of my olfactory system slowly returned to normal. Incidentally, this corresponded closely to the length of time that I associate with the “lift” I get from my morning coffee.

I want to emphasize that I never had the feeling that I was experiencing phantosmia–if I correctly define that malady as smelling things that aren’t there, or having smell trigger other memories or senses. Instead, this seemed to be a case of genuine super-acuity. (Although of course I had no way to test that idea scientifically.)

I would be greatly interested to learn if others have come forward with similar experiences and–of greatest significance–if they had been able to determine the trigger for the event. (In my case, I can’t help but feel fairly certain that a compound in the coffee was responsible, but I have continued to be a coffee drinker and have never again experienced any episode remotely similar to the one I relate here.)