ryancrossfield

[ryancrossfield]

344. passing moments

Life is a series of fleeting moments, each destined to be experienced for the "last time." The last visit to your childhood home. The last swim in the ocean. The last time you see your parents. Most of the time, we don’t realize these moments are "lasts" until they’re gone forever, leaving us with the bittersweet truth that we can never get them back.

This inevitability — that every moment will pass — ought to make each one precious. Yet we treat the present as nothing more than a stepping stone to an imagined future. We’re consumed by what’s next, blind to the irreplaceable value of now. As each moment slips away, our finite supply grows smaller, and still, we willingly trade them for the pursuit of distant, uncertain goals.

Our culture glorifies chasing the future — achieving goals, hitting milestones, or finding happiness "someday." But this fixation blinds us to the richness of the present, to the beauty of simply existing instead of endlessly striving toward a future that may never arrive.

It’s not entirely our fault. We live in a system that reduces everything — our time, our energy, our lives — to tools for tomorrow. The present is stripped of meaning, valued only for what it might produce. And the irony? Those who’ve “succeeded” most in this system often find themselves empty. They’ve mastered turning time into profit, but they’ve spent their lives treating the present as a means to an end. Happiness, forever over the next horizon, remains just out of reach.

What if we chose a different path? What if, instead of obsessing over what’s next, we embraced the here and now? What if we savored each hug, each laugh, each sunrise as if it were the last? The moments we dismiss as ordinary are, in truth, the essence of life itself.

As the Russian philosopher Alexander Herzen once said: "Because children grow up, we think a child’s purpose is to grow up, but a child’s purpose is to be a child. Nature doesn’t disdain what only lives for a day. It pours the whole of itself into each moment. Life’s bounty is in its flow. Later is too late.”

Much like that child, our purpose isn’t to achieve this or that in some uncertain future — it’s to embrace life as it unfolds in front of us.

Life is short, and the future is never guaranteed. The only certainty you have is the moment you’re in right now. To treat every moment with the reverence it deserves — not as a stepping stone, but as life itself — is to truly live. Every moment is irreplaceable.

[ryancrossfield]

343: greatness cannot be planned

My take-a-way after reading, Why Greatness Cannot be Planned by Kenneth O. Stanley and Joel Lehman.

————————————————————

We're all chasing something, yet very few of us truly know what it is. Influenced by those who seem to have it all figured out — CEOs, coaches, entrepreneurs, and visionaries — we idolize their journeys, believing their paths serve as perfect blueprints for our own. This perspective leads us to believe that greatness is the result of a clear, deliberate plan, but what if that isn't the whole truth?

The reality is, life often doesn't adhere to strict plans. True greatness — whether in life, innovation, or personal growth — is rarely the product of rigid objectives. Instead, it emerges from the unpredictable interplay of exploration, curiosity, and stepping stones we didn't anticipate. These unexpected discoveries, far removed from our original intentions, often lead to horizons we couldn't have imagined.

The very act of chasing what we think we want may limit our potential. When we overly focus on a single objective, we risk becoming blind to the detours and creative opportunities that could lead us to something even greater. As "Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned" argues, progress is not a straight line; it's a dynamic process shaped by exploration and adaptability. The stepping stones we encounter — the novel ideas, experiences, or people — are often far more valuable than the destination we originally envisioned.

So, while it's tempting to chart a rigid course toward a specific future, we should remember that the most transformative journeys are often the ones where we allow curiosity and the present moment to guide us. By embracing uncertainty and following the trail of what feels novel or promising now, we open ourselves to futures that surpass anything we could have planned. Greatness, it turns out, thrives not in certainty, but in the willingness to wander.

[ryancrossfield]

Growth comes at the speed of restoration. Push past your limits, but don’t forget: progress happens when you give yourself space to adapt and let the new normal settle.

[ryancrossfield]

The key to progress is consistency, not heroics. Focus on taking small, steady steps every day – those steps will eventually turn into strides.

[ryancrossfield]

People don't respect those who tolerate their unacceptable behavior. Boundaries earn respect, not passivity.

[ryancrossfield]

[ryancrossfield]

Confidence is the willingness to wade into uncertainty.

#confidence

[ryancrossfield]

The default for most people is to live in a reactive state—reacting to texts, emails, and other notifications. The current environment is simply too demanding, polarized, and invasive to ignore any longer. We are all addicted, dependent, and broken. Never have freedom and thriving been more available, and yet never have they been more inaccessible. To quote Peter Drucker, “In a few hundred years, when the history of our time will be written from a long-term perspective, it is likely that the most important event historians will see is not technology, not the Internet, not e-commerce. It is an unprecedented change in the human condition. For the first time—literally—substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people have choices. For the first time, they will have to manage themselves. And society is totally unprepared for it.

[ryancrossfield]

Let’s

[ryancrossfield]

[ryancrossfield]

They want their stuff back, Nicholas Moegly

[ryancrossfield]

Feed the fish, Min Ding

[ryancrossfield]

The Hidden Health Costs of Digital Technology

In the digital age, technology has transformed how we live, work, and connect. The convenience and connectivity it provides are undeniable, yet these advantages come with complex, often hidden costs to our mental and physical health. Far from being neutral tools, digital devices are strategically designed to capture attention, hijack biological rhythms, and promote behaviors that can undermine well-being. Increasingly, research is uncovering the mechanisms by which technology influences our brains, bodies, and environments, raising questions about the long-term implications of modern digital habits. This essay explores the multi-layered effects of digital technology on health, from dopamine-driven attention capture and blue light disruption to physical and social consequences of screen-centric lifestyles.

Dopamine Manipulation and the Attention Economy

One of the most profound ways technology affects us is through the manipulation of dopamine, the neurotransmitter involved in motivation, reward, and pleasure. Johann Hari, author of Stolen Focus, argues that social media platforms and mobile apps capitalize on the brain’s dopamine pathways to capture attention and drive engagement. Unlike predictable rewards, which produce steady dopamine levels, technology uses intermittent reinforcement—a reward system where notifications and likes appear unpredictably—to create a cycle of anticipation and reward. This system, which is the same mechanism that drives gambling addiction, keeps users engaged by providing an irregular schedule of dopamine hits that reinforces repeated use.

Scientific research underscores this connection. A study published in Addictive Behaviors found that the unpredictable rewards offered by social media trigger dopamine surges, reinforcing compulsive checking behaviors. This constant need for validation and novelty compels users to return to their devices frequently, creating dependency. By design, social media platforms keep users engaged by leveraging the brain’s reward circuitry, with the aim not merely of providing a positive experience but of maximizing time spent on the platform. This is further substantiated by a 2022 report from the Pew Research Center, which found that the average American spends about seven hours a day engaging with screens. This level of usage erodes the capacity for sustained attention, driving a culture of perpetual distraction.

The implications of this dopamine-driven engagement go beyond reduced productivity; it shapes the way we experience pleasure, satisfaction, and meaning. Studies have shown that over-reliance on digital rewards can lead to desensitization, where natural, offline activities feel less enjoyable or fulfilling. Psychologist Dr. Anna Lembke, author of Dopamine Nation, explains that when people are constantly exposed to high-dopamine activities—such as scrolling through social media feeds or checking notifications—the brain begins to downregulate dopamine receptors, leading to a state of “dopamine deficit.” In this state, individuals feel compelled to seek more intense stimuli to achieve the same level of satisfaction, fostering a cycle of dependency and dissatisfaction. This dependency not only fragments attention but also disrupts daily life, reducing time for meaningful, real-world interactions.

The Impact of Blue Light and Circadian Disruption

Beyond attention, digital devices also impact our health through prolonged exposure to artificial blue light, which is emitted by screens and LED lights. Blue light exposure, especially in the evening, disrupts the body’s natural circadian rhythms by delaying the production of melatonin, the hormone that signals readiness for sleep. In natural environments, blue light primarily comes from sunlight, which balances it with red and infrared light and diminishes as the day progresses. However, modern devices emit isolated blue light without these balancing wavelengths, creating a signal that mimics daylight, even at night.

Dr. Alexis Cowan highlights the significance of blue light exposure from digital devices, explaining that our bodies are not biologically adapted to handle the intensity and timing of this exposure. The result is often delayed sleep onset, reduced sleep quality, and diminished cognitive function the following day. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine confirms that evening screen time disrupts melatonin release, leading to poorer sleep quality and subsequent health issues. Over time, sleep deprivation can lead to an array of health complications, including weakened immune function, increased risk of obesity, and a heightened likelihood of developing chronic diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disorders.

The effects of circadian disruption extend to mental health as well. Inadequate sleep is linked to increased anxiety, mood disorders, and cognitive impairment. Furthermore, a 2020 survey by the National Sleep Foundation revealed that 60% of Americans who use screens before bed report sleep disturbances. This trend not only reveals a personal challenge for each affected individual but also speaks to a structural issue embedded in the design of our digital environments. If left unaddressed, the widespread nature of sleep disruption has the potential to affect entire communities, resulting in productivity loss, mental health issues, and an increased burden on healthcare systems.

Physical Health Impacts and Mitochondrial Stress

The modern reliance on digital devices has also led to more sedentary lifestyles, which negatively affect physical health. As people spend more time sitting in front of screens, physical activity diminishes, which can contribute to metabolic syndrome, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. This shift to sedentary living is compounded by the impact of blue light on mitochondrial function. Mitochondria, the energy-producing organelles within our cells, are highly sensitive to light exposure. While red and infrared light, commonly present in natural sunlight, stimulate mitochondrial activity and aid cellular repair, blue light in isolation has been shown to induce oxidative stress, which impairs mitochondrial efficiency and accelerates cellular aging.

Research published in Cell Metabolism links prolonged blue light exposure to increased oxidative stress in mitochondria, particularly in tissues like the skin and eyes. This form of cellular stress contributes to chronic fatigue, reduced resilience, and an increased risk of age-related diseases. Dr. Jack Kruse, a neurosurgeon and proponent of light biology, argues that prolonged screen exposure contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction, a condition linked to chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and neurodegenerative disorders. The consequences are far-reaching; as mitochondrial health declines, so does the body’s ability to generate energy, fight infections, and repair tissues, leaving individuals more vulnerable to physical and mental health challenges.

Loss of Real-World Connections and Mental Clarity

As screen time has become ubiquitous, the quality of human interaction has fundamentally shifted. Johann Hari notes that the convenience of digital communication often comes at the expense of real-world connections, which offer emotional fulfillment and mental clarity. Face-to-face interactions trigger the release of oxytocin, the hormone responsible for trust and social bonding. This hormone is crucial for emotional health, as it fosters empathy, strengthens relationships, and reduces stress. However, virtual interactions, which lack the sensory depth of in-person contact, fail to stimulate oxytocin release, leaving people feeling socially unfulfilled.

Research in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking reveals that individuals who spend excessive time on social media report higher levels of loneliness and depression compared to those who engage more in-person interactions. While digital platforms may simulate social connectivity, they often fail to meet the deeper emotional needs that face-to-face interactions fulfill. The shift toward virtual interactions has contributed to a growing sense of social isolation, as people substitute screen-based exchanges for genuine connection. This trend is particularly pronounced among young people, who may have never experienced socialization without the influence of digital devices.

In addition to reducing social satisfaction, excessive screen time strains cognitive health. Digital multitasking, the frequent switching between apps, notifications, and messages, impairs memory, weakens focus, and increases mental fatigue. A study from Human Factors found that individuals who frequently multitask on digital platforms experience reduced working memory capacity, which is essential for problem-solving and emotional regulation. Over time, these effects compound, reducing mental clarity and making it harder for individuals to engage deeply with tasks or thoughts. This digital dependency also erodes self-reflection and mindfulness, as people have fewer opportunities for uninterrupted, introspective moments.

Health Consequences of Modern Design Choices

The pervasiveness of screen-based environments and artificial lighting in daily life reflects broader design choices that prioritize convenience and efficiency over health. Indoor lighting, dominated by blue wavelengths, has become the norm in workplaces and homes. While energy-efficient, LED and fluorescent lighting disrupt circadian rhythms by signaling wakefulness to the brain, even during the evening. As Dr. Cowan points out, this type of lighting reduces melatonin production, which not only impairs sleep but also increases the risk of chronic health issues like cardiovascular disease and obesity. The effects of this disruption are cumulative, as exposure to blue light extends beyond screens to nearly every indoor environment.

Modern workspaces and personal environments often promote prolonged sitting, further undermining physical health. Studies have shown that sedentary behavior is associated with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease, as movement, once naturally incorporated into daily life, now requires intentional planning. This lack of movement affects not only physical health but also cognitive function, as exercise has been shown to enhance mental clarity and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. The absence of movement, combined with prolonged screen time, fosters a sense of physical and mental stagnation.

Additionally, modern design choices reduce opportunities to engage with natural environments, which have restorative effects on stress and well-being. Natural settings, even in small doses, can reduce cortisol levels, improve mood, and boost cognitive resilience. However, urban spaces dominated by screens, artificial lighting, and sedentary layouts limit access to nature, reducing opportunities for the kind of recovery that outdoor environments offer. The design of indoor and urban environments has created a lifestyle that may feel efficient and productive but is fundamentally misaligned with human biology. The absence of natural light, movement, and nature exposure fosters a sense of disconnection from our bodies and surroundings, ultimately compromising both mental and physical health.

Conclusion

The intricate relationship between digital technology and health reveals a paradox: while technology promises connection, convenience, and efficiency, its design often undermines well-being in profound ways. From dopamine-driven attention traps to the disruptive effects of artificial blue light, the digital landscape shapes behaviors and environments that are misaligned with human biology. As we increasingly rely on digital devices for work, socialization, and entertainment, we must recognize the health implications of screen-centric lifestyles. The science is clear: extended screen time affects sleep, disrupts circadian rhythms, promotes sedentary behavior, and erodes real-world connections—all of which contribute to a range of physical and mental health challenges.

Johann Hari’s insights into the “attention economy” highlight how digital platforms exploit dopamine to capture attention, driving cycles of addiction-like engagement. The resulting dependence on digital rewards fragments our focus, detracts from meaningful real-world interactions, and even reshapes how we experience pleasure. Similarly, Dr. Alexis Cowan and Dr. Jack Kruse’s work underscores the health consequences of blue light exposure, which disrupts sleep and strains mitochondrial function. These biological effects, compounded by the sedentary nature of screen-based environments, increase susceptibility to chronic diseases and weaken overall resilience.

The consequences of our digitally driven lifestyles extend beyond individual well-being to societal health, affecting productivity, social cohesion, and healthcare costs. If these trends continue unchecked, we may face a future in which chronic diseases, mental health disorders, and social isolation become the norm. However, the same technology that contributes to these challenges also holds potential solutions. By prioritizing health-conscious design choices—such as implementing blue light filters, encouraging breaks for physical movement, and promoting digital mindfulness—we can create a more balanced relationship with technology. Ultimately, aligning our environments and routines with the natural rhythms of human biology may offer the most effective path toward a healthier, more connected, and more fulfilling future.

[ryancrossfield]

Hooked on Outrage: How Media-Driven Anger Erodes Critical Thinking and Informed Discourse

The modern media landscape, designed to capture and retain our attention, often employs tactics that prey on our emotions, especially anger. By doing so, media outlets can achieve higher engagement and longer viewership, but this approach has significant cognitive and societal repercussions. Research has consistently shown that anger impairs our ability to think critically and reduces our attention to the quality of arguments, making us more susceptible to simplistic, emotionally charged messages over substantive, credible information. This creates a cycle where emotional manipulation by the media hooks people, but the cost is a general erosion of thoughtful discourse, reduced attention to argument quality, and an increased reliance on shallow cognitive processing.

Psychological studies reveal that anger is particularly effective at narrowing attention and impairing working memory. For instance, Van Dillen and Koole (2007) found that negative emotions like anger reduce the cognitive resources available for complex tasks. When people are angry, they tend to focus more narrowly and selectively on stimuli that confirm or fuel their emotional state, often ignoring information that might challenge or counter it. This effect is critical for understanding how media outlets use anger to hold viewers’ attention. When news is presented in a way that triggers frustration, outrage, or even indignation, viewers are less likely to process the content deeply, focusing instead on the visceral reaction. This emotional engagement may keep people hooked, but it diminishes their capacity to analyze the accuracy or credibility of the information they consume.

Media-driven anger also leads people to think in a more heuristic, less systematic way, as explored by Moons and Mackie (2007). Their research shows that anger leads individuals to rely on cognitive shortcuts rather than a thorough evaluation of arguments. In a state of anger, people are more likely to accept information that aligns with their existing beliefs or that seems emotionally satisfying, rather than information that is factually accurate or well-supported. This phenomenon is troubling in a media context, where narratives are often tailored to provoke outrage over particular issues, with little attention given to nuance or fact-checking. The result is an audience that is constantly stimulated but rarely critically engaged, vulnerable to confirmation bias and ideological manipulation.

The effects of "emotion-induced blindness" further compound this issue. According to Most et al. (2005), intense emotional stimuli, such as anger-provoking content, can cause a temporary cognitive "blindness" to subsequent information. When people encounter emotionally charged headlines or news segments, their ability to fully process what follows is compromised. In the case of media, this means that once viewers are riled up by a sensationalized story, their capacity to critically evaluate other points, counter-arguments, or follow-up information is significantly diminished. They become, in effect, cognitively "blinded" to any nuances or alternative perspectives, creating an echo chamber in which only the anger-inducing message resonates.

Moreover, anger-induced cognitive narrowing impacts how we listen and communicate, as demonstrated by Deffenbacher et al. (2003). They found that anger disrupts listening skills, creating cognitive distractions that prevent people from fully engaging with the content. When the media stirs up anger, viewers’ attention shifts from listening carefully to responding emotionally, making it difficult to process the information accurately. In media consumption, this means that viewers focus less on understanding complex issues and more on reacting to them. For instance, a story presented in a way that provokes anger might prompt viewers to focus on who or what they are supposed to be angry with, rather than on understanding the context, data, or implications of the issue at hand. This emotionalized listening reinforces tribalism and divides audiences along emotional lines rather than encouraging a well-rounded understanding of the facts.

By harnessing anger to captivate their audiences, media outlets can drive engagement and loyalty, effectively keeping viewers coming back for more. But the broader repercussions are severe. When people are angry, their ability to pay attention to the merits or credibility of what is being said is compromised. This means that media-driven anger doesn’t just keep people hooked—it fundamentally shapes how they interpret the information presented to them, often to the detriment of critical thinking. Media consumers, constantly bombarded by anger-provoking content, become accustomed to a more shallow form of processing information. They are more likely to accept arguments at face value, judge information based on emotional resonance rather than factual accuracy, and become less discerning about the sources they trust. In the long term, this pattern can erode public discourse, as fewer people are motivated or even able to critically assess the information they encounter.

The impact on society is far-reaching. As media increasingly relies on anger to drive engagement, audiences become less adept at distinguishing credible sources from sensationalistic ones. The constant stimulation of anger reinforces a mindset that prioritizes immediate emotional satisfaction over informed deliberation. Over time, this creates an environment where people are conditioned to seek out emotionally charged, simplistic narratives rather than nuanced, well-researched journalism. This shift has implications not only for individual well-being but also for public trust in media, political polarization, and the health of democratic discourse.

In an era of increasing media fragmentation and partisanship, understanding these effects is essential. Recognizing how anger impacts cognitive processing, attention, and listening skills gives us the tools to approach media consumption more mindfully. By becoming aware of these tactics, we can better guard against the cognitive traps of emotionally manipulative content. Developing a more critical approach means questioning not only the facts behind a story but also the motives behind its presentation. Why is this story being framed to provoke anger? What are the potential benefits to the source of this story for making people feel this way? And, crucially, is this anger detracting from a fair assessment of the facts?

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with both media producers and consumers. Journalists and editors must consider the ethical implications of framing stories in ways that provoke anger, especially when this tactic can hinder critical thinking and informed decision-making. For viewers, becoming aware of how anger impacts their cognitive abilities is a crucial step toward resisting manipulation. In a world where media can often be more concerned with clicks than credibility, the onus is on each individual to engage mindfully, questioning not just the story but also their own emotional response to it.

By slowing down, taking a step back, and focusing on content that encourages reflection over reaction, we can reclaim our cognitive autonomy and foster a healthier, more discerning approach to media consumption. This shift isn’t just about being more informed; it’s about developing the resilience to avoid being controlled by the emotional hooks that dominate modern media. Awareness of how anger impacts cognition can empower us to make more thoughtful choices about what we consume and, ultimately, allow us to break free from the cycle of shallow processing that has come to define so much of our engagement with information.

The research is clear: anger disrupts our ability to think deeply, listen fully, and engage critically. As long as media outlets continue to use this powerful emotion to capture attention, it is up to each of us to recognize the potential consequences and seek a more balanced, less reactive approach to the information we consume. In doing so, we can protect our cognitive resources, encourage deeper discourse, and resist the pull of manipulative narratives that prioritize profit over truth.

[ryancrossfield]

Edward Bernays' Influence

The AHA had gotten lucky, but it wasn’t dumb luck. It was the brilliance of the man at the helm of the PR firm P&G had retained, Edward Bernays.

Bernays is widely recognized as the de facto inventor of the public relations industry, and he’s probably the twentieth century’s most influential person that most of us learn nothing about. He wielded influence behind the closed doors of the most powerful corporations and political leaders in the world, including at least four presidents, several multinational companies, and the Central Intelligence Agency. He’d begun in advertising, where he revolutionized the industry. Before Bernays, many advertisers tended to tout the practical, rational aspects of their products, things like durability and effectiveness. Bernays taught advertisers to manipulate people’s emotions instead. He’d learned about the power of emotions from an uncle he’d grown up admiring, none other than the father of modern psychiatry, Sigmund Freud.

Bernays took Freud’s theories about the inner workings of the individual mind and applied them to groups of individuals, so that those in power, his corporate and government clients, could better control the population. Bernays wondered, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?”35 For Bernays, gifted with mind-control skills befitting an Orwellian villain, the answer was clearly yes.

It may be impossible to overstate the degree to which Ed Bernays influenced the culture of the twentieth century, for better or worse. In the late 1920s, he’d had a hand in ad campaigns for the American Tobacco Company calling cigarettes “Torches of Freedom.” This equated smoking to an act of emancipation, thus elevating women who smoked from their status as “trashy” while also giving them a sense of power. The Virginia Slims advertisements of the 1970s built its brand concept on Bernays’s initial image of female smokers as modern, liberated women. If your tap water is fluoridated (as it is for nearly three-quarters of the US population36), that’s thanks to Bernays. In the 1940s and 1950s, he worked on behalf of the US Public Health Service to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. The industry needed some good PR to clean up its image because of where fluoride comes from. One of the most common forms of fluoride added to our water here in the United States is fluorosilicic acid, which is derived from the scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In other words, chimney soot from industrial plants. Of course, strict regulations ensure it gets cleaned up and rendered safe for consumption.

His influence was not limited to the United States. In the early and mid-twentieth century, Bernays’s work on behalf of the United Fruit Company impacted a vast swath of the political landscape across Central and South America. Bernays used many tools from his kit of public relations techniques to promote the interests of United Fruit. He worked with the CIA and other agencies to create a propaganda campaign portraying the democratically elected president of Guatemala as a communist—and a threat to US interests—which ultimately led to his removal from power. This had a chilling effect on democracy and social justice movements in those countries, as governments were more likely to be overthrown if they pursued policies that were seen as threatening to US business interests.

Bernays not only knew how to manipulate people, he knew how to get people excited about being manipulated, a process he describes in detail in his 1947 book, The Engineering of Consent. The book enumerates a variety of persuasive techniques, including propaganda, advertising, and other forms of mass communication, that he used to create seemingly any desired response from the public. While today we might think differently, he didn’t see any problem with using psychology for these purposes and in fact believed his work was essential and beneficial. He felt it was important for educated elites to control the people he considered uneducated. It was good for commerce, capitalism, and the democratic process itself. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses,” he had written in an earlier book, “is an important element in democratic society.”37 In other words, he and his clients know better about what’s good for us than we do.

One of Bernays’s favorite manipulative techniques involved tapping into the immense psychological power of medical doctors. Doctors were a key instrument for Bernays to choreograph behavior “because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he [the doctor] knows, or doesn’t know.”38 Citing his 1993 interview with Bernays (who was 102 at the time), journalist Christopher Bryson wrote, in a book about fluoride, “‘You can get practically any idea accepted,’ Bernays told me, chuckling. ‘If doctors are in favor, the public is willing to accept it.’”39 One of Bernays’s favorite tactics for promoting new ideas and products to the public was to stress a claimed public health benefit. He described its effectiveness as “child’s play.”

By catching Bernays’s attention, the AHA hit the jackpot. Thanks to Bernays, the AHA’s many budgetary concerns evaporated overnight. Certainly, companies had paid individual doctors to endorse products before. But this was a whole other category of relationship. The AHA represented an entire specialty of medical doctors with ambitions to lead the conversation on heart disease. The money would be used for everything the AHA had hoped to accomplish. It was enough to fund both cardiovascular research and nutrition education programs for the public. Dr. Keys and the AHA had unknowingly become the benefactors of more than money. They’d been handed the golden ticket: a proven and winning formula with a track record of phenomenal success.

In one fell swoop, Bernays helped take the AHA “from its unimportance,” as he described it during the 1993 interview, “and made it a large, effective organization.”40 The $1.74 million that the association received because Bernays selected its name from the pile of possible contest beneficiaries rocketed the newly reformed AHA off to a stellar start, converting it from a collection of egotistical cardiologists into a national powerhouse. This infusion of money, worth about $30 million in today’s dollars, provided the AHA with the funds it needed to become the dominant force in cardiovascular research, just as the ambitious expansionists had envisioned. More than just a professional society with a research and education arm, the AHA had joined the ranks of true influencers. Or, as Bernays described it, “those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society [and] constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”41

35. Edward L. Bernays, The Engineering of Consent (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969).

36. “Water Fluoridation Data & Statistics,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reviewed June 9, 2023, www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/index.htm.

37. Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing, 2005).

38. Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004), 159.

39. Bryson, Fluoride Deception, 159.

40. Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations (New York: Picador, 2002), 74.

41. Bernays, Propaganda, 37.

[ryancrossfield]

Samurai Jack backgrounds, Scott Wills

[ryancrossfield]

Get in loser, ImpishEye