Confidence is a critical factor in feeling purposeful, achieving positive outcomes and overcoming adversity, whether for individuals, teams or institutions or even nations. Lack of confidence can distort perspectives, create feelings of uncertainty and undermine progress, as well as creating a negative obsession with mistakes. Is there today too little confidence circulating in the UK, leading people to dwell on gloom and negativity, unable to confront adversity with resilience? Perhaps, an answer to engender greater confidence is to focus efforts on events, actions and choices that a person can control, not worrying excessively about things which are only contingent or outside that control. Thinking about a few causes of worry, uncertainty and negativism highlighted by the pandemic might lead to some solutions:
- During the pandemic, because perhaps it has involved dealing with the unknown, the media, commentators, and experts have focussed heavily not so much on facts, but rather on what “may” or “could” happen, and these contingencies or theoretical predictions or imaginary scenarios, whether likely or not, acquire a status of truth or actuality which they do not deserve. This unnecessarily creates fear and uncertainty.
- The pandemic created a totally novel set of circumstances, involving guesswork on how to deal with emergency situations, and then changes of tack as the unknown became more known, whether on the medical, social, or economic front. There have been fast learnings, adaptations to new circumstances, and multiple changes of minds, which, to some degree, have been dismissed as weak: a change of mind becomes a u turn when politicised, and the turners are flip floppers.
- Catastrophising has become a depressingly normal reaction in the media and as a tool of political manoeuvring, creating crisis and drama when calm and solutions should be the goal.
- Promoting chaos, shambles, and a feeling of nobody being in control, especially by those whose political agenda is to characterise Government as a mess may or may not be reasonable but words such as “chaos” driven home with strategic purpose can unnerve swathes of the public.
- And then there is the catastrophe of climate change unless….?
SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY
Some say that during the worst of the pandemic UKGOV had a strategy of engendering fear among the populace to ensure maximum compliance with outrageous demands to restrict freedoms and normal life in the name of protecting themselves, and especially the NHS from meltdown. Whether it was a strategy or not, certainly fear was created, and this fear is perhaps still influencing many people who find it hard to focus on constructive and sensible daily life, unable to get risk in perspective. Unhealthy obsession with Covid cases and death statistics, without proper context, fuels this fear (and it is important to remember that a recorded UK Covid death is a death “with Covid” not “from Covid”). Each year some 600,000 people die in the UK and there are no daily counts and interviews of the bereaved, and yet Covid gets special treatment.
Science, in particular through medical innovation and dedication and vaccines, has been the key weapon to at least control Covid, but scientists have been a sorry source of fear and worry about things that “could” happen. Epidemiologists and statisticians and other medical experts have had days in the sun, not always acting responsibly. Dramatic extreme presentations of possible future scenarios have been presented as predictions and forecasts, with media giving an undue emphasis on dramatic figures. Suggested scenarios of hundreds of thousands of deaths being talked about as if likely have created fear and worry and used sometimes either to criticise inaction or justify clampdowns. The wide variations of opinions between scientists leave the public none the wiser: that scientists should disagree is necessary and healthy and part of the advancing of science but that so much was played out in public has fed uncertainty. Listeners and readers whose natural propensity is to pessimism dwell on the more negative and the gloom increases.
Scientists are pleased quite rightly to emphasise that their role is only to give as educated a view as possible and that decisions are not their responsibility but are for Ministers. However, it is confusing for the public to hear an adviser, who might take a more cautious view than other advisers or the decision-makers, publicly declare their contrary opposition to a decision. SAGE advisers seem to have no concept of cabinet responsibility or confidentiality but do have a singular concern to distance themselves if controversy looms. The unreliability of scientific opinion about Covid in fact makes the mantra of “following the science” somewhat degraded. Decisions are in fact judgements taking into account a host of factors, with medical science being one. One group of scientists favour locking down at every sign of risk of infection spread rising, while another judges the lockdowns do more harm than the virus. These vehemently held but opposite views engender confusion when given considerable media space. Uncertainty and unknown are the only consistent themes, and confidence therefore suffers.
It has long been accepted that economic forecasting is notoriously unreliable. The IMF and other eminent financial assessors predicted the effects of Brexit wrongly, and so too the effects of Covid on the UK. The media have tended to focus on the most pessimistic, sewing dismay for the future. Pandemic forecasts of extreme unemployment were totally wrong, and in fact there are a record number of jobs available and a shortage of people to fill them. The bounce-back has been more immediate and pronounced than most predicted. Economists too have fallen into emphasising of what “could” happen – and of course in the future ANYTHING “could” happen. When predicting the future as scientists and financial experts have been doing, there is a greater incentive to veer towards the negative, as if things turn out better than predicted nobody will bother with the wrong prediction, but the other way round and reputation could be tarnished.
THE DOOMSAYERS OF OCTOBER 2021
October 2021 in the UK was a month that illustrates the almost orchestrated spread of doom and gloom. Rising Covid infections (always expected as restrictions were lifted, and reliance was placed on vaccine) justified calls from Keir Starmer for the immediate reimposition of greater restrictions. Certain SAGE advisers predicted 7000 Covid hospital admissions a day unless new measures were adopted. The Guardian of 23 October had a front-page headline of” UK sleepwalking into winter of Covid chaos, unions warn”. It is November and arguably infections and hospitalisations are slowing. Mostly SAGE advice seemed to be that Covid spread is on the downward trend for now. Even Neil Ferguson admitted he had been wrong with his highly pessimistic, catastrophic predictions: yet he has been a constantly much quoted expert on television and in the press. During October the official covid strategy was continuously undermined: for those wishing to denigrate Government, as they are entitled to do, this was a strategy, but where that strategy creates a crisis of confidence among a nervous public at a time when mental well being for many is under stress, is to let political games damage the nation.
As the UK opened up so did much of the world. Globally, demand pressure, port closures, shortages of drivers and microchips, the cost of gas and other energy sources and a host of other extreme factors combined to disrupt economic advancement. Supply and distribution systems creaked and cracked and so shortages in the UK and worldwide resulted. While there was no shortage of fuel, in the UK petrol stations ran short, panic buying erupted, accelerated by media frenzy, focussing on gloom. There was prediction of a miserable Christmas on the horizon. The press such as the Financial Times were consistently gloomy, with headlines such as “Shortage nation: why the UK is braced for a grim Christmas” (FT 14 October) – in fact the article itself was more measured and talked of “current problems are somewhat overblown” and “The world trading system has absorbed punch after punch and it is still standing”. It is believed that there have as yet been no major shortages of important foods, or of barely any important goods essential for life. Cars are being filled in the normal way in November. In October, UKGOV called for calm and that was justified see SHORTAGES – ENERGY, EMPLOYEES, ENTREPRENEURS, ENTHUSIASM. Was the scare-mongering necessary, as it surely dented public confidence? There are of course genuine concerns about inflation and the rise in the cost of living, particularly as regards essential energy in Winter, but these perhaps have to be kept in perspective, not always presented as crisis. Calm decision making on measures necessary to mitigate negative effects financially for the most deprived surely must be top of the agenda. Boris Johnson’s optimism is normally now pejoratively labelled “boosterism”, which is fair game for his opponents, but optimism is necessary for confidence to build, and confidence is key to future progress.
ENVIRONMENTAL ARMAGGEDDON WITH CLIMATE CHANGE UNCHECKED
Perhaps few would disagree that Covid is insignificant as a global mega issue when compared to the absolute destructiveness of unchecked climate change. With COP 26, this issue has been rightly put at the forefront of minds. Real progress on changing global behaviour as regards carbon release and global warming was essential over the first two weeks of November: resulting actions will all have to be assessed later. As with Covid, the messages and publicity before and during the conference have been designed to create shock and fear of what may well happen if warming is not contained to a 1.5C increase. Added to epidemic fears and uncertainties, and then to some depressing economic forecasting, the doomsday scenarios daily portrayed perhaps are seriously knocking the ability of many people to believe in a positive future. In the Sunday Times of 7 November, Libbey Purves refers to “doom-laden COP 26 reporting is more moralising than journalism”, as she mourns the lack of real democratic debate on the “virtuous certainty of climate-change catastrophe”. The health benefits of such a debate may include highlighting the potential for positive outcomes to be achieved.
It will be impossible to say that enough commitment to the necessary reductions and changes of policy and dedication of cash to combat climate change will have been made at the conference to avoid serious consequences. The absence of Chinese and Russian cooperation alone ensures that, although the broad Chinese and U.S. statement of intended cooperation is encouraging. But it should be possible to say that, if the commitments made are fulfilled, there has been positive progress, recognising that a relentless programme to get much more done will be required. It is important to emphasise the positives, while pressurising those who need to commit to more. Tim Shipman in The Sunday Times saw the possibility of the conference being successful enough. If the critical large nations such as China are not perceived to be helping but harming the globe in self-interest, pressure will build and possibly force them to change.
This conference is the responsibility of all countries. It is owned by the United Nations. Before the conference there was excessive media emphasis on COP 26 being a test of the UK Government. Many clearly willed it to be a failure, more interested in portraying the streets of Glasgow as a disgrace and questioning the righteousness of Alok Sharma, the British Chair of the conference, travelling the world to meet and cajole world leaders, movers, and shakers, as if it was some jolly. Perhaps that work, and it was work, will be bearing real fruit. The conference having ended, it will be a real negative if reporters focus more on the performance of individuals at the conference than the real substance of progress.
CHANGING ONE’S MIND MAY BE A MAJOR STRENGTH, NOT NECESSARILY A FEEBLE U-TURN
How often are media interviewers or journalists heard saying to a decision-maker, normally a politician, “Admit you got it wrong” or “Is this not another U-turn” or similar language. The purpose of course is to demonstrate and mock a mistake that required a change of mind, an inability to stick with a decision, and total unreliability. Creating an impression of frequent u turns can also be used to imply dishonesty, or insincerity, as well as incompetence. For example, in 2015 Boris Johnson was a climate change sceptic, and today he seems to be passionate about the need for urgent action to halt climate change in its tracks. This has been observed as further evidence of total hypocrisy and insincerity. Maybe that is valid. Alternatively, it may demonstrate an ability and willingness to change opinion when convinced to do so by facts and argument. That ability is a necessity if people are to learn and progress, as is learning from mistakes.
During the pandemic, accusations of u turns made by media particularly of Government, and to a degree scientific advisers, were systemic. Was there an unspoken strategy to discredit mind-changing? The BBC is a particular culprit here. One day mask wearing was discouraged, later it was a core tool to fight Covid. UKGOV decision to delay the day of removing restrictions was a u turn; restricting Christmas activity in 2020 was a u turn; there were many alleged u turns which were used to question competence, as an incompetence PR strategy played out. Did certain influential people have a plan to portray leaders as out of control? But were these all demonstrations of weakness or incompetence? Perhaps some were poor errors of judgement. Maybe some were honest reassessments of facts as they unfolded, leading to re-thinking, and the need for a change of mind. Is sticking to an opinion in the light of changed analysis or circumstances a strength? Hardly.
The book “Think Again” by Adam Grant is a thought-provoking read, where the core hypothesis is that power to change one’s mind and learning from mistakes is the key to learning and advancing; “in a rapidly changing world the most crucial skill may be the ability to re-think and unlearn”. New science can enable a complete change of approach, just as the vaccine discoveries allowed lockdowns to be discontinued. Add the new pills to mitigate the worst effects of Covid and maybe the lockdown can leave the vocabulary for good.
When politicians change tack, there is suspicion of lack of proper thinking and so confidence is eroded. Perhaps though, recasting some decision reversals as perhaps good learning, rather than idiocy or lack of control, may allay those uncertain impressions. Has there perhaps been a desire on the part of certain media or influencers to spread a feeling of chaos and lack of control? If so, it may have done real damage to public confidence.
FOCUSING ON THE CONTROLLABLE
With the emphasis on speculating about what might happen so prevalent recently in issues around the pandemic, economics, and the environment, is it surprising there is a common tendency to worry about what could happen, risks and hypotheticals? That worry is all perhaps unproductive as energy is spent on unreal things. Leaving aside pandemics and climate Armageddon talk, in normal life there are so many major things outside a person’s control, including what all other people decide to do as well as the weather. So, keeping all uncontrollable things in a tight box and avoiding them excessively influencing daily decision making is essential, or else frozen inaction or misdirected anxiety will be the result, whether for the individual or an organisation.
While media might find negatives in situations to support an agenda of gloominess, maybe questioning their emphasis and assessment of what matters, and so negating their influence, is an approach to maintain perspective. Perhaps any statement which is qualified by “may” or “might” or “could” needs to be assessed for what it is – as speculation, even when portrayed as almost factual.
Keeping focus on what can be controlled or seriously influenced is perhaps a way to stem the fog of worry about the uncontrollable. Certainly, worrying about theoretical possibilities, as all people do but in varying degrees, must be controlled as it wastes valuable mental energy to no purpose. Directing that energy to positive words and actions will increase confidence. Media – broadcasting, journalism, and social media – have an important role in not undermining the confidence of the public and their mental health with dramatized speculation and fiction.
