Persuasion Visually – High WATT Sincerity

Here’s an early image of every bright sincere zealot we’ve taken to the woodshed on the Persuasion Blog.

High WATT Kids Classroom

Note the girl in the lower left with all that worry on her face yet straining to be called on. All those raised hands show nothing but Sincerity.

The dangerous kids are the three not raising their hands. They’re thinking their own thoughts about it all.

Man, if you are a teacher wouldn’t you love to have your students responding like this? All those Bolivian banks.

MetaphorB

P.S. Image from an NYTimes story on racial and ethnic disparities in gifted public education programs.

Priming Disclosure

If you can get the Other Guy to make self disclosures – sharing information about yourself that is not obvious, easily accessible, or well known – you can make more persuasion plays. Disclosure not only reveals personal information it also demonstrates trust. If you don’t get the persuasion value of that, you need to leave this post now. When the Other Guy believes in you enough to self disclose, you are in a golden Box. So. How do you build this Box. Consider this abstract.

The present study examined whether nonconscious priming could increase an individual’s willingness to disclose personal experiences and thoughts to a stranger. Fifty volunteers between 18 and 35 years old were randomly assigned to one of two priming conditions. Group disclosure (n = 25) unscrambled sentences containing disclosure-related words and gave ratings to self-descriptive statements emphasizing their willingness to talk to others. Group nondisclosure (n = 25) was exposed to words and statements expressing a lack of willingness to talk to others. Following priming, both groups were asked to write two essays focused on recent personal experiences and self-reflections.

We randomly assign Other Guys to one of two priming conditions: Disclosure or nondisclosure. Here’s a list of the key words the researchers used for the priming.

A single page contained 10 sets of five words in scrambled order; individuals were told to make a sentence using four of the five words in each set. The word sets were identical except for the disclosure and nondisclosure items. Participants in group disclosure saw the words opens, talks, free, announced, long, shared, communicate, word, and candid in the sets. Participants in group nondisclosure saw the words closes, listens, restricted, concealed, short, kept, refuse, quiet, and shy.

The priming hides in plain sight as the Other Guy creates sentences based either on words like, opens, talks, free, or words like, kept, refuse, quiet. It is that simple. Now, the Other Guys engage in that writing task about the self. The researchers then counted and coded the sheer amount of writing, feeling disclosures, and personal qualities disclosures. Count the Change.

The disclosure priming produced more writing (d = .67, a Medium+ Windowpane), more feeling disclosure (d = .61, another Medium+ Windowpane), but no difference on personal quality disclosure. These are obvious and practical differences, ones that would be apparent to an attentive observer. You could take the two stacks of writings, scan through them, and easily observe the amount and feeling difference without having to carefully count.

While this is an experiment and we can be pretty sure the priming did produce the outcomes, the more interesting consideration is generalizability. Will this work in other Locals?

Realize this is a writing task where the Other Guys are motivated as experimental participants to try and comply and do a good job. Writing isn’t speaking. And that experimental compliance can be tough to reproduce in real life. This study was published in a clinical psychology journal and was aimed at tactics for getting clients to be more disclosive in therapy. That’s a lettle beet different from a sales situation. So, how do you work around this? Let’s sell a car.

As part of the sales pitch you provide a word jumble task to customers presented as New Car Discount Game. For completing the Game customers get stuff you would give them anyway or maybe you just give them free stuff like a cold drink or a cupcake! Figure it out. But give them a good reason to complete a word scramble task. “Imagine how you’d feel driving a new Car. Complete the word jumble!” Now, as part of that scramble include the Disclosure words: open, free, shared.

You might put up banner sized posters that contain the scrambled words with a mere exclamation on the poster: Solve This! Then just watch the Other Guys who walk by the poster and pause to Solve This. You know what to do next.

The creative part of persuasion is often in building the Box that contains the actual persuasion play. How do you maneuver the Other Guy so you can deliver the tactic? Building the Box requires your knowledge of the Local and the kind of Other Guys you attract and is the hardest part of persuasion. It’s pretty easy to learn about various plays – jeepers, just read the Primer or click the How-To category in the Persuasion Blog. The hard part is getting your Other Guy to walk into the play. It illustrates the Rule:

Drive with Science and Putt with Persuasion.

Clearly this Disclosure Priming Play works best in face to face Locals. You might throw it online with a web-based delivery, but I doubt the effectiveness in more traditional print or video delivery. You need to get a lot of Processing from the Other Guy on the scramble task. It’s easier to both make that happen and know that it happened face to face compared to mediated channels (except online where you could monitor time and clicks from the Other Guy).

And, you’ve got to deal with the values clash inherent in this play. You are deliberately generating trust in people as a means to set them up for your persuasion plays. Trusting people typically do not expect persuasion. But, as Professor Nietzsche teaches us, persuasion is beyond good and evil, so that’s no problem for you. It may, however, present a problem for the Other Guy who could perceive a violation of trust. You might want to develop an Outro Cover Story that maintains the trust even with successful persuasion. Remember the Rule:

There’s a Difference between Smoke and Mirrors, and Persuasion; with Persuasion the Illusion Lingers.

Elizabeth Grecco, Steven J. Robbins, Eleonora Bartoli, and Edward F. Wolff. (2013). Use of Nonconscious Priming to Promote Self-Disclosure Clinical Psychological Science, first published on February 20, 2013

doi:10.1177/2167702612472176

P.S. Priming note. You cannot conduct priming in just a few seconds with a word, a glance, or a smile despite all the web wisdom out there (you might recall this post as an illustration). Priming requires cognitive effort from the Other Guys even though They are unaware of either the effort or the risk. Anytime you see a maven selling Effortless Priming, you see a panther on the hunt. Remember, the hunter is most vulnerable when he thinks he’s moving in on a kill.

P.P.S. Do you think the Pickup Artist could use this to pick up Other Guy chicks? Wow. Trust games in a bar! Combine opens, talks, and free with liquor then get toujours l’amour, tonight for sure.

MOOCs and Universities, Falling and Fallen

Consider the Falling and Fallen Apples in this quote.

But perhaps the biggest opportunity is in online education – particularly in the developing world. “Providing a Stanford quality education to every kid in the world with a smartphone is a huge opportunity,” he said. “I think online education is going to be better than the classroom.”

So says Marc Andreessen about online education (MOOCs!). And the big opportunity Andreessen is talking about is not education, but the venture capital opportunities. Andreessen as a kid at UIll-Urbana/Champagne invented the first successful browser, Netscape, that then threw him in with the wolves at Microsoft who ate him and his company alive, teaching Andreessen a valuable lesson about science, truth, beauty, and justice versus persuasion. He then moved from writing revolutionary software to becoming a venture capitalist where he made fortunes with Twitter and Facebook.

And, now, he’s looking at the persuasion possibilities of higher education. He thinks he can provide learning to every kid in the world through smartphones. And barring that he cannot provide learning, he knows that he can sell learning this way. Just as Facebook provides a digital version of human relationships, Andreessen will give the digital version of learning in his Smartphone U platform. And, hey, what’s the difference between the digital and the actual, anyway. Gee. That menu is tasty!

If you work in the university, see the future. You’d better be building your brand right now because if you don’t, Marc will do it for you. And, no, you can’t avoid branding. You gave up the Falling Apple a long time ago when you allowed your peers to play persuasion with their science or accepted students whose only motivation was a pre-approved student loan. Universities no longer live by the Falling Apple.

Cat Scratch Fever

Today we combine observational learning, cats, and the Motor City Madman, Ted Nugent, to enhance our persuasion knowledge and skill, both theoretical and practical. Begin with Professor Nugent’s musical disquisition (YouTube) under a visual demonstration of our target Other Guys.

Ted Cat Scratch Fever

Properly scratched you may now enter our lesson today of Observational Learning for Cats and its implications.

The point of entry for our consideration today is Modeling Theory which includes related concepts of observational learning; vicarious learning; imitation; Monkey See, Monkey Do; and Comparison (When Others Are Doing It, You Should, Too). While there are many various, diverse, and crucial nuances between these labels, they share one commonality:

Other Guys will watch Other Guys and learn something.

Certainly common sense confirms this Truth, but precisely how, who, when, what, and why this happens is what separates the sheep from the goats, or the mavens from the apprentices. Consider: Do other animals besides humans Model?

E.L. Thorndike, a godfather of Learning Theory, argued from his own careful testing with cats that felines did not engage in Modeling. In 1898 – read that again because it is 1898 and not 1998 – Thorndike published a series of experimental studies, on cat learning with a side note on observational learning. Thorndike’s cats were completely disinterested in Other Cats.

Move forward to 1944, nearly 50 years, and Herbert and Harsh take up the challenge. They recruit 15 cats for a series of experiments on observational learning. Herbert and Harsh break the ethics of experimental research and name the names of participants!

Red, Tiny, Spike, Madame X, Miss White, Big Gray, Mammy, Toughy, Babe, Blackie, Tip, Tige, and Sis.

Standing on Thorndike’s shoulders, Herbert and Harsh discover that their cats do learn from watching other cats! But, it’s nuanced, baby. Here’s the summary.

(1) On problems within their normal range of ability, cats benefit from observing the learning process of another cat.
(2) Observation of fifteen skilled performances is much less beneficial than observation of the learning process.
(3) The relative advantage of observation of the learning process, as compared to observation of skilled performances, is greater when more incorrect manipulations of the problem mechanism are possible.

Modeling does Change the Other Cats, but when the Other Cats watch the Model learn, not perform. If you want to learn how to play the guitar you don’t watch Ted Nugent in concert, but practicing scales!

Herbert, M. J.; Harsh, C. M. (1944). Observational learning by cats. Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol 37(2), Apr 1944, 81-95.

doi: 10.1037/h0062414

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals (Psychological Review, Monograph Supplements, No. 8). New York: Macmillan.

P.S. Maslow, Cattell, Emily, Doug, Creamy, Roma, Nick, Newton, Rocket, Demon-Flynn, Ming, Turk, Suge, Zeus, and Izzy. So far. We typically have 3 or 4 at a time and I can observe what Herbert and Harsh observe about cats observing each other. They do learn when they have cat models. In the rare times when we have just one cat, that one is slower. It’s not that Other Cats provide more information, they provide Behavior That Survives.

P.P.S. Do cats, like people, also model from media? More Research!

Cats Media Modeling

Falling and Fallen with Nagel and the Mindless Universe

An interesting application of persuasion is not simply to Change Other Guys but to test for the presence or absence of science. Since I rulify that You Cannot Persuade a Falling Apple, anytime you see someone using Fallen Apples to argue about Falling Apples, you might reasonably question both that person and his science. Today, I wish to illustrate the tension and application of Falling versus Fallen Apples with the response to an essay from an academic philosopher, Thomas Nagel, about the Mindless Universe.

Nagel, currently a professor at NYU, considers in his new book, Mind And Cosmos, that physical science today in its attempt to be a theory of everything through Neo-Darwinism actually fails to provide convincing arguments in favor of the Mindless Universe: a physical world that has no mind, only matter.

But for a long time now, I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. . . But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.

Nagel possesses an earned doctorate, peer review publications, and a tenured position at research university, NYU. Under any reasonable definition of the concept, Nagel is a pretty smart fellow and good at thinking. He thinks the standard scientific orthodoxy about the origin of life flies in the face of common sense. He goes on.

I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.

Nagel then develops arguments to support this line of thinking. And, you can read his book for those arguments. He’s a smart guy who likes to think and he’s thinking here about big questions and answers. Yet – and here’s where we get to the tension between Falling and Fallen Apples – Nagel is a stupendous idiot talking crazy talk and you shouldn’t read his stupid and dangerous book.

The response from scientists and most of his fellow philosophers, however, has ranged from deeply skeptical to scorching. Before publication the philosophers Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg set the tone with a long demolition in The Nation, prompting the Harvard psychologist (and arch-Darwinian) Steven Pinker to dismiss the book on Twitter as “the shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker.” More measured but no less critical reviews have followed, including assessments last month in The New York Review of Books and The London Review of Books. The Guardian named “Mind and Cosmos” the “most despised science book of 2012.” Even the more tolerant responses have tended to come with headlines like “Thomas Nagel Is Not Crazy.”

So, other people who have earned doctorates, peer review publication, tenure at research institutions, and other markers of being pretty smart guys, urge a digital cold shoulder to Nagel’s ideas. One worries . . .

“The book is going to have pernicious real-world effects,” said Mr. Leiter, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, who has frequently chided Mr. Nagel on his widely read blog. He added, “It’s going to be used as a weapon to do damage to the education of biology students.”

To which I’d suggest everyone think about my tension between Falling Apples and Fallen Apples. Nagel is making scientific arguments about basic science in physics and biology and psychology. He’s thinking about it. And the reading I’ve done of Nagel’s thesis in his opening chapter strikes me as a rational and thoughtful analysis of science. Nagel is certainly argumentative, but in the scientific sense of arguing about evidence and theory and not in the sense of trying to get on a screen somewhere and win talking points.

However, other scientists are responding to Nagel’s conversation about Falling Apples with what I would call Fallen Apples – persuasion. Leiter, certainly a pretty bright guy as a professor at UChicago, dismisses Nagel’s ideas because other people might do something with them that Leiter disapproves. Anytime anyone claiming to be scientific tries to kill an argument with worries about other people’s thoughts or actions is not doing science, but rather, persuasion.

The scientist in me finds nothing controversial in Nagel’s attempt. A purely materialist explanation of the universe – the Mindless Universe – is clearly not proven in the same fashion as, say, gravity. Just jump off your roof, right? But life as we know it, you and me and everyone else, is only the product of random events and natural selection? There is no roof that anyone can use to test that claim. Or stated another way, we’ve got a hypothesis, some theory, and some data. Let’s keep thinking about it.

For example, I am uncertain about confident scientists who assert the imminence of a Theory of Everything with a little bit of Neo-Darwinism. Hey, if somebody knows that, then why don’t they have a corner on the stock market? Hey, nail weather forecasts three days out. Hey, how about an electric car that works like a car? Certainly the NYSE, current weather, and electricity in motion are simpler than a Theory of Everything.

See the shadow of the Queen of Tomorrow in the anti-Nagel proponents. They know the Laws, baby. And Nagel is Lawfully wrong to write words that may serve as ammunition to despised Other Guys.

Who’s got the Falling Apples and who’s got the Fallen Apples? Follow the persuasion to find the science!

Apples Fallen and Falling

P.S. I’m still reading, but Nagel considers a teleological solution. Evolution with a goal . . . which sounds kinda like religion, but Nagle is an atheist and thinks Nature has plans. Wouldn’t you like to hear that argument?

Power and Persuasion and Art and Technology

New book technologies hide the most important element: Source or Receiver Orientation. Consider all the Big Data implications with the various e-readers devices and platforms.

In the past, publishers and authors had no way of knowing what happens when a reader sits down with a book. Does the reader quit after three pages, or finish it in a single sitting? Do most readers skip over the introduction, or read it closely, underlining passages and scrawling notes in the margins? Now, e-books are providing a glimpse into the story behind the sales figures, revealing not only how many people buy particular books, but how intensely they read them.

Realize the trick with the word, Reading. Reading can mean that Long Conversation in the Head you have with an author while Reading the book. Reading can also mean merely the physical act of turning pages. Don’t lose that distinction.

While writers and publishers have always wondered about readers, no one had a good idea about reader behavior other than did they buy the book. Now, with networked iGizmos, writers and publishers possess huge databases of reader behavior. Who buys. When do they start reading. How long do they take to finish. Who quits after ten pages, never to return. What happens when they finish.

You see the persuasion applications immediately. It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid, and now for the first time in the history of writing and publishing, we can learn a lot about the Other Guys. See all the potential ways you can now write to attract more readers.

Of course, this is a huge change in Orientation. Rather than Write to express yourself as so much writing was done in the past, you now write for the Other Guys. You write for the market rather than writing for the idea. Thus, creative writing becomes less about inventing new fiction or nonfiction literature and more about selling books the same way you can sell t-shirts.

Which stimulates an amendment to my Rule: Power Corrupts Persuasion, but Persuasion Corrupts Art!

Peitho Rules

Reinforcement, Modeling, and Comparison in Leviticus

Nadab Abihu Profane Fire

Then Aaron lifted his hand toward the people, blessed them, and came down from offering the sin offering, the burnt offering, and peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of meeting, and came out and blessed the people. Then the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces . . . Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Leviticus 9:22-24, 10:1-2

This event reveals three persuasion principles: Reinforcement, Modeling, and Comparison.

The reinforcement is obvious. Moses and Aaron perform a When-Do-Get that God wants. Nadab and Abihu perform a When-Do-Get that God does not want. God provides different consequences as specified in His Law. It’s simple and direct.

The modeling is more subtle. Nadab and Abihu are the sons of Aaron and the nephews of Moses. They have had a first hand view of God’s Law, the Covenant, and, the behavior of Moses and Aaron. They have been in a position to observe those models for a long time, but this event demonstrates that they were clearly not paying attention. Despite the fact that Nadab and Abihu have had extremely close and intense experience with God and have witnessed Moses and Aaron, they still failed to model correctly. As the eldest children in a family of powerful and famous men, perhaps Nadab and Abihu thought blood was thicker than faith.

Finally and most interesting is the undescribed, but certain, application of Comparison. Comparison is a simple process of looking at other people and comparing yourself to them. What happens to them can have a powerful impact on you, even if you haven’t tried out the behavior yourself. (Comparison is also sometimes called Vicarious Learning. You watch somebody else do something and even though you’ve never done it yourself, you learn a great deal just by watching – you learn vicariously through another’s experience.) Thus, everyone witnessed an extremely powerful, vivid, and intense scene that contrasted exactly the difference between living the Law and violating the Law. No one had to do what they saw the other do. The simple act of observing and comparing would be persuasive enough.

Green Salt

Trivial effect sizes exemplify the tension between Falling Apples and Fallen Apples. People calling themselves scientists trumpet infinitesimal impacts as a clarion call for Change when we know that there is no Count, there. Like with this foolish observational study that links the size of green space in a neighborhood with health and life satisfaction. The authors embarrass themselves with this Table of results (click to enlarge).

Green Life Satisfaction

What does this mean?

Our analyses suggest that individuals are happier when living in urban areas with greater amounts of green space. Compared with when they live in areas with less green space, they show significantly lower mental distress (as indexed by GHQ scores) and significantly higher well-being (as indexed by life-satisfaction ratings).

You could say that.

Or you could look at the column for the beta weights, that B column. A Small Windowpane for standardized regression beta weights would be at .10. The Table shows betas at .03 and -.02 for life satisfaction. Kids, that’s one-third to one-fifth of a Small Windowpane. In an observational design with all the rival explanations that arise when you don’t randomly assign Other Guys to controlled conditions! Gee. You find a 50.1/49.9 Windowpane and don’t think that maybe biased sampling or measurement error could account for an effect that small? Of course, not. It’s green space, you idiot.

Big deal. So what. Scientists lacking Falling Apples resort to Fallen Apples. Everybody does that.

Which leads to this.

NYT Salt Story

Once again a panel who actually Counts the Change rather than hypes the Change for publication, tenure, or grants arrives at a very different conclusion when looking at the data. Salt has about as much effect on your health (or life satisfaction) as, say, for example . . . green space in your neighborhood. In other words: Nada.

Yet, if you take the time to read the peer review literature on salt, you will find the same kind of Fairy Tales as with our Green Space science today. The effect size is trivial and invented from an observational design. It is a nice story and nothing else.

Mathew P. White, Ian Alcock, Benedict W. Wheeler, and Michael H. Depledge. (2013). Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data Psychological Science, first published on April 23, 2013.

doi:10.1177/0956797612464659

Apples on the Couch

My Rules regarding Apples, Falling versus Fallen, provide perhaps the most practical application of persuasion. Falling Apples, my metaphor for Science or Truth or the Absolute Eternal Everythingness or the Best We Can Hope For At This Time, contrast with Fallen Apples, my metaphor for persuasion or ambiguity, uncertainty, choice, volition or plain old Human Nature, create a test, a diagnostic, a stick for measuring and punishing claims people make.

Read today a great illustration of the Apples Dynamic with this Atlantic interview on the DSM-5, the classification bible of psychiatric illness, disorder, and . . . persuasion. Gary Greenberg, a psychiatrist and student of Apples stuns, slits, and guts the new Manual. First, Greenberg identifies the people making the persuasion Play with the DSM-5.

Who was involved in the creation of the DSM-5?
The American Psychiatric Association owns the DSM. They aren’t only responsible for it: they own it, sell it, and license it. The DSM is created by a group of committees. It’s a bureaucratic process. In place of scientific findings, the DSM uses expert consensus to determine what mental disorders exist and how you can recognize them. Disorders come into the book the same way a law becomes part of the book of statutes. People suggest it, discuss it, and vote on it.

So, guys pretend to follow the Falling Apples where they drop, but instead use Fallen Apples to make the Manual. Gee, why would scientists evade science for persuasion?

Can you talk about the intersection between psychiatry and psychology? How does the DSM relate to both fields?
Psychiatry’s in charge of the DSM. Psychologists and other mental health professionals use the DSM. But psychiatrists have the power and money. I’m critical of the mental health professions in general, including my own practice. But the APA has appropriated this business to themselves. They guard it jealousy, they protect it with ruthless tactics, and yes, they take a disproportionate amount of the heat for this thing, but it’s their baby. They make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this deal.

You can read the rest of this brief, but concise, interview for more of the scientific details, but know that it runs true to many Persuasion Blog posts on Apples, Falling versus Fallen. Good people only trying to make the world a better place with science find themselves using Fallen Apples all the while thinking they hold Falling Apples. Scientists fail to see their own persuasion human nature and their vulnerabilities to profit or prejudice. They then contort themselves into awkward scientific positions that would disappear if there was no profit or prejudice.

And, if you are beyond good and evil, you see the magnificent persuasion possibilities with the DSM-5. Create an app that makes it easier to bill insurance companies. Form a campaign with Hollywood celebrities to put a spotlight on the mental illness of Internet Use Disorder. Lobby the White House to get the DSM-5 as definitive in Health Care Reform. Invent a new ribbon as the icon for a research program on mapping the brain for disease. Shootfire. Think of all the t-shirts!

Please, spare the outrage. All the wasted money, time, and effort! This is just another persuasion consequence of peace and prosperity. This is what you get when people have too much time and money on their hands. All the Other Guys can afford the illusion. You’d be crazy not to charge Them for it!

Bolivian Banks on a Bubble

This pretty much gives it up.

Data being released for the first time by the government on Wednesday shows that hospitals charge Medicare wildly differing amounts — sometimes 10 to 20 times what Medicare typically reimburses — for the same procedure, raising questions about how hospitals determine prices and why they differ so widely.

Of course, “hospitals” do not make the charges. People who own hospitals make charges and those charges vary at differences that can politely be called Stupendous. You don’t need a statistician, accountant, or even an abacus to Count this Change. The same procedure for the same kind of problem with the same resources gets billed out at wildly different rates.

If you don’t see the persuasion potential in this Local, then you need to leave this page right now and go somewhere else because you lack the eye for opportunity. Other Guys will pay somewhere between a Lot and Almost Everything for the same thing. It just depends upon the Local, and I’d argue, the Box and Play you run with the bill. Physicians and hospital administrators can (and do!) earn more money for the same effort depending upon how they present the bill.

American health care is both a Bolivian Bank and a Bubble and with this post you can see another explanation for why that’s true. Other Guys in the form of payers whether as individuals, insurance companies, or governments are easy, ripe, and luscious when They literally do not Count the Change with medical bills. And, you see the inflating Bubble when everyone is wildly overpaying for a resource.

We’ve fallen into a system that allows the human nature of fear and hope to overwhelm reason and evidence. You fear pain, limitation, and death and hope that physicians can make you live forever young. You will never seriously Count the Change under that circumstance. And, why would physicians do anything other than count their change?

Health Bubble>