The Casino Myth: How Our Minds Get Hijacked by First Impressions

When a single stereotype reshapes an entire relationship between peoples

Picture this: You're at a dinner party, and someone mentions Native American issues. Within seconds, the conversation turns to casinos. "Don't they make millions from gambling?" someone asks. "Why do they need government help if they have all that casino money?"

If you've witnessed this exchange—or participated in it—you've encountered one of the most persistent and consequential examples of what psychologists call "anchoring bias" in action. It's a cognitive phenomenon that helps explain why certain misconceptions stick in our minds like superglue, reshaping not just casual conversations but actual policy decisions affecting millions of people.

By altonwoods - Apache Indian Casino-Mescalero, New Mexico, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=115280892 

The Psychology of the Stuck Mind

Anchoring bias was first identified by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman through a series of clever experiments. They discovered that our brains don't process new information as objectively as we'd like to think. Instead, we rely heavily on the first significant piece of information we encounter about a topic, using it as a mental "anchor" that influences every subsequent judgment.

In one famous study, researchers asked people whether the population of Turkey was higher or lower than 50 million, then asked for their actual estimate. People who heard "50 million" first gave much lower estimates than those who heard "100 million" first—even though both numbers were essentially random. That first number became a reference point they couldn't quite shake, even when they knew it was arbitrary.

This isn't just a quirky lab finding. Anchoring bias affects everything from salary negotiations to medical diagnoses to judicial sentencing. And according to Indigenous scholars and advocates, it helps explain how American public opinion crystallized around a particular image of Native peoples in the late 1980s and 1990s—one that continues to influence policy debates today.

When Success Becomes a Problem

The "anchor" in question was set during the early years of tribal gaming, when media coverage naturally focused on the most dramatic success stories: large casinos generating millions in revenue, impressive new infrastructure projects, some tribal members receiving substantial per capita payments. These weren't fabricated stories—they represented real achievements by communities that had been systematically impoverished for generations.

But here's where psychology gets complicated. Those early stories became the mental reference point for how many Americans understood all Indigenous economic activity and political status. Once "Native Americans have casinos and make money" lodged in public consciousness, everything else got filtered through this lens.

Treaty rights advocacy suddenly sounded like "they just want more money like they get from casinos." Poverty statistics seemed contradictory: "How can they be poor when they have all that casino money?" Discussions of historical injustice became "Haven't the casinos made up for all that?" Federal programs appeared unnecessary: "Why should taxpayers support people getting rich from gaming?"

The psychological trap was particularly cruel because it came precisely when some tribal nations were finally able to leverage their sovereignty for economic development after centuries of policies designed to destroy their economic independence.

The Numbers Behind the Narrative

Here's what the anchor obscures: Of the 574 federally recognized tribal nations in the United States, only about 240 operate gaming enterprises. That means nearly 60% of tribes have no gaming revenue at all. Many of these non-gaming communities face poverty rates exceeding 40-50% and unemployment rates reaching 80-90%.

Even among gaming tribes, the economic reality varies enormously. A small tribal casino in rural Montana might generate only a few thousand dollars annually in net revenue for tribal government operations, while a casino resort near Los Angeles might generate hundreds of millions. The anchoring effect flattens this tremendous variation into a single image of "casino wealth."

Most Americans also misunderstand what gaming revenue actually funds. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority goes to tribal government operations: law enforcement, fire protection, healthcare, education, infrastructure development, and social services. These are the same services that state and local governments provide their citizens. When tribes do provide per capita payments to members, these average about $1,000 annually—less than $85 per month—and fewer than half of gaming tribes provide any direct payments at all.

Perhaps most importantly, even successful gaming operations haven't eliminated fundamental challenges. Tribes with significant gaming revenue continue experiencing higher poverty rates than surrounding non-Native communities, along with inadequate infrastructure, limited healthcare access, and educational underfunding.

The Native American gaming establishment is operated and owned by the Comanche Nation of Southwestern Oklahoma. - source: Wikimedia

When Minds Won't Change

The persistence of casino misconceptions illustrates another key finding from Tversky and Kahneman's research: once an anchor is established, people tend to interpret contradictory evidence in ways that preserve their existing framework rather than fundamentally changing it. This means corrective information often gets dismissed, reinterpreted, or minimized.

Take Maria Spotted Eagle, a Yankton Dakota grandmother whose tribe operates a modest gaming facility in rural South Dakota. The facility provides some employment and helps fund basic tribal government services, but Maria has never received a per capita payment and continues struggling with poverty and inadequate healthcare.

When Maria travels to advocacy events, she regularly encounters people who assume she's wealthy because of casino revenue, who question why she needs federal healthcare services, or who suggest that Indigenous peoples like her are unfairly advantaged. These assumptions create real barriers: Maria has to spend time correcting false beliefs before she can even begin discussing actual issues facing her community—suicide rates, missing and murdered women, educational underfunding, infrastructure needs, or treaty violations.

The Ripple Effects

The casino anchor doesn't create just one false belief—it generates multiple related myths that compound the damage. There's the "solved problems" myth, which suggests gaming revenue has resolved all historical injustices. There's the "unfair competition" myth, which frames tribal governmental authority as illegitimate business advantages. There's the "tax avoidance" myth, based on misunderstanding how tribal sovereignty actually works.

Each myth serves a similar function: transforming Indigenous political rights and federal obligations into problems needing elimination rather than relationships requiring honor.

Robert Littlewolf, an Urban Indian who grew up in Oakland, experiences this directly. His tribal nation does operate gaming facilities, but Robert has never lived on the reservation and never received economic benefits from tribal enterprises. Yet when applying for jobs, scholarships, or social services, he encounters assumptions about "casino money" that create additional barriers non-Native people don't face.

"I feel like I have to prove my worthiness for opportunities that others receive without question," Robert explains, "and constantly educate people about Urban Indian experiences that don't match their stereotypes."

Fighting the Anchor

Understanding anchoring bias suggests why simply providing contradictory information often fails to change minds. People don't process new information neutrally—they filter it through existing frameworks. This means effective responses require working with human psychology rather than against it.

One strategy involves "pre-anchoring"—establishing accurate frameworks before false ones take hold. Instead of starting conversations with gaming details and trying to add context later, advocates can anchor discussions in sovereignty and treaty rights from the beginning: "Tribal nations are separate governments that exercise inherent authority over their territories" or "Gaming enterprises represent tribal governments using regulatory authority to fund public services."

Another approach uses "anchor comparison"—helping people understand tribal gaming in relation to governmental revenue systems they already find legitimate. Most Americans accept that state governments operate lotteries to fund public services and that different governmental entities have different economic tools available. Connecting tribal gaming to these familiar frameworks can help people understand it as normal governmental activity rather than special privilege.

Community-controlled media becomes crucial for establishing accurate anchors before false ones can take hold. When Indigenous communities control their own narrative platforms, they can anchor discussions in sovereignty from the beginning and provide the contextual complexity that accurate understanding requires.

Beyond Gaming: The Sovereignty at Stake

The casino anchor ultimately isn't about correcting misconceptions regarding gaming—it's about recognizing how psychological patterns can undermine political relationships. When people believe Indigenous peoples are economically privileged through gaming, it becomes psychologically comfortable to oppose government-to-government relationships, treaty obligations, and federal trust responsibilities.

Pow wow at San Xavier del Bac, Arizona, 10 March 1996 - source: Wikimedia

Sarah Crow Feather, a tribal council member for a Plains tribe that chose not to pursue gaming development, sees this directly. Her community faces unemployment exceeding 80% and poverty above 60%, but when she meets with federal officials or potential business partners, she encounters surprise that her tribe "doesn't have a casino" and assumptions that gaming would solve their economic challenges.

"The stereotype prevents people from understanding the complex factors affecting tribal economic development," Sarah explains. "Geographic location, market access, cultural values, regulatory barriers, infrastructure limitations—all get reduced to gaming questions."

The stakes extend beyond individual misunderstandings. The casino anchor affects federal funding decisions, policy discussions, and public support for tribal rights. It provides psychological cover for opposition to Indigenous sovereignty that might otherwise seem obviously problematic.

A Different Mental Picture

Perhaps it's time for a different anchor—one reflecting actual Indigenous experiences rather than oversimplified stereotypes. What if discussions of tribal economic development began not with gaming assumptions but with sovereignty principles? What if Indigenous success was understood as evidence of effective self-determination rather than reasons to eliminate federal obligations?

This alternative anchor might sound like: "Tribal nations are sovereign governments that use their inherent authority to develop diverse economic enterprises—including renewable energy, technology, sustainable agriculture, cultural tourism, and manufacturing—that fund government services and create opportunities for citizens while maintaining distinct political status and cultural identity."

From this framework, gaming becomes one tool among many that tribal governments use to exercise authority and serve citizens, rather than the defining characteristic of contemporary Indigenous experience. Economic success becomes evidence of effective governance rather than justification for eliminating government-to-government relationships.

The Bigger Picture

The casino stereotype represents just one example of how first impressions can crystallize into lasting misconceptions with real-world consequences. Similar anchoring effects shape public understanding of immigration, welfare policy, criminal justice, and countless other issues where initial media coverage or political framing creates mental reference points that persist despite contradictory evidence.

Recognizing anchoring bias doesn't automatically solve these problems, but it does suggest more effective approaches to changing minds. Instead of simply providing more information, we might focus on establishing better initial frameworks, making strategic comparisons to familiar concepts, and gradually introducing complexity that simplistic stereotypes can't accommodate.

The next time someone mentions Native American casinos in conversation, remember: you're probably encountering an anchor, not an analysis. The question isn't whether tribal gaming exists—it's whether that single fact should define understanding of 574 distinct governments serving millions of people with complex histories, diverse economies, and continuing political relationships with the United States.

Understanding the psychology behind persistent misconceptions won't eliminate them overnight, but it might help us have more thoughtful conversations about complex realities. In a world where first impressions often become lasting judgments, that understanding represents a small but significant step toward clearer thinking about the relationships that shape our shared future.

*******

NOTE:  The psychological concepts discussed here draw from decades of research in cognitive psychology, particularly the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky on heuristics and biases. The perspectives on tribal sovereignty and Indigenous experiences reflect ongoing scholarly and community discussions about the intersection of psychology and politics in Indigenous-settler relationships.

The Archaeology of Being: Nathan Leslie's Van Boyle and a Life Unraveled

 Nathan Leslie's novel, Van Boyle,  traces the life of its titular protagonist in reverse chronological order, beginning with his death from pneumonia at age 69 in a Maryland hospital and concluding with his conception. Once a Major League Baseball player for the Baltimore Orioles, Van's promising career ends with a devastating knee injury in his mid-twenties. Unable to transition to life after baseball, he experiences financial ruin through bad investments and embezzlement by his financial advisor, the dissolution of his marriage to Cheryl, and complete estrangement from his children.

Van Boyle by Nathan Leslie

The novel documents Van's two-decade descent into homelessness across rural Maryland, where he survives by foraging, living in abandoned vehicles and structures, and relying on temporary shelter from acquaintances. Throughout, Van refuses assistance even when offered, unable to ask for help or maintain the relationships that might sustain him. His emotional unavailability—present even during his marriage—deepens into radical isolation.

As the narrative moves backward through his baseball career, his marriage, failed business ventures, and increasingly troubled childhood, it gradually reveals the origins of Van's self-destructive patterns. His father's physical and psychological abuse taught Van that his worth depended entirely on athletic performance, that vulnerability invited violence, and that love was always conditional. These lessons, reinforced by the demands of professional sports and American capitalism's equation of human value with productivity, leave Van unable to conceive of himself as having worth beyond what he can achieve. The reverse chronology transforms the reading experience into an archaeological excavation, revealing how childhood trauma and social abandonment compound across a lifetime to produce a tragedy that appears, in retrospect, devastatingly inevitable.

Temporality and Heidegger's Being-Toward-Death

The reverse chronological structure is more than formal experimentation—it enacts a philosophical argument about how we construct meaning from existence. Where Heidegger proposed that authentic being requires acknowledging our mortality, Leslie inverts this: we know Van's death from the opening pages, and every subsequent moment becomes weighted with inevitability. The reader experiences what Heidegger called "thrownness"—the sense of being cast into circumstances not of our choosing—but in reverse. We watch Van thrown backward through time into increasingly constrained possibilities.

This structure also mirrors the phenomenology of trauma, where past events continually intrude on present consciousness. Van's homelessness, failed relationships, and knee injury don't emerge from nowhere; they're overdetermined by childhood abuse that we only gradually discover. The novel suggests that understanding a life requires archaeological excavation rather than linear narrative.

The Ethics of Recognition and Social Death

From a Levinasian perspective, Van's trajectory represents a catastrophic failure of ethical recognition. Levinas argued that ethics begins in the face-to-face encounter with the Other, who makes a fundamental claim on our responsibility. Yet Van repeatedly experiences what sociologists call "social death"—the denial of personhood. As a homeless man, he becomes invisible, his dignity eroded by economic precarity and social stigma.

The novel documents systematic ethical failures at multiple levels: his father's abuse, his teammates' indifference, the social welfare system's inadequacy, and society's criminalization of homelessness. Even Van's own children cannot bear to see him. The text asks: what obligations do we bear toward those whom society has rendered invisible? Van's insistence that he is "not homeless" but rather makes "home where I can" represents a desperate assertion of selfhood against erasure.

Psychoanalysis and Repetition Compulsion

The reverse structure reveals patterns invisible in forward chronology. Van's self-sabotage—walking away from financial opportunities, alienating those who care for him, choosing isolation—appears throughout his life. Freud's concept of repetition compulsion illuminates this: trauma survivors unconsciously recreate traumatic situations in an attempt to master them. Van's father's abuse and manipulation establish templates that Van cannot escape.

The novel's final sections, depicting abuse in infancy and early childhood, recontextualize everything preceding. Van's difficulty with intimacy, his relationship with his own children, his attraction to isolation—all bear the imprint of violated boundaries and corrupted trust. The text refuses to offer redemption or transcendence; instead, it documents how trauma propagates across a lifetime.

The Failure of American Meritocracy

Van's story indicts the mythology of American individualism. He achieves what should represent success—professional baseball, business ownership—yet ends destitute. His trajectory reveals how precarious success is within capitalism, particularly for those without inherited wealth or social capital. The Handler's embezzlement, bad investments, and medical debt compound to produce economic ruin.

Moreover, Van's physical body—his knee—becomes the site where biological vulnerability intersects with economic necessity. Under capitalism, the body is capital, and injury means obsolescence. Van's worth as a person becomes inseparable from his productive capacity. When that capacity fails, society abandons him.

Masculinity, Vulnerability, and Silence

Van embodies damaged masculinity—stoic, emotionally inarticulate, unable to seek help. His father models masculinity through domination and abuse, teaching Van that vulnerability invites violence. This shapes Van's relationships: his inability to connect with his wife Cheryl, his estrangement from his children, his refusal of assistance even when desperate.

The novel suggests that patriarchal masculinity produces not strength but fragility—men so afraid of appearing weak that they destroy themselves rather than accept support. Van's homelessness becomes the logical endpoint of masculine self-sufficiency taken to its extreme: radical isolation.

Conclusion: The Ethics of Bearing Witness

Van Boyle ultimately raises questions about literature's ethical function. By structuring the narrative backward from death, Leslie forces readers to witness a life that society deemed expendable. We cannot look away or dismiss Van as simply another "bum." We know too much: his hopes, his wounds, his humanity.

The novel refuses easy answers or redemption arcs. Van dies as he lived—alone, in pain, estranged. Yet the act of narrating his life, of documenting each degradation and small grace, constitutes a form of ethical recognition. Leslie suggests that bearing witness to suffering—truly seeing those rendered invisible—may be literature's most vital social function, even when witnessing cannot prevent or redeem that suffering.

Why Your Words Matter: Making Lloyd Bitzer's Rhetorical Situation Work for Real-World Problems

Whether you're trying to convince city council members to fund homeless shelters or persuade investors to back your geothermal startup, you're entering what Lloyd Bitzer called a "rhetorical situation." Understanding this concept isn't just academic exercise—it's the difference between crafting messages that create change and ones that fall flat.

Bitzer argued that all meaningful communication emerges from specific situations that demand response. Think of it like this: somewhere out there, a problem exists that words can actually help solve. Your job is to figure out the precise combination of message, audience, and timing that will make things happen.

The Heart of It: Exigence

Exigence is the urgent problem demanding attention—the thing that makes communication necessary in the first place. It's not just any problem, but one that can be modified through discourse. When you see hundreds of people sleeping rough during a polar vortex, that's exigence. When a community sits on massive geothermal potential while still burning coal for electricity, that's exigence too.

The key is recognizing that not every problem creates productive exigence. Complaining about the weather won't change it, but demonstrating how extreme weather kills vulnerable populations can mobilize resources for emergency shelters.

Your People: Audience

Your audience consists of the specific people who can actually do something about your exigence. Notice we said "can"—not "should" or "might want to." For homelessness, your audience might include city planners with budget authority, not just compassionate citizens who lack decision-making power. For energy projects, you're targeting institutional investors with capital allocation authority, not environmental activists who already agree with you but can't write checks.

This audience analysis gets tricky because effective audiences often span different groups. Your geothermal pitch might need to convince both risk-averse pension fund managers and optimistic clean-tech venture capitalists. Each group brings different priorities, languages, and concerns to the same basic decision.

What's Holding You Back: Constraints

Constraints are the forces that both limit and shape your rhetorical choices. Some constraints restrict you—like budget limitations for homeless services or regulatory hurdles for energy projects. Others empower you—like existing infrastructure, sympathetic media coverage, or recent policy changes that create opportunity.

Smart communicators work with constraints rather than against them. If voters just rejected a tax increase, maybe your homeless shelter proposal emphasizes private partnerships and cost savings instead of additional funding. If oil prices just spiked, your geothermal project suddenly looks more economically attractive to risk-averse investors.

You in the Mix: The Rhetor

As the rhetor, you bring credibility, expertise, and relationships to the situation. A formerly homeless person advocating for services carries different authority than a academic researcher—both valuable, but in different ways. An engineer with drilling experience speaks differently about geothermal potential than a recent MBA, and audiences respond accordingly.

Your identity shapes what you can say effectively and what audiences will take seriously. Sometimes this means acknowledging your limitations and building coalitions with voices that complement yours.

Making It Real: Discourse

Finally, discourse is your actual message—the speech, report, proposal, or presentation that responds to the exigence. Effective discourse feels inevitable given the situation, audience, and constraints you're working within. It doesn't feel forced or generic.

A successful homeless services proposal might combine compelling personal stories (responding to the human exigence) with detailed budget analysis (addressing fiscal constraints) while speaking the language of municipal efficiency (connecting with city manager audiences). Similarly, a geothermal investment pitch weaves together environmental urgency, regulatory advantages, and projected returns in ways that make the opportunity feel obvious rather than hopeful.

The magic happens when all five elements align. Your urgent problem meets the right audience through carefully crafted discourse that works within real constraints while leveraging your authentic voice. That's when words actually change the world.

Free Video-Based Mini-Course: Monetary Pivot Points, the Dollar, and Oil Prices with William DeMis

Is the U.S. headed for another major monetary shift that could send oil prices soaring? In this powerful and popular presentation, originally delivered to a standing-room-only crowd at IMAGE, William DeMis of Rochelle Court LLC explains the critical link between U.S. monetary policy, the value of the dollar, and the price of oil.

Discover the concept of "monetary pivot points"—critical macroeconomic events where the U.S. dollar's value changes profoundly, triggering major reactions in the oil market.

Video for the Course
https://youtu.be/2zJtTanmC_Q?si=8M73vaWy1w3bre7w

Course Summary

 This course examines the critical relationship between U.S. monetary policy, the value of the dollar, and global oil prices. Drawing on historical analysis, we will explore significant "monetary pivot points" that have profoundly altered the value of the U.S. dollar and, consequently, the price of oil, which is priced and traded globally in U.S. dollars. Key historical events covered include the end of the Bretton Woods Accord in 1971 and the Plaza Accord of 1985. The course will analyze how these events led to major shifts in the dollar's value and triggered corresponding reactions from OPEC to maintain the purchasing power of oil.

We will also investigate the current economic landscape, characterized by unsustainable national debt, significant federal deficits, and the Federal Reserve and Treasury being "boxed into a corner". The course will discuss contemporary signals of a new monetary pivot, such as central banks divesting from U.S. Treasuries in favor of gold, and explore potential future scenarios involving inflation, dollar devaluation, and the rise of stablecoins. By the end of the course, you will understand the historical precedents and current macroeconomic forces that are expected to shape the future of oil prices.

Learning Objectives

Lower-Level Objectives (Remembering & Understanding)

1. Define key monetary terms and events, including monetary pivot points, the Bretton Woods Accord, the Plaza Accord, and the petrodollar agreement.

2. Describe the historical relationship between the price of gold and the price of oil, specifically the "gold-oil ratio".

3. Identify the primary causes for the collapse of the Bretton Woods Accord in 1971.

4. Explain the current fiscal challenges facing the U.S., including the national debt, deficits, and the problem of refinancing maturing debt.

Higher-Level Objectives (Analyzing & Evaluating)

5. Analyze how a significant change in the value of the U.S. dollar impacts oil prices differently depending on whether the global oil supply is tight or loose.

6. Evaluate the argument that the U.S. is currently in a "big pivot" by synthesizing evidence related to national debt, central bank behavior, and historical parallels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Questions

Multiple Choice Questions (for Lower-Level Objectives 1-4)

Objective 1: Define key monetary terms and events.

1. What is a "monetary pivot point" as described in the presentation? a. A time when the stock market reaches an all-time high. b. A key macroeconomic event where the value of the U.S. dollar changes profoundly. c. An agreement by OPEC to cut oil production. d. A moment when the U.S. national debt exceeds GDP.

2. Under the Bretton Woods Accord, what was the U.S. dollar fixed to? a. The British Pound. b. A basket of foreign currencies. c. Oil. d. Gold.

3. What was the purpose of the 1973 petrodollar agreement? a. To fix the price of oil to the price of gold. b. To require OPEC countries to price their oil in U.S. dollars, creating demand for the currency. c. To create a new currency specifically for oil trading. d. To allow European nations to pay for oil with their own currencies.

4. The Plaza Accord of 1985 was an agreement to: a. Increase the value of the U.S. dollar to fight inflation. b. Return to a gold standard for international currencies. c. Devalue the U.S. dollar to help U.S. exports. d. Establish a new global reserve currency.

5. The phrase "America's exorbitant privilege," as used by France, referred to the ability of the U.S. to: a. Control global oil supplies. b. Pay for international goods simply by printing money, while other countries had to produce value. c. Veto any decision made by the United Nations. d. Maintain the largest military in the world.

Objective 2: Describe the historical relationship between the price of gold and the price of oil.

6. According to the presentation, on average during the OPEC era, one ounce of gold could buy approximately how many barrels of oil? a. 5 barrels. b. 12 barrels. c. 25 barrels. d. 50 barrels.

7. When the price of gold rises significantly relative to oil on the specialized chart shown, what event does this historically signal? a. An impending oil price collapse. b. A period of economic recession. c. An oil boom. d. A strengthening of the U.S. dollar.

8. In the early 1970s, what was the primary motivation for OPEC to raise oil prices four-fold? a. To retaliate against the U.S. for its foreign policy. b. To maintain the purchasing power of oil in the face of a devalued dollar and rising gold prices. c. To fund industrial development projects. d. To reduce global oil consumption for environmental reasons.

9. The presenter states that gold is the "metal with a memory" because it: a. Is difficult to mine and has a long history. b. Is used in computer memory chips. c. Records the cumulative effects of inflation over time. d. Remembers its previous highest price.

10. In the early 1970s, the price of oil was observed to be _______ the price of gold. a. Leading. b. Following. c. Uncorrelated with. d. Inversely related to.

Objective 3: Identify the primary causes for the collapse of the Bretton Woods Accord.

11. According to the presentation, what two major government spending initiatives contributed to the end of the Bretton Woods Accord? a. The Marshall Plan and the Korean War. b. The Vietnam War and Johnson's Great Society. c. The Space Race and the Interstate Highway System. d. The New Deal and World War II.

12. What critical problem with the funding of these 1960s initiatives was highlighted? a. The programs were too unpopular to secure funding. b. The government did not raise taxes to pay for them, and instead just printed money. c. Most of the money was lost to corruption. d. The spending was blocked by the Supreme Court.

13. What was the consequence of President Johnson removing the gold cover requirement for the U.S. dollar? a. It allowed the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to zero. b. It strengthened the dollar's value internationally. c. It became a true fiat currency, removing the regulatory limit on money printing. d. It caused the stock market to crash.

14. Why did European central banks begin redeeming their U.S. dollars for gold at the "gold window"? a. They needed gold to fund their own social programs. b. They lost faith in the stability of their own currencies. c. They could get gold for $35/ounce from the U.S. and sell it for a higher price on the open market in Europe. d. The U.S. was forcing them to trade in their dollars.

15. What was President Nixon's final action that officially ended the Bretton Woods system in 1971? a. He declared the dollar would no longer be the world's reserve currency. b. He raised taxes significantly to pay off the national debt. c. He closed the gold window to stop foreign central banks from redeeming dollars for U.S. gold. d. He negotiated the petrodollar agreement with OPEC.

Objective 4: Explain the current fiscal challenges facing the U.S.

16. What is the major problem with the U.S. national debt that did not exist in the 1960s? a. The debt is mostly owned by foreign nations. b. The debt has exploded and is considered unsustainable. c. There is no political will to address it. d. The interest rate on the debt is fixed and cannot be changed.

17. The interest payments on the national debt now exceed the spending on which of these major federal budget items? a. Education. b. The military or Medicare (taken individually). c. Social Security. d. The military and Medicare combined.

18. What does it mean that the national debt is "always refinanced and rolled over"? a. The government pays off the debt in full every year with tax revenue. b. The debt is forgiven by international lenders every 10 years. c. When old bonds mature, the government issues new bonds to pay for them. d. The debt is converted into corporate stocks.

19. According to the presenter, what happens if the interest rate on all U.S. debt resets to 4.5%? a. The stock market will double in value. b. The U.S. will default on its debt immediately. c. The interest payments alone will consume all federal tax revenue. d. Foreign countries will rush to buy more U.S. bonds.

20. A recent trend among foreign central banks that signals a current monetary pivot is: a. Buying massive amounts of U.S. stocks. b. Selling their own currencies to buy more U.S. dollars. c. Dumping U.S. treasuries and swapping dollars for gold. d. Lobbying the U.S. government to raise interest rates.

Short Essay Questions or Discussion Items 

(or Higher-Level Objectives 4 - 6)

1. Analysis: The Bretton Woods Accord and the Plaza Accord are presented as two key "monetary pivot points" that profoundly changed the value of the U.S. dollar. Compare and contrast the reasons for the dollar's devaluation in each of these pivots and explain the differing impacts these devaluations had on the price of oil.

2. Evaluation: The speaker argues that the current U.S. national debt is unsustainable and that the Federal Reserve and Treasury are "boxed into a corner," limiting their ability to fight inflation or attract bond investors. Based on the evidence presented in the sources, critique this argument. Do you find the speaker's reasoning about the constraints on monetary and fiscal policy to be convincing? Justify your answer.

3. Analysis: Central banks are reportedly buying gold at a rate not seen since the 1960s, a trend the speaker links to the pivot away from the U.S. dollar. Analyze the relationship between the real yield on U.S. Treasury bonds and the price of gold, and explain why the current decoupling of this relationship is significant for the U.S. dollar's status as a reserve currency.

4. Evaluation: The speaker concludes that despite the current fiscal challenges and a period of "tumult," the U.S. will ultimately get through this pivot due to its history of innovation and entrepreneurship. Evaluate the strength of this optimistic conclusion by weighing it against the severity of the problems outlined, such as the national debt consuming all federal revenue.

5. Analysis: The presentation posits that after the end of Bretton Woods, OPEC raised oil prices primarily to maintain its purchasing power against a devalued dollar, rather than for geopolitical reasons. Analyze how the concept of the "real global price of oil" supports this monetary-based explanation for the oil price shocks of the 1970s

Free Video-Based Mini-Course for Engineering/Technology/Energy Curriculum, Ready with Materials, Learning Objectives, Assessments

Mini-Course Overview:  Fast-Tracking Electricity Generation: Hydrogen, Natural Gas & More 

Ademola Fagade, CEO of Geoprime Energy, discusses the urgent global energy crisis, characterized by aging infrastructure, operational inefficiencies, and slow clean energy adoption in both developed and underdeveloped nations. Drawing on his background and extensive experience with companies like DTE, Fagade presents Geoprime's multi-fuel and modular approach to deliver advanced, reliable clean energy. A core innovation is their Synafox software, a "living digital twin" that uses a proprietary large language model (Synagogen) and AI-enhanced control boxes to aggregate data, predict failures, and optimize operations across the energy asset lifecycle, addressing communication silos and safety concerns. Geoprime is "very bullish on" ammonia as a safer and scalable hydrogen carrier, and their technology can convert carbon-based waste into hydrogen and valuable byproducts like carbon black and graphene. The company is actively pursuing projects for data centers, biotech facilities, and underserved communities, emphasizing collaboration with major utility companies to collectively "leapfrog" existing energy paradigms.

(This mini-course is perfect for courses in engineering, entrepreneurship, technology, technology strategy, and economic development)

Link to video: https://youtu.be/_fitd4_ss7A

Course Objective Evaluate Geoprime Energy's comprehensive strategy for addressing the global energy crisis, critically assessing how their integrated approach—combining innovative technologies like Synafox software and ammonia as a hydrogen carrier with scalable, modular energy systems and collaborative partnerships—aims to overcome challenges in both aging infrastructure and underserved energy markets.

Learning Objectives Incorporating Bloom's Taxonomy Verbs

1. Recall Ademola Fagade's early influences and educational background that shaped his career in the energy sector [Remembering].

2. Describe the key challenges contributing to the looming energy crisis as identified by Ademola Fagade, including issues in both developed and underdeveloped countries [Understanding].

3. Explain how Geoprime Energy's Synafox software addresses operational inefficiencies and safety concerns in energy asset management through its digital twin and AI capabilities [Understanding].

4. Differentiate between various types of hydrogen production (green, blue, turquoise, gold) and their respective challenges and cost implications [Analyzing].

5. Summarize the innovative role of ammonia as a hydrogen carrier within Geoprime Energy's solutions, highlighting its advantages over direct hydrogen storage [Understanding].

6. Apply the concept of modular and multi-fuel energy systems to diverse energy demands, such as manufacturing plants versus data centers, using examples from Geoprime's product line [Applying].

7. Evaluate the strategic importance of Geoprime Energy's collaborative approach and diverse partnerships in tackling the global energy crisis [Evaluating].

8. Propose how Geoprime Energy's technology could be adapted to address specific energy challenges in different geographical or economic contexts, such as areas with stranded gas assets [Creating].

20 Multiple Choice Questions (Lower-Level Bloom's Taxonomy)

For answer key, please contact E-Learning Corgi

1. What was Ademola Fagade's family primarily involved in before he pursued electrical engineering? a) Textile trade b) Civil engineering and construction c) Agriculture d) Banking

2. Ademola Fagade's grandmother was a pioneer in which industry in Lagos? a) Banking b) Civil engineering c) Textile trade d) Electrical engineering

3. What was Ademola's initial career interest as a child, leading to him building mini boats? a) Civil engineering b) Pre-med c) Electrical works/engineering d) Textile manufacturing

4. Which US energy company did Ademola Fagade first join, where he "department hopped" to learn various aspects of the industry? a) Consumers Energy b) Pratt Whitney c) DTE d) PG&E

5. Ademola's first contract for Geoprime Energy involved the decommissioning of what type of power plant? a) Natural gas power plant b) Nuclear power plant c) Hydroelectric power plant d) Coal power plant

6. According to Ademola, replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas-fired plants is considered what kind of option? a) Worse b) Neutral c) Significantly better d) More expensive

7. What organization in Michigan, tagged as an "opportunity zone," advised Ademola to conduct customer discovery for his company? a) University of Michigan b) Wayne State c) Techtown d) New Lab

8. How many energy executives did Ademola interview and consult across the US as part of his customer discovery? a) 50 b) 75 c) 100 d) 135

9. What is the primary purpose of Geoprime Energy's Synafox software? a) To manage human resources in energy companies b) To create an umbrella operating system for energy asset lifecycle management c) To design new power plants d) To forecast energy prices

10. Ademola compares the current energy industry's process for commissioning/decommissioning plants to a "wheel" where different contractors work in what manner? a) Collaboratively b) Siloed c) Synchronized d) Integrated

11. Which country is cited as an example of "leapfrogging" in development compared to Nigeria, despite receiving aid from Nigeria in the past? a) Japan b) South Korea c) United States d) Germany

12. What percentage of global energy investment is concentrated on clean energy, as mentioned by Ademola? a) Less than 2% b) 15% c) 50% d) 80%

13. What is a key limitation of solar energy for powering an entire city, as discussed in the recording? a) It's too expensive b) It only works during the day and requires battery storage c) It takes up too much land d) It's not clean energy

14. What substance is Geoprime Energy "very bullish on" as a hydrogen carrier? a) Methane b) Carbon black c) Ammonia d) Oxygen

15. Green hydrogen is produced through which process? a) Steam methane reforming b) Plasma torch separation c) Electrolysis d) Microbe conversion

16. What is the approximate cost per gallon for gold hydrogen, which uses microbes in depleted oil wells? a) $4.60 b) $0.13 c) $0.50 d) $1.00

17. What valuable byproduct, used for high-tech applications, can be obtained when turning carbon-based materials into hydrogen using Geoprime's anaerobic system? a) Aluminum b) Silicon c) Carbon black/Graphene d) Ash

18. What is the power range for Geoprime Energy's HG01 (Hybrid Grid) electrification system? a) 0.5 to 1 MW b) 1.2 to 10 MW c) 10 to 50 MW d) 100 MW and above

19. What is a "data grid" in Geoprime Energy's product line primarily designed for? a) Small residential homes b) Manufacturing plants c) Data centers d) Rural electric co-ops

20. What is a core component of Synafox that learns operations and aggregates data from various sources to find optimal paths for efficiency? a) PI tags b) Manual oversight c) Large language model (Synagogen) d) Network switches

5 Short-Answer Questions (Higher-Level Bloom's Taxonomy)

1. Analyze the multi-faceted nature of the "energy crisis" as described by Ademola Fagade, distinguishing between challenges faced by underdeveloped countries and those faced by developed nations like the US.

2. Evaluate the advantages of Geoprime Energy's strategy of using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier compared to directly handling pure hydrogen, considering safety, storage, and economic factors mentioned in the recording.

3. Propose a scenario where Geoprime Energy's modular HG01 or SG01 systems could be most effectively deployed in a specific community or industrial setting, justifying your choice with details from the transcript regarding the system's capabilities and benefits.

4. Justify why Ademola Fagade views the collaboration with large utility companies as essential, rather than acting solely as a competitor, in addressing the energy crisis, referencing specific points he made about his relationship with DTE.

5. Create an argument for how Synafox's "living digital twin" and AI-enhanced control box could have prevented the primary service transformer accident at DTE described by Ademola, focusing on how its features address the root causes of that incident.

Course developed by Susan Smith Nash, Ph.D. 

For additional materials (video summaries, additional reading, answer keys, and more, please contact E-Learning Corgi)

When Your Mind Plays Tricks: What Standing Rock Taught Us About Media Psychology

How cognitive science explains why complex Indigenous issues often get lost in translation

 Picture this: You're scrolling through your news feed in late 2016, and you see a headline about "pipeline protests" in North Dakota. Your brain instantly starts filing this information into familiar categories—environmental activists versus big oil, protesters versus police, David versus Goliath. It happens so fast you don't even realize you're doing it.

But what if I told you that this instant categorization—this mental filing system we all use—actually made you miss the real story? The 2016-2017 events at Standing Rock offer a fascinating case study in how our own psychology can be used against us, creating blind spots that make complex stories disappear in plain sight.

Image source:  Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protests 

This isn't about pointing fingers or assigning blame. It's about understanding something much more interesting: how the human mind works, and how that knowledge can help us become smarter consumers of information. Whether you're Native or non-Native, understanding these psychological tricks can change how you see media coverage of any complex issue.

The Mental Shortcut That Changed Everything

Back in the 1970s, two psychologists named Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman made a discovery that would eventually win them a Nobel Prize. They found that human brains don't process new information like neutral computers. Instead, we use mental shortcuts called "heuristics"—and one of the most powerful is something they called the "representativeness heuristic."

Here's how it works in real life: When your brain encounters the phrase "pipeline protest," it immediately starts pattern-matching. It searches through your memory for similar situations, then uses those patterns to understand what's happening. For most Americans, those patterns came from previous environmental movements—Earth Day rallies, tree-sitters opposing logging, Greenpeace activists chaining themselves to whaling ships.

So when Standing Rock hit the news, millions of brains automatically slotted it into the "environmental protest" category. Everything that followed got filtered through that lens. The water cannons and police dogs? Classic protest suppression. The camps and civil disobedience? Typical activist tactics. The corporate pipeline versus indigenous communities? David and Goliath environmental story.

The problem is, this mental filing system missed something huge. Standing Rock wasn't primarily an environmental protest—it was one of the largest assertions of Indigenous sovereignty in modern American history.

What Really Happened (And Why You Probably Missed It)

Let me paint you a different picture of Standing Rock, one that probably didn't make it through your mental filters the first time around.

In April 2016, LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, a historian and member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, established the Sacred Stone Camp on her own land. LaDonna wasn't some outside environmental activist who showed up with a protest sign. She was a grandmother protecting the burial sites of her ancestors and asserting her tribe's treaty rights—legal agreements signed with the United States government in 1851 and 1868 that guaranteed her people's authority over their territory.

When tribal teenagers like Jasilyn Charger started running from Standing Rock to Washington, D.C., they weren't doing a youth climate march. They were citizens of a sovereign nation appealing to the federal government to honor its legal obligations. These young people could speak with sophisticated knowledge about federal Indian law, tribal jurisdiction, and the government-to-government relationship between their nation and the United States.

By December 2016, representatives from over 300 tribal nations had joined the camps. Think about that for a moment—300 sovereign nations coming together in solidarity. This wasn't a protest movement; it was the largest gathering of Indigenous governments in over a century, asserting their collective authority to protect sacred water and treaty-guaranteed territory.

Image source - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protests 

But here's the kicker: the pipeline was originally supposed to cross the Missouri River near Bismarck, North Dakota's capital. When officials worried that a spill might contaminate the city's drinking water, they quietly rerouted it through tribal territory instead. This detail—which reveals the entire story was really about whose lives matter and whose don't—appeared in fewer than 30% of mainstream news stories.

When Your Brain Doubles Down on Being Wrong

Once people had filed Standing Rock under "environmental protest," another psychological mechanism kicked in to lock that interpretation in place: confirmation bias. This is your brain's tendency to pay attention to information that confirms what you already believe while ignoring information that challenges it.

Media outlets quickly discovered which aspects of Standing Rock got the most clicks and shares. Stories about environmental risks and pipeline debates? Huge engagement. Dramatic confrontations with law enforcement? People couldn't stop watching. Climate change discussions? Perfect for existing environmental audiences.

Meanwhile, stories about treaty law, tribal governmental authority, and sovereignty issues got much less attention. Partly this happened because these topics didn't match what audiences expected to see, and partly because understanding them required background knowledge that most reporters and readers simply didn't have.

Social media algorithms made this even worse. If you engaged with environmental content about Standing Rock, the platforms showed you more environmental content. If you shared posts about police confrontations, you got more confrontation videos. The algorithm essentially created personalized echo chambers that reinforced whatever angle you'd initially focused on.

The Information That Disappeared

When researchers later analyzed Standing Rock coverage, they found some stunning gaps between what actually happened and what the public learned about it.

Less than a quarter of major news reports mentioned treaty rights or tribal sovereignty in any meaningful way. The government-to-government relationship between tribes and federal authorities—which is the actual legal framework that governs these situations—was rarely explained. Most Americans still don't understand that tribal nations aren't ethnic groups or cultural organizations, but actual governments with specific legal relationships to the United States.

The cultural and spiritual dimensions got similarly scrambled. When Lakota spiritual leaders conducted traditional ceremonies at the camps, when they shared teachings about Indigenous peoples' responsibilities to protect the water, mainstream media consistently described these actions as "protest tactics" or "demonstrations." Chief Arvol Looking Horse, the 19th Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe, carries spiritual authority that spans multiple tribal nations and represents centuries of sacred tradition. But coverage described him as a "protest supporter" rather than recognizing the governmental and spiritual authority he represented.

Even the language choices revealed the psychological sorting at work. Over 400 Indigenous people were arrested during Standing Rock, but mainstream media consistently used phrases like "protesters arrested" rather than "tribal citizens detained" or "sovereign nation members imprisoned." These aren't just word games—language choices like these shape how audiences understand who has legitimate authority and who's breaking the law.

Why This Matters for Everyone

You might be thinking, "Okay, this is interesting psychology, but why should I care?" Here's why: the same mental mechanisms that distorted Standing Rock coverage are working on you every single day, with every news story you encounter.

When you see coverage of immigration issues, your brain is using mental shortcuts to categorize what you're seeing. When you read about economic policy, healthcare debates, or international conflicts, the representativeness heuristic is instantly filing these stories into familiar patterns. And confirmation bias is making sure you pay attention to information that confirms your existing views while filtering out information that might challenge them.

Understanding these psychological processes doesn't eliminate them—they actually serve important functions in helping us process huge amounts of information quickly. But knowing how they work can make you a much more sophisticated consumer of news and information.

Becoming a Smarter Information Consumer

So how do you work with your own psychology instead of being manipulated by it? The first step is simply recognizing when your brain is doing its automatic categorization thing. When you encounter a complex news story, pause for a moment and ask yourself: "What mental template am I using to understand this? What familiar pattern is my brain comparing this to?"

Next, actively seek out sources that might use different frameworks. For Indigenous issues, that might mean reading tribal newspapers, following Indigenous journalists on social media, or looking for coverage that quotes tribal officials rather than outside activists. For any complex story, it means recognizing that your first source probably isn't giving you the complete picture.

Pay attention to language choices, both in media coverage and in your own thinking. When you see words like "protesters," "activists," or "demonstrations," ask whether those terms accurately describe what's actually happening. Sometimes they do; sometimes they're obscuring more complex realities.

Most importantly, get comfortable with complexity. The human brain loves simple stories with clear good guys and bad guys, but real life is usually messier than that. Standing Rock involved environmental protection and tribal sovereignty and treaty law and cultural preservation and economic considerations all at the same time. Learning to hold multiple dimensions of a story in your mind simultaneously is like mental weightlifting—it gets easier with practice.

What This Means for Indigenous Communities

For Indigenous communities, understanding these psychological mechanisms offers both challenges and opportunities. The challenge is that sovereignty and treaty rights are complex legal concepts that don't fit neatly into the mental templates most Americans carry around. Environmental activism and protest movements are much more familiar, which is why those frames often get applied even when they don't really fit.

The opportunity lies in becoming strategically sophisticated about working with and around these psychological shortcuts. This doesn't mean accepting misleading frameworks, but it does mean understanding them well enough to counter them effectively. When speaking to mainstream audiences, Indigenous leaders and advocates can explicitly address the mental templates people are likely using. Instead of assuming people understand sovereignty, they can start conversations by establishing the legal and governmental context before audiences have a chance to file the information under "protest" or "activism."

Building Indigenous-controlled media systems becomes crucial in this context. When you control your own information platforms, you can establish accurate frameworks from the beginning rather than having to argue against misleading ones after they've already taken hold in people's minds.

The Bigger Picture

The psychological analysis of Standing Rock coverage reveals something important about how democracy works—or doesn't work—in an information-rich society. When complex political realities get filtered through oversimplified mental templates, citizens can't make informed decisions because they're literally not seeing what's actually happening.

This isn't just about Indigenous issues, though Standing Rock provides a particularly clear example. Any time marginalized communities, complex legal disputes, or unfamiliar cultural practices make the news, similar psychological processes are at work. Understanding these mechanisms can help us recognize when our own mental shortcuts might be limiting our understanding.

The goal isn't to eliminate mental shortcuts entirely—that would be impossible and counterproductive. Instead, it's about developing awareness of when these shortcuts might be inadequate and building systems that provide more complete information when complexity warrants it.

Looking Forward

The next time you encounter news coverage of a complex issue, especially one involving communities or legal frameworks you're not familiar with, try this experiment: Read the coverage with fresh eyes and ask yourself what mental template you're using to understand the story. Then go looking for sources that might use different frameworks. See what aspects of the story become visible when you change your analytical lens.

For both Indigenous and non-Indigenous readers, this kind of cognitive awareness offers practical benefits. In an era when we're all drowning in information, developing these critical thinking skills becomes essential for effective citizenship and advocacy. Understanding that your own psychology can be manipulated—and learning to recognize when it's happening—is one of the most powerful tools you can develop.

The water protectors at Standing Rock understood they were doing multiple types of work simultaneously: protecting the environment, asserting sovereignty, enforcing treaty rights, preserving culture, and fulfilling spiritual responsibilities. Media systems capable of reflecting this kind of complexity serve everyone better than those that reduce everything to familiar but inadequate sound bites.

Your mind is more powerful than you think, but it's also more vulnerable to manipulation than most people realize. Understanding how it works is the first step toward using that power more effectively—and making sure others can't use your own psychology against you.

The Psychology of Invisibility: Why Some Missing Women Make Headlines While Others Don't

Here's a disturbing statistic that might surprise you: Indigenous women are murdered at rates 10 times higher than the national average. Yet when you think about missing women cases you've heard about in the news, how many involved Indigenous women?

If you're struggling to remember many—or any—you're not alone. While 51% of white female homicide victims receive newspaper coverage, only 18% of Indigenous women do. This isn't just bad journalism or media bias, though those play a role. Something deeper is happening here, rooted in how our brains actually process and remember information. And once you understand it, you'll never see missing persons coverage the same way again.

Your Brain's Memory Trick

Think about this for a second: when you try to assess how common something is, what does your brain do? It searches through your memory for examples. The easier it is to remember instances of something happening, the more common and important your brain assumes it must be. Can't think of many examples? Your brain concludes it's probably rare and not worth worrying about.

Psychologists call this the "availability heuristic," and it's actually pretty useful most of the time. If you can easily remember several news stories about car accidents on a particular highway, you'll probably drive more carefully on that route. Makes sense, right?

But here's where it gets problematic: what happens when the media consistently covers some types of stories more than others? Your brain starts making judgments based on incomplete information. You're not getting the full picture—you're getting a filtered version that makes some problems seem huge and others nearly invisible.

This is exactly what's happening with missing persons cases. When some disappearances get wall-to-wall coverage while others barely make local news, your brain develops a skewed sense of whose disappearances "typically" generate concern and resources.

Two Women, Two Completely Different Stories

Let me tell you about two young women whose cases perfectly illustrate how this psychological trick plays out in real life.

In September 2021, Gabby Petito went missing during a cross-country road trip with her fiancé. She was 22, white, and had been documenting their travels on Instagram. Within days, her story was everywhere. CNN, Fox News, social media feeds—you couldn't escape it. Her face was on every major network night after night. Even after her body was found, the coverage continued for months. Documentaries were made. Podcasts dissected every detail. Her name became as recognizable as any celebrity's.

Now let me tell you about Ashley Loring HeavyRunner. She was 20, a Blackfoot woman from Montana, and a mother of two young children. She disappeared from her family's ranch four years before Gabby's case, in June 2017. Ashley was working toward her future, contributing to her community, and beloved by her family.

Ashley Loring HeavyRunner

Here's the stark difference: in the first five year after Ashley's disappearance, her case generated fewer than 40 news stories total. Most appeared only in local Montana papers. No major network picked up her story. No viral hashtags. No documentaries. Her sister continues to make people aware, but it is difficult (https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/ashley-loring).

Ashley Loring HeavyRunner

Both women deserved every possible effort to find them. Both families deserved support, answers, and resources. So why the dramatic difference in coverage?

The Unconscious Checklist in Our Heads

The answer lies in how our brains process stories about victims. Whether we realize it or not, we all carry around unconscious mental checklists for what makes a "compelling" victim. These templates have been shaped by decades of media coverage, and they create predictable patterns in what captures our attention.

The "Perfect Victim" Template: Our brains have learned to expect missing persons stories to involve young, white, middle-class women doing "normal" things—going to college, traveling with boyfriends, living what seems like a familiar life. Cases that don't match this template don't trigger the same psychological response that makes stories stick in memory.

The "Fair World" Filter: Here's something uncomfortable to consider: most of us desperately want to believe the world is basically fair. We want to think bad things happen to people who somehow invite trouble or make risky choices. Stories about Indigenous women often reveal uncomfortable truths about random violence, system failures, and historical injustices that make some people more vulnerable through no fault of their own. Our brains sometimes protect us from this discomfort by simply not retaining these stories as well.

The Attribution Game: When we do hear about violence against Indigenous women, there's a tendency to focus on individual circumstances rather than seeing bigger patterns. Instead of recognizing systemic issues like jurisdictional problems or inadequate law enforcement resources, we might unconsciously attribute the violence to personal choices or cultural factors. This makes the stories feel less urgent and less memorable.

The "People Like Me" Factor: Let's be honest—we pay more attention to stories about people who remind us of ourselves or our loved ones. When victims seem different in gender, race, culture, class, or geography, our brains automatically allocate less attention. It's not necessarily conscious prejudice, but it's a psychological reality that systematically favors some stories over others. If the majority of the individuals reading the news or finding out via social media are of a different demographic group, it's harder for them to pay attention.

The Vicious Cycle That Keeps Cases Invisible

Here's where it gets really insidious. These psychological patterns create a self-perpetuating cycle that's hard to break:

Indigenous women's cases don't get prominent coverage → They don't stick in public memory → People don't think violence against Indigenous women is a big problem → Media outlets don't prioritize these stories → Law enforcement feels less public pressure → Investigations get fewer resources → Cases are less likely to be solved → There are fewer "success stories" to report → Even less coverage happens.

Round and round it goes.

This isn't just about hurt feelings or media representation. This cycle has real, devastating consequences. Public attention drives political pressure. Political pressure influences how resources get allocated. Cases that remain invisible to the public don't generate the sustained outcry needed to improve law enforcement response, fix legal gaps, or fund prevention programs.

Think about it: when was the last time you saw a congressional hearing about a missing Indigenous woman? When did you last see protestors demanding answers about unsolved cases? The psychological invisibility directly translates into less political action and fewer resources.

When Cases Do Get Attention: Real Change Happens

But here's the thing—when Indigenous women's cases do receive adequate attention, amazing things can happen. Let me tell you about two women whose stories broke through the cycle and created lasting change.

Hanna Harris was a 21-year-old Northern Cheyenne college student who disappeared in Montana in 2013. Her family refused to let her case fade into obscurity. Their relentless advocacy and the attention they managed to generate led to May 5th being designated as the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls. Hanna's story became a catalyst that opened national conversations about this crisis.

Family at Hanna Harris' grave near Lame Deer on the Cheyenne Reservation

Then there's Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, a 22-year-old Spirit Lake tribal member who was eight months pregnant when she was murdered in North Dakota in 2017. Her case generated enough attention to expose massive coordination problems between different law enforcement agencies. The result? "Savanna's Act," a federal law that improved how agencies work together on missing persons cases involving Indigenous people.

Savannah LaFontaine-Greywind

These stories prove something crucial: when individual cases do receive the attention they deserve, they can expose systemic problems and drive real policy changes. The challenge is making sure more cases get that attention in the first place.

The Legal Maze That Makes Things Worse

There's another layer to this problem that makes Indigenous women's cases particularly vulnerable to being forgotten: the legal system is genuinely complicated when it comes to crimes on tribal lands.

Picture this scenario: a woman goes missing on a reservation. Who investigates—tribal police, county sheriff, state authorities, or the FBI? The answer depends on a complex web of factors including where exactly the crime occurred, whether the victim and perpetrator are tribal members, and what specific laws were broken. Sometimes agencies assume someone else is handling the case. Sometimes crucial evidence gets lost in the handoff between jurisdictions.

Here's a statistic that might shock you: until 2013, tribal courts couldn't even prosecute non-Native men for domestic violence against Native women. Even now, their jurisdiction is limited to specific crimes. Since most violence against Indigenous women is committed by non-Native perpetrators, many cases still fall through legal cracks.

These systemic issues would be front-page news if people understood them better. But because individual Indigenous women's cases don't get sustained coverage, the public never learns about these broader problems that need fixing. It's another way the psychological invisibility creates real-world consequences.

Fighting Back: How to Make Stories Stick

Once you understand how these psychological mechanisms work, you can start to see how to work with them rather than against them. The goal isn't to fight human psychology—it's to get strategic about it.

Tell Stories Multiple Times, Multiple Ways: Instead of relying on a single news report that quickly fades from memory, advocates are learning to create sustained coverage. Anniversary stories, connecting individual cases to broader patterns, using multimedia approaches that engage multiple senses—all of these help build the kind of lasting memory that drives action.

Show the Full Person: The availability heuristic gets stronger when stories have compelling visual elements. Missing persons cases need rich storytelling that shows victims as complete human beings with dreams, talents, and relationships—not just crime scene photos or missing person posters. Social media campaigns that share women's artwork, videos, and everyday moments create the emotional connections that make stories unforgettable.

Build Bridges to Familiar Concerns: Smart advocates are learning to connect Indigenous women's stories to issues that already concern mainstream audiences—domestic violence, rural crime, federal law enforcement problems. This isn't about hiding the unique aspects of these cases; it's about giving people familiar entry points that can lead to deeper understanding.

Control Your Own Story: Indigenous communities are increasingly building their own media platforms—newspapers, podcasts, social media accounts, documentary projects. When you control your own storytelling, you can provide the sustained, contextual coverage that builds lasting memories without depending on mainstream outlets that might not understand your perspective.

Connect Individual Stories to Big Solutions: The most effective advocates understand that memorable individual cases need to be explicitly connected to policy solutions. When people remember a specific woman's story, they're more likely to support legislation or funding that could prevent similar tragedies.

What You Can Do Right Now

Here's the bottom line: the psychological mechanisms that make some missing persons cases forgettable while others become national obsessions aren't set in stone. They're patterns we can understand and strategically address.

You don't have to be an advocate or journalist to make a difference. Every time you share a story about a missing Indigenous woman on social media, you're fighting against the availability heuristic. Every time you ask "whatever happened to that case?" months later, you're creating the sustained attention these stories need. Every time you contact your representatives about funding for tribal law enforcement or support for victims' families, you're translating psychological attention into political action. Share news about support for indigenous crime victims (see the story of Oklahoma's Ida Beard: https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/crimefeed/missing/oklahoma-tribal-citizens-disappearance-leads-to-law-in-support-of-indigenous-crime-victims).

The goal isn't to reduce attention to any victim—every missing person deserves maximum effort to bring them home safely. But we can work toward a world where psychological and systemic barriers don't prevent some families from getting the support that every family deserves when their loved ones disappear.

Next time you see a missing persons case in the news, ask yourself: Will I remember this story in a month? What would make it stick in my memory? And if it's already starting to fade, what can I do to keep it alive?

Because somewhere, a family is desperately hoping that their missing daughter, sister, mother, or aunt won't become just another statistic that disappears from public consciousness. Understanding the psychology of attention is the first step toward making sure that doesn't happen.