It seems counterintuitive that a group of activists would advocate against their own interests, yet the tea party is working to dismantle net neutrality. Net neutrality is an internet policy enforced by the FCC that works to prevent powers such as corporations from filtering out certain internet media based on their own interests, which ensures that the little guy can have his voice heard, such as a relatively small political party, even if it’s something that Exxonmobil might not want people to hear. The tea party explains their position by equating net neutrality with marxism, that it’s just tyrannical governmental control over the media. This counterintuitive position can most likely be explained by the actions of the Institute of Liberty, a conservative group that often works hand in hand with corporations while insisting that they wish to help small businesses. They have worked with the tea party to promote certain issues that pertain to executive america, such as reducing pesticide restrictions for Monsanto. It seems as though the tea party’s lack of understanding of what marxism is has led to susceptibility of being persuaded that any slightly restrictive governmental policy is “marxist” and therefore bad, allowing for conservative interests such as the Institute of Liberty to take advantage of them by reaffirming their ignorance.

It seems counterintuitive that a company that gives away a product to a poorer country every time you buy a product may not be helping all that much, and in fact may be doing some harm. Tom’s is a company predicated on that idea; they give a shoe when they sell a shoe. Other companies follow a similar model, but it may not be very effective, as argued by aid effectiveness expert Greg Adams. It can affect the market surrounding the donated product; organizations donated a great surplus of rice to Indonesia after a flood in 2006, which negatively affected the rice markets there, and wasn’t needed since the flood did not affect the inland as much. What seems to be a more practical solution is to work within the community to help the people be able to help themselves, rather than just give them a flood of random products. An example of this is Warby Parker, who provides kids with foods from local places, rather than shipped overseas.

It seems counterintuitive that taking some extra vitamins for your health can actually be damaging. Big vitamin tries to convince people that you can’t get enough vitamins from just the food you eat, but studies have connected excessive folic acid and slightly increased risk of heart disease with an excess of vitamins. They have also been shown to not protect against any of the things they claim to. Also, the FDA doesn’t regulate the labels on vitamin supplements, which have been shown to be wrong sometimes. Health officials recommend vitamin supplements really only to certain people in certain cases, such as pregnant women or the elderly, not to the everyday person.