Does advertising erode free will?

[geekdad]

And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it.

Genetics, upbringing, relationships with friends, chance happenings with, interactions with others, current mood, and even little things like what you ate today and the amount of EMF you are experiencing this second all contributed in you hating me.

[Epimetheus]

I agree that we shouldn't use the term "free will," but changing it to "making good choices" I don't see that there's any question. Of course advertising affects choicemaking. That's the point. 

And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it.

You fool! Advertising made him not believe in it!

[Don Coyote]

I agree that we shouldn't use the term "free will," but changing it to "making good choices" I don't see that there's any question. Of course advertising affects choicemaking. That's the point. 

You fool! Advertising made him not believe in it!

I did nothing, he is choosing to not believe and seek rational reasoning for my behavior.

[Jasper]

I only raised that issue to avoid the exact argument that you guys are trying to have.

What is more interesting and relevant ITT is to what degree various marketing techniques affect the likelihood of certain behaviors, whether it is feasible to subvert their influence on a massive scale.

At least. that's what would interest me about this subject.  Does anybody know more about that, or have any ideas how to do it?

[Epimetheus]

I only raised that issue to avoid the exact argument that you guys are trying to have.

What is more interesting and relevant ITT is to what degree various marketing techniques affect the likelihood of certain behaviors, whether it is feasible to subvert their influence on a massive scale.

At least. that's what would interest me about this subject.  Does anybody know more about that, or have any ideas how to do it?

Counter-advertising? O:M? Simply helping people to realize how they're manipulated?
i
If you're talking instant massive subversion, no, I don't think it's possible...I would love for someone to argue that though.

[Jasper]

I think it would require scholastic implementation and decades of time to reverse, but it would be worth the scant millions of dollars to have a populace that was more prepared to face the threat of semiotic warfare.

[geekdad]

I only raised that issue to avoid the exact argument that you guys are trying to have.

What is more interesting and relevant ITT is to what degree various marketing techniques affect the likelihood of certain behaviors, whether it is feasible to subvert their influence on a massive scale.

At least. that's what would interest me about this subject.  Does anybody know more about that, or have any ideas how to do it?

To me this is easy by thought out, researched, effective counter marketing. There are tons of free ways to market, many of which Discordian use. Problem is they are free for a reason (you usually get what you pay for).

Adbusters has seen limited sucesses. The Yes Men have had limited successes. Billionaires for Wealthcare hasn't seen much sucess.

It's "money vs. funny" and money can buy funny, so what does that leave funny?

Edit:

Actually I'd say that some traditional comedians have been pretty influential, but not on a wide enough scope or long enough timeline. Stewart/Colbert are getting close I'd say, maybe Patton Oswald and Ricky Gervais too.`

[Jasper]

I don't see that it's a question of money.

The wealthy will always have access to intensely more powerful means of advertisement and publication.  That's not what needs to be fought. 

What needs to be fought is their ability use advertising tricks that minimize good decisions.  Most of those tricks require the viewer to be unaware of them. so it would make sense to try to institutionalize a curriculum of critically reviewing advertisements.  I had a teacher in high school who taught that to a small degree, and it was almost enough on its' own to make my mind proof against prime time television.

[geekdad]

I don't see that it's a question of money.

The wealthy will always have access to intensely more powerful means of advertisement and publication.  That's not what needs to be fought. 

What needs to be fought is their ability use advertising tricks that minimize good decisions.  Most of those tricks require the viewer to be unaware of them. so it would make sense to try to institutionalize a curriculum of critically reviewing advertisements.  I had a teacher in high school who taught that to a small degree, and it was almost enough on its' own to make my mind proof against prime time television.

The meme I have always gone by to do this is watch a commercial see how cool and neat everything looks, then think this question; "Where is the loophole?"

Meaning, what is the commercial lying to you about? It's always there, it might be easy or hard to spot. It might also be said outright ("Car shown with options.", "Some assembly required") or it might be hidden in the fine print at the end. Remember though that it's lying to you, and it's your job to find that lie.

[Jasper]

My general rule is even harsher:  "Whatever I'm seeing is completely fatuous on multiple levels.  Purge as much of the memory as possible."

[The Johnny]

I only raised that issue to avoid the exact argument that you guys are trying to have.

What is more interesting and relevant ITT is to what degree various marketing techniques affect the likelihood of certain behaviors, whether it is feasible to subvert their influence on a massive scale.

At least. that's what would interest me about this subject.  Does anybody know more about that, or have any ideas how to do it?

Education.

Good luck getting schools to teach critical thinking skills do.

[Jasper]

Some already do, after a fashion.  They just don't include rational decision theory, cognitive science, or social psychology.  I think a bit of each of those are crucial for the ability to understand the logical actual best choice, how your brain might be deceiving you, and how the situation might be altering your behavioral patterns.

[The Johnny]

I don't see that it's a question of money.

The wealthy will always have access to intensely more powerful means of advertisement and publication.  That's not what needs to be fought. 

What needs to be fought is their ability use advertising tricks that minimize good decisions.  Most of those tricks require the viewer to be unaware of them. so it would make sense to try to institutionalize a curriculum of critically reviewing advertisements.  I had a teacher in high school who taught that to a small degree, and it was almost enough on its' own to make my mind proof against prime time television.

Power is the final thing that the wealthy have, and their power is institutionalized; you cant get rid of advertising.

And power is what keeps people from getting curriculums more integrated with critical thinking skills too, so there.

[Jasper]

  "so there"


You seem pretty invested in this being a problem we can't address.

[The Johnny]

Some already do, after a fashion.  They just don't include rational decision theory, cognitive science, or social psychology.  I think a bit of each of those are crucial for the ability to understand the logical actual best choice, how your brain might be deceiving you, and how the situation might be altering your behavioral patterns.

Well, im not sure myself what kind of things one must know to be able to know whats going on in an advertisement... tvtropes might be a good start  ... for sure people need to know about symbolism and human drives.