from http://mindhacks.com/2006/03/02/does-advertising-erode-free-will/ --- there are hyperlinks in the original article I haven't reproduced here.
Ah...now here's the nub of the argument: advertisements erode free will, they are manipulations designed to subvert conscious judgement (I paraphrase Clay Shirky at Edge.org). Shirky mentions one particular judgement bias, that of super-sizing, but the general form of bias should be familiar to anyone who has been reading Mind Hacks, and/or my recent posts about avertising (like this one). Quoting Shirky:
Consider the phenomenon of 'super-sizing', where a restaurant patron is offered the chance to increase the portion size of their meal for some small amount of money. This presents a curious problem for the concept of free will ,the patron has already made a calculation about the amount of money they are willing to pay in return for a particular amount of food. However, when the question is re-asked, not "Would you pay $5.79 for this total amount of food?" but "Would you pay an additional 30 cents for more french fries?" patrons often say yes, despite having answered "No" moments before to an economically identical question. Super-sizing is expressly designed to subvert conscious judgment, and it works.
Shirky believes this is much more serious than just unfair advertising.
Our legal, political, and economic systems, the mechanisms that run modern society, all assume that people are uniformly capable of consciously modulating their behaviors...[These] days are now ending, and everyone from advertisers to political consultants increasingly understands, in voluminous biological detail, how to manipulate consciousness in ways that weaken our notion of free will.
In the coming decades, our concept of free will, based as it is on ignorance of its actual mechanisms, will be destroyed by what we learn about the actual workings of the brain
Previously I argued that creating changes in people's behaviour didn't necessarily mean that people were being coerced, or that their will was being taken away from them. The demonstration of influences on behaviour doesn't knock down any strong version of free will – the kind of free will which is entirely unaffected by anything else doesn't seem like a variety of free will worth wanting.
People faced a similar dilemma in the nineteenth century when statistics were first compiled of suicides. If we can predict from census records that the number of suicides in a parish in a year will be around seven, where does that leave the free will of those who 'choose' to kill themselves that year? Are you taking away the freedom of the seven people who now have to die to fulfill your prediction? (Philip Ball discusses the science and philosophy of this in his book, Critical Mass). Most people, now, would probably be happy to say that just calculating the statistic doesn't effect anything. But with the case of interventions – either marketing strategies or psychology experiments – which have the explicit purpose of changing behaviour, it isn't so clear that we can happily say that individual freedom isn't being unfairly manipulated. Cialdini's point about suicide contaigon makes me worry that there is no clear line between persuasion and coercion, between biasing people's judgements in small ways, over unimportant decisions, and fundamentally changing the way people make decisions about some of the most important things in life.
I'm happy to throw my hands up at this point and say I've no idea what the right way to resolve this is. Free will seems to dissolve as you draw away from it – as an individual I don't feel manipulated, but when i look at other people – especially groups of other people, it seems like I can see manipulation going on. Has anyone got any useful conceptual structures I can borrow to see me through this?
I would posit that the majority of humans already behave on a less-than-fully-conscious level most of the time anyway, running off of previously established programs; so much so that a convincing argument could be made that they were not employing free will in the first place.
So, it's simply an argument over which pre-established program is considered more beneficial.
Honestly? I'm kind of glad.
Wait wait wait let me qualify that.
I'm tired of human behavior being held to a standard of perfect rational agency. We aren't perfect rational agents. We do things that run counter to our interests ALL THE TIME, and the only way to avoid it even a little bit is by learning some god damned cognitive science and rational decision theory.
Maybe if this scares enough people, there will be more cogsci and decision theory in schools.
That would be good.
:. I am glad.
Even tho' i would also say that "free will" isnt free at all as it is... yes, advertising does erode simple and unaware mind's capacity of choice.
Advertising targets certain hopes and aspirations that are common in a % of all of us, and i personally think that if one doesnt have the meta ability to see beyond the advertisement itself, but to see what its trying to sell, and what it evokes in us and why... if one cant figure that out, then we're prey... im sure most here can discern such things, but not everyone in the world is aware nor educated.
Also, as an interesting experiment, ask yourself this:
Does advertising promote free will?
:lol:
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 23, 2010, 09:25:42 PM
Also, as an interesting experiment, ask yourself this:
Does advertising promote free will?
:lol:
Good one. I suppose it does when it makes me aware of choices I didn't know I had.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 23, 2010, 08:51:18 PM
I would posit that the majority of humans already behave on a less-than-fully-conscious level most of the time anyway, running off of previously established programs; so much so that a convincing argument could be made that they were not employing free will in the first place.
So, it's simply an argument over which pre-established program is considered more beneficial.
I'm with LMNO on this one. We can't assume that "free will" is a constantly running in the background and lets us always directly influence the decisions we make. Most of the time, we default back to our 'biases' and imprinted reflexes, and it takes real effort (and mental trickery) in order to short-circuit those bias-> desire-> acquisition-> bias-reinforcement //OR// bias-> disgust-> avoidance ->bias-reinforcement feedback loops.
If one person says "No, thank you." to the Supersize question... would that suddenly prove Free Will? Or, would we look more deeply and say "Oh, this person was taught by his parents to be very thrifty and never accept an up-sell..." thus meaning it wasn't free will, but him following existing programming?
I think the idea that advertising subverts free will is a bit reaching. It utilizes Free Will, it forces the customer to either consider carefully, OR to make a snap decision. Neither are subverting the free will of the individual... though it may be exploiting the greedy or gluttonous programming of the individual. To consider asking the question "Would you like to SuperSize it?" to be some kind of unfair advertising is absurd to me. If Americans are, at this point, so greedy, gluttonous, or stupid that they are unable to say 'no', then it has precious little to do with Free Will and a hell of a lot to do with our society. Everyone is manipulated, everyone manipulates. Is PosterGASM not manipulation? Pranks? Of course they are. The aim may be more altrusitic than the french fry pushers, but its still manipulation.
"HEY YOU, THINK FOR YOURSELF!"
"HEY YOU, STOP FOLLOWING THE HERD"
"HEY YOU, BUY MORE FRIES"
Manipulation doesn't negate Free Will, its part of the equation. People have the capability to say "No, I do not want more greasy starch and sugar water for 39 cents more." Hell, people have the capability to say "Holy Fuck, there is a STOVE IN MY HOUSE!!! OH MY GOD WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, THERE IS ALSO A FRIDGE!!!" But they choose not to. They choose to go get food from a weird un-aging clown that hangs out far too often with little kids, a criminal, small animate mops and a large purple blob thing. They choose to do that because they choose to spend more time doing X rather than cooking.
Everything is a choice. Free Will doesn't mean that you make those choices in a vacuum, it means that you have the ability to make the choice whether you use that ability or not. Interactive Processes... causes and effects... we never decide in a vacuum, we never make a decision completely unfettered by outside influences. However, that doesn't mean we have no Free Will... it means we live in a dynamic universe that has billions and billions of interactive processes which provide the reality where we make our decisions. Will those processes affect our decisions? Of course! And the more we study how processes interact, we end up with smart people that understand HOW to get the processes to interact in a way that favors them.
But hell, that's what religion, government and gambling have been doing since the beginning of civilization.
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 23, 2010, 10:00:36 PM
People have the capability to say "No, I do not want more greasy starch and sugar water for 39 cents more." Hell, people have the capability to say "Holy Fuck, there is a STOVE IN MY HOUSE!!! OH MY GOD WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, THERE IS ALSO A FRIDGE!!!" But they choose not to.
This is the part I disagree with. Saying "he chose to" when referring to a guy who sits down and considers getting a vasectomy for a month and then decides to go through with it, and saying "he chose to" when some other guy makes a snap decision to Super-Size his combo meal, and then equivocating one with the other (by invoking "well, they both had 'free will', so they both must have used it to make that choice"), seems like further muddling the model, not clarifying it.
We, as human, make snap decisions and then retroactively rationalize it to ourselves (see prev marketing posts from Cram, this is an accepted 'fact' in marketing). We also (very, very, very rarely) try to look at a situation from an abstract/objective point-of-view, and balance all of the factors before making a decision.
Here's what I think....
Most people don't have the Willpower to use their Free Will.
I think "Free Will" should be eschewed in favor of "making good choices". It is less likely to start a long, meaningless debate.
maybe it's like this
an individual is an agent for numerous competing memetic structures
a whole ecosystem of ideas
big fish gobbling up little fish
some of them are internal, some of them are external
when they ask you if you want a large for 40 cents more it's releasing a little eel into the decision pool
so protect yo neck
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 23, 2010, 10:23:58 PM
I think "Free Will" should be eschewed in favor of "making good choices". It is less likely to start a long, meaningless debate.
THIS PLEASE
Quote from: Cramulus on November 24, 2010, 12:11:10 AM
maybe it's like this
an individual is an agent for numerous competing memetic structures
a whole ecosystem of ideas
big fish gobbling up little fish
some of them are internal, some of them are external
when they ask you if you want a large for 40 cents more it's releasing a little eel into the decision pool
so protect yo neck
In a different language, id say its competing impulses, and its usually the more primitive ones that are appealed to with advertising...
Say, 40 cents for more food isnt much, so its easy to get hooked to it... the question is... am i even hungry for more, or am i just gonna cram it (sic) down after i realize i didnt want that much?
And the 40 cent works, because in the American society "more is better"(no matter what it is, or what its for) as a fucking madness mantra...
Or tell me
dude do you not want MOAR chicks? Or you some sort of fag? Buy AXE deodorant.
Or you (throphy wife)
lady dont you wish you were young forever so that guys slobber over you for as long as possible and so you can feel fulfilled with all the attention? Or do you want to die alone and wrinkly? Buy AVON aloe vera creme.
ad nauseum
but its not just the gut primitive instincts what it appeals to, its about hopes and aspirations too - and thats why advertisement only works to cheat people out of their money and not any useful cause, its pure manipulation. (this could be argued for all visual media, but not as an absolute)
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 24, 2010, 12:27:45 AM
THIS PLEASE
seconding
Some of us don't believe in "free will".
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 05:11:52 AM
seconding
Some of us don't believe in "free will".
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 24, 2010, 05:19:28 AM
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
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.
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. :?
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 24, 2010, 05:19:28 AM
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
You fool! Advertising made him not believe in it!
:tinfoilhat:
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 24, 2010, 06:11:31 AM
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!
:tinfoilhat:
I did nothing, he is choosing to not believe and seek rational reasoning for my behavior.
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?
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 06:51:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 06:51:42 AM
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.`
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:22:49 AM
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.
My general rule is even harsher: "Whatever I'm seeing is completely fatuous on multiple levels. Purge as much of the memory as possible."
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 06:51:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:22:49 AM
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.
:lol: "so there"
You seem pretty invested in this being a problem we can't address.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:43:01 AM
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 :lol:... for sure people need to know about symbolism and human drives.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:44:45 AM
:lol: "so there"
You seem pretty invested in this being a problem we can't address.
It
is my positioning that it cannot be addressed on a wide scale. I think that powerful figures in goverment supporting this would be essential. Now on an "change the world one person at a time" scheme, it can be easier, but not less full of effort.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on November 24, 2010, 07:45:32 AM
Well, im not sure myself what kind of things one must know to be able to know whats going on in an advertisement...
That's where we differ. I am more sure.
The OP mentions advertisements that are crafted to influence your behavior without your consent. These are actual techniques that work, and are definable. They work much less effectively on people who are aware of them.
I am suggesting we teach them in schools, probably at a staggered pace throughout the education process.
I am also suggesting that if we can spread a bit of concern about unfairly powerful advertising, we can drum up political support for such a program.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 24, 2010, 07:32:25 AM
My general rule is even harsher: "Whatever I'm seeing is completely fatuous on multiple levels. Purge as much of the memory as possible."
Well it's the same meme seed. KISS
I don't see it impossible having critical thinking in schools, and presently, our models of what we're meant to be doing, locally, include embedding critical thinking into our lessons.
I think probably there's less value in the symbolism ideas though, we don't want kids to de-construct ads as much as develop some appreciation of their power, and understanding of why they have it.
Also, can't see any good coming from 'too powerful advertising' campaigns' thing, people always seem to go with 'ads are too powerful... FOR ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE!!! SUCKERS!!'
On the Adbusters note, I know that Ron English (at least by his own admission) helped kill the 'Baby Camel' advertising campaigns. And various campaigns have done damage to Nike etc. So there's some power in 'Subvertising' but certainly, when you fight on your enemy's turf, they have the advantage.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 24, 2010, 11:12:41 AM
So there's some power in 'Subvertising' but certainly, when you fight on your enemy's turf, they have the advantage.
I don't consider that 'their turf" though. It's anybody's. To me one of the big things about Discordia is that much of it is Kopyleft, that is just free advertising. Kopyleft ensures that information continues (as long as the idea can keep one person infected or a carrier), no matter what.
Any operation (gasm, membombs, or whatever) that involves telling the public about discordian principles/ideals... that is advertisment.
Nothing bad or good about it. It's just a tool that can be used.
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 11:33:35 AM
I don't consider that 'their turf" though. It's anybody's. To me one of the big things about Discordia is that much of it is Kopyleft, that is just free advertising. Kopyleft ensures that information continues (as long as the idea can keep one person infected or a carrier), no matter what.
Any operation (gasm, membombs, or whatever) that involves telling the public about discordian principles/ideals... that is advertisment.
Nothing bad or good about it. It's just a tool that can be used.
I mean that in the sense that it's their skill.
I don't think that swordfighting 'belongs' to the musketeers. But when I'm facing D'Argantan, I'd want to be armed with LAZERS.
There's a lot of ways Adverstising/Subvertising can be used by anyone. But the companies ARE the experts, and depending on your aim, using the methods they've perfected is probably not the most effective use of your time.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 24, 2010, 11:56:46 AM
I don't think that swordfighting 'belongs' to the musketeers. But when I'm facing D'Argantan, I'd want to be armed with LAZERS.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am not frequently. I'll expand the scope of what I meant.
I'm saying, advertisments
are the LAZERS in the swordfight of idea/meme/data virus competition. Particularly TV commercials... Those fleeting, loud, attention grabbing media assaults, containing more information then many people can digest at one time, professionally constructed to break down the individual's psychic defenses, you know, those. The only thing better that I can think of is 1 to 1 evangelizing (which can technically be considered advertising).
And, yea... http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/72.php
I personally think we should be advertising, Discordians aren't really known for their mad "make it rain daddy" cash though.
Quote from: Telarus on November 23, 2010, 10:18:43 PM
This is the part I disagree with. Saying "he chose to" when referring to a guy who sits down and considers getting a vasectomy for a month and then decides to go through with it, and saying "he chose to" when some other guy makes a snap decision to Super-Size his combo meal, and then equivocating one with the other (by invoking "well, they both had 'free will', so they both must have used it to make that choice"), seems like further muddling the model, not clarifying it.
Only if we consider 'choosing' as some kind of magic that happens in a vacuum. If I am at the McDonalds drive through, there are a whole host of choices I've made to get there. If I've eaten there before, then I probably know they are gonna ask if I want to SuperSize whatever meal I get (discovery, apparently they don't do that anymore). Interactive Processes. Causes and Effects.
Quote
We, as human, make snap decisions and then retroactively rationalize it to ourselves (see prev marketing posts from Cram, this is an accepted 'fact' in marketing). We also (very, very, very rarely) try to look at a situation from an abstract/objective point-of-view, and balance all of the factors before making a decision.
I think that is true. However, making snap decisions isn't necessarily an abrogation of Free Will. If anything its an exploitation of a human tendency. They still have the free will to say no, but if they're on autopilot, then they probably make a snap decision.
Quote
Here's what I think....
Most people don't have the Willpower to use their Free Will.
THAT IS MITTENS AND YUM! I agree 100%
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 07:28:20 AM
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.
I Name Fnords when I see them (and if my girl is around, we tend to dissect them). We've gotten the 11yr old in the habit as well (he doesn't quite get the term 'fnord' yet, no surprise, but he can catch a few of them on TV if he knows that they're fnords).
The simple fact that you have this reflex (which you try to apply evenly) puts you apart from.. oh, probably 80% of the general media consuming public. :x
Quote from: Telarus on November 24, 2010, 06:39:35 PM
I Name Fnords when I see them (and if my girl is around, we tend to dissect them). We've gotten the 11yr old in the habit as well (he doesn't quite get the term 'fnord' yet, no surprise, but he can catch a few of them on TV if he knows that they're fnords).
The simple fact that you have this reflex (which you try to apply evenly) puts you apart from.. oh, probably 80% of the general media consuming public. :x
I think I'm saying here that the reflex is a meme that can and will get lodged into people's heads. I did not have it until I read it somewhere.
Do you really have to call it a "meme"?
Has anyone ITT watched The Century of the Self? It's a 4 part, BBC made documentary entirely about the link between advertising, coercion, psychoanalysis and free will.
I would say advertising is certainly designed to erode free will. That is, after all, the point. Most of what is being sold today, or at least sold with an advertising budget behind it, are not necessary items. Therefore status association, lifestylism, appeals to a persons sense of self etc etc are necessarily implied in this process. The use of psychoanalysis and focus groups in the 50s did have considerable success in helping to sell certain goods not based necessarily on their own merits, but through these kind of appeals.
However, they're not entirely successful because the understanding of the human mind is not entirely successful. Especially when you are aware of the tactics being deployed to convince you, their impact is much lower than it would otherwise be.
In fact, The Century of the Self posits that the psychoanalytic approach (which was part of a broader psychoanalytic approach to social planning in the 50s and early sixties) was purposefully supplanted by the Neo-Reichian/New Left method of "liberating the desires" and then allowing those inflamed desires to feed back into consumption. Whether that suggests a problem with the Neo-Reichian approach or with humans in general remains to be seen.
Im reading a book called "The manipulation era" by Wilson Bryan Key which in fact deals with all of this publicity manners.
If you guys wish to join along for a Book Club sort of thing it would be nice, otherwise i can just give my impressions of it on the Literate subforum.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 24, 2010, 06:55:41 PM
Do you really have to call it a "meme"?
:|
I don't see any problem as in this context he means something else than "internet catch-phrase / fad", which is the overused meaning of the word.
Let's not have this discussion okay? If this becomes
yet another thread derailed into bitching about the word "meme", I'm gonna hold you responsible, not Geekdad for using it first.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 25, 2010, 09:32:23 AM
:|
I don't see any problem as in this context he means something else than "internet catch-phrase / fad", which is the overused meaning of the word.
Let's not have this discussion okay? If this becomes yet another thread derailed into bitching about the word "meme", I'm gonna hold you responsible, not Geekdad for using it first.
<3
I didn't see that question. I would address it but as you warn against prior experience of thread derailment, I won't.
:mrgreen:
I started a discussion at Literate Chaotic regarding Wilson Bryan Key's book "The Age of Manipulation: The Con in Confidence, The Sin in Sincere":
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27503.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27503.0)
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 12:39:36 PM
I personally think we should be advertising
Advertising...
What,
and How.
Quote from: Subetai on November 24, 2010, 08:31:16 PM
Has anyone ITT watched The Century of the Self? It's a 4 part, BBC made documentary entirely about the link between advertising, coercion, psychoanalysis and free will.
Sounds like required material for a thread like this. I'll see if I can acquire it.
It should be freely available on Youtube.
I believe I watched it on Google Video: http://www.google.com/search?q=century+of+the+self&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&source=vgc
edit: what Subetai said
If it's as good as it sounds, I'll want a copy. I'll have watched it by tonight, after the big dinner.
I think if you want to go the education route the first step is forming an itemized list of exactly what needs to be educated. Because, frankly, I think we're all using our own personal methods for handling "will combat" (if you will allow that metaphor) and none of us have a general idea of methods.
It's sort of like the book that says "This is bad; you should do something!" and never provides concrete and useful input on how to easily and successfully DO something.
I always find it funny how I meet people who think and claim they're not affected by advertising, yet when I look around their house and what they are wearing, it's all brands that are on tv/that they are familiar with. If I question why they have those certain things, the usual response is along the lines of "Oh, I just like that brand".
When I point out there are cheaper, similar products around they tell me they were unaware of them, or that they're not familiar with and just assume they're inferior products when really its the same if not better.
No, no ones manipulating you, you *know* what brands you like, of course you came to that decision yourself. :wink:
But yeah, I would take it as so far as to say, if anyone can *admit* they are affected by advertising, those would be the people who are the most aware of it, and paradoxically, are the ones that are most likely the least affected by advertising.
Bingo.
I think the common focus for any good method here is to focus on being aware of, and appreciating, how effective advertising is. You can't combat it without knowing, through experience, that advertising is borderline mind control. You can't fight a war you aren't aware of.
Here is how I go about it:
- I don't watch TV, listen to the radio and have adblock on my laptop. Minimizes the input in the first place.
- If I want to watch a TV program (that I already know I like), I download it online or (if I don't already watch it) rely on my own curiousity or recommendations from friends + a background reading on the premise for the series, though I am fully aware that many websites, especially ones that anyone can edit, will likely have PR people writing entries for their product, and then download it. Bandwidth is cheap, after all.
- Again with music, I browse at random and download tracks and, to an extent, rely on recommendations from friends.
- I maintain an awareness that peer pressure and viral advertising are also methods used, and try not to place too much stock in friend recommendations on their own. I must actually like the product.
- If I'm somewhere I cannot avoid advertising, I practice a mental exercise, imagining how this advert was developed, looking for the methods of association with status or certain high value identities the products purport to give a person. Mentally deconstructing the advert does a lot to lessen the effect.
- I keep in mind that, realistically, I don't honestly need that much. My brush with poverty has reinforced this belief, to the point that I automatically look for cheaper and more robust alternatives whenever possible, and am willing to cut my losses and go without if this is not to my liking.
- When buying expensive goods, I will try and find customer review websites where checks are in place to make sure the customer has bought the item before they can review it (otherwise, like websites anyone can edit, they are open to abuse by PR writers) and base my choice on the reviews available.
If I'm somewhere I cannot avoid advertising, I censure the advertisement by projecting a black blot over the ad. This has two detrimental effects: 1. I am slightly less aware of traffic coming from that direction; and 2. I have a bit of trouble paying attention to black things and people.
(http://www.ep.tc/problems/seven/thats_racist.gif)
I deal with advertising by not having any money. However effective as an advert is, I still can't act upon it.
As an advertiser, I've learned that the most fundamental factor in advertising is simply name recognition. It's related to the fame complex. If people have heard of your product, they will buy it simply because it's "familiar", much as an actor becomes "famous" purely by being recognized. It's incredibly simple, and not that hard to manipulate... the caveat being that you have to have money, time, or connections in order to get your name out there.
Quote from: Subetai on November 26, 2010, 08:42:13 AM
Here is how I go about it:
- I don't watch TV, listen to the radio and have adblock on my laptop. Minimizes the input in the first place.
- If I want to watch a TV program (that I already know I like), I download it online or (if I don't already watch it) rely on my own curiousity or recommendations from friends + a background reading on the premise for the series, though I am fully aware that many websites, especially ones that anyone can edit, will likely have PR people writing entries for their product, and then download it. Bandwidth is cheap, after all.
- Again with music, I browse at random and download tracks and, to an extent, rely on recommendations from friends.
- I maintain an awareness that peer pressure and viral advertising are also methods used, and try not to place too much stock in friend recommendations on their own. I must actually like the product.
- If I'm somewhere I cannot avoid advertising, I practice a mental exercise, imagining how this advert was developed, looking for the methods of association with status or certain high value identities the products purport to give a person. Mentally deconstructing the advert does a lot to lessen the effect.
- I keep in mind that, realistically, I don't honestly need that much. My brush with poverty has reinforced this belief, to the point that I automatically look for cheaper and more robust alternatives whenever possible, and am willing to cut my losses and go without if this is not to my liking.
- When buying expensive goods, I will try and find customer review websites where checks are in place to make sure the customer has bought the item before they can review it (otherwise, like websites anyone can edit, they are open to abuse by PR writers) and base my choice on the reviews available.
:mittens:
Quote from: BDS on November 26, 2010, 11:39:03 AM
I deal with advertising by not having any money. However effective as an advert is, I still can't act upon it.
:lulz:
I have talked before about re-branding for self-awareness.
Sometimes when I'm hangin out or whatever, talking about random shit and my wife expresses her particular appreciation for something, she'll mention, "I'm loving it" which, quite obviously, comes from the McDonalds campaign. She knows she's doing it but doesn't really give a fuck :lulz: .
What was interesting to me is the idea of taking these established symbols (logos), slogans, jingles, etc and attach to them an alternate meaning in addition to what they're currently used.
So say I'm trying to change a particular pattern of behavior. One thing I've been working on is becoming more mindful. So what I might do is take some of the more popular symbols like the McDonalds logo, Wal-Mart (and so on) and use them as a reminder of my goal of being more mindful.
It's like subverting the subversion.
I figure it's like acknowledging the mainstream as the primary point of reference, turning it into a tool and using it for my own work on myself.
It seems to me only a matter of picking out the fnords, taking a moment to re-conceptualize the symbols and applying them in various ways.
Even consider using them as a memory loci system. Pick out say 10 different companies and overlay each of their unique symbols in separate room in a familiar house. Then attach various additional memories, PERSONAL symbols, reminders, whatever to each room as well.
The ads come in randomly...some more frequently than others so that's something else to consider when picking out companies. KNOW YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC.
Just an idea
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 06:09:03 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 24, 2010, 05:19:28 AM
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
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.
Maybe if you're a robot. I'm a person.
And people are more than just a collection of memes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 06:09:03 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 24, 2010, 05:19:28 AM
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
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.
Maybe if you're a robot. I'm a person.
And people are more than just a collection of memes.
Yep.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: geekdad on November 24, 2010, 06:09:03 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on November 24, 2010, 05:19:28 AM
And we accept your choice to freely not believe in it. :lulz:
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.
Maybe if you're a robot. I'm a person.
And people are more than just a collection of memes.
Wasn't geekdad that guy I hated simply because he was a LARPer?
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 07, 2011, 08:25:58 PM
Wasn't geekdad that guy I hated simply because he was a LARPer?
Arguably, he had no choice. :lulz: