Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.
I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?
Here's a start- you can also tailor the search to be more in line with the debate.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychological+effects+of+advertising&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C22&as_sdtp=on
Also, for general principles,
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias
and
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Overcoming_Bias
(BTW this is the sort of thread you could also put in TFYS, if you want to give that old subforum some traffic)
Some things by Naomi Klein perhaps? Although No Logo is more about the rise of the "Brand" than the dangers of advertising. But she also wrote other stuff.
His argument of questioning your authority on the subject is not strictly a Straw Man fallacy, by the way. Somebody fill me in on what exactly it falls under, though.
Yet, if he keeps making fallacious arguments, why don't you go straight for the jugular and:
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9714/glennbeckq.jpg)
Because that guy was totally an authority on advertising.
It seems that the "questioning your authority" is more like a :cn: thing, but used as an offensive tactic.
In a way, he's asking for an Appeal to Authority. The counter to this is a version of "even if the biggest idiot says the sun is shining, that doesn't make it dark out."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 08, 2011, 04:07:03 PM
It seems that the "questioning your authority" is more like a :cn: thing, but used as an offensive tactic.
In a way, he's asking for an Appeal to Authority. The counter to this is a version of "even if the biggest idiot says the sun is shining, that doesn't make it dark out."
I actually tried that. Not that exact example, but the same premise. He either didn't get it, or refused to get it. At what point (if ever), after all reasonable attempts are made, is it okay to just punch him in the face?
So long as you're wearing your "TFYS" rings, any time past the third attempt.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 08, 2011, 04:28:46 PM
So long as you're wearing your "TFYS" rings, any time past the third attempt.
Funny, I've never heard 'em called that before...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q2aa8Vt9TTo/Ta-9RBjW_HI/AAAAAAAAAZI/LkCYQ8kfEKc/s1600/knuckles+brass+60033.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 08, 2011, 04:28:46 PM
So long as you're wearing your "TFYS" rings, any time past the third attempt.
Yes, what LMNO.
In other regards, I would suggest have him watch
How TV Ruined Your Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_TV_Ruined_Your_Life), in particular, episode 3 "Aspiration". While it's not specifically about advertising, it is about the psychological manipulation in television altogether, so it may be of some use. The other episodes are less applicable to the current debate, but I would highly recommend the entire series to anyone and everyone. This is, of course, in addition everything suggested ITT, and after you punch him in the face.
Here's a paper that speaks to the effects of alcohol advertising on underage drinking. Not sure if this was the kind of advertising you were talking about but it definitely lays out a good case for how advertising effects adolescent behavior.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/a/alcoholadvertising.html
If you want more of this kind of thing let me know, I'm sure I can find other links/papers.
Quote from: Dimocritus on November 08, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.
I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?
I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.
I refer you to Cain's
Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/71454024/Intermittens-The-Fail-Whale-Apocalypse-and-Other-Stories))
Arguing Rarely Persuades People
More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism. If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words. From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from
Culture Jam or
Adbusters.
Get specific ads in his house, give him magazines, etc.
Pick a product he now harldy buys and start pushing him over the edge with lots and lots of advertisement.
Place relevant ads all through your emails to him.
send him links to youtube movies of ads for the relevant product.
etc.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 09, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.
I refer you to Cain's Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/71454024/Intermittens-The-Fail-Whale-Apocalypse-and-Other-Stories))
Arguing Rarely Persuades People
More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism. If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words.
From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from Culture Jam or Adbusters.
Yes, you need to be careful about these things, see this for more info (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/) (I can't remember if I was linked to this from here or not, so sorry if it's a repost).
Quote from: Cramulus on November 09, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
Quote from: Dimocritus on November 08, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.
I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?
I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.
I refer you to Cain's Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/71454024/Intermittens-The-Fail-Whale-Apocalypse-and-Other-Stories))
Arguing Rarely Persuades People
More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism. If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words.
From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from Culture Jam or Adbusters.
You're right, Cram, this had crossed my mind. Although, I already told him I was preparing a packet of information for him to go through, so I'm kind of locked-in now. But, I suppose being handed some info isn't exactly arguing at that point, so maybe there's some hope this won't go that bad.
Oh, and anyone have any good links in regards to the effectiveness of advertising in general? I'm curious to see how well most tricks actually work, and which are a waste of ad dollars.
Quote from: Dimocritus on November 10, 2011, 05:43:21 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 09, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
Quote from: Dimocritus on November 08, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.
I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?
I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.
I refer you to Cain's Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/71454024/Intermittens-The-Fail-Whale-Apocalypse-and-Other-Stories))
Arguing Rarely Persuades People
More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism. If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words.
From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from Culture Jam or Adbusters.
You're right, Cram, this had crossed my mind. Although, I already told him I was preparing a packet of information for him to go through, so I'm kind of locked-in now. But, I suppose being handed some info isn't exactly arguing at that point, so maybe there's some hope this won't go that bad.
Oh, and anyone have any good links in regards to the effectiveness of advertising in general? I'm curious to see how well most tricks actually work, and which are a waste of ad dollars.
I don't have any handouts, but I will share one thing my boss once told me:
"A good ad needs to do three things: show people your product, show them why they want it, and tell them where to get it".
That company had extraordinarily effective ads with very little verbiage, and he just sold it to Williams-Sonoma and retired. I have always based my advertising model off his, and (back before I went part-time, before the divorce and economy crash) had superb response.
Advertisers use a lot of tricks and gimmicks to sell people things they don't need, but fundamentally I think that the most effective principle is exactly what he said.
Quote from: Dimocritus on November 08, 2011, 03:03:00 PM
Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.
I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?
Which dangerous advertising techniques did you cite?
The main thing that came to mind is that Playboy agreed to license their logo
for children's merchandise. :vom: I'd like to see the bastard try to defend that.
Also, an abundance of ammunition for your argument can be found here:
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/
Quote from: Rumckle on November 09, 2011, 11:18:44 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 09, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.
I refer you to Cain's Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/71454024/Intermittens-The-Fail-Whale-Apocalypse-and-Other-Stories))
Arguing Rarely Persuades People
More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism. If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words.
From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from Culture Jam or Adbusters.
Yes, you need to be careful about these things, see this for more info (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/) (I can't remember if I was linked to this from here or not, so sorry if it's a repost).
I like that article. It pretty much confirms everything I've ever said to anybody ever.
If I were to attempt to poinpoint what I hate about advertising -- it's not that it's dangerous, it's that it makes us boring.
The contemporary theory of Branding is that a good brand weaves itself seemlessly into its target's lifestyle. If you're an active go-getter sort, Nike's "Just do it" is an emotion that you resonate with. You wear Nike clothes, you are dressing yourself in the symbolism connected to that brand. The brands become tools we use to present and identify ourselves. In a world where we are more consumers than citizens, and our financial health is given more cultural value than other facets of our identity, we are presented with a limited palette with which to build ourselves.
from Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents (http://books.google.com/books?id=8jPwJsJKXn8C&lpg=PA9&ots=pNlCMX5i2Q&dq=situationism%20%22his%20umbrella%22&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=his%20umbrella&f=false) (page 9)----------------------
The freedom of conversation is being lost. If earlier it was a matter of course to take interest in one's partner, this is now replaced by inquiry into the price of his shoes or his umbrella. Irresistibly intruding upon any convivial exchange is the theme of the conditions of life, of money. What this theme involves is not so much the concerns and sorrows of individuals, in which they might be able to help one another, as the overall picture. It is if one were trapped in theater and had to follow the events on the stage whether one wanted to or not, had to make them again and again, willingly or unwillingly, the subject of one's thoughts and speech.
-One-Way Street, Walter Benjamin, 1928
Raoul Vaneigem defined the terrain of values such a situation produced: "Rozanov's definition of nihilism is the best: 'The show is over. The audience gets up to leave their seats. Time to collect their coats and go home. They turn around . . . . No more coats and no more home.'" "The spectator feels at home nowhere," Deboard wrote, "Because the spectacle is everywhere."