Re:Bertrand Russell, "On Sales Resistance"
by gjm11 on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:57PM
(#811367)
What is your evidence that the subtle effects of advertising aren't harmful?
What you're saying is that most people more often than not are influenced to make decisions that are not good for them or their families? Yes. Not, of course, because every advertisement anyone ever sees is pushing them in a bad direction -- of course sometimes you'll see advertisements for something that really would benefit you -- but because the overall effect is bad. Seeing or hearing an advertisement does two things to you. (1) It provides you with some new information: such-and-such a product exists, you can get it in such-and-such a place, it has features X and Y and Z, it costs $P, etc. (2) It attempts to make you want to buy the product by other means besides merely informing you about it. It's an empirical question how these two balance out. Take a look at some advertisements, look at their actual information content, and see what you think the ratio between the two is: I reckon probably 10:1 in favour of those "other means". So, now, if I'm exposed to a bunch of advertisements then I get some extra information that helps me make a more informed choice, but I also get manipulated in ways that advertisers think effective enough to spend billions on. And it looks like there's much more of the latter than the former. Sometimes the manipulation will be towards things that really benefit me. Sometimes, not so much. There isn't likely to be much correlation between the manipulation and what's actually in my interests. (Actually, what would be needed for the ads to benefit me would be a correlation between the manipulation and the difference between what's in my interests and what I'd guess for myself without the ads. Very, very unlikely, I think.) So, basically I get a whole lot of noise injected into my decision-making process. Or, in other words, I get made sillier and stupider.
empirical evidence suggests that people at large don't systematically make bad decisions: I would be interested to see this empirical evidence of which you speak. I am skeptical of its existence.
advertising on a grand scale sharpens the awareness that there might be a better solution: yup, I expect it does, and that may be a benefit. It seems to me like a benefit that's heavily outweighed by the dangers of being made "aware" that something is a better solution when it actually isn't.
I do think that, yes, that is thinking "too highly of their own virtue": Well, that's very strange to me, since the thing you're describing in that way says precisely nothing at all about the virtue (or cleverness, or anything) of the perseon who's making the claim.
I don't think anyone has any right to tell me ...: Er, I wasn't suggesting that anyone should be complaining at you about the decisions you make. Nor that paying more money for brand-name clothes from fancy shops is a decision you shouldn't be making.
there's something wrong with picking a fight on behalf of someone else, saying that: Why? Here's a concrete counterexample (as it seems to me) that may help us work out where our disagreement is coming from. Consider someone engaged in outright fraud -- a 419 scammer, let's say. Suppose this person is new to the job but very good at what they do. At the moment they have hundreds of victims whom they're stringing along, bleeding money from; but all these victims are happy about what's being done to them because they expect to get rich. Now, suppose you discover this scam. Is it wrong for you to publicize it, and denounce the scammer to the police or other relevant authority? I say: no, of course it isn't, even though it involves picking a fight on the behalf of other people on the grounds that they're being fooled into doing something that isn't in their best interests. How about you?
legitimizing reckless actions by blaming advertising: Neither I nor Bertrand Russell (it's not often that one gets to say that...) is "legitimizing reckless actions" here, so far as I can see. And perhaps I'm being dim, but it seems to me that you're now making exactly the sort of complaint about what others do that you earlier called "holier-than-thou".
What you're saying is that most people more often than not are influenced to make decisions that are not good for them or their families? Yes. Not, of course, because every advertisement anyone ever sees is pushing them in a bad direction -- of course sometimes you'll see advertisements for something that really would benefit you -- but because the overall effect is bad. Seeing or hearing an advertisement does two things to you. (1) It provides you with some new information: such-and-such a product exists, you can get it in such-and-such a place, it has features X and Y and Z, it costs $P, etc. (2) It attempts to make you want to buy the product by other means besides merely informing you about it. It's an empirical question how these two balance out. Take a look at some advertisements, look at their actual information content, and see what you think the ratio between the two is: I reckon probably 10:1 in favour of those "other means". So, now, if I'm exposed to a bunch of advertisements then I get some extra information that helps me make a more informed choice, but I also get manipulated in ways that advertisers think effective enough to spend billions on. And it looks like there's much more of the latter than the former. Sometimes the manipulation will be towards things that really benefit me. Sometimes, not so much. There isn't likely to be much correlation between the manipulation and what's actually in my interests. (Actually, what would be needed for the ads to benefit me would be a correlation between the manipulation and the difference between what's in my interests and what I'd guess for myself without the ads. Very, very unlikely, I think.) So, basically I get a whole lot of noise injected into my decision-making process. Or, in other words, I get made sillier and stupider.
empirical evidence suggests that people at large don't systematically make bad decisions: I would be interested to see this empirical evidence of which you speak. I am skeptical of its existence.
advertising on a grand scale sharpens the awareness that there might be a better solution: yup, I expect it does, and that may be a benefit. It seems to me like a benefit that's heavily outweighed by the dangers of being made "aware" that something is a better solution when it actually isn't.
I do think that, yes, that is thinking "too highly of their own virtue": Well, that's very strange to me, since the thing you're describing in that way says precisely nothing at all about the virtue (or cleverness, or anything) of the perseon who's making the claim.
I don't think anyone has any right to tell me ...: Er, I wasn't suggesting that anyone should be complaining at you about the decisions you make. Nor that paying more money for brand-name clothes from fancy shops is a decision you shouldn't be making.
there's something wrong with picking a fight on behalf of someone else, saying that: Why? Here's a concrete counterexample (as it seems to me) that may help us work out where our disagreement is coming from. Consider someone engaged in outright fraud -- a 419 scammer, let's say. Suppose this person is new to the job but very good at what they do. At the moment they have hundreds of victims whom they're stringing along, bleeding money from; but all these victims are happy about what's being done to them because they expect to get rich. Now, suppose you discover this scam. Is it wrong for you to publicize it, and denounce the scammer to the police or other relevant authority? I say: no, of course it isn't, even though it involves picking a fight on the behalf of other people on the grounds that they're being fooled into doing something that isn't in their best interests. How about you?
legitimizing reckless actions by blaming advertising: Neither I nor Bertrand Russell (it's not often that one gets to say that...) is "legitimizing reckless actions" here, so far as I can see. And perhaps I'm being dim, but it seems to me that you're now making exactly the sort of complaint about what others do that you earlier called "holier-than-thou".