This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should we teach our kids about how advertisement (public relationships, marketing) works?
Let's face it, advertisement works.
But let's also admit it, it is not as simple as a creative ad shown during the superbowl or a picture on a magazine that we find funny and incidentally reminds us of some particular brand of chips, or insurance company.
As far as i know (admittedly a much more thorough research can be done), advertisement works because it exploits a few flaws in the way our subconscious work:
- we remember things best when emotion is evoked while we learn them (fear, anger, excitement). And this is due to the chemical changes that these emotions induce in our brain.
- we decide mostly with emotions, and not with reason. This seems counter intuitive to most people
- we live with the ever present contradiction of trying to be unique and trying to be like others. We like to be singled out if we are wearing nice clothing, but we hate being singled out if our pants happen to rip.
- being rejected by our peers, or not being part of the in-group we admire, actually hurts, pretty much in the same way (neurologically) as a punch in the stomach hurts
- anything repeated frequently makes a stronger memory, easier to recall, and a memory that is easier to recall is trusted more (and feels more familiar) regardless of it's veracity
- novel experiences are considered riskier than familiar experiences, regardless of their real inherent risk
========
So all these factors are merged with a product and tweaked to make that product appealing and familiar to us, without us fully understanding why it feels appealing and familiar.
Now, recently the target of the advertising industry are increasingly younger kids. And I would venture to say that if many adults don't fully understand why advertisement works, then even less kids would be expected to know
Should we include in a kids education: at schools, in church sermons, at dinner table conversations, an explanation of what advertisement is and why it works? What would be an argument against teaching this?
Bob Stiglitz
Shame replies stop at a certain thread depth... anyway sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I don't think it came across clearly.
Andres Aullet 10+
I guess my question is framed in that, a bit more optimistic view that people can still learn and change their lives and that of their kids... Education, to me is the key to a brighter future, regardless of what happens to my own generation.
I will always be glad to post at length trying to clarify my views, so you can ask away, and as you can see, i also sometimes misunderstand other people's words, but you will always see me coming back with clarifying questions
thanks for the points that you have added to the discussion so far. They have added value and have expanded my knowledge in new directions!
cheers
Bob Stiglitz
Consider: There is truly no technical reason to have homeless people even existing in a modern developed country, it's socially tolerated/enforced problem akin to slavery (a cultural/value artifact).
(somewhat related)
Just thought I'd pass him along, one of my favs for 'cutting the bs'.
David Wolff (short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZSD89KUCbo
Full video
http://fora.tv/2012/02/14/Monthly_Update_with_Richard_D_Wolff_February_2012
He makes a lot of excellent points IMHO probably one of the few people who speaks in plain language and demystifies 'complex' problems.
And when I say we have to move away from money/capitalism, it's not that I have a solution in hand it's just something that is going to have to be done over the long term since we can't afford to continue to go on as it is right now in the 21st century.
I'm not a big believer in ideology without understanding, you have to understand how the universe works first, then you can start to ask questions about the sustainability and stability of a given behavior given the energy/resource/biological requirements.
Then you can talk about bringing 'values' back into discussion, morality, values, principles can only be understood if you understand how the universe works first and whats realizable given those limitations.
Asif Ahmed
My children are 11 and 10 now, and since they were 5 and 4, I started to explain marketing to them. I was prompted to have this discussion with them because every time they saw a commercial for the 'Kia Sedona minivan' on 'Nick Jr.', they would run to my wife and I ask to buy it due to all of the safety and kid friendly attributes of the car. I was shocked at their retention of the product features and ability to relay them back to us. This was beyond toys and I was worried about how they were being influenced.
I explained marketing/advertising to them not in as an insidious evil or in a cynical manner, but in a more factual way of how marketers have to sell a product and they have various 'tricks' (methods or "API's") at their disposal to influence potential buyers. I was amazed at how at a young age they started evaluating and discussing each commercial they watched and how discerning they could be in picking apart the messaging and influence tactics.
It would be tough to add this topic to a school curriculum, but it can definitely be taught by parents.
Andres Aullet 10+
I thank you for your comments and for sharing your experience with your kids.
It is not surprising that you clearly got the gist of my question, being that i too work with computers and sometimes think in those terms.
Indeed my question was intentionally twofold. It sounds like an either or, but it is not, it is more of a challenge to adults.
I wouldn't have any issue with this being in the curriculum of public elementary school, but i know that some people are more skeptic about school than i am.
So for the people who would prefer to keep it out of the classroom, the question is: "do you know enough about advertisement and why it works in our brains to be able to share it with your kids?" similarly, because i also realize that many people learn from others in their religious congregations, i would ask, do religious leaders know enough to explain this? would they be wiling to share such information to their audiences? Here i would expect some push back, but so far i have not heard about anyone picking up that part of the question
Regarding adding this to school curriculum, just for perspective... if a school board in Dover was able to add information on intelligent design, at least for a brief period of time, and if it took a full trial to remove it, I would think that it would not be as complicated to add the workings of advertisement to the curriculum, and i wonder if someone would put it on trial to be removed
cheers
Asif Ahmed
Bob Stiglitz
This man (gabe newell of valve/steam) and many in the industry have successfully taken computer programs hostage on the other side of the internet and made them "check in" with their servers (which would have been impossible in a pre internet era, you would GET the software and wouldn't need permission to use it).
If you look at a site like reddit, you see gamers CELEBRATING having their games sabotaged by a gaming corporation that uses it's "digital rights management" (hostage software) to data mine kids and adults who play videogames for "business purposes" (how better to spin PR and exploit them for money).
The videogame industry has redefined broken "get permission" hostage software (games) as a benefit and have young kids and adults alike celebrate being exploited, that's a PR miracle.
Diablo 3 (a game that cuts a chunk out of the software and has it run on servers on the other side of the internet) sold 10 million copies, thats how dumb most people really are they just don't give a crap that they are exploited because their emotions are involved - they've been taught to love their exploitation.
Same thing happens with "MMO's" which is just code for DRM'd role playing games (which used to be single player and you owned them). Corporations have successfully spun them as a "Service" (which technologically from a software standpoint they don't have to be). Paying monthly to play one single videogame (15/month) after you just bought the game for $60 up front, is another PR miracle.
Not only did you PAY for the game, you PAY for the corporation to exploit you and you like it because you are so addicted (it has 8-10 million players still after almost 10 years)
Andres Aullet 10+
While I may not agree with all of it, i do see its value and I will do some reading based on the references you have provided.
My point i guess tries to jump one level down... The actual mechanism that makes people fall prey to manipulation is within our brains, and most of it is not learned, but relies on innate abilities (or disabilities) of our brains to be aware (or not) when we are manipulated.
Awareness goes a long way to reduce the impact, but we cannot change our brain physiology, so we are stuck with having to train every future generation on how to deal with those inefficiencies
I will be back with more comments once i have done some more reading. Thanks again for the pointers
cheers
Bob Stiglitz
(you should read this by Thomas Babbington Macaulay)
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
Of course you'd 'disagree' since you are a capitalist, you'd accept anything that exploits others for profit because you have no understanding of copyright law and how it has been infinitely expanded to take away the public domain. Older games should fall into the public domain (source code, etc) but they never do, they are locked up under monopolist copyright law.
Unless the developer has enough power in the relationship and is kind enough to release the source code.
Things like this are impossible for most games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhAR8rWPluQ
So you have tonnes of old games that can't be fixed or updated and are confiscated by capitalists. There is no software repair industry because of copyright (monopoly rights) which you blindly protect. You come off as just another ignorant american IMHO. Which you couch in 'reasonable' sounding language because you are just so alarmingly uninformed and unconsciously pro capitalist underneath it all.
Diablo 1 + 2 did not have to get permission from the nanny corporation to be used, they could be modified and used without the internet because people you know PAID FOR IT. Diablo 3 introduced SINGLE PLAYER LAG (latency) that is *breaking* the game on purpose, making it inferior because game corporations desire total authoritarian control and don't give a shit about the right of gamers to own their software.
Corporations now use contract and law to do an end run around individual and civil rights (your rights to own the products you buy).
Gaming culture and the ability of fans to update and fix their old game is stolen from them and the fact you'd "disagree", is just wrong.
Bob Stiglitz
Andres Aullet 10+
I did not disagree because i am a capitalist or because i would accept anything that exploit others for profit. I hope you meant that as a generalization, but if you meant that as a description of my own worldview you can go back and read some my opinions and that might drive a different conclusion
I am very aware of the problem with patent and copyright law, and like you, i am always weary when businesses change their model in order to add more strings attached to their products. Diablo 3 is just one example of an increasing trend
Now, regarding online games, I can share with you the experience i have with my kids. They do own console games and some pc games, and from time to time we do the experiment of turning the internet modem off and trying to use both computers and console games as usual.
It is eye opening for them to see how many programs (even simple programs in the computer) are crippled when they are not allowed to "call back home" behind our backs.
And their response is usually one of disgust with the program/game makers: "why do they need us to be connected?" is they immediate question. I usually leave the question lingering in, for them to ponder later
cheers
Bob Stiglitz
Most people are stupid, and it takes energy, courage and the ability to withstand pain to live genuinely in accordance with ones principles. Most people are weak, fickle, easily manipulated and greedy.
There is no solution here because human beings are just monkeys with slightly more intelligence then those in zoo's.
One doesn't even have to look far on TED, most TEDsters worldview revolves around money, buying and selling and the ideology of capitalism. You think within that narrow point of view and push off anything that you deem is 'not realistic'. That is group think and propaganda, if it's not against the laws of nature then it's achievable. Imagine if slaves said "there's nothing we can do, we'll always be slaves" or that disabled people never fought for disability rights, or that blacks never fought for equality.
Andres Aullet 10+
I am not sure how to interpret your comment. Sounds pessimistic, which can be interpreted to mean that you think teaching kids how advertisement works is a lost cause. But i might have been confused, so please feel free to correct me if i did misinterpret your words.
I disagree with your assessment. I think that stupidity can be relative, it can be partial, and it can also be temporary. I don't think there is such thing as absolute stupidity. And while I share with you the opinion that most people are easily manipulated, i fail to see it as a consequence of weakness. A bit of ignorance can be cured with a bit of education.
Now, i am not sure if you are referring to my world view, or to the worldview of the average person who posts and votes on reddit (which by the way is a pretty lousy sampling if you are trying to imply it is representative of the public in general). But i can assure you that my whole world view does not revolve around money.
At the end of your comment you seem to give some encouragement, "if it's not against the laws of nature then it's achievable", should I interpret those words as encouragement to teach kids how advertisement works?
I guess i ended up a bit confused. Do you care to clarify/elaborate?
cheers
Bob Stiglitz
The truth is the money/capitalist paradigm is something that has to be rethought and moved away from but most people think anything that is not free market capitalism is 'socialism' its just more proof that people are so afraid of critical thinking and what those around them think, they are not interested in the truth. We'd rather stick our heads in the sand, go on watching tv/ted talks and have people TALK about doing something then rather rolling up our sleeves and divesting ourselves from the way of life we've now built which most intelligent people agree is "not sustainable". It's not that we need "green capitalism" it's that what our "civilization" values is just INCORRECT at a fundamental level. We don't put things like solving problems at the top of the agenda because everyones 'looking out for himself' we are deeply idiotic and immature at a fundamental level as a species.
Think about some advanced civilization looking back on this period of human history: "You humans can send people to the moon, but not find homes for people, and it isn't for a lack of homes".
We have empty buildings who's water/sewer maintenance is being paid for by billionaires which could be used (in a sane society) to alleviate suffering, if I was a billionaire and I had huge mansions and 2nd and 3rd homes just not being used I could never live with myself. But that is not how 99% of mankind thinks lets be honest, even Bill and Buffet "hero capitalists" do as little as possible... (character limit reached)
Bob Stiglitz
Knowledge (from wikipedia)
One of the best known sayings of Socrates is "I only know that I know nothing". The conventional interpretation of this remark is that Socrates' wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance. Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better. The one thing Socrates consistently claimed to have knowledge of was "the art of love", which he connected with the concept of "the love of wisdom", i.e., philosophy. He never actually claimed to be wise, only to understand the path a lover of wisdom must take in pursuing it. It is debatable whether Socrates believed humans (as opposed to gods like Apollo) could actually become wise. On the one hand, he drew a clear line between human ignorance and ideal knowledge; on the other, Plato's Symposium (Diotima's Speech) and Republic (Allegory of the Cave) describe a method for ascending to wisdom.
On virtue
Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace. His actions lived up to this: in the end, Socrates accepted his death sentence when most thought he would simply leave Athens, as he felt he could not run away from or go against the will of his community; as mentioned above, his reputation for valor on the battlefield was without reproach.
The idea that there are certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates' teachings. These virtues represented the most important qualities for a person to have, foremost of which were the philosophical or intellectual virtues. Socrates stressed that "virtue was (character limit reached)
Bob Stiglitz
"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."
...
The problem is the human brain doesn't work properly, most people think their mind produces 'reality' the problem is there are people who's minds who appear healthy but who's minds don't work correctly and this applies to HUGE segments of the population.
See here for the bit about human reasoning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Right now pretty much ALL americans have false beliefs and false politics and values and both 'sides' are demonizing the other, the reality is they are both under illusions of political advertising and the fact that their brains don't actually perceive reality as it really is
The american elections 2012 were a giant joke to anyone of serious intellect, real change isn't going to come from elections.
Chris hedges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s
Our immaturity as a species goes way beyond ideology.
The fundamental problem is most peoples top value is money, their minds and culture is so invested in this institution and in their daily functioning they don't want to believe that the institution itself is largely responsible for our irrationality. Instead of solving a problem if it's going to have some significant dollar value then we shove it under the rug (like what the PM of canada is doing right now with the oil sands development and firing scientists/staff).
Money is a tool human beings use to divorce themselves from actually having to relate and look after one another and be responsible at a fundamental level.
It's not that we will run out of 'resources' to solve these problems it's that peoples are playing the money game and won't work towards a problem unless they are getting richer.
Akta Desai
I'm a huge stats nerd and think that advertising is all about the numbers.
Andres Aullet 10+
Yes, i guess i could open the topic to include persuasion in general, not just in advertising, as persuasion and communications are fascinating subjects
I learned one interesting thing regarding statistics while reading Daniel Kahneman, and that is the fact that our brains are terrible statisticians. For example, if we can recall an event easily (whatever drove us to remember it), we subconsciously assign to it a higher probability of occurring again, regardless of the real probability
Many people consider the probability of dying in a flight accident is very high, and few stop to check the statistics, that tell you that it is a lot more likely to die from peanut allergy than in a flight accident. But the ease with which we can recall flight accidents as opposed to death by peanut make the former "feel" more likely
in that sense, though, i would think that advertising is more about feeling than about real numbers, right?
cheers
Lorelei Coffin
walter crockett
Andres Aullet 10+
I would be curious to know why do you consider it a waste of time. There are plenty of things that kids learn at school (from geometry to basic chemistry, to geography) and i would argue that they don't throw all that knowledge away
Absolutely true that parents teach with example more than anything, but there are parents who cannot spend a lot of time time teaching, or simply lack the knowledge or skills required to teach something like how the brain works
I remember things i learned both from my parents and from school as i was growing up, I am not sure i would consider that a waste of time, but i would like to understand your point of view
cheers
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Andres Aullet 10+
Interesting perspective, "if we didn't have useless things to sell we wouldn't have much to sell at all". You got it quite right. I guess that is another way of looking at the wants vs. the needs.
As it is usual in me, i am not for an all or nothing. I don't see it realistic or desirable to advocate for selling only needs and banning sale of wants.
Not so sure that my assessment is as optimistic as yours regarding the system though. I think that it is a working system and it may not need to be replaced completely, but i think that the tweaks are much more than superficial.
I think that the conversion from wants to needs should be done by the individual, and of course it will depend on influences, but the individual should be left to decide (and be aware) of the influences chosen
cheers!
Lorelei Coffin
The only reason I can think of not to share information with children is if it is false information.
Andres Aullet 10+
Thanks for your comment, i'll be glad to share
I grew up without watching much tv, whic was fortunate i would say. There was not a lot to watch on tv back when i was young, and my time outside of school was spent mostly playing in the streets. The only advertisement we kids used to see all the time was that of the brands of chips or the brands of soda that the little store had on their walls and refrigerators. I don't recall more than 10 of these "brands" from back then, but i can tell you that people bought them religiously.
One of my first experiences was to watch advertisement for disposable mops. They made them sound so much better than regular mops, with phrases like "scientifically proven", "guaranteed", etc etc.
During those days, at least where i lived, most people used to wash clothes by hand, and squeeze their mops by hand too. I remember very clearly even today how hands that wash clothes and squeeze mops look like. And I remember very clearly (i was probably 8 yrs old or so) thinking to myself that the lady squeezing the mop in the commercial did not have such hands. So it struck me as odd that they would be faking it. Why not use a real person squeezing a real mop? i wondered.
And the result is that i concluded that they were just faking it. I don't think i ever let go of the feeling from that realization. Why would someone making a commercial need to fake something as simple as like that?
Well, i guess that is what got me started.
Eventually i discovered that communication is an interesting subject, and that the way you say something can influence the way it is perceived and processed by other people. That they kind of visual images you see when you hear some words indeed changes the way you perceive those words. That sometimes we are not fully aware of the way we process words in, but we later use that information regularly
I became critical at a young age, i guess.
cheers
Dan F 50+
Advertisers should be regulated as tightly as the law and reason permits. Obviously advertisers are trying to sell stuff and will go to incredible creative lengths and legal limits which are smart financially.
Being a good parent is demanding at best and there are no guarantees on outcome. I think serving as a role model you wish to promote is essential. Kids especially as they get a little older need more guidance as they become more and more exposed to other influences such as advertisers. I do think its smart to help your kids see through some of the advertising baloney, but remember as adults we are on display too. This can become tricky landscape -- "com' on dad look at you," is what your child may be thinking even if they're not saying so.
Best way to help your growing kids IMO is to encourage and recognize their achievements as students. Online learning it seems to me could also help out parents in certain topics such as the one at hand, but parents should be the ones offering videos, etc., selections which could be discussed and serve to help them see things more objectively and truthfully.
Andres Aullet 10+
Thanks for your comment... I understood that you are against requiring this as mandatory in schools, but i was a bit confused as to whether you completely oppose teaching it in schools. would you care to clarify if you have a chance? By the way, i am not sure I would consider religion and advertisement in the same category (interesting side topic, for sure),
But just like I am ok with kids being taught arithmetic or chemistry, i would be ok with kids being taught what we know about psychology
Now, you bring up a very important topic, and I entirely concur with you: teaching kids that there is baloney in advertisement can open the door for them to question more than just advertisement. Some parents will not find this prospect appealing. In my case, though, I think that it is essential. Maybe because I value critical thinking much more highly than i value blind obedience, I decided to accept the risk of opening that door, so my kids to challenge my ideas as well (which does not mean that they will be right in their challenge, and most of the times i can convince them with deeper explanations, but at least they do not feel guilty of challenging authority, and they learn to accept when their challenges do not stand scrutiny)
Online learning, as you mention is gaining a serious place in formal education, and it has tremendous potential. One can only imagine what schools will look like 50 years from now. And yes, us parents should do our homework and sort through the sea of information in order to show our kids what we think will give them tools for their personal growth
cheers
Dan F 50+
My comments were perhaps a bit disjointed.
Let me back up. Your opening comment - "Lets, face it advertisement works"
Let's face something else, our school systems don't work so well for too many kids. Check out the percentages of those dropping out of high school and those after high school considered functionally illiterate in studies of the general population. These numbers are truly a reality check that needs more attention.
My outlook is public schools need to concentrate on student learning of the basics and that discipline will help them better understand how we are all subject to being manipulated by a host of things including advertisement.
Schools don't work alone that's why I suggest the best thing we can do as parents for our kids is to encourage them to be better students by doing their homework and getting good grades. Life can be hectic, but kids need a parent's engagement.
Being able to read, write and listen is something that draws many of us to TED. This is the bread and butter to what allows this enterprise specializing in communication to excel. I think as kids get older this venue may offer a positive way for them to explore different thoughtful views and ideas expressed in talks and conversation about a variety of subjects including advertising which bombards our lives.
Anyway - interesting topic and lots of good comments.
Akta Desai
bilbo burgler
So what is the difference between that and religion exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I buy into the whole god thing, it is just religion looks so like advertising if we allowed our children to see how fake advertising is how will they stay in contact with religion?
eric rodgers
to put it another way, my aim would be to take action that possibly inspires others to strive towards raising their own consciousness levels. to create that space between thoughts and 'self'. my understanding is that we do not think thoughts but thoughts come through us, they come through us do to all the experiences we've had since birth...so, the vast majority of these thoughts will be subconsciously generated, yet most of us act as if these thoughts are 'us' in action, creating them consciously. when one becomes more mindful and experiences this space between thought and mind, there is that opportunity to not judge. to not react, but respond to things around us.
these things need not be forced on children. i have ambiguous feelings about formal education.
Andres Aullet 10+
I think my view is not far from what you are describing.
As i understand it, our mind has two main ways of working: one we call consciousness, makes us aware of our present, of the way our memories relate to it, and how our plans can flow from of it; this is this deliberate processing mode that enables us to use judgement, ponder consequences. The other process, more subtle and less understood is usually in the periphery of our consciousness. Some call it subconscious, Dr. Anthony Greenwald calls it level 2 (and Daniel Kahneman calls it system 1, so don't get too confused by the numbering system). This process is much more vast, can process tremendous amounts of information and it is much faster than the conscious process, however, it has the disadvantage that it is, by definition, beyond our rational control.
So within that framework, a more conscious individual is not someone whose consciousness is bigger in comparison with the subconsciousness, but instead someone who can learn to become aware of the outcome of the subconscious process and run it through the conscious process before it becomes behavior
cheers
eric rodgers
words don't seem to do it (consciousness) justice, of course.
i experienced (several months of daily meditation) a more focused, slowing down of everything...which if i had to explain it in words would say that I was a bit more conscious. there is that 'space' in which i would be able to observe my thoughts rather than 'be' them and/or react to them. well, training the mind via meditation is an experience, not something that can be explained with language. i don't mean to dispute what you've written, but saying 'aware of the outcome of the subconscious process and run it through the conscious process before it becomes behavior' seems to diminish the transcending nature of an increase in consciousness. but, we might be trying to say the same thing here.
in any event, more focus on training our 'minds' -- not our intellect -- is where I'd like to spend energy...in the context of 'dealing with' the manipulative nature of advertising and the broader goal of improving lives and moving away from materialism.
Mary Hunt
Frontline did a story called Big Sky Big Money and demonstrated how last minute drops of political lies can change the outcome of an election because it gives the other side no time to respond. For an educated person, last minute fliers or ads will not change their minds, but for those without critical thinking skills it can drastically affect the outcome of the election.
I personally don't like the idea that those dumb enough to fall for such tactics are choosing our leaders.
Andres Aullet 10+
Yes, you touch on a point that i just barely mention. How important it is for adults to get educated first and to use their critical skills... How can we hope to teach the young if we ourselves don't know/care?
But one of the things that i am trying to highlight is that while the average person may not be aware of how easily it is to influence a decision, both politicians and the advertisement experts are very aware of it, and it gets incorporated in the strategy
Thank you for the pointer to the frontline story
cheers
Comment deleted
Scott Armstrong 50+
these days, we are fairly media savvy and I think a lot of advertising fails to work on adults.
as a teacher, i always make a point of questioning advertising messages with my kids (7 & 8 year olds). it's easy to do because most advertising is a thin veneer over the reality and once you start delving and thinking about what they are saying and promising, it starts to fall apart.
you wouldn't teach this if you want to perpetuate rampant consumerism.
if your brain is engaged and skeptical of advertising motives then advertising fails.
Andres Aullet 10+
I agree with the point you make... somehow we adults can cope with it (or we should be able to), but kids do not yet have the tools to assimilate the advertising message in a critical way.
So we must 1) limit the input while kids are still not able to process it and 2) teach and remind them how to process the message
Definitely, an engaged and skeptical brain is one of the goals of this teaching
cheers
Bill Matthies
Andres, you also asked if we should teach them in church sermons and/or at home during dinner. The reality is, of course, we can't stop that from happening should clergy or parents decide they wish to educate children. But how accurate and unbiased that would be is another matter entirely. Excluding those who study and work in advertising (and not even all of them) very few of the adult population really understands how advertising works so I can't imagine how they'd teach it.
Andres Aullet 10+
I am always willing to learn more, and I have to admit that my background is physics, not business or marketing
When I say that "advertisement works because it exploits a few flaws in the way our subconscious works", i am probably focusing only in the recipient side of advertisement, and not considering the creative side of it.
What i mean by that is that the objective of advertisement is to create an impression (memory) and a preference for certain product/service/idea.
I would love to hear your side of the story on that point, as well as your insights on how is it that advertisement works (I am always trying to teach my kids stuff like this)
Now, talking about teaching this, I think it is almost impossible to be unbiassed, even if we use only accurate facts in our discussion. As Howard Zinn would put it brilliantly: even if we don't hide any facts, every time we communicate we decide to put some more emphasis on certain facts over others, and that creates a bias.
My bias in this case is against targeting kids with advertisement.
My opinion is that individuals should be respected and they should have a saying in the amount of advertisement they receive. Specially kids. I think their minds and brains should not be bombarded with as much advertisement as possible
cheers!
Bill Matthies
Hi Andres,
Probably just a matter of semantics with the word "flaws". I'm on board with your main point if we use some other adjective, for example, maybe "realities". But that's not important enough to quibble about and certainly doesn't detract from your message (". . . the objective of advertisement is to create an impression (memory) and a preference for certain product/service/idea), which I agree with.
And I'm probably being too exacting when talking about potential bias, which, as you said is always present, in my opinion, in all subjects. The only question is to what degree? For me the higher order issue is how those not trained in advertising, whether that be parents, clergy, or both, will be able to teach it when they themselves don't know how it works.
You also said, "My bias in this case is against targeting kids with advertisement." Always? I assume you are in favor of "stay in school", "don't do drugs", "don't smoke", etc. advertising. But not likely the ads that aim to create purchase of things kids either don't need and/or can't afford. If so I agree with that in principle but find it hard knowing when and how to draw the line (one person's sin is another person's pleasure.)
In a more perfect world kids would get help sorting all this out from the parents but we all know there are far too many situations where that doesn't happen. As to there being limits on how much advertising kids are exposed to, absolutely, and not just the ads! TV period. Kids should be studying, sleeping, reading, playing, interacting with others in the real world, not virtually, collectively far more than they watch TV. I just don't think you can legislate the right levels of whatever that should be.
Good topic Andres
Andres Aullet 10+
I will agree with you Bill, not all advertisement is equal and i should be wary of my own generalizations. Of course we (specially us parents) are all about an ad that promotes no-drugs, stay in school, etc.
I have seen them and i applaud them. I have also seen them with a few strings attached (a logo on the corner, a particular sponsor), and then i start to question
It is indeed hard to legislate, and the reason why i mention incorporating this information in school curriculums in addition to churches and home discussions, is because not all parents get to spend the needed time with their kids to discuss this, or as we have said before, not all of them understand the process very well
Just for the sake of clarification, the reason why i call them "flaws" (although i certainly agree with you, they are realities) is because, just like when we look at an optical illusion without understanding the mental mechanism that makes it so, we use our decision making processes without understanding the mental mechanism behind it, and sometimes there are some "illusions" in it too
thank you for your contributions!
cheers
Robert Nieto
No commercials, no state controlled news, no bullshit programs and no MTV.
If want something I don't need an commercial to tell me so. I'am more then capable of deciding that for myself.
If I want to read/watch the news I have access to the internet.
I have 0 interest in the latest cooking shows, decorate my house or dancing with the stars bullshit.
And when/if I get kids I refuse to expose them to such things.
As compensation I'll buy or download all the good old shows for kids their age that do have educational value and adhere my moral values.
Dan Geurin 10+
I remember my own deprogramming from decades of media exposure and I feel it's the right thing to do for the kids.
Andres Aullet 10+
Couldn't agree more, I was lucky enough to grow up playing more soccer in the streets than watching tv. But even if we try to keep them active and minimize their tv time, our kids are bombarded with advertisement much more than we were.
Yes, I also told my kids that it is advertising that pays for TV, but that it is not the only way to pay for TV, we can also pay and get ad-free tv. I guess it goes hand in hand with teaching them that in the world of entertainment (as in many other areas) there is no such a thing as a free lunch
I like your concept of deprogramming, and yes i have done something similar in the past. However, i remember learning something a few years back that i found a little troubling. It is called IAT (Implicit Association Tests). Basically, by measuring how quickly you can answer to associating of pairs of concepts, they can tell what biases are already engrained in your brain through repetition. (if you want to check it out here is some info: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)
So far, even when one can find out about our own biases, and try to consciously go against them, since they are committed to long term neural connections, it is hard to "deprogram" them.
You can then imagine that if you bombard a kids brain with associations between a particular brand and a particular good feeling, it takes a great effort to grow out of that bias. That is why i am an advocate of protecting the kids brains in the first place
cheers!
Bill Matthies
Andres Aullet 10+
Because it is only with effort that we can go against an unconscious bias, yet we use our unconscious biases for decision making most of the time without stopping to think about it twice
And even when trying to work against a cognitive bias (that can be created by simple repetition through media consumption), it does not dissapear
I guess that is what i found a bit troubling
Bill Matthies
I wouldn't say I was "troubled" by my result (a "slight" preference for Clinton over Obama), but it certainly didn't fit with what I thought the test would indicate given how I think I responded to the questions. Because of that I am left wondering A. When it comes to Clinton and Obama, do I not really know what I think?, B. Was the methodology crap?, or C. Some combination of the two. Given my uncertainty there is no way I'm taking the sexual preference test.
Andres Aullet 10+
It is indeed surprising Bill.
Keep in mind that one of the important things being tested is not just your responses, but the speed with which you respond, and that speed is not something you can consciously control, that is how they get a glimpse at the subconscious "opinions"
I think what the test results say is that we can consciously have a preference and keep our own arguments supporting our preference, however, there are unconscious factors that play a role, and we need to weed them out.
Some people is not aware of this fact, and hence is more prone to decide based on the unconscious biases rather than through a more thorough and conscious review
cheers
Andres Aullet 10+
Andres Aullet 10+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uh0NcpzSBM
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uh0NcpzSBM)
I hope it stays this time
cheers
John Moonstroller 20+
In another post I told you about the difference in the way the adverstiment industry was handling the falloff in consumer spending by pointing to a tv show called "Revolution". Well, things have changed a lot.
In the preview series, the ads were scaled way down to about a min of ad for each 7 min of storyline.
Now with the second series because the show scored a 4:1 rating, the ads were increased to an average of 3 min of ads to each 6 min of storyline.
I've followed many sci-Fi tv shows and most of the follow this ratio of 7:1 in the preview series and then progress to the 6:3 ratio.
As a result, I have quit watching it bcause I can't stand TV ads and I'm back to Netfilx. I will know more about how they respond when and if the third series comes along.
What I'm seeing overall is a restlessness in the industry to deal with the issue of Internet TV moving into the market and how they can best offer their customers product coverage. Most of the numbers are indicating a trend towards less TV watching by people who desire uninterrupted storyline. Of course this cannot be allowed because the Ad industry is dependent on the consumers to view their ads in order to sell time to their customers. Another method the industry uses is to host DIY and selling homes on TV. My wife is a big fan of such shows and is one of their most prized customers. :)
In the big picture I see the industry is using tracking data garnished from the internet to deduce how they can best keep our eyes on their customers products. It is becoming a war of sorts. The old ways are dying off and no one really has the knowledge to judge how the consumers will react to new ideas about advertisement. The internet is both causing the problem and a projected source of impoverishment.
Andres Aullet 10+
You bring up a great point related to this conversation, our privacy.
You are right, the advertisement industry relies on "impressions" (any instance when they can put an image or keyword into somebody's brain)
I don't think that there is much consideration given to the right of people not to have their brains inundated with these "impressions". I understand that if i don't want to watch tv ads i probably need to pay a fee, same if i want a book readers with no ads.
But if i want a walk in the street with no ads, i am out of luck. There is no way to pay (nor i think we should have to pay) for a street free of advertisements
The other side of the coin, as you have highlighted, is the tracking of people's behavior, and the subsequent commercialization of this tracking information. I think that individuals should be empowered to decide when to see or hear an ad, and when to share or not information about their behavior.
Thanks as usual for your contribution, John!
cheers
Jane Smith
Andres Aullet 10+
Thanks for your comment. Yes I was discussing this with some friends recently when taking about a topic that is in the political discourse lately (at least here in the USA), which is rape and abortion.
We agreed that we cannot expect a decline in the prevalence of rape if our culture makes a business out of portraying women in a denigrating way.
It is not too hard to understand why humans react to sexual images, in particular why is it that males are more prone to react than females, as it has its roots in our evolution, even before there were humans
But I think that we can use this knowledge to arm our kids with tools to be able to better deal with these reactions when they come
cheers
John Moonstroller 20+
Read more: What Company Invented the Computer Cookie? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5653258_company-invented-computer-cookie_.html#ixzz2Aju4GoOK
When I go to Google, all I receive is a giant blank page with a search window on it and a simple banner. I receive no ads and all I did was turn off cookies. When I go to my bank. I make an exception for my bank but.... my bank does not report to a tracking company that I am at the bank. :)
Mitch SMith 50+
It should be offered.
I don't think there is any place for your assumption that anything at all should be forced upon our children through "teaching".
The fact is that the dynamics of neuroscience are out there. The cat's out of the bag and it will run about and get patted on teh head by curious children.
Cat-hair will be all over the place before long.
So you need not feel compelled to force anything - they already know, and they will be teaching us stuff before too long.
Andres Aullet 10+
Sorry if my question sounded confusing. I do not consider most teaching "forcing" upon children, maybe i could not say the same about religion, but that is probably because of my non-religious stance.
People as a group decide that there is certain knowledge that we would like to pass to the future generations as a tool for their improved survival, and hence we end up teaching them how to read, how to add numbers, what the nitrogen cycle is and the water cycle is, some basic chemistry, biology, etc. etc. etc.
My view is that with basic education in schools we try to lay a very general foundation upon which the kid will later build. Which part would you consider "forcing"?
Neuroscience is still a young field, and not a lot of information is out there widely available even for the general public. Most people consider math and physics like oddities, but they are very safe to discuss in the classroom, chemistry is one level up, but is still safe to discus. But i have seen that people get a bit apprehensive when we move on to biology. Specially because that is a field that touches way too close to home. Neuroscience, i think, goes even further in that direction.
I think the reason why i find it hard to agree with your argument, is because some aspects of neuroscience, specially as it pertains to our subconscious and our decision making processes, is quite far from intuitive, very much like quantum mechanics is not intuitive yet it works. I doubt that kids would come up with ideas of quantum mechanics on their own just by their every day observation of the world around them.
So maybe following that analogy between quantum mechanics and neuroscience, just like one needs some guidance in order to venture into such odd direction, and a willingness to depart from cherished and known paths, they both require some deliberate teaching efforts
cheers
Mitch SMith 50+
Neuroscience is simple. It only appears difficult because of the breadth of assumptions that are toppled by it.
In fact, the assumptions that it topples result from a few thousand years of "advertising" - the notion that the mind, body and spirit are different things - all gone - all replaced by the elegant simplicity of network topologies in a living universe. Every kid with a mobile phone or computer can now observe it in real time. No need for dogma and no need for propaganda to induce false structures into gaps of ignorance.
I equate the verb "educate" with force. This is the broadcast model of knowledge - teh book, the radio, the newspaper, the television, the classroom. These are all static hierachies - all of these assume the subservience of the reciever and the dominance of the broadcaster. It is an act of violation. We now have the dynamic of the network in our faces - something to compare. And in that comparison is a great liberation from the impost of the broadcast domination of a dieing hierarchy.
intuitive? For you maybe, but you, like me, grew up knowing only the violation of the crazy broadcast model of knowledge. Our kids know better.
Andres Aullet 10+
Well, seems like i know much less about neuroscience than i thought i did, perhaps i should stick to quantum mechanics.
By the way, do you consider quantum mechanics simple too? I would love to chat with you if that's the case.
I try not to take subjects lightly, one day i found myself wondering why is it that optical illusions are such. There is nothing magical in them, nor there was any "simple" explanation for them. Our brains construct a view of the outside world based on inputs and the translation between input and its interpretation is predictably flawed. That lead me into studying other ways in which our neural networks may behave in predictable but flawed ways. I have not yet attained a level where i can say that neuroscience is simple.
Now, about these network topologies in a living universe... not sure i've heard that concept... care to elaborate? or point me in the right research direction?
Not sure if you consider education of our own's kids as a violation of their individuality. As a parent I do not. I try to filter what I give them, to the bare minimum, and trying to be aware of my own biases when I talk to them. But I consider education of my offspring as a transference of tools that hopefully will result in their improved survival chances.
Again you mention the dynamic of the network, but i have no point of reference as i do not know what that means. What exactly is the "dynamic of the network"? I think only then i can use it to compare.
cheers
Mitch SMith 50+
Quantum mechanics deals with phenomena that lie outside our sensory and perceptual frameworks. Network dynamics are the stuff of our sensory and perceptive frameworks - we live it.
The topological potentiation in a brain can be easily communicated because we see it all around us in stark demonstration - e.g river systems .. the water flows to the sea, each outlet to the sea has a topological catchment, we can observe that a drop of water falling on one side of a mountain finds its way to the sea at a different place to one that falls on the other side. Such obsevervation does not require CERN to reveal it.
The interaction between networks can be demonstrated through the simple observation of trial-and-error - this is the basis of adaptation and evolution .. we can call it Bayesian learning, but that is only useful on the path to mathematical reduction.
One can explain such "flaws" as optical illusion by invoking the lake analogy of river systems - teh drop of water that finds itself in a lake, thinks it has found the sea - until it widens its perspective = the local-minimum trap of incomplete network training.
I wouldn't mind chatting if you like.
And I applaud your educational ethic .. it is not the one I usually encounter.
Yubal Masalker 200+
Robert Winner 50+
If we seperate the WANTS away from the NEEDS and so label them, then the message would be taught to the children.
Example being the strongest lesson to give them.
All the best. Bob.
Andres Aullet 10+
We do teach by example, not by our words.
And how important it is to teach the difference between wants and needs!
cheers
Guillaume Leclerc
eric rodgers
On a compassionate level, I would prefer to focus on transcending our inabilities to control our insatiable appetites for 'things'...transcend this culture of looking for happiness 'out there'.
Maybe this is inline with what you are seeking. If you are exploring ways to improve the lives of children by arming them with education. My angle would be to arm them with mindfulness.
I like the idea, however, of finding a creative way of educationally instilling in children how we are only utilizing our conscious minds about 5% of the time. And the significance of this. This will in turn lead them to seek ways of improving this limitation. It may lead to an increase in consciousness, which naturally leads to less seeking for happiness 'out there'.
Andres Aullet 10+
Thank you for your comments. Yes i think you understood me correctly, I am looking for means of improving the lives of children by arming them with education.
I share your fear that government intervention most of the time produces undesired results, and hence making this a matter of public education curriculum may make it problematic. I do think though, that many of the hurdles can be overcome, and that just like public schools of today do a good job at teaching them the nitrogen cycle, or the water cycle, maybe with time they could also teach them the subconscious decision making process. And I think this could do wonders to arm them with tools to defend themselves and grow more independent
And I also agree with you, in the sense that we are only aware of a small fraction of what's going on in our own brains (and hence we are conscious of a very small part of our mental experiences), and that learning about this and enabling people to become more aware of themselves, I too think it would be of tremendous significance
cheers
eric rodgers
I don't think public schools have a relationship with the public that would be aligned with teaching this kind of thing...teaching this would be counter-productive to the growth of capitalism I reckon, and I feel that this wouldn't be in line with the current public school systems' interests, as they exist today in the USA.
in the end...great question/discussion.
1) I would prefer to focus energy in transcending this materialistic society
2) I would focus on increasing the public awareness of the benefits of mindfulness and meditation, and other techniques that benefit our consciousness
3) the vehicle could come in the form of some non-profit, cyberspaced strategy, perhaps married to some physical institutions
Mitch SMith 50+
Be careful about that 5% stat - it is totally false. It's a little bit of misinformation that got injected into public usage by pseudo scientists and journalists mis-quoting real scientists for sensational effect.
You may well have a basis for using it in the correct frame, but without backing it up with some explaination, the misinformation will be heard in preference to what you are actually saying.
It is absolutely essential. that a brain is not totally activated at any particular time - the only fully-activated brain is one of someone in the throws of a grand-mal siezure.
Can you provide some context around your 5% statement?
I agree that cyberspace has the key to propogating resistance to brand-programing of world views, but it is not something that needs to be organised. Simply advocate, and the message will find its own way through the network.
You all keep making the mistake that such things need to be forced on children through a mistaken assumption that education is a dominance function. It is not. It is more akin to communality.
Cijaye DePradine
That said, we are ALL consumers. Even Marketers are. We still need to buy things and we typically buy what we need or what we want. If we want something we don't need - is that the marketers fault OR is it our issue for being weak?
So the education required here (for adults and children alike) is not just about how marketing really works - it's about due diligence and self control (among a few other fundamental but complex forms of logic)!
We will always need to buy things. That won't ever go away. So of COURSE marketing is going to live on forever. But we (as consumers) do need to assess what we are exposed to better and we need to check in with ourselves about whether its RIGHT for us or not.
We are (as a global community) in a world of debt. Why - because we buy more than we need and we need more than we can afford. AND we have very little education on HOW to change this.
Is that REALLY the fault of marketing?
P.S. I do take issue with some of the comments below. Saying that all marketers are liars, scammers, profiteers etc. is very accusatory. Even if few and far between, there are actually some marketers on the planet that do what they do because they believe in the companies they do it for AND actually care about those who would likely buy their products.
P.P.S. An ethical marketer see's marketing as NOT a way to scam people out of their money for a crappy product but a way to educate consumers better so that they can make informed decisions.
Andres Aullet 10+
Thank you for your comment,
I agree with you that we should exert personal responsibility and educate ourselves in order to be less "weak" towards the marketeers message. But I would contend that personal responsibility can only go so far, specially in cases when people do not have the means or the time to get educated regarding everything they are being told by advertisement
Our time is finite. And given the chance, I would rather spend it learning science, or playing music, and not researching whether a particular brand of electronic devices will provide me with that 1% "differentiation" that will make my life "so much better" than the competing products could
So it is an a sense an assault on people's, to force them to spend now a large proportion of their time weeding through oceans of information, which is mostly useless from a survival or personal growth perspective, in order to decide which products to buy or whether to buy a product in the first place. There is a misconception i find frequently, that is that if choice is good, more choices is always better... Time is limited though
I concur with you, and I do not intend this discussion to be an indictment against marketeers. Not all of them are scammers and profiteers. I have tried to turn the discussion from that accusatory stance, to one where we can find the right balance between somebody trying to sell a product, and somebody blatantly lying by concealing relevant information, in order to produce an unnecesary state of dissatisfaction on the "consumers"
By the way, for some reason I do not like the classification of consumers in the economic sense. We were humans long before there was such a thing as economics, and yes we consumed resources from the environment, but there was no need to promote consumption as a way of life, as i think there is today
I agree with your last sentence. Giving relevant information to educate people is definitely an ethical way to promote a product
cheers
Cijaye DePradine
Long story short though - your overall concept of educating youth at a SCHOOL level about how this all works and how they can protect ourselves is very smart and in many ways (I believe) quite necessary.
P.S. I understand your points about the time drains involved with due diligence, but because I am often one that helps business recover from seriously bad decisions that resulted from NOT doing due diligence, I see that time as quite important (at least for larger investments)
george lockwood 20+
Andres Aullet 10+
Thanks for the pointer. I have not read Charles McKays, but I am intrigued now.
I am not a big fan of the way the Chinese government spreads the load of the economic boom on a vast percentage of the population, but it only spreads the benefits of it between a very small elite. I would not say the Chinese government cares much about their fellows, specially their fellow workers, but I cannot say that the US government cares much either. Again, it might be because i do not believe much of what i hear in campaign advertisements
cheers