3 ms·

> It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. This is Econ 101 dogma. I'm surprised you can write this without examining it further. People are no

> It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. This is Econ 101 dogma. I'm surprised you can write this without examining it further. People are not rational actors. That's why advertising works. What's particularly interesting about your using this argument is that advertising exists precisely to manipulate the non-rational decision making of consumers. Once we realize that humans in general are wired such that they make certain cognitive mistakes again, and again, we have to modify our understanding of a "freely contracted trade". A trade where I take advantage of your human nature to encourage you to make a decision that is in my interest is not truly freely-entered. With respect to your tax rant ... you should know that people respond more to what is annoying or vivid than to longer term considerations. Ads are a low-grade but constant irritation, whereas I make enough money that taxes are just some numbers on paper.

moron4hire 17y ago
Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture. While advertising is primarily persuasive (there is still a significant informative portion of advertising), there's nothing wrong with being persuasive. You're attempting to be persuasive with your replies in this thread. If being persuasive is being unethically manipulative, then we had better stop all debate right now.
- JabavuAdams 17y ago
  > Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture People's moment to moment interests often differ from their stated long-term interests. If this were untrue, impulse purchases would be impossible. How do you explain impulse purchases? How do you explain people who "want to lose weight", yet eat an extra snack that they know they shouldn't eat. Notice that I didn't write "compelled", anywhere. That's your choice of words, and it creates a straw-man argument. "Enticed" would be closer to the mark. Let's examine this claim of yours that "there's nothing wrong with being persuasive". Persuasion doesn't exist by itself. One tries to persuade someone of something. Considering persuasion alone, without considering the context is not very deep thinking. If I try to persuade you to believe something that is untrue, or that is likely not in your best interest, then actually, there is something wrong with that persuasion. I'm arguing here, not for the sake of arguing, but to persuade you of something that I believe is true. While many advertisers may believe their own claims, many do not. Furthermore, many who believe their own claims do so out of a failure to question them with the same rigour as they might question a position they disagree with. Going meta, the pattern I see in your response is that you take what I wrote to an absurd extreme, and then point out the absurdity of (your interpretation) of my argument. What do you think of this?

moron4hire 17y ago

Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture. While advertising is primarily persuasive (there is still a significant informative portion of advertising), there's nothing wrong with being persuasive. You're attempting to be persuasive with your replies in this thread. If being persuasive is being unethically manipulative, then we had better stop all debate right now.

JabavuAdams 17y ago
> Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture People's moment to moment interests often differ from their stated long-term interests. If this were untrue, impulse purchases would be impossible. How do you explain impulse purchases? How do you explain people who "want to lose weight", yet eat an extra snack that they know they shouldn't eat. Notice that I didn't write "compelled", anywhere. That's your choice of words, and it creates a straw-man argument. "Enticed" would be closer to the mark. Let's examine this claim of yours that "there's nothing wrong with being persuasive". Persuasion doesn't exist by itself. One tries to persuade someone of something. Considering persuasion alone, without considering the context is not very deep thinking. If I try to persuade you to believe something that is untrue, or that is likely not in your best interest, then actually, there is something wrong with that persuasion. I'm arguing here, not for the sake of arguing, but to persuade you of something that I believe is true. While many advertisers may believe their own claims, many do not. Furthermore, many who believe their own claims do so out of a failure to question them with the same rigour as they might question a position they disagree with. Going meta, the pattern I see in your response is that you take what I wrote to an absurd extreme, and then point out the absurdity of (your interpretation) of my argument. What do you think of this?