4 ms·

For me it underscores the point, we are under the influence of external forces (manipulated), for better or worse. We are also told, by some actors, that this

For me it underscores the point, we are under the influence of external forces (manipulated), for better or worse. We are also told, by some actors, that this isn't the case. These folks would have us believe, we are free to choose to enter the military or join college. But... In this new scenario, students read the signs, the messages are brought to their attention, and of all the possible things they might do, the odds of choosing one of these two things increased some degree. In other words, the external forces in their environment have shaped their future state (choice). I'd be curious to see a table of interventions, and the degree they pull out the entropy of what a person might do next. We might then make some categories, like you mentioned above. When we appreciate the power of manipulation, for better or worse, perhaps we'll give it more serious consideration. This ought to undergird our thinking and decision making, whatever we may CHOOSE. ;)

oconnore 9y ago
To me the bothersome things are the expansion of the proportional impact of individual influencers and also the shrinking of the number of channels required to deliver influence effectively. In the lunchroom example, so long as lots of other folks are putting posters on the wall, and presumably some kids don't look at the lunchroom posters, I don't have a problem with either the college or the military changing behavior that way. There were many alternatives, and the poster wasn't forced on anyone. The influence we're seeing now is expensive (much higher proportional impact if you can pay), and effectively guaranteed (everyone is tuned to the same channel or two). I hope we don't have to analyze individual interventions, I'd much rather just break up the channels, or increase the diversity of the programming. Mostly because I'm not sure how to (and I'm not sure we should) answer your question.

oconnore 9y ago

To me the bothersome things are the expansion of the proportional impact of individual influencers and also the shrinking of the number of channels required to deliver influence effectively. In the lunchroom example, so long as lots of other folks are putting posters on the wall, and presumably some kids don't look at the lunchroom posters, I don't have a problem with either the college or the military changing behavior that way. There were many alternatives, and the poster wasn't forced on anyone. The influence we're seeing now is expensive (much higher proportional impact if you can pay), and effectively guaranteed (everyone is tuned to the same channel or two). I hope we don't have to analyze individual interventions, I'd much rather just break up the channels, or increase the diversity of the programming. Mostly because I'm not sure how to (and I'm not sure we should) answer your question.