4 ms·

I don't think skepticism is sufficient unless it actually results in wide-scale action, though. The point of this article is that it _does work_, no matter how

I don't think skepticism is sufficient unless it actually results in wide-scale action, though. The point of this article is that it _does work_, no matter how skeptical you are. Which is completely unsurprising. Consider a human as a biological computer. We have bugs, glitches, buffer overflows. Eventually someone will work out that if you show a human a certain series of images, they'll do something in response. (This might be a limiting example and a bit absurd, but reduce it a bit and I think my point is clear). Even if everyone is maximally skeptical, the industry still works. Whether people are affected by it or not, we shouldn't have to tolerate vulgar nonsense on our streets, in our buses, trains, movies, etc.

philipkglass 8y ago
The point of this article is that it _does work_, no matter how skeptical you are. I think that's putting it too strongly. It's more like an epidemiology problem, where we know that it is not possible for everyone to be maximally skeptical, so change from the status quo will not be achieved at the individual consumer level. A few habitual cigarette smokers quit abruptly, with no apparent difficulty or later relapses. A few smokers never quit yet outlive their non-smoking peers. Some people try cigarettes once or twice and never develop the habit. However, despite the existence of individuals who can overcome, endure, or resist the common effects of cigarettes, epidemiological evidence shows that it takes regulation to reduce smoking and its ill effects at an aggregate population level. It's similar with advertising. Advertising targets populations. It works on populations. It is neither necessary nor proven that it is possible to craft an advertisement so powerful that anyone who sees it will eventually buy the advertised product. Analogizing human brains to unpatched computers, rife with exploitable buffer overflows, confuses more than it clarifies. (As an example, I saw my first Coors beer ad more than 30 years ago. I have yet to buy Coors beer. I don't drink beer. Nor do I drink sodas, so no Coke or Pepsi in my house either.)
mixmastamyk 8y ago
The first step is recognizing there's a problem. We can discuss further remedies but they are unlikely to be implemented until then.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  i.e. Necessary but not sufficient.
agree1972 8y ago
> Eventually someone will work out that if you show a human a certain series of images, they'll do something in response. (This might be a limiting example and a bit absurd, but reduce it a bit and I think my point is clear). This actually happens. There was a reporter who had epilepsy and was disliked by some group of people. Eventually one of them sent him a twitter message with images that caused him to have a seizure.[0] [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/17/fbi-man-sent-seizure-causing-tweet-newsweek-writer/99338086/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/17/fb...
tomjen3 8y ago
I am not sure I buy that, as humans are more like biological self programmable machines. Smalltalk or Lisp implementations, not C, if you get my meaning.

philipkglass 8y ago

The point of this article is that it _does work_, no matter how skeptical you are. I think that's putting it too strongly. It's more like an epidemiology problem, where we know that it is not possible for everyone to be maximally skeptical, so change from the status quo will not be achieved at the individual consumer level. A few habitual cigarette smokers quit abruptly, with no apparent difficulty or later relapses. A few smokers never quit yet outlive their non-smoking peers. Some people try cigarettes once or twice and never develop the habit. However, despite the existence of individuals who can overcome, endure, or resist the common effects of cigarettes, epidemiological evidence shows that it takes regulation to reduce smoking and its ill effects at an aggregate population level. It's similar with advertising. Advertising targets populations. It works on populations. It is neither necessary nor proven that it is possible to craft an advertisement so powerful that anyone who sees it will eventually buy the advertised product. Analogizing human brains to unpatched computers, rife with exploitable buffer overflows, confuses more than it clarifies. (As an example, I saw my first Coors beer ad more than 30 years ago. I have yet to buy Coors beer. I don't drink beer. Nor do I drink sodas, so no Coke or Pepsi in my house either.)

mixmastamyk 8y ago

The first step is recognizing there's a problem. We can discuss further remedies but they are unlikely to be implemented until then.

mixmastamyk 8y ago
i.e. Necessary but not sufficient.

agree1972 8y ago

> Eventually someone will work out that if you show a human a certain series of images, they'll do something in response. (This might be a limiting example and a bit absurd, but reduce it a bit and I think my point is clear). This actually happens. There was a reporter who had epilepsy and was disliked by some group of people. Eventually one of them sent him a twitter message with images that caused him to have a seizure.[0] [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/17/fbi-man-sent-seizure-causing-tweet-newsweek-writer/99338086/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/17/fb...

tomjen3 8y ago

I am not sure I buy that, as humans are more like biological self programmable machines. Smalltalk or Lisp implementations, not C, if you get my meaning.