6 ms·

> Guadagno & Cialdini research (2002) showed that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies. Women, however, may respon

by Udo 15y ago

> Guadagno & Cialdini research (2002) showed that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies. Women, however, may respond better in face-to-face encounters because they are more ‘relationship-minded’ Yawn. Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. How is that supposed to be competitive? Oh, I forgot, the self-fulfilling world of pop psychology, brought to you by eternal twin slogans "It's true if you think it's true" and "You can convert any social belief into a universal truth by citing agenda-driven studies". The greatest Jedi mind trick is convincing people that your Jedi mind trick actually works.

greyish_water 15y ago
Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. It astonishes me that you're able to describe interactions with salespeople as being "harassed" yet can't understand how it could be construed as competitive. (Not that the study you're dismissing has anything to do with salespeople... You'd be better off attacking the tenuous and speculative suggestion that author has made based on a reading that study rather than attempting to nuke the proverbial site from orbit with such a monumentally tired argument as "I don't believe it so it can't possibly be true".)
- Udo 15y ago
  > It astonishes me that you're able to describe interactions with salespeople as being "harassed" yet can't understand how it could be construed as competitive. You make it sound like I'm drooling into a cup. So the competitiveness hypothesis resonates with you personally? Don't just imply that I'm stupid, explain to me what the competition actually is, and why I am automatically triggered into participating just because I have a penis. > You'd be better off attacking the tenuous and speculative suggestion that author has made based on a reading that study rather than attempting to nuke the proverbial site from orbit with such a monumentally tired argument as "I don't believe it so it can't possibly be true" I'm straining to see how this rhetoric can come from someone who is - in their own words - "just here for the polite and friendly atmosphere". However, I think I am attacking a piece of tenuous and speculative suggestion the author has made. I get that you disagree, I just don't get your specific objection.
  - drumdance 15y ago
    I think the point is that to be harassed is to be engaged in a competition - for autonomy, freedom, time to make up your mind on your own etc.
    - chc 15y ago
      I hope not, because that would be an extremely facile explanation. I don't think anybody, when asked to describe the feeling of being harassed, would describe it with anything resembling "I feel like I'm in a competition with another male for autonomy, freedom and time to make up my mind."
      - greyish_water 15y ago
        You've got it completely scrambled: Nobody is being asked to describe the feeling of being harassed. That was the word Udo chose to describe the feeling of dealing with a salesperson. I simply found it odd (very odd) that someone who uses a word that denotes aggression or attack to describe that situation would simultaneously find it totally alien to think of it as competitive.
        chc 15y ago
        Though those are valid definitions, I don't think "harass" necessarily has that violent connotation in most people's minds. It is commonly used as a slightly more intense form of "pester." I've actually heard people laugh at the term being used to refer to violence, because they think of it as a synonym for "annoy," and the idea of being "annoyed by gunfire" is humorously mild.
        greyish_water 15y ago
        The point is not dependent on the words being synonymous, nor did I ever claim that they were. (edit: I mistook who I was responding to and changed the comment accordingly.)
  - 15y ago
jpulgarin 15y ago
Have you read the cited study? Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. How is that supposed to be competitive? If that is true then why do women respond better in face-to-face encounters?
- Udo 15y ago
  > Have you read the cited study? Same as you. It costs $11 to read that thing and I assure you, nobody has read it (except maybe now that I said it out of spite). It looky like every other pop-psy study out there, many of which have been discredited over the years - at least the ones that people actually bothered with. It's unscientific trash designed to support broad generalizations and preconceptions. The entire field is known for making stuff up in a manner that is consistent with the cultural background and expectations of the study's authors. The crux of the matter is that these studies are supposed to show how certain behaviors are biologically hardwired into humans, when in fact the vast spectrum of human behavior and perception is frighteningly flexible and subject to the change of cultural and personal values over time. Many people, including pop-psy researchers, have a vested interest in showing that our behavior is preprogrammed by nature. In fact, the prescription of what's natural has been used as a justification for laws and rules for many hundred years now, so it's kind of a tradition. Any study of human behavior, especially if gender roles are concerned, needs to cite specifically the cultural context and timeframe the observations were made in. Advertising people know this. That's why they use different strategies in different countries, and it's also the main reason why advertising premises change over time.
  - quizbiz 15y ago
    Found it for free on Google Scholar: http://osil.psy.ua.edu/pubs/onlinepersuasion.pdf http://osil.psy.ua.edu/pubs/onlinepersuasion.pdf
    - throwaway0815 15y ago
      And? Is it all you hoped for?

by Udo 15y ago

greyish_water 15y ago

Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. It astonishes me that you're able to describe interactions with salespeople as being "harassed" yet can't understand how it could be construed as competitive. (Not that the study you're dismissing has anything to do with salespeople... You'd be better off attacking the tenuous and speculative suggestion that author has made based on a reading that study rather than attempting to nuke the proverbial site from orbit with such a monumentally tired argument as "I don't believe it so it can't possibly be true".)

Udo 15y ago
> It astonishes me that you're able to describe interactions with salespeople as being "harassed" yet can't understand how it could be construed as competitive. You make it sound like I'm drooling into a cup. So the competitiveness hypothesis resonates with you personally? Don't just imply that I'm stupid, explain to me what the competition actually is, and why I am automatically triggered into participating just because I have a penis. > You'd be better off attacking the tenuous and speculative suggestion that author has made based on a reading that study rather than attempting to nuke the proverbial site from orbit with such a monumentally tired argument as "I don't believe it so it can't possibly be true" I'm straining to see how this rhetoric can come from someone who is - in their own words - "just here for the polite and friendly atmosphere". However, I think I am attacking a piece of tenuous and speculative suggestion the author has made. I get that you disagree, I just don't get your specific objection.
- drumdance 15y ago
  I think the point is that to be harassed is to be engaged in a competition - for autonomy, freedom, time to make up your mind on your own etc.
  - chc 15y ago
    I hope not, because that would be an extremely facile explanation. I don't think anybody, when asked to describe the feeling of being harassed, would describe it with anything resembling "I feel like I'm in a competition with another male for autonomy, freedom and time to make up my mind."
    - greyish_water 15y ago
      You've got it completely scrambled: Nobody is being asked to describe the feeling of being harassed. That was the word Udo chose to describe the feeling of dealing with a salesperson. I simply found it odd (very odd) that someone who uses a word that denotes aggression or attack to describe that situation would simultaneously find it totally alien to think of it as competitive.
      - chc 15y ago
        Though those are valid definitions, I don't think "harass" necessarily has that violent connotation in most people's minds. It is commonly used as a slightly more intense form of "pester." I've actually heard people laugh at the term being used to refer to violence, because they think of it as a synonym for "annoy," and the idea of being "annoyed by gunfire" is humorously mild.
        greyish_water 15y ago
        The point is not dependent on the words being synonymous, nor did I ever claim that they were. (edit: I mistook who I was responding to and changed the comment accordingly.)
- 15y ago

jpulgarin 15y ago

Have you read the cited study? Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. How is that supposed to be competitive? If that is true then why do women respond better in face-to-face encounters?

Udo 15y ago
> Have you read the cited study? Same as you. It costs $11 to read that thing and I assure you, nobody has read it (except maybe now that I said it out of spite). It looky like every other pop-psy study out there, many of which have been discredited over the years - at least the ones that people actually bothered with. It's unscientific trash designed to support broad generalizations and preconceptions. The entire field is known for making stuff up in a manner that is consistent with the cultural background and expectations of the study's authors. The crux of the matter is that these studies are supposed to show how certain behaviors are biologically hardwired into humans, when in fact the vast spectrum of human behavior and perception is frighteningly flexible and subject to the change of cultural and personal values over time. Many people, including pop-psy researchers, have a vested interest in showing that our behavior is preprogrammed by nature. In fact, the prescription of what's natural has been used as a justification for laws and rules for many hundred years now, so it's kind of a tradition. Any study of human behavior, especially if gender roles are concerned, needs to cite specifically the cultural context and timeframe the observations were made in. Advertising people know this. That's why they use different strategies in different countries, and it's also the main reason why advertising premises change over time.
- quizbiz 15y ago
  Found it for free on Google Scholar: http://osil.psy.ua.edu/pubs/onlinepersuasion.pdf http://osil.psy.ua.edu/pubs/onlinepersuasion.pdf
  - throwaway0815 15y ago
    And? Is it all you hoped for?