3 ms·

" small but crucial move: the industry should use the expertise of scientists — its own and others — to gain a deeper understanding of what was driving American

by lnanek2 14y ago

" small but crucial move: the industry should use the expertise of scientists — its own and others — to gain a deeper understanding of what was driving Americans to overeat. " LMAO, they probably employ dozens of scientists trying to figure how to get people to eat more. Could the speaker have been any more clueless? He would have been better off pushing some solution that had been user tested not to hurt sales. E.g. use Stevia instead of sugar, cost goes up 5%, but sales rise to match as you capture some dieters you wouldn't otherwise or something. Instead he told them to research getting people to want less of their product.

ams6110 14y ago
Yes, they sit around in smoke-filled rooms scheming about how to make kids fatter and fatter. They in fact would like nothing better than if all children died of diabetes before they reach puberty. They do like we all do. Try to develop a product, test it, refine it, in order to sell more of it. One of the common mantras here is that its good to do A/B testing to get better conversion. But when General Mills does it, it's somehow evil?
- pessimizer 14y ago
  When we do it, it's sometimes evil - see http://darkpatterns.org/ http://darkpatterns.org/. But we're not poisoning people, even in the worst case. All we can do is screw up the internet.
  - dfxm12 14y ago
    Food companies aren't poisoning people either. People are poisoning themselves. You can make the case that these "poisonous" snack foods are so appealing because they are cheap, because the government only gives subsidies to agriculture used in making junk food, but that's a stretch & still assumes there are no other options (like eating healthier or eating less).
    - wpietri 14y ago
      Your implied intellectual model here is that people are entirely in control of their actions and are (or at least can be) perfectly rational about them. That's far from the truth. These junk food brands spend enormous amount of money on advertising, product placement, and other ways to influence consumers. Why? Because it works to manipulate them. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Or talk to anybody who works in mass-market advertising. Or hell, just visit Vegas. If people were rational actors, Las Vegas would still just be a place where the Hoover Dam workers lived.
- arjie 14y ago
  >One of the common mantras here is that its good to do A/B testing to get better conversion. But when General Mills does it, it's somehow evil? I doubt people's objection is to the methods. It's probably to what they're used for. A/B testing is not inherently evil. However, to illustrate with an example (not necessarily related to the discussion), if I were to do A/B testing to determine the best way to sell heroin to little children, then what I am doing is evil. It is irrelevant that I'm using a method used by legitimate people. I would find no sympathy if I said that selling heroin using these methods is fine just because you use these methods to sell your mail app or whatever. GP's argument is easy to understand: Companies are trying to sell more of their product. This is their primary aim. Their product is suboptimal for children's health. Telling them to sell less isn't going to work because they don't care about this. It's not that they're intentionally malicious. It's just not a priority. Therefore, if you want them to sell healthier product, convince them of a business opportunity. There's no value judgement in that.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Fucking right it's evil. That's because actions get moral consequences from results. Once a year or so I end up in Vegas for a weekend. Every time, I look at all the electronic games and think, "Man, I could build something much more engaging and compelling than slot machines." And then I start thinking about cool products. After about 10 minutes of this, I wake up and say, "But that would be wrong!" because I've finally gotten as far as thinking about the moral consequences of making Vegas even stickier. I've turned down lucrative offers from entrepreneurs for similar reasons. If I get rich by making the world worse, it's just an elaborate scam, taking advantage of weakness and ignorance to fill my bank account.

by lnanek2 14y ago

ams6110 14y ago

Yes, they sit around in smoke-filled rooms scheming about how to make kids fatter and fatter. They in fact would like nothing better than if all children died of diabetes before they reach puberty. They do like we all do. Try to develop a product, test it, refine it, in order to sell more of it. One of the common mantras here is that its good to do A/B testing to get better conversion. But when General Mills does it, it's somehow evil?

pessimizer 14y ago
When we do it, it's sometimes evil - see http://darkpatterns.org/ http://darkpatterns.org/. But we're not poisoning people, even in the worst case. All we can do is screw up the internet.
- dfxm12 14y ago
  Food companies aren't poisoning people either. People are poisoning themselves. You can make the case that these "poisonous" snack foods are so appealing because they are cheap, because the government only gives subsidies to agriculture used in making junk food, but that's a stretch & still assumes there are no other options (like eating healthier or eating less).
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Your implied intellectual model here is that people are entirely in control of their actions and are (or at least can be) perfectly rational about them. That's far from the truth. These junk food brands spend enormous amount of money on advertising, product placement, and other ways to influence consumers. Why? Because it works to manipulate them. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Or talk to anybody who works in mass-market advertising. Or hell, just visit Vegas. If people were rational actors, Las Vegas would still just be a place where the Hoover Dam workers lived.
arjie 14y ago
>One of the common mantras here is that its good to do A/B testing to get better conversion. But when General Mills does it, it's somehow evil? I doubt people's objection is to the methods. It's probably to what they're used for. A/B testing is not inherently evil. However, to illustrate with an example (not necessarily related to the discussion), if I were to do A/B testing to determine the best way to sell heroin to little children, then what I am doing is evil. It is irrelevant that I'm using a method used by legitimate people. I would find no sympathy if I said that selling heroin using these methods is fine just because you use these methods to sell your mail app or whatever. GP's argument is easy to understand: Companies are trying to sell more of their product. This is their primary aim. Their product is suboptimal for children's health. Telling them to sell less isn't going to work because they don't care about this. It's not that they're intentionally malicious. It's just not a priority. Therefore, if you want them to sell healthier product, convince them of a business opportunity. There's no value judgement in that.
wpietri 14y ago
Fucking right it's evil. That's because actions get moral consequences from results. Once a year or so I end up in Vegas for a weekend. Every time, I look at all the electronic games and think, "Man, I could build something much more engaging and compelling than slot machines." And then I start thinking about cool products. After about 10 minutes of this, I wake up and say, "But that would be wrong!" because I've finally gotten as far as thinking about the moral consequences of making Vegas even stickier. I've turned down lucrative offers from entrepreneurs for similar reasons. If I get rich by making the world worse, it's just an elaborate scam, taking advantage of weakness and ignorance to fill my bank account.