4 ms·

People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. Do they? Where did the ideas come from in the first place, then, and how have they ever been rejected? I don

by boken 12y ago

People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. Do they? Where did the ideas come from in the first place, then, and how have they ever been rejected? I don't know enough about you personally to make any inferences in this case, but usually when a sentence like the above is spoken, it sounds like it was bowdlerized: the word "other" was clearly intended in front of the word "people." If oppressive speech is to be suppressed--even in a post-revolutionary society--which platforms are to be policed? And with what resources? I'm reminded of John Milton's well-known metaphor, from "Areopagitica," of "that gallant man who thought to pound up the crows by shutting his park gate." To use another metaphor, ideas spread by every channel. Do you suppose we could dam them all?

zenogais 12y ago
I'd conjecture that people do, in fact, "take on ideas to which they're exposed". The proof is simple: if they didn't, marketing would never have come to be a multi-billion dollar industry. That being said, this in no way implies that people are fated only to have the ideas to which they've been previously exposed or can't actively search out and take on new ideas.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- boken 12y ago
  This is no proof. You're assuming that the products and services marketed have little to no intrinsic or social value, and that the consumers do not engage with the marketing critically--on any level. Certainly we all know some people who seem to act as automatically as this, but I doubt I've ever met anyone who truly does. You could say the exposure is necessary for the idea to be held. With marketing this is, of course, true. And in other aspects of life, certainly none of us comes into the world every morning with a blank slate of a mind. But would removing every expression of an idea, remove that idea? Perhaps in a generation's time? (It can't be done, but it's an interesting question to ask, all the same.) We do know that there was a time when certain hates--homophobia, for instance, to use an example from upthread--did not exist, at least not in a human mind. Yet they're here today. Did they require public fora? I can be exposed to an idea or an advertisement and subsequently walk away from it, having rejected its worth or its relevance to me. Without having done so, I cannot claim any agency in my thinking. Whether this kind of agency is worth protecting is another question altogether. The liberal ideas of free speech assume that it is.
  - zenogais 12y ago
    I assumed no such thing. I merely assumed that the power of subliminal or unconscious suggestion is more the aim of marketing than engagement with the rational/critical faculties of the customers in an attempt to meet their internally generated needs. In addition, that often the purpose of marketing is to induce consumption on an irrational basis rather than a rational one. The resulting "intrinsic/social value" would then have been manufactured by the marketing process rather than having arisen from reasoned value judgments or needs met by the product but individually arrived at by the customers. To see that activating these mechanisms is the purpose of marketing requires a simple survey of the history of marketing and marketing literature. This, again, in no way precludes people from activating their rational faculties and rejecting those messages. But in those cases simple repeated exposure is often enough to win them over. Your assumption seems to be that consumers, or at least the vast majority of them, critically engage with marketing material. Psychological literature definitively doesn't bare out such an optimistic conclusion. So such an argument seems to me at the very least scantly informed, but more than likely simply an apologia for a cognitive bias that is pro-marketing and pro-classical liberal notions of human agency.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  I think the major issue here is the implication that people are incapable of not taking on ideas to which they've been exposed. If this were Slashdot I imagine this whole thread would be peppered with the word "sheeple."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by boken 12y ago

zenogais 12y ago

I'd conjecture that people do, in fact, "take on ideas to which they're exposed". The proof is simple: if they didn't, marketing would never have come to be a multi-billion dollar industry. That being said, this in no way implies that people are fated only to have the ideas to which they've been previously exposed or can't actively search out and take on new ideas.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
boken 12y ago
This is no proof. You're assuming that the products and services marketed have little to no intrinsic or social value, and that the consumers do not engage with the marketing critically--on any level. Certainly we all know some people who seem to act as automatically as this, but I doubt I've ever met anyone who truly does. You could say the exposure is necessary for the idea to be held. With marketing this is, of course, true. And in other aspects of life, certainly none of us comes into the world every morning with a blank slate of a mind. But would removing every expression of an idea, remove that idea? Perhaps in a generation's time? (It can't be done, but it's an interesting question to ask, all the same.) We do know that there was a time when certain hates--homophobia, for instance, to use an example from upthread--did not exist, at least not in a human mind. Yet they're here today. Did they require public fora? I can be exposed to an idea or an advertisement and subsequently walk away from it, having rejected its worth or its relevance to me. Without having done so, I cannot claim any agency in my thinking. Whether this kind of agency is worth protecting is another question altogether. The liberal ideas of free speech assume that it is.
- zenogais 12y ago
  I assumed no such thing. I merely assumed that the power of subliminal or unconscious suggestion is more the aim of marketing than engagement with the rational/critical faculties of the customers in an attempt to meet their internally generated needs. In addition, that often the purpose of marketing is to induce consumption on an irrational basis rather than a rational one. The resulting "intrinsic/social value" would then have been manufactured by the marketing process rather than having arisen from reasoned value judgments or needs met by the product but individually arrived at by the customers. To see that activating these mechanisms is the purpose of marketing requires a simple survey of the history of marketing and marketing literature. This, again, in no way precludes people from activating their rational faculties and rejecting those messages. But in those cases simple repeated exposure is often enough to win them over. Your assumption seems to be that consumers, or at least the vast majority of them, critically engage with marketing material. Psychological literature definitively doesn't bare out such an optimistic conclusion. So such an argument seems to me at the very least scantly informed, but more than likely simply an apologia for a cognitive bias that is pro-marketing and pro-classical liberal notions of human agency.
oldmanjay 12y ago
I think the major issue here is the implication that people are incapable of not taking on ideas to which they've been exposed. If this were Slashdot I imagine this whole thread would be peppered with the word "sheeple."

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]