The issue isn't so much about which marketing channel works best (i.e. traditional vs digital) but about the psychological levers of persuassion. People don't like "conversing" and "engaging" with brands. That's why social media doesn't work. Social media is supposed to be social and not commercial.
As the article said, it's low cognitive involvement that works best, not brand loyalty. That's why advertisers are using the Low Attention Processing Model.[1] With this particular advertising strategy, brand information is 'acquired' at low and even zero attention levels using implicit learning.[2] Implicit learning cannot analyse or re-interpret anything. The information goes directly to the subconscious mind.
If so, then we are silently influenced by ambient images and messages around us. Advertisers could be affecting our decision making and even outlook on life in ways we can't perceive. This has been the driving inspiration for these posters I designed: http://subliminalzen.com.
Essentially, if anyone is going to advertise to my subconscious mind, it's going to be me. And I'd rather acquire positive habits and character traits than an emotional connection to a product.
It's not just psychological research that is deeply flawed. Only a quarter of scientific drug research is successfully reproduced as well.[1]
Carl Jung claimed one of the chief factors responsible for mass brainwashing is scientific rationality.[2] Society worships the Goddess of Reason while frowning down on "irrational" and non-verifiable religious testimony.
Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt, what will "rational" people base their understanding on?
>Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt, what will "rational" people base their understanding on?
This is not a new notion in the least. The "rational" people will continue doing what they've always done: revising their conclusions.
Science is a process, and while we can question the notion of "scientific progress" in philosophical terms, this is neither a new idea nor evidence that science doesn't work. It's certainly not evidence that science is no better than irrational thinking.
>Carl Jung claimed one of the chief factors responsible for mass brainwashing is scientific rationality.
Few people take psychoanalysts seriously these days, in large part because of their long record of absurd claims and shoddy clinical work. Jungian theory has it's place in a conversation about literary theory, but not in a conversation about science.
I don't know about psychoanalysis as defined by Freud and Jung, but therapy in general is an intensely personal experience.
I'm sure there are scientific aspects that can be brought to bear on a situation, but for a lot of people the "literary theory" part is just as helpful. Especially when you stop to think how much neurosis is fueled by pop culture (i.e. status envy).
>but therapy in general is an intensely personal experience.
And empirically speaking, psychoanalytic therapy has a piss-poor record in dealing with mental illness.
If you're looking for spiritual guidance, then maybe a psychoanalyst can help. If you're looking for clinical efficacy, they demonstrably don't.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to make a relevant Google Scholar query, but be careful not to confuse psychoanalysis with clinical psychology.
> for a lot of people the "literary theory" part is just as helpful.
Fine, but this is a conversation about psychology as a science.
> Society worships the Goddess of Reason while frowning down on "irrational" and non-verifiable religious testimony.
Yup, and now that the science in question was attempted to be verified and shown to be poor, we can improve the process. Try that with religion.
> Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt
Huh? Anyone who took psychological research as gospel does so at their own risk and ignorance. We've long known psychology is a soft science little better than voodoo. For example, most of the psychological establishment still default to 12 step programs for addictions. Guess what? It works about as well as any faith based healing program.
This is just another measure of validating the scientific method. Which is to say we don't know everything but we're learning.
>Yup, and now that the science in question was attempted to be verified and shown to be poor, we can improve the process. Try that with religion.
Can we?
To the scientists devoted to furthering knowledge, they will improve. But there will be many who hold onto this. A subset of what we currently see as science is probably better described as religion already and we are soon to see this distinction clearer than in the past.
> Only a quarter of scientific drug research is successfully reproduced as well.[1]
This is a debate in semantics: research that is not successfully reproduced is not scientific.
It should be part of that which society frowns down on as non-verifiable testimony.
Natural sciences or engineering-related research that cannot be reproduced is nothing but scientific theater. There are various reasons why people do that (including financial ones in the drug industry), but that's a discussion for another time.
This is not proof that "scientific rationality" is brainwashing people. If anything, it's proof that non-reproducible research dressed as legitimate science is dangerous -- so dangerous, in fact, that it can put lives in danger (e.g. when it happens in drug research).
>This is a debate in semantics: research that is not successfully reproduced is not scientific.
That's both untrue and fallacious (see: no true Scotsman).
If you set your p-value threshold at .05, then one in twenty experiments will produce a false positive. As such, plenty of research is conducted in a benevolent and meticulous fashion, only to yield a non-reproducible result. It's still scientific; it's just not true.
I don't agree with subliminalzen, but (with all due respect -- really!) your comment is hogwash.
> That's both untrue and fallacious (see: no true Scotsman).
No it's not. A sound scientific approach requires that a theory be based on reproducible results. If an experiment that verifies your theory confirms your result today and infirms it tomorrow, then the theory, the experimental approach, or both, are wrong.
Of course, experiments that can't be reproduced are part of the scientific endeavour. Every discovery comes at the end of a long sequence of experiments with results scattered all over the grah. But treating them as anything other than stumbling steps that help you refine your understanding of the problem or as dead ends is as unscientific as it gets.
>But treating them as anything other than stumbling steps that help you refine your understanding of the problem or as dead ends is as unscientific as it gets.
Which isn't at all what I'm suggesting.
I'm arguing against the idea that applying the scientific method and getting a false positive makes the effort unscientific.
> Only a quarter of scientific drug research is successfully reproduced as well.[1]
The article you are mentioning in [1] refers to the fact that a quarter of the published drug research is not successfully reproduced.
That doesn't mean that people published papers saying "Hey, we did this experiment. Its results cannot be consistently reproduced, so we think it's unconclusive/because our theory is flawed with regards to this or that/because the experiment was flawed with regards to this or that and we think it can be refined by changing this approach or that apparatus".
It means that a quarter of the published papers say "Hey, we did this experiment which offers conclusive proof of X", but it turns out that their experiments cannot be consistently reproduced, so they're proof of exactly nothing.
>It means that a quarter of the published papers say "Hey, we did this experiment which offers conclusive proof of X"
This is patently false. Publication is never a claim of conclusive proof; it's a claim of evidence.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this. False-positives don't suddenly make the experiment un-scientific. You're very misinformed about how science works:
- False positives are part of the landscape
- Contradictory evidence is part of the landscape
- The above issues are resolved by tracking reproducibility of results
You can come to a wrong conclusion using valid scientific means. The scientific method hinges on the assumption that research will eventually converge on a correct result.
Where did I say publication is a claim of conclusive proof?
I said they published papers in which they claimed they conclusively proved something, and it turned out they didn't conclusively prove anything. Specifically, because their results couldn't be reproduced.
In case you're not familiar with how experiments are carried out in natural sciences, "results couldn't be reproduced" means that
1. They claimed they got <these results> with p < <this threshold>
2. Some other guys repeated the same experiment ("repeated" as in they administered the same substances, to a sample of equal size under similar conditions and measured the same parameters under similar conditions) and it turned out that on their results, p was through the roof.
In some cases, that was simply because the authors didn't publish enough information for their experiments to be repeated (I was close to making that mistake, too. Thank God for review committees). But in most cases, that simply happened because authors cherry-picked data or "optimistically" interpreted results.
(Edit: Responsible review committees can sometimes spot the latter, but it's very hard to deal with the former. The correct thing to do is to have all researchers publish all their experimental data, even the one which wasn't included in the papers. A lot of researchers agree, but you'll find that a lot of companies that employ researchers actively invent reasons why their researchers shouldn't do that.)
> If you set your p-value threshold at .05, then one in twenty experiments will produce a false positive.
> The reason is simple: given a p-threshold of .05, one in five experiments will yield a false positive.
>Where did I say publication is a claim of conclusive proof?
Exactly where you typed It means that a quarter of the published papers say "Hey, we did this experiment which offers conclusive proof of X"
Again, this is patently false because they did not publish papers claiming conclusive proof. They published papers claiming evidence in favor of a theory.
>Make up your mind already.
There's no reason to be disrespectful over a mistake. I meant 1 in 20 (5%, hence the mix-up).
Returning to the point, it takes incredible mental gymnastics to argue that a false positive automatically degrades the status of a study from "scientific" to "unscientific":
1. The adjective "scientific" describes a method, not a result. Those speaking of "scientific results" are either (a) referring to "results of a scientific study" or (b) confused about what science is (namely: a method, not a result).
2. A false positive degrades the status of a result (not a study) from "evidence in favor of X" to "not evidence in favor of X".
> Returning to the point, it takes incredible mental gymnastics to argue that a false positive automatically degrades the status of a study from "scientific" to "unscientific"
No one said anything about A false positive!
"Cannot be reproduced" means there were a lot of false positives. So many, in fact, that you can't really draw any conclusion from the experiment. (Edit:) Or more to the point, that the p value the original authors claimed was bullshit.
Reproducing an experiment means reproducing both the experimental technique and the sample.
I went to college and worked on both degrees in Computer Science and Psychology. I wanted to go into researching in a field that crossed the two of them. I even did undergraduate research in a lab that worked at creating and testing VR to aid in therapy.
What I saw, read, and heard as I began my climb up the Ivory Tower made me turn back and go into industry instead. Once you are inside you begin to see the corruption. From the lack of pay to people who were allowing their views to corrupt their work (often seen by tweaking definitions of terms, especially in the realms of sociology and social psychology).
I still want to go back, but I would like to do so once I'm personally financially secure as that would remove one of the vectors for corruption.
P.S. To be clear, nothing was bad in the lab I worked in, perhaps because there was little to make political about creating VR landscapes and interactions.
VR and psychology -- cool! I got to visit Stanford's VR lab last year. They are doing some really cool pro-social stuff that has lots of therapeutic potential. Excited to see what comes out of it over the next 20 years.
> Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt, what will "rational" people base their understanding on?
Oh yes, and all the scientific advancements will stop working from now on since science is proven to be corrupt. I can hear the satellites and the MRI machines crashing because science doesn't work anymore...
What this means is that studies are less rigorous than promoted to be.
You may be unaware that the idea and initial development of MRI came from someone who does not believe in the sodium potassium pump. In fact, it was developed specifically based on alternative theories regarding how ionic concentrations are regulated. He is also a creationist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Vahan_Damadian
It doesn't matter. The people who develop newer MRI machines will use what they believe in the formulation of their experiments. If that initial development of MRI that you mention didn't amount to nothing, it would have been thrown aside by the medical and scientific communities. If I believe in the Loch Ness monster and I develop a new vaccine that can have its efficacy demonstrated in rigorous studies, so what about my Loch Ness?
What part of him being a creationist affected the technical aspects of his MRI studies?
>"What part of him being a creationist affected the technical aspects of his MRI studies?"
Nothing, I just gave those examples of people to show science can be systematically corrupt/wrong (since it is in their minds) and there will still be advancements.
Definitely consider BlackBerry's Passport. It's a fantastic phone. Lots of screen real estate for reading e-books and spreadsheets. And it runs Android apps (using 1Mobile Market, Amazon App Store or a half dozen other portals).
If multiple software companies have successfully trademarked the exact same single word, does that matter or not? (They're all sharing it already.)
Yes. As someone who owns a trademark, I can tell you it does matter. Pick a new name.
I would guess that all of these matter by degree, and potential trouble only depends on an adversary's willingness to litigate, but am hoping for some help or guidance in what is a complicated (and frustrating) aspect of our business.
Trademark owners must defend their trademarks against infringement. Expect litigation, every time.
By using the exonerative voice, a liar avoids committing to a particular narrative. They can easily back away from a statement by saying "I only said baggage is subject to being searched. I didn't say they were searched."
That said, I don't think the exonerated voice is a particularly skillful one. A careful listener can easily pick up on that.
But then there is the "grimace index" experiment, where scientists at McGill University in Montreal tortured mice, increasing the amounts of pain to measure facial expressions.
There was a public outcry, but the researchers still got plenty of citations.
As the article said, it's low cognitive involvement that works best, not brand loyalty. That's why advertisers are using the Low Attention Processing Model.[1] With this particular advertising strategy, brand information is 'acquired' at low and even zero attention levels using implicit learning.[2] Implicit learning cannot analyse or re-interpret anything. The information goes directly to the subconscious mind.
If so, then we are silently influenced by ambient images and messages around us. Advertisers could be affecting our decision making and even outlook on life in ways we can't perceive. This has been the driving inspiration for these posters I designed: http://subliminalzen.com.
Essentially, if anyone is going to advertise to my subconscious mind, it's going to be me. And I'd rather acquire positive habits and character traits than an emotional connection to a product.
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_learning