Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[WWGD]

It started when I was watching the Netflix series "Broadchurch" which featured some very sad and beautiful music by composer
Ólafur Arnalds, who is from Iceland.
I plugged his name into my Pandora app one day and got his music and a bunch of other stuff that at first I found so heartbreaking that I had to stop awhile. Picked it up again later and "discovered" the "post rock" genre, a lot of which is from Iceland but much of which is from, for whatever reason, Texas, such as Explosions in the Sky and bands with fun names like This will Destroy You. (Also from Texas). But Sigor Ros is another one from Iceland (ok, tired of hyperlinking, sorry). And yes, it turns out I like Bjork, though I never gave her a chance back in the day, and still haven't really dove in just yet.

-Dave K

Maybe we can reverse-engineer your personality type using this post together with your Wikipedia link on music and personality dispositions.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Let's hope we are both general health equivalents to Winston Churchill, who smoked almost daily, was overweight and still lived till his 90's. There is something to be said for not worrying too much -- that may be our edge.

My nutritional (but non chemical) understanding is that yes, simple sugars break down more quickly, causing blood sugar spikes, causing insulin to release, and generally making a mess of things. Starches are, I think, slightly less "simple"; simple carbs break down more slowly than sugar, but complex carbs break down more slowly than simple carbs. Fat is the slowest burning, which is why I need to eat lots of it to keep my energy going, since I apparently make too much insulin. It gives me an excuse to indulge my obsession with peanut butter. ("natural" of course, the no sugar kind).

 

[WWGD]

My nutritional (but non chemical) understanding is that yes, simple sugars break down more quickly, causing blood sugar spikes, causing insulin to release, and generally making a mess of things. Starches are, I think, slightly less "simple"; simple carbs break down more slowly than sugar, but complex carbs break down more slowly than simple carbs. Fat is the slowest burning, which is why I need to eat lots of it to keep my energy going, since I apparently make too much insulin. It gives me an excuse to indulge my obsession with peanut butter. ("natural" of course, the no sugar kind).

But problem with fat, from the little I know, is that it has a negative energy impact on your system: it takes more energy to break it down than it produces after broken down. But it becomes more complicated , since there are good fats and bad fats; saturated, unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, etc.

 

[JorisL]

For a 20 cl cuppa I use 1 sugar* cube of 1.4g. The way I brew my coffee is to take about 6 big scoops of coffee for a pot of coffee.
Don't know about the standard serving sizes at starbucks here, haven't tried that coffee either.
Earliest possible moment I'll try it is weeks from now.

* Just found out it's part cane sugar and part sweetener in the form of sucralose (which incidentally is an ingredient of splenda according to the wiki)

 

[dkotschessaa]

Maybe we can reverse-engineer your personality type using this post together with your Wikipedia link on music and personality dispositions.

If you heard this music and met me personally I think you'd find it a bit puzzling. I've been into this music for about 3 months and most people who know me find it out of character for me. I've only been into this music about 3 months. I was in a metal band in high school, but then I played and studied jazz guitar for 10 years and then classical guitar for the next 10 years, and though I have varied, varied interests, am generally a class-A music snob, thumbing my nose at anything that comes out of the TV or Radio or is too repetitive or pop-like, or really anything that is not at least 20 years old.

And yet for some reason I am liking these pop-ish bands that have been coming out in the last few years...

 

[dkotschessaa]

But problem with fat, from the little I know, is that it has a negative energy impact on your system: it takes more energy to break it down than it produces after broken down. But it becomes more complicated , since there are good fats and bad fats; saturated, unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, etc.

Which is why initially I was put on an "induction" phase, a bit like what atkins dieters do, to make my body burn fat preferentially or something like that. It is something I probably need to do again. I am not really sure of the science.

 

[WWGD]

If you heard this music and met me personally I think you'd find it a bit puzzling. I've been into this music for about 3 months and most people who know me find it out of character for me. I've only been into this music about 3 months. I was in a metal band in high school, but then I played and studied jazz guitar for 10 years and then classical guitar for the next 10 years, and though I have varied, varied interests, am generally a class-A music snob, thumbing my nose at anything that comes out of the TV or Radio or is too repetitive or pop-like, or really anything that is not at least 20 years old.

And yet for some reason I am liking these pop-ish bands that have been coming out in the last few years...

Agreed; I don't need to have all music be complex all the time. There is something to be said for simplicity. A fried egg, beans, etc. Same for me when it comes down to music. But going back to the issue of music preference, it would be interesting to understand how a popular song can appear to all different combinations of personality types.

 

[WWGD]

For a 20 cl cuppa I use 1 sugar* cube of 1.4g. The way I brew my coffee is to take about 6 big scoops of coffee for a pot of coffee.
Don't know about the standard serving sizes at starbucks here, haven't tried that coffee either.
Earliest possible moment I'll try it is weeks from now.

* Just found out it's part cane sugar and part sweetener in the form of sucralose (which incidentally is an ingredient of splenda according to the wiki)

The science behind these sugar substitutes does not seem to be very clear. Modern times, you know, the thrill of having all this data available and the agony of filtering out the noise and the trash in order to get to the useful stuff.

 

[rootone]

I'm sure a lot of 'pop' music is deliberately formulated to appeal to what statistically are common preferences.
How many pop songs are less then two minutes long or more than three?
How many pop songs dare to venture outside of 4/4 time - well apart from the increasing tendency for them to sound more like 1/1

 

[WWGD]

I'm sure a lot of 'pop' music is deliberately formulated to appeal to what statistically are common preferences.
How many pop songs are less then two minutes long or more than three?
How many pop songs dare to venture outside of 4/4 time - well apart from the increasing tendency for them to sound more like 1/1

Indeed, there are actual formulas for producing hit songs based on this, on Statistical Analysis. People are more predictable than they are willing to admit/accept. Similar attitudes by people towards adevertisement: " It doesn't affect me". Nonsense, it is such a large sector for a good reason: it works.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The science behind these sugar substitutes does not seem to be very clear. Modern times, you know, the thrill of having all this data available and the agony of filtering out the noise and the trash in order to get to the useful stuff.

Recent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/u...ts-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html?_r=0

 

[dkotschessaa]

Indeed, there are actual formulas for producing hit songs based on this, on Statistical Analysis. People are more predictable than they are willing to admit/accept. Similar attitudes by people towards adevertisement: " It doesn't affect me". Nonsense, it is such a large sector for a good reason: it works.

Education helps one with immunity to social programming, I think. I can pretty much tell , by the first 30 seconds of most modern pop songs, how the rest is going to go, and I can probably reproduce it on my instrument. Having this ability makes me "immune" in the sense that something so easily reproducible isn't interesting or appealing.

So I'm really big on music education, mostly because I think people would stop making crappy music and then I wouldn't have to listen to it.

Similarly if you can see through the psychology of advertising it tends to be less effective.

-Dave K

 

[fresh_42]

Similarly if you can see through the psychology of advertising it tends to be less effective.

Same with TV series. I once decided to avoid all products which are advertised by such a stupidity that it hurts. Unfortunately ...

 

[zoobyshoe]

After using sugar substitutes like Splenda and Equal for a while, it takes around 6 regular sugars to sweeten my coffee, instead of the 2 it used to take.

Yes, the substitutes are more powerful, and you can't go back to regular sugar after your tolerance has been raise by them. 6 regular sugars is too much. I would not dismiss the dangers of diabetes, which is an insidious disease that progresses incrementally until you suddenly start fainting, or find you have symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

Let's hope we are both general health equivalents to Winston Churchill, who smoked almost daily, was overweight and still lived till his 90's. There is something to be said for not worrying too much -- that may be our edge.

Churchill did not seem to develop any problems from his weight or cigar habit, but his old age was made less-than-ideal by the fact he took increasingly to drink as he aged, and was not in good mental or physical shape. There were a few instances where he was found wandering around Blenheim Palace naked, for example.

It's true that an easy going attitude prevents stress related problems, but there's a difference between that and letting yourself go.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Star wars spoiler alert:

 

[WWGD]

Yes, the substitutes are more powerful, and you can't go back to regular sugar after your tolerance has been raise by them. 6 regular sugars is too much. I would not dismiss the dangers of diabetes, which is an insidious disease that progresses incrementally until you suddenly start fainting, or find you have symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

Churchill did not seem to develop any problems from his weight or cigar habit, but his old age was made less-than-ideal by the fact he took increasingly to drink as he aged, and was not in good mental or physical shape. There were a few instances where he was found wandering around Blenheim Palace naked, for example.

It's true that an easy going attitude prevents stress related problems, but there's a difference between that and letting yourself go.

Of course, I don't advocate/recommend magical thinking of the "just don't worry" . What I meant was, instead of worrying, address the issues and then let things take care of themselves. I exercise, don't smoke nor drink, eat reasonably healthy. After that, the most I can do is just let things happen.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Similar attitudes by people towards adevertisement: " It doesn't affect me". Nonsense, it is such a large sector for a good reason: it works.

I'm going to dispute this based on things told to me by a friend who works in advertising. Their whole goal and struggle is to sell the ad to the people who want their product advertised. Whether or not the ad works on the general public is, in the end, completely immaterial. The challenge is to make the ad agency client think it's going to work.

The client comes to the ad agency with a long laundry list of things they want emphasized about their product, and a vague but simultaneously strong sense of how they want it presented. The client is, for obvious reasons, exceptionally attached to a preconceived image of their product which they want the ad agency to purvey, or at least, not undercut. So, what follows is a long, usually cordial (but not always), arm wrestle between the client and the agency, during which the agency tries to pry the client away from their preconceptions and open them up to novel ideas the agency authentically thinks will work. Clients differ in their degree of stubbornness, and the ad agency has, always, to tread lightly in how much they push them, least they just take their business elsewhere. (Ad agencies refer to stubborn clients as "untalented," and to pushover clients as "talented," in exactly the same way hypnotists use that term. A "talented" subject for a hypnotist is the one most easily hypnotized, the one who comes to the hypnotist already believing in his mesmerizing powers, and drops into a trance at the slightest suggestion. Ad agencies love "talented" clients, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) So, the client always wins, and in most cases the ads you see are not the ads the ad agency wanted to make, but some bastard hybrid of conflicting value systems. For that reason, ad ends up being completely unpersuasive, and often irritating, such that you have to wonder if there's anyone in existence who taken in by it.

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

So, yes, ads work, but the notion that ad men are master psychologists who are subliminally manipulating the stupid masses at levels they'll never understand, is a lot of hooey. Ad agencies rarely get the chance to pull out all their creative stops, and when they do, it's as hit or miss as any gamble.

 

[WWGD]

I'm going to dispute this based on things told to me by a friend who works in advertising. Their whole goal and struggle is to sell the ad to the people who want their product advertised. Whether or not the ad works on the general public is, in the end, completely immaterial. The challenge is to make the ad agency client think it's going to work.

The client comes to the ad agency with a long laundry list of things they want emphasized about their product, and a vague but simultaneously strong sense of how they want it presented. The client is, for obvious reasons, exceptionally attached to a preconceived image of their product which they want the ad agency to purvey, or at least, not undercut. So, what follows is a long, usually cordial (but not always), arm wrestle between the client and the agency, during which the agency tries to pry the client away from their preconceptions and open them up to novel ideas the agency authentically thinks will work. Clients differ in their degree of stubbornness, and the ad agency has, always, to tread lightly in how much they push them, least they just take their business elsewhere. (Ad agencies refer to stubborn clients as "untalented," and to pushover clients as "talented," in exactly the same way hypnotists use that term. A "talented" subject for a hypnotist is the one most easily hypnotized, the one who comes to the hypnotist already believing in his mesmerizing powers, and drops into a trance at the slightest suggestion. Ad agencies love "talented" clients, but they are the exception rather than the rule.) So, the client always wins, and in most cases the ads you see are not the ads the ad agency wanted to make, but some bastard hybrid of conflicting value systems. For that reason, ad ends up being completely unpersuasive, and often irritating, such that you have to wonder if there's anyone in existence who taken in by it.

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

So, yes, ads work, but the notion that ad men are master psychologists who are subliminally manipulating the stupid masses at levels they'll never understand, is a lot of hooey. Ad agencies rarely get the chance to pull out all their creative stops, and when they do, it's as hit or miss as any gamble.

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

 

[WWGD]

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

?

 

[zoobyshoe]

?

Reread my post carefully.

 

[HomogenousCow]

The new StarWars movie is amazing apparently.

 

[WWGD]

You'd be a talented client for an ad agency.

If I understood correctly, you believe I think the ad agencies are brilliant and do their job effectively. I am not sure this is my position. All I am saying is that it is not hard to use the average person's lack of awareness against them. I am not sure this is what the ad agencies do, but I think this is possible. Con men of different sorts, some politicians, everyday people use it, with different degrees of subtlety. The more subtle you are, the more effective the manipulation. Nowadays, after the upheavals of the 60s, there is too much skepticism towards institutions that makes it harder to manipulate people, who start out with a skeptical position.

EDIT: Are you sure your friend's position and his experience in the industry is representative- enough to draw the general conclusion? Did s/he tell you about their experience recently?

EDIT2: Have you ever watched or heard mention of this MTV show where this guy would make just-about any woman want him ? By his own admission, he was able to do this by just observing and trying to understand people's needs and triggers, which most people themselves were not aware off. You also have , e.g. Dale Carnegie on influencing people. I don't know for sure this is what ad agencies do as a general method, but it has been used in the design and marketing of products. That is my point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If I understood correctly, you believe I think the ad agencies are brilliant and do their job effectively.

No, I think you think this:

But a lot of these agencies do know the triggers of many people's behaviors better than the people themselves. Few people understand their own psychological make up and what motivates them. This allows those who do understand their motivation triggers to manipulate them. This does not require much brilliance, just methodical observation.

In other words, I think you are attributing an expertise to ad men that they don't actually have. They wish they did, and they will absolutely claim they do to prospective clients, but all they actually have is some industry lore about what works and a grab bag of rules of thumb.

All I am saying is that it is not hard to use the average person's lack of awareness against them. I am not sure this is what the ad agencies do, but I think this is possible. Con men of different sorts, some politicians, everyday people use it, with different degrees of subtlety. The more subtle you are, the more effective the manipulation.

Yes, ad men are essentially wanna-be con men, but the target is always the client, not the consumer. And, yeah, they do have all sorts of tricks and ploys for dealing with clients, but that's relegated to not pissing them off while they're trying to change their tack.

EDIT: Are you sure your friend's position and his experience in the industry is representative- enough to draw the general conclusion? Did s/he tell you about their experience recently?

He's worked at three different agencies, and I've gotten intermittent reports over about 30 years. Last time I discussed it in depth with him was 5 years ago. His story then was the same as when he first started: it's overwhelmingly about wrangling the client, not the consumer.

The main reason I have no problem believing his experience is representative is because I tried it once myself. I wanted to do something useful with my artwork, and I approached a singer and asked if she'd be interested in me doing some sheet ads for her. It was a debacle. It turned out she had a specific artist who's artwork she thought would suit her singing style and would not entertain my quite different take on what might make the public interested in her gigs.

I suggest you try it. Next time you meet someone with something to sell, create a mental ad campaign for them, a sincere one, and run it by them. Or, simply ask them how they would, sincerely, advertise their thing if they had the money to make TV ads. Then, conceive of a different way, and try to get them to abandon theirs and adopt yours.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The new StarWars movie is amazing apparently.

I actually have an interest in seeing it.

 

[WWGD]

No, I think you think this:

In other words, I think you are attributing an expertise to ad men that they don't actually have. They wish they did, and they will absolutely claim they do to prospective clients, but all they actually have is some industry lore about what works and a grab bag of rules of thumb.

Yes, ad men are essentially wanna-be con men, but the target is always the client, not the consumer. And, yeah, they do have all sorts of tricks and ploys for dealing with clients, but that's relegated to not pissing them off while they're trying to change their tack.
ought would suit her singing style and would not entertain my quite different take on what might make the public interested in her gigs.

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long. So it just seems that, together with the hot air, there must be something to it. Still, outside of advertisement, do you think my suggested method is used , in areas like marketing, in the ways supermarkets stock their shelves, in the music they choose to play, the temperature, etc. ? This is largely what big data is about : predictive analytics.

 

[dkotschessaa]

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long. So it just seems that, together with the hot air, there must be something to it. Still, outside of advertisement, do you think my method is used , in areas like marketing, in the ways supermarkets stock their shelves, in the music they choose to play, the temperature, etc. This is largely what big data is about : predictive analytics.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

 

[WWGD]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

Wouldn't a consistent increase in sales be a good measure of the effectiveness of an ad, when controlling for other factors?

 

[zoobyshoe]

But how can a model like this be sustainable over such a long period of time. Wouldn't the whole industry have collapsed if this is all there is to it, I mean, supposedly you can fool some people... I mean, I don't think they are all brilliant, but it seems hard to believe that what you state is basically an empty facade can last for so long.

I explained this:

The ad agency takes comfort in the fact that almost any ad works for the basic reason that it alerts the consumer to the existence of the product such that they add it to their list of possible choices when buying that type of product. An extensive ad campaign makes the consumer say," This product must be O.K. since they make enough money to pay for this extensive ad campaign. Anonymous Laundry Detergent must have something wrong with it: they can't afford TV commercials." That is the power of advertising: the product that can afford extensive ads must be an O.K. product: if people weren't buying it, how could they afford those ads?

Ever see the movie, "Catch Me if You Can?" That con-man could have gone on forever if not for the cop dedicated to bringing him down, and it took that cop a very long time. There is no one dedicated to pulling back the Wizard of Oz curtain on the advertising world. People who talk about it do rather the opposite, contributing to the myth that advertisers are surreptitiously dazzling the consuming public with gleams and glamours it can't resist, when, in fact, they are only attempting that on the people who pay them to make ads.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/advertising.aspx This article seems to confirm what Zoob is saying. The short of it is - advertising psychology exists as a field, but it is not being put to use.

I think another problem is that no amount of data in the world can tell you how effective an ad is. You may remember an ad, or like it, but it may not persuade you to buy the product. (I love Geico commercials). You may buy the product because of or in spite of an ad. You might buy the product because it's the only one there or its the cheapest..

Yes, that article is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a myth that commercials are designed with big, big psychological mojo behind them, and are affecting us at deep levels we don't consciously grasp, but that is bogus. Psychologists actually believe ads get it all wrong.

I, myself, enjoyed the adventures of Flo, the insurance lady, for at least two years before I could tell you which brand of insurance she sells. Additionally, for a long time I had no idea cave man insurance was actually the same insurance as lizard insurance.