|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ


Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 16 days
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135578 - 03/17/11 07:44 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Customer does not equal human being.
--------------------

|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Television [Re: WScott]
#14135586 - 03/17/11 07:47 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Alien, then?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended


Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135597 - 03/17/11 07:51 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
...twisting their mustaches and hatching plans to engineer society, & only consider profits to be of secondary importance?
The profits come from the success of their engineering endeavors. The engineering secures future profits.
Quote:
Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. -wiki
'...creating... ...offerings that have value... ...for society at large...'
Creating.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
...twisting their mustaches and hatching plans to engineer society, & only consider profits to be of secondary importance?
The profits come from the success of their engineering endeavors. The engineering secures future profits.
Marketers don't necessarily have to "engineer" attitudes in order to successfully sell a product; it doesn't matter what they did in order to make a profit, the point is that, since the purpose of marketing is to make money, it cannot be considered social engineering.
Say I wear certain clothes, and this influences people to copy my style; would you consider this social engineering, even though my intention in wearing those certain clothes was not to influence others' styles?
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. -wiki
'...creating... ...offerings that have value... ...for society at large...'
Creating.
They don't create that value, individuals choose what has value for them.
Again, the purpose of marketing is to make money, any influence on people's attitudes it has is just a common consequence of this, not a necessary one.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
the bizzle
the joke that no one spoke


Registered: 04/14/09
Posts: 11,870
Loc: :seriousbusiness:
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135664 - 03/17/11 08:14 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Who said that people were engineered to like these things? It could just be that cultural attitudes toward sex are becoming less conservative, which causes people to seek out sexual behaviors which suit their individual tastes.
i just mean that television has a major impact on this, what with reaching all of society faster than the ol' post
but its not all about becoming less conservative, it is also about wanting to be accepted by this "normal" society you see on tv. Some girls think they HAVE to be DPed or else someone will think there is something wrong with them
nobody is engineering fake boobs (...), but sex sells, so they put bigger faker boobs on tv. Then, in order to be a success, you have to compete (key concept here) with that. So you've got to have boobs as big as the girls on tv, at least if you want to be on tv...or so you think, err..i think
radio is a better example (or easier for me anyway)...
I used to like a lot of shit that was played on the radio. Why? Because they played it so often, and its all they played.
So, whether very aware of it or not, it made me think "well since this is what they put on the radio, this is people's most celebrated music, this is what is good and right and this is what music should be" even though I kinda knew it wasnt...
BUT
its all i had. Its all I knew.
So I listened to it... and much like growing up on TV it made me into a very confused person.
As far as I know, music is supposed to be about how popular you are and how much you hate your ex-girlfriend. Seems important 
i think you might be getting hung up on the word "engineered"
"who said that people were engineered to like these things?"
they weren't engineered by reptilian overlords
but people put whatever they can think of to make money on tv, and one way or another it affects the viewer's perception of the world
and TV is all around. I bet you if I started a conversation about CSI or MTV Cribs you'd know what I was talking about
and "you are a product of your environment", or whatever they say
-------------------- MY HAIR IS A BIRD YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
  
Edited by the bizzle (03/17/11 08:19 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
the bizzle said: i think you might be getting hung up on the word "engineered"
"who said that people were engineered to like these things?"
they weren't engineered by reptilian overlords
That's not what I meant; this is a discussion about social engineering, you should know what I meant by that.
Quote:
the bizzle said: but people put whatever they can think of to make money on tv, and one way or another it affects the viewer's perception of the world
and TV is all around. I bet you if I started a conversation about CSI or MTV Cribs you'd know what I was talking about
and "you are a product of your environment", or whatever they say
In order for something to be considered a form of social engineering, its intent must be considered; if the intent of any given movement or action is not to socially engineer, then that movement/action cannot be considered to be a form of social engineering.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ


Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 16 days
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135812 - 03/17/11 09:09 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Companies attempt to compete for a share of the market. Companies with billions of dollars in advertising are competing for the consumption of the consumer/customer. You attempt to show that marketing is about the satisfaction of the customer but, at corporate levels, it is about satisfaction of the owners pocketbooks, with the customer being a secondary and optional motivation, imo.
--------------------

|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended


Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135822 - 03/17/11 09:11 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Marketers don't necessarily have to "engineer" attitudes in order to successfully sell a product...
Right. No kidding.
But, they do. Very successfully.
If profit is your aim and there is no market yet... Or an undeveloped market...
Quote:
Say I wear certain clothes, and this influences people to copy my style; would you consider this social engineering, even though my intention in wearing those certain clothes was not to influence others' styles?
That is not what we are talking about is it??
Its social engineering when the organic individual 'style' is stolen and mass manufactured for the Target shoppers to create a 'market.' Really, a cultural subset.
We are talking at the corporate level not really among peers.
Although, I could see your style... Think it was marketable... Create content to suggest that this style is a social strategy or 'cool' or 'in' or 'hip'... etc. The scene. The music. The saturation. Then target specific potential profiles within this 'group.' Lets target emo kids with a certain 'angst' look or haircut. Then we have to marry the look with the vibe of the generation. Hook, line, and sinker... Then what is cool and what kids look like and potentially how they act is more in my control.
*nasally voice* '...Who controls the screen... ...Controls your mind...' -Tim Leary
And, if I can control them in this way (emotionally) I can formulate a plan to profit even more from the targeted manipulation because they become predictable. This would all seem very organic to the consumer and if successful they would never know that it was all orchestrated... So that they could identify with a group or 'cool' and spill some cash to uphold the egoic image. Its the one they mistake themselves for.
As it remains transient it always needs to be clothed with something that feels... Me/Self.
Fish in a barrel.
BTW, both is going on. Manipulation and honest trade.
|
the bizzle
the joke that no one spoke


Registered: 04/14/09
Posts: 11,870
Loc: :seriousbusiness:
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135825 - 03/17/11 09:12 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Justin Bieber is Justin Bieber

Quote:
In order for something to be considered a form of social engineering, its intent must be considered; if the intent of any given movement or action is not to socially engineer, then that movement/action cannot be considered to be a form of social engineering.
my advertisement campaign is intended to make you feel like you need to buy my product or else you will be a social loser and also not a patriot
-------------------- MY HAIR IS A BIRD YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
  
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Television [Re: WScott]
#14135829 - 03/17/11 09:13 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
WScott said: You attempt to show that marketing is about the satisfaction of the customer but, at corporate levels, it is about satisfaction of the owners pocketbooks, with the customer being a secondary and optional motivation, imo.
How is it an optional motivation? The owners' pockets will not be satisfied if the customers are not satisfied.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ


Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 16 days
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135848 - 03/17/11 09:18 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
WScott said: You attempt to show that marketing is about the satisfaction of the customer but, at corporate levels, it is about satisfaction of the owners pocketbooks, with the customer being a secondary and optional motivation, imo.
How is it an optional motivation? The owners' pockets will not be satisfied if the customers are not satisfied.
Convincing and enticing the consumer to purchase something is not the same as offering a product and allowing the customer to decide for themselves*. I feel that their is entirely too much unnecessary consumption happening these days.
* I don't mean this in an absolute control, more about influence.
--------------------

Edited by WScott (03/17/11 09:23 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
Marketers don't necessarily have to "engineer" attitudes in order to successfully sell a product...
Right. No kidding.
But, they do. Very successfully.
So, their aim is to make money, not to influence attitudes for the sake of influencing attitudes.
Quote:
JohnnyZampano said:
Quote:
Say I wear certain clothes, and this influences people to copy my style; would you consider this social engineering, even though my intention in wearing those certain clothes was not to influence others' styles?
That is not what we are talking about is it??
Ever heard of analogies?
Quote:
JohnnyZampano said: We are talking at the corporate level not really among peers.
It doesn't matter, the analogy still fits; the point is that, just because people's attitudes are influenced by something, doesn't mean that something intently influenced those attitudes.
Quote:
JohnnyZampano said: Although, I could see your style... Think it was marketable... Create content to suggest that this style is a social strategy or 'cool' or 'in' or 'hip'... etc. The scene. The music. The saturation. Then target specific potential profiles within this 'group.' Lets target emo kids with a certain 'angst' look or haircut. Then we have to marry the look with the vibe of the generation. Hook, line, and sinker... Then what is cool and what kids look like and potentially how they act is more in my control.
Yeah, but corporations do not influence the populace just to fuck with people, they do it for money; hence, marketing is not a form of social engineering.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Television [Re: WScott]
#14135864 - 03/17/11 09:23 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
WScott said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
WScott said: You attempt to show that marketing is about the satisfaction of the customer but, at corporate levels, it is about satisfaction of the owners pocketbooks, with the customer being a secondary and optional motivation, imo.
How is it an optional motivation? The owners' pockets will not be satisfied if the customers are not satisfied.
Convincing and enticing the consumer to purchase something is not the same as offering a product and allowing the customer to decide for themselves.
So? How does this mean that the satisfaction of customers is an optional motivation at the corporate level?
Quote:
WScott said: I feel that their is entirely too much unnecessary consumption happening these days.
*there
So what if you feel like that? I feel like this was a completely irrelevant statement. 
PS--who are you to deem what type of consumption is "necessary" for others? Are you God?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
the bizzle
the joke that no one spoke


Registered: 04/14/09
Posts: 11,870
Loc: :seriousbusiness:
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14135892 - 03/17/11 09:33 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So, their aim is to make money, not to influence attitudes for the sake of influencing attitudes.
it doesn't matter.
if you buy a shitty car from a convincing used car salesman, it still falls apart
your attitude was influenced, and you bought a car that you thought was the shit but it was just shit
regardless of whether the main intent was just to make money, the consequence is still there
so television is there, always trying to sell you a used car
and you don't have to buy what they try to sell you
as Manson said "If I wanted to terrorize a TV show I just wouldn't watch it"
but you know, TV & radio has more influence over kids these days than parents do, it would seem. You can hardly even escape it by not watching it because all the kids will be talking about it at school
-------------------- MY HAIR IS A BIRD YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
  
Edited by the bizzle (03/17/11 09:34 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
the bizzle said:
Quote:
So, their aim is to make money, not to influence attitudes for the sake of influencing attitudes.
it doesn't matter.
In a discussion about whether something is a form of social engineering or not, it is extremely pertinent.
Quote:
the bizzle said: if you buy a shitty car from a convincing used car salesman, it still falls apart
your attitude was influenced, and you bought a car that you thought was the shit but it was just shit
regardless of whether the main intent was just to make money, the consequence is still there
So? In this scenario, that man could not be considered a social engineer.
Quote:
the bizzle said: so television is there, always trying to sell you a used car
and you don't have to buy what they try to sell you
as Manson said "If I wanted to terrorize a TV show I just wouldn't watch it"
but you know, TV & radio has more influence over kids these days than parents do, on average. You can hardly even escape it by not watching it because all the kids will be talking about it at school
Again, just because something influences people's behaviors, doesn't necessarily mean it's a form of social engineering--if that were true, then pretty much everything would be a form of social engineering.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
the bizzle
the joke that no one spoke


Registered: 04/14/09
Posts: 11,870
Loc: :seriousbusiness:
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14136186 - 03/17/11 11:02 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
meh...i think you're maybe being nitpicky over words,
i do agree that its not necessarily a deliberate social engineering conspiracy
but regardless, if i make a tv show and you see it, it is potentially conditioning/influencing your world a little bit.
Anybody who is in position to control what you are experiencing is a social engineer to some degree. TV programs are a bit more so than day-to-day interactions simply because of its larger scale and domino effect, plus the fact that a lot of people watch what is on tv just because its on tv.
some people do, however intentional or not, have influence over a massive number of people. This is the power of those in the limelight or who control the limelight
Quote:
In a discussion about whether something is a form of social engineering or not, it is extremely pertinent.
i'm not even sure what you're arguing against anymore. maybe the ness of how "social engineer" sounds...
of course TV socially engineers
is TV a tool for social engineering? well, to think it was created for that purpose is pretty ridiculous, imo
but it can be used as a tool for such... is it? we have seen it used for propaganda before, so we know that it can be
i think it is mostly for entertainment but entertainment is one of the most profitable businesses, and every now and then TV is one of the most powerful tools there is in politics
a politician and an artist both can be a social engineer. The people who named Iceland and Greenland were social engineers. Every post in this forum is a social engineer. You like to sweat the small stuff
TV shares many of the same pros and cons as free market
peace i'm going fishing
"the rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor"
-------------------- MY HAIR IS A BIRD YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID
  
Edited by the bizzle (03/17/11 11:05 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
the bizzle said:
Quote:
In a discussion about whether something is a form of social engineering or not, it is extremely pertinent.
i'm not even sure what you're arguing against anymore. maybe the ness of how "social engineer" sounds...
Read the Wikipedia article on social engineering if you're confused by the term.
Quote:
the bizzle said: is TV a tool for social engineering? well, to think it was created for that purpose is pretty ridiculous, imo

That's what the OP was asking, if we think TV is just a form of social engineering.
Quote:
the bizzle said: peace i'm going fishing
"the rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor"
What a coincidence, I've been thinking about fishing a bit lately...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Television [Re: ahchela]
#14136228 - 03/17/11 11:14 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ahchela said: Anyone else here think television is just a social engineering tool?
Haven't watched tv since I was 17, whenever I see it around now it just looks...

I think people addicted to the internet who stare blankly into a monitor for hours on end are clearly superior to people addicted to TV who stare blankly into a monitor for hours on end.
--------------------
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended


Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
|
Re: Television [Re: Poid]
#14136467 - 03/17/11 12:14 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So, their aim is to make money, not to influence attitudes for the sake of influencing attitudes.
Holy shit.
THEY INFLUENCE ATTITUDES TO MAKE MONEY!
Quote:
Ever heard of analogies?
Yup. Except your analogy doesn't fit. I am speaking of the creators. In your analogy, you are a consumer also. The clothes that you bought (from a creator) are not your idea(s) or influence.
Quote:
It doesn't matter, the analogy still fits; the point is that, just because people's attitudes are influenced by something, doesn't mean that something intently influenced those attitudes.
I think you are backpedaling...
Do you not think it possible that people could do this to (engineer) one another?? Or culture??
This something... 'MARKETING' is the intent to influence attitudes or the market to generate profits. Simple.
*click click*
Quote:
Yeah, but corporations do not influence the populace just to fuck with people, they do it for money; hence, marketing is not a form of social engineering.
Who said that social engineering was just to fuck with people?? Its profits driven policy usually. And lust for control.
Social architecture.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
So, their aim is to make money, not to influence attitudes for the sake of influencing attitudes.
Holy shit.
THEY INFLUENCE ATTITUDES TO MAKE MONEY!
Right. 
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
Ever heard of analogies?
Yup. Except your analogy doesn't fit. I am speaking of the creators. In your analogy, you are a consumer also. The clothes that you bought (from a creator) are not your idea(s) or influence.
That is all irrelevant--the point I was trying to highlight by making that analogy is that, just because something can influence people's behaviors/attitudes doesn't necessarily mean it's a form of social engineering.
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
It doesn't matter, the analogy still fits; the point is that, just because people's attitudes are influenced by something, doesn't mean that something intently influenced those attitudes.
I think you are backpedaling...
Do you not think it possible that people could do this to (engineer) one another?? Or culture??
It's possible, but it would not be considered a form of social engineering if the intent was something other than to socially engineer.
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said: This something... 'MARKETING' is the intent to influence attitudes or the market to generate profits. Simple.
No, it's merely the intent to generate profits; again, one needn't have to influence attitudes in order to generate profits, you already agreed on this point earlier.
Quote:
FishOilTheKid said:
Quote:
Yeah, but corporations do not influence the populace just to fuck with people, they do it for money; hence, marketing is not a form of social engineering.
Who said that social engineering was just to fuck with people?? Its profits driven policy usually. And lust for control.
To control someone is not to fuck with that someone?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|