Neuromarketing / Corporate Campaign Financing

[andrewl]

Neuromarketing is a new field of marketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing) that studies consumers' sensorimotor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensorimotor), cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive), and affective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective) response to marketing stimuli. Researchers use technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging)electroencep halography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography) (EEG) to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in one's physiological state (heart rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate), respiratory rate, galvanic skin response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response)) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it. (fMRI) to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing

Scary.


In a sweeping 5-4 ruling (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf), the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down several longstanding prohibitions on corporate political contributions, saying legislative measures to control such spending infringed upon corporate First Amendment free speech rights.
The majority framed the decision, which will now allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited treasury funds on independent campaign expenditures, as essential to American democracy.


http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

Even scarier. Maybe i'm just crazy but it seems like the world has just taken a terrible step towards handing over all power to corporations.

Andrew

[Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing

Scary.

I don't find this scary at all. Rather I consider it highly predictable.

I think corporations have been playing these kinds of mind-games for a long time. They just want to sell stuff and are going to manipulate anything they can to achieve that goal. I don't see anything 'new' or 'scary' about that, unless you consider selling of consumer goods to be scary in itself. :shrug:

http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261

Even scarier. Maybe i'm just crazy but it seems like the world has just taken a terrible step towards handing over all power to corporations.

Andrew
We already have two open threads on this SCOTUS decision (Citizens United v. FEC).

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1066

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1068

[andrewl]

I don't find this scary at all. Rather I consider it highly predictable.

I think corporations have been playing these kinds of mind-games for a long time. They just want to sell stuff and are going to manipulate anything they can to achieve that goal. I don't see anything 'new' or 'scary' about that, unless you consider selling of consumer goods to be scary in itself. :shrug:

It leaves me feeling even more helpless and hopeless. Especially for my children. Imagining a world where corporations have perfected the ability to create a need and fulfill it is what i find scary. What's new is being able to manipulate the brain directly knowing exactly what "buttons" to push.

And yes, i do find mass consumer society in itself to be somewhat frightening.

We already have two open threads on this SCOTUS decision (Citizens United v. FEC).

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1066

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1068Putting the two together really gave me the shivers though.

Andrew

[Michael]

It leaves me feeling even more helpless and hopeless. Especially for my children. Imagining a world where corporations have perfected the ability to create a need and fulfill it is what i find scary. What's new is being able to manipulate the brain directly knowing exactly what "buttons" to push.
But the reason corporations need to find new ways to manipulate you (and your children) into buying stuff to make the corporate shareholders rich is because people tend to become bored of marketing tricks all too soon and the old marketing tricks don't work so well after a while.

That suggests that humans actually retain some freewill despite the best efforts of corporate marketing departments.

Now if corporations never had to bother researching new marketing techniques, that would be bad news because that would mean that all the oldest and simplest tricks still work very well and that means that humans really are stupid and easy to manipulate. But the fact is, that's not the case here.

And yes, i do find mass consumer society in itself to be somewhat frightening.
If that is so, then it is humans who are your key fear.

[andrewl]

But the reason corporations need to find new ways to manipulate you (and your children) into buying stuff to make the corporate shareholders rich is because people tend to become bored of marketing tricks all too soon and the old marketing tricks don't work so well after a while.

That suggests that humans actually retain some freewill despite the best efforts of corporate marketing departments.

Now if corporations never had to bother researching new marketing techniques, that would be bad news because that would mean that all the oldest and simplest tricks still work very well and that means that humans really are stupid and easy to manipulate. But the fact is, that's not the case here.

I understand all that. I think marketers call it clutter, and in an effort to break through all the clutter they create more clutter and people become even more difficult to reach. What i found scary was the idea that neuromarketing might indeed be able to reach us and not let go once it has us.


If that is so, then it is humans who are your key fear.

The dehumanization and complete conversion of humans into consumers is my fear.

Andrew

[Americano]

The dehumanization and complete conversion of humans into consumers is my fear.

Andrew

The last credit bubble came close to achieving that in the US, the marketeers just ran out of assets for targeted inflation. A minor setback, I'm sure.

[Michael]

The dehumanization and complete conversion of humans into consumers is my fear.
Btw, this critique of modern society first appeared in the 16th century.

And as far as I'm concerned, humans are defacto consumers and cannot be anything but. To be human, is to consume.

According to Hegel, consumption is how we define ourselves as individuals. :shrug:

According to Marx, man is a productive animal - unique for being the only animal to produce the means of its own subsistence.

To oppose consumption is to oppose humanity and praise the life of dogs.

[andrewl]

Btw, this critique of modern society first appeared in the 16th century.

And as far as I'm concerned, humans are defacto consumers and cannot be anything but. To be human, is to consume.

All life forms are defacto consumers if we just broadly define consumption as any organism that consumes material in order to persist.

But the consumer critique is quite a bit more than that. Consumer culture is quite different from any other culture that preceded it or still lives outside of it.

Certainly we can be more than just mass-consumers identifying only with the image fabricated by brands, unable to stop converting all of bio-mass into human-mass?

I don't believe this particular culture is biologically determined. Obviously we have to consume to live, but that does not mean we live to consume. There is far more to being human, IMO.

According to Hegel, consumption is how we define ourselves as individuals. :shrug:

I think that is true, not only for individuals but for entire cultures as well - culture is essentially formed by the patterns of subsistence of any given people. But this does not mean all forms of consumption are of equal value in terms of human personal fulfillment, health, or in terms of the health and viability of a planetary ecosystem.

According to Marx, man is a productive animal - unique for being the only animal to produce the means of its own subsistence.

Man for most of his history lived off of what nature/god provided. Im sure Marx meant this a point of pride for man, whereas i see it as one of our greatest mistakes.

To oppose consumption is to oppose humanity and praise the life of dogs.

Im opposing mass consumption and the monolithic global culture that results. To not oppose this culture is to accept the destruction of all other non mass consuming cultures, to accept the destruction of the life support systems of the planet, and to really just accept that we are not anything but products to be bought and sold ourselves. Slaves essentially.

Andrew

[Michael]

All life forms are defacto consumers if we just broadly define consumption as any organism that consumes material in order to persist.
Humans are unique in creating the means of their own subsistence. Humans consume what humans produce.

Foraging for dinner in the woods is not consumption, that's survivalism.

Consumption requires commodities and commodities are produced/manufactured (like grain).

But the consumer critique is quite a bit more than that. Consumer culture is quite different from any other culture that preceded it or still lives outside of it.
Just as surely as humans are quite a bit different than any other animal.

Human culture is consumer culture. Take away the consumption part and what you have left is a bunch of naked apes running around scavenging for dinner.

It is not possible to speak of human culture without consumption.

Certainly we can be more than just mass-consumers identifying only with the image fabricated by brands, unable to stop converting all of bio-mass into human-mass?
Sure, that's possible. But they are still going to be consumers (or die).

I don't believe this particular culture is biologically determined. Obviously we have to consume to live, but that does not mean we live to consume. There is far more to being human, IMO.
But the production/consumption cycle constitutes the very definition of human. One cannot abjure that and retain humanity.

Sure there may be more to life than worshipping the form of consumption, but humans don't seem to be inclined to seek it.

I think that is true, not only for individuals but for entire cultures as well - culture is essentially formed by the patterns of subsistence of any given people. But this does not mean all forms of consumption are of equal value in terms of human personal fulfillment, health, or in terms of the health and viability of a planetary ecosystem.
No, but it does suggest that consuption is integral to our ideas about ourselves.

In other words, you need to refine your target better. Attacking or critiquing consumption will get you nowhere. One is better off addressing the forms of consumption with better alternatives.

Man for most of his history lived off of what nature/god provided.
I don't think the anthropological record confirms this at all. Indeed, humans for ALL of their history have lived off what humans could manipulate from the environment.

The earliest designation of "homo" comes with the application of fire and hand tools, some 2 million years ago.

Im sure Marx meant this a point of pride for man, whereas i see it as one of our greatest mistakes.
I just see it as a statement of fact.

And I think that to avoid that fact is to postulate the elimination of the human species. Humans are inconceivable without the will to produce the means of their own subsistance. Take that way and you've got nothing but a naked ape.

Im opposing mass consumption and the monolithic global culture that results.
That's capitalism.

To not oppose this culture is to accept the destruction of all other non mass consuming cultures, to accept the destruction of the life support systems of the planet, and to really just accept that we are not anything but products to be bought and sold ourselves. Slaves essentially.
I would argue that's exactly what humans have always been and always will be. Humans are a social animal.

Pretending that humans are noble might be nice, but it won't put dinner on the table.

[andrewl]

In other words, you need to refine your target better. Attacking or critiquing consumption will get you nowhere. One is better off addressing the forms of consumption with better alternatives.

I thought i was by referring to mass consumption as a form of consumption, rather than just consumption in general.


I don't think the anthropological record confirms this at all. Indeed, humans for ALL of their history have lived off what humans could manipulate from the environment. True. The natives of north america were hunters & gatherers, (and sometimes farmers as well) but they also managed forests to increase the amount deer they could kill. But this also had the effect of improving the forest ecosystem, and when they did farm they did not lock up the food and make it a commodity.

What words can we use to distinguish between a culture that kills the ecosystem to survive and one that improves the ecosystem to survive?

I would argue that's exactly what humans have always been and always will be. Humans are a social animal.

Pretending that humans are noble might be nice, but it won't put dinner on the table.I disagree with this. Not all cultures have the concept of commodity.

Andrew

[Michael]

I thought i was by referring to mass consumption as a form of consumption, rather than just consumption in general.
Precision is important. ;)

Mass consumption is necessary for mass populations.

If we had no mass production/consumption, we'd have no mass of population either. Eliminate one, that eliminates the other.

True. The natives of north america were hunters & gatherers, (and sometimes farmers as well) but they also managed forests to increase the amount deer they could kill. But this also had the effect of improving the forest ecosystem, and when they did farm they did not lock up the food and make it a commodity.
There is quite a bit of archeological evidence to suggest that the natives of North America might have caused (or contributed to) the extinction of several species of large mammals - using only 'hunter-gatherer' techniques and neolithic technology.

What words can we use to distinguish between a culture that kills the ecosystem to survive and one that improves the ecosystem to survive?
Semantics.

It all turns on the meaning of the word "improves". Some people think that sitting an air-conditioned room with a nice cold beer and watching tv is an improvement over the lifestyle of hunter-gatherer tribes of New Guinea.

Some people don't. :shrug:

I disagree with this. Not all cultures have the concept of commodity.
It took us five thousand years after the invention of writing to create the word for a concept that had already been around for five thousand years. That the Egyptians and Romans failed to conceptualize their commodified existence does not detract from the fact that ancient Egyptians and Romans lived a commodified existence. Back then, even human beings were commodities. :eek:

Andrew
Michael

Btw, I signed by posts thus for many years. I only dropped that affectation when I joined USPO in 2004. ;)

[andrewl]

Precision is important. ;)

Mass consumption is necessary for mass populations.

If we had no mass production/consumption, we'd have no mass of population either. Eliminate one, that eliminates the other.

Right. Sounds good to me. :D

Although i doubt one depends on the other as you formulate above. I'm talking about mass consumption at the individual level, not the societal level. In that sense we could have a large population, but not necessarily a culture of individual mass consumers. Obviously a large pop of non-mass consuming individuals would still be a drain on the earths ecosystems but it could conceivably be sustainable.

There is quite a bit of archeological evidence to suggest that the natives of North America might have caused (or contributed to) the extinction of several species of large mammals - using only 'hunter-gatherer' techniques and neolithic technology. Yes, these were the clovis people. The evidence for what caused the mega fauna extinctions is scant at best. More important is that the people who came after the clovis did not seem to possess patterns of consumption that caused widespread ecocide.


Semantics.

It all turns on the meaning of the word "improves". Some people think that sitting an air-conditioned room with a nice cold beer and watching tv is an improvement over the lifestyle of hunter-gatherer tribes of New Guinea.

Some people don't. :shrug:This does not seem to be related at all to what i posted. I was talking about improving an ecosystem, not what some people consider improvements in lifestyle. There are some modes of subsistence that kill ecosystems (civilization) and there are other modes of subsistence that seem to maintain or even improve ecosystems (some pre-civ cultures and other species of animals like the beaver). You seem to think there is no difference? It certainly is not a subjective measurement whether an ecosystem is healthy or unhealthy.

It took us five thousand years after the invention of writing to create the word for a concept that had already been around for five thousand years. That the Egyptians and Romans failed to conceptualize their commodified existence does not detract from the fact that ancient Egyptians and Romans lived a commodified existence. Back then, even human beings were commodities. :eek:Sure, my critique of consumption/commodification necessarily goes back to the beginning of western civilization. I certainly would never look to these ancient civilizations as a model to aspire to.

I was referring more to the lack of a concept of commodity in pre- or non-civilized cultures. At the very least this shows us that there is more to being human than just the mass-consumption of stuff. So while consumption is a given for humans, the unsustainable and ecocidal mass consumption of commodities is definitely not a given.

Michael

Btw, I signed by posts thus for many years. I only dropped that affectation when I joined USPO in 2004. ;)I'm not sure why i do that. :)

Andrew

[evanescence]

I just finished A Brave New World. Interesting, and in line with this particular subject.