Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Yes, millenials. You are special. Your Tweets and Facebook posts are interesting and important. You are a unique flower who should win every time. And you don't need a boss; you can just "self organize"   (views.washingtonpost.com) divider line 252
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

13711 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Aug 2010 at 11:35 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-09 01:17:43 PM  
Altourus: That's still survival of the fittest.

How? We've completely eliminated the evolutionary pressure on the human race. It's kinda hard for someone in a first world nation to starve to death.
 
2010-08-09 01:17:53 PM  
Infamous Dr. X:
STFU, noob, and go back to your energy drinks and participation trophies and your pre-packaged pop records that you illegally bit-torrented, mmmkay? The grown-ups are talking here.

/kidding, but not really.


pre-packaged pop records? Do you want me to put them in the packaging myself? And an example of grown ups talking, look in any thread in the politics tab. Or watch the news, it's like watching pre-schoolers scream about nap-time.

No, StrangeQ, I don't include hip-hop, well, not mainstream hip-hop. That's always one thing I kind of liked about my generation, there's a huge amount of musical diversity. You don't see it on TV or hear it on the radio though. I admit there are a lot of problems with my generation, but it's the same way with every generation. So far, what I've seen is my generation is more likely to be empathetic. We're all graduating college with no job prospects, and not a whole lot of hope for the future. Our wages are less, cost of living is up. We, as a generation, aren't very optimistic about our future, but we do help each other out. A lot more than previous generations seem to have, but maybe we need it more.
 
2010-08-09 01:20:59 PM  
Also, I was born in 86. I'm not even sure I fall into the Millennials or Gen Y.
 
2010-08-09 01:22:09 PM  
missmarsha: Why are you so mad we are so much better than you. We GREW UP with computers - you had, like, film and shiat.

You just answered your own question. Millenials annoy the crap out of the rest of us because they honestly think they're leading a revolution that actually happened in the 1970s.

This is mostly our fault because we keep reinventing the wheel. Instead of refining the technology we have, we keep inventing new platforms for doing the same basic thing. Instead of improving Usenet, for example, we moved over to personal web pages, then blogs, then Facebook, then Twitter---and for each new publishing technology we had a base of annoying kids who thought that they were the first generation to use the Internet that was just invented last year.

Of course, the terrible truth is that you're the least tech-savvy generation ever, because computers have never been easier to use. You can do all this high-tech social media stuff without even knowing how to program a computer, or understand at a basic level how computers actually work.
 
2010-08-09 01:23:29 PM  
It's not self organization. Ants and other animals like them communicate by scent and other physical phenomena humans are too ignorant to grasp. It has nothing to do with 'self organization'. The writer is full of sheep.
 
2010-08-09 01:26:43 PM  
NaturalDrunkenPungence: Also, I was born in 86. I'm not even sure I fall into the Millennials or Gen Y.

I think that's Gen Y but I'm not really sure... It's not like a new 'Generation' starts on the Monday after the last 'Generation' ends on a Sunday, no matter how much lazy reporters would like it to be so. You could simply fall between the two.

/very late Gen-X myself
 
2010-08-09 01:28:45 PM  
My space alien contact just informed me that we are all sentient beings, not bound by the limitations of social constructs slightly variated by birth-to-death cultural environments.

/variated
 
2010-08-09 01:29:10 PM  
TsukasaK: Altourus: That's still survival of the fittest.

How? We've completely eliminated the evolutionary pressure on the human race. It's kinda hard for someone in a first world nation to starve to death.


Clearly you've misunderstood the principle. Perhaps if you look at it from a world perspective not a single species. Also extrapolate over many years, possibly centuries. You should then be able to see how this is survival of the fittest.
 
2010-08-09 01:31:22 PM  
missmarsha: Why are you so mad we are so much better than you. We GREW UP with computers - you had, like, film and shiat.

On the outside chance you are being serious-which generation is it that you think invented the computers, the internet, and all the technology you take for granted? Each successive generation is more advanced than the one that came before...mainly due to the hard work of the previous generations.
 
2010-08-09 01:31:31 PM  
Altourus: TsukasaK: Altourus: That's still survival of the fittest.

How? We've completely eliminated the evolutionary pressure on the human race. It's kinda hard for someone in a first world nation to starve to death.

Clearly you've misunderstood the principle. Perhaps if you look at it from a world perspective not a single species. Also extrapolate over many years, possibly centuries. You should then be able to see how this is survival of the fittest.


Either I need more farking coffee, or I'm suffering from critical brain failure. Explain it to me. Single species? We are talking about humans only, yes? In civilized countries?
 
2010-08-09 01:32:14 PM  
The Trooper: Command and Conquer taught me everything I need to know about logic and solving problems. There is no problem that cannot be solved with proper allocation of Mammoth Tanks and Tesla coils.

You've not played C&C:Renegade, where the mammies are C4 magnets.

Well, at least when the wife and I are around. They've learned to stop trying to run us over. ;)

Wish Renegade had the tesla coils, but the turrets work well enough.


Infamous Dr. X: You are marketed to, advertised to, and influenced in different ways. Maybe you are MORE resistant than others in your [insert demographic/psychographic descriptor] group and maybe your demographic/psychographic group is more resistant to certain types of advertising & marketing than other groups, but don't kid yourself into thinking you are totally resistant.

Really? Fine. I'll bite:

What have I bought in the last decade that was influenced by ads? Pick anything. I'm game for this.

/ hint: While I'm amused by the Jack in the Box commercials, I've not eaten there in years.
 
2010-08-09 01:32:15 PM  
sprd: The current data shows SAT scores are going down not up. Kids are getting stupider. The only test scores that are going up are obesity, autism, and gonorrhea.

good job morans.


Isn't that like, some kind of fancy name for a pizza place? We need
more gonorrheas, in my opinion.
 
2010-08-09 01:33:27 PM  
Lusiphur: New Grad Johnny doesn't show up to the office on time because he's lazy and irresponsible, not because he finishes all his work between noon and 3pm and has better things to do than hang out at the water cooler and try to look busy when the boss walks by.

Does it really matter when New Grad Johnny finishes his work if he's getting paid to be at the office from 9-5?
 
2010-08-09 01:35:09 PM  
TsukasaK: Altourus: TsukasaK: Altourus: That's still survival of the fittest.

How? We've completely eliminated the evolutionary pressure on the human race. It's kinda hard for someone in a first world nation to starve to death.

Clearly you've misunderstood the principle. Perhaps if you look at it from a world perspective not a single species. Also extrapolate over many years, possibly centuries. You should then be able to see how this is survival of the fittest.

Either I need more farking coffee, or I'm suffering from critical brain failure. Explain it to me. Single species? We are talking about humans only, yes? In civilized countries?


Well no, when you say survival of the fittest your talking about the theory of the evolution of all species, in that regard you cant look at a small subsection of a single species and wonder why all the puzzle pieces aren't there. The puzzle is bigger then that.
 
2010-08-09 01:36:28 PM  
MycroftHolmes: missmarsha: Why are you so mad we are so much better than you. We GREW UP with computers - you had, like, film and shiat.

On the outside chance you are being serious-which generation is it that you think invented the computers, the internet, and all the technology you take for granted? Each successive generation is more advanced than the one that came before...mainly due to the hard work of the previous generations.


Not that I disagree with you but it's a tiny tiny tiny segment of the population that created all the freaking cool stuff we have. The rest did... Whatever they do. Just like now.
 
2010-08-09 01:37:19 PM  
scanman61: Lusiphur: New Grad Johnny doesn't show up to the office on time because he's lazy and irresponsible, not because he finishes all his work between noon and 3pm and has better things to do than hang out at the water cooler and try to look busy when the boss walks by.

Does it really matter when New Grad Johnny finishes his work if he's getting paid to be at the office from 9-5?


When you consider he's being paid to do work, if his work is done then where's the harm? Seems like we've taken 9-5 to be the reason we're getting paid, disregarding what it is we're actually doing between those two times.
 
2010-08-09 01:38:00 PM  
Newsflash...not all Millenials are precious snowflakes, and not all precious snowflakes are Millenials.

In your face subby!
 
2010-08-09 01:38:44 PM  
Since this has turned into a generational flame-war, has anyone else noticed the 20 something tw&!?$t bag biatches with kids that they treat like accessories? I keep seeing them downtown pushing their strollers, paying more attention to their cell phone and BFF than the kids.
 
2010-08-09 01:39:45 PM  
scanman61: Lusiphur: New Grad Johnny doesn't show up to the office on time because he's lazy and irresponsible, not because he finishes all his work between noon and 3pm and has better things to do than hang out at the water cooler and try to look busy when the boss walks by.

Does it really matter when New Grad Johnny finishes his work if he's getting paid to be at the office from 9-5?


Is he being paid to be at the office (ie: answering phones) or is he being paid to make sure the email server stays up?

The idea that somehow you must spend 8 hours a day doing your work only really makes sense if your work is directly affected by an actual work day. If you're dealing with customers directly, certainly. But most of us on the back end can and do handle problems around the clock (which is a problem in itself), and barring customer service-type jobs, most things aren't so urgent that they can't wait an hour or two, provided they DO get done in the end.
 
2010-08-09 01:44:34 PM  
The young always do this. It's only the old/lazy that like hierarchal command structures.

Actually that's a complete lie. The truth is that for any large undertaking you have to have people in different roles, and some of those people's roles will be to control the actions of other people. It's not that people need controlling, but rather that people need direction and organization. Handling everything in committee is great for smaller organizations filled with idealists that are willing to put everything they have into a task, or for very simple tasks. Larger organizations, or organizations without 100% dedication, require someone making sure that everyone is staying on target.

Can 4chan take down the biggest site on the internet? Sure. Can a bunch of 20somethings successfully organize a huge water balloon fight in a large public park? Yeah. Can a bunch of 20somethings successfully start a very profitable business and keep it running for five years without any command structure? Not bloody likely.

Kids have always been good at using peer groups to do cool things without leaders. No one is good at accomplishing complex tasks without an organizational structure over the long term.
 
2010-08-09 01:47:21 PM  
signine: The young always do this. It's only the old/lazy that like hierarchal command structures.

Actually that's a complete lie. The truth is that for any large undertaking you have to have people in different roles, and some of those people's roles will be to control the actions of other people. It's not that people need controlling, but rather that people need direction and organization. Handling everything in committee is great for smaller organizations filled with idealists that are willing to put everything they have into a task, or for very simple tasks. Larger organizations, or organizations without 100% dedication, require someone making sure that everyone is staying on target.

Can 4chan take down the biggest site on the internet? Sure. Can a bunch of 20somethings successfully organize a huge water balloon fight in a large public park? Yeah. Can a bunch of 20somethings successfully start a very profitable business and keep it running for five years without any command structure? Not bloody likely.

Kids have always been good at using peer groups to do cool things without leaders. No one is good at accomplishing complex tasks without an organizational structure over the long term.

Stop that, stop it right now. You might actually be bringing rational thought and ideas to a non-rational thread. I think you may have the wrong site.
 
2010-08-09 01:48:28 PM  
flatblack: Dreyelle: swarm intelligence applied to humans would work if, and only if, there was a way to eliminate the weak, hurt, deformed, etc. Then we'd have a true survival of the fittest. But, humanity is not about survival of the fittest, it's about survival of the successful.

I think I heard that some guy from Europe tried that once. It didn't go over so well, from what I understand.


dude, we've had this since we ceassed being prey and became the ultimate predator (that's about the time we started agriculture and animal domestication). it's called WAR !!!

now, from TFA we have this precious gem:

"While we instill a sense of discipline and purpose in every member of our teams, groups in nature are made up of individuals that never see the big picture, never understand how they fit in or even why they're doing what they're doing from moment to moment. Yet these colonies, flocks, and schools not only get by, they thrive and prosper." (my emphasis)

which means... members of groups are a bunch of brainless drones that only act by instinct.

great.

even apes are above such level.

the reasons self-organization can't possibly work in a business environment are basically, 1) humans have egos and personalities; 2) humans are a lot more selfish that ants because of reason 1.

self organization would require completely subduing each persons ego, eliminate selfishness and analytical skills. members of the group would loose pretty much what makes them human.

i'll pass. i rather have a boss telling me what to do up until the point i find that i could do better with another boss. or i become a boss myself.
 
2010-08-09 01:49:00 PM  
MycroftHolmes: ambercricket: Tr0mBoNe: That article hurt my brain. Twitter may have given more people their voice but it sure didn't take away their stupid or their individuality. Leadership is the art of influencing others in order to reach a common goal.

THIS. If self-organization works so well, why did the Union army in the civil war routinely get its ass handed to it by much smaller forces with brilliant leadership?

Doesn't the effectiveness of small groups operating under isolated, brilliant leadership argue in favor of self organization?


No, because the small groups aren't SELF-organized, they are organized by their leadership. Self-organized armies of any size would be mobs that lack centralized command and control and we all know how well that works.

The net has been around long enough now that it's pretty clear "crowd sourcing" and "social networks" are not automatically the best ways to promote efficiency. Good ideas are easily crushed under the bootheels of popular ones.
 
2010-08-09 01:50:35 PM  
Aidan: Not that I disagree with you but it's a tiny tiny tiny segment of the population that created all the freaking cool stuff we have. The rest did... Whatever they do. Just like now.

But on the other hand, the rest of the population needed more low-level technical knowledge in order to use the primitive technology of the time. Even very non-technical users had a more direct understanding of how their computers worked, because they had to run software off physical media, swap out parts, connect to the Internet by making phone calls to specific numbers after setting baud rates and stop bits, etc.

We see a similar phenomenon with cars. Each generation is more clueless about how a car works or how to fix one, because they are increasingly easy to use and internally complicated.
 
2010-08-09 01:51:45 PM  
sonofslacker: Since this has turned into a generational flame-war, has anyone else noticed the 20 something tw&!?$t bag biatches with kids that they treat like accessories? I keep seeing them downtown pushing their strollers, paying more attention to their cell phone and BFF than the kids.

First it was purse-dogs, now this. Don't worry, another "cute accessory" trend will come along and this will die out. ...Leaving them with an acutal human being to raise for the next 20 years instead of a no-longer-fashionable item that they can just discard. Muahahahaha. :3
 
2010-08-09 01:52:21 PM  
Altourus: When you consider he's being paid to do work, if his work is done then where's the harm? Seems like we've taken 9-5 to be the reason we're getting paid, disregarding what it is we're actually doing between those two times.

If Johnny New Grad can get his work done between 12 and 3, then J.N.G. should find more tasks to do. Or he can avoid becoming more valuable to his boss and biatch about the promotions in which he never gets consideration.

/Johnny tends to be a self important asshat.
//$0.02 USD
 
2010-08-09 01:56:30 PM  
I love that a bunch of farkers think they're immune to advertising because they don't respond to TV ads (as far as they know). While it's true they're probably more inclined to respond to PR tactics (hint: a significant portion of broadcast news isn't produced by the station, and isn't news), I doubt you could find many people that would admit that they are affected by advertising. I believe the stat is something like 80% of Americans believe they're smarter and more physically attractive than the majority of Americans...

/but I'm sure you're all smarter than those stupid, stupid corporations that waste all those millions after millions of dollars on advertising
 
2010-08-09 01:57:18 PM  
Smart swarms? Funny, most of us who've been around a while call them, "Clusterfarks!"
 
2010-08-09 01:58:45 PM  
Xcott: Aidan: Not that I disagree with you but it's a tiny tiny tiny segment of the population that created all the freaking cool stuff we have. The rest did... Whatever they do. Just like now.

But on the other hand, the rest of the population needed more low-level technical knowledge in order to use the primitive technology of the time. Even very non-technical users had a more direct understanding of how their computers worked, because they had to run software off physical media, swap out parts, connect to the Internet by making phone calls to specific numbers after setting baud rates and stop bits, etc.

We see a similar phenomenon with cars. Each generation is more clueless about how a car works or how to fix one, because they are increasingly easy to use and internally complicated.


*shrug* It's how specialization works. I won't deny I'm annoyed that people don't know how a car or a computer or a horse-collar work, but that's how we got so far. The farther we get away from subsistence living (where we make our own tools, like fixing our own cars for example), the more this will happen.

And to be honest, I can't get too worried about it. I understand how a 4 stroke engine works in principle, but I don't even know which cap under my hood has anti-freeze in it. In principle I understand computers and networking, but I certainly don't need to know more than that to work on and enjoy computers, and I'm a programmer. Just like how I have a vague idea of how an 8 harness weaving loom works, but I wear Salvation Army Tshirts.

There are only 3 real downsides to this kind of specialization.
1. Everything suddenly breaks and we're all farked.
2. We give a lot of our money to specialists to fix stuff that would only take us 30 min if we had the knowledge (the one you're concerned about, I suspect).
3. It has a chilling effect on inventors who don't have the basic cross-subject knowledge to bring innovation to their field (my concern).
 
2010-08-09 02:02:23 PM  
misanthropic1: I love that a bunch of farkers think they're immune to advertising because they don't respond to TV ads (as far as they know). While it's true they're probably more inclined to respond to PR tactics (hint: a significant portion of broadcast news isn't produced by the station, and isn't news), I doubt you could find many people that would admit that they are affected by advertising.

As my husband often says; Thank you, Edward Bernays. There's a circle in Hell created just for you.
 
2010-08-09 02:04:57 PM  
jakomo002: And while ants might be smarter if you stick more of them together, the truth is the exact OPPOSITE for people/ Stick a bunch of people together and they'll come up with the stupidest, most idioitic ideas ever. Jim Jones, the Nazi Party, the Tea Party, the list goes on and on.

Yup, big groups tend to operate only as fast as the slowest and particularly loudest among everyone. Whoever is L O U D E S T generally gets their ideas taken up first, and if you're very loud there's a good chance stupid is not far behind. And if I broke your scroll with that then I think I did my job.
 
2010-08-09 02:05:26 PM  
Xcott: But on the other hand, the rest of the population needed more low-level technical knowledge in order to use the primitive technology of the time. Even very non-technical users had a more direct understanding of how their computers worked, because they had to run software off physical media, swap out parts, connect to the Internet by making phone calls to specific numbers after setting baud rates and stop bits, etc.

We see a similar phenomenon with cars. Each generation is more clueless about how a car works or how to fix one, because they are increasingly easy to use and internally complicated.


This. I've built my own computers (with the aid of my husband for a few of the really fiddly bits), and I'm keen to get my A+ and and Cisco certs so that I can better understand how the whole thing works. I got my Net+ a year or two back, and I was fascinated to see how networking functions at all levels. It really helped me appreciate how simple everything is getting to use these days, and better troubleshoot connection problems on my own.

Cars, though, newer ones piss me off because you CAN'T do your own work on them. I loved my beat up '91 Olds because I could do about 80% of my own repair work on it in my own garage. I knew how to change the fluids, filters, and spark plugs, and could eyeball several problems myself and figure out whether I needed to take it to the shop or to a more mechanically-savvy friend.

Now? I have no goddamn idea how or where to change the freakin' oil on the Kia, and don't even know if I CAN. (IIRC, some cars now can only get oil changed at a shop. Please tell me that I'm wrong!!) I love being self-sufficient, but with the way that cars are being built, and how integrated computers and electronics are to the whole thing, unless you've got that awesome little cart that you can just 'jack into the dashboard, you can't do bubkus. :(
 
2010-08-09 02:08:29 PM  
TheRaven7: I hear Generation Y is more likely to oppose routine infant circumcision.

Now you've done it....

trippychicken.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-08-09 02:12:10 PM  
topcon: Speaking as a Gen-Xer, I find that laughable. Gen-Y has a reputation for being lazy and entitled throughout the business world. (Yes, I realize that's a generalization and not always true, but the reputation is there.)

Go back ten or fifteen years or so and "the business world" was saying the same thing about YOUR generation.

"Of course those dotcom companies went under -- all the Gen-X Slackers that worked there never did any work, they just sat around in their flannel shirts and terrible goatees all day, playing GoldenEye on Nintendo 64 and listening to Alternative Rock."
 
2010-08-09 02:22:18 PM  
Altourus: scanman61: Lusiphur: New Grad Johnny doesn't show up to the office on time because he's lazy and irresponsible, not because he finishes all his work between noon and 3pm and has better things to do than hang out at the water cooler and try to look busy when the boss walks by.

Does it really matter when New Grad Johnny finishes his work if he's getting paid to be at the office from 9-5?

When you consider he's being paid to do work, if his work is done then where's the harm? Seems like we've taken 9-5 to be the reason we're getting paid, disregarding what it is we're actually doing between those two times.


Well, if NGJ is hired with the understanding that he will be there from 9-5, then NGJ better be there at 9. When NGJ rises to a position of power in the company he can change or ignore the rules as he sees fit, but as a worker drone he dammed well better follow them.

NGJ needs to understand that rules don't have to make sense, they just have to be rules...and yes, they apply to him also.
 
2010-08-09 02:28:01 PM  
doglover
2010-08-09 08:21:46 AM

I respect your opinion subby, but that's more because I said I would than that you aren't a cock mongering son of a herpes riddled asshole.


***
Huh?
Somebody started drinking early today.
 
2010-08-09 02:28:38 PM  
poot_rootbeer: "Of course those dotcom companies went under -- all the Gen-X Slackers that worked there never did any work, they just sat around in their flannel shirts and terrible goatees all day, playing GoldenEye on Nintendo 64 and listening to Alternative Rock."

Of course, those losers ended up walking away from the collapse with either a Porsche or a Lexus, and the opportunity to spend a decade living in sunny Menlo Park, CA.

In contrast, kids these days get to ask me whether I want room for cream. HAW HAW HAW!!!
 
2010-08-09 02:32:56 PM  
DownDaRiver: Somebody started drinking early today.

Don't judge me.
 
2010-08-09 02:37:07 PM  
uncletogie: What have I bought in the last decade that was influenced by ads? Pick anything. I'm game for this.

I don't know what you've bought in the last decade (aside from some obvious assumptions like food and clothing) so it'll be a tough game to play. However, naming what you've bought that's been influenced by "ads" is not my point.

Summary:

My point is that while you may be unreachable by certain types of advertising channels - for instance, I'll bet you don't make many purchasing decisions based on banner ads, and you claim to not really pay attention to TV ads - you are DEFINITELY still marketed to, and your decisions are STILL influenced in various ways.

Tolstoy:

For instance, suppose you want a [consumer electronic device]. Because you purport to be one of those who purchase items on their merit, not because of advertisements, I presume that you will conduct research to see which brand of [consumer electronic device] is "best" for your needs.

I imagine that you'd talk to friends, to see what their experiences have been with [consumer electronic device] that they've owned. You'd probably go to a variety of internet sites and read reviews and and user comments. You'll go to the local consumer electronic store and play with the demo/floor models to see which one you like the feel of, etc. Then you'll make your decision, based on all of the data you've collected. It'll be your OWN decision. Not influenced at all by any outside forces. A completely objective decision on which one is best for your needs, right?

Except that:

1) Your friends/acquaintances may not have the same level of ad-resistance you do; so their commentary is likely tainted by advertising & marketing from the outset. Further, they will be slightly biased towards the choices they've made - even if they say "brand X totally sucks, I regret that purchase" they'll probably follow it up with "but brand Y is pretty good!" (For more info, look up "choice-supportive bias" and "word-of-mouth marketing")

2) Reviews - whether they be from "neutral" sources like CNET or Consumer Reports or whatever are still going to contain "influencing" language. They can't help it - there is almost no product review that doesn't have some basis in the marketing materials provided by the manufacturer. Also, if you think all "consumer reviews" or "user comments" are completely neutral and unbiased and that a percentage of them aren't written by agents of the product's manufacturer, you're kidding yourself.

3) Unless you are blind and deaf, you cannot help but see and hear marketing/ad language and communication, and while you may consciously ignore that messaging and refuse to let the overt instances of those communications sway you, you are subconsciously collecting a lot of information and storing it. A lot of that information associates brands and products with descriptors. You automatically know that if someone tells you that something is "the rolls-royce of [product type]" that it's top of the line luxury. You know a LOT about different brands, and associate a LOT of different descriptors to those brands without even realizing it. Even if you keep a totally open mind at all times, you're going to have a hard time convincing yourself to purchase the [consumer electronic device] that you think fits your needs if you've heard it referred to multiple times as the Yugo, Chef Boyardee, or Poland Springs Vodka of that product type.

4) Market Segmentation is now pandemic. There is, undoubtedly, in just about every product category, a body of statistical research regarding the buying habits of the "advertising-resistant, free-thinking, makes-purchasing-decisions-based-on-merit" psychographic. They've studied you, they know what you like and what you don't like, what you buy, what you don't buy, and what shows you watch and what kind of cars and bikes you tend to buy. They even have a cool little name to describe your segment like "young digerati" or "electronically informed" or "urbane free spirit."

Conclusion:

So while I can't dispute that you BELIEVE you're not making any decisions based on ads, and while I'm totally willing to stipulate that there is - for you at least - no direct-line correlation between certain types of advertising and your purchasing decisions, I submit to you that you are not beyond the influence of marketing and advertising, merely much more resistant to certain types of messaging than others.

Also, please note, none of this is a judgement of you, at all. You genuinely do seem to be a free-thinking kind of guy.
 
2010-08-09 02:37:57 PM  
misanthropic1: I love that a bunch of farkers think they're immune to advertising because they don't respond to TV ads (as far as they know). While it's true they're probably more inclined to respond to PR tactics (hint: a significant portion of broadcast news isn't produced by the station, and isn't news), I doubt you could find many people that would admit that they are affected by advertising. I believe the stat is something like 80% of Americans believe they're smarter and more physically attractive than the majority of Americans...

/but I'm sure you're all smarter than those stupid, stupid corporations that waste all those millions after millions of dollars on advertising


*snert*

I've yet to hear how advertising in any medium or form has impacted, directly or indirectly, any of my purchases or my vote.

I'm not talking about the folks that can't resist Ronco's new combination Electric Salad Shooter/Nose Hair Plucker/Bunion Remover.

Can you give an example that applies to me, or are you just one of the hand-waving "no one can resist the power of cheese!" types?
 
2010-08-09 02:45:21 PM  
I've studied systems for a long time, and I might have some light to shine on the whole hierarchical organization vs self organization debate. I'll try to keep it brief.

Self organization can accomplish some tasks with a stunning efficiency, distribution type tasks stand out glaringly among them. In addition to scaling extremely well, it also adapts to small-to-medium changes with astonishing efficiency. This adaptation applies to both changes in network organization and changes in task. The limiting factor to this system though is not complexity of the workforce, but the complexity of the tasks that need be accomplished. Self organization craps out with very complex goals, unable to organize the initial state of static into those goals using the rules of simple agent interactions, because the resource paths needed are too delicate to handle the chaotic disturbances that are natural side effects of the organizational principle at work.

Hierarchical systems can maintain delicate paths required to do complex tasks due to the sheer amount of order that can be imposed on a system via that organizational principle, but scales inefficiently, with more and more overhead required to stave off the entropy any complex system picks up naturally. The more complex things get, the more error checking and organizational restructuring are needed to stave off the very same chaos that makes the self organizational model so adaptive and versatile, while adding to the complexity of the organization making the problem worse while trying to fix it. We humans have accomplished some amazing things via hierarchical organization, but there are limits to what that type of organization can do due to organizational growth, limiting the benefits and ability to scale upwards indefinitely.

They key is (as usual) a hybrid of the two extremes. Use the top part of a hierarchical structure to break a complex task into simple tasks (keep in mind that complex and simple are relative terms), and then assign the simple tasks out to self organized "clouds", which could possible have within itself hierarchical systems behaving as simple agents, which might be breaking the tasks down to even simpler goals and sourcing them out to a cloud, which......... Yeah.

If you'll look around a bit, you'll see that this is how humans have organized since we've had large tribes. I know I put the hierarchical piece first the the above paragraph, but the hierarchy itself arose from a self organizational principle at work. Getting to the point, there is no VS here. No conflict, just like a screwdriver and a wrench don't try to replace each other. One is good for one thing, the other is good for another, but related, thing, and best of all when used together, they can accomplish things that either alone could not.


tl;dr: Hierarchy is chocolate and self organization is peanut butter, try mixing them together some time and see what happens.


/I hate the word "cloud" now, damn memeification, but it's accurate here
 
2010-08-09 02:46:06 PM  
uncletogie:
Can you give an example that applies to me, or are you just one of the hand-waving "no one can resist the power of cheese!" types?


Did you read the tolstoy I just posted? I think that might explain what we're talking about.
 
2010-08-09 02:54:00 PM  
Infamous Dr. X: uncletogie: What have I bought in the last decade that was influenced by ads? Pick anything. I'm game for this.

I don't know what you've bought in the last decade (aside from some obvious assumptions like food and clothing) so it'll be a tough game to play. However, naming what you've bought that's been influenced by "ads" is not my point.

Summary:

My point is that while you may be unreachable by certain types of advertising channels - for instance, I'll bet you don't make many purchasing decisions based on banner ads, and you claim to not really pay attention to TV ads - you are DEFINITELY still marketed to, and your decisions are STILL influenced in various ways.

Tolstoy:

For instance, suppose you want a [consumer electronic device]. Because you purport to be one of those who purchase items on their merit, not because of advertisements, I presume that you will conduct research to see which brand of [consumer electronic device] is "best" for your needs.

I imagine that you'd talk to friends, to see what their experiences have been with [consumer electronic device] that they've owned. You'd probably go to a variety of internet sites and read reviews and and user comments. You'll go to the local consumer electronic store and play with the demo/floor models to see which one you like the feel of, etc. Then you'll make your decision, based on all of the data you've collected. It'll be your OWN decision. Not influenced at all by any outside forces. A completely objective decision on which one is best for your needs, right?


Wrong. I define my specs, find the models that match it, and use the 35 years experience I've had with electronic brands to make a decision. My friends have nothing to do with it.

Except that:

1) Your friends/acquaintances may not have the same level of ad-resistance you do; so their commentary is likely tainted by advertising & marketing from the outset. Further, they will be slightly biased towards the choices they've made - even if they say "brand X totally sucks, I regret that purchase" they'll probably follow it up with "but brand Y is pretty good!" (For more info, look up "choice-supportive bias" and "word-of-mouth marketing")


Good thing I don't use people that know less than I do about electronics, huh?

2) Reviews - whether they be from "neutral" sources like CNET or Consumer Reports or whatever are still going to contain "influencing" language. They can't help it - there is almost no product review that doesn't have some basis in the marketing materials provided by the manufacturer. Also, if you think all "consumer reviews" or "user comments" are completely neutral and unbiased and that a percentage of them aren't written by agents of the product's manufacturer, you're kidding yourself.

Why do you assume that I've not taken this into consideration? It's one of the reasons I laugh my ass off when I hear that the newest version of Microsoft anything is the "fastest, stablest, most user-friendly yet".

They've been pulling that crap since before Win95.

This is a case of your not giving credit where it's due so far.


3) Unless you are blind and deaf, you cannot help but see and hear marketing/ad language and communication, and while you may consciously ignore that messaging and refuse to let the overt instances of those communications sway you, you are subconsciously collecting a lot of information and storing it. A lot of that information associates brands and products with descriptors. You automatically know that if someone tells you that something is "the rolls-royce of [product type]" that it's top of the line luxury. You know a LOT about different brands, and associate a LOT of different descriptors to those brands without even realizing it. Even if you keep a totally open mind at all times, you're going to have a hard time convincing yourself to purchase the [consumer electronic device] that you think fits your needs if you've heard it referred to multiple times as the Yugo, Chef Boyardee, or Poland Springs Vodka of that product type.

As my wife is finding out, being 70% deaf has its advantages. ;)
Yes, really.

4) Market Segmentation is now pandemic. There is, undoubtedly, in just about every product category, a body of statistical research regarding the buying habits of the "advertising-resistant, free-thinking, makes-purchasing-decisions-based-on-merit" psychographic. They've studied you, they know what you like and what you don't like, what you buy, what you don't buy, and what shows you watch and what kind of cars and bikes you tend to buy. They even have a cool little name to describe your segment like "young digerati" or "electronically informed" or "urbane free spirit."

That's lovely. The marketing folks can make all the demographic divisions that they like. I've seen the "well, you've watched/purchased/looked at this, so you MUST like this!" ads that I get served. Not of them has nailed my tastes yet. Not one. They've not even come CLOSE. After YEARS of marketing research, hese folks have NO idea what I want. After years of cookies galore, browsing shopping sites, and even answering the odd random survey they SHOULD have all the info they need, right? Why don't I get the ads for things I'm interested in?

Tell ya what: Ask me a series of questions, then see how well you can "niche" me when you're done.

....until then, please drop that fraggin' paintbrush of yours; it's WAY too wide.

/ counter-point to my argument: as a kid, I played the "pass the secret" game.
// The only phrase to make it around the circle was a marketing meme.
/// Still won't buy the product over another.
 
2010-08-09 02:54:12 PM  
Infamous Dr. X: uncletogie:
Can you give an example that applies to me, or are you just one of the hand-waving "no one can resist the power of cheese!" types?

Did you read the tolstoy I just posted? I think that might explain what we're talking about.


I can give it a shot, if you don't mind.

It's been a while, but I do recall being taken aback by how easily we're influenced by the colors of the things we purchase.

For example, black type on white paper is considered 'simple', which is pretty darn obvious, except when one realizes we're starting to think of it as also being organic, or more natural than the alternatives. Blue and yellow have long been used for a similar effect. Gold is used to denote high quality. Red is considered daring or freespirited. Blue and pink are used to show gender. Brown is dependable. These days silver or black are considered modern, and thus desirable.

Okay, how about size? Even the sizing of the sour cream containers are designed to appeal to a shopper.

Weight? Same as size.

Even just random repetition is an advertisement on its own. Some designers decide that trenches are in style. Some random people buy trenches because they're in style. You, uncletogie, recall that you like trenches, and you buy one. Have you been advertised to directly? No. Did they get your money? Sure.

Now if you rarely buy anything other than food, of course it's going to be hard to say that you're influenced by much advertising except that in the supermarket (haven't even discussed how the market is laid out). Personally even with not having cable or anything like that, I can certainly say I am affected by advertising. My iPod, for instance, is blue. :)
 
2010-08-09 02:56:34 PM  
uncletogie: misanthropic1: I love that a bunch of farkers think they're immune to advertising because they don't respond to TV ads (as far as they know). While it's true they're probably more inclined to respond to PR tactics (hint: a significant portion of broadcast news isn't produced by the station, and isn't news), I doubt you could find many people that would admit that they are affected by advertising. I believe the stat is something like 80% of Americans believe they're smarter and more physically attractive than the majority of Americans...

/but I'm sure you're all smarter than those stupid, stupid corporations that waste all those millions after millions of dollars on advertising

*snert*

I've yet to hear how advertising in any medium or form has impacted, directly or indirectly, any of my purchases or my vote.

I'm not talking about the folks that can't resist Ronco's new combination Electric Salad Shooter/Nose Hair Plucker/Bunion Remover.

Can you give an example that applies to me, or are you just one of the hand-waving "no one can resist the power of cheese!" types?


Well, duh; no one can resist the power of cheese. Marketing is a complex beast with many intertwined facets, I'd expound further, but Infamous Dr. X has already stated it rather elagently.

/marketing budgets don't lie
//how do you fit into the 80% statistic?
 
2010-08-09 03:09:25 PM  
Yes, millenials.

Eh, subby? The article was written by this guy:

i36.tinypic.com

It wasn't written by a millenial. It has nothing to do with millenials.

Or is it just that putting a "snowflake LOL" into the headline will get an easy greenlight?

/this site
//it's turning into shiat
///[well_bye.jpg]
 
Ral
2010-08-09 03:10:01 PM  
Millennials, like other recent generations, are good at talking about how special and gifted they are, but spend an awful lot of time doing absolutely nothing except talking about it.
 
2010-08-09 03:14:46 PM  
Mugato: I may just be in a bad mood it being Monday morning and all but that article was farking retarded.

Agreed. Hmm...what do we lack that termites and ants have? Besides opposable thumbs and temporal lobes? Ohhh yes. Self awareness. If we were all genetically programmed, pheromone controlled automatons I'm sure we could build some kickass dirt mounds too.

What a steaming pile of dung beetle fodder.
 
2010-08-09 03:15:41 PM  
Ral: Millennials, like other recent generations, are good at talking about how special and gifted they are, but spend an awful lot of time doing absolutely nothing except talking about it.

Hence the US has gone from being #1 in college grad rates to #12.
 
2010-08-09 03:16:49 PM  
This thread marks a turning point... Instead of trolling rap and hip-hop, I quoted the venerable Chuck D. (btw Public Enemy is playing House of Blues in Boston tonight. Just checked and tix are still available.)

Fight the power... with analog!
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report