|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2014 8:08:12 GMT
Common belief, if someone sounds like they know what they are talking about, they can "Sell" you a lie.
Proposal... and explanation...
Take a white coat science guy who can explain something in a good teaching fashion, and let him explain something plausible that is not common knowledge, for instance, the real science behind the two cars colliding at 30mph each do not make a 60mph collision.... Then add on the end something totally implausible that has never been tested to be true., but in a way that it has been tested and he knows the answers. Then ask his audience how much they believe the second statement.
Take someone who would make a bloody awful teacher and get them to describe a myth as true that is well and truly busted and never sounded plausible from the start, then get them to describe something that has been proven to be true. Then ask the audience how much they believe the second statement.
Reverse the roles, repeat on a different audience.
Its not what is or isnt true here that matters, is how much the audience believe the second statement. The thinking is that Con artists can disguise the con a LOT easier by sounding like they know what they are talking about and including a known positive to bolster their lie. Of course, White coats are a con.
Going on with that, if you ever seen an advert for toothpaste, you will know how much I get slightly disgusted by their sales pitches these days... Get someone to dress as a dentist or wear a white coat and glasses and we will believe everything they say, add in a social story of how much better that plainly obvious actor who is paid to spin the lie, how much better their [imaginary] dental health is since they changed to that product..... And we are expected to swallow this bull-feathers?..... Do they really think we are that dumb?....
And yes, I am getting to the heart of the 419 scam, amongst others, and how they are getting better at trying to sell the con.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 16, 2014 9:19:41 GMT
There's also a lot to be said about phrasing. For the longest time, I thought the cleaning product Cillit Bang was a complete hoax, simply based on the way the speaker in the commercial phrased his words. He just made it sound TOO fantastic. It sounded like one of those late night infomercial things where they try to sell you all the crap that no store will ever carry, because it's, well... Crap.
Then my girlfriend bought a bottle of the stuff, because she needed something to clean our bathroom with and the store she went to didn't have anything else. We tried it and were instantly amazed at how well it worked, since the commercial speaker truly sounds like he's wildly overselling it. No, it doesn't work exactly like they show in the commercial, but it's close and it actually is a lot better than many other products.
We just assumed it was crap based on the informercial-like qualities of the commercials. We're just so used to thinking that someone who speaks that way is trying to sell us a lie.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Oct 16, 2014 9:20:54 GMT
As you inferred, don't commercial advertisers prove this myth everyday? After all, just look at the adverts for cosmetic products. They're full of fake scientific claims and made up chemical terms. They rely on people being blinded by the pseudo-science into believing the claims.
Do they really think we are that dumb? The sad answer is that "we" are, you simply have to look at the sales figures for anti-wrinkle creams (containing unique "uncrinklites" and extra "madeupium"!)
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 16, 2014 13:28:59 GMT
I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics and politicians here, which takes the art of the lie to the highest level.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Oct 16, 2014 14:24:59 GMT
It's slightly different with politics because you tend to believe the lies only when they coincide with your own political beliefs.
In fact, in some cases, politics can cause you to disprove the myth. For example, if a genuine scientific expert is used to support a political agenda that you disagree with, you're less likely to believe the expert, even if their scientific evidence is well proved and well presented.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 16, 2014 15:35:54 GMT
As you inferred, don't commercial advertisers prove this myth everyday? After all, just look at the adverts for cosmetic products. They're full of fake scientific claims and made up chemical terms. They rely on people being blinded by the pseudo-science into believing the claims. Do they really think we are that dumb? The sad answer is that "we" are, you simply have to look at the sales figures for anti-wrinkle creams (containing unique "uncrinklites" and extra "madeupium"!) Actually adverts are not filled with 'scientific lies', that would be illegal. What they do is to put the specifics in small print at the bottom of the screen for as short a time as they can get away with. For example commercials for hair conditioners might make claims about it reducing hair breakage if hair is brushed just after being washed, but if you read the writing at the bottom of the screen they were testing hair with the conditioner against hair that had no conditioner in it. Claims made about, say, anti-wrinkle creams are usually worded as 'nine out of ten women claimed to see an improvement' - meaning they are reporting on people's opinion not any scientific investigation or study. Those products that did conduct some type of study typically use less than a hundred test subjects, which even if the tests were totally scientific and impartial is far to small a test group from which to draw meaningful conclusions for. As far as 'made up names' go, they are using brand names not chemical names - there is no law against using brand names that sound like chemical names. I could legally claim in an advert that Norco is better than paracetamol in dealing with pain, and nine out of ten test subjects thought it gave them better pain relief than Vicodin. What I'd keep in small writing at the bottom of the screen is that I only used ten test subjects, and I'd make no mention at all that Vicodin and Norco are brand names for the exact same drug (Hydrocodone/paracetamol). Seriously, next time an advert for hair conditioners or anti-wrinkle creams* comes on TV watch the screen and listen to what is said very carefully. You'll notice that none of what they say is outright lies, just misleading unless you have some knowledge of how scientific studies should be conducted (such as sample size), pick up on the fact that they asked for opinions rather than having done any science or read the small print on the screen. (*Cosmetics adverts are the worst offenders, since 'everyone*' knows women are about as scientifically minded as a stunned gerbil...) (*Well, everyone who is male and works in marketing for cosmetic companies)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2014 16:35:18 GMT
the most stellar example of this variant of white coat syndrome is the adverts that proclaim "nine out of ten doctors recommend..."
which endorsement they achieve by ringing up doctors and saying "I want to use XXXXX health and beauty aid, is that okay?"
so nine out of ten doctors recommend Mythbusters brand toothpaste. the same nine also recommend Crest, Aqua Fresh, Crest, Colgate, Gleem, Toms of Maine, etc. ad nauseum.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 16, 2014 16:46:01 GMT
Also note that 'Doctor' doesn't automatically mean;
A; An individual who lives and works in your country, or for that matter would actually be allowed to work as a Doctor in (say) the USA as their medical degree might not be recognized as valid.
B; A medical doctor. Doctor doesn't automatically mean someone with a medical degree, it could be someone with a Doctorate in Philosophy. This is another trick, if one that is usually done by the media, about misleading people. They will often bring on an 'A Nobel-winning scientist' to talk about the dangers of the Large Hadron Collider (or whatever is is called). What they will not point out is that the scientist in question is a botanist, and as such as much an expert on physics as some random guy you run into in the pub.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 16, 2014 16:59:45 GMT
Don't forget the way statistics can be spun.
For example, a 90% success rate and a 10% failure rate are one and the same, but the former is going to trigger positive responses in people who don't understand stats while the latter is going to trigger negative responses.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Oct 16, 2014 20:06:09 GMT
Actually adverts are not filled with 'scientific lies', that would be illegal. I didn't say they were 'scientific lies', I said that they were 'fake scientific claims', i.e. statements that were made to look scientific without there being any real science in them. The fact that the small print might disavow the claims, doesn't stop them being fake. However, in most cases, unless there is a case of gross fraud with the potential for either large risk to health or financial loss, the penalties for mis-representation in commercials is almost non-existent. Uusually the advertiser is simply told to retract or re-word the advert. Usually by the time the commercial has been reviewed and a judgement made, the advert has aired a few dozen times anyway.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 16, 2014 20:43:36 GMT
Don't forget the way statistics can be spun. For example, a 90% success rate and a 10% failure rate are one and the same, but the former is going to trigger positive responses in people who don't understand stats while the latter is going to trigger negative responses. I remember one time I was watching an infomercial with my mom (who's very gullible). " Three out of five are completely satisfied with this product*". She thought that sounded pretty good and wanted to place an order. Then I explained to her that "three out of five" is the same as "60%". Does that sound good? She thought about that for a moment, but looked like she was still going to pick up the phone, so I told her that's the same as 600 out of 1,000. Or 6,000 out of 10,000. Either way, it's 60%, which is only a little more than half the customers and we don't even know how they determine that those 60% are " completely satisfied". Their only yardstick for that may be that 60% of their customers never bother to complain or return the product, so they assume they're happy with it. We don't know if half of those people thought it sucked like a black hole and just buried it under a pile of crap in the shed, never to be seen or used again. What's more, two out of five, or 40% were not " completely satisfied". That's 400 out of 1,000 or 4,000 out of 10,000. And what does that mean? " Not completely satisfied"... Were they mildly dissatisfied with the color of the packaging the product came in, or was it the worst product they'd ever thrown money at in their entire lives? Have they politely voiced a slight dissatisfation with the delivery time, or have they injured themselves with the product and sent the company death threats? We don't know, but it's still a little under half the customers who weren't " completely satisfied" and that's a pretty poor statistic for any product. I ended up talking her out of it. *I think it was some sort of exercice machine, but I don't remember.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 16, 2014 23:28:43 GMT
Sometimes they just start the commercial out with a flat out lie. There's a United Health Care insurance commercial that is constantly running here that starts out. "We've talked to everyone on medicare..." It's pretty obvious that they did not talk to EVERYONE on medicare. They didn't talk to me and I'm on medicare. I figure if the first sentence out of their mouth is a flat out lie, why should I even listen to the rest of the commercial.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 21, 2014 19:32:44 GMT
the most stellar example of this variant of white coat syndrome is the adverts that proclaim "nine out of ten doctors recommend..." which endorsement they achieve by ringing up doctors and saying "I want to use XXXXX health and beauty aid, is that okay?" so nine out of ten doctors recommend Mythbusters brand toothpaste. the same nine also recommend Crest, Aqua Fresh, Crest, Colgate, Gleem, Toms of Maine, etc. ad nauseum. The thing to keep in mind here is that you are only getting half the statistic. 9 out of 10 does not always mean 90%. They might have asked 100 dentists the same question, but only 9 said yes. So, they take the 9 who picked yes and add one more to make a nifty sounding statistic. Technically, they're correct in stating that 9 out of THOSE 10 agreed with a statement. But, they are also misleading the consumer about the level of acceptance within the polled group. Legal, yes. Ethical, no.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 21, 2014 19:39:31 GMT
*Muses*
Maybe they could do something on the lines of testing to see how easy it is to confuse people with careful wording? Say do two 'adverts' for a fictional washing powder that are shown to a group of people who are then asked to pick one of the two to use for washing dirty clothing. Then maybe get them to wash two sets of clothing using each of the powders and ask them which they think did a better job. The catch of course is that both of the products are exactly the same.
Might be interesting to see if people are taken in by the advertising.
Of course for this to really work the test subjects would ideally have no idea they were being filmed for MB...although that could be turned into an advanatge productionwise I guess, as A&J might not need to do that much for the episode themselves.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 21, 2014 19:55:36 GMT
*Muses* Maybe they could do something on the lines of testing to see how easy it is to confuse people with careful wording? Say do two 'adverts' for a fictional washing powder that are shown to a group of people who are then asked to pick one of the two to use for washing dirty clothing. Then maybe get them to wash two sets of clothing using each of the powders and ask them which they think did a better job. The catch of course is that both of the products are exactly the same. Might be interesting to see if people are taken in by the advertising. Of course for this to really work the test subjects would ideally have no idea they were being filmed for MB...although that could be turned into an advanatge productionwise I guess, as A&J might not need to do that much for the episode themselves. except they don't have a backup team any more...
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 21, 2014 20:15:24 GMT
A classic way to mislead with statistics is by flipping the chart... Attachment DeletedBoth graphs show the exact same thing, that profit is shrinking over time. The one on the left displays the ominous truth, while the one on the right looks much more optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 21, 2014 21:33:39 GMT
*Muses* Maybe they could do something on the lines of testing to see how easy it is to confuse people with careful wording? Say do two 'adverts' for a fictional washing powder that are shown to a group of people who are then asked to pick one of the two to use for washing dirty clothing. Then maybe get them to wash two sets of clothing using each of the powders and ask them which they think did a better job. The catch of course is that both of the products are exactly the same. Some companies actually do that. They have the one expensive brand that they advertise and sell at a somewhat high price and then they have a discount brand that's only sold at certain chains, but is essentially the exact same product in different packaging. We actually had a case here in Denmark about 10 years ago where a company did it the other way around. They'd been producing cheap non-advertised washing powder for years and then suddenly found out that their particular formula complied with some environmental and allergy regulations that other companies would mark their products with and sell it at a higher price. They continued to sell the cheap powder, but also created an "environment and allergy friendly", much more expensive brand that was actually the exact same formula and caught some heat for that. Don't remember exactly how the case ended though, but I know the expensive brand has been off the shelves ever since it was made public, so they're back to just selling "the cheap stuff". Might be interesting to see if people are taken in by the advertising. Of course for this to really work the test subjects would ideally have no idea they were being filmed for MB...although that could be turned into an advanatge productionwise I guess, as A&J might not need to do that much for the episode themselves. I don't think it would make much difference whether or not they know they're part of an experiment or not, as long as they're told the experiment is about some "secret ingredient" or something to that effect in the washing powder. Show them the commercial for the "brand" powder and give them a box of that and a box of the "non-brand" powder and tell them to take it home, use it for a month and report back. Actually, the "secret ingredient" part could also be used to test whether negative publicity affects the experience. They could tell the test subjects that one of these products has a secret ingredient that, while making the powder very effective, also degrades colors quicker and see if anyone reports back on which one they think had the "secret ingredient" in it.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 21, 2014 21:47:22 GMT
Humm, that would be more about testing the power of suggestion and preconceptions than actual advertising tricks.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 21, 2014 21:54:48 GMT
Yeah, the last part would, but that was only an evolution idea, not a part of testing the original myth about advertising tricks.
I still think you could do this without people being unaware that they're part of an experiment. You just have to make them think the experiment is about something else that won't interfere with their normal reactions toward advertising.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 21, 2014 22:05:11 GMT
Humm, you could certainly test to see how much peoples opinions can be affected by wording - 'We've heard that this type of washing powder contains something that bleaches colours' compared with 'We'd like you to test and see if one of these powders bleaches colours'.
I'd say that it would need a somewhat larger context though, as in it would probably have to be part of a larger myth - Maybe something about the power of words? I can envision problems in content though, by which I mean getting shots that are TV friendly and not, well, rather dull. Come to think on it they could always do something they have never done before and have a live test - introduce the episode as something else (or word the title and introduction in a slighly misleading way) and see how many people tweeting/Facebooking during the show realise what is or was really going on.
Of course the biggest stumbling block might well be Discovery Channel. They might be very wary of doing something that highlights advertising tricks. In part because that would annoy the advertisers, but also because Discovery uses many of the same tricks when advertising their shows....
|
|