|
So let me get this straight... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't think there is a job in the world that doesn't involve trying to influence someone do to something. people in advertising and marketing just do it for other people. even if you developed something that had a great societial benefit, you would still need to influence/convince the populous that the development was beneficial for society. this is just how the world works. |
sorry but if you are in marketing or advertising the only way to save your soul is to kill yourself |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
sorry but if you are in marketing or advertising the only way to save your soul is to kill yourself |
what if you're marketing for social causes? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I fail to see these "gaping holes" in logic, assuming one is not blind to the context. |
Well, to begin with they are merely "reviewing" 173 previous studies. 80% of them suggest one result, and 20% of them suggest otherwise; therefore, the 80% are correct? Realistically, there are probably enough methodological differences between studies that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison anyway, but even if that weren't the case you cannot summarily infer that the more common result is the accurate one.
Even if their method was sound, and it isn't, they would have still only succeeded in demonstrating an apparent correlation. There is no grounds in the data from which to infer causation. There may be other reasons to infer that, for example, sitting on the couch all day will tend to cause a higher rate of obesity, but this study adds nothing to them.
Additionally, even if they had shown causation, they would merely be committing a complex cause fallacy: surely large amounts of time spent on the internet is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause, for example, a child to begin smoking. As a result, there is no grounds for their apparent conclusion that reducing media exposure would produce any substantial benefit -- and even if it would produce a substantial benefit, they fail to establish that there is not a more efficient way to achieve the same result by addressing other causal factors.
Furthermore, even if they had conclusively shown that media exposure contributes to health problems and that it has sufficient "causal potency" that reducing media exposure would produce a substantial health benefit, they are still too hasty in suggesting that parents "limit their children's exposure to media." Sending your children to school no doubt increases their odds of being bullied, but that does not suffice to establish that it would be wise to keep them home all the time. Their recommendation ignores the possibility that media exposure has benefits outweighing its potential costs. It also ignores the possibility that whatever other activities these particular children would partake in would pose a risk of harm as well...
They also lump media together indiscriminately -- probably some television programs have greater net utility than others, for example. But they conclude with a blanket recommendation that parents limit "media exposure." Their blanket recommendation also does not define what "limit" means: are they suggesting that reducing exposure is always going to produce a health benefit, regardless of the initial degree of exposure or the amount of reduction? At best, it's unclear.
Finally, even if they had used a valid method of inquiry; and shown that there was more than a mere correlation; and established that media exposure had sufficient causal potency; and demonstrated that the potential risks of media exposure outweighed the potential benefits in all circumstances; it would not be enough to show that their recommendation is wise (although at that point it might at least be justified on a purely theoretical level.)
To see why this is the case, consider the inherent futility of their recommendation. Since media exposure is not sufficient to produce any of these adverse health consequences, at least some other contributing factor would be necessary. The most likely candidate would seem to be "inattentive parenting." Now consider which parents would be most likely to heed this recommendation -- it's precisely those parents whose conduct is probably already sufficient to avoid the harm that the recommendation is intended to avoid. And since we know that media exposure alone is insufficient to cause this harm, and we can probably infer that at least some media exposure has some benefit, it may well be the case that the recommendation would produce a net loss of utility, even if it would have produced a net gain of utility if it had been heeded by all parents.
I don't hold this last point against them, but it's still lurking in the background.
My real problem here is not so much with their message (although I think it is horribly oversimplified at best). Rather, I object to the presentation of research based on unsound methods and questionable logic as if it were legitimate. Not only is it a waste of resources that could have been put towards legitimate inquiry, but when inevitable contradictory findings are reported elsewhere, it will undermine the public belief in science as a method of inquiry, producing dangerous externalities. Furthermore, it serves to lower the standards of what constitutes genuine scientific inquiry and denigrates the efforts of those who seek to actually animate and explain the data by examining the way in which complex phenomena interact piece-by-piece, rather than throwing broad categorical data into the statistical centrifuge and slapping a conclusory label on whatever reaches the point of "statistical significance" first. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
what if you're marketing for social causes? |
bill hicks |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
My real problem here is not so much with their message (although I think it is horribly oversimplified at best). Rather, I object to the presentation of research based on unsound methods and questionable logic as if it were legitimate. |
Ok, that makes more sense now and I understand your facepalm x 10^23 reaction now. You didn't need to spell it out in elaborate detail, the summary above would have been sufficient but I appreciate the effort you put in nonetheless :p.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Not only is it a waste of resources that could have been put towards legitimate inquiry, but when inevitable contradictory findings are reported elsewhere, it will undermine the public belief in science as a method of inquiry, producing dangerous externalities. |
Understandable, I just think it's ironic that rationalists are as dogmatic about the propagation or acceptance of their preferred axioms. Isn't that, at least in part, what rationalists supposedly hate about fundies?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Furthermore, it serves to lower the standards of what constitutes genuine scientific inquiry and denigrates the efforts of those who seek to actually animate and explain the data by examining the way in which complex phenomena interact piece-by-piece, rather than throwing broad categorical data into the statistical centrifuge and slapping a conclusory label on whatever reaches the point of "statistical significance" first. |
True, I didn't realize it bothered you that much though. The only way to have confidence in the integrity of any study though would be to throughly examine it yourself though (assumptions, methodology, data etc). That would take a fair bit of time and effort, but if you're up to the task... hey, more power to you :). |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
media also informs children about, and fosters their desire for, mcdonalds, coke, burger king, cookies. I think the research was directed more towards this line of thinking (the effects of constant exposure to the types of advertising on TV). |
Parenting trumps media. Kids can desire McDonald's, Coke, whatever they'd like, but unless the 8 year-old has a job and can purchase it, it's up to the parents (or whoever is taking care of the kid) to say "yes" or "no." It's also up to their guardians to allow kids to be exposed to media as well as to what degree. In my opinion, whether or not kids desire more "stuff," or chose to live in an unhealthy manner because of various media is nothing more than an excuse. An excuse for kids to be fat, unhealthy, and demanding and for those taking care of these kids to act innocent and dumbfounded about it.
I have no doubt that endless hours of exposure to mass media by children does cause them to want more and desire to live considerably less healthfully. However, the missing "link" and the more important part of the equation is the poor choices made by kids and adults alike that allows "media" to have its impact. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
The irony was left for the reader to discover, as well.:clown:
Is this what really irks you, Arby? It's a study, of course it's bull.
I think it's time everyone shut off their televisions. :wtf: |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't think there is a job in the world that doesn't involve trying to influence someone do to something. people in advertising and marketing just do it for other people. even if you developed something that had a great societial benefit, you would still need to influence/convince the populous that the development was beneficial for society. this is just how the world works. |
This is the problem!
We have conditioned ourselves to believe this is the only way to make it in a capitalist community. (READ: Conditioned OURSELVES, not BEEN conditioned; all the conditioning in the world means nothing from outside sources unless you yourself come to believe it!)
How about pride in your product, and the desire to share with/help others?
I know an advertiser who functions on these principles, not just at work but in everything he does; it's really envigorating to see.
If you're going to blame the media, then also blame the school system, which serves as a giant day care carnival designed to can kids into little spam tins fit for corporate consumption. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Parenting trumps media. Kids can desire McDonald's, Coke, whatever they'd like, but unless the 8 year-old has a job and can purchase it, it's up to the parents (or whoever is taking care of the kid) to say "yes" or "no." It's also up to their guardians to allow kids to be exposed to media as well as to what degree. In my opinion, whether or not kids desire more "stuff," or chose to live in an unhealthy manner because of various media is nothing more than an excuse. An excuse for kids to be fat, unhealthy, and demanding and for those taking care of these kids to act innocent and dumbfounded about it.
I have no doubt that endless hours of exposure to mass media by children does cause them to want more and desire to live considerably less healthfully. However, the missing "link" and the more important part of the equation is the poor choices made by kids and adults alike that allows "media" to have its impact. |
Well put :). |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
WTF caused our current economic recession? I'll tell you. MATERIALISM/HEDONISM run amok. |
+1
+arrogance
+entitlement
+ignorance
+lazyness
+insecurity
+fear
+stupidity
+cowardice |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't think there is a job in the world that doesn't involve trying to influence someone do to something. people in advertising and marketing just do it for other people. even if you developed something that had a great societial benefit, you would still need to influence/convince the populous that the development was beneficial for society. this is just how the world works. |
My experiences back this up.
A good chunk of the population is assigned to the position of taskmaster :whip: |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, to begin with they are merely "reviewing" 173 previous studies. 80% of them suggest one result, and 20% of them suggest otherwise; therefore, the 80% are correct? Realistically, there are probably enough methodological differences between studies that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison anyway, but even if that weren't the case you cannot summarily infer that the more common result is the accurate one.
|
As much as many of your complaints are valid I think it's a bit unfair that you seem to down play the validity of reviewing papers. A lot of the research that I think needs to be done is to reveiw what's already been done, how else would you avoid replication.
The internet's given us a great communicative resource so that the review of 173 papers of at least some minimal academic standard is now possible. That's simply incredible. Even five years ago this probably would have taken ten times as much time to do and wouldn't have been anywhere near as complete. Now getting an idea of what is 'state of the art' in any diciplin is easy, cheap, and fast (comparitavely).
These types of massive literature reviews are needed so that research areas where there are holes can be identified and filled. For instance, would it really be worth replicating a study similar to those 173 that were reviewed? No, probably not. The report showed as much, that they all point to the same basic results with a significant number of dicentters. So where should research be focused?
Your coments make that clear. What needs to be done is to examine the methodology of literature review and comparison. What's a good sample size? What is a 'complete' review of a body of knowledge? What makes a paper valid what makes it a hack paper, or a politically / commercially biased paper that shouldn't be included? How should the results be compiled, analyzed and reported? Should basic summaries be done to broaden those people included in the findings or is this just 'dumbing things down'?
| quote: |
My real problem here is not so much with their message (although I think it is horribly oversimplified at best). Rather, I object to the presentation of research based on unsound methods and questionable logic as if it were legitimate. Not only is it a waste of resources that could have been put towards legitimate inquiry, but when inevitable contradictory findings are reported elsewhere, it will undermine the public belief in science as a method of inquiry, producing dangerous externalities. Furthermore, it serves to lower the standards of what constitutes genuine scientific inquiry and denigrates the efforts of those who seek to actually animate and explain the data by examining the way in which complex phenomena interact piece-by-piece, rather than throwing broad categorical data into the statistical centrifuge and slapping a conclusory label on whatever reaches the point of "statistical significance" first. |
This isn't science, this is social science research. Social science is NOT science and should never be treated as such. Any study requires critical thought and evaluation, as you have done. Maybe the media could help getting that message out ;) |
|
|
|
|
