Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction • Hacker News Board

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#161

Post by bsanr2 » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #141

tartoran wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally would feel quite ashamed to have the latest IPhone, I'd feel that I'd fallen prey to apple's marketing. I live pretty well with a 5 year old SE. For the same reason I refuse to wear visibly branded clothes and am not ashamed to buy some used items. Living frugally by choice gets you back some freedoms.

Certainly, but you're also a product of an environment which values that sort of self-expression. If every time you went and hung out with your friends they shamed you, saying you look homeless, you might think differently. Its certainly a sign of maturity to not really care about those things, but depending on your life trajectory different values will hit. And clearly, a lot of people value a new iphone. OTOH - its…

It's a more widespread issue than you say. Even mature professionals give me a look when they see that I use a 2.5-year-old Note8 instead of any iPhone, let a newer one. Some verbalize their antipathy.

"American society" is the environment in which status symbols dictate the character of interactions. Wealthier people tend to value actions or experiences over objects (Do you recycle? Did you go to a "good" school?), and judge based on that, but that's not an absolute rule.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#162

Post by njharman » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #63

xtracto wrote: post #8

This reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me: This friend dedicates his time in going to very rural areas/towns here in Mexico to implement government programs. At some point in the past he got to a town were the cantina had just gotten the only TV in town... apparently people in the town were generally happy, and they had everything they needed... so in their view they were not poor. But once they started watchin…

That raises profound and fascinating philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge and happiness. I wonder how many of those people would choose to forego the knowledge of what they don't have if it meant they would be happy again. On the other hand, is that even a meaningful question to ask, given it's not possible? Which of course leads to the ethical question: is it right for people to live in ignorance if…

You're missing a key factor. It's not "knowledge of what they don't have" that advertising brings. Advertising is highly sophisticated psychological manipulation, refined over that lat 100 years, that invents "needs" and "wants" in the target subjects. Much of that manipulation is preys upon and creates in securities, inflicts unhappiness and other manufactured "ills". Then promises to relieve them if you buy.

It's artificial. If they just had knowledge, like say wikipedia or ad blocked internet. They would be wanting real things like education, health care, self-determination, not Nikes.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#163

Post by aabbcc1241 » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

jbob2000 wrote: post #84

JohnFen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started my first business, a mentor gave me advice along these lines: identify the two or three pieces of equipment that are truly key to your business, and go high-end on those. Everything else should be as cheap as possible.

Those types of goods usually aren't mass advertised, e.g. high end music or video gear, mechanic's tools, etc. Peleton bikes, smart toilets, diamond rings, high-end purses, and so on are all things you can get the cheaper versions of and still get roughly the same experience.

Sometime, people choose a product/band over the alternatives solely because their choice is more expensive, so others will appreciate or jealous on them...

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#164

Post by uoaei » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #94

theptip wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is correct. A lot of the new driver assistance technologies are having a significant effect on safety: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/new-report-shows-how-many-ac... These features are new in the last 10 years, some are new in the last couple years, and they are continually improving.

The effect appears to be negative if anything. That article is starkly (and suspiciously) alone in its conclusions, if you look at what's been happening statistically over the last few years. The systems will get better, but for the time being, they mostly serve to let drivers think they can get away with paying even less attention to the road than usual.

This is a "get off my lawn" sort of comment, but:

Easy cars are making worse drivers. People rarely check their blind spot now because the little light on their sideview mirror lights up instead. People are less concerned about driving unsafely because their cars are thicker, heavier, and bigger than the other participants on the road. This has been especially troubling to watch develop from the bike lane, as visibility shrinks and auto manufacturers don't seem to test extensively whether their onboard radar can detect cyclists and pedestrians. It's created a very strange experience of driving where the person inside does not share the same reality as the outside except when their car is within 2 feet of another car. Cars are cages, not only physically, but mentally too.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#165

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

swills wrote: post #59

Disappointed this thread has made it this long without this, so here it is: By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. -- Bill Hicks

I get that this is a comedian telling a joke. I also am one of the most anti-advertising people here: you can look through my post history to verify that.

Still let's not tell people to kill themselves.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#166

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #164

CamperBob2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect appears to be negative if anything. That article is starkly (and suspiciously) alone in its conclusions, if you look at what's been happening statistically over the last few years. The systems will get better, but for the time being, they mostly serve to let drivers think they can get away with paying even less attention to the road than usual.

This is a "get off my lawn" sort of comment, but: Easy cars are making worse drivers. People rarely check their blind spot now because the little light on their sideview mirror lights up instead. People are less concerned about driving unsafely because their cars are thicker, heavier, and bigger than the other participants on the road. This has been especially troubling to watch develop from the bike lane, as visibil…

People rarely check their blind spot no

True, and another facet of the same problem is that blind spots are getting bigger by the model year, as automakers take the cheap way out and raise their belt lines to meet side-impact regulations.

We will all be driving around in tanks before long. I guess that's supposed to be a good thing.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#167

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #27

marcus_holmes wrote: post #9

the goal of advertising is to make you want something you don't have. QED

Using advertising to create demand is only a tiny part of the advertising market, and arguably the worst way to spend your ad budget. Most advertising is to maintain your market share in already established and very competitive markets. E.g., Coca-Cola plastering their logo everywhere to prevent Pepsi from doing the same. It's certainly not to convince those who don't drink Coke to start doing so.

It seems like as a society if we agreed not to have advertising, we would save both companies (b|m)illions of dollars.

This isn't an argument for advertising, it's an argument that advertising is an infectious disease: once one company in an industry starts advertising, the others have to advertise to compete. And that hurts consumers because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar that comes out of the pockets of consumers and is not spent on improving the product.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#168

Post by nickelcitymario » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #144

nickelcitymario wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? If all advertising is manipulation, then so are all conversations. Every debate, every argument, every statement of fact or opinion. I don't consider it manipulation if it's honest. If I run an ad that says "These burgers cost only $1.25" and they really do cost $1.25, that's hardly manipulation. If, on the other hand,…

> Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? You go on after this question to explain what manipulation is, so it seems like you understand the concept, and can probably figure out how it doesn't apply to this conversation. > There's an idea out there that advertising is about selling you things regardless of whether you'd benefit from it or not. In my books, th…

First up: I just wanna say it wasn't my goal to be the defender of the ad industry. I started this comment thread to defend the idea of aspirations as a good thing.

That being said:

> The idea that this is you trying to go out and help people find and choose the best products for their needs is very naive.

You're right, that would be naive. It's not what I said though.

re: Review sites, word of mouth, contacting experts: That's all great. But to the business owner who's wondering how they're going to make payroll 3 months from now, that's not exactly helpful. Your recommendation to them is to just sit back and hope people stumble onto what they're selling?

> You go on after this question to explain what manipulation is, so it seems like you understand the concept, and can probably figure out how it doesn't apply to this conversation.

You haven't made any attempt to present the other side of the argument either. You say I'm dishonest for presenting my clients in the best possible light, yet you also pick and choose what to present in defence of your position. I'm fine with that, but it seems to me that if you held yourself to the same standard, you'd make an effort to consider the position of all the people involved in advertising.

Maybe the world really would be better if it were free of advertising. I'm not sure. I don't think such a world has existed in thousands of years, but it'd be interesting to see. In the meantime, we live in a world where advertising does exist, and therefor it's foolish not to participate in it, because doing so would give your competitors an unfair advantage.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#169

Post by 4ntonius8lock » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #80

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #72

Having read the article, it seems they are concluding a causality that isn't necessarily there. The whole study is based on: there's a correlation between advertising spend per capita and life satisfaction between countries in Europe. Now that COULD mean advertising is making people unhappy. Or it could mean that people who are less satisfied tend to buy more crap and when people buy more crap they get more advertisi…

I wish yours wasn't the only comment talking about this. It saddens me to see articles like this, where causation is imposed on correlation. Everyone "knows" correlation doesn't imply causation, but they only seem to know it in the sense of a student reciting it. They don't apply that knowledge critically. A single study of two things as complicated as advertising measurement and happiness/satisfaction, and the intui…

The funny thing is, the most up voted comments on this topic don't even seem to be about the FA. They are mostly just 'generic advertising is bad comment/anecdote related to the title'.

Another idea I had after reading the article is that advertising is more pervasive in big cities. From what I can recall, big city inhabitants tend to have a lower life satisfaction rating than smaller town dwellers. So countries with more urban dwellers might normally have more advertising and less life satisfaction... because big cities, not necessarily advertising. Also richer nations tend to be less happy, and by being richer have more advertising. There's a lot of ways to interpret the data.

It's funny to see the group-think dynamic on display needed to make non relevant comments go up and comments related to the article be down-voted (which aren't even stating anything specific... you and I never even said 'it's this' just questioning 'maybe not that')

Another super interesting thing that I glean from the down-votes is the bottom down view only when convenient.

If you post on HN that tech companies are evil and conspiring against our privacy, people will say (IMO mostly rightly BTW) that it's mostly bottom up, with consumers CHOOSING bad options. But as soon as advertising comes in the mix, now the world is top down, with evil marketeers manipulating the masses anyway they want.

To all the down-voters: your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer!

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#170

Post by AdmiralGinge » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #31

cm2012 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should strive to take away the option of knowledge from the poor, so they can be happy with their place in society.

Maybe we can just create a lower underclass that we make too stupid to care for growth by subjecting them to alcohol during pregnancy and provide them with drugs that will simply allow them to be content by being.

In all seriousness, Brave New World is an excellent book. It's quite startling how much Huxley got right (and also what he got wrong, instead of soma we actually got the complete opposite with an international version of American prohibition). The general premise that it's easier to keep the population ignorant by barraging us with endless trivial rubbish than than 1984-style authoritarian "Ministries of Truth" is spot on I think.

Huxley is definitely on my top ten list of favourite authors.