[NoLogos]

I would like to popularize the concept of a 'supernormal stimulus.' If you put a chicken egg in front of a bird that lays smaller white eggs, some species will ignore their own eggs and attempt to incubate the larger egg. The chicken egg is the supernormal stimulus because it evokes an irresistable response that will cause at least some birds to ignore their own offspring. Scientists placing chicken eggs (or even a beer bottle for one species of bird) in front of nesting wild birds is pretty rare, as things go. That is probably why birds can have this liability without going extinct.

Humans are a lot smarter than birds (I hope). We can recognize our liabilities and do something about them. What are human supernormal stimuli? I can recall a time when I ate some sawdust for the amusement of other humans. I was able to do this easily as the sawdust was like a powder and I mixed it with sugar. Sugar is a naturally occurring chemical that is a supernormal stimulus for humans. Most of us were taught not to eat very much of this chemical when we were young. However, without such teaching, sugar would have to be rare or placed under some sort of guard for human teeth to exist for long in human mouths.

I am certain that, by now, you are sure that I think Western Civ has many supernormal stimuli. Our business model ensures this. A corporation is in existence to make money, and if a plan of corporate action is thought to be profitable, it will be done. The use of Homo sapiens particular supernormal stimuli are unregulated by human laws. Much of today's processed food contains unhealthy amounts of sugar, but it will sell in corporate stores, generating profits. Many humans know that eating very much sugar is unhealthy, and such foods will not sell as well to such humans. It is in the best interest of the corporation that produces such foods that few humans know the effects of consuming sugar in large quantities. However, it is also in the best interests of other corporations, as well as other human agencies (and individual humans!), that many many humans know about sugar's health liabilities. Therefore, there is some discussion in our society about sugar, which enables many of us to make somewhat informed choices about sugar.

A human being can compensate for her/his weaknesses, but knowledge of what those weaknesses are is crucial. How can a human animal know what such weaknesses are? I imagine myself as a primitive person wandering around with a sharp stick, and I imagine how I might have lived. The human animal lived in primitive conditions for much more time than Western Civ has existed, so primitive conditions are what we are evolved in, and our adaptations and limitations must fit such primitive conditions. Would such a person have found bags of sugar in the environment which could be obtained by giving slips of paper to another human, or machine? Of course not. Would a non-techno person have eaten much meat? I doubt it. Archaeological digs in many parts of the world, including Native American civilizations less than a thousand years old, show iron deficiencies which would not occur with an animal based diet. No wonder meat tastes so good-it was rare but sorely needed in those times. Now some humans can eat animals every day, which happened to very few humans throughout the history of H. sapiens. What about cars, radios, televisions, cell phones, computers, and the myriads of other devices we use every day? Since we have not had much of a chance to evolve with these things, the use of these objects must occur with the use of our minds in order to minimize the unintentional consequences of such use.

So what are the most important aspects of our Western Civ lives that we need to think about? A good way to start is by examining what you do and do not do every day. The once-in-a-lifetime trip to Tahiti may require that you spend a year's pay, but it matters little by this metric. In my life l focus on the 'hidden' supernormal stimuli (especially television) that humans in Western Civ probably encounter every day. Nearly all of us watch television on a daily basis. This activity takes much time and prevents most of us from doing things our ancestors must have done daily, like looking for food or firewood or just checking on what the tribe over the hill was doing. Television viewing is associated with declines in SAT scores, desensitization to violence, obesity, and many other undesirable outcomes. Yet even though many humans already know or suspect this, televisions still get watched, maybe even yours. More than 99% of the US population has one in their house.

The content of television programs and ads is determined by corporations, which care only about profits. If one corporation consists of humans too honorable to stoop to dishonest but legal tactics in order to get other humans to watch their television programs, another corporation will try to make those profits. Today's world consists at least partly of unhealthy processed food. Why not unhealthy television programs? Why not unhealthy TV ads? If techniques exist that will cause television viewers to watch more television so they can be exposed to more ads, these techniques will be used if possible. It does not matter if people are harmed if these techniques are used, as long as such things like psychologist's salaries and legal fees are less than the profits obtained. If the people in a republic do not even know that these techniques exist, so much the better. Are these hypothetical techniques effective enough to worry about? I do not know. But I see people exposing themselves every day to a lit-up and noisy box for more time than they talk to their relatives. I assume that the psychologists hired by advertising agencies have been getting better at their tasks, and I have not seen people getting better informed on what these psychologists have been doing, probably because they watch too much television.

The prescription is easy enough to write. But human psychology makes following the prescription harder. When a human does something that she/he doesn't like the consequences of, then the human's goal should be to do that activity as little as possible. Often humans try to convince themselves that the outcome isn't really so bad, especially if the task is pleasurable. Why would a sane human do something that he/she didn't like the consequences of? I know sugar is not a healthy food, but there is some in my diet. Because I know the consequences I can limit my sugar intake, even though it is a potent supernormal stimuli. However, I choose to live without a television. I know that sometimes I eat more sugar than I think is healthy. Also, I am ignorant of the 'tricks of the trade' that go into making a television program exciting, and know little of the tricks, deceptions, and exploitations of human foibles that must go into the making of every ad. I do know that everything I have ever seen on a television came from a corporation, and in my opinion corporations are not to be trusted, especially in matters of money. The programs were paid for by advertising dollars, and every TV ad I have seen has come from a corporation. Increasingly the corporation that produces the ad is the same one that owns the television stations. I know that admen and TV programmers have been getting better, because such evolution is embedded in the manic logic of capitalism. I also know that the unintended consequences of viewing these ads matters little to any corporation unless it affects profits. These statements are hard to disagree with, and conclusions that they lead to are troubling.

Some humans will be unable to give up their plug-in-drug, for television certainly has that kind of effect on H sapiens. The instinctive reaction will be to reject the troubling conclusions, and to look for reasons why these conclusions must be wrong. This reaction is not likely to produce logical answers. If you can get a human animal to realize that their instinctive reactions are likely to preserve the status quo, especially regarding things a normally wired human considers pleasurable, more rational thoughts and conclusions are likely to result.

[wisconsin_cur]

Our household has been TV free since 2003. I can't tell you how many people compliment us on the decision, telling us that they understand just how full of junk is television. I know only one other couple without a TV. Like sugar, most people complain about their dependence upon on it, acknowledge its detrimental nature yet do nothing about it.

Strikes me that something beyond awareness is necessary. We are like addicts who recognize that they drink too much but is not willing to confess that they are powerless before their addiction (step 1). If I carry this analogy a little further each individual needs to "hit bottom" before they can confess that powerlessness. Some folks have "high bottoms" and will be able to begin the path to recovery quicker. Others will be drinking hairspray and robbing the Quik-e-mart before they give up their drug of choice.

I don't know that TV will ever hurt most people enough to cause them to hit bottom, but then again I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to humans as a group. I've never been disappointed when I expected them to respond to their most base impulses. Ultimately a failure to free themselves from the social habits of the 1950's and 1960's will lead to the self destruction of a couple billion.

[coyote]

Quite an interesting post. The one point I disagree with is your stated assumption that the advertisers are getting better at their jobs. I disagree because the ads are getting more entertaining.

It's a sad fact that annoying advertising works. Please don't squeeze the Charmin? Annoying as hell -- and the Charmin leapt off the shelves. Memorable. Messin' with Sasquatch? Funny as hell -- and how many could name, off the top of their head, what company it was for? Doesn't help sell the product. With some notable exceptions, in advertising, 'amusing' and 'effective' are inversely proportionate.

But advertisers are forced to go for the entertaining, knowing full well it is less effective, because audiences are getting savvier and harder to reach. Yes, I wrote that right. I know we're buying more and more every year... but it's getting harder and harder for advertisers to compete for attention.

However, your larger point is still supported. The entertainment helps blur the line between story and selling, and increases myopia among viewers. When I was a kid, you'd do just about anything to be out of the room when the ads were on. Now? Some of the best parts of the show. What messages are being absorbed as we laugh our way through the ad blocks?

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'Q')uite an interesting post. The one point I disagree with is your stated assumption that the advertisers are getting better at their jobs. I disagree because the ads are getting more entertaining.

[FreakOil]

Great post, NoLogos, in my humble opinion. One thing that was lost on me, perhaps I wasn't reading carefully, was whether the television was the supernormal stimilus or the content of the programming? Perhaps the content is the stimulus with a fetishistic attachment toward the television? I know little of psychology, so I'm a little out of my league here.

Regarding content, I actually think the programming, rather than the ads, may be more insiduous. I haven't watched television for a long time, so I can't cite any specific programs. However, I do recall how, in general, the characters in sitcoms almost always had homes, apartments and possessions incommensurate with their employment. For example, a waitress would live in a three-bedroom flat with all the latest furnishings, or something similar.

After viewing such programs, a person could be expected to develop irrational expectations of what they should own and where they should live. The advertising, seemingly working in tandem, then offers them the things that they think they should have, even if they can't afford them or don't need them.

Another example of insiduous programming would be game shows, where participants earn a substantial reward or doing something so banal as solving a crossword puzzle or even shopping. Once again, the advertisers come along to offer the viewers things that they don't need or can't afford, which they already want, having watched at least part of the program.

I think what I'm getting at here is that the programming creates desire for enhanced pleasure, and the advertisers offer it, mutually reinforcing eachother.

In regards to the effectiveness of different types of advertising, I would suspect that it depends on the goals of the company whose product is being advertised. If the company has the concrete aim of directly spurring sales, they may be inclined to more directly advertise the attributes of the product, creating a more sensible, if boring, advertisement. The companies that display their products in amusing advertisements, often with no relation to the product or its attributes, may be attempting to generate longer-term psychological association to the brand or slogan. The end result, if the advertising is successful, may not be a direct increase in sales in the short term, but the creation of a successful meme.

[NoLogos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'G')reat post, NoLogos, in my humble opinion. One thing that was lost on me, perhaps I wasn't reading carefully, was whether the television was the supernormal stimilus or the content of the programming? Perhaps the content is the stimulus with a fetishistic attachment toward the television? I know little of psychology, so I'm a little out of my league here.

[Baldwin]

I spend roughly 1-1.5 hours each day watching television. In terms of television, I prefer to watch DVD movies...les advertisements and a story to follow (LotR, star wars, WWII stuff). However, I also spend 2 hours a day or more reading.

WIth children, I'd be equally concerned with school. I and many others spend about 8 hours a day at the idiot factory. Even with the best parents, all their efforts may come to naught when encountering those children who've been parked at the TV and dumped at daycare for years and years. In their teenage years, they hook into their iPod, yet we wonder why relationships break down, and why this generation is a cornucopia of morons.

[IanC]

This discussion is defintiely germaine to how we will or will not be able to cope with the coming changes from increased resource scarcity. Our appetites for products, including images of lifestyles and perceptions of success, are groomed from early on. I think we are hard wired to want more than what we have. I think there is a hauptkonsumer good for everyone out there. No one is immune.

It takes constant vigilance and consious effort to resist marketing/advertizing. It is almost impossible to truly live simply.

We dumped our TV when our first daughter was 2. It was probably the best decision we made as new parents and set the stage for other low-marketing, low-stimulation decisions for our house made subsequently. It's fun to watch our lefty enviro friends fall all over themselves explaining why they still have TV and how much they limit it for their families. To me, the Devil is still with them, subtely grooming their consumer tastes toward that one thing which will make them truly happy... Sick, man.

-IanC

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')n regards to the effectiveness of different types of advertising, I would suspect that it depends on the goals of the company whose product is being advertised. If the company has the concrete aim of directly spurring sales, they may be inclined to more directly advertise the attributes of the product, creating a more sensible, if boring, advertisement.

[Atlantean_Relic]

Then massively multiplayer online role-playing game(MMORPG) must be near the top of 'supernormal stimulus.' There are plenty of stories of people that play Games like World of Warcraft to the detriment of health, job, or relationship. There are even a hand full of stories where people have played themselves to death, refusing to stop to eat, drink or relieve themselves for 3 days or more.

[NoLogos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', ' ')The increased entertainment factor simply means that advertisers are having a harder and harder time getting anyone to look at their advertisements at all. They're jumping through hoops just to bring anyone to the table, and so sacrificing audience retainment of the brand. It's just another of the many examples of diminishing returns.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I')n regards to the effectiveness of different types of advertising, I would suspect that it depends on the goals of the company whose product is being advertised. If the company has the concrete aim of directly spurring sales, they may be inclined to more directly advertise the attributes of the product, creating a more sensible, if boring, advertisement.