A very basic point about the manipulation of the less sophisticated

C

Craig234

Verified User
It doesn't get much more basic than this, but how many in society would this be news to?

Imagine Joe Q. Public, shown an advertisement of a beer, with a bottle held by a sexy woman, and asked for his reaction to the beer.

He might say, he'd like to have one, sure.

Then imagine he's shown a video of two ad designers talking about the ad.

One says to the others, 'can you believe this stuff still works? the sexy girl takes up almost the whole ad. The readers' brain sees that and reacts positively with attraction and desire. And because our beer is in her hand, his little brain cannot easily separate them, and the emotions rushing through is brain carry over to the bee in her hand as well, and he feels some attraction and desire for it also because it's there, and that is lodged in his memory when he sees it on the shelf.'

Then the man is shown the ad again. Having just been told how he is being manipulated, can he do any better at not being attracted to the beer because a sexy girl holds it? Being told this SHOULD help him do better to counter it. Maybe.

This is about as basic as it gets in advertising and manipulation. Selling candidates and parties and policies similarly is very manipulative in the well-funded advertising. trump knew this with his simplistic 'branding' of opponents with a negative adjective with their name, like 'Crooked Hillary' and 'Pocohantas Warren' and 'Crazy Bernie'. There are massive advertising organizations funded to sell political views that benefit a few. Many seem unable to resist. Would explaining this to them help them resist it?
 
Craig234 said:
This is about as basic as it gets in advertising and manipulation. Selling candidates and parties and policies similarly is very manipulative in the well-funded advertising. trump knew this with his simplistic 'branding' of opponents with a negative adjective with their name, like 'Crooked Hillary' and 'Pocohantas Warren' and 'Crazy Bernie'. There are massive advertising organizations funded to sell political views that benefit a few. Many seem unable to resist. Would explaining this to them help them resist it?
Click to expand...

In one of my English Comp courses we had to do a group project. It involved finding an ad in a magazine and analyzing it for exactly this sort of thing. We had to look at the humans (if any) featured in the ad, their facial expressions and body language, what colors were used, what moods/emotions we thought the creator was trying to convey, and how we felt about it as well. It was a really interesting exercise in critical thinking.

That being said, there was one obnoxious guy in class who was quite obviously a contard. The instructor was just as obviously not. He constantly and loudly interrupted her when she was speaking. One day she had her fill of him and told him that if he didn't quit interrupting he could leave the classroom. He wasn't a kid either; he appeared to be in his 30s. He did not understand the advertising project and declared that it was either pointless or useless, I don't recall the exact word he used.

So my guess is that your guys in your scenario probably wouldn't fare a lot better.

Just look at the contard comment you already got. lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
In one of my English Comp courses we had to do a group project. It involved finding an ad in a magazine and analyzing it for exactly this sort of thing. We had to look at the humans (if any) featured in the ad, their facial expressions and body language, what colors were used, what moods/emotions we thought the creator was trying to convey, and how we felt about it as well. It was a really interesting exercise in critical thinking.

That being said, there was one obnoxious guy in class who was quite obviously a contard. The instructor was just as obviously not. He constantly and loudly interrupted her when she was speaking. One day she had her fill of him and told him that if he didn't quit interrupting he could leave the classroom. He wasn't a kid either; he appeared to be in his 30s. He did not understand the advertising project and declared that it was either pointless or useless, I don't recall the exact word he used.

So my guess is that your guys in your scenario probably wouldn't fare a lot better.

Just look at the contard comment you already got. lol
Click to expand...

Good points.

Pearls before swine, as they say.
 
I guess Democratic ad men manipulated 66 million less sophisticated Americans to vote Democratic and Republican ad men manipulated 63 million less sophisticated Americans to vote Republican.
 
Flash said:
Then that destroys the assumption of the original post.
Click to expand...

Nope. You "guessed" that the entire electorate was swayed, one way or another, by sheer advertising. No logical basis for that. What we DO see, not guess, is that the Trump voters were sold a bill of goods by a pathologically lying buffoon. Some of us saw that, no guessing, without advertising, from the beginning. Merely direct observation. What we continue to see is the 35% or so still being manipulated by Orangetweet and RW media.
 
hvilleherb said:
Hillary tells laid off coal miners they will never get their jobs back.

A new coal mine opens under Trump.

http://www.tribdem.com/news/new-coa...cle_ddcbb86e-f484-11e6-b575-7f8241c28748.html
Click to expand...

A, one, creating a few jobs locally, Saints be Praised
160127164121-donald-trump-aug-rally-super-169.jpg
 
Nah, but Trump is a master at manipulating the uninformed with childish insults and names. He knew his people and fed them exactly what they wanted to hear. That is also why they have not left after he became a floundering incompetent politician. He promised whatever they wanted to hear and delivered to the plutocrats instead. You guys were suckered.. But that is the beauty of a good conman. His marks are the last ones to discover the truth. They deny it and will not listen. But eventually, they have to figure it out. Trump absolutely has not delivered his promises. He never intended to.
 
Nordberg said:
Nah, but Trump is a master at manipulating the uninformed with childish insults and names. He knew his people and fed them exactly what they wanted to hear. That is also why they have not left after he became a floundering incompetent politician. He promised whatever they wanted to hear and delivered to the plutocrats instead. You guys were suckered.. But that is the beauty of a good conman. His marks are the last ones to discover the truth. They deny it and will not listen. But eventually, they have to figure it out. Trump absolutely has not delivered his promises. He never intended to.
Click to expand...

Like the poor abused spouse, defends the SOB till the day they are dumped, & then still can't hardly believe it....
 
domer76 said:
Nope. You "guessed" that the entire electorate was swayed, one way or another, by sheer advertising. No logical basis for that. What we DO see, not guess, is that the Trump voters were sold a bill of goods by a pathologically lying buffoon. Some of us saw that, no guessing, without advertising, from the beginning. Merely direct observation. What we continue to see is the 35% or so still being manipulated by Orangetweet and RW media.
Click to expand...

No, that "guess" was the logical assumption based on the original post that the "less sophisticated" voters were manipulated. Like you, I don't agree with that assumption. However, unlike you, I don't think there is any evidence to show that Trump's voters were manipulated any more than Clinton's voters. That is based on knee-jerk partisanship.

First, voting studies have well established that most people vote their party affiliation. For most people I know that are fairly political I could have predicted 10-20-30 years ago how they would vote in 2016 because they have never voted for the other party during that time. So, the amount of money spent or any other campaign manipulation did not affect their vote because it was already predetermined.

Many Republicans were not "manipulated" into voting for Trump but did have a harder time justifying their Republican loyalty.

It is much less than 35% because although about a third identify themselves as independents, most of those vote regularly for one party; probably less than 10% are swing voters. Some of those are always manipulated by the candidate promising "change"--Obama, Trump.

Trump won some of those states not because more voters were manipulated into voting for him but because Clinton's voters did not turn out. She had many fewer votes than Obama in urban areas of swing states that are loyal Democratic voters (especially black voters). These voters were not manipulated into not voting but chose not to vote because of the high negative ratings for both candidates.

Trump won about 6% more working class voters than Romney. Most of these were not manipulated into voting for Trump as much as alienated by the Democrats. The often heard description in the media and political forums is that these working class whites are less sophisticated, hicks, bigots, deplorables, uninformed, etc. The point is not whether this is an accurate description but that regular denigration, belittlement, and disparagement is going to alienate a group that had long been a loyal part of the Democratic coalition. A candidate that "shared their values" (the most important factor in choosing a candidate) pulled them away. Most of this denigration came from other Democrats like young professionals who look down upon those who listen to country music, hunt and fish, and are religious. It widened the culture wars.
 
Flash said:
No, that "guess" was the logical assumption based on the original post that the "less sophisticated" voters were manipulated. Like you, I don't agree with that assumption. However, unlike you, I don't think there is any evidence to show that Trump's voters were manipulated any more than Clinton's voters. That is based on knee-jerk partisanship.

First, voting studies have well established that most people vote their party affiliation. For most people I know that are fairly political I could have predicted 10-20-30 years ago how they would vote in 2016 because they have never voted for the other party during that time. So, the amount of money spent or any other campaign manipulation did not affect their vote because it was already predetermined.

Many Republicans were not "manipulated" into voting for Trump but did have a harder time justifying their Republican loyalty.

It is much less than 35% because although about a third identify themselves as independents, most of those vote regularly for one party; probably less than 10% are swing voters. Some of those are always manipulated by the candidate promising "change"--Obama, Trump.

Trump won some of those states not because more voters were manipulated into voting for him but because Clinton's voters did not turn out. She had many fewer votes than Obama in urban areas of swing states that are loyal Democratic voters (especially black voters). These voters were not manipulated into not voting but chose not to vote because of the high negative ratings for both candidates.

Trump won about 6% more working class voters than Romney. Most of these were not manipulated into voting for Trump as much as alienated by the Democrats. The often heard description in the media and political forums is that these working class whites are less sophisticated, hicks, bigots, deplorables, uninformed, etc. The point is not whether this is an accurate description but that regular denigration, belittlement, and disparagement is going to alienate a group that had long been a loyal part of the Democratic coalition. A candidate that "shared their values" (the most important factor in choosing a candidate) pulled them away. Most of this denigration came from other Democrats like young professionals who look down upon those who listen to country music, hunt and fish, and are religious. It widened the culture wars.
Click to expand...

Your claim that they voted for Trump because he "shared their values" proves that they were manipulated. Any semi-intelligent observer could clearly see that the only values Trump shared with anyone was himself. "Shared values" most certainly cannot mean pathological lying and bullying. Race baiting. Misogyny. The voters that bought his BS, especially those few thousand that decided the electoral college, WERE manipulated. Easily. And perhaps by forces independent of Trump's personal campaign of lies. The latter we are aware of. The other factors, it appears, we are just learning about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top