Mark. and all, excellent overview of " advertising  et all'. May I add a current devastating example re opioid crisis. Brief background: I had many excellent courses in Grad school with a professor who also advised advertisers -- I recognized I judged him for that  and that blocked me from becoming friends with him. But he revealed enough that I have been sensitive to adds. 
For years now TV adds for all pharmaceuticals show every one HAPPY. Kids have grown up with the propaganda that if you want to happy TAKE A PILL. I suggest that this is a major cause of the epidemic. Of course when one is down one  thinks "take a pill, and keep taking it." Some react to adds by not accepting any prescriptions (instead I bicycled seriously and adjusted diet.)   Government rules require adding side effects. You would think people would be put off by the extreme dangers -- but we all know 40,000 annual auto deaths in US, and yet we drive, perhaps accept the risk or think "it will happen to me." 
Psychology has proven the power of adds -- why has NOT psychology been calling for ending of TV PHARMA ADDS? Why has no one (at least I have not heard it) been identifying this as a major cause of the epidemic? Martin

On Nov 17, 2018 7:25 AM, Mark Stahlman wrote: > > Waldemar: > > Excellent points . . . !! > > "Science" was specifically invented -- say, for instance, at the Royal  > Society of London (c. 1680) -- for two related purposes . . . > > 1) To exclude "metaphysics" (which at that time meant speculation re:  > "final causes," aka the end-of-the-world, and all things Roman  > Catholic) and > > 2) To provide the basis for engineering society (thus its role in the  > Industrial Revolutions and the expansion of the British Empire, the  > Opium Wars &c) > > So, accordingly, what *engineering* goal is being envisioned when  > "mind maps" are being drawn . . . ?? > > As I've mentioned a few times (but has not been taken up on this  > list), the modern "science" of psychology has played a significant  > role in trying to *engineer* people's "attitudes and behaviors." > > In the fullest-extent, this is known as "psychological warfare" (as,  > for instance, the "Cold War"), the scientific basis of which has names  > like "Social Psychology" (as invented by Kurt Lewin &al). > > In the more day-to-day sense, this is known as "advertising" and  > "propaganda" and "memeology," all of which employ mass-media to  > inculcate the population with particular goals in mind.  Like voting  > (when the outcome is already known.)  Or, buying things you truly  > don't need &c. >

 > Gregg, of course, is correct.  There *is* a "problem" with psychology  > --   > since it can't be used for the same behavioral engineering purposes. > > If there is to be a new "science of psychology," as Gregg intends (and  > has organized us to help him accomplish), then the *engineering* goals  > need to be made explicit.  That's the whole point of "measurable or  > systematic principles."  Science feeds engineering, like daylight  > follows the dawn. > > Otherwise it's just "pisser dans le vent," n'est pas . . .

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1