Sneaky Advertisements

Every product on the market has either functional or emotional value. Take for example an Apple laptop computer: you may value its usefulness around $1000, but you’re willing to pay $1,500 for it; this means your emotional value for it is $500. Apple has successfully made you pay $500 more for value that only exists in your mind. Advertisers know that in order to make big profit margins they need to instill lots of emotional value into their ubiquitous product. As frugal shoppers, we can’t afford emotional value. Before we go mindlessly shopping again, we need to realize how advertisers are trying to mark up prices in exchange for some unnecessary emotional value. Below, I have a list of common products we buy and the overlooked emotional value advertisers have implanted in them.

Outdoor Clothing
The outdoorsy industry has the sneakiest marketing schemes. Presumably, these outdoor stores are your only provider of equipment you need when you drive too far from civilization. They say they are selling functionality, but what they’re really selling is an image. The average hiker doesn’t need a jacket with interior mesh pockets, polyester chin guard, and light-weight recyclable nylon shells. Only hard-core hikers benefit from all this junk, the rest of us buy it because we get to pretend we are hard-core too. And why the hell is everything pea green and cement gray?

Workout Supplements

I never thought I would be intimidated by a bottle of nutrients until I came across a bucket of Magnesium Super Charge Xtreme! I once passed by one and I swear I heard it call me a little bitch when it saw me carrying a box of cookies. Companies create these ridiculous packages because the consumer decides which supplement to buy based on whichever label conveys the baddest attitude. They have no idea what 1500mg of Tribulus Terrestris does, but the label has a guy benching a million pounds so it must be good! These nutrients are cheap to make and are present in most foods; these supplements will only sell for $30 with about $25 worth of emotional value.


XXL Condoms

Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they market Magnum XXL condoms so heavily when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they advertise Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Condom companies don’t want you to associate their brand with tiny dicks, that’s not going to sell. They know they can mark up their prices a few bucks with a product that associates the buyer with a big one.

Alcohol

Alcohol companies have many advertising tricks up their sleeve, most of which we, smart shoppers, are aware of. There is one trick they have that I think a lot of people don’t notice. Their commercials are starting to emphasis the fact that we should drink responsibly and not drink and drive. They go as far as taking 25% of the commercial time to tell us this. By telling us this, they make us feel better for buying their brand; a socially conscious brand that cares about the lives it kills. It makes us feel better about drinking in general; it reminds us that drinking in moderation is fine and that we shouldn’t feel guilty about it.



Products with breast cancer ribbons on the box

Companies know that buyers like to help a cause as long as they don’t have to go out of their way too much to do it. In theory, putting a bunch of pink ribbons on the corner of a Cheerios box should help with sales. But why are so many food products obsessed with breast cancer all of a sudden? You may find the following saying a little disturbing in this context, but here it is anyway – sex sells. Companies donate to breast cancer research because it is marketable. You don’t want to be thinking of prostate cancer when you're scarfing down cereal. Companies have finally found a disease that isn’t disgusting enough to put on food labels, that’s it. Most companies already give to charity; breast cancer is just a cause they can gloat about. You aren’t buying from an especially virtuous company, just a clever one.

Facebook Defines Your Identity

In today’s web 2.0 generation, it’s not official until it’s on Facebook. That’s right - nothing is really official until you’ve solidified its existence on public display via Facebook. If you just woke up with a giant hang-over because of last night’s Jager Bombing and didn’t mention it in your Facebook status, did it really ever happen? If you change your birthday date a month forward on Facebook, would that be your new birthday? If you don’t even have a Facebook, do you really exist? Just like Big Brother in the book 1984, you control your past (or at least some of it) by controlling the memories people have about your past.

An interesting thing arises from all of this; people are beginning to use Facebook as way to make things official for themselves! Take for example the relationship status feature. There is always that awkward period of time that occurs when you first go out with someone and when you decide to declare each other as “in a relationship.” People sometimes feel that their commitments are not official until they publically announce it. This is because our culture values a person who is consistent with their beliefs. A person who is inconsistent with their beliefs is perceived as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or illogical. On the other hand, consistency is associated with being logical, rational, honest, or stable. When you publically announce a belief you make yourself vulnerable to being labeled inconsistent. This explains the hesitation period; you’re unsure if you want to commit to a certain identity because after it’s on Facebook it’s hard to turn back.

I believe that people implicitly already know this, maybe it’s something subconscious. They think that what you display on Facebook are a bunch of well thought-out commitments. In other words, your Facebook buddies will judge you by what you write. This is why Facebook has the power of defining your identity.

My Theory of Morality

I have always been non-religious, believed that nothing is black or white, and that life is inherently meaningless. A religious fundamentalist would cringe at the thought of having a person with my beliefs to be a part of his society. However, if he were to examine my life’s history he would find me to be a pretty moral, law-abiding person. For as long as I can remember I have been struggling to find a logical justification for being a moral person. No matter how often I thought about the meaninglessness of being moral, I continued striving to do good and straying away from doing evil. Well, the confusion is over; I have finally come up with a rational explanation of why everyone should be moral.

The bad definition of “moral”

Partly why morality is so confusing is because of how the word is conventionally thought of. People think that a moral action (e.g. it is bad to murder) should be applied in any situation and for any thinking agent. This way of using the word makes any moral guide (think Ten Commandments) vulnerable to all sorts of moral dilemmas. For example, should someone kill a person to save 100 others? Should someone die for their country or for anything? I have broadened the definition of “moral” in a way that leads to no moral ambiguity.

My definition of “moral,” which I will refer to as “moralL”

MoralsL: the set of behaviors and actions (that affect others in any way) that one should use in a collaboration or co-existence of two or more people in order to maximize personal utility. Whenever there is a group of two or more people that can benefit from each other, there exists a set of rules-of-interaction which, if followed correctly, will maximize the individual’s utility/happiness. These rules may change depending on the people within the group and the number of people in the group. You want to be moralL because you only benefit yourself from doing so.

Evolutionary explanation for moral misconceptions

It makes sense that natural selection favors the human/human ancestors that interact with others in such a way that increases their fitness. Humans can have non-zero-sum gains that increase their fitness by interacting with other humans in a certain way. I’ll call this set of rules-of-interactions as moralsE. Those genes that made humans predisposed or programmed to interact in a way that maximizes their fitness (i.e. morallyE) would dominate the gene pool. Now we have a population of humans that get positive emotional reinforcements (but not always) from behaving morallyE. The set of moralsE may only be a sub-set of the set of moralL or be completely different! Today’s religions/societies try following a moral code that contains some combination of moralsL and moralsE. Our emotional impulses bound us to moralsE that aren’t contained in the set of moralsL.

Why we should only follow moralsL and not moralsE

First of all, understand that our reproductive fitness can be a function of our happiness and therefore a part of our moralL code. If there are two conflicting actions (that affects others), option one leads to a 10% increase in happiness and option two leads to a 5% increase in happiness with a 2% increase in reproductive success (assuming the happiness associated with a 2% increase in reproductive success is already accounted for in the 5% increase in happiness), I don’t see why we should pick option two over option one. There is no reason to increase our reproductive fitness other than for the fact that it sometimes makes us happy to do so. In a universe empty of absolute right and wrong, why bother following any other moral code that doesn’t have to do with maximizing personal happiness?

Now to answer questions that I know are on your mind

If someone maximizes their happiness by going on murderous rampages, why should that be a moral deed? You would first need to accept the unlikely idea that someone maximizes their happiness by dramatically increasing their probability of dying (capital punishment/avengers/self-defense by victims) and sitting in prison in exchange for killing some people. Some of these people do exist so this isn’t a trivial example. Sure, they are acting morallyL, but expect natural selection to weed these people out quickly. Natural selection has favored those genes that make our happiness a function of other people’s well-being. Of course, not everyone has these genes or has them turned on, but there isn’t much to worry. If natural selection doesn’t weed them out, a benevolent society (that contains a majority of people who care about its members) will weed them out.

How this moral theory explains moral dilemmas

Should someone die for their country or for anything? You should only die for something if not dying for that something leads you to a life of such negative utility that it leads you to commit suicide anyways. If I don’t die for my country, will I live a life with such embarrassment, sadness, guilt, etc. that I would want to commit suicide and die either way? This same reasoning applies to such decisions of whether you should die or kill someone in order to save n number of people. What about going to the army and merely risking your life for your country? In this case you have to ask yourself whether the positive expected utility of risking your life for your country (or any cause) is greater than the negative expected utility of doing so. For example, if you had a 10% increase in probability of dying by going to the army, you might want to consider it, but not if it is a 50% increase. If saving your family from death requires you to increase your probability of dying by 50% you might consider it. I am just demonstrating why risking dying for a cause is all relative to your expected utility. Should we stop the genocide in Darfur? Well, that answer depends on whether net expected utility is positive or not. The surprising conclusion is that it may not even be worth it to stop the genocide (maybe we are better off just deterring it or slowing it down). There is no absolute right or wrong, there just is what there is: a bunch of evolved beings with different yet similar utility functions interacting with other beings in way that they hope leads to maximizing their individual utility.

How this theory affected my moral behavior

It hasn’t. I still do and believe in the same things, my preferences haven’t changed. What has changed is my perspective on moral ambiguity. With my theory, I no longer see moral dilemmas as unanswerable problems. There is always a rational moralL answer that differs from person to person. That moralL answer is the one that leads to maximizing happiness. We shouldn’t let things stray us away from acting morallyL like a religion telling you what they think is best for you.

Why We Like To Be Around People Without Interacting With Them

I have realized that a lot of people lack the introspective prowess to understand why they like something. Especially when asked why they prefer one thing over another that is substitutable or just very similar. Why do you want to go to Wendy’s instead of Burger King? Why did you buy Tylenol instead of Advil? When you ask people these questions it seems as if their choice was made before making a justification for their choice. Their sub-conscious makes the choice before their conscious mind understands why that choice was made.

This is understandable. Sometimes our sub-conscious identifies some sensual input that cues for a certain decision to be made. For example: John is strolling through downtown looking for a place to eat and finds one restaurant to be particularly intriguing. It may not seem apparent to John, at the time, why he made his choice. If I asked him for what reason he made his choice, he might pause and think up a justification on the spot. What he didn’t realize was that his decision had nothing to do with his elaborate justification. He really made his choice because he saw people that looked like him dining at the restaurant. His sub-conscious took this visual cue as validation for his decision.

This automatic decision-making algorithm we possess helped me make sense of the following social paradox: people say they like to go places where there are a lot of other people, however, when they get to those places they rarely interact with people other than their own group.

People say they like to go to the movies and restaurants versus renting a movie or ordering take-in, but why? Why bother going to these places if you expect to never once to interact with others? For the same reason John didn’t know why he chose his restaurant, we don’t know why we want to be surrounded by people. Our mind makes our decision for us, and we naively, and incorrectly, justify the decision after the fact.

What is really going on is social proof: a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior (Wikipedia). Obviously, if you are unsure of which restaurant to choose, you go to the one with more people because that might mean it is better; the social proof that occurs goes beyond this. The surplus of people you never interact with actually improve your movie/restaurant experience.

Watching people have fun, laugh, eat, chat, etc. makes you more confident in doing the same; it makes you feel like you’re doing the right thing for the moment. Watching all these positive behaviors also makes your group feel the same way. This effectively creates the right atmosphere for a good time. If, instead, you see others bonding with their families, you’ll feel it is appropriate to do the same. The list goes on; other people influence your mood no matter what they do. We often mistakenly associate our people-induced mood with the place we are in and not the people we are surrounded by. Hopefully this explains why the Olive Garden still exists.

Should we let ourselves become our jobs?

I recently read about an experiment showing that people are more reactionary towards losing freedoms that were once possessed versus freedoms that were never had. Take for example a kid and his privilege to have a piece of candy every time he finishes dinner. Compare two kids, one has always had this privilege and one has never. You can easily predict which kid will have a more violent uprising when being denied candy after dinner.

I have been the privileged kid for most of my life. I grew up with parents who can support me through my schooling without forcing me to get a job. This time period has given me the opportunity to explore myself and my goals. I had the luxury to do what truly makes me happy; I felt like my actions were consistent with what I believe in. Like the kid privileged with candy after dinner, I am bound to revolt when my freedoms are seized.

My freedoms are under a major threat and rebelling may be my death sentence. Like an ordinary member of society, I will one day have to support myself with a job of some sort. Working for a company may be my best option (in respect to having a low risk to return ratio). Unfortunately, I have learned that working for a company means I would have to suspend my freedoms for far too long.

Working towards accomplishing others' goals gives you a sense of loss in identity. You compromise your own aspirations for someone else's in exchange for money. (Ironically, the money you earn is supposed to grant you the freedom to do what you want). Being yourself becomes dangerous in this environment. Those who become successful here have abandoned their old self and meshed it into a bigger entity, the company itself.

Should we let ourselves become our jobs? I suppose some people don’t mind, I on the other hand, can’t fathom the thought of doing so. How is earning some money going to compensate for more than 1/3 of my waking life being wasted? I am afraid that a traditional job may not be a viable option for me.

A Meaningless Life Can Be A Happy One Too

The religious, deists, agnostics and atheists all have trouble coming to terms with the meaninglessness of life. No matter where you stand on the spectrum, there is a troubling stigma associated with those who admit to having a meaningless life. It is believed that only the suicidal and the wrist slitters ever consider such a thought. After all, how is it possible to be a functioning human being without the silly belief that the meaning of life is to [insert here whatever makes you happy]. Hopefully I can deconstruct this notion once and for all.

But first I must defend the premise on which this column relies on. Humans have evolved categorical memory, i.e. they have the ability to categorize objects in their memory in a hierarchal manner. Your memory of things looks something like this: Stuff I do when Hungry --> Eat Food --> Cheeseburger --> No Onions

This is obviously a very rough outline of how we think, but it illustrates how we perceive objects meaningfully. A Cheeseburger is meaningless without a human to assert meaning onto it. In my example, the meaning of the cheeseburger is a food I want to eat because I am hungry. There is no ONE meaning for an object and those meanings varies between person to person. For example, some people might categorize a cheeseburger as something they like to draw instead. If all of mankind were to vanish into thin air, the cheeseburger would be nothing more than a peculiar collection of atoms.

The key insight from this example is that meaning is a human perception of objects. The meaning of an object doesn’t exist without a human to impose that meaning onto the object. Same is true for us humans; there is no reason to believe, a priori, that we have an inherent meaning assigned to us. The question of whether life has meaning cannot even be answered; it is an illegitimate question to ask. Just like the question: “what does it feel like to be a rock?” The rock doesn’t know what it feels like to be itself, so how can we possibly answer this question! Both these questions should be explained away when we realize the questions are erroneous to begin with.

Back to my main point: admitting that life is meaningless does not imply you are or will be depressed. I believe that those who say they’re depressed because of life’s meaninglessness are more susceptible to depression in the first place. There is nothing inherently depressing about the belief that life is meaningless! There might be a correlation, but then again there is a correlation with depression and believing in God. To blindly associate either of these beliefs with depression would be a mistake.

If you are someone who claims to have a meaning for their life, whatever it may be, ask yourself this: theoretically, if it was proved (by science or by yourself, whichever one is more convincing for you) that your meaning for life was absolutely wrong, would you continue to live the way you are? Would you become more depressed, would things that made you happy before no longer make you happy? I think it is safe to assume you wouldn’t fall into chronic depression. Believing that life is inherently meaningless should not turn someone into a subject of pity.

We don’t need a religion, book, or person telling us what our meaning to life is in order to be happy. For the same reason we don’t need to be told not to kill babies in order for us to not to kill babies. We don’t need an excuse for doing what makes us happy.

Fuck This Post

Most of you have heard the old adage: “Using swear words shows that you have a poor vocabulary.”

This is somewhat true – people with a poor vocabulary have to improvise with the small collection of words they know. When fueled by anger, their mind retrieves the most prominent insults lying dormant in their head. Taking note of their belligerent use of the language, you’ll find the same insulting phrases being parroted over and over again.

Like any word or phrase, use it in too many different contexts and you’ll render it meaningless. With a limited vocabulary your tiny pouch of words are in danger of becoming meaningless. Many people are faced with this dilemma – they don’t want to bother expanding their vocabulary, but face the cost of having their words turn meaningless. Surprisingly, this isn’t the case! If this dilemma were true, there wouldn’t be anyone comfortable with their small collection of phrases; they would be forced to expand if they wished to adequately communicate with others. So what is going on here?

The fact is: people are not monotone. A person can use the word ‘Shit’ to mean dozens or even hundreds of different things simply by changing their tone of voice in different contexts. Unlike those with a bigger vocabulary, these people depend more on their tone of voice to communicate. There is no wonder why so many people manage to express themselves with a handful of phrases. Some of the common phrases you might have heard are: “That was sick” “That’s hella tight” “I love you” “That’s hot” and the list goes on. I am sure you’ve never heard or said these phrases in the same tone.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe these people are less intelligent at all. They have mastered a different aspect of communication. Where they lack in vocabulary they make up with a better understanding of body language, social behavior and human psychology.

Upon hearing, “Using swear words shows that you have a poor vocabulary” you are equally justified in saying “Not using swear words shows you have a poor understanding of human social behavior.” Two sayings that could be true, but are better off not being said.