Ranchu
Veteran
Claiming kids are only affected by the onslaught because I haven't taught them and they can't defend themselves is disingenuous and a deflection, blaming the victim and avoiding the issue, which is the promulgation of impossible ideals that young people think they need to meet, or die trying, by those who make lots of money off it.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Well, since you have all the answers, my friend, educate us. Please.
Ranchu
Veteran
So then, no local edits in advertising right? No soda machines in schools? No private banks? Public funding only for election campaigns? Single payer health care, right? Where exactly did I claim I had 'all the answers'? Is that another deflection? I have an opinion, and I gave it. I don't owe you an education as the cost of having a view, sorry.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
"I don't owe you an education as the cost of having a view, sorry."
Classic cop-out (deflection) response to the rational opinions that Hepcat has offered up.
So far as I can tell your only answer to the question at hand is let the government legislate to fix the problem.
Classic cop-out (deflection) response to the rational opinions that Hepcat has offered up.
So far as I can tell your only answer to the question at hand is let the government legislate to fix the problem.
Ranchu
Veteran
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Ranchu, that IS a large part of the problem; that our youngsters are unable to form a view of what is healthy because they're bombarded with images of "perfection" that are flawed, impossible to attain, and unhealthy. And they can't discern that because you (we) haven't taught them to.
What did I miss here that makes any of this relevant to the topic of conversation?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
People driving cars shouldn't run pedestrians over. But it is still a good idea to teach people not to run into the street without looking. There is a difference between (suggesting) giving somebody tools to defend themselves with is important - and blaming somebody without those tools for not having them.
Jamie123
Veteran
I have to disagree here. I think 'youngsters' aren't as stupid as you think. I think for the most part they have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't healthy or at least just as good of an idea as older people.
The simple fact is, though, that people tend to care more about being attractive than about being healthy and adults are no better in this regard than youngsters.
At the end of the day, though, I don't think promoting a healthier image of perfection in advertising is a solution. The goal of advertising is to make people feel inadequate and even if it promoted healthier body images they would still be impossible to attain for most people. I mean, you can hire plus size models but they're still models.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Jamie, I didn't say they were stupid. I said they lack critical thinking skills. There's a big difference. Advertising works. Repeated exposure to images imprints on us. It does, in fact, generate demand for whatever is being advertised whether its products or a political candidate. And it doesn't have to b a lot of advertising either... the negative posts on this forum about the Leica M8, for example, have kept many readers from buying a perfectly serviceable camera.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't quite understand the difference between stupidity and a lack of critical thinking skills but that's not really important as my comment still applies. My point was that I don't necessarily think they do not know better. Rather, they often engage in unhealthy behaviour despite their better judgement. As you said, advertising works. And even if it does not work on a specific individual, that individual still lives in a world where it does work on others.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
The adjective "stupid" implies a lack of ability; critical thinking is an acquired skill, much like the discipline of logic. There are LOTS of folks who are really intelligent who lack critical thinking skills.
Probably the most important critical thinking skill in assessing any claim of superiority is the old adage: "follow the money." If you know who stands to gain, and what they stand to gain it becomes easier to discern what their motivation is and how likely their claims are to be accurate.
But you're right; even those with excellent critical thinking skills are often sucked in by peer pressure.
hlockwood
Well-known
They must be very embarrassed by their latest Pulitzer. They only have about 60 of them.
Originally Posted by Steve M.,
"OK, the Washington Post is a crappy, terrible newspaper that wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the back end. I wouldn't believe a word they print. That's closer to the truth, but strange seemed to be enough. But, we're off track here...."
Yeah Steve M, how many Pulitzers has your Washington Times garnered?
As for the shot, that it was by Annie L. is irrelevant to me. I think it works.
HFL
Jamie123
Veteran
Not sure if that distinction holds up. It seems to me that the adjective "stupid" is generally used for people or their actions where the displayed lack of intelligence cannot be justified by an innate lack of abilities. I.e. one would probably not refer to a mentally handicapped person as stupid (not nowadays anyway). Personally I would never refer to a person who lacks what you call critical thinking skills as intelligent even if they are well educated.
But to get back on topic, the point I'm trying to make is that it's not so much about being 'sucked in' by peer pressure, it's more about weighing one's interest. Obviously I'm not talking about severe cases like anorexia, bulemia or teenagers using steroids where one could talk about them succumbing to peer pressure, I'm talking about most of us who consciously decide to do one thing or another based on societal pressures.
Let me make an example. When I meet a woman I'm romantically interested in and we talk about meeting up for drinks or coffee it will often happen that she asks me "Where do you want to go?" What I have learned in my 30 years on this planet is that it's generally not a good idea to answer "I don't know, do you have anything in mind?" because that will make me seem indecisive which, based on gender stereotypes, is deemed as an unattractive attribute for men. Personally, I do not feel that my masculinity is defined by the level of my decisiveness and I couldn't care less if I or the woman in question decides where to go but I choose to play along with this silly game because otherwise I could deprive myself of the opportunity of getting to know someone. So my point is that while I do have the capacity to reflect on my own behaviour and think critically about the stereotypes I'm adhering to, I still have to weigh that against my other interests.
And of course that's just one example of a very minute detail of social interactions but our daily lives are filled with them.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
If I give you the wrong instructions for something and you mess up - does that make you stupid?
Jamie123
Veteran
I would say that stupidity is probably a relational property that can apply to someone or something in a certain context. If you give me the wrong instructions and I can reasonably be expected to recognize that they're wrong then you would probably call me stupid if I followed them. E.g. if I asked you how to go about making a cake and you told me to start by banging my head against the wall then you would probably call me stupid if I did it, even though I'm following instructions. However, if you tell me to use the wrong type of flour and I mess up then you'd probably not call me stupid (unless I can be expected to know better, like if I was a trained baker).
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Jamie, here's the dictionary definition:
stu·pid [stoo-pid, styoo‐] Show IPA
adjective, stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est.
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
tunalegs' comment was spot-on: "Unfortunately a lot of people are taught to learn - rather than to think."
We regularly see very intelligent people making huge mistakes by failing to think critically. The first that comes to mind are professionals who join a cult, but I'm sure we could come up with a lot more examples really easily.
It is interesting that this very thread has turned into an exercise in critical thinking! Disordered eating is almost completely misunderstood by the public. People don't choose to have eating disorders. They choose to lose a few pounds or work out... and in some cases that can trigger the beginning of an eating disorder in people with a specific personality type. At least with anorexia, there seems to be a type of personality that is more prone to developing it. An eating disorder is triggered (at least in anorexics) by some as-yet-not-understood bio-chemical reaction that not only shuts down the desire to eat, but actually makes food seem toxic. It's not a willful act; they actutally can't eat. There's a variety of other symptoms that occur as well. But it seems that one of the common triggers is rapid weight loss; sometimes as little as five pounds in just a few days.
Where the advertising/peer pressure/unhealthy and impossible body image issues come in is when a person feels the need "to lose five pounds" to meet a body image goal so they can be viewed as more attractive/interesting/whatever. That's not a trigger in all cases of course, but anything that encourages rapid and unhealthy weight loss in an otherwise healthy person can be, and that's why these ubiquitous un-attainable "ideals" need to be changed.
Now, that certainly doesn't explain anorexia in a nine year old, of course... and frankly from my research, most facets of eating disorders are as poorly understood today as the plague was in the middle ages. Modern medicine is still largely in the "bloodletting and leaches" stage of treatment in most cases when it comes to eating disorders. While eating disorders appear to have mental health symptoms, it is more likely to be a chemical/neurological disorder, not a mental disorder. Modern eating disorder treatment in most cases is barbaric, and just doesn't work. Fortunately there's research being done, however minimal at the moment.
Sparrow
Veteran
... either way, to claim the media doesn't influence peoples behaviour is a bit silly ... as that's how advertising works
Jamie123
Veteran
Well, firstly, you're not providing "the" dictionary definition but a dictionary definition. But ok, here's another definition from Wikipedia: "Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense." It seems to me that this includes what you call critical thinking.
But I do have to point out the irony in quoting a dictionary definition as an argument and then following it up with the sentence "People are taught to learn rather than to think.".
In any case, what is and isn't stupidity is really beside the point. My point is that often people are quite capable of thinking critically about something and still act in a way that runs counter to what they know to be healthy. As you say, anorexia is not necessarily willful and most sufferers are aware of its implications on their health. Still, the fact that something is not willful doesn't mean it's not influenced by the sociatal factors. Here's an interesting article from the NY Times I read a few years ago: The Americanization of Mental Illness
I quote from the article: “Culture shapes the way general psychopathology is going to be translated partially or completely into specific psychopathology,” Lee says. “When there is a cultural atmosphere in which professionals, the media, schools, doctors, psychologists all recognize and endorse and talk about and publicize eating disorders, then people can be triggered to consciously or unconsciously pick eating-disorder pathology as a way to express that conflict.”
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
This is true for some people. But it doesn't change the problem that a lot of people don't think critically because they simply haven't been taught to think critically - or often - have been taught that critical thinking is just too much effort, or may get them in trouble.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Why not just cut to the chase and ban advertizing altogether.
Even better...ban deception. We'd all be better off for it.
If you're concerned about the heavy hand of the State, start with banning State sponsored advertizing and State sponsored deception.
Once that's all cleared up, then we could ban Authority.
Even better...ban deception. We'd all be better off for it.
If you're concerned about the heavy hand of the State, start with banning State sponsored advertizing and State sponsored deception.
Once that's all cleared up, then we could ban Authority.