It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
Where is the proof that advertising always actually causes a statistically significant change in behavior, other than corporations buy ads? Corporations are a remarkably stupid variety of person, as well, so keep that in mind.
Edit: The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
Where is the proof that advertising always actually causes a statistically significant change in behavior, other than corporations buy ads? Corporations are a remarkably stupid variety of person, as well, so keep that in mind.
Edit: The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a huge body of evidence that, in general, media affects behavior. This argument isn't "dead," it's settled. I can point to the work of Chomsky, Bernays, and Ellul decades ago; and more recently the entire fields of advertising, public relations, and public policy as examples. There are entire scholarly journals that print article after article on media and behavior.
Even within the violent video games arguments, there is plenty of evidence that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive behavior in the short-term. The only real controversy is regarding whether that effect is strong enough and long-lived enough to overcome the opposite social pressure not to commit crimes.
The reason that the Columbine arguments failed weren't that the premise 'media affects behavior' was wrong, but that they were too specific and too extreme. The Columbine arguments were frequently structured as, "Violent video games increase aggressive behavior, therefore violent video games caused this specific violent act, therefore we should legally restrict video games." A logical fallacy in the argument doesn't mean that the initial premise was false.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
And of course, no one ever considered that people that considered violence acceptable played violent video games because they found the violence more than acceptable and welcome in fact.
...There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
Dammit, it appears that I have claimed that entertainment has no effect on people, and I really don't know how I ended up saying that, but that wasn't what I meant. What I do mean is that drawing the line from a single show to any particular activity her viewers partake in is tricky at best.
...they were too specific and too extreme. The Columbine arguments were frequently structured as, "Violent video games increase aggressive behavior, therefore violent video games caused this specific violent act, therefore we should legally restrict video games."...
You are pretty much summing up the arguments here that I was attempting (poorly) to counter. Just replace "video games" with "Paula Dean" and "violence" with "obesity", or "diabetes".
In a nutshell, the concept that she is determining their behavior is totally absurd and the posters that claim this are wrong. Naturally she can and does influence people, but to decry her and claim she is personally so influential as to be a primary cause of giving people diabetes/obesity is what I read people suggesting and what I was objecting to.
Thanks to you both for pointing this out to me. I hope now I'm making more sense.
...There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
Dammit, it appears that I have claimed that entertainment has no effect on people, and I really don't know how I ended up saying that, but that wasn't what I meant. What I do mean is that drawing the line from a single show to any particular activity her viewers partake in is tricky at best.
...they were too specific and too extreme. The Columbine arguments were frequently structured as, "Violent video games increase aggressive behavior, therefore violent video games caused this specific violent act, therefore we should legally restrict video games."...
You are pretty much summing up the arguments here that I was attempting (poorly) to counter. Just replace video games with Paula Dean and violence with fatness, or diabetes.
In a nutshell, the concept that she is determining their behavior is totally absurd and the posters that claim this are wrong. Naturally she can and does influence people, but to decry her and claim she is personally so influential as to be a primary cause of giving people diabetes is what I read people suggesting and what I was objecting to.
Thanks you both for pointing this out to me.
Okay, that's way more reasonable than what I thought you were saying. Sorry for being bitchy about it.
Yeah, that's understandable. I agree that we can't draw a bright line from Paula Deen specifically to particular health outcomes.
I still feel that TV personalities have a soft moral responsibility to incorporate positive health messages in their programming. I don't necessarily think that Paula Deen causes diseases of affluence like diabetes and coronary heart disease, but she is in a unique position to help fight them.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
...There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
Dammit, it appears that I have claimed that entertainment has no effect on people, and I really don't know how I ended up saying that, but that wasn't what I meant. What I do mean is that drawing the line from a single show to any particular activity her viewers partake in is tricky at best.
...they were too specific and too extreme. The Columbine arguments were frequently structured as, "Violent video games increase aggressive behavior, therefore violent video games caused this specific violent act, therefore we should legally restrict video games."...
You are pretty much summing up the arguments here that I was attempting (poorly) to counter. Just replace video games with Paula Dean and violence with fatness, or diabetes.
In a nutshell, the concept that she is determining their behavior is totally absurd and the posters that claim this are wrong. Naturally she can and does influence people, but to decry her and claim she is personally so influential as to be a primary cause of giving people diabetes is what I read people suggesting and what I was objecting to.
Thanks you both for pointing this out to me.
Okay, that's way more reasonable than what I thought you were saying. Sorry for being bitchy about it.
Yeah, that's understandable. I agree that we can't draw a bright line from Paula Deen specifically to particular health outcomes.
I still feel that TV personalities have a soft moral responsibility to incorporate positive health messages in their programming. I don't necessarily think that Paula Deen causes diseases of affluence like diabetes and coronary heart disease, but she is in a unique position to help fight them.
No harm done. I totally agree with your last point as well.
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
So...lets say you are male. Are you saying that the massive amounts of douche commercials you have been subjected to over the years have forced you to stick scented water up your twat?
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
So...lets say you are male. Are you saying that the massive amounts of douche commercials you have been subjected to over the years have forced you to stick scented water up your twat?
...if you as a male have been subjected to a massive amount of douche commercials over the years, you were probably an atypical example for how media influences behavior to begin with.
You know, on account of how you naturally gravitated towards all of those "Touched by an Angel" and "Murder She Wrote" reruns.
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
So...lets say you are male. Are you saying that the massive amounts of douche commercials you have been subjected to over the years have forced you to stick scented water up your twat?
In a nutshell, the concept that she is determining their behavior is totally absurd and the posters that claim this are wrong. Naturally she can and does influence people, but to decry her and claim she is personally so influential as to be a primary cause of giving people diabetes/obesity is what I read people suggesting and what I was objecting to.
Whether or not Deen ultimately 'determines' whether or not someone eats an unhealthy diet is besides the point. I mean, let's take the Kangan Water fraudsters for example: are they not doing anything unethical by selling people bleach-making machines and claiming that they will cure all illnesses?
What about the e-mail fraudsters who attempt to pull-off transfer fee theft by promising to share some windfall monetary gift?
Peddling dangerous wares & scamming people (or attempting to do so) is unethical, full stop. It's taking advantage of a vulnerable demographic (those who are gullible, ignorant or in a position where their judgement has been compromised) for profit.
Edit: The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
I would like to play devils advocate on this issue and say that there is contention on the cause and effect relationship. Is the media actually unduly influencing us or is the media providing something in which we already demand. If the media is a reflection of society instead of society reflecting media then media is simply filling the demand as opposed to changing it. Most of the studies out there with any validity (many of them are poorly done, thinly veiled religious puff pieces) do not adequately establish an effective control group in determining causation, and these studies do not use sample sizes indicative of the population, and honestly I scorn any study with a sample size under 600. I could pull a sampling of 500 and show that Metallica causes Irritable Bowl Syndrome.
I would like to play devils advocate on this issue and say that there is contention on the cause and effect relationship. Is the media actually unduly influencing us or is the media providing something in which we already demand. If the media is a reflection of society instead of society reflecting media then media is simply filling the demand as opposed to changing it. Most of the studies out there with any validity (many of them are poorly done, thinly veiled religious puff pieces) do not adequately establish an effective control group in determining causation, and these studies do not use sample sizes indicative of the population, and honestly I scorn any study with a sample size under 600. I could pull a sampling of 500 and show that Metallica causes Irritable Bowl Syndrome.
-.-
Media-driven coercion is about as well established as Bernoulli's principle. It's contentious in the same way evolution & natural selection are contentious subjects.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Edit: The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
I would like to play devils advocate on this issue and say that there is contention on the cause and effect relationship. Is the media actually unduly influencing us or is the media providing something in which we already demand. If the media is a reflection of society instead of society reflecting media then media is simply filling the demand as opposed to changing it. Most of the studies out there with any validity (many of them are poorly done, thinly veiled religious puff pieces) do not adequately establish an effective control group in determining causation, and these studies do not use sample sizes indicative of the population, and honestly I scorn any study with a sample size under 600. I could pull a sampling of 500 and show that Metallica causes Irritable Bowl Syndrome.
There is something to the idea that advertisement doesn't work in hawking products there is little demand for, and that demand isn't created through advertisement. But there is definitely a case to be made that advertisement does influence specific perceptions of products and brands.
honestly I scorn any study with a sample size under 600. I could pull a sampling of 500 and show that Metallica causes Irritable Bowl Syndrome.
That's silly. Depending on the type of study, and the effect you're looking for, a sample size as small as 30 is fine. Really, what we're looking for is replication. Three studies, each with sample sizes of 50, performed by different people on different samples, confirming the same effect, combine to be far more reliable than a single study with a sample size of 150.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There is something to the idea that advertisement doesn't work in hawking products there is little demand for, and that demand isn't created through advertisement. But there is definitely a case to be made that advertisement does influence specific perceptions of products and brands.
All you have to do is look at the research done in the early 90s on children's toy advertisements. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that: if you present a child with a toy without grooming them, the child may or may not find it appealing but in either case is very unlikely to find the toy particularly interesting in comparison to other toys (the child will not insist on playing with that toy to the exclusion of others).
If you groom a child with a specific presentation for a toy, however, the child will adamantly favour it.
The studies for adults are also pretty conclusive, but it's just not as outright visible.
There is something to the idea that advertisement doesn't work in hawking products there is little demand for, and that demand isn't created through advertisement. But there is definitely a case to be made that advertisement does influence specific perceptions of products and brands.
All you have to do is look at the research done in the early 90s on children's toy advertisements. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that: if you present a child with a toy without grooming them, the child may or may not find it appealing but in either case is very unlikely to find the toy particularly interesting in comparison to other toys (the child will not insist on playing with that toy to the exclusion of others).
If you groom a child with a specific presentation for a toy, however, the child will adamantly favour it.
The studies for adults are also pretty conclusive, but it's just not as outright visible.
Food as well. Showing people (children and adults) a TV show with food advertisements (versus the same show with non-food adverts or no adverts) increases their consumption of food afterwards, and the effect is greater for fatty and sweet foods.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
There is something to the idea that advertisement doesn't work in hawking products there is little demand for, and that demand isn't created through advertisement. But there is definitely a case to be made that advertisement does influence specific perceptions of products and brands.
All you have to do is look at the research done in the early 90s on children's toy advertisements. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that: if you present a child with a toy without grooming them, the child may or may not find it appealing but in either case is very unlikely to find the toy particularly interesting in comparison to other toys (the child will not insist on playing with that toy to the exclusion of others).
If you groom a child with a specific presentation for a toy, however, the child will adamantly favour it.
The studies for adults are also pretty conclusive, but it's just not as outright visible.
Ahhh, but the problem is the control in this case. Kids aren't specifically shown just 1 toy in the market, they are advertised too many toys, hundred in a day, maybe thousands if they spend enough time watching television, they develop ad fatigue pretty quickly and start ignoring advertisements, same as adults. If I just say to one person about how awesome 1 product is and that is all they hear about, then they have been primed for that product, how ever if they hear about how awesome 100 different products are there is a tendency to become indifferent towards any of the advertised products. It's even more prevalent with adults who are advertised to relentlessly. So if your ambiguous and jaded towards advertisements you tend to buy what you need.
honestly I scorn any study with a sample size under 600. I could pull a sampling of 500 and show that Metallica causes Irritable Bowl Syndrome.
That's silly. Depending on the type of study, and the effect you're looking for, a sample size as small as 30 is fine. Really, what we're looking for is replication. Three studies, each with sample sizes of 50, performed by different people on different samples, confirming the same effect, combine to be far more reliable than a single study with a sample size of 150.
Neither of those are valid. Maybe 10 50 person studies I would consider. 3 50 person studies especially if conducted by universities are not going to have an adequate breath in sampling. You get 50 kids from the area and all of those are in "college towns" so their is preexisting culture and the study is polluted in every case. And after the first result observer bias is present. I find most studies I read to simply be garbage or irrelevant. Studies use dubious methodology fairly frequently.
Ahhh, but the problem is the control in this case. Kids aren't specifically shown just 1 toy in the market, they are advertised too many toys, hundred in a day, maybe thousands if they spend enough time watching television, they develop ad fatigue pretty quickly and start ignoring advertisements, same as adults. If I just say to one person about how awesome 1 product is and that is all they hear about, then they have been primed for that product, how ever if they hear about how awesome 100 different products are there is a tendency to become indifferent towards any of the advertised products. It's even more prevalent with adults who are advertised to relentlessly. So if your ambiguous and jaded towards advertisements you tend to buy what you need.
...Thousands of toy commercials for thousands of different toy lines in a day? On which planet?
The primary advertisers in the 90s for children's toys were Hasbro, Mattel and Kenner. And they advertised for one to two primary toy lines each (Ghostbusters, Transformers, Star Wars, Power Rangers, Master of the Universe and Hot Wheels) So that's six toy lines. Where's the other nine hundred and four you're talking about?
Moreover, while I find it plausible that enough ads could possibly diffuse the effect of particular grooming techniques, do you have data to back this claim up with? Can you cite a source?
Well, I for one support the use of butter in general. Most of the alternatives are worse for you and also less delicious.
Personally, I just wish that people would not take for granted that their bodies process all the things they eat on a regular basis well. For example, until I was off wheat for a while I didn't realize that I was actually mildly sensitive to it---similar thing with beans.
Well, I for one support the use of butter in general. Most of the alternatives are worse for you and also less delicious.
Personally, I just wish that people would not take for granted that their bodies process all the things they eat on a regular basis well. For example, until I was off wheat for a while I didn't realize that I was actually mildly sensitive to it---similar thing with beans.
I've been away from sugar so long that I would have really bad reactions when I was re-introduced to it. I'm talking something like a mango would make me dizzy. For a while, I wondered if I had been allergic to sugar all along, but didn't realize it until I weened it out of my system.
Then I found out a lot of paleo people have the same reaction. It turns out that I had unintentionally gone into ketosis mode (I wasn't trying to lose weight, so that wasn't a main goal), and when your body goes into ketosis mode, it diverts all the glucose directly to your brain. So when you have a sudden surge of blood sugar, it goes straight to my brain. Technically, I would probably fail a glucose intolerance test, even though I'm not overproducing insulin.
So I started eating more white rice to stay out of ketosis, since white rice seems like the safest grain.
Well, I for one support the use of butter in general. Most of the alternatives are worse for you and also less delicious.
Personally, I just wish that people would not take for granted that their bodies process all the things they eat on a regular basis well. For example, until I was off wheat for a while I didn't realize that I was actually mildly sensitive to it---similar thing with beans.
I've been away from sugar so long that I would have really bad reactions when I was re-introduced to it. I'm talking something like a mango would make me dizzy. For a while, I wondered if I had been allergic to sugar all along, but didn't realize it until I weened it out of my system.
Then I found out a lot of paleo people have the same reaction. It turns out that I had unintentionally gone into ketosis mode (I wasn't trying to lose weight, so that wasn't a main goal), and when your body goes into ketosis mode, it diverts all the glucose directly to your brain. So when you have a sudden surge of blood sugar, it goes straight to my brain. Technically, I would probably fail a glucose intolerance test, even though I'm not overproducing insulin.
So I started eating more white rice to stay out of ketosis, since white rice seems like the safest grain.
Well, for me it's definitely a gluten thing. I can eat rice and potatoes and it doesn't affect me negatively at all, but I eat a piece of bread and I get a headache, my dermatitis flares up and trips to the bathroom are, shall we say, less pleasant.
...Can anyone vet the information presenting by Lustig here? Because if this is accurate it will dramatically alter the way I look at sucrose / fructose and it's various vehicles.
It sounds a bit (well, a lot) hyperbolic... but it's very well sourced. I just have no idea if the biochemistry is sound or not, because I have no scientific expertise at all.
How many modestly obese people do you see buying super fatty foods?
How many modestly obese people do you see buying super sugary foods?
I'm guessing that pretty much every fat person you see is buying lots and lots of sugar, either directly (soda, sweets) or indirectly (fruit juice, yogurt).
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Ahhh, but the problem is the control in this case. Kids aren't specifically shown just 1 toy in the market, they are advertised too many toys, hundred in a day, maybe thousands if they spend enough time watching television, they develop ad fatigue pretty quickly and start ignoring advertisements, same as adults. If I just say to one person about how awesome 1 product is and that is all they hear about, then they have been primed for that product, how ever if they hear about how awesome 100 different products are there is a tendency to become indifferent towards any of the advertised products. It's even more prevalent with adults who are advertised to relentlessly. So if your ambiguous and jaded towards advertisements you tend to buy what you need.
...Thousands of toy commercials for thousands of different toy lines in a day? On which planet?
The primary advertisers in the 90s for children's toys were Hasbro, Mattel and Kenner. And they advertised for one to two primary toy lines each (Ghostbusters, Transformers, Star Wars, Power Rangers, Master of the Universe and Hot Wheels) So that's six toy lines. Where's the other nine hundred and four you're talking about?
Moreover, while I find it plausible that enough ads could possibly diffuse the effect of particular grooming techniques, do you have data to back this claim up with? Can you cite a source?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/6/2563.full
"3000 ads per day on television (TV), on the Internet, on billboards, and in magazines.2 Increasingly, advertisers are targeting younger and younger children in an effort to establish “brand-name preference” at as early an age as possible.3 This targeting occurs because advertising is a $250 billion/year industry with 900 000 brands to sell,"
"Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone."
The rest of the article is actually contrary to the case I am building
ad “fatigue" is kind of interesting and that is where the more you show someone something the less they give a shit about it. And with advertisements the same principle applies. How many of the 3000 ads that were shown to you ender do you remember or even register. Did you simply just ignore that shit and go home?
If it makes you all feel better, her son has a new show on the Cooking Channel called "Not My Momma's Recipes", wherein he makes healthier versions of his mom's dishes.
Very interesting, because this is very much like what Graham Kerr did. He was famous as The Galloping Gourmet at about the same time period as Julia Child. As such his recipes were high in sugar, fat, calories, etc. A decade or so later, he returned to TV with The Graham Kerr Show and each episode would have a short clip of a recipe from his original show, followed by him reproducing that same recipe with significantly less fat, sugar, carbs and calories.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If it makes you all feel better, her son has a new show on the Cooking Channel called "Not My Momma's Recipes", wherein he makes healthier versions of his mom's dishes.
Very interesting, because this is very much like what Graham Kerr did. He was famous as The Galloping Gourmet at about the same time period as Julia Child. As such his recipes were high in sugar, fat, calories, etc. A decade or so later, he returned to TV with The Graham Kerr Show and each episode would have a short clip of a recipe from his original show, followed by him reproducing that same recipe with significantly less fat, sugar, carbs and calories.
At some point, it hurts your credibility as a superior chef if your recipes demand large portions of overly rich and/or sweet ingredients. If your deliciously buttery pain au chocolat calls for huge amounts of butter, cream, and sugar, . . . well those things taste pretty good already.
Everyone loves southern cooking, but it's a bit like stacking the deck when you're deep-frying butter and sugar.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Something I wonder: Given how bad certain foods are for us, do you think that evolution is 'smart enough' to make it so in the distant future we somehow lose the taste for such things? Or even more extreme, become allergic to them?
Something I wonder: Given how bad certain foods are for us, do you think that evolution is 'smart enough' to make it so in the distant future we somehow lose the taste for such things? Or even more extreme, become allergic to them?
not enough of the population has been not starving to death for a sufficient period of time.
and even then, an efficient intake of protein and calories isn't bad. it doesn't hurt to be able to naturally gravitate toward foods that provide more calories when in survival mode
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Something I wonder: Given how bad certain foods are for us, do you think that evolution is 'smart enough' to make it so in the distant future we somehow lose the taste for such things? Or even more extreme, become allergic to them?
not enough of the population has been not starving to death for a sufficient period of time.
and even then, an efficient intake of protein and calories isn't bad. it doesn't hurt to be able to naturally gravitate toward foods that provide more calories when in survival mode
Yeah, when our descendants are living in a bombed-out hellscape after endless war against zombie robots, we'll need all that body fat to sustain us through nuclear winter.
Yes, because a fictional representation of a crime in a virtual world is totally comparable to a live person presented as an authority giving you step-by-step instructions and vocal encouragement.
Stupid analogy is stupid.
Jackass isn't fictional, nor does it take place in a virtual world. It occasionally features cast members committing crimes. Almost all the activities on the show are given vocal encouragement, and many provide as much instruction needed for viewers to replicate.
Further, I fail to see how something like Jackass meets the standard of
You think the people who watch Ace of Cakes are making Millenium Falcon cakes with rotating gun turrets?
Are the people who watch Food Network Challenge making 10-foot high Disney cakes?
Do the viewers of Chopped blindly grab random ingredients from a supermarket shelf to make dinner?
Is the takeaway from Throwdown that I should barge into restaurants and challenge head chefs to cook-offs?
After watching Iron Chef, should I go out and buy 40 tons of tuna, and put tuna in every course of a meal?
Those aren't cooking shows. Those are reality TV competition shows. The shows you listed don't even bother posting the recipes online (Aside from Bobby Flay), much less on the show itself.
I mean, do you really not understand the difference?
The fact that all of your examples are competition shows demonstrates my point.
So if Paula Deen were competing against another chef on her show, there'd be no problem?
Throwdown is at least a 50% "how to execute this recipe" show.
And since when is recipe-posting the make or break for a cooking show? Top Chef posts their recipes online, does that mean it's a cooking show?
If you know how to cook, you can replicate the stuff on Chopped or Throwdown by watching the show. Just because they don't break everything down step-by-step doesn't mean they're not instructional. It just means the show assumes you already know the basics, and are now looking for ideas/inspiration to try new and/or unconventional things.
I think Shrodinger's point that whereas other shows like Jackass begin with a disclaimer to never attempt what you're about to see at home, the conceit of the cooking show is that they intend for everyone in their audience to try what they're about to see at home is a salient one.
No one pays attention to the "do not try this at home" warning in front of Jackass, any more than they read the FBI anti-pirating warning before every movie, or read through the EULA of every PC game they install.
That warning is there to cover MTV's ass legally, not to influence behavior in any way (other than the behavior of lawyers). If people started suing TV chefs because they got heart disease from TV recipes, then you'd see those warnings in front of FN shows too. The shows themselves, however, wouldn't change unless ratings dropped.
If it makes you all feel better, her son has a new show on the Cooking Channel called "Not My Momma's Recipes", wherein he makes healthier versions of his mom's dishes.
Very interesting, because this is very much like what Graham Kerr did. He was famous as The Galloping Gourmet at about the same time period as Julia Child. As such his recipes were high in sugar, fat, calories, etc. A decade or so later, he returned to TV with The Graham Kerr Show and each episode would have a short clip of a recipe from his original show, followed by him reproducing that same recipe with significantly less fat, sugar, carbs and calories.
At some point, it hurts your credibility as a superior chef if your recipes demand large portions of overly rich and/or sweet ingredients. If your deliciously buttery pain au chocolat calls for huge amounts of butter, cream, and sugar, . . . well those things taste pretty good already.
Everyone loves southern cooking, but it's a bit like stacking the deck when you're deep-frying butter and sugar.
It never hurt Escoffier's chef cred.
As for Graham Kerr, his change was brought about by his wife's health problems. Rumor is health problems were behind Alton Brown's change too, but I dunno if that's been confirmed.
Fox Ramsay is... well can you blame him for that? Fox gives him what amounts to semis full of money to act like that
Except that "FOX Ramsay" is also on Masterchef. And on Masterchef, Ramsay does virtually no yelling. He' s not even the "bad cop" judge on the show, Joe Bastianich is.
I don't think Ramsay is hamming it up for FOX. I think FOX is basically Ramsay-baiting with Kitchen Nightmare's and Hell's Kitchen - they surround Ramsay with people they know will piss him off.
So if Paula Deen were competing against another chef on her show, there'd be no problem?
Most of the competition shows on Food Network is garbage. However, the main difference is that the entire point of a competition is that these are things that normal people can't do. Like Iron Chef. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a competition.
A lot of the time, the food products in these shows aren't even meant to be eaten. And when the food does get eaten, it's for a very special occasion, like a wedding.
Throwdown is at least a 50% "how to execute this recipe" show.
Throwdown is a profile show that showcases a different individual every week. Yes, Bobby will tell you what his recipe does differently. So will the waiter at any decent restaurant. That doesn't mean that the waiter is teaching you how to cook by explaining why their meat loaf is different from the meat loaf down the street.
And since when is recipe-posting the make or break for a cooking show? Top Chef posts their recipes online, does that mean it's a cooking show?
Hell's Kitchen posts recipes online, but I don't know anyone who calls "Hell's Kitchen" a cooking show. The purpose of these shows is for drama and entertainment value, period. They do no promote a specific lifestyle. In the case of Top Chef, you have 16 Chefs from different backgrounds with a different challenge every week.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
Then why do companies pay for advertizements?
Where is the proof that advertising always actually causes a statistically significant change in behavior, other than corporations buy ads? Corporations are a remarkably stupid variety of person, as well, so keep that in mind.
Edit: The death of this argument happened long ago when stupid Mrs. Gore started black-handing everything by riding a wave of emotional appeal and outrage over Columbine, with 0 actual demonstrable proof that TV or other forms of entertainment are harmful or have any statistically significant effects whatsoever. Unfortunately, irrational appeasement of scared, stupid parents won the day, so now we are stuck treating this topic as somehow legitimate, despite the fact that the censors still have no proof that they are providing a benefit to society and still have no proof that entertainment determines behavior above and beyond the natural expression of preexisting preferences.
There is, like, an entire branch of sociology that disagrees with you. Have you spent any time studying consumer culture?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a huge body of evidence that, in general, media affects behavior. This argument isn't "dead," it's settled. I can point to the work of Chomsky, Bernays, and Ellul decades ago; and more recently the entire fields of advertising, public relations, and public policy as examples. There are entire scholarly journals that print article after article on media and behavior.
Even within the violent video games arguments, there is plenty of evidence that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive behavior in the short-term. The only real controversy is regarding whether that effect is strong enough and long-lived enough to overcome the opposite social pressure not to commit crimes.
The reason that the Columbine arguments failed weren't that the premise 'media affects behavior' was wrong, but that they were too specific and too extreme. The Columbine arguments were frequently structured as, "Violent video games increase aggressive behavior, therefore violent video games caused this specific violent act, therefore we should legally restrict video games." A logical fallacy in the argument doesn't mean that the initial premise was false.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Dammit, it appears that I have claimed that entertainment has no effect on people, and I really don't know how I ended up saying that, but that wasn't what I meant. What I do mean is that drawing the line from a single show to any particular activity her viewers partake in is tricky at best.
You are pretty much summing up the arguments here that I was attempting (poorly) to counter. Just replace "video games" with "Paula Dean" and "violence" with "obesity", or "diabetes".
In a nutshell, the concept that she is determining their behavior is totally absurd and the posters that claim this are wrong. Naturally she can and does influence people, but to decry her and claim she is personally so influential as to be a primary cause of giving people diabetes/obesity is what I read people suggesting and what I was objecting to.
Thanks to you both for pointing this out to me. I hope now I'm making more sense.
Okay, that's way more reasonable than what I thought you were saying. Sorry for being bitchy about it.
Yeah, that's understandable. I agree that we can't draw a bright line from Paula Deen specifically to particular health outcomes.
I still feel that TV personalities have a soft moral responsibility to incorporate positive health messages in their programming. I don't necessarily think that Paula Deen causes diseases of affluence like diabetes and coronary heart disease, but she is in a unique position to help fight them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So...lets say you are male. Are you saying that the massive amounts of douche commercials you have been subjected to over the years have forced you to stick scented water up your twat?
...if you as a male have been subjected to a massive amount of douche commercials over the years, you were probably an atypical example for how media influences behavior to begin with.
You know, on account of how you naturally gravitated towards all of those "Touched by an Angel" and "Murder She Wrote" reruns.
wat
Whether or not Deen ultimately 'determines' whether or not someone eats an unhealthy diet is besides the point. I mean, let's take the Kangan Water fraudsters for example: are they not doing anything unethical by selling people bleach-making machines and claiming that they will cure all illnesses?
What about the e-mail fraudsters who attempt to pull-off transfer fee theft by promising to share some windfall monetary gift?
Peddling dangerous wares & scamming people (or attempting to do so) is unethical, full stop. It's taking advantage of a vulnerable demographic (those who are gullible, ignorant or in a position where their judgement has been compromised) for profit.
I see commercials for Sean Hannity all the time.
-.-
Media-driven coercion is about as well established as Bernoulli's principle. It's contentious in the same way evolution & natural selection are contentious subjects.
There is something to the idea that advertisement doesn't work in hawking products there is little demand for, and that demand isn't created through advertisement. But there is definitely a case to be made that advertisement does influence specific perceptions of products and brands.
That's silly. Depending on the type of study, and the effect you're looking for, a sample size as small as 30 is fine. Really, what we're looking for is replication. Three studies, each with sample sizes of 50, performed by different people on different samples, confirming the same effect, combine to be far more reliable than a single study with a sample size of 150.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
All you have to do is look at the research done in the early 90s on children's toy advertisements. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that: if you present a child with a toy without grooming them, the child may or may not find it appealing but in either case is very unlikely to find the toy particularly interesting in comparison to other toys (the child will not insist on playing with that toy to the exclusion of others).
If you groom a child with a specific presentation for a toy, however, the child will adamantly favour it.
The studies for adults are also pretty conclusive, but it's just not as outright visible.
Food as well. Showing people (children and adults) a TV show with food advertisements (versus the same show with non-food adverts or no adverts) increases their consumption of food afterwards, and the effect is greater for fatty and sweet foods.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Neither of those are valid. Maybe 10 50 person studies I would consider. 3 50 person studies especially if conducted by universities are not going to have an adequate breath in sampling. You get 50 kids from the area and all of those are in "college towns" so their is preexisting culture and the study is polluted in every case. And after the first result observer bias is present. I find most studies I read to simply be garbage or irrelevant. Studies use dubious methodology fairly frequently.
/facepalm
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
...Thousands of toy commercials for thousands of different toy lines in a day? On which planet?
The primary advertisers in the 90s for children's toys were Hasbro, Mattel and Kenner. And they advertised for one to two primary toy lines each (Ghostbusters, Transformers, Star Wars, Power Rangers, Master of the Universe and Hot Wheels) So that's six toy lines. Where's the other nine hundred and four you're talking about?
Moreover, while I find it plausible that enough ads could possibly diffuse the effect of particular grooming techniques, do you have data to back this claim up with? Can you cite a source?
Personally, I just wish that people would not take for granted that their bodies process all the things they eat on a regular basis well. For example, until I was off wheat for a while I didn't realize that I was actually mildly sensitive to it---similar thing with beans.
I've been away from sugar so long that I would have really bad reactions when I was re-introduced to it. I'm talking something like a mango would make me dizzy. For a while, I wondered if I had been allergic to sugar all along, but didn't realize it until I weened it out of my system.
Then I found out a lot of paleo people have the same reaction. It turns out that I had unintentionally gone into ketosis mode (I wasn't trying to lose weight, so that wasn't a main goal), and when your body goes into ketosis mode, it diverts all the glucose directly to your brain. So when you have a sudden surge of blood sugar, it goes straight to my brain. Technically, I would probably fail a glucose intolerance test, even though I'm not overproducing insulin.
So I started eating more white rice to stay out of ketosis, since white rice seems like the safest grain.
Well, for me it's definitely a gluten thing. I can eat rice and potatoes and it doesn't affect me negatively at all, but I eat a piece of bread and I get a headache, my dermatitis flares up and trips to the bathroom are, shall we say, less pleasant.
...What the fuck?
Inlining the video Feral linked to:
...Can anyone vet the information presenting by Lustig here? Because if this is accurate it will dramatically alter the way I look at sucrose / fructose and it's various vehicles.
It sounds a bit (well, a lot) hyperbolic... but it's very well sourced. I just have no idea if the biochemistry is sound or not, because I have no scientific expertise at all.
How many modestly obese people do you see buying super fatty foods?
How many modestly obese people do you see buying super sugary foods?
I'm guessing that pretty much every fat person you see is buying lots and lots of sugar, either directly (soda, sweets) or indirectly (fruit juice, yogurt).
"3000 ads per day on television (TV), on the Internet, on billboards, and in magazines.2 Increasingly, advertisers are targeting younger and younger children in an effort to establish “brand-name preference” at as early an age as possible.3 This targeting occurs because advertising is a $250 billion/year industry with 900 000 brands to sell,"
"Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone."
The rest of the article is actually contrary to the case I am building
ad “fatigue" is kind of interesting and that is where the more you show someone something the less they give a shit about it. And with advertisements the same principle applies. How many of the 3000 ads that were shown to you ender do you remember or even register. Did you simply just ignore that shit and go home?
Very interesting, because this is very much like what Graham Kerr did. He was famous as The Galloping Gourmet at about the same time period as Julia Child. As such his recipes were high in sugar, fat, calories, etc. A decade or so later, he returned to TV with The Graham Kerr Show and each episode would have a short clip of a recipe from his original show, followed by him reproducing that same recipe with significantly less fat, sugar, carbs and calories.
At some point, it hurts your credibility as a superior chef if your recipes demand large portions of overly rich and/or sweet ingredients. If your deliciously buttery pain au chocolat calls for huge amounts of butter, cream, and sugar, . . . well those things taste pretty good already.
Everyone loves southern cooking, but it's a bit like stacking the deck when you're deep-frying butter and sugar.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
not enough of the population has been not starving to death for a sufficient period of time.
and even then, an efficient intake of protein and calories isn't bad. it doesn't hurt to be able to naturally gravitate toward foods that provide more calories when in survival mode
Yeah, when our descendants are living in a bombed-out hellscape after endless war against zombie robots, we'll need all that body fat to sustain us through nuclear winter.
Jackass isn't fictional, nor does it take place in a virtual world. It occasionally features cast members committing crimes. Almost all the activities on the show are given vocal encouragement, and many provide as much instruction needed for viewers to replicate.
Further, I fail to see how something like Jackass meets the standard of
And if it fails to meet that standard, as Deen's show does, should it not also be condemned, as Deen's show is?
So if Paula Deen were competing against another chef on her show, there'd be no problem?
Throwdown is at least a 50% "how to execute this recipe" show.
And since when is recipe-posting the make or break for a cooking show? Top Chef posts their recipes online, does that mean it's a cooking show?
If you know how to cook, you can replicate the stuff on Chopped or Throwdown by watching the show. Just because they don't break everything down step-by-step doesn't mean they're not instructional. It just means the show assumes you already know the basics, and are now looking for ideas/inspiration to try new and/or unconventional things.
No one pays attention to the "do not try this at home" warning in front of Jackass, any more than they read the FBI anti-pirating warning before every movie, or read through the EULA of every PC game they install.
That warning is there to cover MTV's ass legally, not to influence behavior in any way (other than the behavior of lawyers). If people started suing TV chefs because they got heart disease from TV recipes, then you'd see those warnings in front of FN shows too. The shows themselves, however, wouldn't change unless ratings dropped.
It never hurt Escoffier's chef cred.
As for Graham Kerr, his change was brought about by his wife's health problems. Rumor is health problems were behind Alton Brown's change too, but I dunno if that's been confirmed.
Except that "FOX Ramsay" is also on Masterchef. And on Masterchef, Ramsay does virtually no yelling. He' s not even the "bad cop" judge on the show, Joe Bastianich is.
I don't think Ramsay is hamming it up for FOX. I think FOX is basically Ramsay-baiting with Kitchen Nightmare's and Hell's Kitchen - they surround Ramsay with people they know will piss him off.
Most of the competition shows on Food Network is garbage. However, the main difference is that the entire point of a competition is that these are things that normal people can't do. Like Iron Chef. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a competition.
A lot of the time, the food products in these shows aren't even meant to be eaten. And when the food does get eaten, it's for a very special occasion, like a wedding.
Throwdown is a profile show that showcases a different individual every week. Yes, Bobby will tell you what his recipe does differently. So will the waiter at any decent restaurant. That doesn't mean that the waiter is teaching you how to cook by explaining why their meat loaf is different from the meat loaf down the street.
Hell's Kitchen posts recipes online, but I don't know anyone who calls "Hell's Kitchen" a cooking show. The purpose of these shows is for drama and entertainment value, period. They do no promote a specific lifestyle. In the case of Top Chef, you have 16 Chefs from different backgrounds with a different challenge every week.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.