[jeremylylebrown]

But when will they learn? What if it's too late for them to claim their attention span back, as they go down the spiral of useless junk/social media? And what about the people who never learn - is it their fault? I suppose if kids/people learn to treat personalized (and well-timed) social media invitations like I treat 3/4ths of the emails I receive, it's not terrible, just more of the same, but at worst, those individuals most vulnerable to distraction/suggestion will end up even more distracted and hustled out of their money.

I understand that it's up to people to be their own judge, but people en masse are vulnerable to all this marketing stuff. This in particular just seems somewhat more invasive.

[s3r3nity]

If you want to criticize the entire field of neuromarketing, fine - it's an interesting discussion to have.

But I agree with parent commenter in that let's not pretend Facebook is doing anything unique and/or the only ones doing this type of stuff.

[bendoernberg]

What's the case for "billion-dollar companies using neuroscience to manipulate the behavior of individuals is a moral and societal good"? Neuromarketing seems pretty straightforwardly evil to me...

[jawarner]

Are you against marketing in general? What's different about these advanced techniques? I see technology applied to marketing as a natural consequence of business. You have a point that it's not necessarily in the best interest of society at large, but how would we go about regulating the messages businesses are allowed to communicate?

[kevin_thibedeau]

Prescription drug ads do far more social harm.

"This shit will fuck you up six ways from Sunday but we make a ton of money off of it so ask your doctor..."

[United857]

I've only seen such drugs ads in the US. Most other countries seem to realize that watching a 30 second ad is unlikely to make you more informed than a MD or PharmD.

[TeMPOraL]

It's not about being informed, it's - like all marketing - about being misinformed. And in this case, the intended effect is that the patient will pressure the doctor to prescribe them the drug they've seen on TV.

[ConceptJunkie]

I don't think prescription drug advertisements are a good thing, but it seems to me the real problem is doctors that allow themselves to be pressured.

[pluma]

Which is why it is illegal to market prescription medicine to consumers.

Not in the US, of course.

[s3r3nity]

In most cases I might agree with you - but as a counterpoint I would posit a huge problem among the medical community: patient compliance with treatment. Sometimes health outcomes have nothing to do with the treatment itself, but rather the patient(s) are not likely to adhere strictly to the recommendations. [Source: my graduate school advisor was a health economist - but I'm sure there are studies out there to validate this.]

Something to keep in mind: not all drugs are bad. And even those that get a historical bad rap are ok in _moderation_ - some drugs are very helpful and necessary for certain conditions.

If drug ads and/or neuromarketing can improve patient outcomes by improving the likelihood that a patient complies with treatment, then is that all that bad?

[reaperducer]

Prescription drug ads do far more social harm.

Because one thing is more harmful doesn’t mean the other doesn’t cause harm.

[freetime2]

Is it straightforwardly evil? What if the thing being marketed is good for you? Would a neuromarketing campaign designed to get people to exercise more or eat more vegetables be evil?

[TeMPOraL]

> What if the thing being marketed is good for you? Would a neuromarketing campaign designed to get people to exercise more or eat more vegetables be evil?

Then we could debate whether targeted assault at free will is in principle bad or not.

As it is, neuromarketing is not used for good. It's used to exploit people.

It's like asking if killing random strangers on the street is straightforwardly evil, because there's a remote possibility that they're all alien shapeshifters out to destroy our way of life.

[trhway]

Dictators also do some good things to their countries, yet dictatorships are evil. The point is evil nature, not the occasional good side effect.

[buth_lika]

Pretending you're related to a school you're not affiliated with isn't neuromarketing, it's just lying to kids. Using big words for that doesn't make it bigger, and that it's not "unique" from the perspective of people who pull this kind of stuff is also not surprising.

When you find a bug, do you fix the bug, or do you go "ohh, but this isn't the first time anything ever had a bug"? When someone flashes you in the park, do you call the cops or do you say "it's hardly unique for this person to be doing this"?

The article is kinda meh, there really isn't anything to discuss, but that doesn't make lying to kids to push another product noble or interesting. I'd sooner interested in the upbringing of the people who enter that "field" than their own rationalizations. I've seen enough to know there's a problem behind the chaff.