>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.
I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either?
Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff."
vs
"Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions"
Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.
Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for anything, is a readout of an emotional response.
People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don’t know what to calculate for.
https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_
Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George Lakoff.
Ads work on you? A serious question.
They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side (coupled with ads-free life mostly via Firefox & ublock origin that propagates way beyond just blocks of static ads, ie no youtube ads at all) that any of those rare times I experience them, I add some small amount of hate towards given brand & product.
Somehow, brands that invest heavily in pushy ads tend not to be my main focus anyway so google et al just keep missing badly with me.
Something about preserving moral integrity, not subject to external manipulation etc. Subtle but powerful aspects of existence
> Ads work on you? A serious question. They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side
The ads that work on folks like you are almost certainly the ones that you don’t notice or maybe barely notice.
This is fantastically difficult to prove without a fairly invasive tracking of someone’s life over time.
That said, really good mentalists are masters of this type of shaping of one’s thinking — Derren Brown has videos on this.
I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.
I always buy soda in this order: Cherry Dr Pepper, Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke, Coke, something with a fake grape flavour, maybe something else if none of those exist or water.
People have tried to convince me that soda ads work on me but my receipts say otherwise.
If you were advertising new chip flavours. Yeah, I’d try that at least once.
> I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.
Generally speaking, yes.
That said, many people spend money or will spend money on things that aren’t for themselves.
> I always buy soda in this order: Cherry Dr Pepper, Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke, Coke, something with a fake grape flavour, maybe something else if none of those exist or water.
If this is your list, then (most) ads for sodas aren’t targeting you to buy sodas for yourself.
Every ad doesn’t need to address every viewer of the ad, nor should it.
Additionally, converting a viewer to a direct sale is not always the goal of an ad. Moving someone from a “cold lead” to a “warm lead” (e.g., through brand recognition, brand identity, etc.) are frequently the main goal of a given ad or ad campaign, especially ads that aren’t super targeted.
If this is your list, then (most) ads for sodas aren’t targeting you to buy sodas for yourself.
Ok. But if I’m buying for someone else, I’m asking them what to buy.
Left to my own devices I will never buy “off list” except if I come across some weird thing that I’ve never heard of.
In this way, these ads “don’t work on me.”
Do you have and maintain these lists for all product categories you buy regularly? A well-maintained ordering of product options for most of these groups would be highly impressive and certainly make you more resistant, but I doubt the extra effort would be really worth it to most.
Obviously not. But people always retort “of course ads work on you. Maybe it’s just in subtle ways!”
No. They don’t always work. I provided a very clear example.
> But people always retort “of course ads work on you. Maybe it’s just in subtle ways!” No. They don’t always work. I provided a very clear example.
The example you provided is a specific case for a specific type of ad as it relates to a specific person.
When someone with experience in ads says “ads work on you”, the meaning isn’t “every ad works on you” or “any ad can work on you”, rather we mean “there are certainly some ads that work on you”.
Some simple examples, some using your soda reference, some not:
- Ads for Dr Pepper might increase your consumption of Dr Pepper. That would be a successful ad or ad campaign that worked on you. There are relatively easy ways to track how much mass media ad campaigns (i.e., no detailed ad tracking) impacts things like sales. The attribution isn’t at the individual level, but it certainly can be said that an ad worked on some people by increasing sales (lots of statistics in the estimates, but the results are fairly reliable).
- Submarine articles work. Examples are the “chocolate/coffee is good/bad for your health” type of articles. This can even get more subversive by influencing primary sources like when the grain lobby somehow got the federal government to create the food pyramid with a truckload of carbs at the base. Ditto with the tobacco industry and smoking. All of that crap is marketing that led to stealth ads and naturally occurring submarine pieces. Unless you don’t read or watch any news, you are exposed to this, and it probably influences your opinions and actions at the margin.
- It’s possible to be hyper-vigilant in a way that prevents most ads online, but they are almost impossible to escape unless one self-excludes from a lot of online services. I’m one of those “ad blocker types”, but I still get some flavor of ads on Amazon once I log in. Amazon ads are some of the most profitable mass delivered ads in the US. Do they work on me? Sort of. I don’t click on the paid ads, but I’ve certainly searched for and ended up purchasing products that were shown in ads. The ad was effective in accessing me during my “product discovery” phase.
I could go on, but I’m not sure it’s necessary.
If you want to construct narrow examples that ads aren’t effective on you, then that’s relatively easy to do, and it’s easy to do for most people.
But you can’t construct a context in which you aren’t influenced by some ads on some topics unless you simply isolate yourself from media and society.
If you think you can, then you’re fooling yourself.
Your narrative so far has been “look at my narrow example… hah hah… ads don’t work on me”. Meanwhile, the ad industry is influencing you in ways that you are or seem to be oblivious to.
As i said before, it would take a fairly invasive shadowing of you in your day-to-day life to figure out which specific ads or category of ads either do or might influence you, but i assure you that it’s happening.
Doesn't "some ads work on you" just translate to "you have interests"? Or are you suggesting the ad itself does "something" to people that wouldn't have happened if they saw the content of the ad some other way?
> Doesn't "some ads work on you" just translate to "you have interests"?
That is not the meaning I give it.
Ads can do a lot of things.
A simple example is to educate/inform. There are certain things I will buy when I know that they are available (e.g., seasonal items). Ads will let me know that they are available.
Other ads can do more ephemeral things like build trust (e.g., many bank/investment type of ads).
There are other things ads can do. Ads and marketing are a well-established field, and explanations of that field can be found online fairly easily.
> Or are you suggesting the ad itself does "something" to people that wouldn't have happened if they saw the content of the ad some other way?
Not sure what you’re saying here.
I will say that ad campaigns do “something” to some people that wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t seen the ads in the campaign (slightly different than what you wrote).
Rarely will a single ad move the needle unless it’s for a major event like the World Cup final or the Super Bowl.
> I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.
It should perhaps be noted that an immediate sale, or an immediate desire to purchase, is not the only goal of advertising:
I feel the same way. But they can still work because at some point you will be buying a product and all else being equal it is likely that you will pick one that seems more familiar, which will be months or years after the irritation fades.
But also I think the knee jerk reaction to ads like that is uncommon, or at least this is the first time I've seen anyone else publicly share this opinion. I think most people see them as a nuisance or a service as opposed to an underhanded attempt at manipulation.
I didnt really understand that at all until I got an ad for things I actually wanted (catalogue from a restaurant supply store, turns out cotton candy machines are surprisingly affordable). Obviously very different in content from most ads but I think it reflected the positive feelings other people must get from some ads where they feel reminded of a thing they like.
Tell me 5 cars brands on the top of your head.
In a restaurant with no menu, name a soda you'd ask for.
Whatever coke or pepsi I can see over the bar, while wondering why I'm in a restaurant with no menu
I usually just blurt out "cassis", a blackcurrant soda. I for one don't care about which brand. Does that count?
Since the whole Trump thing: Cuba Cola Zero, Champis Zero, Trocadero Zero, Mino Limonata
I prefer to "do my own research". The things I'm supposedly finding independently may also be the result of a marketing effort, if it's subtle enough, so I'm vulnerable to that.
The less I know about something, the more susceptible I am to misinformation. I tend to believe a detailed "product spec sheet", for example.
Can you give a different example? I also am of the opinion that I do not care for validation. The problem with the example you gave is that I just wouldn't whine about the ticket because it was my mistake.
So you’re saying that you would have exactly the same opinion of the parking attendant whether they said the first or the second option? Of course it’s more your fault than it is the attendants, but we can still treat each other with care.
Why would I have an opinion of the parking attendant at all? They're a a cog in the machine. If I thought about their phrasing at all, I'd assume they had a bad night, or not. Anyway I lost the ticket, it's my problem.
I read HN for absolutely wild comments like this one. To be clear, I think you’re being completely honest here. It’s just fascinating seeing someone with such an unusual thought process.
I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment. This is the one that is unusual to me, because it would be my fault and the person informing me is just doing their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor should I of them. The whole transaction would be effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think those are best saved for personal relationships.
Same thoughts here.
I would probably agree with the attendant if they told me "You were stupid for losing your ticket." I wouldn't think I was actually stupid, but being responsible for my actions is important to me.
Also, being adhd Ive accepted the bone-headed things I do/lose. It also wouldn't be a shock to find the parking ticket in the freezer a week later.
Their view of the attendant as a cog in the machine appears to be a justification for their "learned helplessness" to situations. They've internalized that certain policies they come into contact with in the world are non-negotiable and to attempt to negotiate is shouting into the void, thus a waste of energy.
To them, it's irrelevant whether the helplessness is real or not. So they don't bother to take a moment to poke at the attendant's capacity for resolving the situation to their advantage.
I wouldn't say that its an unusual view, but it may indicate a deep desire for efficiency (don't argue, simply pay and be on ones way), financial privilege (an extra $20 charge is no big deal), or could be symptoms of deeper issues relating to self-worth (I am not worthy to ask for a break).
Tbf I am Dutch, and also drunk. But yeah, if I lost the ticket I'd assume I was going to have to pay the full rate, period.
I'd try to speak to someone because who knows, but that's all.
And there's someone on the other side who is just like me but with a shitty job, and they get to tell me I have to pay full rate. I don't really care how polite they go about it.
> who is just like me but with a shitty job
This is funny because now you're making a point of being empathetic to the other party, while claiming their (lack of) empathy doesn't affect you.
What's funny about having empathy for people who don't express empathy outwardly? Or maybe don't even have it internally either?
I thought that was the whole deal about empathy. If it wasn't, then it's just being kind to the people you like, but with extra steps.
> don't really care how polite they go about it.
Does that apply to everybody or just customer service people?
How about your coworker, boss, teacher, spouse, children, parents? Say you make a mistake and they correct you by saying "Not like that, you fuckhead". That's no different to you than "Oh, oops, I think it's this way."?
Even a customer service person, if they correct you the first way, you don't mind?
A minimum wage worker (probably the other side of the ticket machine call) gets a lot of leeway, a well paid manager needs to do better.
I don't care that much about phrasing, not as much as others do.
Germans have entered the chat. The attendant telling you it's your fault is such a classic normal thing to happen in Germany. No one will ever bat an eye. And if you notice that thr attendant could have been a little softer, they'll repeat confused, "but it's your fault."
Germans in my opinion have perfected the art of no empathy for mistakes.
That's a wild comment? I find the reverse to be wild. It would never even occur to me to care what comment the attendant would give me about the ticket. You would actually pay attention to what he said?
I would care about just one thing: Will he reduce my ticket or not. The rest of his words are empty and meaningless.
And for the record ads don't work on me, mostly because I almost never hear an ad for something I might actually buy, the few times they are relevant the product is too expensive so instead I buy the same thing but without a brand name. (So I guess thanks for giving me the idea of a new product I might like?)
GP here, same for me. This whole comment section is FUBAR.
Personally I see the "validation" as not so much trying to validate the person's feelings, but rather establishing that I understand and agree with their goals. Otherwise any disagreement with them comes across as hostility and they're unlikely to listen.
Though if I see no common ground then I won't agree with them just to placate them, it has to be genuine.
Are you perhaps German or Dutch or similar? This seems like a cultural difference (and part of the reason why foreigners always seem to rate such places as rude). I can easily see a parking attendant here in Berlin saying such a thing unironically (or even with a negative meaning!)
This is, generally, the sanest opinion and feelings one can have about the matter.
I wouldn't be asking for an exception in the first place. Not in that circumstance or anything even remotely like it. Dead serious. Growing up, my mother was constantly trying to sweet talk exceptions out of people, and it usually worked, but I found this behavior to be morally reprehensible and not being this sort of person became a central pillar of my personality. I have similarly grown cold and indifferent to anybody who tries it on me.
Some people in this thread seem to believe that all people are alike and all respond in the same way to corporate propaganda, false pleasantries, etc. This isn't the case. You're looking at a forest but have lost sight of the trees.
Exactly what I was trying to say. The example just doesn't click with me, because I would not put myself in such a situation. And if I did for some reason I actually think the rude response would be more appropriate, it might make me think about my irresponsible behavior and/or dirty manipulation I tried on the attendant.
I think it's a pretty immature and childish thing to get upset at the attendant in any case. Unacceptable behavior from adults, honestly.
They're doing their job same as I would in their place. Nothing either of us can do, and they really have no involvement in the first place. Blaming the attendant is what you'd do if you weren't emotionally mature enough to accept your own mistakes.
There’s a difference between blaming them and being a little annoyed at their callous, semi-aggressive response.
No one likes being called stupid. It’s unpleasant and completely unnecessary. I try to not spend time with people like that.
No one is blaming the attendant. People are reacting (or not, as some claim) to their attitude.
The side issue of blame can be taken out with a different example: You stub your toe. A person sees. Suppose that they either wince in sympathy, or laugh derisively.
Do you feel the same about that person either way? For avoidance of doubt: Are there any situations in which your future behaviour towards them would depend on which of these 2 reactions they gave?
I'm saying I cannot imagine such a situation. But lets say I didn't know the rules and I came to the attendant asking what to do because I lost a ticket. I would prefer just "You have to pay for the whole day", but if I had to choose between a rude attendant and an overly friendly attendant, I cannot say I have a preference. The first one is lashing out at me unnecessarily (maybe not so actually if the information is clearly available without asking him), the second one is trying to empathize with me even though I just want to solve my problem.
you make a mistake at work and boss says
"You did x and fucked up the server.Don't do that again you dumbfuck"
vs
"Shit happens. Make x a learning experience."
Perhaps our brain is using our experiences to build a mental model for predicting someone's behavior in the future, and our emotions are a feedback channel for that model. Depending on the society you live in, getting some relief for losing a parking ticket, or screwing up at work, is completely within the realm of possibility, and we're "training" ourselves to detect situations where it might be beneficial.
The parking lot example would seem extreme in my locale, but not unthinkable in some places, especially if a bribe were a possible alternative. And I'll probably never see the attendant again, but I'd certainly expect to see my boss again, and to refine my model of their behavior.
I agree with your overall point, but funnily enough, I kind of feel like both responses would piss me off a little in most cases. People delivering the second response often can't help projecting the fact that they really don't give two damns, and they often have an impatience that betrays that they're just trying to get you to shut up, so the whole thing feels fake in addition to being unhelpful. Would probably still prefer it to someone saying I was an idiot, but I'm not even entirely certain of that
Terrible examples. Not validating emotions is obviously different from insulting.
> I assume ads don't work on you either, right?
My parents often proudly announce ads don't work on them. You see, it works on other people, yes, not on us.
What is going on?
