Just when I thought I couldn’t hate PETA any more, they go and do something like this. The cult of PETA has decided that fish need better PR, so they’ve replaced the term “fish” with “Sea Kittens”. Yes, Sea Kittens. This is for real, check out their website, and a quote from it:

People don’t seem to like fish. They’re slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads — which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you’re swimming, and the big ones — well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy — stat.

Normally, when silly cults with illogical beliefs do bizarre things, it’s funny, and this is no exception, but there is more to PETA than just jackass publicity stunts. The thing about PETA is that they get a good deal of support from regular, generally solid-minded folks; at least, as solid-minded as regular folks can be. Unfortunately, not too many of those regular people really understand what the group is all about. PETA wants total animal liberation, they’ve said it many times. That means no pets, no guide dogs for the blind, no zoos, no fisheries, no beekeeping, no earthworm farms, no animals kept by humans, anywhere; and all those animals would be set free.

On top of that, PETA gives money to the Animal Liberation Front, which is a terrorist group who firebombs buildings and assaults people in the name of total animal liberation. And the money going to these groups is coming from the regular suburban folks who think they’re just helping baby seals. This Sea Kitten business is funny, but PETA’s other business isn’t. Read on to see some videos about how PETA really operates:

Every day, you’re assaulted with advertisements and news and non-stop information. And every single person spewing that information has an agenda, even the “unbiased” journalists and news anchors and political pundits and survey takers. Everyone has a mind, and each mind has it’s own opinions, and those opinions make their way into the information being spewed. That’s just how it is.

So when you read articles or hear reports with seemingly hard, indisputable facts, you have to take it all with a grain of salt. Consider the recent election.

Scientific American ran an article with 6 different maps all showing the election results across the United States, all in a different way. It’s the way they’re displayed that determines everything. Check it out:

Mark Newman, a professor of physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, took maps of the 2008 election and made a series of “cartograms” from them. He took state-level and county-level election results and population data and to make different representations of the United States. It’s a nice example of how facts can be interpreted in many different ways.

This is the main map. It shows the lower 48 states colored either red or blue depending on who won each state: Red for McCain and Blue for Obama. This is the map you’ve probably seen many times over already.

This map is the the United State stretched and skewed by special software so that each state is sized according to it’s population.

This map has each red/blue section broken down further from the state level to the county level, which gives a more accurate picture of the country as a whole.

This map shows each county re-sized according to it’s population, and then colored red or blue. This map in particular shows how Obama has the advantage in large cities and population centers, while McCain has uniform support across the more sparsely populated American landscape.

When the map is broken down to shades of purple indicating levels of support, a whole other aspect of information becomes visible. Instead of just the red/blue or win/loss colors, shades of color in-between can illustrate areas where a candidate just barely won, or won convincingly.

Finally, when you combine all of these maps, you can see the country broken down by the population of each county, and election results shown on a scale of colors from red to blue.

My point isn’t that these maps are a better way of looking at the election results, just that there are different ways of displaying the same facts. They illustrate the ability of the media-makers to broadcast facts in a way that jives with their opinions.

I don’t generally agree with Paul Krugman. Most people in his own profession don’t generally agree with Paul Krugman, but he has a voice and it’s loud in the American scene, so I’ll address it.

He says we just ended “the monster years“; 14 years of monster rule, in fact. I agree with him there, partially. Although I think he completely misses the point. What he fails to address is what caused those monster years. He fails to address the (ir)rationality of the American voter.

The American voter put those monsters in power, the American voter caused the insanity we see everyday in politics. How can you agree with Krugman and say we’ve emerged from 14 years of monster rule and not place any blame on those who elected the monsters?

But now, somehow, they’ve changed? They’ve learned? Today they’re different and renewed and advanced in their knowledge because they elected someone that you agree with? They’re no longer fools, they no longer are drawn by empty rhetoric and entranced by beautifully crafted catchphrases. Well, maybe some, but this time they’re the good catchphrases, right?

Wrong, just because a “good guy” won doesn’t mean the system is right. The system is diseased, don’t let the warmth of Obama sunshine fool you into thinking the last 14 years didn’t happen, because they did, and they happened because of democracy, not in spite of it.

The American voter is the monster, you’re the monster, and the monster years will never end.

Human beings tend to think they’re rational creatures, and that they make sound decisions based on all the available facts. They think their memory is an accurate record of things that have happened to them. But the reality is that we all have a slew of cognitive biases that can alter our thinking… and even our memories.

Psychologists have names for all the different fallacies and biases that influences our thinking: cognitive dissonance, inattentional blindness, blind spot bias, better-than-average bias, introspection illusion, self-serving bias, attribution bias, representative fallacy, availability fallacy, anchoring fallacy, hindsight bias, and the one I’ll be talking about here: framing effects

The way a question is “framed” often has an influence on how people answer that question, that’s what the term framing effects means. For example, look at this classic study done on framing:

Let’s say you work for the Centers for Disease Control and there is an outbreak of a deadly disease called “The Mojave Flu” in a town of 600 people. All 600 people in the town are expected to die if you do nothing. Let’s say you have come up with two different programs designed to fight to the disease:

With Program 1: 200 people in the town will be saved
With Program 2: There is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved.

In the study, 72 percent of the subjects picked Program 1. Now consider the same scenario worded differently:

With Program 3: 400 people in the town will die
With Program 4: There is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

Now which do you pick? In the study, 78 percent of the subjects picked Program 4, even though the net result of the second set of choices is exactly the same as the first set (Programs 1 and 3 mean the same thing, and Programs 2 and 4 mean the same thing).

In Aldert Vrij’s book Detecting Lies and Deceit, he describes an even more interesting example:

Participants saw a film of a traffic accident and then answered questions about the event, including the question ‘About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?’ Other participants received the same information, except that the verb ‘contacted’ was replaced by either hit, bumped, collided, or smashed. Even though all of the participants saw the same film, the wording of the questions affected their answers. The speed estimates (in miles per hour) were 31, 34, 38, 39, and 41, respectively.

One week later, the participants were asked whether they had seen broken glass at the accident site. Although the correct answer was ‘no,’ 32% of the participants who were given the ‘smashed’ condition said that they had. Hence the wording of the question can influence their memory of the incident.

That example highlights an unsettling aspect of framing effects, the fact that they can actually influence our memories.

This concept is used in advertising all the time, but the most fertile ground for framing effects is politics. Buzzwords and political terms are constantly changing and being invented to try to stay on the positive side of public opinion.

Frank Luntz is a well-known example of a political consultant who has tried to work with Republican candidates on framing various talking points and buzzwords to make them more appealing to the general public. Among other things, Luntz is responsible for the re-framing of the term “global warming” to “climate change”.

Framing effects are powerful, they have a profound influence on people, but when we recognize that these biases exist, we can gain some measure of control. We all have to understand how fragile our brains and memories are, and that will strengthen them. If we know these biases exist, it’s easier to try to avoid them. So the next time you hear a politician speaking or an advertisement telling you to buy some product, listen closely to it, and try to decipher it’s real content. It’s one more step toward the eventual goal of overcoming bias.

Regardless of what you think about politics, we would be derelict in duties to not mention the big Obama campaign ad buy. Costing between 5 and 7 million dollars, Barak Obama purchased a 30 minute ad on 7 networks (ABC was the only major network to not participate). The thirty minute long infomercial was well produced and there is ongoing debate about whether this was a smart move by Obama or not. Our opinion was that at the end of the day it will have a very small net positive effect, but also feed into the widespread perception that Obama is buying this election.

Every year hundreds of the biggest marketers, agency heads, and all manner of people involved in advertising get together at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference. And every year, they vote on the best advertiser of that particular year. This year Barack Obama won with a pretty substantial 36% of the vote, beating out the two runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Nike, Coors and Sen. John McCain filled out the bottom of the vote.

“I honestly look at [Obama's] campaign and I look at it as something that we can all learn from as marketers,” said Angus Macaulay, VP-Rodale marketing solutions “To see what he’s done, to be able to create a social network and do it in a way where it’s created the tools to let people get engaged very easily. It’s very easy for people to participate.”

Linda Clarizio, president of AOL’s Platform A, said of Barack Obama, “I think he did a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name to being a candidate for president.”

But some people weren’t particularly happy about getting politics involved in the voting. Mark Kaline, recently appointed global media director of Kimberly-Clark Corp., said. “Quite frankly, because political advertising kind of goes against a lot of what ANA stands for, I don’t think it belongs in the voting. … A lot of political advertising is false and misleading, and marketers at this conference don’t expect to see that kind of stuff.”

Here are the results:
Obama 36.1%
Apple 27.3%
Zappos 14.1%
Nike 9.4%
Coors 8.7%
McCain 4.5%

Magic and advertising are both deeply rooted in manipulation, and exploiting knowledge of human psychology. One of the most important aspects of the magician’s trade is manipulating the spectators choice while at the same time tricking that spectator into thinking they willingly made the choice. Derren Brown is a master of that particular trick. Check out some Derren Brown videos at the bottom of this post.

Ironically, that type of manipulation plays a huge part in advertising as well. In fact, magicians, politicians, advertisers and mediums are all essentially doing the same thing, the difference lies in their levels of honesty. The magician is usually the only honest one.

Skeptical Magicians

Skepticism and magic go back a long way. Magicians are generally well versed in the trickery that psychics and mediums try to pass off as real; and there is a long history of magicians and spiritualists butting heads. People like James “The Amazing” Randi, Penn and Teller, Derren Brown, and Harry Houdini are good examples of the skeptic magician. Houdini actually spent the latter half of his life debunking spiritualists, psychics, and mediums. He went to great lengths to show that he could do all the tricks they could do, better then they could, and without any supernatural help.

Magic tricks exploit the same cognitive patterns that psychics exploit with cold reading, and politicians exploit with buzzword-filled speeches, and advertisers exploit with logos and ads. Some psychologists are considering how they can use magic to advance our understanding of the brain, and help us be less easily swayed by trickery.

The Science of Magic

In a recent paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, University of British Columbia psychologist Ronald Rensink and Durham University psychologist Gustav Kuhn argue that magic has cultivated a great deal of insight into the human mind via the collective wisdom of magicians. Rensink and Kuhn say that magicians have built up an understanding of the limits of human perception and cognition over the millenia that magic has been practiced.

They write that a science of magic (a study of magic from a cognitive science viewpoint) could be extremely useful to cognitive science. They even say it could help people defend themselves from the tricks of advertisers and politicians.

“Many of the techniques used in advertising and political propaganda resemble the methods of the magician,” write Kuhn and Rensink. “Because there will always be motives for manipulating our choice, an important challenge for the future will be to understand these techniques sufficiently to ensure our free will.”

Advertising’s Magic Logos

Advertising logos have an amazing power over us. In one group of studies, researchers set up an experiment where subjects saw either the Apple logo or the IBM logo subtly displayed. Then they were asked to name as many uses for a brick as they could think of. People who’d seen the Apple logo were more creative.

In another experiment, people were exposed to the logo of either Disney or the E! Entertainment network. Those who saw the Disney logo answered questions more honestly. In yet another study, logos were shown to have an effect on actual physical endurance. When viewing a Gatorade bottle (versus a water bottle), subjects thought of their task as a positive challenge and held their leg in the air longer.

The point is, we’re generally naive, fragile-minded puppies, and our minds are bent and twisted daily by the whims of advertisers, politicians, and unsavory weirdos who claim to be in contact with our dead relatives. It’s unfortunate that our natural tendency towards trust is so easily abused, but we’re not hopeless. We can still learn to avoid the faith-healers and spirit mediums and snake-oil salesmen and false advertisers and pandering politicians. We just have to take a look at the skeptical magicians and try to understand how they can do all the same tricks without claiming to be in contact with the dead, and without asking for our vote or our money. Basically we just need to think critically.

*New videos:

Derren Brown Interview (3/6) – Richard Dawkins (Embedding disabled by request)

*:This Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins conversation is new. Originally, I had a series of Derren Brown videos including one of him cold reading, one “winning” at the dog track, and a few others; but unfortunately, the embedding has been disabled on those particular videos, which disgusts me. Lovely idea… whomever contacted those youtubers and made them disable embedding has said no to free advertising and the free exchange of ideas. They’re saying they aren’t intelligent enough to think of innovative new ways to use this amazing technology of sharing video… they honestly think it’s in their best interests to block people from actually seeing the videos they produced. Amazing stupidity.

The Obama followers are getting weird. I get it, for whatever reason, people are suddenly starting to see how screwed up government is, and they think his government will be different for some reason. But there’s a sense of rabid cultism, fetishism almost. So this fits in perfectly: The Obama dildo.

I really don’t know what to say about this one. It’s a 7 and a half inch, gold likeness of Obama, with a set of balls at the base. Also, the box says “Commemorative Edition”. So I guess it’s a collectors item. Amazing.

The world is a bizarre place, no doubt. Check out the pictures of the Head O State after the jump, you don’t want to miss this one:

(via Head O State)

Barack Obama has become the first presidential candidate to advertise in a video game. The Obama campaign purchased ad space in the Xbox live versions of 18 different video games. The ads will run up until Nov. 3, and only be displayed in 10 major swing states.

The ads show that Obama is willing to embrace new technology, and that may be the most important aspect of this whole video game campaign.

Obama’s face and name will be on billboards and signs in “NBA Live ’08″, “Burnout Paradise”, “Nascar 09″, “Need For Speed Carbon”, “Need For Speed Pro Street”, “NFL on Tour”, “NHL ’09″, “Skate”, and “Guitar Hero”, among some others. And the 10 states that are targeted include some major battleground states: Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Montana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado.

No word on how much the ads cost yet, but that should get leaked in time.

Generally, the 18-34 year old demographic is hard to reach, so advertising in games could be a smart move. I’m just not so sure it’s smart for Obama. Among 18-34 year old video game players, he’s already the candidate of choice. The ads may just be a wasted wad of cash.

McCain’s recent ad, Man In The Arena, is surprisingly good looking considering his other recent ads. Now, I’m talking from a purely aesthetic point of view. As far as substance goes, this ad offers nothing more than Obama’s American Promise, and everything I said about that ad can be said about this one. But still, it’s very effective advertising; more so, I think, than anything Obama has offered so far.

McCain’s ads to date have been almost entirely negative, usually with a disgusted sounding voice-over talking about things Obama has either done or not done. They were particularly acerbic and difficult to watch. This ad is different though, it optimistic, focused on McCain, and I think it portrays him in a better light to those who don’t really care about issues anyway.

For the ultra slim minority of Americans who do care about actual issues, this ad, as usual, offers absolutely nothing except a pleasing viewing experience with nice music.

Now, I have to re-state that I’m not a McCain supporter, not at all. I get a lot of comments, especially after this post, that Obama is at least better than McCain. I never said he wasn’t, I never said I liked one candidate over the other, they’re both driven solely by ambition and offer basically the same politics. So please, don’t mistake me for a McCain supporter, or an Obama supporter. I’m emphatically neither.