Yes, both argument and marketing are a form of persuasion. But even
though a cat has four legs, it doesn't mean it's a table. Marketing
persuades solely in order to sell a product, while intellectual
argument is often intended towards very different ends. The
communication of ideas may be (or not) partly a product, but it is by
no means solely a product, and its effects can't be measured in purely
economic terms.
Subsuming everything into the catch-all term "marketing" is a terribly
cutting edge means of totalising commodification. Is it really that
bad now? Maybe it is.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Dylan Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sorry, can't resist ... :-)
>
> On 11 Jul 2011, at 03:22, Alison Croggon wrote:
>
>>
>> I do think you're confusing intellectual argument with marketing. They
>> are not quite the same thing.
>
> Yes they are!
>
> Intellectual argument is a form of reasoning: reasoning evolved to persuade people, according to psychologists:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090
> General discussion here:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1
>
> Marketing, according to google, is "The action or business of promoting and selling products or services". (google result for "definition of marketing"; your results might vary). That's persuading people. That's the same thing.
>
> I'll point out that those papers suggest that since reasoning evolved to persuade, rather than find the truth, it follows that flawed reasoning is an adaptive skill, so that anyone who suggests my argument is flawed is bolstering my point.
>
> :-)
>
> Dylan Harris
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|