WWJD was a pretty hot pseudo brand for awhile! Is there a way to truly quantify one's religiosity? I mean it's not too surprising to see people who claim asceticism as a good thing to be a little list impressed by branding, but to draw the conclusion that secular people are more brand sensitive because they are secular feels a smidge like denying the antecedent, but these people look like they're smarter about this stuff than I am.
Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations
This whole thing is based on the faulty premise that a non-religious person desperately needs a religion-like source of self worth and that this can be provided by joining some kind of economic cult.
One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas non-religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions.
I'm not saying "my" hypothesis is any better, but at least I'm not presenting it as fact.
I assume you meant (emphasized to highlight correction).
> One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions.
However, I think this is counteracted by this part of the data (emphasis mine):
> Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing.
If I understand correctly, this means that the religious and non-religious went with name brands equally often when the products were utilitarian (e.g. batteries and pain reliever medications) but the non-religious were more likely to pick famous brands when the products had a strong cultural signaling functions (e.g. sunglasses and fashion accessories).
Seeing as that signaling group loyalties is widely understood to be the (evolutionary) purpose of many, many human actions, is it that surprising that people already signaling loyalties in one area (religion) are less likely to be inclined to signal loyalties in another (cultural/fashion/political)? This is hardly an endorsement of theism or atheism, just a fact of human nature.
Thanks for the correction, that was a grievous typo.
Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post which made this extra clear), it was merely intended to show that the conclusion drawn by those researchers is based on a completely arbitrary model of what brand loyalty actually means. But then again, so is your evolutionary psychology which is not a real science but merely a tool to end a discussion by disguising as fact whatever fits someone's world view best at the time. It is essentially the application of retroactive continuity to history on an evolutionary time scale.
Of yeah, while we're at it: whenever researchers pull stuff so obviously out of their hats to explain convenient data, I'm also suspicious of the data itself. Especially social studies can be rigged in ways people wouldn't believe.
You're getting bent out of shape about a pretty straightforward observation about human nature.
(1) Many people have a pretty strong drive to affiliate themselves to things. Humans are a social species.
(2) One of the primary functions of organized religion is to affiliate people to each other. I'm Catholic and we're not even remotely circumspect about this.
(3) If you have a prior strong affiliation, you've naturally blunted your desire to affiliate to other things.
(4) Whether you're religious or not, you will naturally affiliate to brands, products, music, culture, clubs, hobbies, and anything else, because you're wired in ways that create emergent grouping behavior.
They'd probably have gotten the same results comparing ACLU volunteers or skate park enthusiasts to the general population of nonreligious people.
Remember that religions tend to preach of a jealous god: God gets really mad at you for idolatry because he's the only one you should worship. Preachers continually go on about how fanatical devotion to brands or sports teams or something like that are idolatry. It's not surprising that becoming an Apple fanboy becomes somewhat less compelling if you're already a Jesus fanboy, and Jesus tells you not to be anyone else's fanboy.
So let's take the idea that humans have a natural urge to religion and brand loyalty fills that gap, and turn the idea around: there is a natural human urge to fanboyism, and religion is just a hack to direct this urge towards some moral system rather than some random charismatic leader or stupid tribalism or something. Religion is a vaccine.
"This whole thing is based on the faulty premise..."
Uh, no, this whole thing is based on data collected in a study. Question the interpretation of the data or the provenance of the data based on the paper if you like, but this isn't just some sort of wild speculation, this is an explanation of the pattern contained in the data. Your "hypothesis" is not merely "an alternative possibility", it is "a thing contradicted by the data as collected", a rather different thing.
I actually wasn't talking about the page. I was talking about the content of the study. I dislike the summary view of research papers because they tend to skew things the way they want it to be skewed. When I have actual data(hopefully not fabricated but you hope better from scientists.) I can look at the test methodology and decide if it is valid data. The way it seems to me is that the test was done in a misleading way but that is only because there is no data that I can see.
With the conviction you had from reading it I assumed that you had access to the actual report and not a biased summary.
His point is not contradicted by the data. He's questioning the paper's claim that people self-identify using corporate brands, saying instead that nonreligious people stick with brands that have worked for them in the past whereas religious people believe whatever the label tells them.
Obviously, he's not expressing that claim as true. He's using it to point out that, given imagination and a sufficiently broad brush, this set of data can be interpreted to cast aspersions on any group you wish.
Take Sony as an example. Buying Sony meant you were getting a good product. Now it doesn't: generally you have to buy the premium end, or at/and know exactly what you are looking for.
Apple earphones are another example: very bad quality.
Hackers typically research something very, very in-depth (compared to the average consumer) before buying it.
Brands are good enough for most people. Also, I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple.
I think that brand loyalty has certainly shifted, but is far from dead. People used to use brands as a denotation of quality, because they lacked information whereas now they tend to be used to denote status (because they lack other signaling methods?).
It's easy nowadays to look up the Amazon reviews instead of just buying something with Harman Kardon on the side, but people still shell out tons of money for Prada shoes. (I think this partially applies to Apple, but not completely because apple products tend to have a large user experience advantage.)
I have encountered plenty of people that just can't be convinced of buying a product that's not of the brand that they're loyal to, no matter how much better the respective product of a different brand is. So I would say brand loyalty is very much alive.
Hrm that isn't very bigoted or fallacy ridden. It would be safer to say that, within any group, certain human beings are more probable to fall to groupthink, no matter their beliefs. Maybe religious people already contribute to groupthink (their beliefs that others don't hold outside the group) and do less of that with commercial goods.
27 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 73.8 ms ] threadAlso, many religions actually actively discourage certain brands. So maybe religious people look more to authority on what to like.
Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations
This whole thing is based on the faulty premise that a non-religious person desperately needs a religion-like source of self worth and that this can be provided by joining some kind of economic cult.
One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas non-religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions.
I'm not saying "my" hypothesis is any better, but at least I'm not presenting it as fact.
> One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions.
However, I think this is counteracted by this part of the data (emphasis mine):
> Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing.
If I understand correctly, this means that the religious and non-religious went with name brands equally often when the products were utilitarian (e.g. batteries and pain reliever medications) but the non-religious were more likely to pick famous brands when the products had a strong cultural signaling functions (e.g. sunglasses and fashion accessories).
Seeing as that signaling group loyalties is widely understood to be the (evolutionary) purpose of many, many human actions, is it that surprising that people already signaling loyalties in one area (religion) are less likely to be inclined to signal loyalties in another (cultural/fashion/political)? This is hardly an endorsement of theism or atheism, just a fact of human nature.
Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post which made this extra clear), it was merely intended to show that the conclusion drawn by those researchers is based on a completely arbitrary model of what brand loyalty actually means. But then again, so is your evolutionary psychology which is not a real science but merely a tool to end a discussion by disguising as fact whatever fits someone's world view best at the time. It is essentially the application of retroactive continuity to history on an evolutionary time scale.
Of yeah, while we're at it: whenever researchers pull stuff so obviously out of their hats to explain convenient data, I'm also suspicious of the data itself. Especially social studies can be rigged in ways people wouldn't believe.
(1) Many people have a pretty strong drive to affiliate themselves to things. Humans are a social species.
(2) One of the primary functions of organized religion is to affiliate people to each other. I'm Catholic and we're not even remotely circumspect about this.
(3) If you have a prior strong affiliation, you've naturally blunted your desire to affiliate to other things.
(4) Whether you're religious or not, you will naturally affiliate to brands, products, music, culture, clubs, hobbies, and anything else, because you're wired in ways that create emergent grouping behavior.
They'd probably have gotten the same results comparing ACLU volunteers or skate park enthusiasts to the general population of nonreligious people.
I really like this idea! You should shoot an email to the researchers.
So let's take the idea that humans have a natural urge to religion and brand loyalty fills that gap, and turn the idea around: there is a natural human urge to fanboyism, and religion is just a hack to direct this urge towards some moral system rather than some random charismatic leader or stupid tribalism or something. Religion is a vaccine.
Uh, no, this whole thing is based on data collected in a study. Question the interpretation of the data or the provenance of the data based on the paper if you like, but this isn't just some sort of wild speculation, this is an explanation of the pattern contained in the data. Your "hypothesis" is not merely "an alternative possibility", it is "a thing contradicted by the data as collected", a rather different thing.
With the conviction you had from reading it I assumed that you had access to the actual report and not a biased summary.
Obviously, he's not expressing that claim as true. He's using it to point out that, given imagination and a sufficiently broad brush, this set of data can be interpreted to cast aspersions on any group you wish.
Take Sony as an example. Buying Sony meant you were getting a good product. Now it doesn't: generally you have to buy the premium end, or at/and know exactly what you are looking for.
Apple earphones are another example: very bad quality.
Brand loyalty died already.
Brands are good enough for most people. Also, I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple.
I know no Apple fan that buys Apple earphones.
It's easy nowadays to look up the Amazon reviews instead of just buying something with Harman Kardon on the side, but people still shell out tons of money for Prada shoes. (I think this partially applies to Apple, but not completely because apple products tend to have a large user experience advantage.)