Peer pressure’s effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought (2014)(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Peer pressure’s effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought (2014)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/04/people-around-you-control-your-mind-the-latest-evidence
91 comments
There's politeness, and then there is that.
This is why certain groups have such a strong interest in controlling twitter, facebook, google, etc. Most people simply go along with what they perceive as the majority opinion. This used to take the form of doing whate everyone around you does, which is why political views tended to group up so much by community.
But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, especially not about anything like politics. So that instinctive conformity is now based on easily falsified information presented though the media. This is why facebook prevents certain topics from trending, and puts others that are not naturally trending into the trending queue.
But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, especially not about anything like politics. So that instinctive conformity is now based on easily falsified information presented though the media. This is why facebook prevents certain topics from trending, and puts others that are not naturally trending into the trending queue.
> But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, especially not about anything like politics.
Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!) - it's just no longer strongly tied to your location. Blame the invention of the telephone, that lets you stay in touch with your family and friends at long distances, and the invention of the car, that lets you visit them often.
Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!) - it's just no longer strongly tied to your location. Blame the invention of the telephone, that lets you stay in touch with your family and friends at long distances, and the invention of the car, that lets you visit them often.
>Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!)
No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch as a community.
>Blame the invention
Blame has nothing to do with it. Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important. Trying to blame dead people for technology they invented is not.
No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch as a community.
>Blame the invention
Blame has nothing to do with it. Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important. Trying to blame dead people for technology they invented is not.
> No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch as a community.
You and I may be using Facebook differently. I'm not thinking about random Facebook groups and news feeds of people you don't even remember. But e.g. for me, there are people with whom, due to temporal and geographical constraints, Facebook (both site and Messenger) is the primary means of communication, and said communication is frequent and often deep. It's just another tool, not unlike the phone or telegram or paper mail.
> Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important.
How: with free speech.
Why: because they have goals they want to achieve.
This actually is democracy working as designed - people being free to bullshit one another. The hope might have been that bullshitting from different actors will cancel out, but that doesn't generally work due to, among other things, simple randomness.
You and I may be using Facebook differently. I'm not thinking about random Facebook groups and news feeds of people you don't even remember. But e.g. for me, there are people with whom, due to temporal and geographical constraints, Facebook (both site and Messenger) is the primary means of communication, and said communication is frequent and often deep. It's just another tool, not unlike the phone or telegram or paper mail.
> Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important.
How: with free speech.
Why: because they have goals they want to achieve.
This actually is democracy working as designed - people being free to bullshit one another. The hope might have been that bullshitting from different actors will cancel out, but that doesn't generally work due to, among other things, simple randomness.
> You and I may be using Facebook differently.
This is almost certainly the case. I feel like much of the time when people confidently generalize (on HN and elsewhere) about "how everybody uses Facebook", they end up talking past each other because there are just vastly different patterns of usage that you never have occasion to get exposed to (given that your friend group is more likely to have usage patterns similar to your own). I once got downvoted pretty heavily on HN for responding to someone talking about removing their Facebook friends that they don't know by asking "Is this something that people do? Friend people that they've never met or spoken to?". Apparently that's totally a thing, but I never would've known
This is almost certainly the case. I feel like much of the time when people confidently generalize (on HN and elsewhere) about "how everybody uses Facebook", they end up talking past each other because there are just vastly different patterns of usage that you never have occasion to get exposed to (given that your friend group is more likely to have usage patterns similar to your own). I once got downvoted pretty heavily on HN for responding to someone talking about removing their Facebook friends that they don't know by asking "Is this something that people do? Friend people that they've never met or spoken to?". Apparently that's totally a thing, but I never would've known
It may be the case, or it may not. Since we're not discussing how we use facebook, it is both unknown and irrelevant. We're talking about how facebook uses us, not at all the same thing. Facebook curates what you see no matter how you use facebook.
Keeping in touch with your family is not a community. And no, this is not democracy working as designed. Democracy as designed required access to information. This is why hearing everyone was important. You do not hear the voices in your community now, you hear a curated selection of voices intended to give you an impression they want you to get.
Yep, not to mention our species didn't evolve under the constraint that all communication will be forever recorded.
The nature of social media, especially when it isn't (at least)pseudonymous is such that all statements are forever a part of the public record.
It's lead to a culture of going out of your way not to offend anyone(especially for facebook where your literal identity is tied to it).
The end result is a bunch of virtue signalling and oftentimes dis-honest but politically correct dialogue.
The nature of social media, especially when it isn't (at least)pseudonymous is such that all statements are forever a part of the public record.
It's lead to a culture of going out of your way not to offend anyone(especially for facebook where your literal identity is tied to it).
The end result is a bunch of virtue signalling and oftentimes dis-honest but politically correct dialogue.
>This actually is democracy working as designed - people being free to bullshit one another
They aren't free to bullshit one another. Facebook, Google, and co. regularly censor their users.
They aren't free to bullshit one another. Facebook, Google, and co. regularly censor their users.
Yeah, a lot of people just play it safe. "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM" and all of that stuff.
If I could Correct the Record here, no one is trying to control the narrative on these platforms. Sounds like a Republican funded lie to me :^)
Lol. Care to comment on the many bannings/suspensions of prominent right-wing commentators/journalists on Twitter (Milo, Ricky Vaughn, Chuck Johnson, James O'Keefe, to name a few), the practice of "shadowbanning", as well of Facebook's well-documented history of deleting/censoring of posts about refugee crime in Europe and outright censorship of anti-refugee comments in Germany (under the guise of calling it "hate speech" of course...)?
I was kidding fam... I even used 'Correct the Record' in my comment...
C'mon son.
C'mon son.
It gets worse. You are x% more likely to buy food if you just see or smell it, without even a "peer" enjoying it. Isn't that horrifying? That must be called something like food-pressure.
Around here we just call that Cinnabon.
Perhaps it's just priming?
Not sure why this was downvoted. This is priming. The term should be famous now thanks to the books "Thinking Fast and Slow" and "Nudge"
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching-us-...
[deleted]
Survival instinct is an awful trait!
A useful reminder for these situations: The best way to resist temptation is to give in to it.
The article is from 2014 and it is about a paper studying "social effects in consumption" in a controlled situation (i.e. while you are stuck in an airplane), and another paper about social influences of high schoolers signing up for an SAT prep class.
While the studies are interesting, it is hardly worthy of the click-bait title.
TL;DR if you sit next to someone on an airplane who buys a drink you are 30% more likely to buy a drink yourself (and presumably the study successfully controlled for people traveling together).
Edit: The post title was just changed from what I clicked on "People around you control your mind: The latest evidence" which was so much more entertaining!
While the studies are interesting, it is hardly worthy of the click-bait title.
TL;DR if you sit next to someone on an airplane who buys a drink you are 30% more likely to buy a drink yourself (and presumably the study successfully controlled for people traveling together).
Edit: The post title was just changed from what I clicked on "People around you control your mind: The latest evidence" which was so much more entertaining!
"Peer pressure's effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought" only if you've never heard of Stanley Milgram
Unless there's a lesser-known experiment by Stanley Milgram on peer pressure, the most famous one is about "obedience to authority figures"[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
There is also Asch experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
On the airline experiment: says if the person sitting next to you purchases something, you're 30% more likely to purchase something.
Isn't the person next to you more likely to be your friend or family member? What portion of people travel alone? And if they're related, chances are high they have similar expectations/acceptance of in-flight purchases.
Edit: found this article with more details: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete-fellow... Apparently, if they have the same reservation #, it doubles.
Isn't the person next to you more likely to be your friend or family member? What portion of people travel alone? And if they're related, chances are high they have similar expectations/acceptance of in-flight purchases.
Edit: found this article with more details: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete-fellow... Apparently, if they have the same reservation #, it doubles.
Reservation information was used to control for people flying together - not that I would consider it a foolproof method. In all the times I've flown, probably 80% were with someone but the reservations were not made together. I doubt I'm the only one for whom this is representative since it was business travel.
[deleted]
as @tiglionabbit mentioned, this is priming.
The term should be famous now thanks to the books "Thinking Fast and Slow" and "Nudge". Also probably a dose of recency bias.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching-us-...
And yet, perhaps an equally-apt word is infamous, because 'priming' effects appear often among those psychological research results that fail-to-reproduce:
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Although, to be fair to Richard Thaler, the article you cite itself falls prey to the 1/n "mental accounting" heuristic. It gives half of its attention to a call center replication that did support the priming effect.
I agree: nothing in the study seems to control for the simple proximity of the food or entertainment, compared to actually seeing someone enjoy it.
I drink once in my life. When I was 20. Why? I was interested in what being drunk felt like from a scientific perspective. Upon drinking all the liquor I could find in the house, the room began to spin and I didn't like the feeling of not being in control so I found the nearest couch and passed out.
I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions. (Yes, I am well aware of the argument that sugar and soda are probably far worse than occasionally drinking).
Growing up I often pondered the reasons why people begin drinking: Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, the need to feel cool, etc. None of these things every pushed me in the direction of needing to drink.
I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions. (Yes, I am well aware of the argument that sugar and soda are probably far worse than occasionally drinking).
Growing up I often pondered the reasons why people begin drinking: Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, the need to feel cool, etc. None of these things every pushed me in the direction of needing to drink.
> Upon drinking all the liquor I could find in the house, the room began to spin and I didn't like the feeling of not being in control so I found the nearest couch and passed out.
I don't know that evaluating drinking alcohol by getting hammered is really going to lead to a reasonable analysis. Most alcohol consumption is within reason.
> I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions.
It sounds like it has more of an effect on you than you realize, just in the opposite direction. You come across as feeling superior for your choice to not drink alcohol and instead "drink things that taste great" (implying that people drink alcoholic beverages despite disliking the taste) and that "don't result in a loss of inhibitions" (as if this is universally a bad thing). Honestly, it sounds like you started out with your conclusions (alcohol is bad/dumb/whatever) and went out in search of evidence supporting that conclusion ("drinking all the liquor I could find in the house").
People drink alcohol for a variety of reasons. Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, and feeling cool plays roughly zero part in it once you get past high school. People enjoy the flavor of cocktails, liquors, beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages. People enjoy the "social lubricant" effect of moderate consumption. And yes, people think it's fun to get drunk (news flash: it is, at times!).
If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for making that choice.
I don't know that evaluating drinking alcohol by getting hammered is really going to lead to a reasonable analysis. Most alcohol consumption is within reason.
> I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions.
It sounds like it has more of an effect on you than you realize, just in the opposite direction. You come across as feeling superior for your choice to not drink alcohol and instead "drink things that taste great" (implying that people drink alcoholic beverages despite disliking the taste) and that "don't result in a loss of inhibitions" (as if this is universally a bad thing). Honestly, it sounds like you started out with your conclusions (alcohol is bad/dumb/whatever) and went out in search of evidence supporting that conclusion ("drinking all the liquor I could find in the house").
People drink alcohol for a variety of reasons. Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, and feeling cool plays roughly zero part in it once you get past high school. People enjoy the flavor of cocktails, liquors, beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages. People enjoy the "social lubricant" effect of moderate consumption. And yes, people think it's fun to get drunk (news flash: it is, at times!).
If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for making that choice.
> If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for making that choice.
While I won't argue your other points, I will push back a bit on the comment above. Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why do you care?
If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on anyone, then that is your prerogative. You make some wild accusations based on me explaining an experience that is personal to me. While I am not sorry you took what I said in a negative light, it does shed light on how you view yourself as a person and others who don't agree with your line of thinking.I wish you the best in you finding who you are.
(edit) Apparently, some of you don't like my comment. Let me clean it up a bit for those downvoters.
While I won't argue your other points, I will push back a bit on the comment above. Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why do you care?
If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on anyone, then that is your prerogative. You make some wild accusations based on me explaining an experience that is personal to me. While I am not sorry you took what I said in a negative light, it does shed light on how you view yourself as a person and others who don't agree with your line of thinking.I wish you the best in you finding who you are.
(edit) Apparently, some of you don't like my comment. Let me clean it up a bit for those downvoters.
It seems to me that people can be more apt to try to read someone's intent in writing something - beyond what the words convey directly.
Re-reading your original post, I can see why - absent the characteristics GP ascribed you - it would be really upsetting to be accused of it.
Your entire text can be read either as a genuine curiosity and attempt to get answered, or condescending humblebrag. And either one has the potential to be accurate.
Some subset of people tend to assume that it's the latter when they run into something that can be read like that. I often do too - I think it's that I sometimes find it hard to understand how someone could be writing in public forms (the internet no less) and not be aware of this.
And now that I've written it out, Ive become aware how ridiculous a basis that is. You can be aware that it's annoying when someone taps their foot on the floor, without quite being aware that you're doing it too. Someone points it out to you, you realize it, stop, and start again five minutes later.
All that said... I could still go either way. Though thinking this through has led me to the conclusion that in the future, I'll just ask.
So whichever it is in your case, I appreciate that the discussion prompted by your post gave me a chance to think about this...
Re-reading your original post, I can see why - absent the characteristics GP ascribed you - it would be really upsetting to be accused of it.
Your entire text can be read either as a genuine curiosity and attempt to get answered, or condescending humblebrag. And either one has the potential to be accurate.
Some subset of people tend to assume that it's the latter when they run into something that can be read like that. I often do too - I think it's that I sometimes find it hard to understand how someone could be writing in public forms (the internet no less) and not be aware of this.
And now that I've written it out, Ive become aware how ridiculous a basis that is. You can be aware that it's annoying when someone taps their foot on the floor, without quite being aware that you're doing it too. Someone points it out to you, you realize it, stop, and start again five minutes later.
All that said... I could still go either way. Though thinking this through has led me to the conclusion that in the future, I'll just ask.
So whichever it is in your case, I appreciate that the discussion prompted by your post gave me a chance to think about this...
> Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why do you care? If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on anyone, then that is your prerogative.
I don't care. And I didn't mean this to be a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across the way I read it. Maybe you don't feel smugly superior to people who drink. But as written, your message came across (to me, and I'm guessing to those who upvoted me) the way I presented it.
At the very least, you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink as being primarily driven by peer pressure and a desire to conform. And your "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at best, and as chasing evidence in support of your preconceived notions at worst.
Given that, are you really so surprised that people took umbrage?
I don't care. And I didn't mean this to be a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across the way I read it. Maybe you don't feel smugly superior to people who drink. But as written, your message came across (to me, and I'm guessing to those who upvoted me) the way I presented it.
At the very least, you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink as being primarily driven by peer pressure and a desire to conform. And your "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at best, and as chasing evidence in support of your preconceived notions at worst.
Given that, are you really so surprised that people took umbrage?
> people took umbrage?
People no. You, yes. Please don't speak for other people.
> you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink
I do? I offered my OPINION on why I believe people drink. What qualifies me to give such an opinion?
10+ years as a bartender (from dive bars to high-end restaurants - the last being Spiaggia in Chicago). During that time, I continued to further my understanding of why people drink. Asking clients and gaining deeper knowledge. Let me ask you...why did you start drinking? Yes, you can point out that after high school...blah, blah, blah. I am not speaking to the fact that those have a choice once they reach an age where they are less pressured into doing things they have less control over at a younger age. You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article and my commenting an experience where peer pressure has not affected me.
So yes, I would say I am qualified to make statements not only about my personal experiences (those of which NEVER supported a position for or against drinking). You seemed to have done that for me.
> "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at best
Misguided at best? You are grasping at straws now.
> preconceived notions at worst
At worst? Let's put this into context.
Whether or not I develop an opinion before or after an experiment doesn't predict the outcome of that experiment. That is like saying because I heard about how bad heroin was growing up and tried it then...what exactly? What are you trying to say exactly? Because as far as I can tell, you are saying a whole lot without actually saying anything.
People no. You, yes. Please don't speak for other people.
> you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink
I do? I offered my OPINION on why I believe people drink. What qualifies me to give such an opinion?
10+ years as a bartender (from dive bars to high-end restaurants - the last being Spiaggia in Chicago). During that time, I continued to further my understanding of why people drink. Asking clients and gaining deeper knowledge. Let me ask you...why did you start drinking? Yes, you can point out that after high school...blah, blah, blah. I am not speaking to the fact that those have a choice once they reach an age where they are less pressured into doing things they have less control over at a younger age. You seemed to have completely missed the point of the article and my commenting an experience where peer pressure has not affected me.
So yes, I would say I am qualified to make statements not only about my personal experiences (those of which NEVER supported a position for or against drinking). You seemed to have done that for me.
> "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at best
Misguided at best? You are grasping at straws now.
> preconceived notions at worst
At worst? Let's put this into context.
Whether or not I develop an opinion before or after an experiment doesn't predict the outcome of that experiment. That is like saying because I heard about how bad heroin was growing up and tried it then...what exactly? What are you trying to say exactly? Because as far as I can tell, you are saying a whole lot without actually saying anything.
> 10+ years as a bartender
> Only drank once at 20, proceeded to get blackout drunk.
> Only drank once at 20, proceeded to get blackout drunk.
And?
You have touched on an exposed nerve, to eschew such a fundamental past-time for many. The lack of prosody in the comm allows readers to fill the void of inflection to match their expectations, don't take it personal. Just don't say 'I don't watch TV' or there may be pitchforks & ropes in your future.
Oh my god this is such a dumb reply. I was pointing out that it's pretty unbelievable that you would be a bartender for 10 years and only have had a drink (or in OP's case gotten blackout drunk) once in your life.
I would hate to order a drink from someone like that. Follow a formula for a cocktail all you want, you should still know what it tastes like. It's like a patisserie chef who has only ever eaten one cannoli.
I would hate to order a drink from someone like that. Follow a formula for a cocktail all you want, you should still know what it tastes like. It's like a patisserie chef who has only ever eaten one cannoli.
Perhaps he is evaluating your assessment of drinking, and finding that you possibly have other-than-logical reasons for your conclusion? (Not that I agree.)
>Growing up I often pondered the reasons why people begin drinking: Peer pressure, wanting to fit in, the need to feel cool, etc. None of these things every pushed me in the direction of needing to drink.
None of these are the reason most people drink. They would all be bad reasons to drink. You are saying we drink for bad reasons. You make a caricature of drinking (all the booze in the house) and say that's why you know better. The gist is that you missed the target on why others do something, and imply that you, scientifically, are wiser for it (you're drinks not only taste better than ours, they don't make you lose your inhibitions!).
None of these are the reason most people drink. They would all be bad reasons to drink. You are saying we drink for bad reasons. You make a caricature of drinking (all the booze in the house) and say that's why you know better. The gist is that you missed the target on why others do something, and imply that you, scientifically, are wiser for it (you're drinks not only taste better than ours, they don't make you lose your inhibitions!).
> None of these are the reason most people drink.
Then what are the reasons for people wanting to drink? I am talking about that first time someone drinks.
Then what are the reasons for people wanting to drink? I am talking about that first time someone drinks.
I'm not a naturally extroverted person, but when I drink I trend more towards that personality type. I spend less time overanalyzing things and I am more engaged with the people around me. In a way it "dumbs me down" and makes me think a bit less, which makes me more social, whereas the completely sober me would sit there lost in my own thoughts.
Am I right to understand that you think you couldn't behave like this without alcohol?
Even if drugs may help in the short term to act ‚more open’ — everything you do when you're drunk is because of you and not caused by the drug!
Be concious and open and people will be open to you. The world around you is a mirror of yourself!
Even if drugs may help in the short term to act ‚more open’ — everything you do when you're drunk is because of you and not caused by the drug!
Be concious and open and people will be open to you. The world around you is a mirror of yourself!
I've certainly given this plenty of thought. The idea of alcohol slowing my mind down is only appealing in social situations and I've never found drinking in and of itself to be enjoyable. I consider it a "social enhancement" -- and of course, there's certainly a point where it becomes a hinderance.
Interestingly enough, I've definitely found myself in the same social state without alcohol on occasion, but alcohol is the only method I know of that can reliably induce it. It's definitely a crutch I would love to discard but at the moment there's no replacement.
Interestingly enough, I've definitely found myself in the same social state without alcohol on occasion, but alcohol is the only method I know of that can reliably induce it. It's definitely a crutch I would love to discard but at the moment there's no replacement.
Is it only in the short term though? I think having positive social experiences while slightly drunk can improve your confidence in social situations in general.
The same pressure exists when you go to a cafe where you are expected to drink coffee. I don't like coffee, and I would rather not acquire a caffeine habit like most adults have, so I just drink steamed milk instead. It's pretty much the same thing anyway. Of course people will comment about how it makes me look weird, weak, etc. and insinuate that my business meetings would be more favorable if I drank coffee like I'm supposed to, like a man, etc.
Anyway, I used to not drink alcohol either. I would go to parties and everyone would drink but me and it would be pretty boring. I'd try to start intelligent conversation but it's pretty hard for that to happen in a large group environment. I would always have this feeling that I wasn't being productive or doing anything important.
Now I drink a bit, and it dulls me enough to just put on a happy face and enjoy random company. I become less goal-oriented, more harmless. People respond positively to it. It's like a form of self-handicapping, making everyone more harmless and approachable, which explains why people get so uncomfortable if you don't participate.
I don't even always have to drink, though, since I can just act like I've been drinking now. I still don't like the taste of hard alcohol, but some drinks taste good, like Bailey's Irish Cream or Mike's Hard Lemonade, or a Pina Colada or a White Russian or an Amaretto Sour.
Anyway, I used to not drink alcohol either. I would go to parties and everyone would drink but me and it would be pretty boring. I'd try to start intelligent conversation but it's pretty hard for that to happen in a large group environment. I would always have this feeling that I wasn't being productive or doing anything important.
Now I drink a bit, and it dulls me enough to just put on a happy face and enjoy random company. I become less goal-oriented, more harmless. People respond positively to it. It's like a form of self-handicapping, making everyone more harmless and approachable, which explains why people get so uncomfortable if you don't participate.
I don't even always have to drink, though, since I can just act like I've been drinking now. I still don't like the taste of hard alcohol, but some drinks taste good, like Bailey's Irish Cream or Mike's Hard Lemonade, or a Pina Colada or a White Russian or an Amaretto Sour.
If you were interested in the feeling of being drunk, drinking all the liquor you could find was the right procedure. If you were interested in why people drink, I would suggest that you used the wrong procedure.
The right procedure would be to get a glass of a good wine, or a good beer (not a mass-produced one) and sip it over dinner for about forty minutes, with friends. Depending on how big you are and how you personally metabolize alcohol, it would probably make you somewhat relaxed. And it would taste good. If it did not, you could find one that did.
In many cultures, alcohol is a food. It comes with side effects for sure, which are the sedation and decrease of inhibitions. The side effects are part of the enjoyment, but by no means are they the entire point of it.
The right procedure would be to get a glass of a good wine, or a good beer (not a mass-produced one) and sip it over dinner for about forty minutes, with friends. Depending on how big you are and how you personally metabolize alcohol, it would probably make you somewhat relaxed. And it would taste good. If it did not, you could find one that did.
In many cultures, alcohol is a food. It comes with side effects for sure, which are the sedation and decrease of inhibitions. The side effects are part of the enjoyment, but by no means are they the entire point of it.
> what being drunk felt like from a scientific perspective
I was interested in what being drunk felt like.
In another comment, I explain how I pursued further knowledge for "why people drink."
> In many cultures, alcohol is a food.
Completely agree. I live in East Africa when I am not in Chicago so I have first-hand experience on the role of alcohol in other cultures.
I was interested in what being drunk felt like.
In another comment, I explain how I pursued further knowledge for "why people drink."
> In many cultures, alcohol is a food.
Completely agree. I live in East Africa when I am not in Chicago so I have first-hand experience on the role of alcohol in other cultures.
You might be programmed differently. I had a similar experience where I didn't start really drinking until I moved to Tokyo. Before that I tried for 2-3 months when I was 25, hated the taste, got headaches, stopped. A friend had me try some sweet cocktails which I enjoyed but not enough to drink regularly.
Moving to Toyko at 33 though introduced me to a different culture of drinking. AFAICT there's very little negative association with drinking in Japan Vs the USA. In the USA drinking, while socially acceptable is generally considered a vice. That doesn't seem true in Japan. As just one example the anime One Piece which is arguably targeted at young boys often has scenes of celebrating by drinking.
In any case, after many years here I do feel the peer pressure to socialize by drinking. People feel you aren't really participating if you don't. That doesn't mean I'll always drink. If I'm not feeling well or I drank too much the day before I might abstain but I'm consciously aware of the pressure / expectation. It helps no one drives so there's none of those issues.
Moving to Toyko at 33 though introduced me to a different culture of drinking. AFAICT there's very little negative association with drinking in Japan Vs the USA. In the USA drinking, while socially acceptable is generally considered a vice. That doesn't seem true in Japan. As just one example the anime One Piece which is arguably targeted at young boys often has scenes of celebrating by drinking.
In any case, after many years here I do feel the peer pressure to socialize by drinking. People feel you aren't really participating if you don't. That doesn't mean I'll always drink. If I'm not feeling well or I drank too much the day before I might abstain but I'm consciously aware of the pressure / expectation. It helps no one drives so there's none of those issues.
[deleted]
Makes me think airlines will soon start strategically placing "purchasers" throughout the plane in order to maximize the effect of this social pressure.
As another commenter noted, it would not be cost effective to lose a whole seat just to sell a few more drinks, overpriced though they be. But it seems like they could increase sales in sort of the same way by distributing free or discounted drink vouchers to a select few passengers, and effectively turn those real passengers into "purchasers".
They could track frequent flyers who usually buy stuff and make sure they are disbursed throughout the plane.
Lots of comments about this not being cost viable for the airlines to give up seats for these purchasers, but I read your remark a different way - the airlines will note which passengers purchase products on planes, and adjust where these passengers automatic seat selections put them in future - combining them with other data that they have on their customers (e.g. frequency of flights, if they're with children, etc) to try and maximise probability of purchases and influencing more people to purchase over time.
Anecdotally, the people sat next to me on my last flight purchased wine, which resulted in me getting a mini-bottle too. Doh!
Anecdotally, the people sat next to me on my last flight purchased wine, which resulted in me getting a mini-bottle too. Doh!
[deleted]
Giving up several hundreds in ticket revenue to make 1-2 people 30% more likely to buy a drink...
I don't understand why or how you'd lose ticket revenue?
If you identified 20 passengers who've often bought tickets who are known drink buyers. Place them not together with random seat assignments. So they are by people unknown buyers and/or less frequent buyers
No ticket sales should be effected. Only the placement of individuals. This obviously doesn't effect those who choose there seat. Buy late. Or buy for groups adjacent seats.
If you identified 20 passengers who've often bought tickets who are known drink buyers. Place them not together with random seat assignments. So they are by people unknown buyers and/or less frequent buyers
No ticket sales should be effected. Only the placement of individuals. This obviously doesn't effect those who choose there seat. Buy late. Or buy for groups adjacent seats.
You could give people a free drink card before the flight. Problem solved.
I can't understand why this is being downvoted.
Declanomous is offering a hypothesis that improves on the original comment of giving away seats. While the impact of buying a drink vs. receiving a drink may differ, and the study only studied "buys", peer pressure works in other ways, too. One could argue that people drinking in the vicinity "pressures" or influences others to drink, so the solution Declanomous provided could 1) increase beverage revenue at low cost and 2) increase customer good will (the free drink recipient) at low cost.
In fact, Southwest may know this as they send out free drink coupons to frequent flyers.
Declanomous is offering a hypothesis that improves on the original comment of giving away seats. While the impact of buying a drink vs. receiving a drink may differ, and the study only studied "buys", peer pressure works in other ways, too. One could argue that people drinking in the vicinity "pressures" or influences others to drink, so the solution Declanomous provided could 1) increase beverage revenue at low cost and 2) increase customer good will (the free drink recipient) at low cost.
In fact, Southwest may know this as they send out free drink coupons to frequent flyers.
Thanks for backing me up. My experience Southwest is actually what made me think of that. I used my free drink coupon on a flight recently. The person sitting across from me ended up changing their order to a alcoholic beverage as well. It works just as well as purchasing a drink in any case, because you order before you present the coupon.
I suggested a card, such as a gift card, because I suspect watching someone swipe a card has a larger effect than watching someone hand over a printed coupon. It would also work for those back-of-seat infotainment systems that allow you to swipe a card to buy something.
I work in marketing for a non-profit, and I spend a lot of time figuring out how to get people to tell other people they gave to us. I'm sure this is marketing 101. The funny thing is that I probably overthink marketing experiments. I love pouring over data like Gardete did, but most of the other marketing people I know would just use A|B testing. Even though their experimental design makes me shudder, it gets the job done. From the perspective of a middle manager, it doesn't really matter if you understand the solution as long as it works. I think understanding why allows you to build on your successes and failures, but that's a self-serving bias.
I suggested a card, such as a gift card, because I suspect watching someone swipe a card has a larger effect than watching someone hand over a printed coupon. It would also work for those back-of-seat infotainment systems that allow you to swipe a card to buy something.
I work in marketing for a non-profit, and I spend a lot of time figuring out how to get people to tell other people they gave to us. I'm sure this is marketing 101. The funny thing is that I probably overthink marketing experiments. I love pouring over data like Gardete did, but most of the other marketing people I know would just use A|B testing. Even though their experimental design makes me shudder, it gets the job done. From the perspective of a middle manager, it doesn't really matter if you understand the solution as long as it works. I think understanding why allows you to build on your successes and failures, but that's a self-serving bias.
Yes, but then the peer isn't doing the same action the airline wants us to do. Unless the neighbors see the peer buying the drink, I don't think it will work. If I see my neighbor paying for a drink with a voucher, it might make me want a drink, but it might not encourage me to pay for one as much as it would if I saw my neighbor paying for a drink. In fact, the resentment of not having it for free like that other person might produce the opposite effect.
I generally see the voucher presented after the drink is presented, which in my experience is after everyone in the row has ordered. I suggested a card rather than a paper voucher in an attempt to control for this outcome, since I suspect swiping a gift card is interpreted as a substantially similar action to purchasing something outright.
That being said, I doubt the effect is caused by a single factor. For instance, there is a social stigma against drinking alone, at least in the United States. I'll feel more comfortable drinking if someone else is drinking as well, even if I'm travelling alone.
That being said, I doubt the effect is caused by a single factor. For instance, there is a social stigma against drinking alone, at least in the United States. I'll feel more comfortable drinking if someone else is drinking as well, even if I'm travelling alone.
[deleted]
It would not be cost effective for airlines (seats costs more than the purchases).
But grocery stores on the other hand....
Setup areas with high cost brand name items, and purchasers to look at and prominently buy items.
It would work even better at fairs, carnivals, etc since you might eventually recognize the person at a grocery store if you visit often.
All you have to do is have people walking around nosily eating something that looks good.
But grocery stores on the other hand....
Setup areas with high cost brand name items, and purchasers to look at and prominently buy items.
It would work even better at fairs, carnivals, etc since you might eventually recognize the person at a grocery store if you visit often.
All you have to do is have people walking around nosily eating something that looks good.
That's probably why they hand out samples. Never thought about it beyond the individual product being sampled.
[deleted]
In the airplane situation, I think it's worth stepping back to consider whether peer pressure is the simplest explanation. I think it's much more likely that people are just free-riding on others' mental effort of evaluating whether buying things on an airplane is worth it.
Paul Graham wrote about this in an essay called Cities & Ambition: http://paulgraham.com/cities.html
The SAT Prep example was more interesting to me.
The whole article was frustratingly brief, but I guess that's what the market is calling for these days. Or is it just the influencers?
The whole article was frustratingly brief, but I guess that's what the market is calling for these days. Or is it just the influencers?
People sitting next to each other are more likely a group and going to perform the same action because of this. Two people decide to watch a movie together or two people decide to get lunch on the plane rather than before getting on.
They need to control for tickets bought together.
They need to control for tickets bought together.
Headline says control, numbers and article conclusion say influence. My skepticism says when someone attempts to reproduce this, it may just vanish. My cynicism says the post is preparing this as an excuse for trump winning.
There are connotations of "control" that make it a flashier, more imprecise, more clickbaity way to say influence. Specifically, having some degree of control less than total control over one's behavior means roughly the same thing as having influence.
If you have to explain away the meaning of something by using an order of magnitude more words, you're bullshitting
That is truly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Part of explaining something someone doesn't understand is making context explicit, context that is unstated and shared by those who do understand. Rules like yours that sound cute but make no sense are a poor, poor substitute for actual thought.
Now that the headline is changed from the click-bait attempt at reducing individual responsibility for actions, I'm struck by just how insidiously pervasive these attempts seem to be. One could make a slightly paranoid case that it is a left-leaning goal to convince people that the aren't in charge of themselves anyway, so just let mama gov't take over.
It's almost as if the end-game is a docile/subdued populace who is so unsure of themselves that they'll welcome basic income/restricted speech/gun control with open arms.
Sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me :)
Sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me :)
I'm not sure I would call it "peer pressure," when I feel uncomfortable about eating food next to someone who doesn't have any. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I would rather wait to eat until the person next to me also has food.
Once I was on a train, and the woman next to me offered to share some of the sandwich she brought with her. I said, "no thanks, I was about to go get some food from the dining car." I got my own sandwich and brought it back. I understood completely what was behind her offer, and I am sure we both felt more comfortable eating together, even though we didn't know each other and would never see the other person again.