Brookdale Community Get out Of My Subconscious Subliminal Advertising Discussion In The New York Times, there is a column called “The Ethicist,” where some

Brookdale Community Get out Of My Subconscious Subliminal Advertising Discussion In The New York Times, there is a column called “The Ethicist,” where some writer for the newspaper gives arguments in response to questions that are posed by readers. In the question below titled “Get Out of My Subconscious!”, Chuck Klosterman is the writer who gives an argument in reply to Adam Gidding’s question about whether it’s ethical to use subliminal advertising.

Klosterman gives his views on when subliminal advertising is okay and when it isn’t okay. He offers reasons for his views, and some of them are quite shaky and careless. So put on your “critical thinking” hat, and see if you can expose a serious flaw in his account.

IN YOUR FIRST POST, make a case against at least one of Klosterman’s points, and include in that case a refutation of whatever reason(s) he gives in favor of that point.

We are asking you to demonstrate your ability to focus on an argument (a piece of reasoning) offered by someone else, and to figure out what its premises are and what is wrong with them.

IN YOUR SECOND POST, when you respond to another student, find a point they made that you didn’t make, and either agree or disagree with it, giving a reason.

When you respond to a fellow student’s response, you need to dispute some point that another student made, and to give reasons for your response. Don’t just say something like “I disagree with his or her response.” Be respectful: the goal is to have an enlightening debate

The other students post is in the file to respond to Please answer the questions above for the discussion question then respond to the other student from in the file upload

Get Out of My Subconscious!

By Chuck Klosterman

Published: September 30, 2007

Our subconscious beliefs, which we cannot easily understand or change, motivate many of the decisions we make. Some companies use manipulative branding techniques that create untrue associations between their products and some deep human desires — like sex or social status — with the goal of having the viewer establish this connection unconsciously. The desired result, presumably, is that the consumer will then buy the product with the misguided intent of fulfilling said desire. Is this practice unethical? ADAM GIDDING, NEW YORK

When I first received this question, I did not take it too seriously. But I’ve found myself thinking about it a lot, and so have a lot of other people. The Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Consumer Protection have each considered this issue, including situations in which the problem isn’t even visible.

In the eyes of the government, clarity of purpose is paramount: An ethical commercial seeks to distinguish a product from its competition, while an unethical advertisement tries to cloud that distinction and purposefully confuse the consumer. But you’re asking about something significantly more complex. Your question is closer to the plot of John Carpenter’s “They Live.”

Everyone knows that advertisers try to create unreal associations between products and lifestyles. Beer commercials show beer-drinkers living dynamic lives, so the implication is that consuming a certain type of beer will make your life more exciting. There is a kind of unreal message there. But this isn’t the same as subliminal advertising. The fact that the commercial’s erroneous relationship can be described and mocked proves that a consumer can recognize and reject the ad’s message.

This is not the case with actual subliminal messages, which are embedded into other mediums and virtually impossible to recognize with the conscious mind. Imagine a beer company that shoots a commercial of two hunters enjoying brews in a duck blind but secretly includes a single frame of an orgy. The single frame would be imperceptible to the casual viewer but, in theory, would still imprint on the viewer’s unconscious and tap into a base desire he will unknowingly connect to beer consumption (and if this strikes you as impossible, go to YouTube and punch the words “subliminal advertising” into the search field).

Now, the general scientific consensus is that this advertising strategy doesn’t work particularly well. Yet if it works to any degree whatsoever, it creates a unique ethical dilemma. Subliminal advertising is an optical trick. As such, it would be easy to argue that it’s unethical (because deception is unethical). That argument is valid, but it draws an awkward distinction between “lifestyle” advertising and subliminal messaging. I say this because, within reason, adults should be expected to understand the implicit agreement they enter into by watching advertising.

When a commercial for Tide laundry detergent comes on TV and the viewer elects to continue watching, the viewer is essentially saying: “O.K., pitch me on Tide. I am open to this attempt. Try to persuade me to buy Tide instead of Cheer.” We know what we are seeing and what Tide is trying to do. The only inflexible ethical expectation is that Tide won’t lie to you directly. They can’t fabricate factual data; Tide can’t claim it makes you taller or that it’s safe to eat as a snack. But I don’t think it’s incumbent on the creator of the commercial to pitch the product for the “right” reasons (whatever those may be). It’s not as if they must exclusively argue that Tide is an effective solvent or that it’s a bargain (and even if they did, few would take those messages at face value).

The viewer knows he’s seeing a biased 30-second attempt to promote the consumption of a certain product. The important thing is that this remains the ad’s singular intent: that it’s selling the product it purports to be selling. The motives need to match. So if Tide commercials are embedding subliminal messages solely to sell more Tide, I don’t think it would be necessarily unethical; it potentially could be, but that would depend on what the message was. To me, the larger risk with subliminal messages is that they could (in theory) be used to sell something else entirely.

Here’s what I mean: Let’s say somebody made a tampon commercial and employed subliminal advertising techniques, but the hidden messages promoted cigarettes. This would mean people were being pitched an unrelated product without their knowledge. They could not choose to avoid (or even consider) the embedded message, because they would not know the message was being delivered. That destroys the tacit relationship between the advertiser and the consumer. It does not allow the viewer to contextualize what they are experiencing.

It would likewise be unethical if a commercial used subliminal advertising to besmirch a competitor (Tampax shouldn’t use subliminal messaging to claim that Kotex was racist) or to directly target children. But viewed purely as an advertising technique for mature consumers — and assuming the creator’s unconscious messages reflect the intent of its conscious messages — I don’t see subliminal ads that differently from regular ads. The traditional ethical guidelines would still apply. Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 1
In the last lesson I presented an informal way to test for validity. It went like this:
•
•
•
•
Try to imagine a scenario in which all the premises of the argument are true, but the
conclusion comes out false.
If you can imagine such a scenario, you should say the argument is invalid.1
If you cannot imagine the premises being true while at the same time the conclusion
is false, you should say the argument is valid.
If you determine that the argument is valid, you then ask whether the premises are
in fact true. If they are, then the argument is sound. If the argument is either invalid
or there is at least one false premise, or both, the argument is unsound.
In this lesson, I will present a more formal way to test for validity.
Some – not all – deductive arguments fit familiar valid argument patterns. In this lesson we
will learn about two of these valid deductive argument patterns. There are many more than two
such patterns, but the ones we will study are very common in everyday reasoning. They are
called ‘modus ponens’ and ‘modus tollens’. We will also learn about two invalid argument
patterns that are sometimes confused with modus ponens and modus tollens, and lead people into
error. They are called ‘affirming the consequent’ and ‘denying the antecedent’.
Let’s begin with modus ponens.
Modus ponens is a valid deductive argument pattern. This pattern contains two premises.
One premise is a conditional statement. The other premise affirms the antecedent of this
conditional statement. The conclusion is an affirmation of the consequent of this conditional
statement. Any argument that fits this modus ponens pattern is valid. Here is an example of
an argument that fits the Modus Ponens pattern.
1. If Jon is jealous, then Sue won’t marry him. [This premise is a conditional
statement.]
2. Jon is jealous. [This premise affirms the antecedent (in green) of the conditional.
In other words, it is saying the antecedent is true.]
Conclusion: Sue won’t marry Jon.
[This conclusion affirms the consequent of the conditional, which is in brown. In
other words, it is saying that the consequent of conditional is true]
It is helpful to look at modus ponens in its most general form. If we use the letters P and Q
to stand for any statements at all, we can say that modus ponens looks like this:
MODUS PONENS:
1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
Therefore, Q.
Note that the order of these two premises does not matter. Premise 2 could come first, then
premise 1, and it would still be modus ponens, if the conclusion is Q.
1
Actually, the word “imagining” here is not as subjective as it might sound. What we really mean is “asserting
without contradiction”. When an argument is valid, you will find that if you try to assert that the premises are true
and the conclusion is false, you will be caught in a contradiction.
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 2
Way back in Lesson 1 of this course on “Statements and Conditionals,” you learned how to
take a conditional that is not in standard form and convert it into standard form. There were three
rules that you used to do this. In order to solve some of the questions on the quizzes for this
lesson, you need to now go back and review what you learned in Lesson 1, and shake off any
rust that has accumulated, so that you again are proficient at employing the three rules. Please do
that now: the rules will be assumed in the following passage.
Is the following argument an example of modus ponens?
1. Jim went to the dance if Jane said she would be there.
2. Jane said she would be there.
Therefore, Jim went to the dance.
It might seem as if this doesn’t follow the modus ponens pattern. But in order to get this right,
we need to first put the conditional – i.e., Premise 1 – into standard form. Using the techniques of
Lesson 1, we get: If Jane said she would be there, then Jim went to the dance.2 The resulting
argument, now in standard form is:
1. If Jane said she would be there, then Jim went to the dance.
2. Jane said she would be there.
Therefore, Jim went to the dance.
This is clearly an instance of modus ponens, because it is of the form:
If P then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
The conditional premise you encounter in quizzes may be in the same non-standard form
we just looked at (“if” in the middle), or it may be in some other non-standard form, by virtue of
using “only if” or using “unless”. In every case, use the techniques of Lesson 1 to convert the
conditional premise to standard form, then see what pattern the resulting argument
follows. The pattern could be modus ponens, or could be one of the other three patterns we will
study below.
Modus tollens is the name of another valid deductive argument pattern. This pattern also
contains two premises. One premise is a conditional statement. The other premise denies the
consequent of this conditional statement. The conclusion denies the antecedent of this
conditional statement. Any argument that fits this modus tollens pattern is valid. Here is the
general form of the pattern:
MODUS TOLLENS:
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
2
Recall Rule 1: the word “if” always introduces the antecedent of Standard Form. (And we must add “then” at the
start of the consequent.)
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 3
Here is an example of an argument that fits the modus tollens pattern.
1. If Ted studied hard, then he passed the course. [This premise is a conditional
statement.]
2. Ted did not pass the course. [This premise is the denial of the consequent (in
brown) of the conditional. In other words, it is saying the consequent of the
conditional is not true.]
Conclusion: Ted didn’t study hard. [This conclusion is the denial of the antecedent
(in green) of the conditional. In other words, it is saying that the antecedent of the
conditional is not true.]
Note that we can supply words to make the meaning of a statement explicit. Instead of “he did
not pass the course,” we can say “Ted did not pass the course,” since we know that in Premise 1,
the pronoun “he” refers to Ted. It is always okay to make pronouns explicit.
A second point needs to be noted here. There is more than one way to deny a statement, as
we saw in Lesson 1.
Consider this example. Is the following an instance of modus tollens?
1. If Jack robbed the store, then Jill was not in the store.
2. Jill was in the store.
So, Jack didn’t rob the store.
Our question amounts to this: does Premise 2 deny the consequent of Premise 1? And the answer
is: yes, it does deny it. Because there are two ways of denying a statement. One, that we saw
earlier, is to add a “not” to it: to negate it. But another way of denying a statement (seen in this
example) is to remove a “not” from it. So, “Jill was in the store” is a denial of “Jill was not in the
store”.
Affirming the consequent is the name of an invalid deductive argument pattern. It
resembles modus ponens. It contains two premises. One premise is a conditional statement. The
other premise affirms the consequent of this conditional statement. The conclusion is an
affirmation of the antecedent of this conditional statement. Any argument that fits this “affirming
the consequent” pattern is invalid.
Here is the general form of the pattern:
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Here is an example of affirming the consequent.
1. If I am in Utah, then I am in the United States.
2. I am in the United States.
Therefore, I am in Utah.
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 4
If, like me, you are in New Jersey at the moment, you can still see that the premises are both
true; yet the conclusion is false. That means the argument must be invalid.
Denying the antecedent is the name of another invalid deductive argument pattern. One
premise is a conditional statement. The other premise denies the antecedent of this conditional.
The conclusion denies the consequent of this conditional statement. Any argument that fits this
“denying the antecedent” pattern is invalid.
Here is the general form of the pattern:
DENYING THE ANTECEDENT:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Here is an example of denying the antecedent:
1. If I won the lottery, then I must have had a ticket.
2. I didn’t win the lottery.
Therefore, I didn’t have a ticket.
Clearly, even though the first premise is true when it says that winning the lottery requires
having a ticket,3 my not winning the lottery doesn’t mean I didn’t have a ticket. Lots of people
don’t win but have tickets! So the two premises can both be true and yet the conclusion may be
false – the mark of invalidity.
NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS:
In Lesson 2 you studied the meaning of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions, and
in particular, how to convert between them and conditionals. Some questions on this week’s
quizzes will employ these techniques, so you also need to refamiliarize yourself with them.
An argument that speaks about necessary and/or sufficient conditions can exemplify one of
the four patterns we are covering in this lesson. You need to first convert the relevant statement
to a standard-form conditional, then assess what pattern the argument fits.
Example:
1. Having enough books to read is a necessary condition for Wendy to be happy.
2. Wendy is happy.
Therefore, Wendy has enough books to read.
We know from Lesson 2 that Premise 1 converts into the following standard-form conditional:
If Wendy is happy, then Wendy has enough books to read.4
Substitute that for premise 1 and you will see that this argument is a clear instance of modus
ponens.
Be sure to review all the techniques of lesson 2 before continuing.
3
Recall that in Lesson 2 you learned that when “If P, then Q” is true, that means that Q is a necessary condition for
P – or in other words, P requires Q.
4
You learned in Lesson 2 that a necessary condition becomes the consequent of the standard-form conditional.
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 5
Here are more examples of the argument patterns that we’ve considered. For each one, decide
which argument pattern it exemplifies. (Correct answers are on the next page, with
explanations.) The answers contain unique tips that will help you on tests; do not skip them.
1.
If Jill is happy, then Jack is sad.
Jack is not sad.
So, Jill is not happy.
2.
It’s not raining.
If it’s raining, then she will work on her essay.
Therefore, she won’t work on her essay.
3.
If the campus is closed, then Sara is not in class.
Sara is not in class.
The campus is closed.
4.
The old tree will fall if it is struck by lightning.
The old tree will be struck by lightning.
So, the old tree will fall.
→ see next page for correct answers, with explanations
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 6
ANSWERS:
1.
If Jill is happy, then Jack is sad.
Jack is not sad.
So, Jill is not happy.
Answer: MODUS TOLLENS. The first premise is already in standard form, so this is a
straightforward example.
2.
It’s not raining.
If it’s raining, then she will work on her essay.
Therefore, she won’t work on her essay.
Answer: DENYING THE ANTECEDENT. Again the conditional is in standard form.
We can see that this argument is invalid, because the second premise could be true, but there
could be other circumstances (besides rainy weather) where she would work on her essay – for
example, if she has nothing else to do that day. So both premises could be true, but it would not
follow that she won’t work on her essay.
3.
If the campus is closed, then Sara is not in class.
Sara is not in class.
The campus is closed.
Answer: AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.
Premise 2 affirms the consequent, and the conclusion affirms the antecedent.
Note that the consequent already has a “not” in it, so to affirm it, we simply retain the “not”. A
statement need not be positive in order to be affirmed; it can be a negation. When it is asserted
without change, it is affirmed.
4.
The old tree will fall if it is struck by lightning.
The old tree will be struck by lightning.
So, the old tree will fall.
Answer: MODUS PONENS.
There are a couple of wrinkles here:
• we have to put the conditional in standard form, and if we make pronouns explicit, it
becomes “If the old tree is struck by lightning, then the old tree will fall.”5 It is okay to
substitute “the old tree” for “it”, because we know that “it” refers to the old tree.
• you can ignore verb tense (present or future) in these argument forms. In English, a
clause such as “if the old tree is struck by lightning” is really referring to the future.
5
Again, we used Rule 1 from Lesson 1 to get this into standard form. You must renew your understanding of these
rules.
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 7
With these points in mind, we can see that the revised argument looks like this:
If the old tree is struck by lightning, then the old tree will fall.
The old tree will be struck by lightning.
So, the old tree will fall.
We note that Premise 2 is affirming the antecedent of premise 1, since the tense of the verb can
be considered equivalent. So this is modus ponens.
___________________________________________________
We conclude this lesson with a few more examples of our four patterns. They can be easily
solved if you convert to standard form whenever necessary.
Affirming the Consequent (Invalid)
If Murphy is not a mammal, Murphy is not a dog.
Murphy is not a dog.
So, Murphy is not a mammal.
The consequent (“Murphy is not a dog”) is a negation, so to affirm it we simply leave it the way
it is. Thus the second premise affirms it.
Invalidity: Murphy could be a cat and the premises would still be true, but the conclusion would
be false. A cat is another kind of mammal.
Denying the Antecedent (Invalid)
If Jack left town, then Jill is not happy today.
Jack didn’t leave town.
Therefore, Jill is happy today.
Jill could still be not happy, for some other reason. The first premise doesn’t say that Jack
robbing the store is the only reason Jill could be unhappy.
Which of the four patterns does the following deductive argument fit?
The Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year if they get a new offensive line.
They will not be getting a new offensive line.
So, the Eagles will not win the Super Bowl this year.
If we put the conditional into standard form and make pronouns explicit, we get:
If the Eagles get a new offensive line, the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this
year.
The Eagles will not get a new offensive line.
So, the Eagles will not win the Super Bowl this year.
This deductive argument is clearly denying the antecedent, and so is invalid.
Two Valid and Two Invalid Deductive Argument Patterns
page 8
Here’s one final example. Which of the four patterns does the following deductive
argument fit?
Tom is happy.
And unless Tom is not happy, he will accomplish a lot.
So he will accomplish a lot.
We need to convert the “unless” statement into a standard-form conditional. Using Rule 3 from
Lesson 1, we get: If Tom is happy, then he will accomplish a lot.6
So the argument becomes (with pronouns made explicit):
Tom is happy.
If Tom is happy, then Tom will accomplish a lot.
So, Tom will accomplish a lot.
Clearly this deductive argument is in the modus ponens form.
6
Recall that “unless” means “if it’s not the case that,” or “if … not” for short. So we get a conditional that says: “If
it’s not the case that Tom is unhappy, then Tom will accomplish a lot.” The two negatives in brown cancel each
other, so this becomes “If Tom is happy, then Tom will accomplish a lot.”
Anna Gonzalez
Wednesday
I disagree with Klosterman’s claim that “The fact that the commercials erroneous relationship can be
described and mocked proves that a consumer can recognize and reject the ad’s message” and therefore makes
these more obvious advertising tricks not count as subliminal messaging. Just because you can recognize the
underhanded purpose of something doesn’t cancel out the manipulative effect. Making the advertisement into
a joke doesn’t mean it isn’t still getting the message across. One example in this marketing being highlighted is
the movie Jurassic World (2015). That movie was filled with blatant product placement (Mercedes, Starbucks,
Margaritaville). Even the characters within the movie get meta about product placement like with the “Verizon
Wireless presents the Indominus Rex” line and the producers claimed the blatant advertising was meant to be
tongue-in-cheek and satire. However, that product placement is still there. And while I spotted the Mercedes
insignia and Jimmy Buffet run across the scene still holding his margaritas as what they were, the subliminal
advertising still gets across. The logos are still there, I am still getting a secondary message within the movie.
This blatant product placement can be seen in other movies, particularly more recent Adam Sandler films. Just
because I’m aware of them, doesn’t mean I’m not still subconsciously being appealed to. Awareness doesn’t
make you immune.
5 Reply

Purchase answer to see full
attachment