Which one's better?

This morning when I woke up, one of my friends came into my room and asked me to help her pick up a shirt to wear. One was a blue and white flannel and the other was a red orange and brown flannel. I told her I liked the red one and then she proceeded to put on the shirt and head out to class. This struck me as a perfect example of people being manipulated by objects. In all honesty, it did not matter which shirt she wore. I doubt people would judge her one way or the other but even so she wanted someone else's opinion to make sure she looked "okay." I think the way people dress is a pretty big deal at Hamilton. Students here are like walking advertisements. No matter where you look you can almost always find a boy in a Vineyard Vines fleece or a girl wearing a Patagonia sweater with L.L. Bean duck boots. One could argue that these companies do make good gear that will keep us warm in the winter, but more often than not you pay for the name. Is a Vineyard Vines sweater really going to keep you that much warmer than a sweater you bought at Macy's? Probably not. But our generation has been manipulated by these companies to look the best and wear high end companies in order to improve our appearance.

True Value

House of Danger is a choose your own adventure style book for children ages 9-12, yet we have just read it in a college course, and we have spent a good amount of time discussing the purpose and meaning of the book. Why? Is it because it has great philosophical or intellectual significance that is lost on a younger audience? No. We have read this novel because Janelle knew that we would approach it with the intention of squeezing out a grander meaning although (and possibly due to the fact that) we are not the intended audience. We believed that there must be something to this book if we were reading it in college. We believed that there must be something brilliant in these illustrated pages. These beliefs did not turn out to be true. The significance of the book is not in the writing. The significance of the novel in our course is how it demonstrates that we have or have not developed our interpretation and comprehension skills to the point that we can actually find meaning in the meaningless text. Not only did we find meaning, we very quickly found a way to apply the meaning of the emptiness of choice as a metaphor for everything that anyone has ever experienced. That is a lot to come from nothing.

What does this mean for our class? It means that we’ve learned something.

Tiger Dads and Unconscious Manipulation

I jokingly and lovingly call my father a "tiger dad" (based off of Amy Chua's "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom"... interesting book, and people should read it) as I like to equate his crazy and stereotypical jewish father antics with the stereotypical chinese mother antics. I know he does this out of love, but there were endless screaming matches in high school over how hard he could push me which resulted in me supposedly being "rebellious." But rebellious in that I don't want to be a doctor or a lawyer, except I still have this deep seeded desire that I must be successful; and by successful, I mean a 6 figure job, living in a wealthy neighborhood, where I can send my kids to private school, and perpetuate the same cycle. Despite the fact that on the surface I like to think that I don't agree with my father and that I want to deviate from the path that I am "supposed" to travel on, all the unconscious conditioning throughout my life has caused me to be unconsciously manipulated. I am not saying this is technically a bad thing, I realize that I am extremely lucky and eternally grateful, I just didn't realize that all my dad's "techniques" were more ingrained in me then I thought.

This conditioning starts at young age where I was always told that smart people read a lot and smart people are successful. I doubt that I even understood what success was but I remember feeling like a failure when people were on high reading level books than me in first grade. I also wanted to be a doctor ever since 9. I had decided that I would even specify it to Orthopedic surgery. But after I hated Chem my sophomore year in high school, I couldn't even acknowledge to myself, let alone my father, that this wasn't the career path for me because I honestly didn't know what else I could do. The fact that I was so career driven (and arguably still am) speaks volumes about the society that we grow up in. When I registered today I thought a lot about what classes will help me in the future, which is pretty stupid because I don't know what I want, I just know to avoid what classes my Dad has told me are stupid and a waste of time. To be fair, my Dad has told me repeatedly that I can do anything I wanted even if that's drop out of school and become a starving musician, but I have grown up in a society where that is not a option, and that conditioning has worked.

Who knows what will happen in the future, but I am coming to terms with finding things that I generally enjoy (and set me up for "success") because my new definition of success (that I came up with in Sarah Jilling's exercises) has much more to do with redefining success in terms of what will make me happiest than solely focusing on my early definition above. But I am sure that will change as well...

All for the BEst

Choices (decisions?) are subject to outer influences. No choice is really, truly, ours, no matter how honest our attempt to be with ourselves is. So does freedom of choice truly exists? Can we really be “true” to ourselves, and with others? Our choice is limited by the options presented to us, as in the House of Danger, where sometimes I was not pleased with the offered options, either because they were bland or they did not fit my idea of what should have been suggested, but I did not have a choice, I had to follow the author’s idea of what will make a good story (though I could have “disobeyed” the instructions of the book, and read in random order, but it probably would not have improved my reading experience). I might be stating the obvious here, but we are able to choose only from what we know (or think we know), meaning that we might not choose the best option for us, but rather the best out of poor options. Our capacity to be true to ourselves is limited by our knowledge, both of the “world” and of ourselves. But, that doesn’t mean that there is only one way to be true to ourselves. The phrase “it’s all for the best” is said practically whenever someone is not pleased, in an attempt to shine light on a situation, to say that something positive might grow of what seems bad at the time. Is that considered believing in faith? Not necessarily. I think it means that if we accept the circumstances, and learn to adjust, we will eventually accept it as a “truth” rather than a digression in our path to… happiness? Satisfaction?

*Thank you Burke for reviewing my post!

Challenge Accepted and Am I Manipulated?

       When I first started reading House of Danger I was very excited.  I never read a book like this before.  I took this book as a challenge and I wanted to beat it.  I then found myself dead after like the second or third decision.  All of my excitement turned to anger.  I was so frustrated because I died and was tricked by this book that was not very difficult.  I did not understand how this could happen.  I quickly went back and kept remaking my decisions, but only found myself dying again.  I then thought about the structure of the book.  It is very interesting and engaging, but once I lost I had no interest in the book.  Each time I went back to read another path I disliked the book more and more.

        After reading the blog posts from the rest of the class (I was sick for class on Tuesday) I was able to pick up a lot of points and the main ideas.  I started wondering if I have been manipulated in my life.  I realized I have been manipulated so much in my life about what success is that I have trouble finding what success might actually be.  I have been brought up in a society that wealth is a great measure of success and aimed my life towards that idea.  However I have been asking myself almost every day if I am happy.  I now believe that happiness is more important than anything and that success should be measured by how happy you are not by social status.  

Let Me Tell You About My Stress

So, one thing our recent readings have been making me think about is the nature of choice and the actual control we have over our own lives.
Within many of the works we’ve read this semester, there have been themes about choice and whether we actually have control over our own lives. Within many of these works these themes have arisen through the ideas of fate and free will, Cat’s Cradle and Supernatural being good examples of this. Furthermore, this idea of the removal of agency certainly exists within Aura and, while not about fate, Aura certainly touches upon it, at least a bit, in saying things like ‘it was as though the advertisement were meant for you’ (I’m going to be honest; I’m too lazy to go get my book from minor, but it definitely says something like what I paraphrased in the first few pages. I’m so sorry). At the same time, on some level House of Danger (which I’m going to go ahead and refer to as Choose Your Own Adventure) takes an opposing tact. It’s not about fate, but, beyond that, in its very structure it allows its reader at least some agency. The story, at least on some level, is not predestined. At the same time, as we discussed in class, that idea of agency is mostly falsified. You choose, but you don’t really as the impact of your decision is unchangeable ultimately your choice has no weight on your ability to affect your outcome and all the while your choices are constrained by the same structure that gives you agency. In talking about this we talked about things like childhood punishment tactics, but all the while I was thinking “this sounds like my life”.
I don’t believe in fate or destiny or anything like that, but I also don’t usually feel like I create my own path. I think a clear example of this is in how I feel about course selection. Today while registering for courses I absolutely had the ability to select courses out of a group of marginally limited options. I had an early enough time where most of the classes that interested me were open (sorry if you didn’t). My parents aren’t pressuring me to take anything except for that which I think I would enjoy; they don’t care what I major in (they don’t not care, but you get what I mean); they aren’t weighing in. Still, despite all the (comparative) freedom I may have to choose, I still feel like I’m kind of in a choose your own adventure book. What courses I take both affect me and don’t affect me, in that I think the biggest impact my courses have is on my happiness next semester, especially since I honestly have a really, really limited idea of my perspective major. This feeling of being in a choose your own adventure book is only deepened when it comes to choosing a major in that I feel like any choice sets you on some unknowable path, but the choice is only a stop in the path, no where near the end result, and even with this seemingly big decision, the options are only menially limited (my cousin was a business major, but he’s working for the human genome project… you never know where you’ll end up). This feeling is only furthered by the feeling that this choice is one created by structural constraints (I keep reminding myself that it’s okay not to know what I want… but I still have to know a year from now). I think all of this culminates in this feeling that I have that my life is less created my my own actions and more by the constraints that surround me, constraints of which I’m probably not even aware.
Like almost everything else, this situation leaves me thinking about Moby Dick. There’s this chapter in Moby Dick called whale lines in which Ishmael describes these thin lines that wrap around the whalers in the boat, lines of which the whalers could be unaware until they throw the harpoon, sending the lines flying after. These tiny lines which lie in the boat seem menial, but if a whaler is unknowingly entangled in one when he throws the harpoon, he will follow it overboard, likely to his death. All in all, this means that the whalers must be careful in their movements, maintaining the balance, all the while maintaining their focus on the pursuit of the whale. The whale lines that affect these whalers are also present in our lives; as Ishmael says,  "...so the graceful repose of the line, as it silently serpentines about the oarsmen before being brought into actual play - this is a thing which carries more of true terror than any other aspect of this dangerous affair. But why say more? All men live enveloped in whale-lines."

But how many choices do I really have?

While saying goodbye to the important adults in my life before heading off to college, the majority of them began to rave about their college years. You know the clichés. "Oh, those are the BEST years of your life!" "I wish I could go back." Blah blah blah. A large portion of these adults are teachers, and so they were mostly concerned with talking to me about what my classes and what I might be interested in majoring in. The most popular topic in any of these conversations, however, was choice. Apparently, in college, you have complete autonomy over which courses you take, what you end up majoring in, etc. I registered for my spring semester class this morning, and I'd beg to differ. First of all, prerequisites make everything more difficult. I understand entirely why they exists; you need to fully versed in one subject before you begin to apply it to more complicated topics.

Anyway,  I want to try out some environmental studies classes. I looked through the lists of these classes, getting even more excited as I scrolled down. They look like such interesting classes. Only then did I realize that they all had prerequisites. Now, here I am, registered for Intro Bio, something I would never have signed up for otherwise. I'm not saying it won't be interesting, I'm sure it will, but in this situation, I was definitely not awarded all of the autonomy that I was promised. As I go through college, more choices will open up to me I'm sure, but for now I'm stuck with a very limited list to choose from. (Doesn't this sound familiar? House of Danger, anyone?) And even if prerequisites didn't exist, I am still left with only the Hamilton course catalogue to choose from. This feels like a childish form of autonomy.

Then comes the manipulation. Somehow my parents, friends, and even the societal views of what is a "useful" major got involved in my course selection. I'm aware that this isn't a good way to look at registration, but it's hard to avoid. My mom doesn't think that a sociology major is "useful," and she has decided that my mind is made for the sciences. At first, that cut down my choices even more. I took all english or comp lit classes off of my list. I even though about taking the sociology class off too. When I thought about how bummed I was to be missing out on that class, I realized that I was going about this all wrong. I should take the classes I am excited about and interested in. Not necessarily the ones that will have the biggest "payoff," whatever that may mean. So, mom, I'm taking bio and sociology. Yay for liberal arts.

Why Did You Choose to Suck?

House of Danger may offer choices, but it's rather obvious that making a choice in the text is a rather shallow thought.  However, even in these predefined choices, there are certain paths that are favored by the author and certain ones that are not.  For example, (and this was brought up in class) when making the decision on page 100 about whether or not you want to live as a baby or an old man. (Interestingly enough, from what I have read, this is the only reference to the gender of the main character)  Should you choose the wise old years of being an elderly man, you are immediately assaulted with, "Why did you choose to be old?" followed by an account of your heart slowly stopping and you fading from existence.  Meanwhile, on the baby plotline, you turn back into yourself and then are free to make more choices and experience more story.  If we take reading a half a page about an old man dying as disincentivizing an action (I do) then why is there so much hate on a choice that is just as rational as the other?

Another noteworthy example would be the plotline in which you are faced with waiting for the police to come.  If you decide to enter back into the house (after you called the police and are waiting for them) you eventually become an important leader in the International Planning Committee.  If you choose twice to remain and wait for the police you called, then you end up sleeping and wake up in shackles, imprisoned. 

Clearly, the more "adventurous" route is almost always incentivized by not getting a premature "The End" or in a bad situation. The book is more analogous to a thrill ride than a discussion on the effects of choice.  I mean, before I get too pretentious, it is a book clearly marketed towards children and to encourage reading.  The easiest way to encourage interest in a text is through exciting and unexpected developments, this much is clear from the kids' testimonial page.  Even the author biography lauds the kind of lifestyle that is promoted in the book. 

But I feel like this is expected of almost anyone writing a story like this.  Letting your preferences or awareness of audience or any moral condemnations you have subtly drip into your writing is very easy to do.  I just wish this type of novel (called a gamebook according to wikipedia) was as thoroughly expanded upon as the rest of the literature we've read in class.

A More Useful Me, To Me

           I asked myself, “When have I been manipulated?” Out of impulsive arrogance, I asserted, “Constantly, like everyone, but I have had the creativity and volition to consistently enjoy my lot, nevertheless.”

Truly, I had narrated my story in order to support my aggrandized self-image: I brazenly ignored the six years I played piano against my will, the six years I did swim team without any interest in pools (and only a slightly mollifying interest in speedo-wearing), and the four years I wrestled (wrestling is objectively terrible). Sixteen years of torturous manipulation burst into my mind, refuting my ill-formed assumption.

Humbled, I wondered, “Why didn’t I break free of these patterns?” I will take up the piano example here, and see if it can elucidate my propensity to stick with certain unhappy behaviors.

My parents denied cable television to my brothers and myself for all the years other kids watched Spongebob (so many references missed). At last, they decreed that if each brother played piano for a year, we could modernize our channel package. Adam and Matt served their time and quit, I played with Marsha every week until the start of high school.

I never practiced. I always felt inscrutably compelled to “stay with it”, but as a result, I resented the instrument I never chose, and sabotaged my progress. Ultimately, my small rebellion was worse than futile, because the impending knock on the door each Wednesday so stressed the unprepared young Dan that he desperately hoped she would get in another car accident (an alarmingly common occurrence for Marsha).

But what compelled me? I would picture my mother, crestfallen, hearing the news that her “musical son” had quit piano (mom was actually entirely supportive when I finally quit). Or I would envision Marsha, who was astoundingly gregarious and kind, crying over the loss of my company, and fretting over losing more business from the Farinas. Over the years of playing piano, an increasingly robust piano playing identity was built around me (in my head) by my sense of others’ perceptions and emotions.

I have always understood myself to be the synthesis of my and other people’s beliefs about who I am. Therefore, I became a piano player, and not only was part of my sense of self on the line, were I to quit, but I worried I would let others down by destroying the Dan they were happy with.

I was manipulated by my notions of what people I loved and respected needed from me, including myself. I was paralyzed by the potential ramifications of altering my identity.

I don’t think any of these grand “manipulations” were caused by a conscious puppet-master. Truly, I have been the greatest enemy of my agency: I and people want me to be who I am, and I tend to lock myself in that identity, even sometimes when it outlasts its use. 

All the Way Through

When I began reading House of Danger, I was eager to choose how I wanted the story to go, however, after dying five minutes in I found myself frustrated with the process. In order to “fix” the problem I tried again, but died even quicker. After repeating this a number of times, I realized that my slightly OCD nature was kicking in, and I ended up reading all of the possible stories. This book was written to allow the readers to choose their own adventure, so why did I feel the need to read all of the stories in order to feel like I captured what the author was intending?

As we discussed in class the audience of this book is children, and as you read that becomes very clear. As a child reading this story, I would imagine being able to choose from the two option at each fork in the road is very empowering. Knowing this, I find it interesting and almost saddening that as a teenager or even an adult we loose that feeling of power and instead feel the need to read the novel all the way through, as we have grown up doing. If I had stopped after reading the original story I picked I would have felt like I was missing out on the purpose of the novel. Instead of appreciating that I picked one of the novel’s twenty different ending, I felt a habitual need to read them all so that I could say I read the book. This shows how not yet having the mentality of always reading a book from start to finish, top to bottom, and all the way through allows children to appreciate novels for their content. While reading the many different ending I knew that I had no genuine purpose for my actions, however, nonetheless, I continued until I had read them all. Why is it that we feel like we are “breaking the rules” if we read a story in a non-typical way? It is the case that we, as superiors to children, have something to learn from them?

Why I Let Myself Be Manipulated

This post is going to make me sound really stupid. I'm very susceptible to advertising, okay? I've admitted it, I've accepted it, and I actually kind of like it.

Example: In high school, I worked at the mall, and during my break I would head to Starbucks to blow an hour's worth of wages on the Frappuccino of the day and a stale pastry. One day I decided to end this madness and buy a Coke at the dollar store. But right next to the normal Cokes were these incredibly cool, old-timey, made-out-of-aluminum-but-shaped-like-a-bottle vintage can things! Obviously, I needed one. I mean, come on, it's the perfect marriage of retro and sleek, of old-school sensibility and new-school style! I snatched one out of the cooler, happily paid for it, and headed back to my store.

Coworker: "What is that?"
Me: "A Coke! Isn't it cool?!"
Coworker: "…you realize that's probably half the size of a normal can but costs the same, right?"
Me: "But…it's in a bottle-can!"

Yeah, okay, so The Man's ploy worked on me. But I really like that bottle-can! It's at home on my desk right now, cleaned out and filled with tissue paper flowers. That's more than anyone else can say about all their Coke cans that ended up in the recycling bin. Does it really matter that I was manipulated into buying it if it made me happy? (Now we're back to Cat's Cradle.)

In addition, I'm the proud owner of numerous infomercial products, including Flex Seal (it's liquid rubber in a can!) and Fushigi (the magic gravity ball!). I love (good) commercials, and I'm not ashamed of it.

One of my current favorites:

No matter what your opinion of the advertising industry, you have to admit that's a great ad! It has a touching story, swift pacing, and (in my opinion) some nice cinematography. Regardless of its intentions, it does everything that a TV episode should do, all in under ninety seconds. I think that's a pretty amazing feat. Honestly, it really doesn't bother me that this commercial was designed to sell tablets, and I don't think enjoying this stuff makes me a materialistic drone. I buy what I like, I watch what I like, and I don't really care if it's what The Man intended. Either way, it makes me happy.

Choices in Interactions

          Trying to be hyper-aware of my daily life and behavior is extremely difficult.  It is easy to think about why I participate in certain bigger decisions because there is a concrete reason with noticeable consequences for not doing it.  For example, why I go to swim practice—it’s fun and I want to get faster.  Or why I put on my huge puffy jacket—I don’t want to freeze.  On the other hand, paying attention to the actions that are seemingly insignificant is almost impossible.  I am not used to thinking about why I choose pencil over pen, this shirt over that shirt, this cubicle or the next.  It makes me question whether those are really conscious choices.  I doubt it is random, but then again I don’t think about it as I make my choice—is it possible to choose subconsciously?  Is there such thing as a subconscious choice or does that contradict the very meaning of the word “choice”?

I applied this idea to my interactions with other people and whether I really make conscious choices regarding the interactions.  For example, the moment we see someone’s expression or hear his or her tone of voice, we are immediately manipulated into acting a certain way.  When I can tell someone is having a rough time, I ask if everything is okay, maybe give him or her a hug.  I choose to do this instead of being insensitively positive or ignoring them.  But do I actually choose?  I think that it is more that I have been taught to make this choice—that I know this is the choice I am supposed to make.  Furthermore, I cannot control whether or not I make the snap judgment when I first see them, thus forcing the reaction.

            These judgments inevitably lead to impressions, which are also manipulative.  Not only can we not help forming impressions, but we are also concerned with how others view us, and this concern has a power over us.  We are manipulated into acting a certain way based on what we want these impressions to be.  If we are manipulated, it is no longer an unbiased choice.  This ties back to what was mentioned in class about who has ultimate power.  In interactions, every individual holds influence over the other, and because of this, no individual has the power to make a true choice for himself.

iphones...iphones Everywhere

            I mean seriously, who doesn’t have one? Whoever you are, I’m proud of you. You haven’t fallen victim to the trap yet, the trap of ultimate convenience. You can text your friends, you can play games, and you can do everything else every other smart phone in the world can do…but better. Yes, the iphone is the simple device that changed the world. But did it really?

            It isn’t the first device to play music, it isn’t the first device to have email and web capabilities, it isn’t the first touch screen mobile device, and it isn’t even the first phone to combine all of these in one. Blackberry had all those bases covered years before the iphone came out. Yet, the very first iphone commercial (link below) raves about email, web, music and phone capabilities, and people lined up around the block in front of Apple stores across the country to get it. It was never about the phone itself, it was about Apple. Everywhere I turn, I run into Apple. They have manipulated the public into viewing their products as status symbols, and I myself have fallen victim: I am writing this blog post on my macbook while listening to music on itunes and checking my iphone. I guess I’m a true Apple fanboy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr-ZfoE4

            Steve Jobs wasn’t an innovator, he was a brand builder, and it all started with computers. I do find Apple software to be easier to use, but Macantosh computers are significantly less powerful than most PCs, and they hold a small percentage of the computer software market (after the release of the ipad, they lead in worldwide PC units sold at about 20% of the market). However, by releasing PC compatable software, like itunes, released in 2001, Apple was able to grab hold of consumers. By the release of the iphone, the ipod was practically the only personal music device on the market. They had successfully marketed their products as “cool.” Back in middle school, it was weird if you had some off-brand music player. The ipod was the only way to go. So in eighth grade I made the first step towards popularity: I bought my first ipod.

            Although I didn’t get my iphone until about a year ago, I have to admit that I have always wanted one. They are flashy and exclusive. Their commercials often involve popular movies, such as Pirates of the Carribean, and social media, all with a pure white background. There is nothing else but the iphone. That’s not to mention the fact that you can purchase them exclusively at Apple stores staffed by one thousand blue-shirted employees just waiting to show you how cool and pure all their products are. When I bought my phone I fell right into the trap. All of my friends had one, and it really is impossible to walk into an Apple store and not even think about dropping at least $200. I’m generally a pretty thrifty person, but how was I supposed to be cool in college if I didn’t have an iphone?

            Apple has manipulated its way to a status symbol. They now dominate the electronics market at upper income levels, which is blatantly obvious at a place like Hamilton College, where by my count, Macbooks outnumber PCs. At this point, they could stop running commercials, and people would still flock to Apple stores for each new release. Sure, the iphone scores lower than a plethora of other smart phones on Consumer Reports, but performance is beside the point. Apple’s success is based solely on its brand and how they have manipulated the public into believing that their products are superior.

Sources: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/september/electronics-computers/smart-phones/overview/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/apple-still-leads-worldwide-pc-market-but-lenovo-gaining-ground

Want a Screaming Goat? ...Buy Doritos!

Today, when we were asked to consider how we interact with things and people around us, and how we are influenced and manipulated by others, I first thought of how many advertisements have used effective techniques to not only convince me to buy their products, but to also share their advertisements with other people. Some of the funniest videos shared today are advertisements like these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qy8v1ghy38

oops apparently this link no longer works. Here are the individual ads: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY4L1ihRkaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI4elilUj8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_eXdpr8zKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AVN-mI2DPg

These advertisements attract large audiences not because the advertisements provide extensive amounts of information and portray accurate representations of the products, but instead, because they target a specific audience and know how to manipulate them. In the first advertisement, as unrealistic as it is, I think it is extremely funny and I am very encouraged to watch it and share it. I mean, who doesn’t love the screaming goat?!. While this add tells us nothing about the product being advertised (Doritos), we have now associated Doritos with screaming goats. Oh look how that worked out. In the second advertisement, this comedic approach continues with an additional musical component. This draws the audience in and then they use very creative ways to communicate that M&Ms are tasty and useful for baking etc etc. In the 4^th advertisement, the sketchers company uses great exaggeration techniques and word play to trick us into believing that buying a pair of sketchers will improve our athletic performance. By hinting that sketchers make us run faster, some people will think that this is true. But think about it…. If you’re slow, you’re slow- that’s not because you wear Nike or Converse- its just because you’re slow. In the 6^th advertisement, nothing in the advertisement actually convinces me to buy the car- there is no substantial information to prove the quality of the car. However, in keeping with the comedy and cuteness factor, more and more people will be inclined to watch this ad. Similarly, each of the other advertisements coheres to one or all of these techniques in order to broaden their audience and get the word out about their product.

While these are only a few basic examples of how we are manipulated into believing things, I think it is a great place to start. All throughout life, other people, objects, and sometimes even you can trick you into believing something or conforming to some reality. One major example that we have discussed in class, is that of the college experience it self. Throughout our lives, we are bombarded with people and situations that enforce the importance of going to college for the sole purpose of “it helps you get a better job” or “it’s the only way to be successful”. While college does increase your chances of getting jobs, it is not to say that it is the only way to be successful. Because our family members and friends and gone to college or support the idea of college, they have worked through methods to persuade us that college is the way to go. Not only do people do this, but also the idea of society on a whole. When watching a movie or television show or reading a book, it is often an important detail as to where the characters have gone to college, what they studied etc. For example, in the movie “21 and Over” (as stupid as it is), it showed that the friend who dropped out of college now holds a low level job and is looked down upon by his friends, while the friend attending college and pursuing medicine is praised and is seen to be ‘going places’. This happens quite often where the character that has dropped out of college or doesn’t go to college is portrayed as a ‘joke’.

This is just one example of how we are largely manipulated by other people and the media.