this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
176 points (99.4% liked)

Asklemmy

51663 readers
431 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There are lots of cultural opposition movements online, like against work exploitation, consumerism, car culture, surveillance, intellectual property, etc. I can find communities on lemmy for all those topics. But regarding a more general opposition to advertisements and marketing, other than the occasional person telling others to use adblockers online (what about ads in every day life?), I fail to see organized attempts to challenge advertisements. There is a lot that can be scrutinized. Ethical concerns such as manipulation, lack of consent and just the simple fact your attention is for sale. The effects range from damage to environment, to our mental health, to harming industries themselves, lowering product quality and maintaining monopolies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] daannii@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

So I am a perception researcher. There is research on a lot of tactics for advertising.

There are laws now, shaped by that research, that prevent advertisers from using specific symbols used to mark materials and locations for safety. For instance.

The symbol for radiation is not allowed on advertising.

Do you know why?

Maybe you have a pretty good idea.

The symbol will lose not only its meaning when applied to non radiation areas. But it loses salience.

Salience is how attention-grabbing something is. There are specific features of things in the world that our perpetual system was designed to notice more. Because these are important to us in some functional way. They help us navigate our environment.

Bright colors. High contrast. Unusual Geometrics. And movement.

Another important thing about the perception system is it's adaptiveness. Highly adaptive. Even at older ages.

But very very adaptive at young ages.

An example. Kittens raised in spaces with only vertical black and white lines and never allowed to see any other orientation or color. (Blindfolded when fed and most of the time). When these cats were put in a room with horizontal lines. They could not "see" them. And ran into the walls. They never regained their ability to see horizontal lines nor any other orientation since this loss happened since birth.

This is because specific neurons in your primary cortex respond to specific orientations. If they never fire from lack of stimuli. They die.

Now that's an extreme version. But what I trying to get at is this:

The sensory system is highly adaptive to the environment. It provides what the person needs.

When we are bombarded with adds that all use salient stimuli (bold colors, moving, high contrast), we start tunning these out. They become "low salient".

Why is this a problem. ?

Because the brain processing at early sensory attention cannot "tell the difference" between a billboard advertising video playing in your periphery trying to grab your attention. And a small child running in the periphery that will end up in front of your car.

We are "learning" to not see movement. Or at least not direct our attention to it to identify what it is.

We are learning to not see bold colors and high contrast.

Things that we actually do need to see most of time. People are still missing safety and warning signs all the time because advertisements try to grab our attention and we learned to ignore anything bold.

This is not speculation. Lots of research on this. Being constantly surrounded by advertisement changes salience of important visual and audio cues.

It also has cognitive effects like exhaustion.

But I'm not as versed on those as the perception parts. That's my area of expertise.

I say, we as scientist must prove ads are harming us. Get legislation passed to protect people and kids.

But there already is evidence. And nothing is done.

No one cares. No one can fight lobbyists.

And it's hard to quantify the damage. Like specifically risk increases and the like.

Very difficult to do.

No control subjects.

So the research is often dismissed as speculation on real world applied harm.

There are some laws in some places. But not enough.

[โ€“] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

Thank you, this was fascinating.

[โ€“] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm very interested in what a perception researcher does day to day. But yeah, research showed cigarettes were harmful way before anything was done. Research is showing climate change is real, and recycling isn't effective, and vaccines are safe. I fear we're headed to a second dark age.

[โ€“] daannii@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mostly writing for me right now. I finished up my doctorate research experiments in June and now I'm writing my dissertation.

After I'm done I plan to teach and continue doing research.

I exclusively do in-person research.

Nothing online. This is a bit more challenging as I have to set up a room and schedule people. And they often don't show. So it's exhausting sometimes.

My doctorate research is on depth perception based on motor feedback from the lens in your eye that focuses light.

I might continue to do a little more research in this area but my next interest is in motion sickness from visual and vestibular cues in moving vehicles.

As a general rule, I research multisensory systems. I have little interest in studying an isolated system. Boring.

So motion sickness. It's like getting car sick. Especially if reading.

I have some theories on how to combat this and want to test my hypothesis.

I get motion sick easy so this is also personal for me to find solutions.

Graduate work is not too different from what I will be doing after I graduate.

Teaching. doing experiments. And lots and lots of writing.

I already did teaching and teaching assistant as a grad student. I quite liked it and received a graduate teaching assistant award. So I think I'm well suited to it. Teaching isn't for everyone tho.

But I don't want to fully give up research to devote all my time to teaching, so I'm going to try to do both.

Most professors do both.

[โ€“] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's pretty cool, thanks for sharing. I always found psych experiments super interesting but didn't think I could make a career out of it.

[โ€“] daannii@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Well the thing about careers in research is that pretty much all require at least a masters and most require a PhD.

For example. I could teach at colleges with a master's. But I'm not qualified to run experiments unless I have a PhD.

Usually only community colleges and small religious colleges hire professors with only a master's.

Most other colleges or universities prefer or require a PhD.

When I first started college, at age 24, I just wanted to get some education to get a better job.

Psych was not even on my radar.

I took a class because why not. Did well. Took a few more psych classes. Before I knew it, I had enough for it to qualify as my major.

I talked to the chair professor and told him. I didn't want to major in psych because 1. Everyone I knew who was a psych major never even finished their degree. 2. I didn't want to go to school for another 10 years to be able to work in the field.
I said I didn't want to be 40 before I finished.

He said. Dani. You are going to be 40 regardless. You want to have a degree and a career that suits you or not by the time you are 40?.

So here I am. Turned 40 in May. ๐Ÿ˜…

I may need to explain why it took me so long.

I did my associates and bachelor's half time because I worked full time during those degrees. So they took me 8 years. Then half a year gap. Then 1 year masters. Then 1 gap year. Then started PhD. 6 year program. I have 2 masters now. In the same exact field.

I was not competitive enough to get into a PhD program without research experience. That's why I had to get a master's first.

Younger people with more free time often work as research assistants. I didn't have that option as I had a full time job plus school.