Randy Cassingham's Blog

I wonder how much folks would complain if they weren't afraid that there may be some truth to the slogan?

"I put borders around ads so it's very clear that they are ads."

Aha! NOW I understand. For many years, I couldn't understand what was wrong with children that they couldn't "differentiate between cartoons and the commercials urging them to buy products." I mean, when we were 5 or 6 years old, we had no problem telling the difference between cartoons and reality. NOW I see that it's the ADULTS who can't tell the difference between an advertisement and an editorial comment. And they transfer that deficiency onto their children (legitimately or not).

As kids, we had a joke about the logic of education: The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. The more I don't know, the dumber I am. Therefore, the more I learn, the dumber I get. Come on, people, it's a joke. Really, you don't have to make it a reality.

The more I read of things like this, the more I'm positive that the average IQ is no longer 100, but has dropped significantly. Significantly enough that if someone has a 100 IQ they could be considered a certifiable genius compared to all these MORONS who can't tell the difference between ads and the actual content of a newsletter! What really surprises me about these people is that they are still capable of feeding and dressing themselves...or are they?

Re Dan in Lansing's comment on average IQ. I see this everyday in retail, where I work in a grocery store. People look at a jug of milk that says "sell by May 15" and think that there's only one day to consume the product. Most caes, you have a week. Even "Use by" dates are set early enough to consume the product in time to enjoy it. I see people using bread like punching bags, when all they are doing is ruining the product. Ruined product contributes to higher cost of business, which becomes higher prices.

There's a lot of really not very bright people out there, and they make things harder for everyone else. But we can all have a good laugh at some of them, thanks to "ThisIsTrue. Thanks Randy.

"The more I read of things like this, the more I'm positive that the average IQ is no longer 100, but has dropped significantly."

Mmmmm... IQ ratings are based on an average of all those tested, so the average IQ is always 100. Perhaps you mean, compared to those tested in times past, today's "average" is "dumber" than earlier ones?

Personally, I don't think it is an "IQ" problem, so much as a lack of training in applying what you "know" and how to "see" what you are looking at. Too much emphasis is placed on rote learning and "teaching the tests" to pass to the next grade or get into college, etc., rather than how to figure out solutions. Of course, that takes longer to teach, and is more difficult, and teachers who do try to do so get penalized because their students don't already know the answers before they get the standardized tests.

I don't have any problem skipping ads in the free version (I also get the premium version), but perhaps Randy could put "*advertisement*" in a line before the ad copy? Other newsletters I read do put lines in as breaks between different sections/articles, so they may have some excuse for the confusion. Not sure if those people would "see" that, either, but they would have less "excuse" for considering the ads to be editorial commentary.

---

I think the ads are obvious to anyone with a brain, and I'm not going to cheapen my product to pander to those who don't have one. -rc

This lack of "critical thinking" is further evidenced by the SAT. This previously stood for Scholastic APTITUDE Test but in either 2004 or 2005 the test was significantly changed to be more about "ingest and regurgitate" than thinking. I seem to recall they even changed the name to Scholastic ACHIEVEMENT Test, but I'm not positive about that.

---

Actually, the acronym stood for "Scholastic Achievement Test" from the start -- in 1901 -- and the test was "originally developed as a way to eliminate test bias between people from different socio-economic backgrounds" (source). It was renamed the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" in 1941, then "Scholastic Assessment Test" in 1990, then simply "SAT" in 1994. So you can truly say the SAT now stands for nothing. -rc

My initial reaction to this discussion was wondering what I'd missed to see such vehement responses to what seems to be a no-brainer. I subscribe to True because it's a well balanced forum, not a propaganda tool for any particular ideological point of view, and I'm trying to figure out why this particular issue turned into a flash point. Why do people polarize to such extreme positions in discussions, and then feel a difference of opinion amounts to a profound personal insult?

This is a process I've observed for years in public discourse, but with media reaching further and further into the population for interviews and responses, it's definitely going downhill. Kinda like the revelations seen on the Jerry Springer Show, people seem to think they have to take an extreme and mutually exclusive position on either side of an issue or question and be ready to start throwing furniture and duking it out with others who don't see it exactly the same way.

I've seen a lot of it here in True over the years and I've enjoyed observing the back and forth between Randy and Mr or Ms "I'm OUTRAGED! Cancel my subscription IMMEDIATELY!" and then the comments of other readers. What intrigues me is that very often someone takes a stand on a subject based on a misunderstanding of the topic. It's pretty much a formula and an interesting one at that. I still don't quite understand why people go ballistic over the various issues, but it keeps me interested. Makes for thoughtful reading and a few laughs.

Advertising is incredibly sophisticated these days and I ignore it for the most part, kinda like junk mail - it ain't going away so ignore it. After thinking about the huffy response regarding Bu$h advertising I get the impression someone found him/herself responding personally to an effective ad campaign and annoyed it managed to fly under his/her radar. I wonder if he/she is ready to run out and buy a box of Pampers after seeing a commercial even though they don't have a baby? Or are their credit cards maxed out from buying all the junk advertised on TV?

As for the advertising support, it's innocuous and it pays the bills, or am I still missing something?

---

I don't think you're missing a thing. I don't think there's any surprise that this is a political fight. Why do people get so polarized? Because that's the example politicians set. "Issue X? Well, I'm a Republican so I'm against it." vs "Issue X? Well, I'm a Democrat so I'm for it." I don't believe for one minute that ALL Republicans are really anti and ALL Democrats are really pro (or vice versa), no matter what "Issue X" is (abortion, gun control, the war, etc.), but that's the way most issues seem to come across -- there's no personal thought or conviction involved, just party line. It's divisive, it's pedantic, it's unamerican, and it's stupid. But sadly, based on the example politicians are setting, "the masses" are starting to see black and white when looking at an ocean of gray. It's one of the reasons I try to provoke thought with TRUE, since that's what we need to cut through the partisan garbage. -rc

Given the kneejerk reactions out of so many people, I often wonder if most of America hasn't become anything more than manipulated amoeba. They do seem so unintelligent that they can't distinguish an ad from the other content, but I realize they DO have intelligence. For some reason, they've simply chosen to bury it and let others do the thinking for them.

So they've become nothing more than a series of Pavlovian responses. See something negative about a Republican? Jump up and start barking. See something negative about a Democrat? Jump up and start snarling. Like chasing cars. They don't know why; it's just what they're "supposed to do" in spite of what else is going on around them.

Fortunately, and no matter one's view of Spiro Agnew, there really IS a Silent Majority. "This is True" seems to be the long overdue voice of that majority.

It does seem like the average IQ is dropping, or people are just losing their common sense. Just look at all the ridiculous warnings on products now- on a coffee cup, "Warning: Contents may be hot" or on a rectal suppository, "Do not eat."

Granted, manufacturers have to put these warnings on their product to cover their butts so they don't get sued, but that is only because there are people out there stupid enough to eat a suppository or expect coffee to be anything but hot. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are people who don't get the difference between advertisements and editorials. Plus once they get their panties in a bunch they don't really see anything else after that.

"Don't buy from him" is not the worst you can do. Click on the ad, let his site load, and then don't buy from him. If all you do is ignore the ad, you don't give him a sale. If you click on the ad, you increase his advertising costs, and if you let the site load all the way, you're adding to his bandwidth charges. Do that and don't buy, and you will have your revenge.

But, to go to all that trouble just because someone expresses an opinion that you don't agree with seems a bit silly. The free press we're enjoying now is amazingly beyond the wildest hopes of the framers of the Constitution -- if you don't agree with an opinion, state your own! Get it out to the public and see whose theory stands up to debate.

But leaving a subscribed email due to an ad is just self-defeating. Assuming you like the newsletter in the first place, the simplest way to deal with the problem would be to pay for that advertising spot, and put in something you'd prefer to see instead -- links to the family photos, for example. You probably won't get much return on the ad's cost, but you won't have to see the offending bumpersticker any more.