And really good article, except for the fact the author harped on how the albino and deaf couple, through those particular conditions, could possibly have been less likely to comprehend a difficult concept (almost like the white, heterosexual male that I would take issue with except for the fact she mentioned this as part of an actual study). The author’s character probably just got lost in the style, because I think that her pursuit really is to give credit to the patient but also teach doctors how to err on the side of caution.

I think researchers and doctors, for that matter, sometimes assume people/patients lack intelligence. But it isn’t a doctor’s job, at least, to perform an IQ test during every session with a new patient; it is their job, however, to confirm understanding. And the word “impotence” can mean either that someone “can’t get it up” or that they are actually sterile. Another poor joe becoming anecdotal evidence of patient ineptitude.

internet ==> (most ethical implications)
combustion ==> global warming
Free trade ==> Trade Deficit
D.I.S. ==> ?
health innovations ==> global overpopulation

I guess the only comment I wish to be remembered with is that I genuinely worry about “hard science” scientific research being done on humans to analyze how they make decisions, and how you can present the information in a biased or “loaded” way; and, in effect, you change the probability distribution of their expected decision, which leaves the consumer only having the remnant illusion of any freedom.

I’m very shameful that I’m trying to hijack this comments section. I wish I could delete my earlier posts; but, I can’t.

Sorry all, I just never felt so emotional about the SDN weekly article. It’s just that I spent an equal amount of work as the author of this article did; and, I came to a different conclusion. The comments section is not the place to hawk a differing viewpoint–it’s just for comments about the article.

I’ll leave now before I get an invitation to argue with somebody, or get real upset by a future troll. I agree with Emily and Pharm; however, I just advise skepticism about the ethical implications of what DIS on humans can lead to. D.I.S. is VERY IMPRESSIVE and VERY SCIENTIFIC and makes social sciences such as psychology, and sociology, look like “joke sciences”. DIS makes use of statistics more than psychology, and use of inferential reasoning more than subjective reasoning.

Examples:

McDonald’s value meals show the price of med fry and med drink. When you order, they ask “do you want large or super size” and that takes advantage of consumers who don’t want to put in as much effort as necessary to give themselves the same level of scientific advantage over a fast food firm, as the fast food firm has over them.

In Ron Legrand’s real estate course, you are told that once you and a homeseller agree on the price, start adding personal property into the pre-agreed price, i.e. the lawn-mower, all power tools in garage, etc… He says on his tapes, that if they don’t accept being bilked out of $3,000 of personal property, then just act mad and threaten to sue them for breach of contract (hiring a lawyer costs them $5,000, and you only want $3000, you’re doing the seller a favor by giving them the cheaper option), and then they will glad to renegotiate the price of the home $1500 cheaper than what has already been signed in a legal contract. He says, “Just don’t laugh after you made the easiest $1500 of your life”

Ramada Plaza Resorts–google this one. They are the HUGEST practitioners of DIS. I am a very manipulative person, and they out-manipulated even me! I got all my money back through the FTC; but, I have lost all trust in the travel industry after learning their unethical practices, which made extensive use of DIS.

National Youth Leadership Forum–This current “reputable” company sends false deadlines and other, unethical DIS tactics aimed at luring one high school student per school to spend $2k on trips to D.C., Boston, LA, etc… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Leadership_Forum)

I have 7 more examples. I don’t want to imagine a world in which consumers (including children, college students, and senior citizens) have to self-educate and learn a sufficient level of DIS just to not let the current scientific advantage that businesses have over consumers augment any further.

And who’s going to provide the education resources? The same people that do DIS research for industry? All I’m saying is that hard science should not be used to study humans, ever. Let psychology and soft sciences and subjective reasoning explore why people make decisions. Psychology is still the major of choice for “undecided”‘s. Don’t let hard science study humans and ignore the ethical implications. Read “Snakes in Suits” and DIS will make serpents of all businessmen. Consumers will not trust businesses. Consumers will evolve and pass ridiculous pro-consumer legislation. DIS will evolve, consumers will re-evolve, etc…

Sorry for my timing. It seems the author and I were in sync and spent a ton of time doing research on the same thing. DIS might have good intentions, but all it will really accomplish in the long-term is to just keep driving an augmenting wedge of distrust and resentment between firms and customers; akin, to what malpractice lawyers (even just the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of lawsuits worry us good doctors…) do to the doctor-patient relationship.

Ethical business practices are what aligns the best interests of the customer with the best interest of the business. This has worked very well for a long time. I do not want to see those firms squeezed out by firms who use DIS business practices, for although the intentions are initially good, DIS does not have the customer’s best intentions at heart if there isn’t ethical oversight.

Ethics>Science and I apologize in advance for anyone who thought my three comments took away value from the article. The article is well written; but, I strongly disagree with the non neutrality in which I may have rudely opined, which may or may not have been warranted.

–제제 Kelly

ps I vow no further comments; and, if someone types my name into the Name_field, it’s not really me.

I agree with Emily. Salespersons, “pick-up artists”, advertisers, etc. have been taking advantage since the beginning of time.

Psychology and advertising have been around a long time; however, D.I.S. is actually new. For example, I have two toddler-age girls that I’m not happy about D.I.S. being applied to dating & seduction tips and techniques when they enter high school and all the guys have read those books and have a scientific advantage.

Scientific principles are very powerful, and I think it is like opening Pandora’s box to allow the analytical study of human behavior and figure out how to influence other people through scientific findings.

I’m a very ethical person, and I wish science would not study how humans think and publish tips of how to influence people. I wish psychology forever remains a “soft science” but with D.I.S., there’s potential that the ability to influence other people will be studied by top minds.

I have seen the DIS literature, and it is like a “hard science” and makes psychology and social sciences seem like a joke science. I did my undergrad in business and it worries me to no end, that DIS seeks to use science to manipulate other people.

Emily, have you read snakes in suits? DIS is like opening the floodgates to allow thrifty humans to take advantage of less thrifty humans. You are right–Thinking for yourself takes too much time and effort. I just HATE the fact that DIS will allow unethical business practices to be financially favored.

Ethical firms and agencies will be less profitable in the long run, and this worries me. D.I.S. applies to every facet of life, including friends and familial relationships.

Sorry I am not way off topic from the article; but, I just see D.I.S. being completely at odds with ethics. I agree with your comment, I’m just so upset with an article that isn’t neutral and doesn’t discuss ANY ethical implications.

ekram,