
How We Decide provides insight into how people make decisions. The book approaches this question from a scientific perspective, and uses real world examples to help the reader understand.
This subject, at least to me, calls into question the behavior associated with recent events. The subjects of police brutality, civil rights, systemic racism, and so forth are much older than two weeks. I appreciate there are people and groups who have been actively working for years to raise awareness of these concerns, and then there is everybody else. Many people in that second category are crazy impassioned about these subjects as seen in both HN activity as well as the protesting and riots seen in the media. If this segment of people are honestly that concerned and these subjects were clearly concerns for more than two weeks ago then were these peoples’ level of concern then? I suspect this sudden call to concern is more the result of contagious group behavior dynamics and social psychology than a premeditated cognitive concern of independent consideration.
Also, Nat Geo has a fun show called "Brain Games" along the same vein.
All suggestions are a little "poppy" for some tastes, but I find them all entertaining and informative, and have found many useful bits that I apply to my sales and training efforts as well.
"By attempting to short-circuit the decision-making process, by putting the emotional cart before the rational horse, the ads you describe are fundamentally deceptive. That ads like that exist, that they are paid for by people with skin in the game, and that they work, are all testament to the fundamental irrationality of market players on both an individual and aggregate level. Namely, they can be swayed by a manufactured emotional response before even having gone through the rational decision-making process."
What makes an emotional response any less worthy than a rational response? Plato's ideas on rationality are just plain wrong- the cart before the horse is a poor metaphor. If you look at any neuroscience research in the area, you soon see that that good decision making is completely impossible without both, together. I highly recommend Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" as a highly readable book on the subject.
Following emotional cues is not "short-circuiting the decision-making process", and is not in any way "fundamentally deceptive".
EDIT: Not to mention that intangible value is still value. If marketing makes an item higher status, and you value items based on the status they confer on you, then that marketing is creating enormous value. Branding literally makes a product more valuable in a consumer eye, and that is the only measure of value that matters.
I was reading this book " How We Decide" (must read by the way) and one of the examples was this distinction between two groups of students who scored well in an easy test.
One group was told, "Wow you must be smart" and the other "Wow, you must have worked really hard at this". The first group showed deteriorating performance with increasing level of difficulty of test and gradually accepting maybe they were not as smart as they were told.
While the other group kept trying even in higher test and score far better. Of course both the groups were divided equally in terms of intelligence and attitude.
Very important perspective for every walk of life.
The author, Jonah Lehrer, has an amazing book on behavior economics that I considering a must read for anyone trying to sell anything. It's been incredibly valuable to us at Wistia. It's called "How We Decide".
Jonah always finds incredibly interesting ways to pull apart behavior from a neurological perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/05472479...