Does anyone else not "get" this video?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I get that this woman did something nice for this man, who was in need. That much I appreciate. What I don't get is everyone's supposed reactions. Would this really happen? Are people really that shallow?

To me the two messages are pretty much the same; if anything the first one is more honest and to the point. I would be more inclined to donate with the first message. With the second message, I would be thinking " My $5 is not going to change that".

What am I missing?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzgzim5m7oU[/youtube]

Thanks

The second message is far more effective because it triggers a stronger emotional reaction. It causes people who walk by to really imagine what life must be like as a blind person, which garners this man a far greater amount of sympathy. Also, the fact that the second sign doesn't directly ask for help is a boon; people generally don't like to be propositioned for money like in the first sign. That kind of sentimental stuff tends to have a pretty strong effect on NT's. If you want to get an NT to feel sympathy for you, an emotional appeal is infinitely more effective than any rational argument. For example, seeing a picture of one starving child will have far greater effect on them than simply hearing that 30,000 kids starved to death yesterday.

I think Joseph Stalin captured this sentiment perfectly. "A single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is just a statistic."


p.s. Also, it is important to note that this video is meant to create publicity, and thus everything in the video should be taken with a grain of salt. Just fyi.

I agree with what Troy is saying for the most part, and would like to add a comment on your question whether this would actually happen in real life... I think it might (you'd have to put it to the test), but I also think the makers of the advertisement were going for something a little bit symbolic. I think the people giving more after the sign was rewritten is not indicative of shallowness; I agree with Troy that it's a question of directness vs. embellishing one's words. I personally think that I would donate w/ either sign. But I get what they were going for. To compare, if the sign had said something like: 'I'm blind. Give money now.' or 'Have a heart, donate some of your disposable income', that would be blunt and insensitive. I understand that a lot of people prefer tactful phrasing and some embellishment of their words, instead of 'getting straight to the point', so to speak. I think it's a great ad.

I find the 2nd sign much more effective. That would make me one of those "shallow" people, as you put it, donating some coins when seeing the 2nd sign.

Reason: 2nd sign "It's a beatiful day, and I can't see it" ; makes people think about how they take for granted their eyesight, and how different your life would be.
As Troy already mentioned, it connects to their emotions.
There is a second level to this also. The mention of "it's a beautiful day" gets inside the minds of passers-by, because people do notice the weather. It connects the blind man to the people, because the people do notice what the weather is ; it makes the blind man "one of us", rather than an object on the street. People are going to help you out much more if you have pointed out something that they have noticed also (that it's a beautiful day).

The 1st sign is so ordinary ; you see it everyday in the cities, it's another of 1000s of other signs that all say the same thing. Lack of individuality, lack of impact ; people are so used to seeing those words that they lose any reaction to it.

On the comment of, "are people really that shallow"; not sure what you are referring to with the term 'shallow'.
Maybe you see the 1st sign as more "black and white" language; it is to the point and states what the need is directly. However the 1st sign is actually 'shallow' because it *only* points out that this man wants some help. The 2nd sign says so much more.

The first sign - I would see that the man is blind, and does not have the skills required to make an income, and therefore needs help.

I guess I have a few problems with the second sign.
1. It's illogical. If he can't see it how does he know its beautiful? Is he really blind, or pulling a scam?
2. It doesn't state what he wants. Is he just making a comment on the weather?
3. Giving money isn't going to help him see the beautiful day, unless he needs a cataract operation, which he doesn't state he needs.

So I guess in a way I see the second sign as a bit dishonest and socially manipulative. Cyclops mentioned that people are put off but blunt or tactless messages such as "Give money now" but I don't think the first sign was blunt or offensive, just to the point.

I see the responses as shallow, because it's the same guy, with the same needs. So are they just donating to make themselves feel better, or do they think their spare change will help him see?

Hmm. I think Stalin may have been right.

The important thing to remember here is that their is an awful lot of unspoken, non-verbal communication going on here. For example, a man sitting outside a public building in rags with a cup is a pretty clear communication for money, the sign isn't even necessary to convey that. Therefore, the sign is meant to convey something else. In the first sign, it directly asks for help. If we decide not to help, it usually makes us guilty, and people generally don't like feeling guilty. However, what many people dislike even more is being made to feel that way. I've had the experience myself; It is quite common to even feel resentful towards a panhandler, simply for being there, as silly as that sounds.

The second thing to know is that how well a message is received is greatly determined by presentation. A very common piece of advice for good communication is to Show, not tell. For example, which would you find preferable? A 1 minute description of a product with no visuals, or a close up look at the actual product and its functions? It's the same reason that waving around your arms to convey excitement while telling a story is far more effective than simply stating that it was exciting. The second sign really forces people to imagine what life must be like to be blind, which garners sympathy. It Shows people what the problem is, as opposed to the first sign, which simply states it.

I get that this is a difficult topic to understand, I'm still struggle with it on a daily basis. Just remember this: For an NT, simple words are often inadequate to truly convey their entire intended meaning. NT life incorporates unbelievable amounts of symbolism and double meaning into everyday communication. Knowing that, you can never fully take NT's at their word, not necessarily because they intend to be deceitful, but because the majority of their communication is not in the words themselves, but in things like context, tone, and non-verbal gestures.

The second one points out a positive thing which makes people take the time to consider the good things in the day or what might be nice about it.
Even if they think the day is sh***y they realise it's not as bad as this persons. And if they realise it is nice they want to improve that persons day some more because they now feel good about noticing it?

*shrugs* I'm guessing.

In the first sign, he's only asking. In the 2nd, he's also giving you something - reminding you to look on the bright side of life. People give a lot more if they're given something first. I never give money to beggers, but a beggar playing a quiet, romantic tune on the violin in a romantic place gets a lot of money from me. He made my memory of the place a lot more beautiful, he deserves to be paid for it. Any beggar that gives me a good feeling gets money from me. The ones who just play on my guilty feelings don't.

If you break this down and look at it from Aristotle's logical point of view, the second sign is a far weaker argument; it is an attempt at an enthememe that doesn't quite work, because there is no reason for a person to assume that, "I can't see a nice day outside" is equivalent to, "I need money". "I can't see the nice day." Okay so what? "I'm blind". Okay so what? "I can't get a job because of it and am poor and need money." Okay, here. The sequence of phrases takes far too long. The first sign from a logical perspective was far more effective because the problem and solution were both clearly defined. Of course, this world is not run on logic, so people respond with a heightened sense of emotion to the second. To be honest, if I saw a man with a sign like that, unless I watched someone else give him money, I wouldn't be certain of what he wanted or was doing there as his message was so vague.

True but if you're used to cities, then you know that beggars are a common sight, and if they have any signs, they pretty much say the same. You don't really see them as you pass by.


1. Had I come across the sign IRL (and noticed it), I too would have thought that. But there are ways for him to know though. A beautiful day has association with sunshine. He obviously knows it's not raining, you don't need to see to know that. If he feels the warmth from the sun, he could hazard a guess. It could be a guess based on how it felt or what the weather prognosis was (he could have picked it up somewhere)
2. He's sitting on a rag on the street with a can with coins next to him. That's fairly indicative of him being a beggar. He mentions the weather to give a positive association, then adds the line that is supposed to appeal to your compassion, guilt and conscience.
Sorry if I sound callous, I'm just tired of messages trying to manipulate you into feeling this or that, or persuade you to donate. One quickly grows immune.
3. Of course not. He'll stay blind whether he's given a fortune or nothing. But the givers are guilt-tripped into giving by the sign pointing out what he misses out on. That's another thing that doesn't make sense to us. He point out the weather, which he can certainly enjoy as much as a seeing person can.


That's why it works.
In the video, that is. I doubt he'd get a single coin more if it had been real. Some might feel slightly guilt-tripped if they bothered to read the sign (which isn't that likely considering the number of beggars), but it's not likely they'd feel motivated to give. I'd say they'd be more likely to just go on, and if they remembered it when they met their friends/ family/whatever they might mention it and then they'd talk about how awful it must be to be blind, and maybe other disabilities would be mentioned too and maybe they'd even throw in a comment about the homeless for good measure, and probably feeling themselves to be very empathic for it. And now that they have shared that with each other and played their "let's pretend we care" game, they can feel like they're good people and move on. What can I say? I've seen similar in practice so many times. I'm jaded


It wasn't blunt or offensive, it was your typical beggar's sign. But they're such a common sight, they're near invisible.


The responses are shallow and done to make them feel better. It's not meant to come off as shallow, but to us at least, it does.



I come across that one from time to time, and was told so by my junior high Norwegian teacher. I have never really grasped what that means. I don't get it.

Of course, it reads like a line out of a magazine ad. Which is exactly why it works, because it's more effective on the masses.

Is that due to social conditioning? Or do those ads conform to what the populace reacts better to? Regardless, of course it's social manipulation. Not just the second sign, the whole video.

So, if the goal is to appeal to and manipulate a larger crowd of people, the message works.

But like you, I think the whole thing is disgusting.

It's a commercial and thus staged, so I am not sure it would actually play out as shown.

It's a work of fiction so don't believe the hype.

Lots of good points being made above,

As Skilpaddle pointed out, the man is not only blind, he's also homeless. It doesn't matter that the money will not enable him to see the 'beautiful day' mentioned in the 2nd sign, because he needs money for food (among other things) regardless.

The situation pictured here is to be taken as an allegory for the kind of service that the advertiser offers: advicing people on how to phrase texts and taglines on their websites, so as to better market themselves and reach customers/audience more easily.

I watched it and I don't really get it either. I suppose people don't like being asked for money but if he is sitting there looking all poor and pitiful with the cup for the money by him he is begging whether he says anything or has any sign regardless of what it says.

I watch that video and wonder why he isn't on disability and in some low income disabled/assisted housing.

Either sign wouldn't have made any difference if I'd give. I either would or wouldn't regardless of what the sign said. It also probably wouldn't even occur to me to consider giving him money unless I was asked directly by words or sign.

It's so staged that it's completely unrealistic. For one, it's in Glasgow City Centre. I've never seen a blind beggar there, only homeless people, who in many cases have addiction problems or mental health issues and, lately, Romanian Gypsies. I would be quite taken aback by seeing a person with a physical or sensory disability begging there, although I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the near future (not wanting to turn this into a political debate ). As for the sign, I doubt many people would take the time to read it. Any that did would come to the conclusion that he's begging for money to help him see the beautiful day, e.g. with an operation that's only available in the US and not funded by the NHS. I don't think they'd be made to feel more guilty, they'd just be suspicious of what they were being asked for money for.