Junk Science Junkies

Every so often, the topic of subliminal advertising comes up in a conversation about user experience, in which some well-intentioned but ill-informed person mentions the experiment conducted by "scientists" that proves subliminal advertising works.

What they are referring to is the Vicary hoax - in which a market researcher with no academic credentials (aside of an associates degree in business) pretended to use a tachistoscope (which he never actually used) to flash messages "eat popcorn" and "drink coke" on the screen of a theater, and reported an unusual increase in concession sales (he later confessed the numbers were entirely fictional).

This hoax is often mentioned in introductory marketing classes - and I'd go so far as to say that any professor who doesn't immediately bristle at the notion of subliminal advertising is likely doing a disservice to his students - yet in the "real world" of business, it seems that in my experience someone mentions the topic every six months with an air of dead seriousness.

Given that frequency, I feel reasonably safe in asserting that the business world, in general, is addicted to junk science.   Any promise of getting better returns is eagerly embraced without checking the facts behind the grandiose allegations of "scientific" proof - because those who wish to make money have a pronounced case of selective hearing.

There have even been instances in which I've switched on the projector and shown the Wikipedia article on James Vicary and his hoax.   And rather than apologizing and shutting up, as well they should, the person who brought up the topic insists "that's not the study I was referring to" and maintains there is real scientific proof out there somewhere - a nearly identical study done by real scientists who achieved real results.  Not one has ever responded to my request for them to email me a link to the research.

This is more than intellectual laziness, but a deeper form of self-deception that business people inflict upon themselves - and worse still, attempt inflict upon others who know better.

Over a century ago, Hugo Munsterberg wrote that business has very little use for science, on the grounds that scientists are too far removed from practical matters to provide them any useful guidance.   I have the sense this is not true today, and may not even have been true in Munsterberg's time.   The problem with science is not that the information is abstract and impractical (though early exploratory studies can be thus), but that science is disregarded unless it "proves" something that is already believed.

And while business does seem to have cracked open the door to let science into the conference room, it still remains steadfastly devoted to being given research that supports the opinion that was had before the research was conducted.   Those who fail to confirm existing beliefs, or who challenge them directly, are not hired to conduct research in future.

In that sense, there is in the present day an even greater need for science to remain purposefully aloof from the business world - and to maintain its integrity instead of fudging the results to retail clientele who want to be coddled rather than informed.   Let those who value knowledge seek it - they cannot, nor ever could be, forced to accept it.