Resources
No Questions Asked
By Nicholas J. Johnson
Originally published in LabTalk magazine
"The children now love luxury…They contradict their parents, chatter before company…and are tyrants over their teachers." –Socrates (attrib.)
There is nothing as humbling as having a 13 year old tell you that you have just been swindled.
I had just purchased an automatic recliner for my bed, a rubber wedge
that inflates under the head of the user’s mattress allowing them sit
up comfortably. The late night infomercial had promised me that I could
“inflate [my] magic recliner in seconds” and that it did “everything an expensive adjustable bed does.” And all this for just $129.95 (plus $14.95 postage and handling)! How could I possible lose?
Not two days after placing the order, whilst I was performing the Bad
Science show at Eltham College of Education in Research, a year seven
student gave the infomercial as an example of deceptive advertising. In
the show, I ask students to think of ways in which science can be used
to misrepresent to exaggerate a product’s benefits. Usually, they
suggest shampoos that make nonsensical claims about the products
“structurising conditioners”, bathroom cleaning products that are the
same as the kitchen cleaning product but with a different smell and
anti-aging creams that fail to hold back the inexorable march of time.
However, this time a student mentioned the reclining system.
"The one on TV? That inflates in seconds?"
"Yeah, but it doesn’t inflate in seconds. It takes ages."
"How do you know?"
"You could tell by looking at the girl on the bed’s eyes."
"They wiggle."
"Wiggle?"
"Like she’s looking all over the place really quickly. They sped up the footage of the bed inflating so it looks like it only takes five seconds but really it takes over a minute, longer if your lying on it. It’s pretty obvious to spot."
"So you’d have to be pretty stupid to fall for that wouldn’t you?"
"Yeah."
After watching the infomercial again in became obvious that every shot of the triangular pillow blowing up has been sped up. The actors’ eyes blink and twitch erratically, their chests pump up and down as they breath and their finger’s twitch and shake like a hyperactive child.
It is not surprising that a year seven student’s powers of observation
and deduction succeeded where mine failed. Students are becoming more
adept at consuming, analysingand critiquing the information they are
presented with in the media. In the book, Everything Bad is Good You, Steven Johnson argues that increasingly complex television shows such as Lost, 24, Heroes
and, heaven forbid, reality television require that their viewers don’t
simply watch, they must absorb, scrutinize and judge the multifaceted
characters and intricate narratives. Viewers are encouraged to think
critically, rather than just accepting the authority of the hero. In
this environment, scientifically dubious advertising stands less chance
of misleading young viewers then in the past. Audiences no longer
necessarily accept advertiser’s claims at face value.
Ribena learnt this lesson the hard way. After years of Ribena
claiming that their product was a rich source of Vitamin C using the
slogan 'The blackcurrants in Ribena contain four times the Vitamin C of oranges.', a
pair of 14 year old New Zealand school students tested the syrup based
drink and found that rather than the advertised 7mg of Vitamin C per
100ml, the product contain no detectable Vitamin C at all. Anna
Devathasan and Jenny Suo originally thought their discovery was an
error. “We thought we were doing it wrong, we thought we must have made a mistake,"
Devathasan said in an interview with a New Zealand newspaper. The
girl’s discovery lead to the producers of Ribena, Glaxosmithkline,
being fined almost $200,000 and forcing them to admit their lie to the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Likewise, high school students have been quick to point out that
Energizer was being misleading when they slammed Duracell’s batteries
claiming, “Energizer Lithium performs up to seven times longer
[than Duracell standard alkaline batteries] taking up to a massive 600
shots.” A lithium battery will always perform better than a
comparable alkaline battery, regardless of the brand. Duracell
successfully sued the makers of Energizer batteries.
This is not to suggest that we should bow to the superior intellects
of teenagers. However, the overconfidence and contrary nature of youth
makes an ideal tool to analyse the suspect science presented to them in
the media. Asking difficult questions is the basis for both Socratic
learning and rational scientific thought. It is a double edge sword
that can make young people at once arrogant or judicious.
Some students have the passionate desire to learn, test and analyse
the world around them. Others possess an anarchistic spirit and love to
see the flaws of authority figures exposed regardless of any
educational outcome. In the Bad Science show, I often have students
refusing to believe the myths I expose until I offer real proof. How do
you know the Great Wall of China isn’t visible from space? What’s your evidence that sharks can get cancer? Who says flowers
don’t suck the oxygen out of hospital rooms? They relish the chance to
argue and debate, whether it be out of a desire to practice Cartesian
logic or just a desire to be a smart alec.
The role of educators is not just to teach students how to answer
difficult questions but also how to ask them. Students are becoming
increasingly critical thinkers but it is a skill that requires
refinement and training. Not just to protect them from unscrupulous
advertisers and marketers but to make them better scientists.
Then they won’t grow up to buy dodgy inflatable recliners.
Nicholas J. Johnson is a professional entertainer and educator. His show, Bad Science, tours schools in Victoria. . He is the proud owner of a magic recliner.
Burke, Kelly. 2007, ‘Ribena to withdraw vitamin C claims’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21st March, 2007, pp 3.
Johnson, Steven. 2005, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter, Penguin, New York.
Birchal, Sydney, 2006, ‘Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd’, Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, Vol 18, Issue 143 2006
