"Social Proof" v. Critical Thinking

A Showdown of the Ages

Social Proof is a concept in Marketing.

It rears its ugly head nowadays in such features as the “like” button, the number of “views” on YouTube, and other such accoutrements.

The theory goes in marketing that the positive nod of others of a product, or even better, of a brand, is a short-cut, as it were, to think the thing or brand is “Legit,” as the kids say.

It works. People are such that they love short-cuts. Let someone else verify the quality of something. Saves time and effort.

What could go wrong ?

Well, when the the strategy of saving time is applied to things that really matter, and the forces at work don’t really map onto quality, there might be problems that crop up here and there.

Take, just for example, of the concept of the “view” in YouTube. How many views some video gets is made perspecuous to anybody ready to pounce on a given video. The larger the number of views, the more “evidence”, in “social proof” marketing terms, the video (along with its product or brand) is assumed to have.

I’ve had multinational firms reach out to the channel I run, a channel called The Republican Professor. First hand, I’ve seen the theory in action.

Multinational firms reach out and suggest that TRP could get more views.

When I ask these folks from Bangledesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or whereever else what exactly counts as a “view,” they define it for me.

When someone clicks “play.”

That’s it ? I ask.

That’s it, they say.

And why do you want to “help” TRP, I ask.

Because , sir, your videos are “awesome.”

And why do you think that ?

And I’m met with silence. Sometimes they respond with something substantive, like men can’t be women. Or something. Usually it has nothing whatever to do with the video in question, which they didn’t watch.

So I ask, your strategy is all about getting people to click the play button, but has nothing to do with anything thereafter.

Correct, they say.

But, I’m teaching critical thinking, and that shallowness is completely at odds with everything we are about.

To which they have nothing substantive to say thereafter. Besides, sir, you are the only one of hundreds, even thousands, who have said such a thing to us.

The question is applicable widely. What “short-cuts” of social proof don’t really map onto the way things really are ?

Isn’t it “social proof” that is behind such things as pronouns in bios ?

There are an assortment of things that don’t really make any sense, if you think about it for more than a few moments, that you’re socially pressured to do, think, or say (or not say).

This tension is something to be aware of going forward.

Luke, for Trp