site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   4371 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 26, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So Morgan Spurlock has died of cancer. I don't mean to "speak ill of the dead" but is it not widely known that his biggest splash, namely the documentary Supersize Me, was based on fudged data and is considered fraudulent? Probably some obits include this, but the few articles I read were all just praise. I certainly didn't wish the man ill and I am sorry for his family.

I guess it's bad form to criticize people when they've died relatively young of a horrible disease. I just think of the legions of people who continue buy into popular pseudo-smarties like Spurlock and Malcolm Gladwell and whoever is currently big on TED, and it seems wrong to just ignore the shoddy thinking.

I've seen similar sentiment elsewhere, and I think a lot of it is misplaced.

When it comes to non-fiction, there is a gamut running from purely informational/educational to purely entertainment, with everything falling somewhere between the two. If your goal is to simply spread knowledge, you will submit a paper to a journal; if your goal is to entertain, then you are probably making a video. Spurlock did the latter - Supersize Me is primarily an entertainment product, and I would say it succeeds. He takes quite a dry prospect - eating Mcdonalds for every meal - and turns it into an entertaining documentary. Who cares if it isn't all true? It's not really designed for that. If Spurlock wanted to prove something about Mcdonalds, he would have done nutritional studies and submitted articles.

Someone like Gladwell is deserving of scorn, because he positions himself on the educate/inform side, while also spreading a ton of bs.

Who cares if it isn't true?

Arguably anyone with half a working brain.

Entertainment sure, be entertaining. Are you not entertained? I get it But that's pap for amusement. Don't call it science and be bullshit. That's falsity. That's bullshit. That's lying to be edgy. Fuck that.

I think anyone with half a working brain could already work out that eating Mcdonalds everyday for a month won't prove anything about the food. I'm not sure Spurlock ever called it science either

You may be right, of course. And maybe he didn't use the word science. That plus my reply was probably unduly aggressive, mainly because I was in a state of disarray for reasons unrelated. Here a day later I apologize for my rudeness, but I stand by the suggestion that Spurlock's docko was deceptively portrayed as at least a type of empirical analysis, similar to the Mythbusters show where a question is asked, things happen that are entertaining and seem to address the question, and the question is answered--except with Spurlock the question was only asked to provide buildup to his already-decided conclusion.

If the rest of the world assumed as you do that Spurlock was just an entertainer and should not have been taken to have really proven or even set out to have proven anything, I might be fine. But his documentary is shown in schools, by the same teachers who show TED talks about power poses and preach Fake it till ya Make it. It doesn't sit well with me.

Can you give evidence for fudged data? The linked article's grievances seem minor, and mostly related to his book.

I obviously don't have his data sets, but essentially he was drinking while in the McDonald's diet (he admitted this later) and far exaggerating what would be a legitimate experiment. Here is an article posted after his death that is critical. There are apparently many more critiques coming out than when I originally posted.

Even putting aside fudged data, I struggle to see what the point of Supersize Me was, other than being an anti-corporate applause light. Trying to prove that you can't live healthily on McDonalds alone is arguing against a point pretty much no one made (I know, the documentary grasps at straw to try to show otherwise, but come on). And even if someone makes it, it would have been a lot better an argument if he wasn't making up rules or making decisions during his "experiment" to guarantee he got the result he wanted. McDonalds had salads already at that time, but of course he had to get burgers all the time. Yes, sure, people don't go to McDonalds for salad, but what was his point again? Him proving that people often don't make great decisions when it comes to their nutrition wouldn't please his audience as much as "proving" giant corporations are making it impossible to eat healthy.

The point wasn’t just anti-corporate, it was anti-marketing. It’s in the name. McDonalds cashiers would ask, “Would you like to supersize that?” to upsell. People who can’t say no and people with weak personal boundaries were (perceived as) getting fatter than they would have anyway. It appealed to defending less able people against attacks.

Remember the viral scissor question from a while back, “In front of you appears red and blue button. If more than 50% of the people presses the red button, everybody who pressed the blue button dies.” A lot of people defended pressing the blue button because even if they themselves thought it smarter to press the red button, they’d press blue in case other people, possibly within their circle of friends, were tricked into pressing blue. They were trying to be heroes.

And it “worked”: one effect of the film was the end of the supersizing upselling, and eventually the end of the supersize option.

end of the supersizing upselling, and eventually the end of the supersize option.

In name only. Every fast food place that offered one (off the top of my head, I think Burger King had "King" Size, Wendy's had "Biggie" size) simply shifted their size names up one, so what was once the "Supersize" was now just called a "large", the old "large" became "medium", and so on. You'll notice now when you order a meal from McDonalds without specifying size (the posted prices/images/calories are all for medium) they usually ask if you want "Medium or Large"; with the default medium being the old large, this is essentially asking the same thing as "do you want to supersize".

The Lotteria five patty burger is certainly a thing to behold.

People who can’t say no and people with weak personal boundaries were (perceived as) getting fatter than they would have anyway

Yeah, but... Is that proven by the main stunt of the movie?

"Eating nothing but McDonalds for a month" is just for grabbing attention and doesn't contribute to any of the serious points that could be made regarding the fast food industry.

It wasn't meant to prove, it was made to convince.

And when I find out that someone attempted to deceive me to attempt to convince me, it prejudices me against what they're trying to convince me of.

Me too. Can't stand his films or Michael Moore's, but they sure are popular and have made some impact. Most people are not very good at figuring out how seriously they should take something, but love a good show. Moore and Spurlock are quite smart in that sense, and stuff like that will get more attention than any sort of proof.

Upselling is bigger than ever

I struggle to see what the point of Supersize Me was, other than being an anti-corporate applause light.

He was also a vegetarian, so was an anti-meat applause light. But really, more important than either of those by a wide margin was pwning the chuds. Morgan Spurlock absolutely hated the chuds with a burning contempt, so showing how they're so stupid and destroying their bodies while he garnered applause and profit was just the perfect project for the early 2000s style of smug liberal.

Eating a tolerably decent diet that includes lunch at McDonald's isn't hard and doesn't require doing anything weird. A McDouble and a medium fry is about 700 calories. If you're a hungry boy and must have the Big Mac and large fry, you're looking at 1100 calories.

Wasn't there a guy in the movie who'd eaten a Big Mac (no fries) every day for like 30 years and seemed fine? For me a lot of movies in this genre end up saying something slightly different from what they intend. (also the way they are interpreted by extremists on both sides of the aisle)

Another example is "Bowling for Columbine" -- Moore establishes that Canadians have lots of guns, then goes around Toronto walking into people's houses because their doors are unlocked. The logical takeaway seems to be that "has lots of guns" is mostly not correlated with "has lots of high-school shootings" or "has high crime cities", and it would be best to look elsewhere; ofc the left's takeaway as I recall was "guns are bad and should be banned" and the right's "Moore wants to take our guns, fuck him" -- so what can you do I guess?

(The difference between the two movies I suppose is that "there is something about America other than the raw number of guns that is leading to school shootings/violent crime" is a more interesting thing to notice than "living exclusively on burgers and XL helpings of fries and soda is bad for you".)

McDonald's salads are unhealthier than the burgers, at least if you put dressing on it.

Some are. Most aren't. The only way they were able to get that high was with the "asiago caesar" dressing (which contains, we presume, plenty of cheese, salt and fat), extra parmesan flakes and is topped with deep fried chicken. That comes to 800 calories. I think everybody is clear that fried chicken-topped caesar salad is unhealthy (this explains America's love for it).

Even then, that's not actually hugely unhealthy or bad for you.

I was an early evangelizer about the fact that Supersize Me was not a documentary but a farce. It was well known at least in my circle because I wouldn't shut up about it, the guy is puking and gagging from eating a somewhat large McDonalds meal, it was all for show.

I'm fine with speaking ill of that guy. He absolutely typifies the peak of crass, smug leftist from his era. He knew pretty much nothing about the topics he was speaking on, hated corporations with a stupid and jealous passion, lied constantly, and was personally degenerate. It's not just Supersize Me, go look at the episode rundown for 30 Days and tell me this guy isn't just an asshole.

At least when Gladwell speaks to running, he's actually good at the sport and cares about it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats