Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Covert social climbing in your education materials to seem smarter
Ever since Lucio's analysis of a banner at Whole Foods, I noticed that my rational thinking could use some improvement.
So, I've been looking at businesses more carefully and I'm looking at sharing more of what I find. I've already shared one on Planet Fitness and today I have a new one: CashApp.
Given all the talk about a recession these days, I took a look at the "Stocks" and "Bitcoin" sections of CashApp recently to see if they were using the economic state as a business opportunity somehow (I'm always curious to study businesses and their decisions, especially during difficult times).
One thing they're doing (that I think they've been doing for a while) is sharing education materials on their platform.
I view it as a good move because it:
- Increases chances people will invest: by educating your users on how to invest, they'll develop a greater sense of safety in doing so because they understand the game better (pros, cons, and risks).
- Increases chances they'll invest with you: by being the teacher for those users, you position yourself as someone who already has a great understanding of the game (perhaps even as an "expert" if one does it well enough). Plus, CashApp is sharing these education materials for free which, if they're valuable enough, can trigger the reciprocity effect.
Here's what threw me off though:
My First Stock: We wrote a book to teach people about investing. Don't worry. It's mostly pictures.
The Tony Robbins-like social climb I saw is this:
- "Don't worry. It's mostly pictures."
The sub-communication is: "you are going to be overwhelmed by such a complex topic, but I (we) understand it and put it into pictures (for you)".
Maybe you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend it or the drive for learning to push through all the reading when it's tough.
As Lucio said, the exact implication is beside the point, the main message being communicated is still that of "(at least when it comes to learning) you're somewhat less than I am (so you should listen to and trust me)".
Thoughts?
Yeah, it is a bit like that.
And by "a bit" I mean that it's is like that, but it doesn't (necessarily) mean one should take it personally, but probably more like meet it with a smile.
In the sense that seeing it from their point of view, they're thinking of an audience that is not going to read much, if at all, and so they anticipated their objection.
Yes, it is demeaning to the audience.
It's like saying "you don't (cannot?) read, the only way you may learn something about stocks, is with the equivalent of a children's cartoon book".
But you, an empowered individual, you're not part of that group, and not the intended recipient of that message.
So, in that sense, you can look at it as a third party looking from the outside.
You're eavesdropping at an exchange that's happening between someone else.
I see it in the same way as those books "for dummies".
There's an element of social climbing, I believe you are right, Ali. But there's also a very big demand for these books, and it might be worth it to explore why. So yeah, thanks for bringing this subject! I'll get a little philosophical while trying to make sense of this, but it's because your find is so damn provocative.
I remember when I first approached a book of the "for dummies" series long ago. The mental process in my mind was like "well, Economics is hard, I don't want to delve in it right now. I'll look for an introduction to get started". Then I came accross this book and - precisely as Lucio sayd - smiled at the funny name thinking "how dare you", but, precisely for this reason, thinking "this must be a fun read".
In a way, I think it's the same reason why people go to comedy clubs when its almost guaranteed they will hear insults, or why monarchs kept court jesters that could, in theory, make fun of everybody. There's a feeling of detachment and that we are above them, so those "digs" are actually amusing. We give them permission to be demeaning to us in the name of fun.
When we apply that to learning tools, I think most people go for it for the easy ride. They already know they won't have the time or willpower to go through dense books full of graphs and equations right now for various reasons. But If they see a cute smiling hand pointing to a colourful graph, they will give it a go, because it speaks to their inner child. Now it's not "studying", it's having fun. But could it be actually ancestral wisdom instead of outright lazyness?
I'm convinced that we, humans, are "programmed" to want to have fun and instinctively make an association between learning and playing.
Today's western thought is very influenced by the Protestant ethic, which holds that everything is austerity and hard work, so it's not immediately visible to us. It's a quite new idea, though. There's this book Homo Ludens, in which the author, a Dutch historian from the last century, argues that play is a crucial component in the development of culture/civilization, and we can find it everywhere from religious rituals to the way the State is organised. Having fun is a serious thing :)
If he's right, then what we see when adults get all excited to learn investment from a candy coloured cartoon is a glimpse of human nature, and how we instinctively "know" that the most effective way for learning involves fun.
This is not bad for CashApp. They'll surely have their share of money if people are invested in their platform, so we go back to your reasoning in the first part of your post: I believe you nailed it when you say that this will increase the chances that people will invest with CashApp.
