Talk:The Engineering of Consent

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Celinanguyen, Mdeweerdt, Moss effect, Whathehect.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How or why evolution[edit]

Under 'Evolution', it mentions subliminal advertising as being modern examples but doesn't explain how or why. Dankind 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Where the devil can I find this essay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.59.115 (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 250, Communication and Social Action (Mar., 1947), pp. 113-120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.59.115 (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is worthwhile[edit]

I disagree that "The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia." While the article is woefully terse it represents an entirely legitimate subject whose analysis is quite likely to rub people the wrong way (i.e., "sound bad") for the very reason that the notion of "engineered consent" disparages the rank-and-file citizenry as unintelligent and incapable of governing themselves. The article needs to be expanded by someone who is an expert on the essay referenced, since I'm only familiar with it peripherally via Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"--but this near-stub of an article is most assuredly on the right track. Sam Lowry (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he never Talks about Products as such in the Essay, nor does he say anything about moral principles. About the unintelligent, he argues that:

The average American adult has only six years of scooling behind him. In certain cases, democratic leaders must play their part in leading the public through the engineering of concent to socialy constructive goals and values. This role naturally imposes upon the the obligation to use educational techniques, as well as other available techniques, to bring about as complete an understanding as possible

I would say, that the first part of the article should be rewriten, as it is factualy incorrect and violates WP:NOR. Also the part on "women's smoking" is not part of the Essay but rather an application of his theory, and should IMHO atleast be annotated as such.

A pdf version of the Essay can be found here[1]. Could this be used as a citation source? Nefthy (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section which states "The idea of “Engineering of Consent” was motivated by Freud’s idea that humans are irrational beings and are motivated primarily by inner desires hidden in their unconscious. If one understood what those unconscious desires were, then one could use this to one’s advantage to sell products and increase sales." needs a citation and If there isn't one it should be erased. Estradavictor (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Victor Estrada[reply]

Review Section[edit]

The article looks to be up and having accurate information. Could use some grammatical issues, some of which I addressed.