It's an interesting connection that you made with the issue of the reasons used in explanations. It is interesting to consider that food is constantly pushed in an emotive fashion in various media (chocolate as happiness, the significance of a family meal), yet when nutritionists discuss it, they very often resort to conventions or technical explanations. The media use persuasive narratives and piggy-back off conventions that are out-dated (e.g., chocolate and other confectionery is a treat, whereas it is commonly available to us). Nutritionists use technical explanations and conventions that are interpreted as nagging (e.g., eat your vegetables - they're good for you. I think the paper you linked to mentioned a research participant who identified his father as a vegetable fascist - I think we all know someone like that!).
tonyplant
April 24, 2006 - 16:44Hi Shinga, thanks for the link (which does work).
It's an interesting connection that you made with the issue of the reasons used in explanations. It is interesting to consider that food is constantly pushed in an emotive fashion in various media (chocolate as happiness, the significance of a family meal), yet when nutritionists discuss it, they very often resort to conventions or technical explanations. The media use persuasive narratives and piggy-back off conventions that are out-dated (e.g., chocolate and other confectionery is a treat, whereas it is commonly available to us). Nutritionists use technical explanations and conventions that are interpreted as nagging (e.g., eat your vegetables - they're good for you. I think the paper you linked to mentioned a research participant who identified his father as a vegetable fascist - I think we all know someone like that!).
Tony Happystance
»