|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kc2005ptgt
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This same article was published in the Style Section (or something) of my local newspaper. Only reason I even read it was because it had Korea in the headlines. This isn't new at all - metrosexual has been around for decades. Men have been getting manicures and pedicures for decades as well.
The article is very misleading, and uses typical media ambiguity to make you think a certain way, and from the looks of it, a lot of you have bought it, as said earlier, hook, line and sinker.
Use critical thinking. It helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anecdotal evidence is evidence and it's backed up by the sales figures. You seem to be expecting a researched, peer-reviewed article on what is merely, in the eyes of most, a silly trend. |
Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful evidence...and what sales figures? as it's already been pointed out the study doesn't actually cover what we'd call make-up (like lipstick, foundation, etc)
| Quote: |
| Besides, how do you know what most people think of when they think of cosmetics? I'd think that anyone in Korea, after having spent a few minutes on the first floor of any major department store, would quickly realize they're selling more than lipstick at all those cosmetics counters. |
I think most western people wouldn't think of men's moisturizer cream as make-up or cosmetics, and again the lead "reporter" isn't a Korean, and this article wasn't published in a Korean paper. The skincare sales included things like acne cream. Would you consider that cosmetics or make-up?
The study says "skincare" products, they change it to "cosmetics" and then write about "make-up" that should tell you everything you need to know about the article, and if it doesn't, well I feel sorry for you and there is probably a remedial class in connecting the dots you can take somewhere.
While cosmetics is ambiguously connected to skincare, it is used to bridge the gap between skincare and make-up which aren't in the same neighbourhood. Make-up is a subset of cosmetics. So are skincare products, but they're not the same sub-set. The point is people are more likely to think about make-up when they think about cosmetics then they are to think about vaseline intensive care or oxyclean acne cream. |
Why isn't anecdotal evidence (personal experience) important?
And while you say anecdotal evidence isn't important, much of your argument revolves around what "I (you) think," which is of course based on anecdotal evidence.
As for your example, I'd say once you call something moisturizer, most people are going to identify it as cosmetics, whether it is marketed to men or women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anecdotal evidence is evidence and it's backed up by the sales figures. You seem to be expecting a researched, peer-reviewed article on what is merely, in the eyes of most, a silly trend. |
Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful evidence...and what sales figures? as it's already been pointed out the study doesn't actually cover what we'd call make-up (like lipstick, foundation, etc)
| Quote: |
| Besides, how do you know what most people think of when they think of cosmetics? I'd think that anyone in Korea, after having spent a few minutes on the first floor of any major department store, would quickly realize they're selling more than lipstick at all those cosmetics counters. |
I think most western people wouldn't think of men's moisturizer cream as make-up or cosmetics, and again the lead "reporter" isn't a Korean, and this article wasn't published in a Korean paper. The skincare sales included things like acne cream. Would you consider that cosmetics or make-up?
The study says "skincare" products, they change it to "cosmetics" and then write about "make-up" that should tell you everything you need to know about the article, and if it doesn't, well I feel sorry for you and there is probably a remedial class in connecting the dots you can take somewhere.
While cosmetics is ambiguously connected to skincare, it is used to bridge the gap between skincare and make-up which aren't in the same neighbourhood. Make-up is a subset of cosmetics. So are skincare products, but they're not the same sub-set. The point is people are more likely to think about make-up when they think about cosmetics then they are to think about vaseline intensive care or oxyclean acne cream. |
Why isn't anecdotal evidence (personal experience) important?
And while you say anecdotal evidence isn't important, much of your argument revolves around what "I (you) think," which is of course based on anecdotal evidence.
As for your example, I'd say once you call something moisturizer, most people are going to identify it as cosmetics, whether it is marketed to men or women. |
You did go to a institute of higher learning didn't you? Have you even heard of things like statistics?
Because personal experience tells us nothing about the greater truth of the situation. It's utterly meaningless. They are making statements like "Korea is the male make-up capital" yet the study they cite doesn't talk about the sales of make-up. They base that on a couple of personal stories "I found a couple guys who wear make-up so it must be true". Great so what? You can find a guy who wears make-up in any country. Following that logic every country must be the make-up capital of the world right?
there is no way you connect those things. it isn't remotely compelling on any level. The only way you support that is with unbiased studies on sales and use, neither of which are presented in that article.
But then again that's about all the evidence some people around here need before they jump on a bandwagon so it's not really that surprising that so many fell for it.
Regardless of whether or not I feel people don't think "cosmetics" for moisturizer, the fact is that moisturizer isn't make-up. I personally think more people associate make-up with "cosmetics" than they do skincare, and I see that evidenced in the way the article is written. The author new that and that's why it was used. No matter which way you slice it, skincare is not make-up, but they try to make that connection. they also try to be even further ambiguous and misleading by first citing one number on "skin-care" and then another on "cosmetics" in general which includes a lot of things and may even go well beyond the scope of the first study in what it constitutes as "skin-care"
The article is full of double-talk and misleading "facts". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
Why isn't anecdotal evidence (personal experience) important?
And while you say anecdotal evidence isn't important, much of your argument revolves around what "I (you) think," which is of course based on anecdotal evidence.
As for your example, I'd say once you call something moisturizer, most people are going to identify it as cosmetics, whether it is marketed to men or women. |
You're cosmetic application is an experiment. In order for the results of your experiment to be significant (not random but related to the cosmetic application), It has to be tested using the scientific method. This means planning the experiment with minimal threats to the validity of your results, use of controls and use of statistics to verify significance based on sample size and positive results within the sample tested. One succesful result is not enough unless the mechanisms involved in the experiment are very clear and the magnitude of change is very large and there is substantial reason to believe the change is connected to the understood mechanisms involved in the natural process being looked at.
Something like that.
Last edited by young_clinton on Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Appearance is power |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
Korean MEN spent almost $500 million on skincare last year, 21% of global sales. They are expected to spend more than $885 million this year.
http://news.yahoo.com/korean-men-makeup-foundation-success-051134289.html
| Quote: |
| Evidence of this new direction in South Korean masculinity is easy to find. In a crowded Seoul cafe, a young woman takes some lipstick out of her purse and casually applies it to her male companion's lips as they talk. At an upscale apartment building, a male security guard watches the lobby from behind a layer of makeup. Korean Air holds once-a-year makeup classes for male flight attendants. |
Man, you just can't make this stuff up. |
If only they'd spend as much on their umbrellas. Heh.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anecdotal evidence is evidence and it's backed up by the sales figures. You seem to be expecting a researched, peer-reviewed article on what is merely, in the eyes of most, a silly trend. |
Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful evidence...and what sales figures? as it's already been pointed out the study doesn't actually cover what we'd call make-up (like lipstick, foundation, etc)
| Quote: |
| Besides, how do you know what most people think of when they think of cosmetics? I'd think that anyone in Korea, after having spent a few minutes on the first floor of any major department store, would quickly realize they're selling more than lipstick at all those cosmetics counters. |
I think most western people wouldn't think of men's moisturizer cream as make-up or cosmetics, and again the lead "reporter" isn't a Korean, and this article wasn't published in a Korean paper. The skincare sales included things like acne cream. Would you consider that cosmetics or make-up?
The study says "skincare" products, they change it to "cosmetics" and then write about "make-up" that should tell you everything you need to know about the article, and if it doesn't, well I feel sorry for you and there is probably a remedial class in connecting the dots you can take somewhere.
While cosmetics is ambiguously connected to skincare, it is used to bridge the gap between skincare and make-up which aren't in the same neighbourhood. Make-up is a subset of cosmetics. So are skincare products, but they're not the same sub-set. The point is people are more likely to think about make-up when they think about cosmetics then they are to think about vaseline intensive care or oxyclean acne cream. |
Why isn't anecdotal evidence (personal experience) important?
And while you say anecdotal evidence isn't important, much of your argument revolves around what "I (you) think," which is of course based on anecdotal evidence.
As for your example, I'd say once you call something moisturizer, most people are going to identify it as cosmetics, whether it is marketed to men or women. |
You did go to a institute of higher learning didn't you? Have you even heard of things like statistics?
Because personal experience tells us nothing about the greater truth of the situation. It's utterly meaningless. They are making statements like "Korea is the male make-up capital" yet the study they cite doesn't talk about the sales of make-up. They base that on a couple of personal stories "I found a couple guys who wear make-up so it must be true". Great so what? You can find a guy who wears make-up in any country. Following that logic every country must be the make-up capital of the world right?
there is no way you connect those things. it isn't remotely compelling on any level. The only way you support that is with unbiased studies on sales and use, neither of which are presented in that article.
But then again that's about all the evidence some people around here need before they jump on a bandwagon so it's not really that surprising that so many fell for it.
Regardless of whether or not I feel people don't think "cosmetics" for moisturizer, the fact is that moisturizer isn't make-up. I personally think more people associate make-up with "cosmetics" than they do skincare, and I see that evidenced in the way the article is written. The author new that and that's why it was used. No matter which way you slice it, skincare is not make-up, but they try to make that connection. they also try to be even further ambiguous and misleading by first citing one number on "skin-care" and then another on "cosmetics" in general which includes a lot of things and may even go well beyond the scope of the first study in what it constitutes as "skin-care"
The article is full of double-talk and misleading "facts". |
You ask for statistics but then go off on a "I personally think" tangent. You then accuse the journalists of being intentionally ambiguous and misleading.
Where are your statistics? Where is your proof?
Unbiased studies? WTF are you talking about? This isn't a business journal, it's mass consumption journalism.
One of these days, you're going to take a nasty fall off that high school debate club high horse you're riding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustinC
Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Location: We Are The World!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
