Why not minimize the manipulation by describing both the intent and the means
I believe, in most cases, this actually happens when you read/discuss beyond the headline. Use more words, actually put effort into understanding rather than just assuming the the 2-4 word description is all there is.
In the examples you give, it would be somewhat misleading to describe both motive and method—“weight-loss program” doesn’t specify mechanism because it applies to a lot of different mechanisms. The person describing it wants to convey the intent, not the mechanism—that detail is important for some things, and not for others, so it’s left to you to decide if you want it. “Against Malaria” likewise. They believe that the right tactic is mosquito nets, but if things change and that stops being the case, they don’t intend to change their mission or identity in order to use laser-guided toads or whatever.
Yeah, that was a good point about changing the means but not the mission. It would be costly to change the name of the entire foundation every time you changed your tactic.
In the examples you give, it would be somewhat misleading to describe both motive and method—“weight-loss program” doesn’t specify mechanism because it applies to a lot of different mechanisms.
We should probably do that when we are not experts. A doctor may safely call something a sleeping pill, but a novice at the gym should probably say “I’m doing crunches for weight-loss” and not “I’m on a weight-loss program”.
Use more words, actually put effort into understanding rather than just assuming the the 2-4 word description is all there is.
We both agree that if people went into the features, they wouldn’t be misled as often. I was hoping to make it easier to not be misled even when people didn’t spend time reading beyond the headline. That is why it would be crucial to mention features in the name and not just the intended result.
I believe, in most cases, this actually happens when you read/discuss beyond the headline. Use more words, actually put effort into understanding rather than just assuming the the 2-4 word description is all there is.
In the examples you give, it would be somewhat misleading to describe both motive and method—“weight-loss program” doesn’t specify mechanism because it applies to a lot of different mechanisms. The person describing it wants to convey the intent, not the mechanism—that detail is important for some things, and not for others, so it’s left to you to decide if you want it. “Against Malaria” likewise. They believe that the right tactic is mosquito nets, but if things change and that stops being the case, they don’t intend to change their mission or identity in order to use laser-guided toads or whatever.
Yeah, that was a good point about changing the means but not the mission. It would be costly to change the name of the entire foundation every time you changed your tactic.
We should probably do that when we are not experts. A doctor may safely call something a sleeping pill, but a novice at the gym should probably say “I’m doing crunches for weight-loss” and not “I’m on a weight-loss program”.
We both agree that if people went into the features, they wouldn’t be misled as often. I was hoping to make it easier to not be misled even when people didn’t spend time reading beyond the headline. That is why it would be crucial to mention features in the name and not just the intended result.
Thanks for the feedback.