[Omnitech]

Okay, suppose you tell me what characteristic sheep behavior you think the folks who are lined up to buy an iPhone are exhibiting. And does this characterization also apply to people who are lined up for concert tickets, Black Friday sales, and the latest Star Wars movie? Why, or why not?

Yes I think it is one particular characteristic (among others) that applies to all of the groups you mentioned to one extent or another.

It comes down to one's priorities in life.

I'm not going to get into a tedious semantical argument because I have enough respect for your cognitive abilities to believe that we don't need to discuss what "sheep behaviour" is generally known to mean, unless you really are a 12-year-old, someone who I might be less surprised if they were to seriously ask such a question without irony.

We see lots of sheep behaviour here in these discussion boards, in various ways. People who will seemingly go to the ends of the earth to rationalize and stridently proclaim their preconceptions about something, despite overwhelming evidence that their stance probably doesn't hold water.

This is why I had to laugh at the guy yesterday who claimed he "has no bias". Now that's a really hilarious claim.

I also think the electronic venue aggravates that problem, it disconnects people from each other in ways that, for many, sets the stage for polarization and disrespect. (The truly ethical person will not stoop to such things regardless the venue, but there are a lot of people in this world that would do all sorts of despicable things, only if they felt they could get away with them. And the "get away with" part is what the electronic venue oftentimes provides.)

[Omnitech]

If your interpretation is correct, then I suggest people find another epithet.

So since you took personal umbrage at this term because you felt personally slighted by it, your argument is that we should here-and-now change the definition of this old and well-known phrase (or just stop using it), because gogurt didn't like the implications of it in a particular web forum thread on some particular narrowly-targeted product enthusiast website in December 2013. Just want to get that clear.

Instead of trying to change the meaning of the phrase, I think it would be more useful to simply point out that it's an obnoxious epithet and it offends you personally.

However, they are known to flock together, and to follow a leader, which is probably what's really being alluded to when iPhone users are called sheep. The idea, apparently, is that iPhone users are mindless drones who, because they can't think for themselves, simply follow the herd.

At least we apparently now have a bit more agreement on the meaning of the phrase, so instead of trying to twist the term into something that doesn't remotely resemble its common usage, we can move beyond that stage of your "rebuttal".

I guess someone thinks that's clever.

Well, it's an epithet to be sure, I believe I already acknowledged that. And I also pointed-out how, when discussions are so ridiculously polarized - under whatever specific form that takes - it shouldn't come as any surprise whatsoever when such phrases start getting bandied-about. Everyone who contributes to the partisan "piling-on" takes some of the blame for that.

As for Apple in particular, it's a true fact that Apple gets more often singled-out for this "sheep" behaviour, because, quite simply, the corporate marketing and positioning of Apple has been pushing this "elite club member" "ingroup" corporate marketing image for many years now. Unlike any other vendor in the consumer technology marketplace, Apple was up until recently, something of a personality cult. But even before the return of Jobs, Apple cultivated a hipster "otherness" because that was the way it felt it could make inroads in a market of boring, business-like products. (See 1984 Mac commercial)

And in some ways I think not only that ad, but various other of their marketing efforts have been brilliant - this was one of the genius aspects of Steve Jobs. But by the same token, I think it's silly to get all huffy about it when someone points it out - though it's totally expected. Most people don't like to be called "mindless drones" or have even the implication directed at them, for good reason. And I don't think any reasonable person really means TRULY mindless drones... but it's more a matter of "That person seems more of a follower than a leader" kind of thing.

And once again, particularly in a society like the USA which continuously pushes the ideology of hardcore individuality, being accused of being a "follower" tends to be met with lots of heat.

But the funny thing about that (and ironically, given Apple's 1984 ad), as Orwell aptly demonstrated, the people who are the most brainwashed are often the ones who take the most offense when being accused of being brainwashed:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH




I think it's pretty much a well-established fact that most of these manufactured "Alternative" lifestyle marketing trends are basically a sneaky way to package and market pre-digested "individuality" to people who, while idealizing "individuality", are actually the worst sort of follower, as they have been taken-in by Madison Avenue and have become fodder for basically, the sale of product based on this so-called "individuality".

I guess someone thinks that's clever.

If nothing else, it shows how much skin you have in this game because you have spent so much time/energy expressing your offence at its usage.

Now let's turn this around and try for a minute to imagine what a person from Indonesia might think about the nasty comment that I singled out a few comments back. Acceptable? I sure hope situational ethics isn't in play here.

[gogurt48]

Indeed, the person clearly has to really want what's being offered. The important question is: "Does this person really know why he wants the item being offered?"

A: Is it because others want (or have) it?
B: Is it because he needs to keep up appearances?
C: Is it because he has his own unique reasons?

Surely, you don't think A or B are empty sets and that everyone in that large queue belongs to set C?

Of course not. When your sample size is in the millions, there will be a few people in groups A: and B: Heck, there will probably even be a few in group D: "They believe they can contact aliens with it."

But since you're not a fanboy, won't you agree with me that the vast majority of people who purchase an iPhone -- or any phone -- do so because they honestly believe it best meets their needs?

I hope so, because the point of this discussion isn't whether some people purchase an iPhone because all the cool kids have one. I acknowledge that. But we were discussing what is meant when people on this forum (and elsewhere) derisively refer to iPhone users as "sheep." When they toss out that epithet, It's pretty clear that they're referring to all of us, or at least the vast majority of us. Apparently, because they don't want an iPhone, they can't comprehend why so many others do, and the only way they can account for it is by assuming that most people who purchase an iPhone are "sheep" who just want one because their BFFs at the mall have one.

[gogurt48]

Yes I think it is one particular characteristic (among others) that applies to all of the groups you mentioned to one extent or another.

It comes down to one's priorities in life.

I'm not going to get into a tedious semantical argument because I have enough respect for your cognitive abilities to believe that we don't need to discuss what "sheep behaviour" is generally known to mean, unless you really are a 12-year-old, someone who I might be less surprised if they were to seriously ask such a question without irony.

As you can tell by my avatar, I am older than 12. Actually, I am 50. And I do know what people mean when they call other people "sheep." They mean that they think those people tend to follow the crowd without thinking; that they are meek, unintelligent, easily persuaded, and value fashion above function. It is an attempt to account for the overwhelming popularity of a thing (e.g., the iPhone) by attributing it to herd behavior, rather than rational decision-making. I assume they think this way because they honestly believe that if popularity were determined by an objective weighing of pros and cons, their platform of choice would be number one. And because their platform of choice is not number one (not by a long shot), they assume that other factors, like fashion and peer pressure, must be at work.

We see lots of sheep behaviour here in these discussion boards, in various ways. People who will seemingly go to the ends of the earth to rationalize and stridently proclaim their preconceptions about something, despite overwhelming evidence that their stance probably doesn't hold water.

That's not sheep behavior, that's fanaticism. Please refer to the definition I gave above (unless you disagree with it).

This is why I had to laugh at the guy yesterday who claimed he "has no bias". Now that's a really hilarious claim.

Yes, I thought that was funny, too. We all have biases, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're honest about them with ourselves and others. A humble person recognizes that he has biases, but tries to be objective anyway.

I also think the electronic venue aggravates that problem, it disconnects people from each other in ways that, for many, sets the stage for polarization and disrespect. (The truly ethical person will not stoop to such things regardless the venue, but there are a lot of people in this world that would do all sorts of despicable things, only if they felt they could get away with them. And the "get away with" part is what the electronic venue oftentimes provides.)

That is an insightful observation. We do often see some people here treat others as if they weren't even members of the same species. I'd like to hope that if they were guests in each others' living rooms, they'd behave more respectfully.

[bakron1]

The bottom line is that I don't care how or where you have it built or by who. If you have no one who wants your product anymore????

Well, I will let the ones making all that big money in Waterloo figure that one out????


Sent using the CB app from my iPhone 5S

[gogurt48]

So since you took personal umbrage at this term because you felt personally slighted by it, your argument is that we should here-and-now change the definition of this old and well-known phrase (or just stop using it), because gogurt didn't like the implications of it in a particular web forum thread on some particular narrowly-targeted product enthusiast website in December 2013. Just want to get that clear.

If you really want to get it clear, you should refer back to the post to which I was responding. Clickitykeys said, "I'm asking because the derogatory use of the "sheep" epithet is generally intended to mock the imitatory tendency rather than the docility of sheep." I replied that if that is the case, they should find another epithet. I also explained why, but you snipped that part of my response. Here it is again:

"Sheep aren't known to imitate each other, or other animals. However, they are known to flock together, and to follow a leader, which is probably what's really being alluded to when iPhone users are called sheep."

Instead of trying to change the meaning of the phrase, I think it would be more useful to simply point out that it's an obnoxious epithet and it offends you personally.

I am not trying to change the meaning of the phrase. Do you disagree with the meaning I attributed to it above?

At least we apparently now have a bit more agreement on the meaning of the phrase, so instead of trying to twist the term into something that doesn't remotely resemble its common usage, we can move beyond that stage of your "rebuttal".

We could have moved beyond it awhile ago if you had read my full response. I was objecting to Clickitykeys' definition, which, I think you'll agree, is the one that doesn't remotely resemble its common usage.

Well, it's an epithet to be sure, I believe I already acknowledged that. And I also pointed-out how, when discussions are so ridiculously polarized - under whatever specific form that takes - it shouldn't come as any surprise whatsoever when such phrases start getting bandied-about. Everyone who contributes to the partisan "piling-on" takes some of the blame for that.

Unfortunately, you're right, it comes as no surprise. Fanboys will be fanboys. It's certainly not unique to Crackberry. I see the same behavior on Apple forums. (I've never been on an Android forum, but I assume we'd see it there, too).

As for Apple in particular, it's a true fact that Apple gets more often singled-out for this "sheep" behaviour, because, quite simply, the corporate marketing and positioning of Apple has been pushing this "elite club member" "ingroup" corporate marketing image for many years now.

I find that ironic, since this is a forum devoted to a platform that was marketed with the phrases, "tools not toys," and "amateur hour is over."

snip . . . Most people don't like to be called "mindless drones" or have even the implication directed at them, for good reason. And I don't think any reasonable person really means TRULY mindless drones... but it's more a matter of "That person seems more of a follower than a leader" kind of thing.

Actually, it's more of a "anyone who prefers that platform must be a mindless sheep, just following the herd" kind of thing. I don't think it's usually directed at the person himself, but rather, at the person as a member of a group that must necessarily be sheep-like.

If nothing else, it shows how much skin you have in this game because you have spent so much time/energy expressing your offence at its usage.

Honestly, it would be a mistake to assume that the things I spend the most time discussing are the things that are most important to me. Actually, I like discussion for its own sake, and I spend the most time on the liveliest discussions. That's why I'm here at Crackberry, even though I don't have much interest in BlackBerry, per se. I simply find the discussions here much livelier and more interesting than most of the discussions at the Apple forums. (I kid you not, I have seen whole threads devoted to the presence of an arrow on the iPhone's lock screen. Zzzzzzzz).

Now let's turn this around and try for a minute to imagine what a person from Indonesia might think about the nasty comment that I singled out a few comments back. Acceptable? I sure hope situational ethics isn't in play here.

I'm sorry, but which comment was that?

[BergerKing]

Articulate arguments, all, however, I think it is time to steer the discussion back on track, and rather than continue the observations of the strategic partnership instead of barnyard behavior.

Frankly, the sheep analogy is overused and overstated. As part of the discussion has made clear, let's remember, polarization isn't always good, and frequently leads to unnecessary battles or long term wars. And I think we've seen enough of those for a while.

[Pete The Penguin]

A better question would be: "What are you wearing today?"

If it's made of cotton, there is a very good chance the cotton was picked by children (9-10 years and older) who were forced (not paid) to pick it.

My point is that it's kind of hypocritical to single out one company while enjoying all the goods that other companies produce using questionable employment practices.

As for what I'm wearing, I'm currently naked.

When I do wear clothes, they're ethically sourced and usually made in the country I reside in.

[Pete The Penguin]

Sure, make me feel bad. I have skin allergens to most everything but cotton.

Same here.

[avt123]

"Docile and Contented", amirite?

They sure as hell weren't there because "everyone else had one so they needed to get it". They weren't "following a herd". Most of the people on the line were upgrading from a previous iPhone. Seems like they knew what they wanted so they went to get it.

I saw a bunch of normal people. Not the type of fanatic and sheep like behavior people here like to describe.

Either way this discussion has nothing to do with Foxconn and BlackBerry.

Hopefully this strategy works for BlackBerry and get more devices out in emerging markets. But I think Foxconn will end up taking full control in the long run.

[Desktoper]

Reuters has a story on the partnership between BlackBerry and Foxconn that gives insight into why Foxconn would want to join with BB at this time. It has to do with Foxconn's expansion into, and joint ventures with, Indonesia, which just happens to be a solid BB market. The synergy between Foxconn's excellent stem to stern component sourcing and fabrication know how makes for a more cost effective handset, which in turn, will allow BB to focus on faster software development, and better marketing. Foxconn gets to expand its industrial design chops up from the Apple model of order taker, to co-designer. Here's the link: BlackBerry deal bolsters Foxconn's makeover gambit | Reuters

[Omnitech]

As you can tell by my avatar, I am older than 12. Actually, I am 50. And I do know what people mean when they call other people "sheep." They mean that they think those people tend to follow the crowd without thinking; that they are meek, unintelligent, easily persuaded, and value fashion above function.

I'm at least glad that finally after all this roundabout and deflection you have acknowledged what most people always knew the phrase means instead of trying to claim it means something like (from my fuzzy memory) "happiness and docility".

It is an attempt to account for the overwhelming popularity of a thing (e.g., the iPhone) by attributing it to herd behavior, rather than rational decision-making. I assume they think this way because they honestly believe that if popularity were determined by an objective weighing of pros and cons, their platform of choice would be number one. And because their platform of choice is not number one (not by a long shot), they assume that other factors, like fashion and peer pressure, must be at work.

And here you betray your own bias by polarizing and over-simplifying your conception of this other "camp".

I think it's quite possible to think of some platform fans as being "sheep" without simultaneously requiring that one thinks one's own preferred platform should be "#1" absent nefarious and/or unfair conspiratorial factors. (Though some people certainly do think such things.)

Specifically, the person who had used the term in this case, while undoubtedly being an avid and sometimes abrasively avid "fan", I don't think it likely he has some kind of illusion that BlackBerry should be #1 if only for lack of divine technological justice in the world.

As for this whole question of "rational decision-making", this is another popular fallacy, because humans are not computers and rarely make 100% so-called "rational" decisions anyway. It's actually more of a sociological or political stance than a logical reality. In societies like the USA which was heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and separation of church/state, people frequently take offence if described as "irrational". So that becomes an epithet of sorts too. If only people would recognize how many of their so-called "rational decisions" were in fact nothing of the sort, we would be much better off as a society.

That's not sheep behavior, that's fanaticism.

Point taken, but the two are frequently found together.

Yes, I thought that was funny, too. We all have biases, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're honest about them with ourselves and others. A humble person recognizes that he has biases, but tries to be objective anyway.

Something I agree with you 100% on, see my second to last comment above.

That is an insightful observation. We do often see some people here treat others as if they weren't even members of the same species. I'd like to hope that if they were guests in each others' living rooms, they'd behave more respectfully.

Yes, it's a subject of particular interest to me. Many studies have been done on this. One that is quick to describe and interesting to ponder:

Researchers setup an electronic or online community which gave participants the ability to choose and display an avatar for their presence there, some of which have a realistic human appearance, some of which are obviously computer-generated. After allowing people to interact in various ways for some time, and compiling metrics on aspects such as (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here because I don't remember the specifics) sociableness, friendliness, accomodation, respect.. characteristics like this - they found that the simple presence of an associated avatar of some kind for a particular participant, even if it was clearly CGI, had a substantial positive impact on the degree of respect and friendliness other people extended to those online participants.

Which is something I have long pointed-out (and has been written about quite a bit at this point) - the lack of in-person interaction and "real tangibility" in online venues often leads many people to "otherize" or "dehumanize" the rest of the participants in ways that allows them to rationalize treating them antisocially.


(Edit: After reading my own comment I may have just convinced myself to add an avatar here. )
(Edit2: Didn't see BergerKing's post until after I spent significant time on this, sorry. I can delete, but I would want to save first.)
.

[Omnitech]

[re: Apple's "ingroup" marketing tactics] I find that ironic, since this is a forum devoted to a platform that was marketed with the phrases, "tools not toys," and "amateur hour is over."

I don't think such slogans remotely approach what I was referring-to earlier, but since I just read BergerKing's comment I'm not going to pursue this subject much more here.

Perhaps there is another section here that we could continue it if you are still interested.

I'm sorry, but which comment was that?

Post #294. PM me if you want to continue in that vein.

[gogurt48]

I'm at least glad that finally after all this roundabout and deflection you have acknowledged what most people always knew the phrase means instead of trying to claim it means something like (from my fuzzy memory) "happiness and docility".

In light of BergerKing's request that we drop it and get back on topic, I am dropping it. Merry Christmas!