Dennis Claxton:
> It's not easy to separate these out. Shock value can be very
> useful in creating conditions for discussion. It can also be
> banal, but that's a different issue.
Agreed on the first count, but it does not mean that they cannot be separated at all. There are some grey areas, for sure, but in most cases you can pretty much tell what the intent of the message is.
As far as the second count is concern, I pretty much doubt, albeit I am aware that there is a considerable disagreement on that. My experience is that shocking has the opposite effect - it turns otherwise persuadable people off or even drives them into the opposite camp. I am not talking here about attracting drooling adolescents with the attention span of 3 minutes or less, but engaging serious people in serious debates and re-considering their hitherto unquestioned positions. If memory serves, there is a lot of research showing that aversive stimuli lead to either not paying attention to the message associated with them, lower retention of the message, or in extreme cases, the so-called "learned helplessness." I think Miles Jackson may have more to say on that subject.
Wojtek