OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[pk500]

Canadian ex-pat Malcolm Gladwell once wrote an article in the New Yorker about this. He looked at the American Auto Industry's psychological profile of the typical SUV buyer (buyer of American SUVs). The number one personality trait they found was insecurity - insecurity in their ability to drive, insecurity about their safety on the road, and even insecurity in their marriage. His research also indicated that once such an insecure person was driving an SUV, they felt that they could abandon their responsibilities as drivers since they suddenly felt invincible.

That is one of the larger lines of sh*t I've read in a while, at least from a personal perspective. I have owned SUV's because I live on a large hill -- a 300-foot change in elevation in less than 1 mile -- in a region that averages 116 inches of snow per winter. Try climbing my hill in 6 inches of snow in your FWD Honda Accord during the winter, and then come back to me with claims that I have owned a Jeep Cherokee, Chevy Blazer and Toyota RAV 4 because I have a small penis.

It's also pretty hard to stuff a family of five and gear into a Toyota Matrix or an overpriced Subaru Outback, too.

Right now, we own a Chevy Venture mini-van and a Toyota RAV 4 SUV. The Venture rarely ventures out of the garage during the winter unless the roads are clear or damp.

So how does that psych profile fit me? I own and proudly drive a mini-van -- there goes the macho theory out the window -- and a small SUV.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

Horseshit...people bought em cause it was the in thing.

And now it's the in thing to stereotype every SUV owner as an insecure, wann-be macho dufus who WANTS to burn as much gas as possible. They are probably all sitting in tneir SUVs clinging to their guns and god as we speak.

I bought a Chevy Blazer back in 1998 because 1) It had 4-wheel drive, and we live in a very rural area that gets lots of snow, 2) It could tow our boat, and 3) It had enough space to carry things like building materials and our recylcables to the recylcing center (hear that, SUV owners actually recylce).

Edit: I also would like to add that I never had an accident in that Blazer over the 10 years I owned it. My Mitsu Eclipse however, fell victim to slush and snow once.

[matthewk]

It's also pretty hard to stuff a family of five and gear into a Toyota Matrix.

That's why we stopped at four

[matthewk]

Yeah insecurity may be a factor ...

And jealousy may be a factor in your posts.

[Brando70]

True, PK, but one exception doesn't disprove the rule.

I don't know if "insecurity" is as much of the driver as "security." Ask most SUV drivers and they will tell you they feel safer in their vehicles, even if you tell them they are more likely to be in an accident because the weight and handling will make it harder to avoid a collision if one is about to occur. And certainly if you compare sitting behind the wheel of a Yukon and a Civic, it's hard to not feel "safer" in the Yukon.

The security thing also factors into other decisions -- feeling secure in inclement whether with 4WD. Feeling secure that you can fit your family and luggage and everything else into your car.

Styling was certainly a factor, too. Frankly, most SUVs were nicer and more attractive than many mini-vans and American-made sedans. There was a certain hipness factor, but most families buying SUVs were probably not doing it to be chic.

There are definitely times you need an SUV. Here in Michigan's UP, all-wheel drive is a huge advantage in the winter because it snows at least twice a week. If you have a family of five or more, like PK said, a small AWD vehicle like a Subaru won't cut it, and most mini-vans can't handle the snow as well as an SUV.

The market is already correcting itself, but it's going to be painful for a while. People are taking a bath selling or trading in their SUVs, and there are still not a huge number of high efficiency cars available. It's going to take years to adjust.

[JackB1]

True, PK, but one exception doesn't disprove the rule.

I don't know if "insecurity" is as much of the driver as "security." Ask most SUV drivers and they will tell you they feel safer in their vehicles, even if you tell them they are more likely to be in an accident because the weight and handling will make it harder to avoid a collision if one is about to occur. And certainly if you compare sitting behind the wheel of a Yukon and a Civic, it's hard to not feel "safer" in the Yukon.

I don't know about you guys, but I see SUV after SUV on the way to work in the morning, with 1 driver commuting to work. Why wouldn't you save the SUV for the family and weekends and get a cheap commuter car or carpool?

[JackB1]

Canadian ex-pat Malcolm Gladwell once wrote an article in the New Yorker about this. He looked at the American Auto Industry's psychological profile of the typical SUV buyer (buyer of American SUVs). The number one personality trait they found was insecurity - insecurity in their ability to drive, insecurity about their safety on the road, and even insecurity in their marriage. His research also indicated that once such an insecure person was driving an SUV, they felt that they could abandon their responsibilities as drivers since they suddenly felt invincible.

I believe it. And PK, just because you don't fall into this group, doesn't mean it may not be true for a majority of the others. I would venture to guess that at least 50% of SUV owners don't really "need" a SUV and would do nicely with a smaller, more gas efficient vehicle.

[JackB1]

We made progress toward fuel economy in the 80s before it fell off the cliff in the 1990s. And now we're all bearing the cost of that short-sightedness, because fuel costs are the driving force behind the inflation we're seeing.

I never understood that. It's like everyone in the auto industry got together and said "enough with this fuel economy crap...it's time for bigger, gas guzzlers to take over". I remember when "economy cars" were all the rage and car ads toughted high MPG ratings and showed them proudly. Somewhere along the way to fuel conservation, everything took a huge step backwards.

[Jackdog]

Canadian ex-pat Malcolm Gladwell once wrote an article in the New Yorker about this. He looked at the American Auto Industry's psychological profile of the typical SUV buyer (buyer of American SUVs). The number one personality trait they found was insecurity - insecurity in their ability to drive, insecurity about their safety on the road, and even insecurity in their marriage. His research also indicated that once such an insecure person was driving an SUV, they felt that they could abandon their responsibilities as drivers since they suddenly felt invincible.

I believe it. And PK, just because you don't fall into this group, doesn't mean it may not be true for a majority of the others. I would venture to guess that at least 50% of SUV owners don't really "need" a SUV and would do nicely with a smaller, more gas efficient vehicle.

That may be true but what gives people the right to try and tell others what to drive? This is a fee society and if someone can afford to continue to drive their SUV's so be it. This country is sliding into socialism more and more everyday. You can't smoke,eat or fart without pissing someone off. Now SUV drivers are insecure macho asswipes? I don't agree with Malcolm Gladwell at all. I ain't picking on you Jack.

Like Brando I lived in N Michigan. We got 140 inches of snow last year. Driving an SUV or truck was damn near a must last winter. We traded in our Escape for a Focus a few years ago and I missed the hell out of it last winter. The Focus did pretty good,but when the snow is so deep it's over the hood of your car an SUV comes in handy.

We now live in downtown St Paul and drive our car on the weekends. I think I'll have to fill up the Focus once a month. I am digging on that big time.

On a side note I find it interesting that oil prices stayed steady after its largest dollar decline since Jan. 17, 1991, and the biggest percentage drop yesterday since March as slowing economic growth reduces demand. U.S. gasoline demand fell 5.2 percent last week. That coupled with talk of doing away with the offshore drilling ban could make prices a bit more stable going into the winter. Until we get alternative energy plans into action this could be a good thing short term.

[JackB1]

That may be true but what gives people the right to try and tell others what to drive? This is a fee society and if someone can afford to continue to drive their SUV's so be it. This country is sliding into socialism more and more everyday. You can't smoke,eat or fart without pissing someone off. Now SUV drivers are insecure macho asswipes? I don't agree with Malcolm Gladwell at all. I ain't picking on you Jack.

We do have a free society and people can and will do what they want, but if it negatively impacts others or the environment, then others will have something to say about it.

For example, we have a continuing water shortage crisis in Atlanta and lake levels have been way below normal and everyone is urged to conserve water. Does that mean if I am rich and can afford a huge pool and landscaping, that I should be watering it until is is greener than Augusta and refilling the pool every other week just because I can personally afford to?

[matthewk]

For example, we have a continuing water shortage crisis in Atlanta and lake levels have been way below normal and everyone is urged to conserve water. Does that mean if I am rich and can afford a huge pool and landscaping, that I should be watering it until is is greener than Augusta and refilling the pool every other week just because I can personally afford to?

Do you still flush your toilet when you take a p*ss? That would be negatively impacting others or the environment, especially if your area is short on water.

Ban the toilets!!!

[Brando70]

I don't think it's telling people what to drive. It's saying that a car has to meet certain standards. We require seat belts, air bags, emissions standards, etc. We don't require them just to be commies. They make sense and it also assures the consumer that what they are buying meets certain acceptable standards.

I would never advocate removing SUVs or trucks from the market, just requiring them to meet better fuel standards. The technology is there, it's just that until now, we had little motivation to implement it since gas was so cheap. Plus fuel standards have a direct economic benefit for every consumer.

And what's so bad about communism anyway -- my factories get a double production bonus when I convert to it in Civilization Revolution

[pk500]

For example, we have a continuing water shortage crisis in Atlanta and lake levels have been way below normal and everyone is urged to conserve water. Does that mean if I am rich and can afford a huge pool and landscaping, that I should be watering it until is is greener than Augusta and refilling the pool every other week just because I can personally afford to?

You're comparing water to oil? Come on. We die without water; we don't die without gas. There are alternatives to gas; there is no alternative to water.

Second, how is driving an SUV harming the environment besides using more fossil fuels? Is there proof that gasoline-powered SUV's belch more damaging emissions than a car that gets 30 MPG?

Driving an SUV wastes a ton of money for a lot of people because they're pissing it away in gasoline expenditures. But if they want to piss away that cake, who are we to tell them to stop?

I would have no problem with your argument if you said "Get out of all vehicles and walk, use a bike or public transportation."

Should we start regulating over-the-road truck traffic, too? No more 18-wheelers or tandems because they use too much diesel? Every trucking company must use box vans or UPS-style delivery trucks and nothing more because that will have a smaller imprint on the spotted egret on the North Slope?

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

For example, we have a continuing water shortage crisis in Atlanta and lake levels have been way below normal and everyone is urged to conserve water. Does that mean if I am rich and can afford a huge pool and landscaping, that I should be watering it until is is greener than Augusta and refilling the pool every other week just because I can personally afford to?

Do you still flush your toilet when you take a p*ss? That would be negatively impacting others or the environment, especially if your area is short on water.

Ban the toilets!!!

Actually, I just wear one of those astronaut contraptions that turns pee into water and I also poop on our lawn, so it becomes fertilizer.

[pk500]

I would never advocate removing SUVs or trucks from the market, just requiring them to meet better fuel standards. The technology is there, it's just that until now, we had little motivation to implement it since gas was so cheap. Plus fuel standards have a direct economic benefit for every consumer.

I think fuel standards are largely superfluous these days. Market gas prices are driving people to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Toyota can't build the Prius fast enough, and no government mandate is making that happen.

SUV's aren't the only problem vehicle. There are supercharged econoboxes with high-revving, turbocharged fours that get 28 mpg on the highway. That's a joke, too.

SUV's are major violators of fuel economy, but they're also a convenient whipping boy. I remember when my wife drove a Honda CRX in the late 1980s, and it got nearly 50 mpg on the highway. No gas-powered car sold in America gets that kind of mileage these days.

I would like to think that skyrocketing fuel prices would cause people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles forever. But we Americans should know better than that: The energy crisis of the 1970s taught us nothing, as everyone was driving gas pigs 25 years later, whether it was an SUV or a high-revving import sedan.

Once fuel prices stabilize and people's wallets get used to the sticker shock, we'll be back in our gas guzzlers sooner or later.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

For example, we have a continuing water shortage crisis in Atlanta and lake levels have been way below normal and everyone is urged to conserve water. Does that mean if I am rich and can afford a huge pool and landscaping, that I should be watering it until is is greener than Augusta and refilling the pool every other week just because I can personally afford to?

You're comparing water to oil? Come on. We die without water; we don't die without gas. There are alternatives to gas; there is no alternative to water.

Second, how is driving an SUV harming the environment besides using more fossil fuels? Is there proof that gasoline-powered SUV's belch more damaging emissions than a car that gets 30 MPG?

Driving an SUV wastes a ton of money for a lot of people because they're pissing it away in gasoline expenditures. But if they want to piss away that cake, who are we to tell them to stop?

I would have no problem with your argument if you said "Get out of all vehicles and walk, use a bike or public transportation."

Should we start regulating over-the-road truck traffic, too? No more 18-wheelers or tandems because they use too much diesel? Every trucking company must use box vans or UPS-style delivery trucks and nothing more because that will have a smaller imprint on the spotted egret on the North Slope?

Take care,
PK

No, I wasn't comparing oil to water...of course they are totally different situations. I was responding to Jack's "free society" comment. My point was, just because you are "allowed" to do something, doesn't always make it the right thing to do and won't prevent others from voicing their disapproval.

[JackB1]

I don't think it's telling people what to drive. It's saying that a car has to meet certain standards. We require seat belts, air bags, emissions standards, etc. We don't require them just to be commies. They make sense and it also assures the consumer that what they are buying meets certain acceptable standards.

What he said. It's about being smart with our freedoms.

[wco81]

Do people get that the author was quoting auto industry-funded studies, not proffering his own theory?

They were trying to understand what motivated the buyers to prefer SUVs, so that they could design cars to reinforce those motivations.

They were rolling their eyes at what some of the focus group respondents said but they rolled their eyes all the way to the bank.

[XXXIV]

Timmy!?

[Inuyasha]

Jesse Jackson - now using the N word, what a disgrace.

You know what the problem with this guy is, he is SO JEALOUS of Obama. I bet at nights he wishes he was Obama.[/u]

[Smurfy]

Do people get that the author was quoting auto industry-funded studies, not proffering his own theory?

They were trying to understand what motivated the buyers to prefer SUVs, so that they could design cars to reinforce those motivations.

They were rolling their eyes at what some of the focus group respondents said but they rolled their eyes all the way to the bank.

BINGO!!!

Give the man the prize. The point of the article was that this is what the guys who design and make the American SUVs thought of their target market. So you should be angry at them for having such a disrespecting (and possibly wrong) idea of what most of you are like.

Psychological profiles are just one tool in a toolbox that professional marketers use. They don't necessarily reflect anythng about any particular individual. But they help people to decide on where and how they will focus their marketing work. These profiles can be incorrect. Even if accurate, the marketing campaign can still err in the application of that data.

But the fact is that GM and Ford had this insulting opinion of the people who chose to buy their SUVs. So deal with it.

And as far as psychology goes, I'm beginning to believe Freud's talk about repressed feelings - Find a raw nerve and it truly hurts

[matthewk]

Then there are guys who find themselves faced with parenthood but don't want minivans because they're too much like station wagons while SUVs were considered more sporty, rugged (even if they never went offroad), etc.

Yeah insecurity may be a factor ...

This little tidbit was in WCOs own words, not quoted as part of any article.

His agenda is obvious, and I was pointing out that the sterotype he is attempting to portray is not always accurate.

[Slumberland]

Jesse Jackson - now using the N word, what a disgrace.

Nougat? I don't blame him... that stuff is delicious. And what is it made of, anyway?

Oh. THAT 'N' word.

[pk500]

And as far as psychology goes, I'm beginning to believe Freud's talk about repressed feelings - Find a raw nerve and it truly hurts

Clearly, Freud never drove in the snow belt.

If you'd like to visit me this winter and try to drive up my hill in your Nissan Sentra while it has been snowing an inch an hour all night with blowing and drifting, please ... be my guest.

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T ... s|New+York

Not sure if you can read a topo map, but all of those tightly packed lines west of the village of Marcellus represent the hill that I live atop. And if you know anything about topo maps, the closer the lines, the steeper the hill.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Quick question for WCO: How many inches of snow per year does San Jose average? I was just wondering, because your global expertise on all issues seems to extend to the proper usage of SUV's, too.

And I'm sure that bias-free knowledge is based on actual usage of an SUV in foul-weather conditions and not a Google search.

Take care,
PK