Re: Subliminal Channels

[Alexander Reynolds <chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>]

> > That wouldn't explain the rise in sales of popcorn, a hot food.
> 
>   It's easily explainable by the fact that it wasn't a scientifically valid
> test.

Why?  Because you don't want to accept the fact that if you're out to make
money, you'll exploit any angle you can, including the dominance of the
subconcious over what the conscious perceives?

I also remember you saying in your last message that this was a hoax.  Why
a sudden change in tune?
  
I think it was a scientifically valid test (within reason) because the
control was a normal, non-tach show versus a tach/stimulus show.  This was
done repeatedly, and the results were conclusive, a 60% rise in popcorn
sales.  Other "tests" were done, changing "you want popcorn" to "do you
want popcorn?"  It was shown that adding the question provoked a stronger
stimulation to consume that without the question.
 
>   Possibly because you don't drink hard liquor warm? The ice examples
> from Key's book are even more idiotic. He might have had a genuine article
> with that cologne add which showed a penis about to be cut off with a knife
> (along with numerous images of dead animals), but the ice images were 
> so-convoluted even conciously looking at them I couldn't make out anything. 

Again: You will see what you want to see, and likewise you will not see
what you do not want to see.

>   You do not understand how advertising works. The key word is CAMPAIGN,

No, the key word is SALES.  Anything else is secondary to that goal.

> repeated exposure over a long period, to a large group of people who
> are in your target audience. Statistically, a certain percentage of
> people will stop to read your ad after repeated exposure. They spend
> millions because even if a _fraction_ of the target audience responds to
> the ad, they make many more millions.

The profit would certainly be lost to recover revenue without
subliminal stimuli and with your statisical exposure.

> > Key tried to go on Canadian TV awhile back with a program about his
> > research.  It was pulled after direct intervention from advertisers
> > threatening to pull their ads if the show went on; the TV execs behaved
> > predictibily.  Why were they so scared of something which you see as a joke?
> 
>   The key to recognizing a conspiracy crackpot is the presence of a censoring
> authority. Thus the oil companies conspiring to prevent the 200 mpg carburetor
> from being used, the Bilderburger's preventing all of the media from
> revealing that they forclosed on the US Govt 50 years ago, UFO data
> being censored by people "above top secret", etc.

But the govt. and the like deny all charges when they are faced
with them.  Ad companies pull their ads; they don't respond, they don't deny. 
And that is the difference between reality and hoax.  

>    Tim May can probably elaborate since he is a much better fan of conspiracy
> theories than I am. I stopped reading alt.conspiracy after the JFK thread
> was brought up for the 100th time.

Tim: Any input?

>    I suggest you take this thread to sci.skeptic if you dare. Try your
> anecdotal evidence there to see if it works.

Well, my anecdotal evidence and experience includes readings from noted
behaviorologists other than Key.  So maybe this is a little more
scientific than first glance appears?  Maybe, maybe...

Your e-mail address says you are from MIT, so act like the scientist
you're pretending to be and read a little behavioral science first.

-Alex Reynolds