Re: Subliminal Channels

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

> [I know this shouldn't be here, but I can't resist one more response. According
> to Skinner, I have no choice anyway. This is the last, I promise.]

Ego is such a strong influence.

>   Look, I know people who work in the advertising business. Not bosses,
> but workers. People whose's money isn't on the line.  People who haven't
> signed non-disclosure agreements, people who are my friends. The idea
> that out of tens of thousands of artists in the advertising business, NOT ONE
> would come out and openly state what they do is as ludicrous as UFO 
> conspiracies which require thousands of people to keep their mouth shut.

Funny how you keep trying to mention subliminal ads and UFOs in one
breath.  You don't have anything stronger going for your argument than
your relation between subliminal ads and flying saucers?

> > Yes, I agree, but to the _conscious_ level it is noise!
> 
>    Let me explain a simple concept. Humans send subliminal signals to each
> other. It's called BODY LANGUAGE. 

Boy, you are really ignorant or you're really confused!
If body language were subliminal, we wouldn't respond to it on a conscious
level.  When someone shakes, or their palms are sweaty, we consciously
connect that behavior with nervousness (or at least I do).  The Japanese
culture rely almost exclusively on body language to communicate; if it
were subliminal they'd be clueless on what to do next!!!

> Ads are dominated by people laughing,
> smiling, and other positive images. They are also dominated by humor.
> These psychological mechanisms are known to work.

Of course, but to quote youself, "that is all noise."  Subliminal
stimulus is much stronger than all three as a profit maker.

> Advertisers would
> much rather put their money in traditional proven techniques of appealing
> to people than Freudian crackpot theories which have been shown to have
> no effect by many studies.

On the contrary, it has been _them_ doing the studies, and them spending
the ad money, *because* *it* *works*.

> Do you think many of those subliminal tapes have
> been removed from commercial sale by the govnernment because they work too
> well, or because they never worked and people got ripped off?

I have seen subliminal tapes for sale in Edmund Scientific in N.J.

> > If you don't want to accept something before first glance, you won't.
> 
>    I don't accept it because it's bunk. I studied _Clam-Plate Orgy_ very
> carefully in challenge to another crackpot who bet me to read it. Now
> your argument resorts to religious tactics "if you don't believe in it,
> you don't want to believe. Blah blah."

Science uses the same tactics.  Actually you should know that I'm an
atheist before you rant and rave on how religious I am.  I didn't mention
that before, because I didn't figure it as any of your damn business, but
I am sick of hearing this "oh, another religious freak again bullshit."

> On the other hand, you are
> too accepting. You accept theories which are published no where else,
> which are not accepted by the scientific community, and which lack scientific
> control.

On the contrary, I accept and reject theories which are obscure and little
known as much as I accept and reject theories which are well-known in
history.  The difference between you and I is that I seem to be a little
more open-minded.  The fact is that we are discussing a topic which is
little-studied (as I mentioned before) so it is little surprise that you
call this "unscientific," etc. etc.


> No, actually it is very true and scary as hell.
>  
>   It wasn't a scientifically valid experiment. There are much more
> simpler and credible explanations of why advertising works, and Occam's
> Razor tells us to deposit Key in file #13.
> 
> > > -- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;  
> > > -- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.    
> > > -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries   
> > Science is the faith in believing the universe is explainable, don't
> > deceive yourself thinking otherwise.
> 
>   This is the second time you have attacked my signature. It is generally
> acknowledged in net-culture that the attack of someone's sig represents
> the loss of an argument. 

I'm not a part of your bloody net-culture.  I don't choose to be.  I
attacked you and your elitist "rationalist-scientific" attitude, not your
signature, not your argument.

> Should I be surprised that your attack on science
> is nothing more than the simplistic "science is a religion" argument, that
> you are succeptable to memes from non-scientific crackpots like Key,

Hmm...read a little Dawson I see... Don't make me quote Dawson on this
one, you are totally clueless as to what mnemes are.

> and
> in the same message you reference Skinner and social-science which is at
> best dismal.

Ah, I believe we are talking about behavior control theory right?  So Skinner
and Co. are excellent tie-ins to this discussion.  If you would like a
bibliography, just ask, dude.

> I bet you are a great follower of his Chomsky-ness too. 

Sure.  You betcha.  I've heard of him before, is he involved with
conspiracies and that b.s.?

> P.S. I am taking this arguement off cypherpunks. I will probably repost
> my respones to sci.skeptic tommorow, perhaps Alex will have the guts to
> debate it there.

You tell me how and we'll duke 'em out, dude.

> -- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;
> -- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
> -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

Remember Tacoma Bridge?  What a piece of engineering faith that was!  I
started to laugh at my physics teacher when he told us how it took
thousands of hours to figure out why a bridge suddenly started to twist.

-Alex Reynolds

"A scientist is a priest with more cool looking potions." -my sceptical
chem teacher.