subliminal seduction

Is too much made of the fact that advertisers try to sell you products by playing with your mind? Flash images during commercials? The word "sex" etched in strategic places in an otherwise tame publicity page selling a car, cigarettes, etc. Musak in supermarkets with hidden messages inciting you to buy more, or purchase a specific product. And we won't even go into those dreaded ice cubes floating in glasses where you can see all sorts of (usually sexual) things going on...

Is there an "Anything Goes" strategy in the advertising world whereby no blow is too low to get your hard-earned cash, as long as they don't get caught?

Maybe it only works on those who are not percetually challenged. Frankly, I don't see the bunny:

http://www.infinet.com/~mike/fig3.html

I know Cecil addressed the subject in The Straight Dope, but I don't have that handy. I seem to recall him pretty much debunking it.

I don't really look at the ice cubes for very long.

I have trouble enough trying to find the bunny on the cover of Playboy.

Truth in advertising? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cecil did indeed debunk the entire concept, except for one particular subliminal message that seemed to have some influence (something on the line of "mommy and I are one," which won't do much to sell soda).

There are also technical limitations. The original movie theater subliminal test used a machine that flashed the image on the screen for a very short time (1/1000th of a second or less). Normal film projectors flash things at 1/24th of a second, which is not too fast for people to notice (ever notice a scratch in a frame)? So you'd see anything projected in a theater through normal means.

TV is even less likely. US TV projects an image at 1/30th of a second (or, more accurately, half the image at 1/60th of a second and the other half in another 1/60th). This also isn't fast enough for the viewer not to notice. Further, most TV is done on film, so it's back to 1/24th, and videotapes probably cannot be edited to get an extremely rapid image (you don't splice videotape). I suppose someone could project the 1/1000th second image while the video camera is running, but the TV would be too slow to ensure it was picked up.



------------------
www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

These subliminal message things really piss me off. I've been staring at that Pall Mall ad for 10 minutes and I can't see any bunny. On the other hand, I do kind of want a cigarette...

Maybe that's all the PR department needs to do: start spreading some rumor that there might be some sinister hidden picture in their ads, then everybody has to go buy the magazine or whatever to scrutinize the alleged invasion of our subconscious minds. If the image is actually on the product itself, I'm sure all of the groups opposed to it rush right out & buy a case of the product so they can study it up close. Of course they will find something, just so they can reaffirm their stance against smoking or pornography or whatever, and then it becomes a big stink & gets put on the 11 o'clock news. Then all us consumers have to run out & buy said product so we can have our own personal copies of the hidden smut before the company decides pull the design & revamp it into something even more subliminal.

opus said:Maybe that's all the PR department needs to do: start spreading some rumor that there might be some sinister hidden picture in their ads, then everybody has to go buy the magazine or whatever to scrutinize the alleged invasion of our subconscious minds.
Well, that is pretty much what the original "Drink Coke/Eat Popcorn" subliminal movie ad was. The owner of the theater later admitted it was a hoax to attract attention. Guess it worked... (Unfortunately, a lot of people still believe the original story, so it continues to get passed along.)

------------------
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above" -- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Ghost of a Chance"

So Cecil has debunked subliminal advertising techniques ala Madison Avenue. Did he liken it to just a big fat hoax or perhaps an overworked superficial set of questionable and unreliable psychological phenomenom?

I have read Bryan Wilson Keyes work Subliminal Seduction. I must admit that it was a real eye-opener for me.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison <i> Old Brown Shoe </i>-

Click on the ad, then click on the "figure 4" link in the subsequent text that appears. You'll see the bunny.

There is absolutely (submit to me sexually) no truth (give me all of your money) to the effectiveness (kill Celine Dion) of so-called subliminal advertising.

I don't know if advertisers purposefully put hidden pictures or messages on magazine covers, but if you look hard enough and have a good imagination, you can find lots of things. There are dozens of objects people have found on dollar bills that conspiracy theorists have speculated have some governmental oppressionist significance. Yeah, like the government would try to influence the peons who have dollar bills; if anything they'd put stuff on 50s, 100s, and 500s for the people in power: corporate executives and drug dealers.

------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

Click on the ad, then click on the "figure 4" link in the subsequent text that appears. You'll see the bunny.

I did this, and I'm chagrined to say I STILL don't see the bunny. Of course, I don't smoke, either.

As with any conspiracy theory, the people who would be responsible for something as devious as sublimininal advertising would need to possess a level of intelligence, coupled with a requisite amount of hard work, that I have never personally witnessed among my friends in the advertising industry. It's just easier to stick sweaty beer bottles next to hot babes than it is to invent some diabolical subliminal advertising campaign.

Right on, AuraSeer.

And if you consider advertising these days, who needs to go subliminal? Oh, maybe you've got a financial product that doesn't lend itself to hot babe advertisments. I still have doubts because I just don't look at the ice cubes that long.

Or maybe I'm just perceptually challenged.

Does anybody else remember trying to read the word SEX in Farrah Fawcet's hair.

That's not a bunny - that's Scooby-Doo. No wonder I've been trying to light up my Scooby snacks.

It looks to me like just a random occurrence in the pattern of light and shadow. I bet that if I took ten pictures of ten different ski slopes, at least one would contain a shape resembling some company's logo.
If finding a kinda-sorta-bunnyish shape in that photo is evidence of subliminal advertising, then seeing a cloud shaped like Joe Camel is evidence that the tobacco companies control the weather. (I use this example because right this minute, there is a cloud outside my window which has the same outline as old Joe's face. Should I call RJ Reynolds and complain the next time it hails?)

I have read Bryan Wilson Keyes work Subliminal Seduction. I must admit that it was a real eye-opener for me.

No disrespect, dragonfly, but Keyes's book opened my eyes too -- to his astonishing lack of fair-mindedness and careful thought! It was entirely unintentional on his part, but Keyes has refuted the validity of alleged "subliminal" images in ads better than anyone I can think of.

Although he personally selected and approved the cover art/photo of one of his books, he later tried to sue his publisher on grounds that they had somehow inserted a subliminal message of their own!

It's spelled: P A R A N O I A!

What's really at work in Keyes' claims of purported "subliminal" ads is the well-recognized powerful tendency for humans to see non-existent patterns in essentially random scenes. That's all.

It's exactly the same thing that causes people to see patterns in clouds or a "man in the moon" or the "face" on Mars or even naked nymphs in linoleum patterns: if you have a strong enough imagination and squint a little, you can see just about anything you want to see (or are told to see). The patterns are in your mind, not in the object you're looking at!

Advertisers have responded to these silly accusations by asking an excellent question: "So, exactly where would we go to hire 'subliminal' ad artists? They don't teach it at graphic arts or photography schools, you know!"

It was entirely unintentional on his part, but Keyes has refuted the validity of alleged "subliminal" images in ads better than anyone I can think of.

And I do not want to be rude, but could you expand on this remark? I'll admit that subliminal techniques, IMHO widely used though perhaps (almost) wholly ineffective, fall somewhere between heathen magic and artistic folly. However the foreground/background considerations deserve more than just a passing denial.

Advertisers have responded to these silly accusations by asking an excellent question: "So, exactly where would we go to hire 'subliminal' ad artists? They don't teach it at graphic arts or photography schools, you know!"

A by-the-book media orchestrated denial by big business interests is hardly new nor to be unexpected. Let us not forget the modern day debacle of corporate tobacco science and the attendant denials. I would shudder to think that they had the best interests of the American public in mind when they offerred their denials and rejections.

Although he personally selected and approved the cover art/photo of one of his
books, he later tried to sue his publisher on grounds that they had somehow inserted a subliminal message of their own!

We all remember the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle similiar to the one alleged to have been used to shoot John Kennedy. But it was a cut and paste job - as the shadows in the picture go the wrong way.


What's really at work in Keyes' claims of purported "subliminal" ads is the well-recognized powerful tendency for humans to see non-existent patterns in essentially random scenes. That's all.

I know. That's what art is "made" out of. I also refuse to believe in the one-dimensional psycho straw man that apparently is offerred up as valid and current human psychological phenomenon. ;)



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

dragonfly99 asks:And I do not want to be rude, but could you expand on this remark?

I did so in the following paragraph where I described Keyes' ludicrous claim that his publishers had embedded their own "subliminal" image in his cover photo. I read a report of an expert photo analyst who had painstakingly compared the original negative Keyes submitted with the book's cover. This macro- and microscopic and pixel-by-pixel electronic comparison showed that there were no consistent differences whatsoever (the trivial and unavoidable imperfections inherent in mass-reproduction were the only differences found, and they were randomly distributed).

What this proves is that Keyes only imagines he sees subliminal images in ads. Q.E.D.

A by-the-book media orchestrated denial by big business interests is hardly new nor to be unexpected.

There are so many problems with this assertion, I'm not sure where to begin. Let's see...

1) "media orchestrated"? Huh?? What media? What "orchestration"? I certainly don't recall any wave of talk show or commercial spots on national TV or any full-page ads in major magazines and newspapers opposing Keyes or denying subliminal ads. Do you?

2) "denial"? Read it again. It was a question, and an extremely rational, fair-minded, and practical question at that. Can you answer it?

3) "big business"? The question I quoted came from the owner of what I recall to be a fairly small ad agency. I'm no expert, but I imagine there are more small ad agencies than big ones. And though I can't say for certain, it seems more than likely that at least some of the ads Keyes condemns in his books came from small agencies.

4) Finally, you're not one of those crackpots who believes that every denial means its opposite, are you? Then on what grounds do you reject the legitimacy and forthrightness of the question I raised?

(For the record, I do not now nor have I ever had anything to do with any ad agency, nor do I know anyone who has. I have absolutely no financial interests at stake.)

We all remember the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle similiar to the one alleged to have been used to shoot John Kennedy. But it was a cut and paste job - as the shadows in the picture go the wrong way.

A conspiracy theorist -- why am I not surprised? ;) Besides which, was it a subliminal rifle in the photo? I didn't think so...

I know. That's what art is "made" out of.

Art is made out of non-existent patterns in random visual noise? Boy, it sure is amazing how all those random dots of paint just happened to line up perfectly on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, isn't it!

I also refuse to believe in the one-dimensional psycho straw man that apparently is offerred up as valid and current human psychological phenomenon.

Ah, so perhaps you can guide me to the research that refuted the "well-recognized powerful tendency for humans to see non-existent patterns in essentially random scenes"? I eagerly await this chance to correct the errors in my understanding of "current human psychological phenomenon"!

ambushed wrote:
What's really at work [...] is the well-recognized powerful tendency for humans to see non-existent patterns in essentially random scenes. That's all.

dragonfly99 replied:
I also refuse to believe in the one-dimensional psycho straw man that apparently is offerred up as valid and current human psychological phenomenon.

Dragonfly, are you claiming that humans don't tend to read images into random scenes? Have you never looked at clouds and imagined that you saw recognizable shapes? Any kid knows that game!

Actually Nickrz, what you really saw were two clouds coming together to form a composite image of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a gun.
Don't trust the Weatherman!

Much of the discussion already has centered on embedded messages, but what about what is actually said and written (double entendre, voice inflections, etc.)? Without boiling the discussion down to the pixel level, I believe that in certain instances you cannot but see/hear the "hidden" messages if you are the least bit attentive. With millions at stake, I would think it would be worth the little extra effort...

AuraSeer wrote:
Dragonfly, are you claiming that humans don't tend to read images into random scenes? Have you never looked at clouds and imagined that you saw recognizable shapes? Any kid knows that game!

Quite the opposite. ;) I was merely stating that this is exactly what makes the human mind tick... though it is definitely not by any well understood mechanism[s] and is poorly modeled by past and current psychological paradigms and experiments.

Once again my one-dimensional psycho
strawman. Example? Aptitude tests.

That is why I said that that is what makes art "work". Beyond the oohs and ahhs is a certain level of subjectivity on the part of the subject that enhances the interpretation of anything within the realm of one's experience, including that which takes place when one has observed somethig beautiful. But what makes it art?

As far as subliminal embedded advertisements, it's a plausible phenomenom, if only due to visual information overload, sensory misperception and possibly mishappen dreams. It has hardly been debunked.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

ambushed states:
""media orchestrated"? Huh?? What media? What "orchestration"? I certainly
don't recall any wave of talk show or commercial spots on national TV or any
full-page ads in major magazines and newspapers opposing Keyes or denying
subliminal ads. Do you?"

Media as in "media event" - after all somehow it ended up *|here|* - and "orchestrated" as in cover-up, as in maintaining plausible deniability. Surely you know what that is. If not then why not ask your favorite corporate junk scientist about that one... as I'm sure that there are many to choose from.

When you're talking market shares, I'm sure that anything is possible.

ambushed states:
"A conspiracy theorist -- why am I not surprised? Besides which, was it a subliminal rifle in the photo? I didn't think so..."

The point being? I know that you're leading up to something - but let's just say that I don't know what it is. It was in LIFE magazine for starter- meant to reach a vast and pliable audience.

ambushed states:
"Art is made out of non-existent patterns in random visual noise? Boy, it sure is amazing how all those random dots of paint just happened to line up perfectly on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, isn't it!"

Once again I see that my one-dimensional psycho straw man has been hard at work. Once again I don't see where this leads. Maybe some kid gloves might do the trick.

ambushed states:
" "big business"? The question I quoted came from the owner of what I recall to be a fairly small ad agency. I'm no expert, but I imagine there are more small ad agencies than big ones. And though I can't say for certain, it seems more than likely that at least some of the ads Keyes condemns in his books came from small agencies."

Once again a meaningless assertion. After all is said and done, many of these ads, subliminally embedded or not, end up in major publications and reach an astounding number of people. I know this seems redundant but this sounds like another case of plausible deniability to me. ;)



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

I saw a cloud once that looked like Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle!

dragonfly99 wrote:
Once again my one-dimensional psycho strawman. Example? Aptitude tests.
Huh? The above paragraph doesn't make any sense. To what strawman are you referring?
Are you saying that aptitude tests contain subliminal messages? Or that they don't? (I'm not trying to be dense, I honestly don't understand what you intended to say here.)

dragonfly99:

Huh??

It seems what we have here is either a highly disingenuous reply or you're talking completely past the rest of us.

I was merely stating that this is exactly what makes the human mind tick... though it is definitely not by any well understood mechanism[s] and is poorly modeled by past and current psychological paradigms and experiments.

Seeing non-existent patterns in random noise "is exactly what makes the human mind tick"? I can't even guess how you figure that. But the fact that this tendency to imagine patterns in randomness is part of the makeup of the human mind is precisely my point, which you rejected! Are you trying to acknowledge your mistake? I can't tell -- please try to put your thoughts more clearly.

Once again my one-dimensional psycho strawman. Example? Aptitude tests.

Uh... What?? What in the hell are you talking about? My former pet dog liked mushroom pizza. So? Who cares if aptitude tests are or are not a "one-dimensional psycho strawman"! It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion!

That is why I said that that is what makes art "work". What makes art "work"? Aptitude tests? Random visual noise? Non-existent patterns in the Sistine Chapel? One-dimensional psycho strawmen? Mushroom pizza-eating dogs? Subliminal substitute rifles in incriminating photos of cloud formations? I'm not sure what art has to do with any of this, but if you're going to refer to it, please try to be more intelligible.

Beyond the oohs and ahhs is a certain level of subjectivity on the part of the subject that enhances the interpretation of anything within the realm of one's experience, including that which takes place when one has observed somethig beautiful.

Yep, there sure is a subjective element in deciding if something's beautiful. So? What's that got to do with the question of whether advertisers deliberately create and insert subliminal images in ads?

It is obvious that what someone thinks they see in the random portions of an image is entirely subjective. Again, that's my point! But just because someone can subjectively imagine patterns in random noise does NOT mean that the patterns were deliberately placed there!

As far as subliminal embedded advertisements, it's a plausible phenomenom...

It may be "plausible" to you (it's certainly not to me!), but in any case it isn't factual! It's "plausibility" doesn't matter a bit.

...if only due to visual information overload, sensory misperception and possibly mishappen dreams. It has hardly been debunked.

Stop it -- you're making my brain hurt! I'm sorry, but you're obviously talking out your, er... hat! What the words of your final paragraph say is that one or more of the three items you list actually causes photographers and graphic artists working in ad agencies to generate and deliberately embed "subliminal" images in their ads! That may or may not be what you actually meant, but it sure is what you said!

And believe me, winged one, that needs no debunking!

There is much I do not know, yet there is much more I do not care to know.
And if there is wisdom in my words, so be it.

-------------
this is all I have to say:
Much can be hidden in context, and the eyes are not all that sees.
-------------

"...people forget more than they care to remember..."

ad hominim argmentum.

-----
"...and if you cannot attack his arguments, then attack the man..."
-----

while action is free
and talk is cheep--
while pain endures
and obsticals can overcome--
we live our lives in solitude:
exist between the lies...

Allan, et. al. writes:There is much I do not know, yet there is much more I do not care to know. And if there is wisdom in my words, so be it.

La di da.

To quote Douglas Adams: "You should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They have a page for people like you."

this is all I have to say: Much can be hidden in context, and the eyes are not all that sees.

Huh?? Oh, no! It's spreading!!

Are your comments supposed to represent a defense of hopelessly confused and opaque writing? Or merely another example of it?

Is it just me, folks?

ad hominim argmentum. "...and if you cannot attack his arguments, then attack the man..."

What arguments?? Was there a coherent argument somewhere in Dragongly's last post? I sure couldn't find one!

The arguments in Dragon's earlier posts (which were at least relatively intelligible, if quite unconvincing) were refuted some time before. But the last post was as stilted and opaque as your poetry (and your poem's syntax and spelling are on a par with Dragon's writing as well). Are you two related? Married? Otherwise involved? The same person? I ask merely for information...

Can of worms, here...Who wants to buy barely used can of worms? Cheap!! :)

I may be foolish to jump in here, but here goes.

The problem with Keyes is that, though he goes to great (and probably excessive) lengths to show that these images are in the photos, he doesn't cover whether there's any evidence such supposed images have any effect. Does he supply any studies comparing the effectivness of ads with and without his subliminals? If a company adds subliminals at a certain time, is there any sign of increase in sales? If everyone is using subliminals and they are effective, doesn't the effect cancel out? In other words, if Coke and Pepsi are both using them, neither has an advantage.

Is there any scientific evidence that people act on the basis of subliminal messages? If you detest cola, would you buy a Coke simply because a naked woman can be perceived in the ice cubes?

Why should something that is barely at the level of perception cause a greater effect that something you consciously notice? Would a stop sign work better if you put a subliminal image of a naked woman in it? Has anyone tested if a sign with subliminals is noticed more than a sign without them?

Aren't many people put off by sexual images? Wouldn't subliminal messages involving sex make it less likely these people buy your product? If so, wouldn't advertisers want to avoid these subliminals?

It all boils down to this: Keyes makes many unwarranted assumptions without considering their basis.

As for the advertisers profiting from subliminals, that argument is a two-edge sword: Keyes profits by claiming subliminals are being used. He'd lose 100% of his income if he's wrong. Stands to reason that he's going to ignore evidence that will ruin his livelihood.

------------------
www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

Let's see if I can make any sense of your cacophonous "refutations". ;)

Stop me if I'm wrong ambushed but it seems that the sum total of your "debunking" so far is the fact that Keyes sued the publishers of one of his books (we don't know which one of course), and by your pure and pristine logic this completely disproves the notion of subiminally embedded advertisements. HUH??

There isn't some new bleeding-edge connection between human psycology and frivilous lawsuits, is there?

Maybe you could tell me why I can go to practically any record store and by subliminally embedded audio tapes? Are you going to *debunk* them too?



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Quote: "Maybe you could tell me why I can go to practically any record store and by subliminally embedded audio tapes? Are you going to *debunk* them too?"

I'm starting to suspect Dragonfly99 is having a great laugh at our expense. ;)

Fess up, dragonfly, you old troll. You gave yourself away with that last one. Nobody who reads the Straight Dope is that wacked.

Incidently, why bother with _subliminally_ sexual advertising? Wasn't a Wendy's slogan "If it doesn't get all over the place, it doesn't belong in your face"? I mean, in a generation where subtlety is all but forgotten, why bother being subliminal about it?

-Quadell

Maybe you could tell me why I can go to practically any record store and by subliminally embedded audio tapes? Are you going to *debunk* them too?

Why are those tapes sold, you ask? Because people buy them, of course. Most "subliminal" tapes I've seen claim that they can, to put it bluntly, make women horny. A lot of men will buy anything if they think it'll give them a better chance at getting laid. (A lot of men are idiots. But that's a different topic.)

Note that the mere fact that something is sold, is no guarantee that it works. A couple of days ago, I saw an ad for metal rings that you wear on your toes. The manufacturer claims that they grant-- get this-- immortality! Does this mean we should all rush to buy them and expect to live forever? No, of course not. Just because someone markets and sells a product, does not mean that it actually does what they say.

Will we debunk them, you also ask? Not I, but it's been done before. Personally I'm too lazy look up the studies, but I'm sure someone will be along momentarily with a cite. =B^)

Anyway, this has little to do with the topic at hand. We were talking about advertising. The concept of subliminal audiotapes may be interesting, but it doesn't do anything to prove your assertion that ad agencies use subliminal messages.

Oh those tapes. Okay. They work through the placebo effect.

I thought Dragonfly was referring to Led Zep and the like.
-Quadell

RealityChuck wrote:
It all boils down to this: Keyes makes many unwarranted assumptions without considering their basis.

It's been awhile since I've read Keyes work. Could you walk me through these so called preformed assumptions? And please...don't rely on my one-dimensional psycho straw man for any advice or wisdom. He is getting enough of a work-out already. :)


------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

ambushed wrote:
Seeing non-existent patterns in random noise "is exactly what makes the human mind tick"? I can't even guess how you figure that.

What I meant to say is that I see non-existent patterns in your "refutations". There.. I hope you're happy.


ambushed wrote:
But the fact that this tendency to imagine patterns in randomness is part of the makeup of the human mind is precisely my point, which you rejected! Are you trying to acknowledge your mistake? I can't tell -- please try to put your thoughts more clearly.

Show where I have rejected the phenomenom called the human mind. What I have attempted to bring into this thread is the nebulous nature of human psychology and it's attendant experts. More junk science if you ask me.

Tell me. Is it a 'mistake" to have an opinion or just to disagree with your impotent, exclusionary and biased viewpoints?

ambushed wrote:
It may be "plausible" to you (it's certainly not to me!), but in any case it isn't factual! It's "plausibility" doesn't matter a bit.

It seems that you are sans cajones here ambushed. What's not plausible? What isn't factual? What standards of the scientific method are you applying here, or more precisely failing to apply here? I wish I knew what you are psyco-babbling about here.

If that's a "refutation" then I've been debunked. ;)



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

OK, I've had time to settle down and reflect, and I apologize to Allan for being unkind. I occasionally let things grate on me that really shouldn't.

It's just that Dragonfly and Allan so closely echo a face-to-face argument on this very same topic (Keyes, specifically) I had a few years ago that their posts really pushed some buttons for me. In that "debate", one party (I'll call her L.) defended Keyes' "courage and insight" with such incomprehensibly vague and obfuscatory language that the rest of us slowly became enraged by her inability to focus and communicate clearly.

The sole exception was her boyfriend who, while apparently unable to defend L.'s reasoning, kept favoring us with utterly tangential metaphysical quasi-koans that just seemed to confuse matters more. Talk about deja vu all over again!

I'll try to relax... Deep breath. Deep breath. OK, here we go!

In dragonfly99's latest post, the language is - mercifully - much clearer. I commend you! I wish I could say the same for the logic.

Let's see if I can make any sense of your cacophonous "refutations".

It certainly wasn't my arguments that were disjointed and largely incomprehensible, Dragon. I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand you. One is perfectly free to reject my arguments or to try to rebut them, but at least I used syntactically and semantically acceptable English!

Stop me if I'm wrong ambushed but it seems that the sum total of your "debunking" so far is the fact that Keyes sued the publishers of one of his books...

Since you asked, stop, you're wrong! ;) First, I'm sure you understand that it is the party making the positive assertion that bears the full burden of proof, right? I don't have to disprove Keyes' claims, it's you who must prove them true! Thus, you are wrong to treat my posts as an attempt to rigorously "debunk" anything. I'm just adding my two cents' worth of criticisms of Keyes' and your claims.

Next, regarding Keyes' self-defeating lawsuit, it wasn't I who "debunked" him thereby, it was Keyes himself! Try re-reading my posts, this time more slowly and carefully. Keyes submitted a photo -- that he himself borrowed from some advertiser that he insisted held subliminal images -- to his publisher to use on his book's cover. When he saw the published book, Keyes repeatedly and strenuously insisted that his publisher had deceitfully and deliberately inserted an additional subliminal image of their own into the cover photo, for which he tried to sue. Independent, third-party expert photo analysis PROVED that there were no consistent differences between the original negative (as well as the ads themselves, I think) and the book's cover. That, in turn, PROVES that in spite of Keyes' absolute certainty that this extra subliminal image existed, he was completely WRONG!. This, in turn proves that Keyes cannot be trusted to reliably ascertain the existence or non-existence of subliminal images in ads.

... and by your pure and pristine logic this completely disproves the notion of subliminally embedded advertisements. HUH??

I fully recognize that even a colossal disproof does not a total refutation make. But if the leading (and perhaps only) self-proclaimed "expert" and high priest of subliminal images in advertising can be so very, very wrong in such a crucial and precedent-setting instance, it is certainly fair to at least reject the claim that the deliberate placement of subliminal images in ads has been "proven".

But my comments were hardly limited to Keyes alone, and there's the next reason your statement is "wrong". I also brought out that there's no evidence that anyone trains artists in how to "embed" such images. If schools don't teach this alleged skill (which must take considerable talent), how can people learn to become proficient at it? If advertisers can't hire such individuals, how the hell can they manage to devise, create, and insert subliminal images with such consummate skill that hardly anyone even "sees" them?

Your only possible answer is just what you hinted at earlier: a conspiracy theory! A hidden cloistered cabal of underground graphic artists that have for long years apprenticed the secret ranks of malevolent new students of the dark subliminal arts, eager to please their evil corporate taskmasters by twisting the world's consumers as if they were just so many helpless puppets! As part of their secret midnight initiations, they are forced to swear a blood oath to completely reject any hopes for personal recognition for their carefully honed skills, and to never reveal -- under pain of torture, even to those they love and trust -- the secret knowledge they have sworn to master! Forgive me if I cannot help but issue a Bronx cheer for this way of thinking. (I'm not very good at onomatopoeia, so spell it or sound it to your own preference.)

And finally, instead of merely poking holes in a few of your claims, I advanced an alternative explanation for why some people think they see "subliminal" images in ads: the scientifically established tendency to see patterns even where they don't really exist. This explanation has strong scientific support, which you have refused to even try[i] to respond to in any intelligible way (repeating the oddly melodious mantra "one-dimensional psycho strawman" hardly represents a cogent argument for or against [i]anything!)

There isn't some new bleeding-edge connection between human psycology and frivilous lawsuits, is there?

Well, I don't know about "bleeding-edge", but there certainly is a connection between abnormal psychology and frivolous lawsuits! I don't claim the courts are "clogged" with such cases, but I've read of a goodly number of them. Paranoia victims are often inclined to sue people or organizations they believe are harassing them in some unusual and extraordinarily unlikely way. I vaguely recall a case that was taken all the way to the Supreme Court (which declined to hear it), in which a woman claimed the federal government had kidnapped her and held her captive in a camp somewhere where she was forced to have sex with aliens (I forget many of the more interesting and lurid details). So my personal and uncorroborated opinion (which I admittedly cannot substantiate with any medical records) is that Keyes was probably suffering from paranoia when he imagined that his publisher was playing "subliminal" games with him.

As for your final point, quadell and AuraSeer handled that with aplomb and sharp reasoning. (By the way, Aura, I continue to be impressed by your posts and your admirable patience. I wish I was gifted with more of that!)

RealityChuck makes some excellent points, and (hopefully) has skillfully redirected the debate in what appears to be a more profitable direction. (but at last glance, it appears we may be stuck here a while...)

(Sorry about the italics. Must have missed one of those silly slashes. I hate it when that happens!)

ambushed wrote:whatever

Junk science anyone?

ambushed just what have you debunked? Try nothing. LIke I have hinted at earlier... my one-dimensional psycho strawman is tired and needs a rest. You're going to have to better than that. ;)

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

ambushed wrote:whatever

Junk science anyone?

ambushed just what have you debunked? Try nothing. LIke I have hinted at earlier... my one-dimensional psycho strawman is tired and needs a rest. You're going to have to do better than that. ;)

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

dragonfly99, you keep using the term: "one-dimensional psyscho strawman." I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain please?

dragonfly99 blathered:What I meant to say is that I see non-existent patterns in your "refutations".

No surprise there. We've already established that you see non-existent patterns in some things, why not others?There.. I hope you're happy.

Since you ask, frankly I am rather amused!Show where I have rejected the phenomenom called the human mind.

Where the hell did you get that from? Show me where you feel I claimed that you "rejected the phenomenom [sic] called the human mind". I'm certainly not so dim-witted as to have said anything of the kind!

AuraSeer asked you: "Dragonfly, are you claiming that humans don't tend to read images into random scenes?" to which you replied: "Quite the opposite. I was merely stating that this is exactly what makes the human mind tick

Since you apparently (and astonishingly) don't realize it, what your reply says is that seeing images in random scenes "is exactly what makes the human mind tick"! I agree that doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense, but can't you see that this is exactly what you said? Please stop blaming me for your repeated failure to argue cogently!

I regret that this will probably offend you, but I genuinely feel that it would be in your own best interest if you would work on your reading comprehension and communication skills. This is not meant to attack you personally for your opinions! I'm merely pointing out that you don't seem to be able to follow what we're saying and you can't seem to reliably make yourself understood. If you would only work on your clarity of expression, you might have an excellent contribution to make here!What I have attempted to bring into this thread is the nebulous nature of human psychology and it's attendant experts. More junk science if you ask me.

So that's what you were actually trying to say all this time? You sure fooled me! You must have thought that all those times I told you I couldn't understand what the hell you were talking about I was being sarcastic or something. I wasn't. I honestly couldn't understand you for the life of me! Your sentences sometimes seemed to be strung together at random.

Unfortunately, now that you've finally clarified your argument, it is sad to see that it is utterly pointless and irrelevant. Even if one would grant for the purposes of discussion that modern psychology is completely wrong about this subject (a view I doubt any rational person would credit), that doesn't take you one bit closer to establishing that subliminal images are or have been embedded in advertising. You initiated all this brouhaha over a thoroughly invalid argument! Sheesh!Tell me. Is it a 'mistake" to have an opinion or just to disagree with your impotent, exclusionary and biased viewpoints?

Hey! Who told you I was impotent? It isn't true, really it's not! Besides, I am circumcised! ;) (inside joke) And I just had my bias realigned at the shop. And hell, I rarely exclude anyone -- so come on over, and don't forget your snap gauge!

Anyway, opinions are just dandy and disagreements are the life blood of these fora. Believe it or not, I have opinions too! But they're only welcome here when they're stated as opinions. The thing you must learn to tread carefully with is expressing unsupported opinions on matters of fact (which is what you've done here). After all, this is The Straight Dope, and we don't molly-coddle the purveyors of anti-scientific rubbish and crackpot allegations around here! One might have expected you to know this.What's not plausible? What isn't factual?

For starters, just about everything you've said in this thread so far.It seems that you are sans cajones here ambushed.

What do testicles have to do with this, Dragonfly? My, you must think I fear my manhood is somehow challenged by your ... ahem, "arguments". I'm fine with that, but perhaps if you'd try using your brain instead of some other piece of anatomy, this thread would be more interesting!If that's a "refutation" then I've been debunked.

Great! Perhaps we can move on now...

ambushed the way your react with factual distortions is kinda funny. But then again I must consider the source. ;)

Your blatant reliance on misrepresentations, factual distortions, euphemisms, over-simplification, blurring of lines of logic and innuendo is actually quite amusing given that you haven't proven or disproven anything and seem only intent on side-tracking this thread.

Tell me have I committed a ThoughtCrime? Because all you seem to do is to talk in Doublespeak.

Please show me your pure and pristine logic and motivations when you attempt to connect a frivilous lawsuit with complete denial of the complex cognitive interactions that take place in the cerebal cortex of the human mind.

Your focus here is much to narrow and makes we wonder. It requires no further consideration. Sans cajones.

Psychology is a very nebulous subject to say the least, and very little is actually known about the mechansims responsible for human behavior and cognition. It is hardly the cut and dried hogwash that Madison Avenue types have led you to believe.

Your childish oversimplifications of the cognitive abilities of the human mind hardy do this thread any justice. Nor the field of Psychology. To be sure, your foisting of this unredeemable and incoherent garbage into this thread is amusing.... and pathetic.

"{there is} the distinction between recognition and recall... Conscious retrospection is not the retrieval of image, but the retrieval of what you have been conscious of before, and the reworking of these elements into rational and plausible patterns."
Julian Jaynes - The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind




------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

dragonfly99, I have studied both psychology and advertising over the years, and I have a question.
What in the Wide World Of Sports are you talking about? There are NO, repeat NO clinical studies to back up Keyes writings. He is a nut-case with a lost cause, and your persistance in defending him is stupifying. Can you show ANY evidence that subliminal advertising is in use today, and that it is effective?
I swear, sometimes your posts here are so non-responsive that I think you posted to the wrong thread by mistake.

Um, dragonfly99! Hey, over here!

I ask again about your term: "one-dimensional psycho strawman". You have yet to say what that means, despite having used it five times in this thread. Definition please?

Not to distract from deciphering dragonfly, but an incidental I just ran into on an odd news site:

"An American lock manufacturer has produced the world's
first one-second 'blink ad'.

The commercial is so short viewers do not have time to
indulge their traditional ad-break activities - like
changing channels or making a cup of tea - before it is
over.

Master Lock created the high-impact commercial, based
on its motto "Tough under fire", to be "zap-proof and
snack-proof".

The advert shows a bullet striking a padlock and
failing to break it, followed by a close-up of the
company logo."

Not exactly a subliminal ad (said stuff being largely unconvincing to me), I think this might represent an attempt to build off the concept, perhaps?

Or, it might truly be another take on advertising. After all, the subliminal ad was supposed to influence you at a preconscious level while the one second blast is obviously designed so you'll be aware of its broadcast.

P.S. - this news short is almost one year old.

Dragonfly99, you have now submitted eight largely incomprehensible posts, apparently written using some non-sequential quasi-logic that is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to follow. I don't know how many times I've said this, but you are not - making - yourself - clear!!

P L E A S E try to understand what I am and what I am not saying:

- This is NOT an attempt to oppose your opinions or point of view.

- It is NOT an attempt to rebut, challenge or reject your arguments.

- It is NOT an argument opposing any point you've made or tried to make.

- It is NOT some strange ploy on my part to try to refute or evade your arguments!

It is merely a request for clear and rational communication, which for some unknown reason you have repeatedly neglected to provide!

I welcome your continued participation in this thread, but: IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE THIS TOPIC WITH THE REST OF US, PLEASE TRY HARDER TO PUT YOUR RELEVENT POSITIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN SOME KIND OF COMPREHENSIBLE LOGICAL FORM!


To that end, I genuinely feel it would help us all if you would kindly respond True or False to the following straightforward questions:

(1a): I believe that people often see patterns in what are actually random scenes (e.g., clouds, etc): T or F

(1b): I believe that these patterns are actually designed or inserted into the random scenes: T or F

(1c): I believe that these patterns are not actually "in" the random scenes, but instead reflect some inherent (even if poorly understood) function of the human visual or nervous system that searches for pattern associations in visual stimuli and can on occasion erroneously find patterns that aren't really present: T or F


(2a): I contend that subliminal images have been willfully and deliberately embedded into printed advertising on a non-trivial scale: T or F

(2b): I contend that subliminal images in printed advertising measurably affects the purchasing decisions of consumers: T or F

(2c): I contend that the principles and practices of the embedding of subliminal images in advertising are recognized and considered valid by published and widely respected scientists.

(2d): I contend that the existence and effectiveness of subliminal images in ads are being deliberately covered-up and kept from public and scientific scrutiny: T or F

(2e): I contend that this cover-up employs a secret conspiracy wherein everyone who is now or ever has been directly involved with such activities is flawlessly concealing their knowledge of these facts: T or F


(3): I can cite objective evidence from a respected and publicly verifiable independent (i.e., other than Keyes) source that will unambiguously establish that:

(3a): ...the patterns people report seeing in random scenes are deliberately designed or inserted into such scenes: T or F

(3b): ...subliminal images have been willfully and deliberately embedded into printed advertising on a non-trivial scale: T or F

(3c): ...subliminal images in printed advertising measurably affects the purchasing decisions of consumers: T or F

(3d): ...the principles and practices of the embedding of subliminal images in advertising are recognized and considered valid by published and widely respected scientists: T or F

(3e): ...the existence and effectiveness of subliminal images in ads are being deliberately covered-up: T or F

(3f): ...a conspiracy exists to aid in this cover-up: T or F

If you answer True to any questions in part (3), please provide citations or references.


Only after you fill us in on your actual positions by answering these questions can we all intelligently discuss the topic. Please do not evade these questions: by answering them you will be demonstrating your willingness to help us understand you. We eagerly await your reply.

Beatle: I've seen the Master Lock flash commercials. Highly effective and well made in my opinion but they had a relatively short lifespan, at least in my neck of the woods. I really wish they would produce more of these little gems (format loosely based on the European model, if I'm not mistaken).

IIRC, the Master Lock commercial lasted more in the neighborhood of five seconds than one second, but I could be mistaken.

slythe wrote:

"There are NO, repeat NO clinical studies to back up Keyes writings."

Have you ever HEARD of, I repeat, have you ever HEARD of junk science?

It might hurt your brain to answer this question, but please try.

As far as Key being a nut case (or so you claim); it's nice having an opinion isn't it, but would you kindly back up this nebulous assertion?



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

dragonfly99:

All ya gotta do to engage these folks is cite a study, pal. An abstract or summation would help.

Tell you what ambushed. I will glady answer your euphemistic and blatantly over-simplified and distorted questions if you rephrase them; and in addition can the True/False format.

But first answer mine as they seem more relevant, if you don't mind that is...

(1a): I believe that people often clog up message boards with trivial and meaningless nonsense: T or F

(1b): I believe that these incoherent musings actually are designed or inserted to hide the fact that sometimes people don't know what they are talking about: T or F

(1c): I believe that these psuedo-refutations are not actually "in" the random scenes, but instead reflects the fact that there are sometimes psuedo-intellectual roaming these boards and can on occasion erroneously find patterns that aren't really present: T or F


(2a): I contend that psuedo-refutations and condesceding language have been willfully and deliberately embedded into this thread because *junk science* only happens to other people - albeit on a non-trivial scale: T or F

(2b): I contend that spurious and disjointed rebuttals are a blessing in disguise and often pass for competent debate, given that psuedo-intellectuals often roam these message boards and of course that printed advertising measurably affects the purchasing decisions of consumers: T or F

(2c): I contend that the principles and practices of the junk science gods of subliminal images in advertising are recognized and considered valid by, published by and widely respected by other junk scientists: T or F

(2d): I contend that the existence and effectiveness of junk science and its untoward social cauation is not really my problem and is kept from public and scientific scrutiny for reasons to hard to imagine: T or F

(2e): I contend that this junk science is actually necessary and beneficial to the billions of people living on this planet, even though the United States is a resource hog and as long as I get mine. No conspiracy is necessary as long as I keep foisting lame ideas and concepts into the public arena: T or F

(3): I can cite objective evidence that I am a pseudo-intellectual sine qua non. Just reread my bogus explanations coupled with childishly outlandish personal attacks: T or F

(3a): Financial motivations and considerations are no longer an issue. Just look at how poorly I handle innocent and thought-provoking debate: T or F

(3b):Even though subliminally embedded audio tapes are considered valid science, subliminally embedded visual advertising is theoretically impossible, because I said so: T or F

(3c): The advertising industry only pulls down about one or two cents a year: T or F

(3d): The tobacco companies weren't really sued in the courts by the people... it was just a mass media hoax, designed to "sharpen the minds" of the American consumers: T or F

(3e) Pseudo-intellectual never band together in childish personal attacks and spurious debate on these or any other message boards. This is impossible because that's what someone else said in a chat room: T or F

(3f)It's too hard and too dangerous to your well being to know how to think logically and concisely. That's why Big Business does my thinking for me: T or F

If you answer True to any questions in part (3), please provide citations or references.

And I don't mean maybe. ;)



------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Dragonfly99: here are my answers to your "questions":

1a: T
1b: T!!
1c: T

2a: Unintelligible non sequitur
2b: Unintelligible non sequitur
2c: T! (but I'm not so sure about the publishing part)
2d: Unintelligible non sequitur
2e: Unintelligible non sequitur

3: F. Modesty forbids me from trying to present any evidence which would prove that I am in any way "absolutely indispensable or essential". But thank's for the compliment!

3a: Unintelligible non sequitur.

3b(1): F. "Subliminally embedded" audio tapes are actually a pseudo-scientific scam and have been totally discredited by acknowledged scientific experts.
3b(2): F. I never claimed subliminally embedded visual advertising is theoretically impossible, only that it doesn't exist.

3c: F
3d: F
3e: F (I don't visit chat rooms)
3f: F


There you go! Now, since you promised to answer my questions after I answered yours, please respond with your answers to the list in my previous post.

Just a thought, but with regards to this Keyes fellow suing the publishing company over alleged subliminal tampering with his book's cover:

Seems like the kind of publicity stunt one might use to try to sell a few more books, doesn't it?

BTW, I am roughly equal parts crusty old skeptic AND conspiracy theorist, so I can come to no conclusion about the effectiveness or even the existence of subliminal print images. In other words, I don't put it past the devious advertising minds to try it, but I can't see the bunny, either.

Seems like the kind of publicity stunt one might use to try to sell a few more books, doesn't it? You may be on to something there, CigaretJim!

When I first read that, I thought (of Keyes, not you!): "But what kind of twisted and insane whacko nut-case would devise a publicity stunt that would so utterly discredit his theories and make a fool out of himself in the process?"

But then I realized the answer: Bryan Wilson Keyes is exactly such a person! So my objection fails, and I have to concede you have a point.In other words, I don't put it past the devious advertising minds to try it, but I can't see the bunny, either.

Make no mistake, Jim: no one loathes and distrusts advertising more than I (at least no one outside of a psychiatric institution), but just because someone could do something is no reason to believe they are doing it! That's one of the problems with conspiracy theorists: possibility is far more important than probability!

(present company excluded, of course!)

dragonfly99 bewilderingly driveled:Your blatant reliance on misrepresentations, factual distortions, euphemisms, over-simplification, blurring of lines of logic and innuendo is actually quite amusing given that you haven't proven or disproven anything and seem only intent on side-tracking this thread. and later added:To be sure, your foisting of this unredeemable and incoherent garbage into this thread is amusing.... and pathetic.

Earlier, dragonfly, I taught you to spell the word "paranoia", remember? Now it's time to try to learn a new word. Ready? It's another "P" word, and it's spelled:

<FONT SIZE=+1P R O J E C T I O N !</FONT>

I'd recommend that you look into it, but if I'm right you would just accuse me of the same thing anyway!

(By the way, it doesn't have anything to do with watching movies)

I may have missed it in all the vitriol. Did anyone here cite any studies that supported Keyes assumption that subliminals actually do something? It shouldn't be hard to devise an experiment.

Also, if they are doing this at ad agencies, why hasn't anyone who actually did this work ever come forward? In all the years it supposedly has been going on, with thousands, if not tens of thousands, people working in the industry, there should have been someone who was willing to talk about the matter. After all, what would happen if they do talk? Never work in advertising again? Many people quit advertising work to go on to other jobs, or to retire; they wouldn't care if they burned their bridges. Out of all that number there have to be a few disgruntled employees who'd love to raise a big stink.

Why have they kept quiet? Are you postulating the advertisers have hit squads? How do they manage to eliminate people BEFORE they can talk? Do they know what people are thinking?

The problem with all this is that Keyes assumptions have holes in them big enough to drive a train sideways.

I may have missed it in all the vitriol. Did anyone here cite any studies that supported Keyes assumption that subliminals actually do something? It shouldn't be hard to devise an experiment.

Also, if they are doing this at ad agencies, why hasn't anyone who actually did this work ever come forward? In all the years it supposedly has been going on, with thousands, if not tens of thousands, people working in the industry, there should have been someone who was willing to talk about the matter. After all, what would happen if they do talk? Never work in advertising again? Many people quit advertising work to go on to other jobs, or to retire; they wouldn't care if they burned their bridges. Out of all that number there have to be a few disgruntled employees who'd love to raise a big stink.

Why have they kept quiet? Are you postulating the advertisers have hit squads? How do they manage to eliminate people BEFORE they can talk? Do they know what people are thinking?

The problem with all this is that Keyes assumptions have holes in them big enough to drive a train through -- sideways. Does he cite anything other than his own opinion on this?

RealityChuck asks:Did anyone here cite any studies that supported Keyes assumption that subliminals actually do something?

Although Dragonfly99 has been asked several times to do so, he continues to refuse, but in such an obfuscatory way that no one even knows if he is even aware of any. I believe that either his continual non-responsive responses amount to deliberate (if bizarrely conceived) evasion, or they reflect a deeper problem for which Dragonfly cannot be held responsible.

It is precisely because Dragonfly has, even in all his posts, failed to make his position clear to us that I asked him to answer what I think are legitimate questions in order to get a handle on what his positions are.

What do you think of my questions? Do you think they are unfair? If he doesn't agree with any of the positions, all he has to do is say "False"! Compare them with Dragonfly's deliberately insulting questions for me, which I went ahead and answered to the best of my ability to understand his often incoherent writing.

Would you agree that to have Dragonfly's answers could return this thread to some semblance of mutual communication?

If dragonfly wants to take the "vitriol" and his incomprehensible pseudo-logical blathering over to the BBQ pit, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. I was simply hoping that he would be able to contribute intelligently to the discussion, since he's apparently the only one who maybe-possibly-could-be believes in subliminal images in printed ads!

omniscientnot writes:Realitychuck: Pure conjecture on my part here. But maybe they sign confidentiality agreements and could be sued.

I understand you were only pointing out a tentative explanation, so please don't think these comments are meant to "chew you head off". They're just my reasoning on the issues Realitychuck raised...

First, let me point out the obvious that if there is no "subliminal" advertising going on, no confidentiality agreements are required!

Second, I and my colleagues have signed scores of confidentiality agreements over the years, each of which threatened dire legal consequences should anyone violate their terms. Yet just about everyday we went to lunch, we'd discuss the "confidential" subjects openly and publicly (and occasionally rather loudly). We'd discuss them with our spouses and children and neighbors and in-laws. In short, confidentiality agreements simply don't keep things confidential.

The outright assassination of those with the secret knowledge of "subliminal advertising" would be the "conspiracy's" only hope of keeping something as big as this a secret. Can anyone cite a series of freak deaths of retired or retiring ad executives or their families? Or do they ship them all off to "The Village"?

Hell, even Secret and Top Secret military information isn't always kept all that secret. During my time working in aerospace, we'd all refer to the excellent trade journal "Aviation Week" (home of the incomparable Phil Klass) as "Aviation Leak"! Even The Guvvmint is an incredibly leaky sieve!

The bottom line is that keeping something as big and as allegedly important to advertisers as "subliminal" ads would be virtually impossible. If anyone can think of a plausible way to accomplish it, please let us all know!

Well put, Ambushed, and I didn't take offense in the slightest. Can you now address a point I made a while ago concerning the use of language (written, verbal and body) as some sort of not so much subliminal as what I'd rather call liminal seduction. Any thoughts?

The reason I refuse to answer the childish questionare that ambused has concocted is because: He wants me to cite possible hidden or non-existent human psychological research; and The word conspiracy keeps cropping up;

Now why is that?

Not only does ambushed want to continuously blur lines of logic, distort the truth and evade commonsense reasoning, he ALSO wants to holler "conspiracy" at every conceivable moment.... if only to make you feel sorry for his obvious LACK of intelligence, not to mention non-existent "adult" demeanor.

I believe that Dr. Key knows of what he speaks. In his book Clam-Plate Orgy, he cites some of his projects completed in over 300 research studies. These include Puerto Rico, General Foods, Nabisco, Schlitz, Eastern Airlines, Volkswagen, Seagrams, Sea-Land, Simmons, Del Monte, Gillete, General Motors, etc. This list includes sizeable international ad agencies.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

omniscientnot writes:Can you now address a point I made a while ago concerning the use of language (written, verbal and body) as some sort of not so much subliminal as what I'd rather call liminal seduction. Any thoughts? I entirely agree with you that advertisers very often deliberately (but not secretively) "hedge" their ads anyway they legally can. I've seen many different strategies used:

- overt or suggested sexuality, sexual innuendo, and sexual double entendre (as you've already mentioned)

- the reliance on deliberately flawed logic and non sequiturs to suggest an advantage of one product over another

- the use of cute and cuddly kids or animals to suggest benevolence on the part of the product or manufacturer

- And the tactic I object to more than any of the others: the insidious association of music with products! I can't tell you how often I imagined wreaking horrible vengeance against Burger King, or The Movie Channel for unspeakably befouling Beethoven's Ninth forever! AAARRRGGHH!

Dragonfly99, I do not write this in anger or resentment, or to insult or demean you as a person. But it now seems to me that your posts here provide persuasive evidence suggesting the possibility that you may be suffering from some form of mental illness or other emotional disability. I'm not being caustic, mean-spirited, or sarcastic when I say this.

Since my typically direct style of argument seems inappropriate for someone who doesn't appear to be in full posession of their faculties, I cannot in good conscience continue to debate with you. Forgive me.

Although I hope you will not take my words yet again as some kind of twisted insult or devious plot, I sincerely and genuinely advise you to consult a mental health professional or ask your loved ones to help you if necessary. There is no shame in this!

I wish I could convince you of my genuine concern and empathy for you, now that my suspicions have finally gelled. I deeply regret losing my patience with you earlier and making fun of some of the things you wrote, because I fear this bad blood between us will cause you to doubt that I genuinely care for your well being. I may well be wrong about this, but as someone who actually considers themselves to be a fairly caring human being, I urge you to consider my advice.

Good luck!

In defense of the bunny theory, since it seems to have cropped back, you could try this URL (close-up of same picture) instead:

http://www.infinet.com/~mike/fig4.html

To tell you the truth, before looking at this close-up, I thought the mountains in the background showed the face of the bunny on the left and its elongated ears on the right (in a reclining position, if you will). I also thought I saw a bunny on the run right, sketched out in the snow behind the skier.

Before you come to the wrong conclusions, no I definitely am not an ardent believer in embedded messages. ;)

Realitychuck: Pure conjecture on my part here. But maybe they sign confidentiality agreements and could be sued.

I thought perhaps I should clarify something regarding my last post. My expression of concern was in no way based on Dragonfly's views or opinions. I would have to be seriously deranged myself to imagine that just because someone disagreed with me or insulted me, they are in some way suffering from a delusion or other psychological affliction. I assure everyone here that I do not feel this way at all.

I was simply following what I saw as the proper moral choice. If you saw someone who was apparently unaware they were injured in some way, would you not feel compelled to strongly encourage them to seek medical treatment? It is the very same distaste and embarrassment that many people feel discussing mental illness that reinforces the social stigma people hold against its sufferers. To pretend it doesn't exist may appear to be more polite, but it can often be a disservice to those we care about.

Ah. I see the ThoughtPolice have been hard at work. And not too surprisingly I might add ambushed is trying ignominiously to make a case that I have committed some sort of ThoughtCrime.

This, like most of your arguments and "refutations" presented here are specious at best and reliably lead nowhere. Perhaps that is where you want to go. Your incoherent musings are sufficiently ambiguous to lead a reasonable person to believe that you haven't a single clue as to what you are trying to argue.

As far as to the allusion that I am perhaps suffering from some sort of lack of common-sense and/or mental imcompetence - I only ask - Have you looked in the mirror lately?

<font size=+1>T A K E - A - G O O D - L O O K

ambushed the only reason that you are backing out of this discussion is because you don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

You are more than welcome to return when you acknowledge your deceptive and jumbled tactics.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Ah. I see the ThoughtPolice have been hard at work. And not too surprisingly I might add ambushed is trying ignominiously to make a case that I have committed some sort of ThoughtCrime.

This, like most of your arguments and "refutations" presented here are specious at best and reliably lead nowhere. Perhaps that is where you want to go. Your incoherent musings are sufficiently ambiguous to lead a reasonable person to believe that you haven't a single clue as to what you are trying to argue.

As far as to the allusion that I am perhaps suffering from some sort of lack of common-sense and/or mental imcompetence - I only ask - Have you looked in the mirror lately?

<center><font size=+1>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><HR><pre>T A K E A G O O D L O O K[/quote] </font></center>

ambushed the only reason that you are backing out of this discussion is because you don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

You are more than welcome to return when you acknowledge your deceptive and jumbled tactics.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Maybe if we ignore the screaming man, he will go away. Back to the subject at hand...
I am trying to understand how someone could believe that anyone could retain subliminal messages, when most people reject DIRECT messages. I guess that some people are so obsessed with "secret" messages, they see them everywhere.
At the risk of drawing the wrath of you-know-who, just because Keyes brought up, AND accused, most of the major industry leaders does not give him any validity. He was big on negative name dropping, betting on the fact that most of them wouldn't bother sueing such a small pain in the butt.

slythe wrote:

"I am trying to understand how someone could believe that anyone could retain subliminal messages, when most people reject DIRECT messages."

I have a number of problems with these ambiguous statements. One is that they appear to be thinly disguised personal attacks. Another is you have made no distinction between subliminal messages versus direct messages.

I will assume that you are referring to innocuous and simplistic ad copy as opposed to subliminal archetypal images and figures superimposed onto and into ad art.

Mission Accomplished! ;) That is precisely the mechanism that the good ole boys on Madison Avenue are counting on to influence your buying decision. The fact that these images are subconsciously perceived and may in fact affect a decision to buy at a later date is the basis for their use. One could correctly argue that that is the reason for all advertisements.

To quote Dr. Key in Clam Plate Orgy (p. 20):
"The artists do not really hide anything! It is always available to anyone who could consciously deal with the information. Viewers actually hide the taboo images from their own conscious awareness, lest they arouse culturally forbidden memories, feelings, or perceptions"

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

1. It's Mr. KEYES, not Dr. KEY.
2. We all know about Keyes delusions by now.
Where is the outside collaberation?
3. Who is NOT involved in this great and
secret conspiracy of yours? Why can't you
find any evidence whatsoever?

On the topic of Ambush's exit:

While I agreed with most of Ambushed's points, I do not think there is any polite way to suggest somebody find mental help in a public forum, and I told him so (by private email).

He responded that he had looked for a private email reference, and followed the web site reference (which DOES contain an email link, but it is not clear that it belongs to DF). He posted only in order to suggest a course of action, not to denigrate DF. While he will not return to this thread himself, he permitted me to summarize his response.

Note that Ambush is not convinced that there is mental illness, but only advises a good "checkup".

So an innocent and supposedly thought provoking thread about subliminal inserts in mass media advertising has turned to the subject of.... The Mentally Ill??

HUH??

I hate to break it to you two.... uh.... PERSONNAS... but it would appear that you both definitely have a screw or two loose.

I hope that in both of your cases that it's not permanent.

A childish obfuscation tactic?

Perhaps.

Hardly the blockbuster refutation and debunking that we were all waiting for. In fact, not even a recognizable form of pseudo-science. Just unsubstantiated garbage and questionable rhetoric. That's all.

slythe wrote:[b]
"It's Mr. KEYES, not Dr. KEY."

Maybe I should add YOUR name to the list of those who REALLY need and should seek professional help.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

So an innocent and supposedly thought provoking thread about subliminal inserts in mass media advertising has turned to the subject of.... The Mentally Ill??

HUH??

I hate to break it to you two.... uh.... PERSONNAS... but it would appear that you both definitely have a screw or two loose.

I hope that in both of your cases that it's not permanent.

A childish obfuscation tactic?

Perhaps.

Hardly the blockbuster refutation and debunking that we were all waiting for. In fact, not even a recognizable form of pseudo-science. Just unsubstantiated garbage and questionable rhetoric. That's all.

slythe wrote:

"It's Mr. KEYES, not Dr. KEY."

Maybe I should add YOUR name to the list of those who REALLY need and should seek professional help.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Is there a moderator in the house?
Again, once more, and repeatedly, back to the subject of this thread.
Mr. Keyes has made some fantastic claims about a conspiracy in the advertising world. He also has made some incredible claims about how the human mind works. Has he provided any scientific proof?
D99, if you MUST scream incoherrently, could you please take it to the BBQ pit. Thank you.

Uh slythe. I have before me a copy of Dr. Key's third work The Clam Plate Orgy.

He apparently spells his name Key.

Do I need to cite scientific studies to support my claim that gravity exists? That the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning no matter what? I know that you can do better than that.

Alot of scientific theory is only considered valid until it is disproved or revised in some manner. Even so, all of it rests on empirical data and observation at some point.

Your calling for absolute proof in the form of scientific studies does not in any way invalidate or disprove his theories or his works in the least.

------------------
"Right is only half of what's wrong" - George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe -

Geezis. How did this get by me? Oh, sorry, I was dreaming and looking at random patterns in the clouds. Argh. Things got ugly quick, eh? Now, if you kids can't play nice, please go play in the BBQ pit.
The end.
----
Nickrz
For The Straight Dope

Is there ANY proof?
Can he prove it?
Does he have any evidence?
We he provide any facts?
Where's the beef?
Show me the money!
Where are the independent studies?

I can't think of any other ways to say it!