I saw a cloud once that looked like Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle!
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:
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 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:
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:
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:
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 -
dragonfly99 wrote:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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:
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.”
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?
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.
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
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’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:
What I meant to say is that I see non-existent patterns in your “refutations”. There… I hope you’re happy.
ambushed wrote:
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 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.
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!
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.
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 to respond to in any intelligible way (repeating the oddly melodious mantra “one-dimensional psycho strawman” hardly represents a cogent argument for or against anything!)
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!)