ambushed wrote:
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:
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:
No surprise there. We’ve already established that you see non-existent patterns in some things, why not others?
Since you ask, frankly I am rather amused!
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!
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!
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.
For starters, just about everything you’ve said in this thread so far.
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!
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.
“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:
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.
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.
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:
and later added:
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?
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.