1993-10-24 - Re: Subliminal Channels

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 19cb4371095b2974f914a781565c99b65e942f62d53ba51c9ef1133babf69d3e
Message ID: <9310240318.AA28051@toad.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.05.9310232200.A4496-c100000@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-24 03:18:29 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 20:18:29 PDT

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 20:18:29 PDT
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Subliminal Channels
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9310232200.A4496-c100000@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Message-ID: <9310240318.AA28051@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> >   The subliminal movie images story is bunk, urban legend.
> No, actually it is very true and scary as hell.

If this were a.f.u I would cry "MOTTO" at this point.

> >   Could it be that subliminal information effects have been found to be
> > practically null also? 
> Could be, but the tachiscope experiment left me feeling that there is a
> lot left unexplained, and much of it at our expense.

Heh.  We are dealing with a single `experiment' (not, like,
published or peer-reviewed or anything) in an undisclosed location,
performed by a market researcher trying to sell the "subliminal
projector" in question.  Contrast this with follow-up experiments --
which *were* conducted in a scientific fashion -- which found that
the effect of the stimulus varied with its perceptibility, and under
no conditions had the fabled mind-control effect.  Yes, the popcorn
story is nifty, but it's totally bogus.  I know, I know, all of the
psychologists who got negative results were bribed by General

Really, post your views on subliminal advertising to
alt.folklore.urban, with a cross-post to sci.skeptic for good
measure.  I dare you.  ;-)

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu