Re: Subliminal Channels

Is there any published work on hiding subliminal messages
in pictures? It seems like that would be really easy.

The warden, so to speak, sees an innocent illustration
of a house and a garden, but the prisoners hide information
in the arrangement of the bricks and the flowers. In
video images, wouldn't it be very difficult to detect
that there was some encrypted data in the image? This
would be good for deniability.

Big brother comes and tells you that you are not allowed
to encrypt anything, and you say that you used a random
number generator for this new form of art that appears
to be total oblivion, but really represents a new way of
looking at the meaning of life. Meanwhile, your pal on
the other hand runs it through a processor and decrypts
the message.

Wonderer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.

wonderer wrote:

>Is there any published work on hiding subliminal messages
>in pictures? It seems like that would be really easy.

Someone did write a program which embeds information in a JPEG, but I
don't have any other info (like where to get it, who wrote it, etc.
:-)

Actually though, embedding a message in a picture leans toward
steganography.

Subliminal channels, covert channels, and steganography are related to
one another, and seem to overlap.  I don't have precise definitions
(does anybody else?).  From reading, here is what I think these three
methods are:

Covert channel: you and I agree that if I mail you a letter with the
stamp affixed sideways, that messageA is communicated.  Or, we agree
that a post sent to alt.test with the subject "el mariachi" conveys
messageA.  Or that my running a process and killing before 9:30 p.m.
conveys messageA. 

Subliminal channel: you and I share a secret and convey our message in
the digital signature of innocent message we pass to one another.

Steganography: I write an innocent message, and I change the spacing
between words, to convey messageA.  Or, I embed the message in the low
order bits of a picture or a sound file.

So, it looks like that in subliminal channels and steganography, the
actual message is passed, while covert channels don't (it's like
winking at a friend - no message but lots of information).

Also, it seems that steganography alters the innocent message itself,
while a subliminal channel doesn't.

Obviously, there is great room for hair-splitting.  These are the
differences as I understand them!  Any other input?

-- 
Karl L. Barrus: klbarrus@owlnet.rice.edu         
keyID: 5AD633 hash: D1 59 9D 48 72 E9 19 D5  3D F3 93 7E 81 B5 CC 32 

"One man's mnemonic is another man's cryptography" 
  - my compilers prof discussing file naming in public directories

> Is there any published work on hiding subliminal messages
> in pictures? It seems like that would be really easy.

Read R. Key's _The Clam-Plate Orgy_ for information on how advertising
companies (cigarette ana alcohol companies especially) add little
airbrushed renditions of subliminally pleasing sex scenes, with intent to
stimulate purchase of the product.  Its been done for almost 50 years now,
and started with the tachistoscope used in movie theatres to get people to
consume popcorn and Coca-Cola(tm) in great quantities.  Sales went up by 60%.

> Big brother comes and tells you that you are not allowed
> to encrypt anything, and you say that you used a random
> number generator for this new form of art that appears
> to be total oblivion, but really represents a new way of
> looking at the meaning of life. Meanwhile, your pal on
> the other hand runs it through a processor and decrypts
> the message.

If you tried to sell the idea that your random number generator is random,
then the government would come back and say that there is no way to
determine random numbers, and if there was, they'd ask you why you would
be able to run it through a processor and decrypt it.

But then again, laws on subliminal information are practically null, and
those that do exist are never enforced, thanks to Big Business
influence-peddling.

Alex Reynolds

This is hardly germane to the list, but...

> Its been done for almost 50 years now, and started with the
>tachistoscope used in movie theatres to get people to consume popcorn
> and Coca-Cola(tm) in great quantities.  Sales went up by 60%.

Repeat this on alt.folklore.urban and watch the fun.  I believe this
particular legend was promulgated by a guy who was selling
tachistoscope equipment.  Gotta watch those Small Businessmen.  His
results were not replicable, and his company folded.

> Alex Reynolds

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

Alexander writes:

>Read R. Key's _The Clam-Plate Orgy_ for information on how advertising
>companies (cigarette ana alcohol companies especially) add little
>airbrushed renditions of subliminally pleasing sex scenes, with intent to
>stimulate purchase of the product.  Its been done for almost 50 years now,
>and started with the tachistoscope used in movie theatres to get people to
>consume popcorn and Coca-Cola(tm) in great quantities.  Sales went up by 60%.

Alas, almost every study that has been done on "Subliminal Seduction"
has generated negative results.  The famous Movie theatre experiment, for
example, was totally uncontrolled -- and did Key mention that it was
done during a heatwave, with broken air-conditioning in the theatre?

Moreover, tests of the "embedded sex objects" hypothesis don't pan out.
It turns out that (a) people don't notice them unless they have been
predisposed to (ie:"find the penis in the photo") and (b) whether or
not there is an embed in the photo has no meaningful effect on the
viewer.

Basically, human beings are pattern recognition machines.  We _love_
patterns so much that we tend to see them even when they aren't there
For example, "The line I  am in is always the slowest."  This is because
you don't remember the times you were in a fast line, because it isn't
a big stimulus to you.  So guys like Key, who are looking for patterns,
will find them everywhere.

Deliberate embeds in advertising are almost without exception artists
jokes.  And most perceived embeds are simply random things about the
image that our minds are organizing for us.

> Alas, almost every study that has been done on "Subliminal Seduction"
> has generated negative results.  The famous Movie theatre experiment, for
> example, was totally uncontrolled -- and did Key mention that it was
> done during a heatwave, with broken air-conditioning in the theatre?

That wouldn't explain the rise in sales of popcorn, a hot food.

> Moreover, tests of the "embedded sex objects" hypothesis don't pan out.
> It turns out that (a) people don't notice them unless they have been
> predisposed to (ie:"find the penis in the photo") and (b) whether or
> not there is an embed in the photo has no meaningful effect on the
> viewer.

Advertisers have found that such "artists jokes" as you call them are
profit makers.  Explain why almost 90-95% of all hard liquor ads show a
glass filled with ice.  Ice is a subliminal artist's wet dream; there is
much to be airbrushed inside a piece of ice.  Explain why advertisers will
spend millions on an ad campaign in a magazine, where people only spend
1-2 sec MAXIMUM on that ad.  These guys who run the businesses know what
to spend the money on and where.

> Basically, human beings are pattern recognition machines.  We _love_
> patterns so much that we tend to see them even when they aren't there

The idea of subliminallity is that you _don't_ see it when it _is_ there.

> a big stimulus to you.  So guys like Key, who are looking for patterns,
> will find them everywhere.

Key tried to go on Canadian TV awhile back with a program about his
research.  It was pulled after direct intervention from advertisers
threatening to pull their ads if the show went on; the TV execs behaved
predictibily.  Why were they so scared of something which you see as a joke?

> Deliberate embeds in advertising are almost without exception artists
> jokes.  

That's right, advertising companies pay commercial artists dollars in lost
profit to play jokes.

> And most perceived embeds are simply random things about the 
> image that our minds are organizing for us. 
 
Yes, but on a conscious level organization takes place.  Subconscious
thought is different.

Alex Reynolds

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> 
> > Alas, almost every study that has been done on "Subliminal Seduction"
> > has generated negative results.  The famous Movie theatre experiment, for
> > example, was totally uncontrolled -- and did Key mention that it was
> > done during a heatwave, with broken air-conditioning in the theatre?
> 
> That wouldn't explain the rise in sales of popcorn, a hot food.

  It's easily explainable by the fact that it wasn't a scientifically valid
test. 
 
> Advertisers have found that such "artists jokes" as you call them are
> profit makers.  Explain why almost 90-95% of all hard liquor ads show a
> glass filled with ice.  Ice is a subliminal artist's wet dream; there is

  Possibly because you don't drink hard liquor warm? The ice examples
from Key's book are even more idiotic. He might have had a genuine article
with that cologne add which showed a penis about to be cut off with a knife
(along with numerous images of dead animals), but the ice images were 
so-convoluted even conciously looking at them I couldn't make out anything. 

> much to be airbrushed inside a piece of ice.  Explain why advertisers will
> spend millions on an ad campaign in a magazine, where people only spend
> 1-2 sec MAXIMUM on that ad.  These guys who run the businesses know what

  You do not understand how advertising works. The key word is CAMPAIGN,
repeated exposure over a long period, to a large group of people who
are in your target audience. Statistically, a certain percentage of
people will stop to read your ad after repeated exposure. They spend
millions because even if a _fraction_ of the target audience responds to
the ad, they make many more millions.

> > a big stimulus to you.  So guys like Key, who are looking for patterns,
> > will find them everywhere.
> 
> Key tried to go on Canadian TV awhile back with a program about his
> research.  It was pulled after direct intervention from advertisers
> threatening to pull their ads if the show went on; the TV execs behaved
> predictibily.  Why were they so scared of something which you see as a joke?

  The key to recognizing a conspiracy crackpot is the presence of a censoring
authority. Thus the oil companies conspiring to prevent the 200 mpg carburetor
from being used, the Bilderburger's preventing all of the media from
revealing that they forclosed on the US Govt 50 years ago, UFO data
being censored by people "above top secret", etc.
 
   Tim May can probably elaborate since he is a much better fan of conspiracy
theories than I am. I stopped reading alt.conspiracy after the JFK thread
was brought up for the 100th time.

   I suggest you take this thread to sci.skeptic if you dare. Try your
anecdotal evidence there to see if it works.

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

> > That wouldn't explain the rise in sales of popcorn, a hot food.
> 
>   It's easily explainable by the fact that it wasn't a scientifically valid
> test.

Why?  Because you don't want to accept the fact that if you're out to make
money, you'll exploit any angle you can, including the dominance of the
subconcious over what the conscious perceives?

I also remember you saying in your last message that this was a hoax.  Why
a sudden change in tune?
  
I think it was a scientifically valid test (within reason) because the
control was a normal, non-tach show versus a tach/stimulus show.  This was
done repeatedly, and the results were conclusive, a 60% rise in popcorn
sales.  Other "tests" were done, changing "you want popcorn" to "do you
want popcorn?"  It was shown that adding the question provoked a stronger
stimulation to consume that without the question.
 
>   Possibly because you don't drink hard liquor warm? The ice examples
> from Key's book are even more idiotic. He might have had a genuine article
> with that cologne add which showed a penis about to be cut off with a knife
> (along with numerous images of dead animals), but the ice images were 
> so-convoluted even conciously looking at them I couldn't make out anything. 

Again: You will see what you want to see, and likewise you will not see
what you do not want to see.

>   You do not understand how advertising works. The key word is CAMPAIGN,

No, the key word is SALES.  Anything else is secondary to that goal.

> repeated exposure over a long period, to a large group of people who
> are in your target audience. Statistically, a certain percentage of
> people will stop to read your ad after repeated exposure. They spend
> millions because even if a _fraction_ of the target audience responds to
> the ad, they make many more millions.

The profit would certainly be lost to recover revenue without
subliminal stimuli and with your statisical exposure.

> > Key tried to go on Canadian TV awhile back with a program about his
> > research.  It was pulled after direct intervention from advertisers
> > threatening to pull their ads if the show went on; the TV execs behaved
> > predictibily.  Why were they so scared of something which you see as a joke?
> 
>   The key to recognizing a conspiracy crackpot is the presence of a censoring
> authority. Thus the oil companies conspiring to prevent the 200 mpg carburetor
> from being used, the Bilderburger's preventing all of the media from
> revealing that they forclosed on the US Govt 50 years ago, UFO data
> being censored by people "above top secret", etc.

But the govt. and the like deny all charges when they are faced
with them.  Ad companies pull their ads; they don't respond, they don't deny. 
And that is the difference between reality and hoax.  

>    Tim May can probably elaborate since he is a much better fan of conspiracy
> theories than I am. I stopped reading alt.conspiracy after the JFK thread
> was brought up for the 100th time.

Tim: Any input?

>    I suggest you take this thread to sci.skeptic if you dare. Try your
> anecdotal evidence there to see if it works.

Well, my anecdotal evidence and experience includes readings from noted
behaviorologists other than Key.  So maybe this is a little more
scientific than first glance appears?  Maybe, maybe...

Your e-mail address says you are from MIT, so act like the scientist
you're pretending to be and read a little behavioral science first.

-Alex Reynolds

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> > repeated exposure over a long period, to a large group of people who
> > are in your target audience. Statistically, a certain percentage of
> > people will stop to read your ad after repeated exposure. They spend
> > millions because even if a _fraction_ of the target audience responds to
> > the ad, they make many more millions.
> 
> The profit would certainly be lost to recover revenue without
> subliminal stimuli and with your statisical exposure.

   Bull, prove it. Here's a real world example. Let an ad in Wired
cost $2000 (which I believe it does), and let Wired have between 10,000 and
100,000 subscribers (which I think it does), and let the product you'll be
selling cost $10. 2*$2000/$10=400 customers required for 100% profit.
400/100,000 subscribers=0.4% of viewing audience, or 4 in 1000 people must
read and respond to your add.  So we need 4 atypical people who take the
time to carefully read ads.  You can apply the same analysis to million
dollar campaigns and get the same result. Iterated campaigns with
repeated exposure increase my argument even more.

   Key's explaination of print advertising is simply bullshit. Academic
philosophers have little to no credibility when it comes to talking
about things in the real world.

> Your e-mail address says you are from MIT, so act like the scientist
> you're pretending to be and read a little behavioral science first.

   How typical.


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

Alexander Reynolds says:
> > Moreover, tests of the "embedded sex objects" hypothesis don't pan out.
> > It turns out that (a) people don't notice them unless they have been
> > predisposed to (ie:"find the penis in the photo") and (b) whether or
> > not there is an embed in the photo has no meaningful effect on the
> > viewer.
> 
> Advertisers have found that such "artists jokes" as you call them are
> profit makers.

My friend Harry S. Hawk, who runs the Extropians list, works for an ad
agency. I remember his reaction once to a news report about the nose
on Joe Camel being a penis. He said, more or less...

"yeah, I can see it now. The big guys are all in a meeting in the
conference room, and they call in the artist and tell him 'It looks
good, but frankly, it needs to be more, well, penis shaped. The nose,
that is.'"

No credible studies have ever shown that people notice subliminal
messages. No credible studies have ever shown any of these "embedded
images", either. If you believe they are there, it should be easy to
find them. Take a scanner, scan in any newspaper image. Display only
small subsets of the grey levels at once and your supposed subliminal
messages should pop right out -- only you won't see a thing because
they aren't there.

Sure, sex sells -- look at any beer ad. But that is a different
question. The notion that advertisers are going around deliberately
incorporating hidden sexual imagery in an effort to boost sales has as
much credibility as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Perry

PS By the way, none of this paranoia has anything to do with cryptography.

> PS By the way, none of this paranoia has anything to do with cryptography.

Gee, something we do agree on.  

-Alex

This will be my final note on this subject, as it is inappropriate
for the list.

Alex writes in support of subliminal seduction:

Alex, there have been numerous studies on the subject, which I
summarized in my previous email (and you ignored).  Go look it
up for yourself if you don't believe me.

My degree is in psych, perceptual psych.  I know whereof I speak.
Subliminal seduction does not have a statistically significant
effect.  If you are predisposed to see penises and breasts, you
see them.  There are ice-cubes in booze ads because (surprise!)
you put ice-cubes in booze!

Artists jokes appear in work all the time.  Apple's Newton has
several of them.  Most of the anime films I subtitle have them
in them.  It is human nature, and part of the creative process,
which is why it is tolerated.

"SS" is a powerful myth, but tons of studies have shown that it
has the same validity as "Gerbilling."  I'm not saying it hasn't
been tried, it most surely has.  What I am saying is that most
people in the Ad industry know it's bullshit.

A much more powerful effect, if you're going to airbrush, would
be to correct images so they present the right cues to the
reader.  An example would be making sure that that smiling
girl is presenting Duchenne's marker (a subtle difference
typified by involuntary contraction of the pars lateralis eye
muscle that signifies a true happy smile, as opposed to a fake
or a social smile).  See SCIENCE, Vol 262, Pg 336 for a fascinating
report on this -- learning how to contract this muscle and smile
true happy smiles can actually make you feel happy!

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> 
> > Is there any published work on hiding subliminal messages
> > in pictures? It seems like that would be really easy.
> 
> Read R. Key's _The Clam-Plate Orgy_ for information on how advertising
> companies (cigarette ana alcohol companies especially) add little
> airbrushed renditions of subliminally pleasing sex scenes, with intent to
> stimulate purchase of the product.  Its been done for almost 50 years now,
> and started with the tachistoscope used in movie theatres to get people to
> consume popcorn and Coca-Cola(tm) in great quantities.  Sales went up by 60%.

  Balderdash. Key is just another Freudian conspiracy theorist. I found some
of the descriptions in his book laughable to absurd. His theories don't
pan out if you talk to anyone in the advertising business. Hidden messages
are noise compared to other dominate factors like humor and flashy
graphics. _Clam-Plate Orgy_ is an example of Key's imaginative and vulgar
mind, not science. (was anyone aroused by this image? Even after
he drew in the little outlines, I still had trouble seeing anything
worth a hormonal response. I also hate clams.)

  The subliminal movie images story is bunk, urban legend.

  I hope you didn't buy any of those $39.95 subliminal tapes from
infomercials.

> But then again, laws on subliminal information are practically null, and
> those that do exist are never enforced, thanks to Big Business
> influence-peddling.

  Could it be that subliminal information effects have been found to be
practically null also? I guess Key's asburd claims fit right into the
psychology of a leftist conspiracy theorist. I wonder if the Bilderburgers
are involved?

-Ray

HELP, I'm being put into a _psychological vice_ by pseudospoofers! My
urine is being sapped out of my bladder by viscious anonymous abusers!
And now, I am being controlled by advertisements containing assorted 
penile and vaginal shapes!


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

>   Balderdash. Key is just another Freudian conspiracy theorist. I found some
> of the descriptions in his book laughable to absurd. His theories don't
> pan out if you talk to anyone in the advertising business. 

And exactly why should they be honest?  It doesn't profit to be honest.

> Hidden messages are noise compared to other dominate factors like humor
> and flashy graphics.

Yes, I agree, but to the _conscious_ level it is noise!

> _Clam-Plate Orgy_ is an example of Key's imaginative
> and vulgar mind, not science. (was anyone aroused by this image? Even after
> he drew in the little outlines, I still had trouble seeing anything
> worth a hormonal response. I also hate clams.)

If you don't want to accept something before first glance, you won't.

>   The subliminal movie images story is bunk, urban legend.

No, actually it is very true and scary as hell.

>   I hope you didn't buy any of those $39.95 subliminal tapes from
> infomercials.

I'm not needing to quit anything addictive.

>   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.

> I guess Key's asburd claims fit right into the
> psychology of a leftist conspiracy theorist. I wonder if the Bilderburgers
> are involved?

They fit into any ideological conspiracy you choose to frame it in, but
what happened then is what is happening now because it makes money, and
people like money.

> And now, I am being controlled by advertisements containing assorted 
> penile and vaginal shapes!

You put too much faith in man's ability to control himself, you should
read up on Milgram's experiments as well as some Skinner and Pavlov.

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

Science is the faith in believing the universe is explainable, don't
deceive yourself thinking otherwise.

-Alex Reynolds

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

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> > pan out if you talk to anyone in the advertising business. 
> And exactly why should they be honest?  It doesn't profit to be honest.

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

> > Hidden messages are noise compared to other dominate factors like humor
> > and flashy graphics.
> 
> Yes, I agree, but to the _conscious_ level it is noise!

   Let me explain a simple concept. Humans send subliminal signals to each
other. It's called BODY LANGUAGE. And the visual system seems to be particulary
adapted to recognizing facial expressions, not penises or vaginas (things
which we do not look at as often).  Ads are dominated by people laughing,
smiling, and other positive images. They are also dominated by humor.
These psychological mechanisms are known to work. Advertisers would
much rather put their money in traditional proven techniques of appealing
to people than Freudian crackpot theories which have been shown to have
no effect by many studies. Do you think many of those subliminal tapes have
been removed from commercial sale by the govnernment because they work too
well, or because they never worked and people got ripped off?

> > _Clam-Plate Orgy_ is an example of Key's imaginative
> > and vulgar mind, not science. (was anyone aroused by this image? Even after
> > he drew in the little outlines, I still had trouble seeing anything
> > worth a hormonal response. I also hate clams.)
> 
> If you don't want to accept something before first glance, you won't.

   I don't accept it because it's bunk. I studied _Clam-Plate Orgy_ very
carefully in challenge to another crackpot who bet me to read it. Now
your argument resorts to religious tactics "if you don't believe in it,
you don't want to believe. Blah blah."  On the other hand, you are
too accepting. You accept theories which are published no where else,
which are not accepted by the scientific community, and which lack scientific
control.

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


  It wasn't a scientifically valid experiment. There are much more
simpler and credible explanations of why advertising works, and Occam's
Razor tells us to deposit Key in file #13.

> > -- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;  
> > -- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.    
> > -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries   
> Science is the faith in believing the universe is explainable, don't
> deceive yourself thinking otherwise.

  This is the second time you have attacked my signature. It is generally
acknowledged in net-culture that the attack of someone's sig represents
the loss of an argument. Should I be surprised that your attack on science
is nothing more than the simplistic "science is a religion" argument, that
you are succeptable to memes from non-scientific crackpots like Key, and
in the same message you reference Skinner and social-science which is at
best dismal. I bet you are a great follower of his Chomsky-ness too.

-Ray

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


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

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

Ego is such a strong influence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Alex Reynolds

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

> >   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
Motors...

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

Alexander Reynolds says:
> >   Balderdash. Key is just another Freudian conspiracy theorist. I found som
e
> > of the descriptions in his book laughable to absurd. His theories don't
> > pan out if you talk to anyone in the advertising business. 
> 
> And exactly why should they be honest?  It doesn't profit to be honest.

Yup. All those tens of thousands of people (including unpaid summer
interns) working in the Ad business have all been sworn to
secrecy. Yeah, thats the ticket. And none of them ever talked, because
ad people are like the mafia, and will kill each other for talking,
which is why all those ad men end up floating in the East River all
the time. Yeah, thats the ticket.

By the way, I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you. Along with
some subscriptions to some Lyndon Larouche publications that will give
you incontravertable proof that the Queen of England is the worlds
biggest drug trafficer.

Perry