RE: virus: Subliminals

Gifford, Nate F (
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:28:20 -0500

wade wrote:
>Again, _what_ evidence? There may indeed be _attempts_ at
>influence, but _every_ experiment designed to test for these
>effects has been negative.

>What do you have to gain by clinging to the belief that there are
>subliminal influences despite all evidence to the contrary?

Nate writes:
Is the problem here the definition of subliminal?

The site was my first exposure to the basis of various
sales techniques that have always annoyed me. Since visiting it I've seen
other references to the same techniques in other circumstances ....
specifically in articles about how to buy a car, how to be a fundamentalist
preacher, and how to get the first punch in a fight.

I would also refer you to the concepts: sex sells and if it bleeds
it leads. If you look at old ads you can see that they are much more overt
than the current crop ... to the point that old ads now have entertainment
value. So if you define subliminal to be the subtext of the Folger's coffee
ads I'd say it does work.