It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proof That The Advertising Industry Is A Form Of Mind Control Part 2

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
There´s also a benefit to all this though, as cold-blooded as it may sound: By studying the advertising industries methods, who are desperate for attention, we ourselves can learn a thing or two about behaviour and techniques that might be advantageous for us in daily life...say to get a job or be flirtatious, or convince people of something.

The only thing I am missing with some of these hardcore-advertisers is a sense of conscience.

I must concur. In my "real life" I weekly ghostwrite an article in our company advertising magazine on behalf of the president trying to convince readers that now is a great time to buy our product, even though the market has been crashing for months. I have no interest in remaining a lifelong corporate drone and I see my current role more as a learning experience, an opportunity to hone my skills and learn how things work on the "inside." All the better to pursue independent ventures in the future.

There is always a twinge of guilt, although I find justification in the idea that if I wasn't doing it, someone else would, and maybe I'm bringing to it a more conscientious perspective than another might...weak, I know, but I feel the benefits outweigh the damage done. And I hope I can put my experiences to work for the greater good in the long term, rather than serve the corporate interests.

Anyway, my point is that I can agree with you from personal experience on the points of the validity of learning from these types of techniques as well as the need for more "conscience" in their application.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:06 AM

Originally posted by shipovfools
as well as the need for more "conscience" in their application.

A well thought-out post; you seem balanced and aware, so not to criticise, but...

Get out while you can, before you start habitually putting the word 'conscience' in quotes. Conscience is not a hypothetical concept.

Lies and deceit are not "lies" and "deceit", they are LIES and DECEIT.

The worst thing about advertising (and not just advertising) in my opinion, is the mindset of the relativity of all truth, and the belief that even though something is false and deceptive, it's okay to spread it as truth, because hey, someone might believe it and find it useful and 'truthy' -- virtual truth -- and since really true truth doesn't exist, that's just as good, in practice. No, it's not.

Sorry, just felt like a little rant with my coffee. Carry on.

Edit: boldface tags.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Ian McLean]

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

Thanks for the advice... I do agree more or less, although some things are easier said than done. I can't really afford to leave my job at the moment, but that is going off topic...

On a related note, I've been reading a fascinating book titled "Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery." The book only covers up to the first half of the 20th century, so it is not too relevant to modern advertising, but the history of the industry is very interesting.

I'm thinking about writing a lengthy article based on some of my own recent research - using my notes from reading this book as a springboard - which I might post as a separate thread or perhaps even work into a TinWiki article (although I might need to make the 'conspiracy' angle more explicit...)

Oh yeah, if you hadn't notice, I like to put lots of "words" in quotes
Why? Because words - even ones like truth, love, conscience, etc. - are still just words. The map is never the territory. You can't eat the menu!

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by shipovfools
On a related note, I've been reading a fascinating book titled "Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery." The book only covers up to the first half of the 20th century, so it is not too relevant to modern advertising, but the history of the industry is very interesting.

Sounds like an interesting read...thanks...

Oh yeah, if you hadn't notice, I like to put lots of "words" in quotes
Why? Because words - even ones like truth, love, conscience, etc. - are still just words. The map is never the territory. You can't eat the menu!

"If" "you" "haven't" "noticed", "placing" "quotes" "around" a "word" "is" "an" "easy" "way" "to" "get" "emphasis".

Truth, love, conscience..these are all words that evoke a physiological response. Which means that words aren't just words. Period.

How many females would you call "Mommy"?

Not many and certainly not a new acquaintence. Why? Because the connotation is clear, specific and counter productive to the type of discourse you would likely desire from "any other female"...(concession made for gender specific terms...

Words aren't just words....they are social cues.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I recommend going back and looking at some of the issues presented...we're talking subliminal possibilities (I provided proof of subliminals as well) and other very subtle means to gain the attention of people.

Subliminal advertising is illegal in most places, but it is well known that implicit stimuli can induce learning and influence behaviour somewhat (still debated though as to how effective it really is). As far as neuroscience goes, all the studies will really do is show how the brain processes advertising information.

I wouldn't really call it a 'marriage' as was suggested earlier. It just people in consumer psychology using the techniques of neuroscience to assess the neurobiological underpinnings of the processes they are interested in - which is not that different than other areas of psychology.

What I think is more interesting is the techniques used to attract attention and aid learning of product related information, which you mention. Essentially, people try to ignore adverts so advertisers attempt to get your attention. They might use little ditties, oddballs, metaphors etc. And other techniques go right down to the designing of brands, labels, packaging etc.

A good example which is used in demonstrating how adverts work is by using incidental learning paradigms, which support the 'Levels of processing' model of memory. Thus, ask someone to count vowels in a these sentences:

1. Brown's : an energy drink

2. Red Bull: Gives you wings

(of course, this would be tested with novel brands and slogans)

Thus, the idea is that by using metaphor, even though you might not be fully processing the information at a semantic level, the second will invoke a 'deeper' level of encoding, and therefore recognition. Just think of the adverts you can remember from the past - the funny one's, the weird one's, the one's with catchy tunes.

But subliminals are illegal (i.e. information presented below the normal level of awareness).

Not sure why your that bothered. I had a similar discussion on another thread, the companies are just hoping to find a way to better convey information. In this case, consumer information. These methods are very subtle and easily overcome. As I noted in that thread, this forum uses methods of conditioning to influence behaviour, which is not that much different than what advertisers do. Indeed, celebs are a great way of transferring positive feelings onto a product

I can think of lots of adverts that I really love, now and as a kid, but I never really went out and bought softmints because I loved the Mr Soft adverts - catchy, weird, and fun. In fact, I don't particularly like softmints.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 09:32 AM
Here is a link to a clip where Derren Brown shows how two guys working for an advertising agency are themselves equally suggestible as their own works....namely: influencing/persuading people to do/ buy something...

Its nothing illegal as someone stated in this thread...maybe it is but it;s just a fear of the unknown i suppose .....we all to a degree persuade everyday in our lives to survive....

the link>>

[edit on 22-9-2008 by ElisahumanE]

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 04:04 PM

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:53 PM
oh boy! a subject near and dear to my heart. I love advertising. I think it is hilarious. Especially when I first react to an ad, and then I evaluate it... It's fun actually, to see how they are trying to manipulate me.
Sometimes it is surprising to me that I can watch a commercial and then right afterwards I have no idea what they were selling. I also don't understand the high quantity of cheesy ads. The not for 100 not for 50 but for 14.99 ones. And auto sales ads. Why do they make those stupid commercials?
My favorite right now is "have a happy period".
I found myself relating to all four of those female codes.. must be why I am known for my shopping skills. We are gatherers, nurturers, and emotional. I am very aesthetics based. A very visual person. But I am also discriminative and frugal. Thrifty... And I have a degree in Psych. Took some Advertising and Journalism... I can't be fooled too easily, but my daughter thinks she needs everything she sees on tv that they push on her and make look better than it really is. I have to teach her that they are trying to get her birthday money.

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:25 PM
Excellent thread MemoryShock, of course, a star and flag.....this is important and goes FAR beyond the things we see on shelves and in adverts.

I also feel this issue must address the people who contribute to the production of said "tactics" and not just the tactics themselves. Not completely on topic, but relevant I feel.

When I began a cereer in advertising some 30 years ago (crikey, that long!) it was about information. It was artistic, you know "paste-up" with a knife and "airbrushing" pretty backgrounds. The people were fun, the ideas flowed and the business wasn't only about market share and profit.

Some years later, I had progressed (matter of opinion) into a company that produced packaging and marketing for leading brand names, but the "industry" had changed.

Art was replaced with plaigerism, information was replaced with false statements and trust was replaced with a binding contract that denied employment for one year in the same field of products with any other company.

Most importantly, the people had changed. Gone were the artists, modelmakers and fun copywriters and a new era of management took over.

Oh, and "middle-management" by the truckload. College leavers were fooled into thinking they were being creative and coming up with new ideas....yeah, right! All hail the computer age.

To cut a long story short, it sucked BIG time!

I was replaced by a computer, and looking back now, it's the best thing that could have happened. I became a picture framer......I was with the real ART again. I didn't miss the studio one bit and came to realise that most of the people from it were just (for want of a better word) sheep!

Gone were the time sheets so the company could charge for every minute of the day, gone were the poinless meetings, gone was the re-hash of a packet that was obsolete when it hit the shelves, gone was the back-stabbing and the worthless "middle-management"...hello freedom.

So to anyone in "the business", consider what you are doing and consider what and how you contribute to the world of "stuff", are you any less ignorant than the people you aim those products at?

Next time you fill in that time sheet, remember that the jar of marmite or packet of PG Tips or Persil washing powder is SO expensive NOT because it's good, but because it has to profit everything and everyone on it's way to the shelf FIRST.

You pay for every advert, every piece of packaging and every piece of research.

So you ask for a raise to meet your growing living costs and the whole thing spirals.

Fact is, the "budget" products are often as good as the brand names, but with all the advertising, most people would probably refuse to admit that in order to convince themselves their money is well spent.

Subliminal advertising is just preying on a lack of knowledge, knowledge that's become hidden behind glitzy packaging and CGI adverts.

Are you part of the solution or part of the problem? I know what I am.
and fighting against these things is pointless unless we target the people who unwittingly control and contribute towards it.

"back to the drawing board" (remember them? (pun intended))

Good things sell themselves and that spare "MRI" scanner needs to be put to better use. And thank goodness for internet tv and movies (the free, copied stuff) with NO adverts in the beginning, middle and end. Even the news used to interrupt a good movie to "plant" seeds.

My signature says it all! Can't touch me.

posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 10:52 PM
S&F from myself as well, as an advertising major this series is something I am enjoying greatly!

I will say however (and I don't think you are denying this at all), that your post is directed to big time corporate companies. Which are pretty much identical to any other corporation.

I agree that advertising is making changes in the way it relates to consumer America, but then again how could it not? More and more people are becoming desensitized to their surroundings, advertising is a serious business with people's jobs at hand as well, and not all agencies are big-time corporations looking take your arm and leg as collateral. How else are we supposed to reach the people that these business' want to reach?

Personally, I'm hoping to open up an agency of my own, focusing on guerilla type marketing, I'm a fan of the underground, the word of mouth the environmental advertisement. I've got a few propositions laying on the table, ready at any moment to be put into the works (one includes opening a pizza shop, using only under the radar marketing campaigns). But you know what? That type of advertisement reaches the crowd I want to reach without resorting to mind control, it's based purely on those who can crack the code, and who live that type of lifestyle to begin with, no one else.

Basically what I'm trying to get at here, is to make it clear that we're not all out there to sleep into your dreams and tell you the pink dress is better than the blue. You just have to understand that this is also someone's job, and yeah if you work for a big-time agency you may or may not feel like s*** when you get home, as for me, I look forward to my ventures. Not by manipulating and brainwashing my clients/customers/demographic, but by providing something that PROVOKES thought, and teaches the consumer to think for themselves, but also incites curiosity and invokes loyalty to my name. Because I want people to want what I have. But I refuse to go as low as some.

Anywho, like I said, this is an excellent thread thank you for taking the time to do all that research and actually providing it for us here ^.^ I'll be bringing it up to my Advertising Industry teacher next time I'm in class!


spelling and junk ^.^

[edit on 23-11-2008 by bandaidctrl]

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:13 AM
Reply inspired after reading post by GradyPhilpott

From one curmudgeon to another: kudos, Grady. I almost never see eye to eye with you on anything, but I've starred both your posts in this thread.

Before we proceed any further, my credentials: twenty years in the business, working in various parts of the world for industry giants like JWT, BBDO and Y&R as copywriter, creative director and account planner. I'm out of advertising now, but I retain some connections with the industry and have just been asked (puffs out chest) to sit on the panel of judges at next year's industry awards ceremony in my country.

I understand that the above CV probably makes me a 'disinfo agent' in the eyes of some. Be that as it may, I feel moved to add my two cents' worth to this discussion, as I did to the previous one.

MemoryShock's interest in and concern over this issue is creditable, but there really isn't much to worry about. In my professional opinion, advertising does not even work the way it is touted, far less the way people who fear the 'hidden persuaders' think it does; it is much less effective than advertising people like to make out. As Grady says,

the whole idea of advertising was to influence behavior, specifically consumer behavior

Precisely. But it's not very influential, and it's pretty easy to see that.

Simply consider: what is the best way you can think of to persuade somebody to do something? Surely it is to talk to him directly, man to man. But this may not be possible. In that case, the next best thing would be to write him a personal letter, or make a phone call. Only in the last resort, when you have no more direct way of exercising your communicative and persuasive arts, would you place an advertisement in the media.

Media advertising is, apart from propaganda, the most ineffective form of persuasion known to man. This is not only obvious on reflection; the content of ATS bears daily evidence of it. Only a fool, we read here day after day, believes what he sees in the media. And nearly everybody on the site agrees

This is the real problem with advertising. People mistrust and disbelieve it. And that is a terrible problem because, as Grady asks,

Would industry sink billions into advertising, if there were not at least the reasonable expectation that people were being influenced at least to consider a given product?

Well, of course they wouldn't. So admen and -women have spent a century trying to persuade industry that their ads do work*. To do it, they will co-opt any likely-looking argument from psychology, sociology, communications theory, neuroscience and just about anywhere else if it will help create a conceptual framework for what they do and thus help them sell their work.

In the old days, the black art of choice was psychology. Not 'subliminal advertising' - even advertising people aren't stupid enough to believe you can make people buy things just by flashing a brandname at them too quickly to be seen - but other stuff: colour psychology, ocular-motion studies, Freudian visual punnery and just about whatever happened to be fashionable that year. All codswallop, of course. JWT, where I worked for many years, used to have a set of creative guidelines called the T-Plan which was based, in the loosest and most unscientific way possible, on sub-Pavlovian stimulus-response theory. It was garbage, everybody except the greenhorns who'd joined the agency yesterday knew it was garbage, but no-one ever said so, and the thing was invoked like Holy Writ every time we made a client pitch - to be instantly forgotten by us creative types when we sat down to dream up the ads themselves. For all I know, though, they're still using it. The Ted Bates Agency, for which I worked briefly after its takeover by Saatchi's, was still - in the 1990s! - billing itself as 'the USP agency' after a tired old industry trope, the 'unique selling proposition', which had ceased to be relevant as long ago as 1965.

When it wasn't psychology, it was sociology. Where that came in useful was in its research techniques. The tools of market and consumer research are mostly hand-me-downs from the social sciences. Unfortunately, their relevance in the real world, especially with the tiny sample sizes that is all most research budgets will run to, is greatly limited.

Well, pyschology and sociology are old hat now. These days, social networking has replaced sociology and neuroscience has shoved old-school psychology out of the lecture theatre. Advertising people, who are nothing if not trend-conscious, have spotted this and responded accordingly. Today, client presentations include colourful MRI scans and tomographs, while media planners and researchers enthuse about web-use tracking software and the deals they've made with social-networking sites. But is any of this going to turn advertising into an exact science, even as it turns you and me into unthinking consumer zombies?

Forget it. Not a chance. And here's why.

The real persuasive power of advertising lies in the power of the creative work. Sure, good media planning can ensure that the the ad gets to the most responsive (you may prefer 'susceptible') consumer group; good strategic planning can ensure that it is 'on message' and that the message is the most persuasive one; and good pre-testing can eliminate the negatives that turn members of the target consumer group off and even suggest what creative elements might attract their attention or please them; but really, that is as far as it goes. In the end, whether the ad persuades you or not is down to whether it moves you, and whether you identify with it. No insight from psychology, sociology or neuroscience is ever going to make that happen.

What makes it happen is the same thing that makes great art happen: talented, ambitious people - writers, artists, filmmakers and a host of others - who know from the inside what it is like to be human, and can win others over by expressing that understanding in relevant, appealing ways in the medium of their choice. When advertising works at all, it works because of the artistic talent that created it.

The rest is just window-dressing.

* * *

Reply to nerbot

When I began a cereer in advertising... It was artistic, you know "paste-up" with a knife and "airbrushing"... The people were fun, the ideas flowed and the business wasn't only about market share and profit.

Some years later, I had progressed (matter of opinion) into a company that produced packaging and marketing for leading brand names, but the "industry" had changed.

Art was replaced with plaigerism, information was replaced with false statements and trust was replaced with a binding contract...

The industry didn't change. You just advanced along your career path.

The advertising business lives off the energy of ferociously talented, naive young people with big egos who get a rush out of doing great ads and winning creative awards and don't give two hoots about whether the client's product succeeds or tanks in the market. That's where you started; in the art studio. I started behind a cub copywriter's desk, pretty much the same as you.

Junior creative staff in ad agencies - the people, like you and I were, who actually think up and create the ads - are carefully protected from the hardball realities of the business, because if they knew the truth they would get the hell out. The truth, let us remind ourselves, is all about shifting numbers and grabbing the biggest possible share in viciously competitive markets worth millions and even billions of dollars. It is a very tough, absolutely soulless business in which the only things that ever matter are the bottom line and the agency league tables. It is emphatically not about art or fun. It never was.

That's just a lie we tell the boys and girls down in the playpen.

You can rise to the post of creative group head (roughly equivalent to middle-management executive in a marketing firm) without grasping this unpalatable truth. Or, if you stay in the small time, a provincial agency or a below-the-line house, you can hold onto it a bit longer, till you've made creative director, perhaps. But if you are unfortunate enough to retain those illusions after you've made senior group head, copy chief or creative director, the business will chew you up and spit you out like so much chaff.

Or else - as I suspect was the case with you - you will make your own moral decision and get out with your character and your illusions still intact.

I didn't get out. I lost my illusions and hung on, moving from creative to strategy in the process. I like to think I retained some integrity, but it's not for me to say, is it? Certainly I would have no qualms doing what shipovfools is so worried about. His or her company is trying to survive a bad time and he or she is trying to stay employed. I don't see what's wrong with this. You're allowed to put the best face on the facts, even if you know that you're not giving people the whole story. And that is all, really, that advertising ever does. I'm not saying advertisers wouldn't lie outright if they could; but there are laws and rules that prevent them from doing so.

*Which they do, on balance, in that sales of just about anything would probably be lower without advertising. As a certain Lord Lever once said, 'I don't know if last year's advertising worked; but I'm sure the last twenty years' has.'

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
This is a fascinating subject, and well worth additional study.

I have recently been examining in more depth the field of psychographics.

The automated collection and application of psychographics is the primary monetary value of the Internet, and the force that truly drives its progression.

Here are some research links for those who would view them. The first presentation is highly recommended:

[1] (PowerPoint presentation)

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:05 PM
The subject of advertising just makes me get on a soapbox, everytime. First of all, WHY on God's-green-earth, do They make womens' voices in ads, --constantly-- smiling? Do you all know what I mean? The sound of somene making that ear-to-ear grin, while they talk? NO ONE IN REAL LIFE that I have ever encountered anyway, constantly smiles while they talk. It evokes the need for physical violence in me. I want to punch her mouth in. Not only that, but womens' voices in commercials mostly----try to sound sexually titillating to the strait horny male, EVEN if the ad is female demographic/product-directed. What am I, a frikkin lesbian? As they say on 'Sienfeld', "not that theres anything -wrong- with that", and my beloved family member is gay. I am trying -- to ask, what is the real purpose of those kinds of ads? All they do is enrage me. This whispery, very young sounding, breathless c**t only makes me want to throw an unopened can of pop at my TV screen, thereby smashing it into pieces, which conversely is the only thing restraining me, as I want to keep my TV intact. I ALWAYS pick up my remote and bannish the commercial, but my timing on that, is not always, well, timely. So the male-oriented sexual titillations get through sometimes, unfortunately.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:14 PM
........Continued from previous. Another thing I HATE HATE HATE, and Oh by the way, did I mention HATE? Are all these moving ads on the website chat forum boards and on my e-mail sites. So here is what I did. I got a board of black cardboard, and cut out little squares, which fit precisely over where most of the moving ads appear. Neah!

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:39 PM
..........And just one more thing. Sorry. ALL of the commmercial, advertising, TV, movies, etc., images of women, have this SAME aspect. ALL of those female humanoids have: The giraffe-long skinny neck, and then, the jaw-line that is SO chiselled-sharp, that I could shave with it like a razor, and probably get a soft smooth result, as this is how chiselled and sharp the facial and neck features are. EVEN 'ELDERLY' (yeah right) females are presented that way. Causing her to look like a 19-year-old wearing a silver wig. Bogus! GRANTED, jowels, fat faces, fat necks, triple chins, are UGLY, in my opinion, thats for sure. But why do these image industries have NO idea how to present a --normal-- looking attractive person?
Let us take for example, that old TV series, 'The X-Files'. Gillian Anderson (Agent Dana Scully) was attractive! Right? And she looked normal! Not chiselled and angular, like the very extraterrestrials they were chasing. I can see that she has gotten some 'cosmetic' 'work' done on her, and now I can no longer say the same of her.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by simonecharisse]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Ian McLean

Awesome stuff...

The second link is particularly fascinating as it seems to be detailing the process for subtle manipulation.

For those who didn't wade through the source links...

If you are the National Education Association, for example, and you want to get AIDS education mandated for grade-schoolers, you must create the illusion that most parents actually want their pre-adolescents involved in such a class. Your first step is market research, just as if you were determining receptivity for a new line of soft drinks, or for a day-care center in a particular section of town.


Pinpointing attitudes, including temperament and disposition, are key to predicting--and controlling--the future.


Marginalizing the Opposition

There aren't many stigmas anymore. Or so we are told. But nothing gets a person quarantined from mainstream thought faster than a suggestion that he or she is mentally ill.

Thus the term "homophobic." It's a virtual conversation stopper. Ditto for "intolerant," "inhibited," "rigid" and "dogmatic." No one knows better than leftist strategists that anyone linked with a code out of the premier psychiatrists' bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, is guilty by association. Thus, individuals who opposed the Episcopal Church's consecration of homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire never had a prayer of swaying the radical church leadership. The opposition was simply designated "homophobic."

Fascinating stuff. I think instances where a person is being maneuvered into divulging what is relatively benign information (shopping preferences) are easier to use for the shaping of public opinion than something as divisive as sexual orientation but there of course is something to be said in squelching an opposing perspective to promote a more tolerant environment.

Fascinating stuff and definitely social engineering at its' best.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
Great thread OP a very thought provoking read.

I'd just like to add that the best thing that ever happened was the invention of the REMOTE CONTROL.

The advertisers in their own stupidity a few years ago, thought that having the volume of advertisments 3 times louder than the tv programmes a good way of having their "message" sink in.

To me it's a flag to use the remote and change channels.

There is absolutely no need with a remote control to ever watch an another advertisement in your life.
The only thing it will cost is a bit of an investment in extra batteries due to the extra use.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Flighty

Yes - I think the volume thing WAS a huge mistake for them...

Before I would chat with family members while comercials were on - now I purposely ACTIVELY avoid TV advertising AT ALL TIMES!

Shot themselves in the foot with that one - imho...

However - I am one of those mutants who is completely unaffected by advertising, hypnosis, etc... so I wasn't their target market anyways...

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:32 AM
Fascinating thread!

A couple of yeas ago I read a book on marketing that said the new trend was to make the pitch experiential. Get a person to have some kind of experience that involves your product. Like you all, I find a great many of the ads I see or hear to be utterly infuriating. Unfortunately fury is an experience so they might be more effective than I think, though I suspect that they are only effective if I'm going to choose one of those products anyway. Car advertising might not sink in until I'm looking to buy a car.

I believe that many causes including political campaigns use the experiential aspect. They try to involve us in sympathy for the starving child or remind us that we are scared of drive-by shootings, and an appeal to that kind of emotion can be effective.

One other tidbit from my psychology days. Remember those studies they used to do that studied the effect of debriefing? An experiment would be run with the subject doing some simple learning task like remembering three letter groups or recognizing a sequence. First there would be a practice period. At the end of that time, without regard to actual performance, half the subjects would be told they were doing really really well while the other half would be told their performance was average. Then the real test started. Most of the time those who were told they had done well in practice did significantly better on the test portion. The average group did average. Not that surprising. We all know about "self fulfilling prophecy". The real shocker came at the next phase. The people who were initially lied to, told they were doing better than average, were now told that they had been lied to, that they had in fact been average. I can't remember if they told the average group anything. A final testing was done and the lied to group STILL DID SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. They had had an experience they believed in and it continued to significantly affected performance. This makes me wonder if maybe we are affected by what we hear a lot more than we think, depending on initial experiences. I don't know this, I'm just suggesting that we humans are strange creatures and we don't really know how we concoct our thoughts let alone make choices.

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:07 PM
This is a great thread Memory Shock.

I just had a chance to check it out, so I don't have anything related to comment on quite yet.

But I am very grateful for the heads up and I will spend the day trying to digest it in order to present a well thought out reply.

S & F.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in