Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA22670 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:30:10 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:44:30 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEODCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458DC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2000 12:53
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>
>
> Check 'The Skeptic' magazine online's archives for an excellent piece on
> just how problematic the notion of 'subliminal' programming is
> (the context
> of the article is the Judas Priest trial). I'll try and track down the
> specific article myself, as I can't remember the author of the top of my
> head.
>
OK.
> The kinds of effects you're talking about how not been demonstrated
> consistenly or routinely in some 70 years worth of media effects studies
> (some would say not at all, and I admit to being one of those, but it is a
> very contested issue in media studies).
Yes there is a 'problem' with repeatability possibly due to the different
responses of persona types to these sorts of processes. Repeatability
requires sameness and perhaps the assumption that all people respond in more
or less the 'same' way is incorrect.
If you get into the structure of personality so emerges different threads,
persona types, and this area is 'interesting'.
I have made this point
> on several
> occasions on this list, so I won't bore people with it again (If
> you want a
> good analysis of the issues though, you could read David
> Gauntlett's Moving
> Experiences: Understanding Television's Influences and Effects, 1995,
> London: John Libbey).
>
> I'm a bit bemused by lots of references about hypnosis going back
> and forth
> on this list. I had though that hypnosis was widely derided in scientific
> communities, as it produces things like memories of past lives, alien
> abductions, ritual satanic abuse, and the spontaneous emergence
> of multiple
> personalities?
>
Ummm. you left out the good by only emphasising the bad. ANY method will
have good/bad aspects and this includes the ability in hypnosis to
manipulate the person under hypnosis through well placed 'loaded questions'.
IF you get the chance, review some of Erickson's work. (refs in previous
posts).
> There is simply no way NLP programmes can work, except one- and
> that is the
> use of chemicals (i.e. drugs) to make subjects compliant.
I beg to differ. Drugs can in fact help the process in that a single
experience created by a drug can be recalled and anchored such that the
same/similar states can be recalled without repetative drug use.
Next time you have a headache try it, recall your state without a headache,
what are the differences? find the particular dichotomy and 'play' with the
elements. Sounds easier to take a pill but with practice this can reduce the
pill requirements (unless there is a serious health problem).
Using
> 'representations systems', does not produce direct causal impacts on
> behaviour.
it introduces rapport. The idea in NLP is to follow, pace, and then lead.
The rapport processes, that include body language mirroring, is aimed at
eventually getting into a dove-tailing or leading process and so to 'show'
the individual choices they did not previously think they had.
Each person will have differences in responses to these and it is a 1:1
process that can be generalised to group levels but with varing results.
When you are working at these levels the algorithms act as guides with
realtime feedback processes acting to 'refine' the outcomes. From a strictly
scientific context, to date, I dont think these levels of analysis have been
performed.
This is well known, has been empirically demonstrated, and is
> widely accepted in media scholarship. People's compliance with
> things they
> are exposed to though media are reliant on an immensely complex number of
> contextual factors, preventing manipulation or prediction of audiences'
> subsequent behaviour.
That is being 'refined' at the moment in that the bias is now to difference
rather than sameness. I can structure aspects of an ad etc to 'aim' it at
particular persona types rather than the population at large. The use of
cookies etc on the net is aimed at 'personalising' site responses to regular
visitors and so general a 'resonance' of customer to site, you feel
'comfortable' etc That is manipulation at a very particular level, something
you cannot do with TV etc at the moment in that you need interaction to
generate feedback that helps you to customise.
One of the core factors, and something we have
> touched upon on this list before, is the qualiative difference between
> information received through interpersonal and mediated communications.
>
Sure. Some of the work with agents re internet aims to make the individual's
interaction more 'personal' and so open them to develop a sense of trust in
'the system' and so eventually be lead by it (follow-pace-lead :-)) (note
this reflects evolutionary development where you go from a reactive state to
a proactive state).
best,
Chris.
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 01:30:57 BST