RE: taboos

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 02 2001 - 15:21:49 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA18710 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:22:35 +0100
    From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: taboos
    Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:21:49 -0400
    Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAEEOLCBAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    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
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D41@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi, Vincent. The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that a person has a
    threshold of conscious perception that depends on a signal strength greater
    than their threshold of unconscious perception. A person can be affected by
    a signal strong enough to meet their unconscious threshold but too weak to
    meet their conscious threshold. A signal too weak to meet either would have
    no effect on the person.

    One could easily imagine a situation in which a subliminal signal that is
    broadcast is picked up consciously by some, unconsciously by some, and not
    at all by others; the first group simply is more perceptive, attentive, or
    alert to weak signals than the others. So a subliminal signal might be
    'caught' consciously by some, affect some unconsciously, and be entirely
    missed by others.

    - Lawrence

    -----Original Message-----
    From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    Of Vincent Campbell
    Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:55 AM
    To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    Subject: RE: taboos

    Again, urban myth in the sense that it works. In Bush's case, not least in
    the sense that people saw it- in other words it wasn't subliminal enough!
    But that's why it's a silly idea in the first place because it works on the
    basis that the less you are aware of the image/message being sent, the more
    powerful its effects on you. The logical endpoint here is by not showing
    anything at all you'll have complete control over people.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Lawrence DeBivort
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:51 pm
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: taboos
    >
    >
    > > Subliminal advertising is an urban myth.
    >
    >
    > Alas, it is not an urban myth. It was actively used for TV at least once
    > by
    > the Bush campaign in 2000.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 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 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 15:25:55 BST