Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA19993 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:58:00 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:51:51 -0400 Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FC3D@fillan.stir.ac.uk> Message-Id: <450AC8CD-520A-11D6-9556-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 09:01 , Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Indeed, it's out of a lack
> of satisfaction in the range of effects theories that are out there
> that I
> personally was drawn to memetics in the first place. Something's going
> but what I dunno.
Vincent- I hope to hear you say that, (perhaps because someone in some
position of authority and not in any position of expertise made you),
you've done some research or analysis of so-called 'subliminal' effects,
and found those claims bogus.
Not that there is not a very interesting set of studies about 'under'
perceptions, but, to my knowledge, all claims of 'subliminal'
advertising or learning are shams.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 15:17:29 BST