You lost me with that one.... :confused:

Let me spell it out for you. The english letters S-E-X are represented by the negative space inside the flowers.

If you still cannot see the letters, cover the top half of the picture and look between the stalks of the flowers. near their base.

It's along the same lines as this famous image:

http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/psy101/forsyth/sp/sp4.jpg

It's either two faces or a vase depending on how you look at it. Lots of psychological and neurological studies exist on this matter.

To summarize
http://college.hmco.com/psychology/b...ines/ch05.html

Of course it could be the fact that Planet X is controlling my brain that I arrived at that conclusion.

The narrow definitions of "subliminal perception" and "mind control" as they relate to so-called experimentally verifible "psychological science" should not be confused with the broader definitions that are operative in this thread subsequent to the introduction of the preliminary examples of narrowly defined "subliminal perception." These examples were provided for purposes of reflection.

All through the discussion the narrow definitions are contrasted with the broader ones - with appropriate delineations.

Also, what is commonly referred to as the "science of psychology" is universally regarded as pseudo-science by professionals of the traditional sciences - as it only relies on scientific methodology in a perfunctory way.

Actually Art, the whole Idea of taking a narrow definition and then applying it broadly is called Inductive logic. (I'm sure you know this, I'm just saying it for reference.) Induction is almost always considered a fallacy unless it can be shown to apply to every instance of the broader sense.


So if I make a narrow observation and apply it to a definition:
http://www.arthurgrosset.com/otherbi.../cygatr508.jpg

This swan is black therefore all swans are black -I am making what is commonly known as an inductive fallacy.

Finally, the science of psychology is coming back in a big way because of two other sciences: Neuroscience and Genetics. The fact is that you can map the brain with an MRI and watch people as they recognize the two seperate images. What you are presenting here as "subliminal" is actually -not recognized all at once (-for most people).

The mind actually has to move between seeing the image and seeing the text. Some people see the text and point it out to their friends and Voila! -the devious advertisers have done their jobs. Their word is out. People notice their ads instead of turning it off; tuning it out or paying attention to something else.

But I point out that the only reason is that it's "subliminal" whatsoever is that it's because people notice it. -Which of course violates the whole definition of subliminality. " Inadequate to produce conscious awareness but able to evoke a response: subliminal propaganda."

Ah hah! No way, I really feel slow today ;) Thanks

Yes Astrocloud, subliminal has a particular meaning. I used the examples to examine the subject and stated the thread is about mass media mind control in general. And then myself and others went on to fill it with many examples of non-subliminal methods and the ways in which we are controlled by them.

I never once argue that there is anything effective about the narrowly defined term "subliminal persuasion." It is simply interesting.

Upon examination, wouldn't you agree you are using faulty inductive reasoning when you imply disproving the efficacy of subliminal persuasion is a relevant response to a thread that is mostly filled with non-subliminal examples of mass-media mind control?

Now as regards your original assertrion, I did not simply induce myself out of your admonishment. I stated nothing about subliminal persuasion has been scientifically disproved because the "psychological sciences" and not sciences at all. Their proofs and disproofs are mere opinions.

Perhaps, but if someone points out a whole bunch of black swans
http://home.cbl.com.au/tour/pix/swans.jpg

Does that still mean that all swans are black?

You are talking about the entire media or just parts of it. At first you point to television programs but the majority of the "black swans" that you are showing are adverts.

Here's an ad:

http://www.breastimplants4you.com/ba...reastexam5.jpg

Even though it says "Breast" in big bold letters. The purpose of this piece of media isn't to lure people's gaze with overt sexuality. There's another instinct that it's playing on -the primary instinct or survival instinct.

So I ask you, is this piece of media "Mind Control"? It IS directly trying to affect people and the way they think. Or are they? Is it just information presented with colorful text? Would the information be any more meaningful if it wasn't presented with colorful text?

And what's the meaning of the picture -the closed mouth smile? Is there meaning? Again, I ask -is this mind control?

Yes. All media are mind control.
Our perceptions are evolved biologically to perceive things certain ways in relation to a natural environment consisting of natural cues.

By focusing and forcing an unnatural and concentrated stream of sensations about incidental realities toward us in the midst of a mediated environment, all media engage us in manipulative ways.

The imprecise "disproofs" of "subliminal perception" are opposed even to other "scientifically verified" research in the "psychological sciences" - known as "peripheral learning." The definition of peripheral learning is very close to the concept of subliminal persuasion. Peripheral learning is a part of the academic syllabus of a degree in education (another pseudo-science- but with a far longer tradition of erudition than the very brief history of human psychology).

Back to the main thrust. First, I said nothing so simple as could be compared to saying some birds are black, therefore all birds are black. It's apples and oranges, there.

To state my assertion most simply, it is this:
all culture is mind control.

Thanks for the interesting comments!

P.S. The word "BREAST" is both survival-oriented and sexually perceived. Words are perceived according to the particular mind-set of the reader. We see what we want to see - and one of the things we are most powerfully motivated by is our desire...

Then you are missing my point.

You can take selections of media and say "this is mind control" but to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is mind control -then you would have to show that in EVERY CASE that it's mind control.

Kind of like the black swans except all we are looking for is one case where the media IS NOT mind control -like finding a different colored swan.

HOWEVER, you are answering my question already because you said

"All media are mind control."

Taking the question at hand and assuming it as truth.

Seems like you are taking this statement as a given and then looking for examples to back it up. This seems very circular.

Socrates: "The media is engaged in mind control."
Plato: "How do you know this?"
Socrates: "Because of my selection of examples"
Plato:"What about this example by the Amercian Cancer Institute?"
Socrates:"Yes that is mind control too"
Plato:"Why"
Socrates:"Because all media are mind control."


I guess we disagree because I do not believe that the American Cancer Institute pamplet on Breast Cancer is any form of "Mind Control". They make their pamplet pretty because they want people to look at it. Is it mind control to create interest? You say yes and I say that it's absurd. Sorry but we are going to part ways here.

Your writing is poetic but merely saying something doesn't make it true.

For example

Someone sells me a car. They tell me all sorts of fabrications about the car. They tell me that I can get laid by merely owning the car and that it's the best car in the world. Moreover, by merely charging the car to my credit -I will get instant "cash back" on the car which I will be paying for over the next 5 years. EVEN WITH all the inducements and lies -the guy who sold me the car, though manipulative -wasn't engaging in "Mind Control".

In short manipulative means manipulative and Mind Control means that I lose my freedom of choice. Apples and Oranges.

i think all media is mind control. graphic designers and the people that make the ads have many techniques that not only help you suggest a certain feeling (as in the 'sex' picture or more overt things also), but also where your eye leads into the picture. what would you read first? how does your eyes enter and exit the page? it's all part of trying to keep you engaged. obviously, in the american cancer society ad, breast is big, bold and surrounded in a pink block. this will most likely grab your attention first and then draw you in to the rest of the ad and what it has to say. THIS is mind control. they have designed this with purpose and intent. nothing is an accident in graphic design.

Nothing is accident in ANY medium once a human being begins to manipulate the medium in order to get a response from the viewer.

even the words on this screen can be written in such a way to evoke a desired response.

Astrocloud, By saying "All media are mind control" I am making an assertion. I'm not attempting to prove anything.

That's my opinion. My degrees and experience in all media qualify me to make the assertion as a professional assessment. As I'm not a scientific researcher, I don't attempt to prove things. I simply am stating a personal and professional opinion. I fully appreciate your disagreement. But that's what it is - a simple disagreement. I don't believe these things are provable to any significant degree.

Let me engage in this so-called mind control.

The words here are contrasted by the green background and stimulate the "where system". This is a trick commonly used by advertisers to get your attention. I disagree that it has any of the neferious conotations of "mind control".
The words here are difficult to read Becauseof the juxtaposing colors and sizes

Despite my use of tricks on the where system which uses contrasting colors to catch people's attention over the what system -whereby I slowed down your reading by changing the colors and the size of the letters I was using -this is not "mind control". "Mind Control" is the direct subjugation of the free will. Some say that this was done successfully by Chinese scientists on American POW's during the Korean war. There are doubts about the reality behind 'brain washing". I'm not shrugging it off by any means -I just think that the concept of "Mind Control" is a tad ridiculous and people are using the term very loosely.

but you did. I chose to read very fast, and your post, because of the contrasting colors made me read slower. My will? to read fast.

Mind control maybe over compassing, but it's still what it is, which is manipulation.

IMO you are spending much too much energy on the semantics of the word mind control and not the spirit of what this thread is about which is media being used to manipulate people.

Sorry to quibble about semantics but when reading your response my will was to read your words instantly. Unfortunately I just don't read that fast. Just because I want something and don't get it doesn't mean that my will has been subjugated.

I remain a skeptic to this belief. Manipulation does not mean subjugation.
Perhaps, but this brings me to my other point on the spirit of this thread:

It is condescending and insulting to tell people that the reason that they believe something or another is because they are brainwashed. It's too convenient to write off someone's opinion as being unduly influenced by some exterior physical factor (i.e. "mind control") rather than address their ideas as people capable of making their own choices.

More than once I was told that I was brainwashed by people of varying political persuasions. The source of the brainwashing is almost always "the media". It's a cop out because it doesn't address my opinion but rather undermines it; as an ad hominem fallacy. And believe me, it's not like I was having a discussion on which is better -coke or pepsi. These were real issues like wars and rumours of wars.

So to condemn the whole of society as Mind Controlled seems not only far fetched -but kinda insulting.

Ah fuck em, they're brainwashed -j/k j/k

Again, overcompassing mind control. Subjugated perhaps not to the degree you have cited, but still, again, to evoke a response, by crafting things carefully, the entertainment industry has been able to control such things. Watch a sappy movie, you know it's pulling at your heart strings, and maybe a tear washes over your eyes. Subjugated? Perhaps for a few moments. Truly, when looking at anything today, it's all about the ability to engage someone at some level, be it spiritual, emotional, or physical.

While you said you wanted to ingest it instantly, your eyes did, but your mind could not however process it into something coherent. But taking the limitations of physical beings, most people cannot invoke that will. That circular logic you spoke about in a pervious entry casts a similar shadow here.

If I put a fence up around my house which prevents people from walking onto my yard when they want. -This is a physically delimiting boundary. If I alternate the colors and sizes of lettering this is likewise physically delimiting. Unless you are used to it -the neural pathway isn't there.

You will take longer to read it at first but like anything -if you practice you will be able to adapt. This is hardly mind control. Just like if I spoke in a foreign language
You CAN understand it; you'll just have to learn the language first. Is that mind control? If a foreigner speaks to me in a foreign language are they engaging in mind control?


Obviously no. Just because you aren't used to something and I introduce it as a code doesn't mean that I am controlling you.

(This point seems vague, but relevant to why the where system gets confused by juxtaposing text... the neural pathways aren't set for it... just like my neural pathways aren't set for reading portugese.)

Sappy movies abound. I wonder if Ancient Greek Tragedists thought they were manipulating their audience or if their audience was manipulating them? They were writing for the audience after all.

When I sit down to watch my sappy movie. I know damn well what it is that I intend to watch. Nobody in the culture is forcing me to watch Brian's Song but I bet there are very few who'll stick through it if they aren't interested.

Kind of like asking how many Conservative Christians watch "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". They don't generally because people make their choices about media or they tune it out. I guarantee if you forced people to watch something that didn't interest them -they would ignore it. It happens all the time.

everything I've been trying to point you to, you've finally boiled down to this point. This is EXACTLY what this thread is about.

I pulled this from a previous thread... I think that it shows very simply the circular issues of art imitating life imitating art.

Watch the PBS: Frontline: Merchants of Cool. It's a good view of what it's like within the research and marketing of what's cool MTV style.

No, because there's a choice element and because there really is no "Mind Control" to begin with. And finally just because one disagrees with the assesment (that mind control exists and is propagated by all media) doesn't mean that one is "in Denial".

Read my previous post as to why it's insulting to assume that everyone is brainwashed by the medial -It is insulting.

I've seen merchants of cool. I'll watch it again though. Now here is my homework: Read Nagel's The View From Nowhere -it's about objectivity and free will. It's also an important read in view that people are denying that objectivity even exists in places like the media.

From the context of AstroCloud's last few posts, it seems that we are splitting hairs over the definition of 'brainwashing'.

This thread is titled "Mass Media Mind Control" and to that extent debating the term 'Brainwashing' is more of a side note than a core topic but it IS pertinent to the discussion.

Encarta's definition of "Brainwash" says it all (check def #2)

brain·wash [ bráyn wòsh, bráyn wàwsh ] (past brain·washed, past participle brain·washed, present participle brain·wash·ing, 3rd person present singular brain·wash·es)

transitive verb

1. impose beliefs on somebody: to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim’s prior beliefs


2. condition somebody to behave differently: to induce somebody to believe or do something, for example, to buy a new product, especially by constant repetition or advertising.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

And to comment directly to AstroCloud's assertion that there is no "mind control" because of the element of choice; no one here is declaring that there is a state of 'total robotic mind control' in the media. That is the stuff of a Saturday morning "Shock Theater" episode. The assertion that is being made by using the term 'mind control' is that our belief system and self-status are contantly being modified by our exposure to the popular media.

Even the Encarta Dictionary guys readily give over to that belief. Not that I am saying the Encarta people are brilliant...you know what I mean.

aggh, this is unrelated to the present discussion, however, i recently watched a movie that some peers and I made in highschool. Anyway, all actors seemed to put on an American accent, even though the film was hardly set in America. We seemed to do it without thinking. If we were acting properly, it should've just been our own natural voices (the parts were hardly specialised for any accents, apart from the geek :lol:)

So, that meant we watched too much American TV and movies at the time, i think. :eek:

Yes, IMO kids are the ones who are really under the gun regarding all of these issues. Thanks for the personal anecdote. I'm sure we can all relate to similar things in our own lives.

Interesting thread. A friend of mine and I were not long ago disscussing this. I will leave the dissusscion at hand out tho. But very interesting concept and how true on the Media Mind Control. More so than anyone would want to admit to.

well if im a puppet i get to choose color! so i want to be a baby blue puppet :D

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLIT...erry.50.50.jpg

Intentional or not, another example of subtle mind control through persuasion of physical appearance. Why a picture like this would be chosen to be published - at least by anyone with a sense of objectivity - is beyond me.

Spiritual Splatter redux...
 

You may recall my comments about "The...of The..." back on Page 5 of this thread.

Well, it does seem as if I wasn't being satirical after all:

......................

'PASSION' YOUTH APPEAL
Wed Mar 10, 7:00 PM ET

(Variety) Who's seeing "The Passion of the Christ"?


Much has been made of how the pic has brought in older auds who prefer church pews to megaplexes. But the pic is also pulling in younger, nonreligious auds.

It is this bifurcated crowd that has turned Mel Gibson (news)'s crucifixion depiction into a cultural phenomenon which has racked up $224 million in its first two weeks of release.

"It looks surprisingly like the audience for a lot of our films," said Rick King of AMC, nation's second-largest chain. He said the heaviest demographic for "Passion" shows was ages 18-30. "Most of the people I'm seeing look like they've been in a theater before," he said.

Younger filmgoers make up the bulk of "The Passion" crowd, but Bob Berney, whose Newmarket is distributing the pic, said the aud --- as a whole --- is older than average. "The R-rating is limiting younger kids, but it is getting teens and college kids," he said. But, "like ('My Big Fat Greek Wedding') it's also getting an older audience."

Young males who flock to slasher pics seem to be taking an interest in "The Passion," which has been widely characterized as gory by reviewers.

Fangoria editor Anthony Timpone said, "It's sparked an interest in my readership because of the extreme nature of the it as well as the controversy." The magazine hasn't covered "The Passion," but Timpone said horror helmer David Cronenberg (news) recently suggested he should. And at least one horror fan site, E-Splatter.com, has given "The Passion" the thumb's up: "As a horror fan, I was more than satisfied. This is not some kiddie Christ film. This is the real deal."

And Berney is happy to have their business. The strength of the pic, he said, has been its ability to attract both regular and infrequent moviegoers.

The Newmarket exit polls also found that the pic is playing much better among Latino and African-American auds.

"The Latino response has been particularly strong," Berney said. "It has been the strongest group that has said they were going to see it a second time or more."

On opening weekend, he said women outnumbered men in the audience by about 60% to 40%, but that as the pic has played, the aud is now evenly divided between male and female.

Geographically, Berney said the strongest cities have been in the South, like Atlanta and Dallas.

There have been some surprising underperforming cities, however: Salt Lake City, home of the Mormon Church, and Boston, which has a large Catholic community, are not "The Passion's" strongest towns.

.....................

I have this urge to quote what I said back there on Page 5, but it's just a click away...

This type of fining will bring the fines from the 100's of thousands and millions to the 10's of millions since each incident can be comprised of each market.

So long as the information is clear as to what indecent material is considered, only then will it be fair.

What's fair? The FCC is still in charge to determine who they fine and who they overlook. There are no court procedures or due process to determine if the fines are fair... In fact the so called violator has no option but to pay the fine.

This is unlike everything else in America. Even if I get a speeding ticket I can still fight it in court. I wonder if that right is going to go next...



Goodbye TV. Hello Brave New World!
http://www.sp.se/fire/images/research/Brinnande_TV.jpg

But hey, lets march with happy smiles on our faces to happy land. Now parents can plant their little wee ones in front of the big bad Television without fear of the bad old mind control monster: Janet's breast, or Al Franken's scary words.

I'm guessing that televangelists will be able to condemn sodomy a million times without any FCC intervention but find one little Howard Stern to say "Anal Sex" once and -big fines.

Just poping back into this thread and I would like to say that this is without any doubt the greatest thing that I've seen in years.
Pro or con all is discussed in a way that has made my day
thanks

correct, which is why I stated that it has to be clearly stated as to what is indecent, not just a blanket word like pornographic or indecent, but to in itself be indecent by expressing exactly what is forbidden. And no broadcaster is above the law, it needs to be enforced evenly.

The laws for driving are quite clear. You fight a ticket and hope to get off on a technicality, but it's quite clear that if you are speeding, how much over the speed limit and you get fined X dollars, Y points on the license.

The law is already there. They are enforced solely by the FCC. With no Judge or Jury or oversight of their rulings.



What if the speed limit says 35 and the Cop says the speed limit is 25? What if you are going exactly 35 but the cop says you are going 36?

Unlike the speed limit what is ruled indecent -really comes to a matter of judgement. For the FCC to have power over speech without appeal is NOT like getting a speeding ticket -which is my point.

It looks to me that mass media causes boredom and depression in many people. Synthesized, hyped-up, sensationalized experience has no relation to the lives we live - our lives appear second-rate by comparison.

In the mind of the rabid consumer of contemporary mass media the only people who really count are the few dozen famous folks who are incessantly shoved in our faces. Our lives appear second-rate by comparison.

The powerful stimuli provided by synthetic experience is unparalleled in our lives. It seems those who consume the most amount of mediated experience are also the most bored and depressed individuals.

We desire and our desires are manipulated to a degree that we are filled with cognitive dissonance. On the one hand our expectations are expanded beyond what we can acheive. On the other hand, the sinking feeling that we will fail to rise to stellar heights is epidemic.

The real irony of all this is the entire panoply of deteriorative media experiences are referred to as "entertainment."

Maybe it's just me, but I see the letters F U C S shaped out in the cheese of Taco Bell's latest taco salad in their commercials..

does this mean anything? Maybe.

I own and operate a store that sells Comics, Games and Anime to retail customers. Many, if not most, of the customers that I sell to have bought into the same type of mind control that we have previously discussed.

Despite our suggestions to the contrary, we still have people who buy multiple copies of comics for 'investment' purposes. We have explained to them (and on occasion put up signs) declaring that the real value of the comics is in the reading and entertainment that they provide. Despite our protestations, we still have people who are CONVINCED that they will put their kids through college with their comics collection.

The perceived value in their efforts to collect a series has been skewed by the inflection of their enjoyment of the entertainment. In other words, they get enjoyment out of their purchases, therefore, their purchases must be valuable. It slips by most folks that the type of 'value' that something holds is truly in the eye of the beholder.

The collectors mentality has become more and more prevalent in advertising in recent years. The focus on "Collect them all" and "Series THREE" type phrases shows the collector/buyer that they are missing out on something and are 'incomplete' because of it.

And who wants to be 'incomplete'... right?

that's correct. there is a whole market segment known as completists. They need to have each and everything to the fanatical minutae.

It happens with lots of things, from fine art to comics.

you are right, there is too much focus on the collecting as opposed to the enjoying.

I just bought some fine art the other weekend, and the thought process was that it's supposed to be something we enjoy, but one cannot help but think that if I'm spending a lot of coin on some art, it had better hold it's value if not increase in value. Ultimately, my rule of thumb with art is if you like it you buy it no matter what the cost is. The point is that you like it.

The completists I know and have known also happen to be some of the most isolate, depressed, desperate, lonely people.

i don't get it