From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 05/26/00-03:12:40 AM Z
FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> One thing that is not mentioned in the book, however, is that the brain can
> perceive more tones than the eye can distinguish. For example, if I show
> tones with density 0.10, 0.11, 0.12 (figures are just examples) directly next
> to each other, one might not see the difference, but it is a wrong conclusion
> that it means we only need to record density 0.10, 0.13. Brain can *perceive*
> more than eye can *detect.*
This is way off topic, but since I studied perceptual psychology under
the guy who disproved the whole subliminal thing, I can't let this go by
without comment. The brain cannot perceive visual information that the
eye doesn't send it; the only way visual information gets to the brain
is through the eye. If the eye can't detect it, the brain can't perceive
it.
> And that is how subliminal messages work. It was used quite often in
> advertising in the 60s (? I forgot the exact date). ... The image is so light that even if told,
> one still canNOT see or detect it. Yet it produces the desired result, that
> is, it catches people's attention. It must be working because the practice is
> later made illegal.
There was never any data to prove that this actually worked; my
professor did a number of research studies and found no effect
whatsoever. He also tried hard to find any actual evidence supporting
the theory, and was unable to find ANY, in spite of the widespread
belief at the time that this was real. There was one citation that
appeared everywhere in marketing articles, that was supposed to have
described an experiment done in a movie theater where they flashed
pictures of cokes and popcorn on the screen at below perceptual levels
and everyone got up and rushed out and bought cokes and popcorn. But my
professor went to great lengths to track down that reference and finally
concluded that it never existed; in other words someone just made it up.
After he published his results, a major popular magazine approached him
about writing an article on the subject, but when it became clear that
what he had to say was that there wasn't anything to it, they lost
interest. He said they wanted him to write the same stuff everyone else
was writing on the subject, the same misconceptions Dave presented
above.
The practice was made illegal not because it worked, but because
legislators believe what they read in the newspapers.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST