Quote:
Originally Posted by One  I'm not saying our friend Aaron belongs in that category of course, but to quote Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." |
it doesn't take much, it seems, to convince aaron:
He claimed the Ice Tea study was overwhelming evidence that subliminals worked..let me quote him:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
"Johan Karremans at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands and his colleagues wanted to see if they could subliminally induce volunteers to favour a particular brand of drink, Lipton Ice.".
"As predicted, among the thirsty, subliminal messaging had an impact. Eighty per cent of thirsty volunteers who had been exposed to the Lipton Ice message chose that product, compared to only 20 per cent of the controls."
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.2005
80% compared to 20% of the controls...there is no 'maybe' to these numbers |
.
- as one commentator pointed out the lipton ice tea study he cited
wouldn't pass muster to any clever freshman. -
I realized that the scientists claimed that a) the people have to want a product in the first place (in this case, they really have to be thirsty and desperately want a drink for you to be able to subliminally persuade them to pick a certain drink), and b) the drink options for the test group were Lipton Ice Tea and something called Spa Rood, and they scientists somehow managed to convince everyone to choose the Tea.
It is sad when a study is so flawed that you can spot it from a brief write-up. If the point of the study was to test the effectiveness of subliminal suggestion then splitting the suggestions in half--some for the water, some for the tea--would have indicated something. Unless the New Scientist completely misreported what they did, not only were the conclusions bunk but the study design wouldn't have gotten past an inquiring freshman. The fact that it was printed in an academic journal is really sad. One,
I admire your efforts, but honestly what's the sense of discussing quantum physics with someone who cites a study like this as absolute proof?
I think I have made my point and won't bother to "debate" him anymore.
But notice how he quickly jumps to conclusions notice the 'case closed' after so many statements - this from someone asking us to be 'open' to things he refuses to offer proof for.
Basically I was trying to save people from wasting their money - the illusory placebo of subliminals is, unlike PATHs claims, well documented, yet people automatically attribute any supposed benefit (which probably just comes from thinking about and concentrating on whatever 'module' they paid for) to the fantastic. Sad, but human nature I suppose, but that's why self help scams like subliminals are a profitable industry. If people would just believe in themselves a tad more than some miracle technology they'd be a lot better off emotionally, and financially.
As a side note, I wanted to address (yet another) inaccurate statement, apparently an attempt at humor (after chastising people about manners) and the reason for the closing of the other thread the meaning of "Dor" he already had the answer, but chose to make up another, so I will repeat it here:
"Dor" transliterates the Hindi word "daur," or "run," it's also used to describe any all-out effort. I won't pretend to be literate in Hindi - I know a few phrases and words- but it was the title of a movie I really liked.
DOR - THE FILM
okay and i kind of have a thing for the actress:
Gul Panag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia