After reading the first page of this thread, I'm embarrassed that I'm a member of a forum whose members have no critical thinking skills. Fortunately, on the 2nd page I read some posts by members who don't believe everything they read in an internet article.
To those who believed this hocus pocus, please take a course in statistics, or at least read some books on critical thinking.
Because there are almost always many flaws in any one study, a social scientist does NOT draw firm conclusions from one study. He or she simply discusses the results of the study, the implications, and whether it merits more research. Not that a study was even cited in this article...the author of the article mentions that she saw a TV show which mentioned an experiment.
In the future, please don't believe the articles, newspapers, or news anchors on TV. I know from personal experience that they not only don't care about the truth, but even if they did care about the truth, they don't know how to discern it from bullshit. They care about a good story.
I myself put a false 2-page story in my own newspaper once. 2 full pages of bullshit quotes from made-up people, a made-up organization, and myself as the president of the organization. I had myself interviewed by a reporter for the newspaper. We had a good rapport. She didn't look into anything I claimed, and I lied to her. I still have several copies of that newspaper here. In the article, there are quotes from two different people. These people don't exist. I made them up and I told her what they said (all made-up), word for word...and it's now in that 2 page newspaper article.
The stupidest, least-informed people on the planet are journalists. They don't know the first thing about how to read a scientific study. A scientist will look at 20 peer-reviewed studies on a subject and say, "Hmmm...this warrants further research.
A might be causing
B. Or
B might be causing
A. Or some unknown
C might be influencing both
A and
B together, creating the illusion that A is causing B or B is causing A."
Whereas a TV anchor will read one study done at a high school science fair and say,
"Scientists have now discovered that
A causes
B!"
When (I forget who) asked for "support" for these claims, what he meant was
Where is the scientific support, the research, the meta-study (a study which looks at dozens of other studies conducted on the same topic...and rigorously discards the seriously flawed studies, keeps the valid studies, and draws a conservative conclusion from the several tentative conclusions from the various studies).
If you're going to make extravagant claims (especially very enticing claims...claims which you really WANT TO BELIEVE), such as:
1) Change, remove, or insert memories
2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes
3) Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as male "ideas" or behavior later
4) Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months)
Then you'd better cite solid research to support your claims.
It's clear that the above 4 claims are juicy, sensational, vague claims that would be difficult to "operationalize" in a scientific study. In social science, to operationalize means to clearly define your terms and determine a valid method for testing the truth of your terms. For example, if I need to operationalize the claim "Plant trigger words or actions which cause thoughts, actions...in the male at a later date," I need to define what the fuck a "trigger word" is, then conduct a study using "trigger words" and test one group (with at least 30 subjects in the study...to rule out chance) who received trigger words, against a control group who did not receive trigger words. Then I'd need to assess whether group A responded differently from group B.
In a forum like this, it is even more important that we exercise critical thinking.
Also, to the person who said that subliminal advertising is banned...
The research shows that overt advertising is far more effective than covert advertising. I challenge anyone reading this to provide a study which shows the effectiveness of subliminal advertising. This alone should be enough to dispel the myth that subliminal advertising is effective. Think about it. The advertising companies have tons of money to spend on research (and they do spend tons of money on research), and they've been researching this for 40 years. Don't you find it revealing that their research shows subliminal advertising to be ineffective?
http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp
In the future, I would suggest that if you really want to believe something,
then be very skeptical of its truth.
Facebook
Copulins and Mind Control
Post
Thanks given by![[Image: Example.jpg]](wiki/images/Example.jpg)
