And I agree.

jdg85. I really don't know why you got so over sensitive. toretorden doesn't seem to have any intentional axe to grind against America, or Americans.
I do wonder though, what it is you may have against toretorden?
And the next personal insult will earn you an infraction.

To all;
Is it really necessary to quote and dissect every single post in order to make a long list of individual points?
The only purpose that serves is to turn a debate into a point scoring contest.

Edit: I was typing this while you submitted your last post jgd. The effort to keep the peace is noted.

Lets just say that at my job it is looked down upon if you dont have a cellular phone for work. They cant make you get one, however seeing as that I used the word virtually I guess that means that its ok to mentally strong arm someone into going against the grain. I think that yes the higher ups are paid for.

Either way it was an example of what I was talking about.

Honestly this day and people are very materialistic and very influenced by pop culture(provided to you by the mass media). People also will defend useless crap if they deem it important to them. Which is what makes this amusing to me.

I know that there are plenty of people who have made an impulsive buy me included, its just the ones that cant afford it. Yes even the ones that cant afford it have credit cards, seems like they were set up for failure.

Sleepy I am doing my research for you on the negative effects that many ppl have come into due to the overwhelming brainwashing that the media has implemented. I would just call these ppl stupid and irresponsible but I think that there is a lot more to it than that. Also to boot it is really hard to find something that certain people don't want you to know.

Its all about ego rather than opinions.

Okay that's great but first you have to actually explain how were being brainwashed. I don't feel like repeating myself so I won't but I've been asking you to do this for awhile.

Read it here or go to the link posted below to read...



"The fact that TV is a source not actively or critically attended to was made dramatically evident in the late 1960s by an experiment that rocked the world of political and product advertising and forever changed the ways in which the television medium would be used. The results of the experiment still reverberate through the industry long after its somewhat primitive methods have been perfected.

"In November 1969, a researcher named Herbert Krugman, who later became manager of public-opinion research at General Electric headquarters in Connecticut, decided to try to discover what goes on physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He elicited the co-operation of a twenty-two-year-old secretary and taped a single electrode to the back of her head. The wire from this electrode connected to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer.

"Flicking on the TV, Krugman began monitoring the brain-waves of the subject What he found through repeated trials was that within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness. When Krugman's subject turned to reading through a magazine, beta waves reappeared, indicating that conscious and alert attentiveness had replaced the daydreaming state.

"What surprised Krugman, who had set out to test some McLuhanesque hypotheses about the nature of TV-viewing, was how rapidly the alpha-state emerged. Further research revealed that the brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV. This tuning-out allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and noncritically, to function unimpeded. 'It appears,' wrote Krugman in a report of his findings, 'that the mode of response to television is more or less constant and very different from the response to print. That is, the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium and not to content difference.... [Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.'

"Soon, dozens of agencies were engaged in their own research into the television-brain phenomenon and its implications. The findings led to a complete overhaul in the theories, techniques, and practices that had structured the advertising industry and, to an extent, the entire television industry. The key phrase in Krugman's findings was that TV transmits 'information not thought about at the time of exposure.'" [p.p. 69-70]

"As Herbert Krugman noted in the research that transformed the industry, we do not consciously or rationally attend to the material resonating with our unconscious depths at the time of transmission. Later, however, when we encounter a store display, or a real-life situation like one in an ad, or a name on a ballot that conjures up our television experience of the candidate, a wealth of associations is triggered. Schwartz explains: 'The function of a display in the store is to recall the consumer's experience of the product in the commercial.... You don't ask for a product: The product asks for you! That is, a person's recall of a commercial is evoked by the product itself, visible on a shelf or island display, interacting with the stored data in his brain.' Just as in Julian Jaynes's ancient cultures, where the internally heard speech of the gods was prompted by props like the corpse of a chieftain or a statue, so, too, our internalized media echoes are triggered by products, props, or situations in the environment.

"As real-life experience is increasingly replaced by the mediated 'experience' of television-viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market-researchers of all sorts to rely on a base of mediated mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. The TV 'world' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-derived impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs. In such a situation, whoever controls the screen controls the future, the past, and the present." [p. 82, Joyce Nelson, THE PERFICT MACHINE; New Society Pub., 1992, 800-253-3605; ISBN 0-86571-235-2 ]

"Women are carefully trained by media to view themselves as inadequate. They are taught that other women—through the purchases of clothes, cosmetics, food, vocations, avocations, education, etc.—are more desirable and feminine than themselves. Her need to constantly reverify her sexual adequacy though the purchase of merchandise becomes an overwhelming preoccupation, profitable for the merchandisers, but potentially disastrous for the individual.

"North American society has a vested interest in reinforcing an individual's failure to achieve sexual maturity. By exploiting unconscious fears, forcing them to repress sexual taboos, the media guarantees blind repressed seeking for value substitutes through commercial products and consumption. Sexual repression, as reinforced by the media, is a most viable marketing technology.

"Repressed sexual fear, much like all types of repression, makes humans highly vulnerable to subliminal management and control technology. Through subliminal appeals and reinforcements of these fears, some consumers can be induced into buying almost anything." [MEDIA SEXPLOITATION, Key, 1976]





BRAINWASHING

good god you weren't kidding when you said you weren't the most intelligent poster on here. Lets have a start with your personal vendetta about businesses requiring their employees to have cell phones.

Let me break this down for you. Businesses today operate on a much wider and larger scale than they did before. A good system of communication is vital for any business, be it a massive multi-national corporation or some guy selling his grandmother's **** from her basement over ebay.

Your company did not force a cell phone on you because they want you to look cool in front of clients or because the evil TV people told them it was necessary. They gave you a phone because the world market has deemed it necessary. They need you to be connected in order to do your job for them. YOU are working for THEM, and thus you need to play along with the rest of the rules that the entire world of business operates on. I recently spoke with an independent farmer in rural Cameroon who did all of his business himself. The guy lived in a clapboard hut with no running water or electricity, and guess what, HE HAD A CELL PHONE. not because the evil TV advertisements had somehow gotten to him, but because even in the middle of rural africa, the market dictates certain necessities a business must have to function, and communication is one of them. And no, a pay phone or your home phone is not adequate. Unless you spend 24 hours a day at home.

This atmosphere was not created by TV, it was created by expanding businesses and world markets who pushed the boundaries further, and now the standard is such that without certain technologies, a business will fail.

Now addressing your little tirade about how anyone who lives with any kind of commodity not necessary to their survival is brainwashed by the mass media. I will be the first to admit I have my toys. I've spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment because it makes my job as a photojournalist a hell of a lot easier. I can get better results, get more jobs, and do a better job in using this equipment than in using my old 35mm minolta film camera from 1975, because its completely obsolete.

I spend a lot of money on ski equipment because it allows me to enjoy my time skiing more, and has a function. I do not own it because the mass media told me to buy one item over the other. I bought it all because they function the best for my needs.

I think you're entirely wrong in saying that having any material possession makes you a slave to the media. Had you said that spending $15000 on a purse because of the image it creates for you is an indication that a person is too susceptible marketing, then maybe I would agree with you. As it is, you come off like a frustrated yuppy who has way too much time on their hands.

Yuppy??

And also nearly illiterate if that was the only recognizable word in my entire post.

Read above jibber. Please don't degrade me.

what is there to read above? All I saw was an irrelevant article from the 70's that was posted before my response, and not addressing any of the issues I raised in my post. I did "read above." I have to come to the conclusion that either you're illiterate and thus are incapable of responding to anyone's questions, or you don't care to have a discussion and are simply using this thread as an outlet for your tired, paranoid illusions.

It's kind of funny that you just copied and pasted the whole thing without any real discretion to what it says. The bottom half - Sexploitation - has nothing to do with Brainwashing and Jeane Kilbourne argued that entire point in a much more intelligent manner in Killing Us Softly.

Anyway as for the real argument you need to look up the difference between effective frequency and brainwashing (and there is a difference.) Effective Frequency, which is what that article specifically refers to, is a marketing technique and there are key variables in it that basically eliminate the idea that it's "brainwashing everyone." For instance if I were to see a commercial for Levi Jeans thirty times but never actually encountered Levi Jeans then there's no chance I will buy them regardless of how many times I see that commercial. There's also the chance I can have negative associations with the product, etc. It isn't a hook, line and sinker technique.

That aside that research ignores the simple human ability to think critically. Just because I see a commercial over and over doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to see the product and buy it. Even if I associate it with the pleasant commercial, which is what effective advertising would do, I could have other fiscal responsibilities or it could simply not be in my favorite color. Arguing that effective frequency, a marketing technique and only a marketing technique, is the mass media brainwashing and controlling us...is just being hyperbolic and childish.

Regardless if you don't encounter it its still in the back of you mind, after all that's the first thing that popped up. That would be money for someone, given they were unaware those clothes existed. You just sold me a pair of pants.

You probably feel that Levis aren't good enough for you and buy more expensive clothing to please more than just you. I can kind of read that in you basically by your know it all mentality. You would not be caught dead right??

.....so if you don't encounter the product, how do you propose you actually spend money on it? Do the evil Levi Faries sneak into your room at night and plant their jeans in your closet while the evil Levi Gnomes steal a few twenties from your wallet?

Jibber, You dont get it so be quiet.

Sleepy you can Call that whatever you want either way its mind control/brainwashing I could say anything you will twist it all around till your happy and call it whatever. Night all

Your post wasn't that hard to get; it was just stupid. Mind control means they're controlling your mind...which they're not. This is what I mean when I call you childish and hyperbolic. Brainwashing is a fairly extreme term for a marketing technique that isn't even effective all the time. I mean the fact you use brainwashing and mind control as interchangeable terms shows you don't really understand any of these concepts you're trying to discuss.

What don't I get Cornelius? You're right, I don't understand how putting a product into someone's mind, without that person having the slightest possible chance of being able to purchase that product, will make the company money. Know why I don't understand it? Because it makes no sense. Now if you want to have a debate, how about you actually read my post on the last page, right before you started fobbing everyone off and back up some of the claims you've made. Or alternatively you could admit to being an absolute ignorant twat and we could all call it a night. But for me it's only 2:40 in the afternoon, so I'm fine picking apart your braindead arguments for a little while longer.

I don't think there's much to get, this isn't a utopian society just yet.

If you are the type of person who is so easily influenced that your values and preferences are formed by what you see on TV then you probably deserve to to march right to the nearest store and buy all the junk they allegedly "tell" you to buy.
I myself find myself being nauseated by 98% of what I see on TV, including advertisements, so unless that's Big Brothers intention then I'd have to say that their feeble attempt at mind control really isn't working so well.

that sounds more like discrimination, one of those HR words no one likes hearing when used seriously. dun dun dun :laughing:

Mr dave I have always respected your opinions... I just dont believe that people dont think there is a bit of brainwashing going on. Look at what woman have to go through for example, always being compared to the women of hollywood. Those misleading make up commercials with plastic faced women selling a product that they themselfs probably dont use saying it will make other women look just as good, though the results are not even close.

There is a constant comparison, and enough makeup to cover the planet that means money. This also leads to food disorders among other things...

I think its unsat, but the media does this all the time.

brainwashing is a type of mind control, they are not one in the same. i dont disagree that one could interpret competitive ad campaigns that target easily influenced minds as some form of 'brainwashing', although i think that is a bit extrapolated. some people are shepards and some are sheep.

your 'higher ups' didnt strong arm you into getting a cellphone anymore than they strong armed you into wearing clothes to work and not having tattoos on your face. to work in nearly any industry there are certain requirements, and if you want a job you have to meet those requirements. there is no conspiracy to cellphone usage, there is a ever increasingly competitive market place and to be have any success you must stay competitive. if that means everyone else gets cellphones to increase communitive capabilities, you must follow in suit or prepare to go out of business. the same thing happened with computers between 1980-1990, and the same thing happened with the internet between 1990-2000. although i dont know why people need to keep explaining this, as jibber did a decent job already.

Why are ppl so bent about cell phones.

In most part, TV is doing a lot more harm than good. Mainstream news has gotten downright dangerous, the logjamming of reality TV is downright mindnumbing, the amount of intelligence insulting commercials and the overall commercialization of everything now is excruciating, and there's so much stupid sh*t on the TV, it lowers our standards for just about everything.

Of course the exact same thing could be said for the internet, but it has more positive uses to make up for it.

no dude,

the only person you can change is yourself. the women who chose to idolize hollywood do so themselves. if they don't have the mental fortitude to stand on their own two metaphysical feet then i don't want to bother with them.

people are allowed to be stupid. you don't have to be. you don't need to try and change them or get them to do anything, if you are doing it right then they'll be coming to you.

I know that the mass media sometimes feels like a consipiracy. Sometimes I feel like society is trying to pacify music with mainstream bubblegum rock, sometimes I have to stop and wonder why television seems to appeal to so many people as a decision-making tool, sometimes I feel like the world has become so reliant on in-your-face mass distributed information that the ability to think is starting to leave us. These are not facts though, these are feelings and opinions. Each person usually has their own, even if they took it from somewhere else. I in no way think that you are less capable then anyone else here, but I can see how you picked-up that impression. My advice is to always remember to be open to the possibility of being wrong, or to even go as far as to say "Oh, I guess I completely misunderstood what you said" In fact, I say it all of the time. It's how my person opinions grow. In honesty if your still bent on comparing the ability to argue a point (or judge how smart someone his by how well they argue a point) it isn't in the words. It's in the ability to look at how your argument may be wrong, or aspects of it may be wrong, and to use others opinions to create your own.

A thing is not evil. A thing is what it is. The problem begins when we as human beings forget exactly what it is and begin to apply undue meaning to an object or source of information instead of learning to question what we hear and to verify what we're told.

With that said, the less mentally capable of society make up the majority of it, and the media is controlled by those people who are very good at manipulating those peoples thoughts and feelings for their own benefit.

So no, TV is not a brainwashing device. But it can be used as one, although people have nobody but themselves to blame if they fall prey to that. If it wasn't TV it would be something else, lest we forget the panic ensuing from the original radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds?

Both statements alone speaks volumes... My question is, isn't that a form of soft brainwashing...

Oh, It's brainwashing for sure!
It's just how much you take in and much you can resist idealistic values portrayed on the screen.
I haven't got a problem with it as long as you use your mind and don't get obsessed or brain dead over a bunch of pixels.

I think it comes in more forms than T.V...

Vague, explain please..

This is such a **** thread, if I were mod I'd close it.

Was that to me? If so, no, I say everything I think I can't stop it.

Your base your opinion off of anger...

you know there have been studies on this and obvious attempts..

Fox Admits To Planting Political Brainwashing In Popular TV Shows

You should do your research before you post.. This isnt the first time you have attacked me either. I am bringing facts to the table to be debunked however you have not doing any debunking.. You are bringing anger since I caught you in a lie... Its ok by the way, I just don't think you were aware of how powerful some of this stuff can be...

Thats why I asked if crap was in fashion would you smear it all over your face... Not to be rude, just to be honest. BTW you can say whatever you want about my $5-$10 stupid quote tees I dont care, they were gifts.

Why else would you buy anything like that. Who declares whats in style? I promise vanilla... Its not you.

you're such a douche Yukon.

in the 50's advertisement came up with a stunt to flash commercials onto the middle of TV programs and movies for 1/300 of a second with the belief people would subconsciously but their product

I'm not doing anything but being honest. I don't feel the need to bow down to anyone. I don't care what that makes me. I also don't have a problem with anyone here, it's just obvious, that's all.

I don't want to research anything because this is a bull**** topic and you're just talking rubbish to try and sound intelligent but it's not.

What was I lying about? I'm really not following what you're talking about.

I'm not here to make half assed person attacks like some people here, I couldn't care less what you wear. And when did I say everyone has to be in style? I feel like you're pulling so much stuff out of thin air.

Yukon, keep the fashion/clothes talk in the other thread as it's off topic. In fact, don't post it at all - it's replete with brazen assumptions.

Fashion/ Clothes? off topic? How do we learn about these things? Media.. Not saying that ppl don't stumble into things but its mainly media.

I understand that you want to stick up for ppl but it seems you have a hard time giving me a hand, when I am obviously right. This post shouts favoritisim.

Please explain to me how you find media (TV is one of many forms) pushed fashion off topic. I will listen, I just would like to see how you can justify that being off topic.

There's no favouritism, people just are sick of your ridicolous responses to things. Also:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_soLNsa9ZC4...20/shut_up.jpg