k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Aug 15 11:13:25 EST 2002
It's 'just' relative-familiarity that's induced by 'advertizing'.
Same with 'celebrity'.
The more this or that is experienced, the greater will be TD
E/I-minimization with respect to it
Note relative-familiarity does not connote relative 'attractiveness'.
"Finitization" [AoK, Ap4], can occur either via 'moving toward' or
'moving away from'.
Which is why 'brands' are such serious stuff. Negative reports re. a
'brand' induce folks to invert re. a 'brand' [AoK, Ap4].
The other thing is that TD E/I-minimization includes mush more:
"Facial Symmetry", "facial expressions" [AoK, Ap4; "let a smile be
your umbrella", because 'smiles' inherently induce TD E/I(down).],
Hammering inherently-TD E/I(up) stuff repetitively, 'just' results in
"finitization" via 'moving away from', more. [Which is a point World
Leaders need to get, with respect to 'extolling' use-of-force.]
All of this stuff has been discussed in AoK all along. See the
"Rollercoaster Hill" 'side-bar' discussion in AoK, Ap7, for 'the
icing on the cake'.
k. p. collins
Ian Goddard wrote in message <3d5b0106.102381851 at news.erols.com>...
>Brand names bring special brain buzz
>10:00 13 August 02
>It is what every advertiser would have dreamed of - brand names
>have a unique impact on our brains.
>Brand names engage the "emotional", right-hand side of the brain
>more than other words, new experiments suggest. And they are more
>easily recognised when they are in capital letters.
>"It is surprising," says Eran Zaidel, head of the University of
>California in Los Angeles laboratory where the research was
>conducted. "The rules that apply to word recognition in general
>do not necessarily apply here."
>Robert Jones, head of consulting at the brand strategists Wolff
>Olins in London, told New Scientist: "This is very intriguing
>indeed. It supports our instinctive belief that brands are a
>special class of word - they are like a poem all in one word in
>their ability to evoke and express ideas."
>Our brains do not process all types of words in the same way.
>For example, some patients with head injuries can quickly match
>a personal proper name like Bill Clinton to a photo - but common
>nouns like "house" or "paper" mean nothing to them.
>Possidonia Gontijo of the University of California in Los Angeles
>wondered if our brains lump brand names into their own special
>category. They are unlike any other class of word because they
>are consistently represented in the same way, with unique fonts,
>cases and colours.
>And unlike proper names, they usually apply to a group of
>objects. Most people know of only one "Taj Mahal", for instance,
>but "Sony" conjures up everything from TVs to computers and cameras.
>To find out more, Gontijo and her colleagues tested how quickly and
>accurately 48 students recognised hundreds of words as real or not.
>The real words were brand names like "Compaq" and common nouns like
>"river". "Nonwords" were 108 meaningless letter strings like "beash"
>and "noerds". The students saw the words either all in capitals, or
>all in lower case, flashed to the left or the right side of a
>The students recognised the common nouns most quickly and
>followed by the brand names, then nonwords. Whether common nouns
>in capitals or lower case made no difference. But the students
>recognised brand names more accurately when they were in capital
>letters, something that advertisers will be keen to know.
>Also, common names were most easily recognised in the right visual
>field - which connects most strongly to the left side of the brain.
>But this effect was less strong for the brand names, suggesting the
>right side of the brain plays a bigger role in identifying brand
>That makes sense, claims Jones, because the right side of the brain
>deals with emotions: "A brand's power is that it conjures up a whole
>range of associations and ideas, which are primarily emotional."
>Additional work by Gontijo suggests that people recognise personal
>proper names more quickly and accurately than brand names, leaving
>brand names in a class all of their own.
>But how could our brains have evolved processing circuits for
>which are such a recent invention? Zaidel says they did not; the
>that we can read at all suggests new language features simply
>existing brain machinery. "While brands are a recent linguistic
>development, so is reading from an evolutionary perspective," he
>Journal reference: Brain and Language (vol 82, p 327)
> Out-of-Body Explanation: http://iangoddard.net/paranorm.htm
More information about the Neur-sci