It works to a degree.  It will help push you to a Pepsi if you want a cola, but not if you want a hot dog.  While I do not necessarily like the technology, it is not earth shattering (think evolutionary instead of revolutionary).

Indeed. If my crappy brain index was working, I'd be able to cite a couple of cases of advertisers being hauled in front of Congressional committees complaining about something like kids eating too much sugar or Joe Camel driving up teen smoking rates. In that setting, the ad execs are happy to assert that there's no hard evidence that advertising 'works.' But they are obviously very able to persuade big firm to spend big bucks on the stuff.

That's why the missus AND I go shopping together.... I am the impenetrable rock that does NOT fall at the advertisers/retailers feet and buy shit just because of pretty packaging, etc.  Nope, I'm a tight arse and plain packaging generic brands get the nod over expensive labeled brands that charge for the name as well as the content.  Besides, I worked in retail and know all the tricks... hence we go in with a pre-defined list and get just what is on it.  If, there are any extras, and I say IF, it is because we needed it anyhow but forgot to put it on the list.

So no, none of this marketing crap will wash with me.  Need is the basis to buy first and foremost... and if there's a want that'd enhance our lives, we'll get it if the price is right.

If I were to be sucked in by marketing ploys, I'd have recently purchased an Intel CPU.  Their advertising is all over the TV lately, and in magazines everywhere, but I opted for an AMD unit at a quarter of the price... and that AMD unit is more than comparable to the more expensive Intel equivalents.  If I had been sucked in by all the hype and biased benchmarks intended purely to sway me, I'd have paid considerably more for something that served me no better.  So yes, I'm certainly glad AMD doesn't advertise here like that.... that I didn't pay for the privilege of having them in my face with annonying ads.

As for this neuromarketing, they can hook me up to one of their test machines... the only result they'll get is that I'm an angry bastard with a mind to buy the shit I need... no matter how effing clever they think they are.

Those effing parasites!!  We get those bastards coming here from the US trying to peddle their 'wares'.  Personally, I'd outlaw the mongrels, lock the bastards up and throw away the key.  Frauds, the lot of 'em... along with that John Edward psychic wanker.  Now he's somebody who really pisses me off... preying on the bereaved while he employs researchers to find the 'answers' for? his victims.

You're exaggerating doc. I haven't seen this but I would participate in a testgroup if I got payed for it. Sounds exciting actually

Sounds contradictory to me... either you know, and conclude from knowledge OR you don't know, and hope I'm exaggerating.

I researched and wrote.

I believe what they're doing is a breach of privacy through use of results on 'voluntary' (paid) test subjects who probably didn't know the true extent of the use of the results (unethical) and their use on us, and the breach of privacy comes from where that intrusion occurs in your mind.

I don't believe that to be an exaggeration, especially when it's invaded the elections, and when so many big players use the results, who's exaggerating and who's minimizing becomes a moot point. They wouldn't invest money they could pocket in something which showed no evidence of working.

After reading this and other threads in the forum, following pretty much the same theme, at the end of the day just where are we? 

I'm left with the deep seeded feeling of not trusting anyone, not reading anything, not looking at anything or listening, all because someone out there is seeking power in controlling me.

I thought I left that all behind when as a young man I left home never to return.

That's like saying they tested the antibiotic on someone else, while you're taking it.

Surprise, but they're testing it on you, too, only more indirectly.

They are intruding into your mind by extension, and their hypothesis is that in those 200 ms your mind will give similar results. The fact you were not informed by them they're doing that is unethical as well.

So all this time, the voices in my head have been commercials??? 

In fact, their results are startling even so far as to detect the fundamental, cross cultural and racial differences between male and female thinking.

Their EEG work is so phenomenal that they're even working on EEG control of computers and a wheel chair (neone6 - that one was for you). I even wrote about that (wheel chair) before, and an Israeli company which was developing the software to do just that.

That is why there are so many law suits about drugs.  They test them, but no 2 people are the same, so they will constantly refine it.

And here you thought you were having revelations!

That's some weird scary shit Doc. 

 I couldn't help but think of that image when reading your post.

No.... you're just nuts

Funnily enough, though, I often hear people singing/whistling jingles from TV ads.................... BANG!!!!!!

Makes me wonder what's in their heads???  A classic rock tune, yeah... a great classical piece... yeah.

But a f**king commercial?    Nah!!!!!

Advertisers - like bankers - have a lot to answer for... and I mean A LOT

Thanks. Never would have known.

This has to do (the OP) with the initial and 'honest' reaction to stimuli. And enough.

The wheel chair stuff I threw in for neone6, and also because scientists from one the companies doing this stuff are actually doing something good.

Yikes.

I'm a cognitive scientist, and I have to put my two cents in, here. I can't help but think that your reaction is somewhat overblown. Advertisers have been using the principles of psychology to market things to you ever since Watson left the field for this line of work more than a half a century ago. I know that the idea that looking into the brain seems scary, but just remember that brain activity is only an intermediate step in the relationship between advertising and consumer behavior. And brain activity only matters inasmuch as it is able to explain and predict consumer behavior, which, again, advertisers have been doing for more than half a century.

This is not mind control, people. Am I honestly the only one that feels this way?

The arguement presented in the OP and in many of the replies can be debunked point-by-point with actual data, if anyone is interested.

From everything I've read, it's not easily 'debunked'. From what I've read, their results sell products. I feel it's an unethical way to do it from reasons already cited. Those stem from medical ethics.

Nowhere have I stated there's 'mind control'. If you believe that, I certainly don't.

What I do believe is that these methods breach ethics since targeted audiences are unaware of the methods employed to produce the ads, and that these methods are effective. Look, if they weren't getting results, would these big selling companies be using them? I don't think so... simply because sales statistics would show them ineffective. That's just common sense. I'm not using 'post hoc ergo procter hoc' logic.

I'm just pointing up things that are happening and my own feelings about them. If you have concrete evidence that shows what I've read as incorrect, I'd be happy to read it. My mind isn't closed about this. I enjoy learning and I'd be glad to hear what you have to say about the processes used and their results.

About the ethics, I pretty much have decided, though. They aren't 'result oriented'.