Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It is assumed that the subconscious mind does not “understand” logical operations at all, because logical operations are the latest evolutionary invention, and we are not very adapted to them.�
It is not clear how to prove this experimentally, but logically it can be something like this: if we say “the dog runs after the cat”, then we can immediately imagine it; if we say “the dog does not run after the cat”, then we do not know what exactly to represent – they are just playing? is a porcupine chasing a cat? does the dog run after the squirrel? is the dog lying down? does the dog sniff the cat? The space of options is limitless, and since we still need to make sense of this situation, we imagine the same dog running after the cat. At the same time, the conscious mind makes a note “there is something else here”, but the subconscious mind does not care, it has received the desired image and calmed down.�
It can be simpler: for example, if the child's upbringing is based on prohibitive instructions – when you grow up, do not smoke, do not drink, do not be friends with bad companies – and there are no other behaviors discussed, then there is a high probability that he will be inclined to do exactly what is impossible; not even out of spite, but because the known bad behavior is still better�
In my opinion, the method of submitting information through ” not “is actively used by the media for propaganda purposes – when some news is exaggerated in the key” we decided to ban pears… but no, we won't ban pears after all… we have banned pears!”, then by the last iteration it usually causes significantly less indignation than at the first iteration.
Our brain perceives the particle “not” very much.
Large retail companies have conducted a huge amount of qualitative research, determining how consumers respond to advertising slogans, viewing newspaper and magazine pages, or scrolling through news feeds on the Web. It is clear that few people specifically read advertising messages – advertising headlines are perceived on an unconscious level. As a result, we have developed clear rules that every competent advertiser knows well. Including:
A potential consumer is able to perceive and remember an advertising slogan of no more than seven words.
On average, it takes no more than 13 seconds to view an ad, layout, or banner.
The use of any negative context and the particle ” not ” is strictly prohibited. This includes double negation, which, according to the logic of the Russian language, is not a negation.
It is definitely established that advertising calls of the following type:: “It is impossible to refuse…”, ” Buy … it won't hurt you”, “Better than … it doesn't happen”, or the double negative “There is nothing better than …” – all this does not work, it does not encourage the potential buyer to act at all. The brain, as a rule, does not remember or poorly remembers the advertising phrase, but it catches a short negative particle. As a result, a vague association with the product remains in the memory: This thing… – there is something “wrong”with it.
This is a myth that came out of nowhere. And the point is not at all in the particle “not” itself. The particle “not” can (and will!) be poorly perceived when the denial of something touches the inner world of a person. Well, for example-to tell a smoker “don't smoke”. Here the reaction is bad not because of the ne particle, but because of the smoking habit. A person tends to “guard” his mental inner environment, so any denial of something familiar, especially valuable, will meet resistance. Absolutely regardless of the form in which it is expressed.
The point is not in linguistics, but in the content part.
This is one of the NLP myths. It is not because this is incorrect, but because this hypothesis is not empirically confirmed. Followers of such hypotheses claim that so-called “affirmations” shape your reality. No correlation between such variables has been established. So the answer to “really” is “no”)
No.
:- ) The answer is indicative. Negation is an important semantic structure. But if images dominate inside the “chatter”, a large array of words, the same meaning may not keep up. For example, ” just don't give me a cup!” The cup image has no alternatives.
The brain-perceives. But the subconscious mind has problems with this.
The fact is that our subconscious mind is more imaginative, and if there are any associations, the particle “not” can easily be lost.
Of course, this does not affect fate, but it can affect the emotional reinforcement of some attitude. Or, in other words, it can affect motivation, and sometimes in unexpected ways.
The subconscious mind is generally poorly understood and quite chaotic, so if you decide to set a goal for yourself, then it is better to formulate this goal in an affirmative form without using “not”, in order to reduce the chances that your subconscious mind will surprise you.