InnerTalk is both the name of our Whole Brain -- audio (subliminal) technology and a descriptor of how the technology works. Inner-talk is used in place of the word subliminal because of the technical differences in our technology and the confusion about so-called subliminal audio properties. This was written to introduce you to our technology and set the record straight regarding science and self help audio subliminal programs.
There are many claims, sometimes elevated in the genre of fact, in both the direction of audio subliminal hoax and efficacy. Some state that they have proven their programs by client reported (clinical) results. The scientist views this as nothing more than anecdotal. Indeed, not too long ago I had a conversation with the owner of one company who stated, "Why do you insist on recording the affirmations?" ("I like myself" instead of "You like yourself.") I explained the research. He went on with something like, "...but I have many testimonies ...I get letters all the time" (anecdotal reports). I asked him if one in five of his customers reported success? I then explained that he could expect at least 20% of his customers to experience the placebo factor. That is, one in five will report positive results to a blank program. Their report may or may not have valid observations regading efficacy, in fact, most would not. Nevertheless, the expectation factor would dispose the customer to report gains even if they were not factual.
A study designed by E. R. Spangenberg and initially presented with the co-authors, A. G. Greenwald, A. R. Pratkanis and J. Eskenazi, tested the effect of labels on the expectation factor. The experimenters obtained audio subliminal programs from five commercial companies. They switched labels from self esteem programs to memory programs and vice versa. The mis-labeled programs were then given to subjects in their experimental group. The study was conducted as a double-blind test. The subjects were asked to report on the effect of the programs at the conclusion of the study. Their reports generally indicated a positive appraisal of the program in the direction of the label. In other words, if the program was labeled "Memory Improvement," the subjects tended to report improvement in memory. However, independent evaluations of actual memory improvement indicated no change.
Research has consistently demonstrated effects known as placebo. Further, good research designs anticipate expectation/placebo and experimental bias effects, and control for them. The double-blind design of experimentation is of particular value for controlling the influence of these factors. For those who may not be familiar with this research design, a double-blind test or study operates with two or more researchers and at least three subject groups. There is an experimental group and people in this group receive the experimental property. There is a control group. People in this group receive nothing. There is a placebo group. People in this group receive a property, say program, but the property is what popularly is known as a "sugar pill." Where a program is concerned, this is often a program containing no subliminal content. However, it is the opinion of this researcher that the placebo program should contain some innocuous message. I have used, for example, the message, "People are walking." The reason for this is to prevent persons in one group discovering that persons in another group can hear what sounds like voices from time to time, when they cannot. Since the technology of Progressive Awareness Research is designed in such a manner that voices will probably be heard by most, although the word content will not typically be understood, it is important not to bias the outcome of the study by comparing no message programs with message programs. The reason for all this safe guarding will become more clear as we proceed in our discussion.
Another common valid form of research often used with human subjects is that of a true clinical design. There are several different types of clinical designs, but the most reliable clinical research is derived from instrument testing. Here, a treatment modality is tested by administering a pre and post test using some standard recognized scale that is both reliable and valid in the domain of measurement. Please note that this type of clinical work is not an anecdotal procedure. In other words, the researcher is independently evaluating results via some measurement scale (instrument) and not relying on self reports. Take for example the work of Spangenberg, mentioned earlier. Subjects reported gains in memory or esteem, however, evaluation of these claimed gains via instrument indicated no such gain.
The point can be said in a very straight forward way. Reports that are not controlled research designs are only reports. They prove nothing. Indeed, controlled double-blind research studies are usually looked upon by science as only suggestive. Studies must be replicated to accept the findings as what most would call proof.
When someone states that they have the truth about a subject, and then refers to science, it is fair to expect that they follow the rules of science. Testimonial anecdotes, single patient clinical self-reports, and so forth, just do not represent evidence of efficacy. I am very aware that with my own technology, where many double-blind and clinical pre and post evaluation studies have been conducted, that there are many areas yet to be researched.
Something happens with our technology that produces measureable positive results! I have my theories and what follows may be helpful in understanding both the hows and whats of Whole Brain - InnerTalk technology.
Thank you for taking the time.
The popular history of information processing without awareness, sometimes called shadowed or masked information and sometimes referred to as peripheral information, but commonly known by the public under one general label as subliminal communication, is really a history of modern manipulation.
Vance Packard's, Hidden Persuaders, which appeared in 1957, quotes from the Sunday Times an account of a New Jersey theater in which ice cream ads were flashed onto the screen during a movie showing. That resulted in an otherwise unaccountable increase in ice cream sales. The Times referred to this technology as "subthreshold effects."
Packard's work warned of psychologists-turned-merchandisers and of the resulting psychoseduction of the American consumer. From belief systems to product identification, Packard presented a case for persuasion through the art and science of motivational analysis, feedback, and psychological manipulation. Hidden Persuaders was the first open attempt to inform the general public of a potentially Orwellian means to enslave the mind and to do so surreptitiously.
Wilson Brain Key, in his books Subliminal Seduction, 1974 and Clam Plate Orgy, 1981 argues that not only are we being subliminally merchandised today but the public has been subliminally seduced for hundreds of years. Key, a Canadian university professor, sums it all up in the title to a third book on the subject, Media Sexploitation, 1977.
In my own work, Subliminal Communication, I discussed the earliest modern reference I have found on the subject of subliminal communication. According to Benjamin Wolman, subliminal research is at least as old as Suslowa's work in 1863 wherein he reported "an increase in the two-point discrimination threshold as a function of subliminal electrical stimulation," (1973). In 1894 W. R. Dunham, M.D. wrote an interesting commentary on the subliminal mind and subliminal communication. Nearly one hundred years later, Dunham's essay reads much like current research on the subject. In The Science of Vital Force, Dunham demonstrated the existence of both subliminal mind and subliminal communication.
One of Freud's most important contributions to approaching the enigma known as the human condition is the stark revelation that mankind is a mere particle of his potential. Unconscious processes predetermine conscious choices and therefore behavior. Aggregates of attitude and behavior constitute personality. Personality is rather rigid, and consequently the human condition is an abysmal shadow of itself. What is more, according to Freud, it is inherently in conflict with itself.
A contemporary of Sigmund Freud, Dr. O. Poetzle, studied subliminal perception under exact laboratory conditions and discovered behavior effects days and weeks after the original stimuli.
Professor Benjamin B. Wolman's modified categorization of subliminal stimuli, divides descriptive values into five criteria of awareness and unawareness. The stimuli is:
Below the level of registration.
Above the level of registration but below the level of detection.
Above the level of detection and discrimination but below the level of identification.*
Below the level of identification only because of a defensive action. (1973).
* Using Wolman's categories, InnerTalk falls in category three.
Wolman makes several general statements regarding subliminal stimulation, having come to certain conclusions based upon his erudite research. Although maintaining a cautious stance, he asserts:
Subliminal stimulus does leave an influence upon the content of subsequent cognition.
Subliminal stimuli has affected and can affect secondary process thinking.
There are neurophysiological findings which appear to concur with registration without awareness.
Despite some failures of replication there are numerous instances where subliminal stimuli "can measurably influence a variety of subject's subsequent behaviors."
Conscious thinking can be influenced by stimulus outside of awareness.
In 1981 Dr. Norman Dixon summarized over 748 references on subliminal stimulation in his scholarly book, Preconscious Processing. Dixon provides a model for understanding the flow of information and its entry to consciousness. According to his model, five factors govern whether a stimulus surfaces at a conscious level: direction of attention; signal strength; external noise level; internal noise levels and signal importance (meaning).
It is a First Amendment violation to use subliminal information without consent. The wrongful death action, brought against Judas Priest and CBS in Reno, has led to a judicial interpretation regarding subliminal communication and First Amendment rights. Judge Whitehead ruled that it was a First Amendment violation to use subliminal information without consent.
First Amendment rights have often been an issue when the jurisprudence process becomes involved with subliminal stimuli. The Honorable Jerry Carr Whitehead, District Judge in the State of Nevada, eloquently argues that subliminal communication violates First Amendment liberties when covertly or surreptitiously employed.
Whatever ultimate interpretations or direction of the controversy, one thing is quite certain, subliminals (used here as a noun referring to the general nature of their type of communication) are here to stay.
Peripheral perception, shadowed or masked information, all under the genre of subliminal technology, is one of the most powerful techniques presently available. It can literally rescript the preconscious mind, stripping away negative expectations and self-doubt, and replacing these destructive patterns with positive input, thereby bringing about positive changes in an effortless and natural way from the inside out.
There is nothing mysterious about all of this. Yet, part of the difficulty in understanding subliminal rests in the word itself. A subliminal message, at least in the instance of an audio program, could be defined as a verbal stimuli perceived below the threshold of awareness. Now, the key word here is awareness. A whisper two blocks away is below the threshold of awareness, but it is not perceived. (See Wolman's categories listed above.) In order for perception by an individual to occur, there must be sufficient stimuli to trigger a neuron in the brain.
For the sake of simplicity, imagine that you are verbal subliminal stimuli riding beneath the waves of nature sounds and music in the same manner a submarine rides beneath the ocean surface. On the journey into the ear, destined for the brain, the outer ear catches the sound waves and they enter the auditory canal. From the auditory canal the waves are transmitted to the drum membrane, or middle ear, where air pressure and three small bones convey vibrations to the inner ear. Here, within the inner ear are cochlea or coiled structures with sensory cells that receive the sound stimuli and transmit to the brain impulses arising from them. The stimuli ultimately trigger neurons. Millions of neurons are carrying message units corresponding to some stimuli across the synapses and simultaneously competing for conscious attention.
Neurons have no neutral state. They are either off or on. Therefore, the threshold of awareness or detection/perception level that exists and is taking place below that threshold is in fact a neural excitation. Without a neural excitation, there exists no perception, with or without awareness.
Several theoretical models accommodate perception without awareness within traditional psychology. Three such models are set out by Benjamin B. Wolman in Handbook of General Psychology:
First there is the "day-residue" model. One kind of day residue is the recent, indifferent, barely noticed, unassimilated impression. According to psychoanalytic theory, such material is "selected" for dreams precisely because of its manifest lack of psychic significance; it resonates with unconscious, infantile wishes and emerges in dreams as a derivative cognitive representation of the drive, owing to the requirements of censorship and the nature of unconscious thinking. The Poetzle experiment and its variants are based on this model, but depart from it in several ways.
The second model is that of Freud's view of preconscious thinking, in which he assumed that such thinking tends to be spread out over a wider network of associations than is the case in conscious thought. The direction of preconscious thinking can be biased by unconscious motives and sets ("guiding ideas"). The subliminal stimulus is expected to bias the preconscious stream of thought, especially if there is a boost from unconscious or conscious motives.
The third model, evident mainly in Silverman's (1967) work, is Freud's conception of unconscious motivation conflict and defense. This model assumes that a subliminal input raises the activation level of existing unconscious motives and that it can therefore be considered analogous to an internally generated increase in the intensity of unconscious motives.
These three models are combined in the concept of "schema" activation proposed by Klein and Holt (1960). They assume that memory schemata are activated by sets, by relevant incoming stimuli, and by drives. Under appropriate conditions, marginal inputs are likely to activate drive-related ideas and lead to an effect. This conceptualization is elaborated by Klein (1956, 1970) in terms of a model of motivation in perception which stresses the interplay of executive and concurrently active peripheral motives in relation to their accessibility to awareness, and as determinants of what is focal versus subsidiary in perceptual experience. If subliminal stimuli are considered as a special case of incidental or peripheral activation, then this model constitutes a promising way to understand the interaction of the variables studied in subliminal research. (1973).
I consider perception to be the fundamental determinator of behavior and favor a modified gestaltian theory of perception. That is, perception is always as wholes. Attention is not necessary to perception, and sensations are collective aggregates of information, which by definition of the word attention go largely undiscriminated by awareness. (See Subliminal Learning, 1987.) Further, it is more likely that all three of the afore mentioned models operate concurrently rather than individually to the exclusion of the others.
Regardless of perception theories, registration can be independent of perception, and without an unconscious awareness or subconscious learning dynamic there exists no basis to psychology. Drives, motives and so on, cannot be strictly of conscious perception origin. The unconscious must be more than a repository for the conscious mind's direct (cognitive) experience and/or indirect interpretive accumulation. Be that as it may (or as it may not be, if you prefer), as Wolman states: "Contrary to popular belief, a good theory is not necessarily one that answers all questions, leaving nothing more to be done in a field, but rather it is one that opens up new problems and new avenues of investigation." (1973).
Everyone I have ever met or interacted with, everyone I have ever read or listened to, in fact every single human being from my experience has, at one time or another, desired to change something about themselves and found it to be exceedingly difficult, if not sometimes impossible. Still, there are many who alter various aspects of their behavior and beliefs successfully. The questions seem obvious: what does it take to realize each of our total potentials, and why do we sometimes succeed and at other times find only disappointing results?
When it comes to personal development there are a variety of so called experts, with as many solutions as there are problems. Nevertheless, all of these specialists suggest, if not state directly, that the real power in the human development schema is that of the subconscious mind. If this is so, why then can I not just instruct my subconscious mind to think differently and produce the results I desire?
The fact is that the subconscious mind is basically indiscriminate in the manner in which it accepts information. The problem then is twofold. First, there are already years of indiscriminate acceptance in my mind, and second, I act in reliance upon this information.
All the statements that have ever been accepted are present in our subconscious minds, and for most of us that is negative programming. Some behaviorists have used numbers that indicate that for every one input of positive messaging there are 100 bits of negative!
How many times have each of us said to ourselves things like, "I can't do it," or "It never works for me" and so forth? How many times have each of us heard statements like, "You're not old enough," "That's stupid," "Money is the source of all evil," "Life is difficult and then you die," "Thank god it's Friday," "That will never work" and so on?
Just for fun I once started a list of statements that I had heard or said to myself that created negative expectations. I quit when I realized that to complete the list would take more time and paper than I was willing to dedicate to such a nonsensical task. Still, the message was loud and clear: the language programming many of my beliefs was essentially negative!
The consequence of this negative programming has been likened to that of a computer. The bio-computer brain/mind has accepted negative input just like a calculator accepts negative numbers. Then you or I add a few positive numbers to the program total and somehow expect change.
The fact that we act in reliance upon the information accepted indiscriminantly by our subconscious minds, is a more pervasive problem. This means that if negative messages have caused us pain or fear then we adapt our behavior, our beliefs, around avoiding those circumstances and/or outcomes.
With this adaptation comes choices. Most of our choices of this nature are deeply rooted in the subconscious. Our subliminal beliefs, those beliefs in the subconscious that arise from our desire to be accepted and to avoid pain, humiliation and rejection, determine our actions. All behavior is behavior of choice even if the choice is made at a subconscious level. Now, what happens is that we build defense mechanisms in order to protect us from former bad experiences and possible future rejection.
These defense mechanisms often defeat our own best interest. It is true, for many of us, our worst enemy is often ourselves. Ignorant of these dynamics it is easy to see why more than 90% of the people who attend or participate in motivational gatherings or products are unsuccessful. The fact is, every time we tell ourselves something like "I am good!" the subconscious gives a thought to the conscious such as "Really! Good at what?"
Even when the behavior we desire is something as simple as success in our work place, these subliminal beliefs come into play. For example, when I ask a group of people how many of them would like to come up front and speak to the audience for five minutes on some topic I will assign them, rarely does anyone volunteer. A common fear is that somehow they will suffer deep embarrassment, humiliation and more. Now this same group of people will respond almost unanimously to the simple straight forward question: Do you want to be successful in business? Their answer is always yes!
To succeed in business one must learn to speak. If there is a deep abiding fear of public speaking and a desire to be successful, there are contradictory motives present in the psyche. Thus, when a person reaches a certain level of success, for some inexplicable reason everything crumbles. What may be viewed as outside circumstances, is in truth, inner conflict. In this instance, the fear of public speaking, the closer to success, the more powerful the exertion by subconscious processes to eliminate the impending threat. Consequently conflicting factors or mechanics of our own psyche often defeat our stated desires without our conscious awareness.
The power of hypnosis exists largely in the direct communication with the subconscious. The conscious mind is generally in abeyance during hypnosis although one's defense mechanisms can still play a significant role in the outcome. The advantage of subthreshold communication is that it bypasses all conscious awareness. Unlike hypnosis, where attention and conscious assistance are often necessary, subthreshold messages are not attended to by the conscious mind in any necessary manner.
The positive messages on an InnerTalk program eventually overtake the negative information contained in the subconscious. They literally rescript our own inner talk thereby priming positive self beliefs which begin the cycle of self fulfilling prophecies. When this happens the subliminal beliefs that formerly were self limiting begin to change. As they change....so do we!
Life is indeed a miracle and each of us is entitled to experience the highest qualities of our birthright.
In a very real sense every human being has two brains. These two brain hemispheres are commonly referred to as the right brain and the left brain. For the vast majority of people, the left hemisphere is the analytical brain, and the right hemisphere is the spatial brain. The left hemisphere is in charge of such things as mathematical and language skills while the right hemisphere is the creative and emotional center. The right hemisphere is indiscriminate while the left is the logic and reason center with defense mechanisms such as rationalization built around logic and reason. Most researchers assign logic and conscious reasoning to the left hemisphere and emotional and subconscious learning to the right hemisphere.
Whole Brain - InnerTalk technology appeals to the two hemispheres appropriately according to the primary hemispheric function. (See the MIP paradigm described in detail in Thinking Without Thinking, 1995.)
The left brain then is interested in literal correctness while the right is more interested in overall associations or relationships. It is believed that the left brain views language literally and according to the rules of language while the right brain views language spatially and emotionally, tumbling the words in a process called subconscious cerebration and even seeing the words as our eyes see the world - upside down.
Some "heavy metal" recordings have included subliminal messages (usually satanic, drug or sexual in orientation) for years. These messages appeal directly to emotions, causing behavior to override reason. They are also recorded in reverse, a process known as metacontrast or back-masking. Reversing, or playing backwards, subliminal messages in heavy metal music appears to excite emotional expressions and responses often viewed as right brain in their origin.
Reviewing the research, Progressive Awareness Research (PAR) developed the patented InnerTalk programs using an entirely new (electronic encoding) process. On one channel, accessing the left brain, are meaningfully spoken, forward-masked, permissive affirmations delivered in a round robin manner by a male voice, a female voice and a child's voice. (Research shows that individuals may respond more favorably according to their preference of male, female or child voices.) On another channel directive messages, in the same voices, are recorded in metacontrast. Since the hemispheres are task oriented both the left and right brain become involved according to their specialties. The channel differentiated messages shadow each other from conscious recognition.
Simple communication practice shows that an individual is more likely to remember a round robin like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" than a song, even if the song is heard many more times. The round robin affirmations are recorded in echo-reverberation giving rise to a "singing" effect.
Although earphones are helpful, they are not necessary. What is necessary to make the programs work is to listen to them. The more exposure to the programs, the faster results are obtained.
In the many lectures I have presented in the United States and Europe there has always been a nagging need to find an analogy that could accurately describe what occurs with the users of InnerTalk audio programs. I have worked with the construct of peripheral perception to describe the manner in which voices speaking positive affirmations to the subconscious can, and do indeed, impress the listener even though they are unaware consciously of the process.
Peripheral perception is normally thought of as that aspect of sight that borders on the fringes of how far out to one's right or left side one can see. The fringe always has clarity problems. That is, one may report the ability to see an object to their side, and even slightly behind them, but the further the object moves toward the limit of vision the less clear the object becomes. This is a substantially similar process to how audio perception occurs with InnerTalk .
The fringe is known as "threshold" and the audio threshold is established by determining the point at which the conscious mind can hear a particular sound, 50% of the time. A threshold is that place where sometimes one hears the signal and other times they do not. With InnerTalkr, this threshold is relative to the primary carrier, music or nature sounds. Thus, the messages are sometimes audible and sometimes not. The entire message may not be understood but the voices are acknowledged by the conscious mind. Thus, from time to time one hears the message even if they do not understand every word of it. Similar to the limit of our peripheral sight where we see an object but without the clarity that comes from looking directly at it, InnerTalkr audio messages are sometimes heard but without the clarity that the conscious mind is accustomed to requiring in order for it to repeat the message. Shadowing the messages, as described earlier, facilitates this.
The comparison of peripheral sight to the audio perception of an InnerTalk stimulus continues to be a model that serves the purpose of communicating. The analogy of what happens to the user of the audio subliminal program as they use it was much more difficult for me until a friend and I sat down to discuss just that. As we talked over our personal experiences with InnerTalk it became very obvious that our benefit had been gradual and from the inside out, almost intuitive in its inner direction. Often, only when the affirmations contained on the program were re-read did we have one of those "aha's" that acknowledged consciously why certain aspects of our drives and emotions and therefore behavior had changed. Intuitive perception is just what seems to take place when you work with a well designed program. One day you act differently because you are thinking differently. Gentle nudges from the inner mind, just like those that are intuitive begin to guide one's choices. In my friend's instance, Dr. William Guillory, creativity became natural. New ideas, concepts and the like just seemed to flow through him. Later he experienced successes with different programs but they were in process substantially the same as with the first program: "I Am Creative." My experiences have been all akin to his. At first there seems to be little noticeable change but after a few days things just seem to have a different arrangement. One day I was afraid of public speaking to the point that I would do almost anything, invent almost any excuse, just to avoid it. Then it was like the next day public speaking was tolerable, and the following day I was excited about the opportunity to share with others. Today lectures, workshops, radio and television stuff is just something I do like any other activity I engage in.
What we believe in our subconscious is who and what we are! The conscious mind can only guess at what is in the subconscious while the subconscious has every thought the conscious will ever have long before the conscious thinks it. In order to change, we need to change the way we think. Speaking directly to the subconscious are messages that do just that. One day there just seems to be more positive than negative information in the subconscious and that wonderful bio-computer changes old inner beliefs about ourselves and the world around us and almost magically those goals, ideals and ambitions are ours! Without doubt! Without fear!
When it comes to understanding complex synergisms, models are very helpful. Looking at how one learns, and how one acts out that learning is one such complex interaction of elements occurring simultaneously and resulting in a synergistic totality known as the individual.
In research, behavioral scientists provide data and theories that support the average aggregate of observations and apply this to the individual. No two individuals are alike and no one individual is average. Just as theories make general assumptions about the individual that are not necessarily representative of any one individual, so too do models generalize in making a statement about reality, when in fact the model is self-defining and does not necessarily say anything about reality. Professor William Guillory (former chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah) states that even models of "hard science" are self-defining and may say nothing valid about reality.
With this much of an introduction to models, let us see if a couple of models of the mind can be helpful in understanding why subliminal technology is so effective. Before examining the first model, I wish to insert one of my biases. Most behaviorists assert that there are three ways in which one learns:
I suggest that all learning is condition-response. Trial and error employs the obvious feedback systems of both the body and the psychology. For example, with learning as basic as that involved in walking, both the pain from falling and the emotional encouragement given during the learning process form response conditioning. Where rote core memory is concerned, the stimuli intensity is directly proportional to the memory retention. The stronger the stimuli (incentive), the more favorable the learning at least to the point of overstimulation. After that the learning is dramatically inhibited. Stimuli-response is condition-response learning.
Dr. John Kappas has created a model of learning and behavior. He suggests that one assimilates learning either through literal and direct means or through inference. And further, that most of us do so primarily in one fashion or the other not both simultaneously. For most of us, our primary caretaker (ordinarily our mother) is responsible for our suggestibility, the way we learn (e.g., literally or inferentially) and our secondary caretaker (usually father) creates our sexuality, the way we act out our learning (e.g., emotionally or physically). In a very real sense this gives rise to the acceptance, rejection and interpretation of the various message units we receive in a lifetime.
Since our brains are tasked hemispherically, the synthesis of our suggestibility and sexuality often produces hemispheric dominance. Thus, one may cognitively assert something that preconsciously is immediately rejected or repressed. Whenever the logic center comes into conflict with the emotional center, the emotionally conditioned response will prevail.
Now with this model in mind, let us examine a simplified bio-computer analogy and superimpose upon it our model. Every message unit one receives in a lifetime is imprinted upon the preconscious mind. This process occurs largely without discrimination, except for the lenses of interpretation which themselves are a direct result of our primary and secondary caretakers, and from the enculturation process in general. This provides our basis for moral valuing judgments and notions of reality, together with our general aptitude regarding change or the incorporation of new ideas.
Statistically, we have all received many more negative than positive message units during maturation. Our society has no "rites of passage" in which we leave behind all of what I refer to as the "no-don't garbage." Consequently, as adults our garbage becomes our anchor and our ability to navigate the seas of life are limited to our own safe and sometimes shallow waters.
For most then, safe waters provide our boundaries or our self-imposed limitations. These safe waters prohibit much new experience. As an example, unless we are born to success and prosperity we don't expect to succeed and prosper because the waters surrounding our anchor do not include any such bounty.
Behaviorally, this means we are predisposed by the preconscious, which manifests as lack of confidence, fear of failure, internalization of stress, physical ailments, rationalization, and so forth. Most, if not all, of this conditioning takes place in primitive ways so far as the function of learning and behavior are concerned. The old fight/flight mechanisms of our ancestors give rise to deeply impressed self-limiting behavior. Let us attempt to examine this graphically.
In the drawing on this page, the circle represents the total mental process. Levels of consciousness are indicated and in the deepest levels exist the fight/flight (knee-jerk) mechanisms. All of one's input is represented by the pluses and minuses of experience (condition-response) learning. As you can see, the fight/flight has been replaced in our modern society by anxiety and depression. The double arrow system illustrates stimuli from the outside world, both real and synthetic stimuli according to the interpreted emotional intensity of the stimuli.
Few of us have been presented with much real stimuli. All of the stimuli that condition responses that are self-limiting, are synthetic. I suggest that these stimuli are based upon an innate fear of isolation and therefore, that rejection by another human being or the fear of this happening, conditions nearly all of our responses.
Our initiative and response is built upon our perception of others and our need for acceptance and understanding. Thus, behavior is purely condition-response learning! In most instances choice is only an illusion. Only limited choice exists, and those choices result from the patterns of our conditioning.
Earlier, and in my other works, I have discussed the history and general science of subliminal communication (see Subliminal Learning (1987,1989), Subliminal Communication (1986), and Thinking Without Thinking (1995). This section will not review that material. It will briefly present clinical and experimental findings based on one technology in one method of delivery. I developed and researched this technology. Others have researched it.
Details of every study could bog the reader down. Mercifully, I will present only the main findings. I'll list the year, principle researcher(s), location and findings. The end of this chapter completely lists the articles so you may look them up yourself if you wish.
My apologies to any reader who finds this method either overlong or incomplete. Nevertheless, this is not intended to be a clinical guide, a case study collection or a permanent reference work. It is intended to defer to a readers right to know where to get the raw hard data that supports my assertions.
1985-1986 Charles McCusker, Lee Liston and Eldon Taylor performed the first true double-blind study of audio subliminal programs within the walls of the Utah State Prison. This study demonstrated that Whole Brain -- technology could improve self-esteem among inmates. In consequence, the Utah State Prison installed and maintains a voluntary program library for inmates.
1988-1990 Cosmetic surgeon Robert Youngblood, along with his surgical staff, tested the effect of the WHOLE BRAIN "Pre and Post Operative" program on 360 patients. They reported a decrease in anesthetic requirements of thirty-two percent from that of a historical control group.
1990 A double-blind study carried out at Colorado State University, using the WHOLE BRAIN program "Freedom From Depression" for more than 17 hours, showed a significant decrease on the Beck Depression scale. This study demonstrated the effectiveness of the WHOLE BRAIN program. It also indicated that the effectiveness of the program increased with dosage.
1991 Professor Peter Kruse at Bremen University in Germany, conducted a double-blind study that used a specially created WHOLE BRAIN program. The results strongly demonstrated the influence of the program on decision making. Kruse said, "The Taylor Method works!"
1993 Diana Ashley at the University of Southern California studied the effect of subliminally presented reinforced stimuli on factual material using the MIP Paradigm in a double-blind experiment. Her conclusions found a significant increase in learning among students in the experimental group.
1993 Thomas Plante, faculty member of Stanford University and Director of the mental health services for the Children's Health Council, together with Michael DiGregorio and Gerdenio Manuel of Santa Clara University, evaluated the effect of Whole Brain -- on test anxiety in a double-blind experiment. The statistics displayed significant support for the hypothesis that Whole Brain -- subliminal technology would lower test anxiety.
Additional research continues. We selected the six listings cited above on the basis of their diversity.
For more information, write: Progressive Awareness Research P.O. Box 1139 Medical Lake, WA 99022
Ashley, D., The Effect of Subliminally-Presented Reinforcing Stimuli on Factual Material, University of Southern California, 1993
Galbraith, P. & Barton, B., Subliminal Relaxation: Myth or Method, Weber State University, 1990
Isaacs, J., Unpublished report, 1991
Kruse, P. et. al., Suggestion and Perceptual Instability: Auditory Subliminal Influences, Bremen University, Germany, 1991
Pelka, R., Application of Subliminal Therapy to Over-Weight Subjects, Armed Forces University, Munich, Germany, 1993
Plante, T.G., Doan, B.T., DiGregorio, M.P. and Manuel, G.M., The Influence of Aerobic Exercise and Relaxation Training on Coping With Test-Taking Anxiety, Stanford University and Santa Clara University, 1993
Reid, J., "Free of Depression," Subliminal program Study, Colorado State University, 1990
Roche, K., The Effect of a Whole Brainr Subliminal Program on Children Diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Colorado State University, 1993
Taylor, E., Longitudinal Study: Cancer Remission, Progressive Awareness Research: Medical Lake, WA., 1993
Taylor, E., The Effect of Subliminal Auditory Stimuli in a Surgical Setting Involving Anesthetic Requirements, St. John's University, 1990
Taylor, E., McCusker, C. and Liston, L., "A Study of the Effects of Subliminal Communication on Inmates at the Utah State Prison," Subliminal Communication, Second Edition, R.K. Book: Medical Lake, WA, 1986
Most people would like to change something about their lives. For some, it's getting a better job, or losing weight, or improving memory, or accelerating learning abilities, or adding charisma to their personalities and so forth. Indeed, there are very few who would find nothing they wished to improve or change.
The idea seems simple enough. To some, change is a thing. It is often thought of as something like a commodity. For example, one desires more prosperity in their lives. The evidence for their success is money. Okay, change in this instance is money. Right? No, money is only the outer symbol that represents change.
The agency of change is within each of us. It is not a thing. For someone to become more prosperous they must think in a different order or magnitude than one who is content with just getting by. At least one element in their life strategy alters before the change takes place.
Let's say, for purposes of illustration, that our hypothetical individual who wishes to be more prosperous, also was raised with the belief that money is the source of all evil. A subconscious strategy may therefore literally work to sabotage any effort to achieve real monetary success. In other words, in this instance, the ego perceives safety as avoiding evil/money.
Our hypothetical person may believe, on the other hand, that only money matters. Still, there could be subconscious strategies that get in the way. For example, assume that this person seeks to build a large company. However, they are afraid of public speaking. (Remember our earlier discussion?) How will they build a large and successful company without communicating? When will the fear (public speaking) strategy kick in and knock out the goal (large company) strategy? How will the two strategies compete?
Competing strategies exist in nearly everyone. They often underpin what psychologists call cognitive dissonance, the process of holding two mutually exclusive beliefs without noticing the inherent opposition. Indeed, opposing strategies also lay beneath much of what is called sublimation, or the acting out of unacceptable fantasies in a socially acceptable way.
It is easy to see why change can be so difficult. Plus, change means giving something up. The something may be a counter productive belief, a competing strategy, and/or it may also be something tangible like the fulfilling feeling food holds for some. Giving something up means filling it with something else to most. The cigarette smoker wonders what will replace the cigarette, gum?
The giving up, like change itself, is only a thing in its outermost form. Giving up cigarettes is not really about the cigarette, but rather the feelings associated with the use of cigarettes. These feelings may have ten, twenty, thirty or more conflicting and competing strategies all balled up in one outward behavior.
Whenever one gives something up, they must also confront the so-called unknown. This often gives rise to feelings of uncertainty. Most people are very uncomfortable when they can not predict their own feelings or responses. Fear of the unknown then becomes another obstacle in the path of one who chooses change.
Resistance is the process of avoiding change. It can take many forms. Many of our users have reported just such resistance, and this is normal. Take for example the quote below from a letter sent to our offices by a registered nurse and counselor:
"....Include a section on what can come up to sabotage your attempts to change. My friend started listening to some of your programs and felt very uncomfortable. Of course, she is far enough along on her journey to know that this is resistance."
Or this example:
"At first the music was pleasant enough, but after a while I couldn't stand it. I nearly stopped using the program when it occurred to me that this could be resistance. As soon as I realized that, the music was once again pleasing."
True change is never effortless! We believe that our technology provides for a process of change that has never been easier, but at that, you must be committed for change to occur. Nothing changes until you do!
In summary, the subconscious mind contains within it our bio-computer programming. Most of us have acquired this programming in much the same way as we acquired our basic language. Without conscious choice, subliminal beliefs have been scripted in most of us as a result of what I refer to as the "no-don't" syndrome and the response to avoid rejection.
Basic to an understanding of this model is the essential human need for acceptance. The greatest human fear is that of rejection. Our world essentially consists of two types of stimuli:
Our primitive mind responds to fight/flight stimuli automatically via the function of the thalamus and the autonomic nervous system. It responds in modern man to synthetic stimuli with anxiety and depression through cortical interpretation of perceived threats: Threats of rejection. The threat of rejection produces a fear (For Every Anger Response = FEAR) which in turn results in anxiety or depression and defensively in anger (ANGER = A Nasty Getting Even Response). In this way we often perpetuate self-defeating subliminal beliefs.
Add all the pluses (positive input we receive as a result of others and self-talk) together and for most of us it is so grossly outweighed by negative message units (minuses) that it refuses to cooperate with the conscious mind. This gives rise to additional negative programming, a direct result of our failure to control our reactive response, like the abuse of food or the acting out of anger, as if to say to the conscious mind, "You knew you couldn't do it!"
The right brain accepts non-critically authoritarian message units such as "I am good!" The left brain may choose to reject this with arguments as to why one is not good. To overcome this left brain resistance, PAR presents to the left brain logic tasked statements that are permissive, such as "It's okay to be good" while simultaneously presenting to the right "I am good!"
In order to behave or choose differently, one must have within the subliminal mind the alternative desire. What cannot get in cannot get out is very apropos in this instance. Our InnerTalkr programs simply converse directly with the subliminal mind, bypassing the conscious sentry which often argues against change. This is a way of inputting enough positive message units to prime inner talk and begin to rescript the self-imposed limitations that have accumulated over one's lifetime.
Good luck on your journey, for life is truly a wonderful adventure and living a golden opportunity!