Might as well face it, you're addicted to i
October 2, 2011 7:54 AM   Subscribe

In a New York Times op-ed called "You Love Your iPhone. Literally." branding consultant Martin Lindstrom says that his fMRI experiments show that iPhone users' brains "responded to the sound of their phones as they would respond to the presence or proximity of a girlfriend, boyfriend or family member ... they loved their iPhones." The piece has drawn intense criticism from neuroscientists, who have called it "complete crap", "terrible, terrible", and "truly hideous".
posted by Horace Rumpole (82 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite

 
I want iPhone
posted by hypersloth at 8:06 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


But I love mine! It's there when my family and friends can't physically be there. It plays that cute game with the pretty frogs with me, let's me read books, and lots of other stuff. ت
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 8:10 AM on October 2, 2011


How can anyone love something without widgets?
posted by fuq at 8:12 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Neuroscientists genuinely hated that op-ed.
posted by Anything at 8:14 AM on October 2, 2011 [9 favorites]


humans anthropomorphize their possessions

film at 11
posted by LogicalDash at 8:15 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


I knew he was a crackpot when he recommended turning off our iPhones. Also, my feelings for my iPhone go WAY BEYOND mere love or religion.
posted by aturoff at 8:17 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


iPhone, I'll love you forever, baby, you know I will!

Well, until that sexy new 5 starts to shake its booty in my face next week...
posted by chomarui at 8:17 AM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


iPhone users' brains "responded to the sound of their phones as they would respond to the presence or proximity of a girlfriend, boyfriend or family member

Couldn't that just be because the sound of the iPhone signifies (potential) contact from one of the people who would trigger that response?

Gonna go read the links now...
posted by kilo hertz at 8:17 AM on October 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


So the various neuroimaging experts linked in the post have already debunked the fMRI claims, so I'll just focus my rage on the last part of the article:
As we embrace new technology that does everything but kiss us on the mouth, we risk cutting ourselves off from human interaction. For many, the iPhone has become a best friend, partner, lifeline, companion and, yes, even a Valentine.
WHAT DOES HE THINK AN IPHONE IS USED FOR??!? It's for SOCIAL INTERACTION!!! Maybe people like iPhones (and Blackberries and Droids and regular cell phones) because they help us stay in touch with other people. Thanks to technology, we are MORE connected now than we have ever been.

*head asplodes*
posted by DiscourseMarker at 8:17 AM on October 2, 2011 [12 favorites]


....branding consultant....says that his fMRI experiments....

Anyone who is sticking their head in a ≥15000 Gauss magnetic field to satisfy the whims of a branding consultant needs to have their head examined alright.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:20 AM on October 2, 2011 [13 favorites]


Have we become this materialistic to surround our treasures around telephones?
posted by mitrieD at 8:21 AM on October 2, 2011


Wow, I hadn't looked closely when I saw this article yesterday. It isn't even bad neuroscience, it is idiocy. This is just a complete failure to understand what activation in a region might even mean, or even do the most basic literature search that would be involved in testing the hypothesis. (The region he claims demonstrates the point is activated by more or less everything, including not just love but extreme dislike/disgust, not to mention language, audition, executive control, blah blah blah.) Who is wasting the (non-trivial amount of) money involved in letting this guy anywhere near a scanner?
posted by advil at 8:21 AM on October 2, 2011 [10 favorites]


This is what passes for 'consumer advocacy' these days?

He's got a new book out too! What fortuitous timing!
posted by Think_Long at 8:22 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I get that fMRI (why is the 'f' always lower case?) has lots of valid scientific uses. But this guy came up with such an excellent put-down to describe people who make absurd claims for it
"He advocates the technique .... essentially as a form of Lite-Brite phrenology."
that my initial reaction to stories such as this is always dismissive.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:23 AM on October 2, 2011 [10 favorites]


I have quite a strong reaction to a certain sound on my phone, but it is an overwhelmingly negative reaction. That is the alert sound of the app that tells me that our servers are down -- it uses the default "tri-tone" alert sound. To me, this sound is correlated with panic, sleep deprivation, and the feelings of failure.

This sound has also been appropriated by the advertising industry to mean "cool smartphone happy win sound" so you can hear it in a dozen TV commercials. It drives a knife through my spine every time I hear it.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:32 AM on October 2, 2011 [14 favorites]


I love my iPhone! I take it out of it's case to hug and carress it's back.

I've even bought a little burial box for it...even in death we shall not be separated.
posted by Sweetmag at 8:33 AM on October 2, 2011


If only we had a Mefite who was suitably skilled in the art and could give this piece the taking down it so richly deserves.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:34 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


The science in the article may be bunk but it made me realize that the thing about iPhones - and perhaps the reasons some types of geeks dislike the brand - is that they've brought the obsessive love that some of us have always felt for technology, gadgets, or certain objects in general to the mainstream, and some people don't know what to do with that feeling (the obsession for those who've never felt it and the acceptance for those who had).
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:34 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Clearly neuroscientists are Android fanboys.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 8:35 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Of course they love it. They'd have to, to pay so much for so little.
posted by DU at 8:35 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


DiscourseMarker: WHAT DOES HE THINK AN IPHONE IS USED FOR??!? It's for SOCIAL INTERACTION!!! Maybe people like iPhones (and Blackberries and Droids and regular cell phones) because they help us stay in touch with other people.
I don't have a smart-phone of any kind myself.

But what I see among my friends and family who do is: they're using them as pocket computers. All. The. Time. They read books, they read Wikipedia, they check their email, they send and receive text messages, they check things on IMDB in the middle of movies, etc. They spend way more time doing that sort of thing than they do actually speaking directly to their fellow human beings.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. But I don't think direct social interaction, at least, is the main draw for the smart-phone users I know.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:38 AM on October 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


WHAT DOES HE THINK AN IPHONE IS USED FOR??!? It's for SOCIAL INTERACTION!!! Maybe people like iPhones (and Blackberries and Droids and regular cell phones) because they help us stay in touch with other people. Thanks to technology, we are MORE connected now than we have ever been.

Really? I thought they were mainly for Angry Birds and Plants Vs. Zombies...
posted by melissam at 8:43 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Thanks to technology, we are MORE connected now than we have ever been.

I know this is the party line, but I think technology can, intentionally or otherwise, limit the ways we communicate as much as it can broaden them. That is, I find it really difficult* to have a meaningful, worthwhile exchange through mediums like Facebook, Twitter and text messaging; the most popular ways of using technology to communicate right now are more geared toward short bursts of trivial information than something rich in content. That's fine, when you just want to get in touch with someone and arrange a meeting, but it's often way more of a hassle than just calling them, and I know more and more people for whom Facebook and text messages are like, their primary connection to the world.

* Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but it's like swimming upstream. If you can do it, awesome! but the river flows the other way.
posted by byanyothername at 8:43 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey it certainly seems that way to me, when someone arrives to hang out with people but doesn't put their phone away.... continues holding on to it, just in case there is an app to check, a tweet to twat, a photo to take, a fact to check, or any other fucking lame reason to start diddling their device.
posted by ReeMonster at 8:57 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


For many, the iPhone has become a best friend, partner, lifeline, companion and, yes, even a Valentine.

A few nifty rubber (non-latex), um, attachments for the iPhone are needed muchly.

For reals, when I lost my phone (not even an iPhone) a few years ago, I felt as if I'd carelessly lost a pet.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:04 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


truly hideous
this really rolls off the tongue. it rings so clear.

eeesh iphones :\
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 9:13 AM on October 2, 2011


WHAT DOES HE THINK AN IPHONE IS USED FOR??!? It's for SOCIAL INTERACTION!!!

Maybe that's what yours is for. Western Infidels covered it pretty well, but when I had one I used it for maybe one phone call a week. I did text a fair amount, though.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:14 AM on October 2, 2011


There is a large fraction of the public which views themselves as educated who are extremely gullible towards things that masquerade as scientific thinking. See also: any internet thread about okcupid statistics blog posts.
posted by bukvich at 9:15 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Anyone who is sticking their head in a ≥15000 Gauss magnetic field to satisfy the whims of a branding consultant needs to have their head examined alright."

In one of my short stories, this is what they ended up doing with all the economically unnecessarily people they'd created. (The sort who are presently occupying Wall Street IRL.)

Services to the homeless had, of course, been privatized like everything else, and most people lived in subsidized living centers where the cost of admission was that they spent all day getting their brains read with MRI machines while listening to potential advertising slogans, or their eyeballs scanned with lasers while they watched commercials.

Apparently this is my "Arthur C. Clarke invents communication satellites" moment.
posted by Naberius at 9:16 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


So far the letter to the editor that Russ Poldrack wrote has nearly 50 neuroscientists who've signed (myself included). It's a hell of a list of names, too (and a good letter).

One major issue he/we take (beyond the terrible "science") is that people respect the NYT and this nonsense will get parroted as thought it is scientific fact.
posted by bradleyvoytek at 9:16 AM on October 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Also: are there any neuroscientists in the house who would like to debunk Daniel Amen's claim that only 15% of the people who seem healthy on the outside have anything like a normal looking brain when they image the insides of the head?
posted by bukvich at 9:19 AM on October 2, 2011


they check their email, they send and receive text messages

That is all social interaction. It doesn't have to be face-to-face or voice to be communication.

I know this is the party line, but I think technology can, intentionally or otherwise, limit the ways we communicate as much as it can broaden them. That is, I find it really difficult* to have a meaningful, worthwhile exchange through mediums like Facebook, Twitter and text messaging; the most popular ways of using technology to communicate right now are more geared toward short bursts of trivial information than something rich in content. That's fine, when you just want to get in touch with someone and arrange a meeting, but it's often way more of a hassle than just calling them, and I know more and more people for whom Facebook and text messages are like, their primary connection to the world.

It's not the party line, it's been demonstrated by actual research for more than a decade. You said it yourself--people use text messaging to arrange meetings, usually face-to-face meetings, where they can engage in whatever kind of communication, however "rich" or not, that they want to. There have been a number of studies that have show, for example, that heavy users of email have MORE voice calls and MORE face-to-face interactions than light users of email. There is simply no evidence that using technology takes away from non-mediated forms of communication; rather pretty much all the evidence shows that all it does is ADD communication.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 9:19 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I did text a fair amount, though.

Which means you were engaging in social interaction. Unless maybe you were just texting robots?
posted by DiscourseMarker at 9:21 AM on October 2, 2011


Spectacles, testicals, wallet and watch...

I think phone comes somewhere above watch or wallet on that checklist these days.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on October 2, 2011


Now granted I am kind of an anti social hermit, but when my iPhone rings I generally respond with a feeling of mild panic and stress until I see the phone number. There
are probably 10 numbers that would quell the nervousness, anything else would probably increase it. Ah, true love.
posted by nathancaswell at 9:30 AM on October 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Experiment is obviously flawed. People love their cell phones way more than their relatives.
posted by telstar at 9:30 AM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


I hate to hear the phone ring. It’s rarely bad news, but I still always cring. It means someone wants something. I use my phone once or twice a week on average, and never got an iphone because I don’t want to use it more.
posted by bongo_x at 9:33 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


He's got a new book out too! What fortuitous timing!

Lindstrom (and to a lesser extent, the NY Times) is just cashing in on condescension heaped on Apple users since the early 1990s, in one form or another. "They're just buying a lifestyle product!" "They're too dumb to use a real computer!" etc. etc. ad nauseum. So it goes...
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:36 AM on October 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


...and ironically, typos in my posts are attributable to my iPhone with it's PIECE OF SHIT AUTOCORRECT.

I'm so upset... My amygdala must be in a firestorm of activity right now!
posted by bradleyvoytek at 9:38 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm never getting an iPhone. I'm too afraid it won't love me back.
posted by orme at 9:54 AM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]



"Anyone who is sticking their head in a ≥15000 Gauss magnetic field to satisfy the whims of a branding consultant needs to have their head examined alright."

All of the studies I am acquainted with pay money to research subjects for their time. Laying in a tube looking at pictures and clicking buttons is a pretty decent way to get some extra beer money.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:57 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I respond to my iPhone with the exact neurological response I have to close family members, coworkers, or other loved ones, which is to say that when it calls for my attention, my first thought is often what the hell do you want now?

As a consequence of this Pavlovian reflex, I spend a lot of time alone, except, of course, for my iPhone, which I've so far been unable to alienate, and which has no home to storm off to except for its little cradle on my desk.
posted by sonascope at 9:58 AM on October 2, 2011 [6 favorites]


> I'm never getting an iPhone. I'm too afraid it won't love me back.

No matter how much you love money it will never love you back.
posted by bukvich at 10:11 AM on October 2, 2011


all the economically unnecessarily people... who are presently occupying Wall Street
posted by box at 10:24 AM on October 2, 2011


humans anthropomorphize fetishize their commodified possessions...

Two minutes hate at 11.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:34 AM on October 2, 2011


What I love is that little 'snick' sound when you turn off the screen.
I guess that's the sound of the capacitors shutting down.
posted by Flashman at 10:34 AM on October 2, 2011


...and ironically, typos in my posts are attributable to my iPhone with it's PIECE OF SHIT AUTOCORRECT.

There's a word for this.
posted by kafziel at 10:39 AM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


There is simply no evidence that using technology takes away from non-mediated forms of communication; rather pretty much all the evidence shows that all it does is ADD communication.

That was sort of my point. An increase in quantity says nothing about an increase in quality. To me, being "connected" means more than just "talking at each other more." You'd have to look at what we're talking about, and how we're doing it, to say whether we're any more or less connected. Like, for those people using email more, getting more calls, etc.--are their emails long, thoughtful things or are they brief dashes of words sent off to someone you're going to see soon, anyway (making them kind of useless)?

I have no idea how to approach this, and suspect measuring an increase or decrease of connectivity probably borders on impossible.
posted by byanyothername at 10:40 AM on October 2, 2011


And okay, I'm not a curmudgeon. I think technology really can (and does) connect us more by giving us more options for communication and tearing down barriers, but I think we can (and do) create more barriers for ourselves. I'd put cell and smart phones more on the evil communication-strangling side of the spectrum--they seem to cause more miscommunication, more contentless "talking at" and more totally artificial obligations ("Why didn't you text me back even though we both knew we were going to see each other in like an hour anyway?!?") than they do add meaning to my life.
posted by byanyothername at 10:48 AM on October 2, 2011


DiscourseMarker: "Thanks to technology, we are MORE connected now than we have ever been."

Strong claim, needs proof. Probably depends greatly on how different people define "connected", including measuring outcomes on subjective sensations of sociality and emotional metrics.
posted by meehawl at 10:55 AM on October 2, 2011


"Anyone who is sticking their head in a ≥15000 Gauss magnetic field..."

Wonder what effect that magnetic field had on their iPhone.
posted by Mcable at 10:59 AM on October 2, 2011


Strong claim, needs proof. Probably depends greatly on how different people define "connected", including measuring outcomes on subjective sensations of sociality and emotional metrics.

Well, Pew Internet's site seems to be down right now, so I can't link to it, but here is just one such study: Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The strength of internet ties, retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_display.asp

From the report, just as an example:
People who email the vast majority (80-100%) of their core ties weekly are in phone contact with 25% more of their core ties than non-emailers. Moreover, those who email the vast majority of their significant ties weekly are in phone contact with twice as many of their significant ties than non-emailers.
Core ties are defined as "the people in Americans’ social networks with whom they have very close relationships" and significant ties are "the people outside that ring of `core ties' in Americans’ social networks, who are somewhat closely connected."
posted by DiscourseMarker at 11:14 AM on October 2, 2011


I'm actually fear my iPhone. I've noticed that whenever I take it out of my pocket and set it down I tend to gravitate away from the phone. 20 minutes later I am crouched in the corner, eyeing it nervously. When it rings or chimes my fight or flight instincts kick in, if it is during business hours tend to dash over and lunge for it, usually tripping over something and knocking things over in the process. If it is late at night,I tend to inch away in horror, trying to ignore the ringing, hoping whoever is calling will hang up so it will stop. I love my iPad though, Paddie, as I call him, totally hates the iPhone too, he is my BFF. One day we are going to smash that stupid iPhone so we no longer have to live in fear. Some nights when we are laying in bed we talk about all the cool things we are going to do when we get away from that damn iPhone.
posted by Ad hominem at 11:15 AM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


That was sort of my point. An increase in quantity says nothing about an increase in quality. To me, being "connected" means more than just "talking at each other more." You'd have to look at what we're talking about, and how we're doing it, to say whether we're any more or less connected. Like, for those people using email more, getting more calls, etc.--are their emails long, thoughtful things or are they brief dashes of words sent off to someone you're going to see soon, anyway (making them kind of useless)?

I have no idea how to approach this, and suspect measuring an increase or decrease of connectivity probably borders on impossible.


Well that's also my point--this article used what appears to be extremely dubious fMRI images to make claims about how much we "love" our iPhones, and concluded by saying that "we are cutting ourselves off from human interaction." Whether or not you think the "quality" of a given interaction is good or bad, it is *still* an interaction. Your definition of "connectivity" is really at odds with that used in research.

Of course, interaction quality is highly subjective, but there have been at least some attempts to try to tease out how people perceive mediated vs. in-person. Once such study (of college students) found that:
face-to-face conversations may not always be the rich, deep, and inherently superior means of communication that it is often presumed to be. The quality of face-to-face conversation was rated no higher than telephone calls (in fact, the mean quality of telephone calls was higher, although not significantly so). People having face-to-face conversations were most likely to be engaged in other activities simultaneously. In sum, our studies suggest that, instead of a trade-off between high quality face-to-face conversations and lower quality internet interactions, students are supplementing high quality face-to-face conversations and telephone calls with really good internet interactions. source.
We have no way to go back in time to find out if our pre-telephone/email/text conversations were inherently "better" than our current ones. Put it this way--I can send my friend a text message saying "hey, let's grab lunch." There's still no guarantee that we will even talk at all over lunch, or that if we talk, our conversation will be somehow deep and meaningful. We could just sit there and talk trash about the other people in the restaurant.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 11:33 AM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


This is totally explained by one of my most favorite scientific papers ever,
Seduction without cause: uncovering explanatory neurophilia (PDF)
posted by Blasdelb at 11:57 AM on October 2, 2011


I thought I loved my iPhone until the day I got my iPad.

Turns out that size matters.
posted by chavenet at 12:00 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Brand consulting about neuroscience is like dancing about architecture.
posted by cortex at 12:02 PM on October 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Brand consulting about neuroscience is like dancing about architecture.

But Brad Pitt is all about architecture now. That's totally different, because he's smoldering.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:08 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


But Brad Pitt is all about architecture now.

I know that Angelina's bras must be incredible, but I think that's going a bit too far.
posted by mephron at 1:17 PM on October 2, 2011


This is the most weirdly hostile thread I've read in a while.

Or maybe it's just that I'm pissed at my neighbors.
posted by item at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2011


My phone is always on vibrate.
posted by merelyglib at 1:23 PM on October 2, 2011


But what about those assholes who use this sound as their ringtone?
posted by Evilspork at 1:29 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I thought I loved my iPhone until the day I got my iPad.

Apple and oranges. I'm sure a few do, but most people are not going to take their iPad everywhere. And iPads can't (as easily) take phone calls. And texting is more difficult. I would much rather lose my computer, or iPad, than my iPhone.

The thing about an iPhone (or similar phone) is that you can keep it with you 24/7 with no effort. I go to sleep listening to my iphone radio app (wwoz!) I don't have an alarm clock, I have an alarm app. I then check the weather on my iphone, my schedule, etc.

Plenty of times I put my iPhone in plane mode, so I have no problem cutting myself off from the rest of the world. But If I accidentally leave my iPhone at home I feel physically depressed. I guess I like to be in control. I know that's a problem, but I'd rather just remember to keep my iPhone with me than figure that one out.
posted by justgary at 1:29 PM on October 2, 2011


After reading the first paragraph of that article I could sort of automatically finish the rest of it in my own head.

Just like the style-section paint-by-numbers articles this is neurosciency paint-by-numbers that I think the NYT has patented. A few notches dumber than Malcolm Gladwell, and the last paragraph always pivots from the "science" to an Oprah-esque profundity.
posted by tempythethird at 2:04 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


The piece has drawn intense criticism from neuroscientists, who have called it "complete crap", "terrible, terrible", and "truly hideous".

To be fair most of those adjectives are conceptually entailed in contemporary neuroscience or as I prefer to call it...out of focus low resolution colour brain photography.
posted by srboisvert at 3:26 PM on October 2, 2011


And THIS is one reason that science coverage in newspaper should fact-check by talking to the scientists they cover. Except, they don't seem to want to. *le sigh*
posted by redbeard at 3:28 PM on October 2, 2011


Also is there a neuroscience study yet that shows that when you say literally you really actually mean actually literally?
posted by srboisvert at 3:29 PM on October 2, 2011


dancing about architecture
posted by LogicalDash at 3:30 PM on October 2, 2011


NYT on how you hate your iPhone.
posted by gen at 3:48 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


They love your iPhone too.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:07 PM on October 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


In case anyone *really* wanted to know; yes, there is videographic evidence of people who physically love their iPhones/iThingies.
posted by porpoise at 6:10 PM on October 2, 2011


There is simply no evidence that using technology takes away from non-mediated forms of communication; rather pretty much all the evidence shows that all it does is ADD communication.

Certainly if considered as sheer numbers. Last night at dinner, three out of the four people at the table were yakking on cellular devices. Three plus the three being contacted equals a total of six communicatees, as opposed to the four that could have been actually talking during dinner, dammit.

However I enjoy a quiet meal, and the dessert was fabulous.
posted by BlueHorse at 7:37 PM on October 2, 2011


The love that dare not tweet its name?
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:05 PM on October 2, 2011


I like my non iPhone, but don't love it. It's just a "tool", as it were.

I really like Swype. But I don't love it. I don't have affection for it, I'm just impressed. I imagine there are a number of metaphors and innuendos that relate to Swyping and phone sex.
posted by juiceCake at 9:07 PM on October 2, 2011


I'm really glad neuroscientists are calling Lindstrom out publicly, and sorry it took a NYT op-ed to bring this about rather than shooting his ideas out back and burying them in the yard. I've been following Lindstrom for years on Advertising Age's website, with increasing alarm as he started piling this pseudoscience bullshit on top of the otherwise unremarkable marketing crap he spewed. For a while AdAge gave him his own video segment - I forget what it was called, but it was full of smarm and self-importance and was surprisingly rambly. I think by now AdAge has taken all of their videos down, but if you like beating yourself over the head with the putrid entrails of the ad industry, as I do, his videos are the ones to look for.
posted by gusandrews at 9:13 PM on October 2, 2011


Now do they really love iPhone, or are they saying it because they saw it?
posted by Spatch at 9:22 PM on October 2, 2011


I really like Swype. But I don't love it. I don't have affection for it, I'm just impressed. I imagine there are a number of metaphors and innuendos that relate to Swyping and phone sex.

Am I the only one who uses the Swype keyboard, but just uses it as a regular keyboard? I like the keyboard, but I could never get the hang of swyping.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:07 PM on October 2, 2011


Well, I have heard it called the Jesus phone.

octobersurprise: "A few nifty rubber (non-latex), um, attachments for the iPhone are needed muchly."

Oh, they're out there. And some of them have apps in the app store as well.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:26 AM on October 3, 2011


IndigoRain: "Well, I have heard it called the Jesus phone.
"
Origin of the "Jesus Phone" moniker.
posted by namewithoutwords at 4:28 AM on October 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't have an iPhone, but I have a smartphone, and while I can't say that I "love" it, I can say it's a complete improvement on my existence.

Aside from being a realization of a childhood dream of having a pocket sized internet/video game system/instant messenger that doubles as a phone, it's a nice alternative to being shut out of conversations. You can chalk up my frequent dicking about on my phone as "rude", it's no more inconsiderate or self-serving than people who never shut up because "pauses in the conversation make me uncomfortable."
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:50 AM on October 3, 2011


A dead salmon supposedly had "thoughts" when it was scanned by fMRI. fMRI is bullshit.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/
posted by Mudah at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2011


A dead salmon supposedly had "thoughts" when it was scanned by fMRI. fMRI is bullshit.

Did you even read the article you linked ?
Bennett’s point is that a suite of methods known as multiple comparisons correction can allow researchers to maintain most of their statistical power while keeping the danger of false positives at bay.

The work highlights that brain science is highly data-driven and statistical now. Although the visualizations — usually some orangey spots on an otherwise dark brain scan — seem simple, the data collection and interpretation that go into producing them is intense.

The point of the salmon study isn’t to prove that fMRI shouldn’t be used or is worthless. Brain scientists can do things with fMRI machines they otherwise couldn’t, said Ed Vul, an MIT neuroscience graduate.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:43 PM on October 6, 2011


« Older September seemed to be a good month for nu-disco a...  |  Cruel America: It appears that... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments