Eat, Drink, and be Monitored
Ponca City, We Love You writes "A new restaurant has opened at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, fitted with a control center and two dozen hidden cameras devoted to exploring the question of what makes people eat and drink the way they do. Over the next 10 years, a team of more than 20 scientists will use the research facility to watch how people walk through the restaurant, what food catches their eye, whether they always sit at the same table and how much food they throw away. Researchers will examine environmental influences on eating behavior by making small changes in the color of the lights, in accompanying sounds, in the scents or the furniture. "We want to find out what influences people: colors, taste, personnel," said one researcher. "This restaurant is a playground of possibilities. We can ask the staff to be less friendly and visible or the reverse." University staff who want to eat at the new restaurant will have to sign a consent form agreeing to be watched."
Does THC increase or diminish food intake?
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I don't really see the privacy implications. Presumably, those going to this research facility to eat know that its a research facility. They have to sign a consent form. The title of the article should be "Eat, Drink, and Participate in Food Science Research", but I guess "Eat, Drink, and Be Monitored" just sounds more Orwellian.
But if you know you're being watched won't it effect how you act?
If that woman knows someone is watching her she might resist eating that extra few fries, but if she isn't she might just go get another bag cause she's had a shitty day.
I like muppets.
Is university run dining in the Netherlands the same pseudo-monopoly ripoff it is in the United States?
At least on the day that the scientists unleash Flatulent Frank on the unsuspecting diners.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Subvert our reason? If our reason wasn't already subverted, this wouldn't work at all. Like it or not, your mind isn't as independent as you'd like to believe. It's already being influenced by thousands of external stimuli, and you have no idea how they're influencing you. Wouldn't you rather know what makes you choose the things you do, rather than leave it up to others to decide for you? At least, this is being researched publicly, so the results will be available. So the next time you walk into a restaurant and see that the carpeting as a burgundy instead of maroon, you'll know what it's supposed to make you decide. And face it, "they" can probably already play you like a drum whenever they feel like it. Your mind hasn't ever been your own. Ever since the first social environment arose, decisions and thinking have been made by groups, not individuals. Get used to it.
They have the ability to just ask waitstaff to be more friendly or visible and thereby cause it to just happen??? Forget the rest of the research, this one technique is wholly unknown to and long sought by restaurants everywhere. They should just publish how they manage that trick and call it a day!
Better still, patent it, and retire wealthy.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
I wonder how they comensate for the factor introduced by the folks being watched knowing to be watched and playing a game.
Maybe they glean something out of it to predict human behavior.
I wish all the power to humans to be as unpredictable and crazy as ususal and make them scratch their heads after they find out that things don't add up.
Holy knee-jerk reactions, batman!
It said one of the things they would monitor is how much food is thrown away. Wanting to adjust portions so food isn't wasted warrants a bullet in the head? Wanting to maximize the enjoyment of a patron in general is being evil and manipulative? No one is forcing you to go to this restaurant or any others. Stay in a make your own food - that's your right.
Also, how is any of this propaganda? At all? I'm not sure you know what the word means.
This comment is only tangentially related to food and eating, depending on, uh, what you eat, but... All these cameras everywhere. You really have to think twice before you decide it's safe to pick your nose. C'mon, don't you think everyone takes care of housekeeping? It's just a question of when and where it gets done. More and more, you should just assume it is NOT safe.
This type of 'research' has been going on for a LONG time.
The only thing different here is a controlled setting
specifically designed for research, which by it's very nature,
will skew the findings. Restaruants have been doing this forever.
What sells, what ambience sells the most while encouraging
turn-over. Stuff any motel and restaruant manager knows to
look for anyway.
Yawn. Supersize that!
But isn't the "thousands of external stimuli" a reason why this type of study is so problematic in the first place? This study assumes people are non-individuals with no particular history from the start. Unless you have a case history of every single person who is being studied the ability to tell why they might make certain choices is impossible. Studies like this look at inputs and outputs and don't concern themselves with the personal psychology of the subject. If you create a society governed by taste-tests then you create a society of non-individuals.
...useful to learn about.
....
That is the restroom end regarding health issues and how to improve restroom conditions to promote better care by the patrons.
Being hungry has more influence than anything they can inject into the environment. Same goes for the restroom, but both environments can influence how patrons make use of the
Eating habits, effect of lights etc.- who are they kidding? I bet this is the first step in the secret development of Bistromathic drive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistromathic_drive/
They neglected to mention the close monitoring of the way figures strangely fail to come to the expected sum on bills in chintzy Italian restaurants.
This omission leads me to believe they are partially funded from a mysterious cabal, hence the secrecy about that bit.
Shooting people in the head is not ok.
Nonsense, they don't care about the individual, they care about statistically significant shifts in the group.
Think about it, if burgundy carpets makes ten percent of the customers purchase a more expensive salad, and with no identifiable negatives, then it makes sense to install burgundy carpets if they want to shift more of these salads. It doesn't matter that it has no effect on 90% of the customers - indeed they would be well aware that it has no effect on them.
Stores run promotions all the time that are aimed at shifting a tiny proportion of their customers to a more expensive product. It doesn't work for the majority, but increasing your profit per customer for even a small proportion makes sense if you can do it without detriment to the majority of your customer base.
Similarly, while you may guess at why people made a choice, there's no need to know exactly why, just that you can record a statistically significant shift in their patters when you change one stimuli.
Did I miss the fad transition from double-blind to double-unblind? Sure, the restaurant sounds cool, and maybe some of the research is applicable to the real world, but it sounds like they're tweaking a lot of the variables here at the same time.
I generally don't pick my nose in a public spot, and these cameras are usually in public spots, so I don't see the problem.
It is in the Netherlands, especially if a muslim does it. Though theyre allowed to stab people too.
This is the only energy source that could be more powerful than the Infinite Improbability Drive!
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
It's already being influenced by thousands of external stimuli, and you have no idea how they're influencing you
... :)
I have to admit, that's a pretty persuasive argument. You've definitely gotten me to change my mind on the subject
Bark less. Wag more.
"Gah! No fair! You changed the outcome by Measuring it!" - Professor Hubert Farnsworth
What's the purpose of this study, to eek every last cent out of your wallet? To see what kind of environment best presents such an opportunity when food is desired? While this may be used as a therapudic means to aid those with psychological problems, most likely it will end up being the tool of some marketing department. Should we make the discoveries known so that subliminal means will become common knowledge? Will such subliminal means be subverted by knowing the science behind our impulses? Is it really science vs marketing?
In order to get proper results it can only be done by a double-bliund experiment.
The fact that the diners and servers both know they are part of an experiement will surely throw the results off a lot, so basically this is an invalid experiment.
No this isn't research into space, into sexy supercomputing clusters, or other far-flung reaches of technology. This is research into basic elements of human behavior - indeed elements with a very strong environmental impact. Technology cannot solve all of our problems, it cannot solve the human condition. Part of fixing the ills in our society (and those we inflict on our supporting biosphere) is to learn how to subconsciously promote better behavior on the part of everyone. Small changes, done across the board, can make great gains - and much of these benefits "stack" with benefits from new technology.
So don't knock this research until you've looked at the numbers - according to this article in 1997, Americans threw away (for one reason or another) 27% of edible food, that's 96 *billion* pounds, which is ~400 pounds per person, per year! Sure, this occurs at many stages, but each stage can be improved.
I am sure that these tapes will be studied years later by linguists, behaviorists, game theorists, businessmen and efficiency specialists. Besides, with research, we never know what we're going to learn until we try.
This kind of research has been done for a long time. See the book Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink for a summary. You're deluded if you think you know why you eat what you eat and how much of it you eat.
This has been done in America as well. This guy, author of Mindless Eating , opened up a restaurant that really only existed in order to perform this kind of experiment. ISTR that the patrons were informed as to the general nature of the place, but the food was good enough that they came anyway.
As long as nobody makes any snide remarks if the girlfriend and I sneak the odd pitcher of chocolate syrup out of the place instead of using it on our ice cream.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The only thing managers/owners I've met were worried about was imprinting their brand on happy customers. Sure they think about how any decision will affect their type of "guest" and if it meshes with the place's current image, but that doesn't go as far as "will they eat more meat if I use a pink tablecloth vs a red one?"
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
As for the cameras, the only places they're really being implemented at all are places where a lot of people go out late at night (as, for some reason, those who are less educated seem to revel in drunken carousing, or worse, and cops can't be everywhere at once even if people call stuff in)
It's hardly the british mentality, where stuff like this can be said: Competitions are being held at schools in many of the areas for children to become the "voice" of CCTV cameras, Mr Reid said. The 21 areas which have received grants for Talking CCTV proposals are: Southwark; Barking and Dagenham; Reading; Thanet; Harlow; Norwich; Ipswich; Plymouth; Gloucester; Derby; Northampton; Mansfield; Nottingham; Coventry; Sandwell; Wirral; Blackpool; Salford; Middlesbrough; South Tyneside; and Darlington. Something that struck me as amusing: nearly every day i watched the news when i was there last, british newsreaders would report how CCTV's had helped arrest/find/whatever childmolesters/'normal' criminals.
About peer pressure: Yes, the normalizing tendencies that seem to be bred into most people here are somewhat obvious if you're not used to them, and probably obnoxious when you're exposed to them. :P) might it less likely that you're being told outright you shouldn't have too many tattoos, but go to any rural community in the South/Mid-West of the US or parts of Canada and you'll be ostracized when you don't go to church like proper people do.
Personally, I find them something of a nuisance, but as I almost never interact with the little people anyway, they're not all that hard to avoid.
I'm curious to know what country's perspective you're writing from though.. If it's the US, you might be right in observing that it happens differently there, though i find your implicit suggestion that it doesn't happen in other countries at all rather naieve.. it's just expressed differently in different countries, but pretty much every society 'impresses' its rules on its inhabitants - be that through the KKK greeting unwanted newcomers to the South (a short few decades ago?) or through 'tssk tssk' in the parental care role).
having a right to bare (your) arms (as the Arrogant Worms put it
And if that isn't (scary) normalizing/normative behavior/conditioning i don't know what is.
I'll take a potato chip... and EAT IT!
Wouldn't want to be there on the day they're trying to see what makes people puke.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
ba da ba ba baaaa
All that this study will accomplish is to gather statistical data on the food intake patterns of people in the Netherlands. Every country has its own culture and that has a strong influence on how they react to others, how they eat their food, what they eat and when they eat.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And, I would like my french fries - SUPER SIZED!
This is my sig.
"We can ask the staff to be less friendly and visible or the reverse."
/be/ less friendly and visible?
is it possible for restaurant staff in the Netherlands to
i mean, they aren't really known for their hospitality.. i was there a week ago, speaking from experience..
dreemkill.
Far more often, these places will tell you about one thing, but actually be monitoring something completely different. eg. They might say they're monitoring whether peaople eat more from square vs round plates when in fact they're monitoring if people eat more (or say the taste is better) when the the menu has fancy French names.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I don't know why no one has mentioned "Mindless Eating" a book written from experiences in a US "Research Restaurant" exactly like this. Among their findings: Free wine from a bottle labelled "NEW from California!" caused people to eat more, and longer, than the same wine in a bottle labelled "NEW from South Dakota". People ate less when the Superbowl peanuts and popcorn were distributed in small bowls, versus the same quantity distributed in fewer large bowls. We are more satisfied by a small serving on a small plate, than by the same serving on a large plate. Fascinating book!
http://www.amazon.com/Mindless-Eating-More-Than-Think/dp/0553384481/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197873149&sr=8-1
Hah, this is so transparent.
This isn't a bunch of scientists acting out of curiosity to see how we eat.
This is a bunch of scientists hired by Sodhexo, Sysco, and other Restaurant industry insiders to find out how they can tool their restaurants to maximize food sales.
It is completely socially irresponsible as obesity is far more a problem than some giant food corporation's bottom line. Look at the US, for example. More than half the population is overweight, and more than a third is considered obese - as in - being overweight to the extent that it is life-threatening.
Name me one politician that is intent on breaking the obesity problem?
- that they now know exactly what restaurant ambiance most appeals to exhibitionists :)