Slashdot Mirror
The Reality Distortion Field Is Real
TimeZone writes "Apparently, even subliminal exposure to the Apple logo can make you 'think different.' Researchers at Duke University subjected participants to subliminal images of the iconic Apple and IBM logos (during what subjects thought was a visual acuity test), and those who were shown the Apple logo generated more creative ideas after the test than did those who were shown the IBM logo. In a second test, subjects exposed to the Disney logo acted more honestly than those who saw an E! Channel logo." Here's a preprint of the paper (PDF) due for publication in the Journal of Consumer Research.
Nobody ever got fired after staring at the IBM logo.
What does the "Microsoft" logo do to you (down there)?
...and the Microsoft logo caused test subjects to experience extreme confusion and frustration.
Microsoft - made you more likely to be cruel to little animals
Tux - made you grown a long beard and lose all your friends
Novell - made you betray your friends
Democrat donkey - made you find new ways to destroy yourself
Republican elephant - made you question the value of an education
What is next ?
"Judge, I crashed my car because I stared at a Ferrari logo for too long." ?
Or maybe this study is a steaming pile of platypus dung. See that there? Platypus Dung? that's creativity baby!
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
I see my apple logo on my laptop all the time. People always tell me I'm full of shit, but I always explain that I'm full of great ideas. Now I have proof that I'm the one that's right, and they're full of shit.
The RDF emanates from The Steve, not the Apple logo. Unless, of course, The Steve laid hands upon the device bearing the logo. It's all right in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Hence the reason all the new Mac users immediately go out and buy extra big designer tables for their lounges and a few African tribal relics to display in their hallways.
It also makes them caffeine-addicted hermits since I usually see solitary Mac users sat in the darkest corners of Starbucks with a large chocca-flocca-socca-moccachino in front of them. And I know they're Mac users because no matter where I sit, they always make sure I can see the little logo.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
has what reaction?
We've established that the reality distortion field is in fact correct (TFA), and that it self-evidently (look at Apple's recent sales) is transmitted as a meme throughout technological society. We know that the human condition is regulated by culture - that the human brain is evolving to cope with the phenomenal rate-of-change-of-culture it is being exposed to. In doing so, it must also cope with (adapt to) this reality distortion field created by Apple.
Steve Jobs is screwing with your mind, people. And your children's nascent minds too. Be afraid (of non-shiny things). Be very afraid (of anything not cool).
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
By extrapolating these results, I assume that those shown a Windows logo got into their car, drove extremely slowly while telling those behind them to "please wait," and then crashed into a telephone pole due to a driver problem.
Apple is the new Microsoft, Microsoft is the new IBM.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
The research is neat, but essentially what they're showing is that they can validate pre-test measures of "creativity" and "honesty" using a priming technique.
.001, with Apple receiving
.001, with Apple receiving
They chose the brands that they chose because Apple was rated as more creative a brand than IBM in pre-test:
"As predicted, there was a significant difference in the extent to
which Apple and IBM were perceived to be creative, t(23) = -4.91, p
higher ratings (M = 7.62, SD = 1.23) than IBM (M = 4.17, SD = 2.12). Thus, pilot tests confirmed that in
our college sample, Apple is believed to be more creative than is IBM. IBM, it is important to note, is
not seen as particularly creative or uncreative; it is rated at approximately the mid-point of the scale."
And because Disney is rated as being more "honest" than E!:
"As predicted, there was a significant difference in the extent to
which Apple and IBM were perceived to be creative, t(23) = -4.91, p
higher ratings (M = 7.62, SD = 1.23) than IBM (M = 4.17, SD = 2.12). Thus, pilot tests confirmed that in
our college sample, Apple is believed to be more creative than is IBM. IBM, it is important to note, is
not seen as particularly creative or uncreative; it is rated at approximately the mid-point of the scale."
It's not showing that people subliminally exposed to the Apple logo - regardless of prior beliefs - will be spontaneously more creative. It's showing that people spontaneously exposed to things that they (at least, a similar sample) feel reflect creativity will prime, behaviorally, creativity.
It doesn't mean that people who work with Apple are more productive, or that people need to buy Apple to be creative. It's a neat implementation of priming on future behavior, but it's really showing that specific brands are associated with specific traits (and that those specific traits prime actions).
They don't mention whether exps 2 and 3 were done on different days, but given that they did it for expt 1, they probably did for 2 and 3 too.
As a scientist familiar with subliminal perception and the power of brands, I'd like to say: Bunk. Unless You Make Equal All Prior Observations, "Research" Simply Can't Harbor Effects.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Well, you could read their intro for a more in-depth analysis and discussion of priming, but I wouldn't call it a suggestion so much as I would call it bias to act in a certain way.
The basic idea behind priming is that there is a large interconnected network of information and that activating one piece of information partially "boosts" other connected pieces of information. When you are prompted to act in new tasks, you have a higher likelihood to engage in actions that have this extra "boost" in activation.
Geek Priming Example:
In geek terminology, it's something like this. Suppose you were Google, and imagine you were designing a system to deliver targeted advertising to people. You had thousands of possible ads you could show someone, but you want the advertising to be more specific.
Lets say you were choosing between just two companies that want to sell advertising today. One of these companies is called "Joe's Fisheries", and they have a special on Sole (a kind of fish). One of these companies is called "Joe's Shoe Supply", and they've got a special on Sole Repair (the bottom of your shoes).
You might intercept an email about Soles, but you're not sure which sole it is. You don't want to be selling Fish to guys who need shoe repair, and you don't want to be selling Shoes to guys who want fish. On the other hand, other words in the email tell you if it's about shoes (like laces, or boots) and other words tell you if it's about fish (scales, salmon, whatever).
Whatever your way of deciding is, you probabilistically weight Fish over Shoe (or vice versa) depending on some other cues. Then you show the ad you think is most appropriate.
In a priming study, basically what they're doing is providing some bogus information to your same cortical networks that weight and categorize information. They're feeding you stimuli (like "scales", and "salmon"), and when they ask you to use the word Sole in a sentence, you say something like, "Gee, I could really go for a nice filet of sole", rather than "I hate it when gum sticks in the Sole of my shoe".
Mostly, these primes only affect the way you behave in either carefully constructed follow-up tasks, usually ones that require you to categorize or manipulate information. A classic example is something like Word Completion, for example:
"SOL_".
I'm sure you filled in "Sole" even though you could have put in "Solo" and "Sold", far more common words.
See! You can be primed too!
This reminds me a bit of the so-called Mozart effect claimed by Shaw and Rauscher that has been accepted as true by the general public. Their studies were not reproduced and had pretty shoddy methodology. Consult http://skepdic.com/mozart.html.