Slashdot Mirror
FMRI Shows Man Loves Wife More Than Angelina Jolie
An anonymous reader writes "We've discussed (at length) functional MRI technology as it pertains to marketing and virtual reality, but now Esquire writer A.J. Jacobs has become the first person to go inside the controversial machine to test the science behind his sex drive. As in, he has fMRI experts read his mind as to whether he's actually more turned on by his young wife or Angelina Jolie. The results, unsurprisingly, are both geeky and hilarious. Would you subject yourself to this kind of reality check?"
I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie. I think she's got no class. The term trailer trash comes to mind.
I actually do love my wife (who doesn't read this board, so this isn't some big suck up) but there would be plenty of celebs (and a few rotten vegies) that'd come closer than Jolie would.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I would expect that the brain would associate alot of memories and data connected to his wife that he couldn't have about Angelina. Is this really about romance or is there something else going on here...
The MythBusters had an episode (episode 93 according to google) where they had team members who took part in a mock crime in order to test various "lie detection" methods, complete with real punishments for various outcomes.
It wasn't valid science, but it was a fascinating exploration of how one could fool these various tests. The polygraph was the usual mumbo jumbo, but the MRI test was interesting in showing how difficult it is to isolate anything for interpretation. I interpreted the results as an effectively random outcome, much like the interpretation is being used here - all correlation with an external event, with everyone involved convincing themselves they've isolated the causation.
But if this works for him to convince himself that he truly loves his wife, I'm not going to argue with him.
To me, it shows the value of double(or more)-blind testing.
Ryan Fenton
Bad post...I wasn't clear. My point is that the reflexive reaction, no matter what it is, isn't the one that has a lot to do with a long-term pair bond. A sexy picture of the significant other is going to conjure memories of an actual physical relationship. A sexy picture of somebody hot might be stimulating, but it can't replicate the memory of something that has actually happened.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
He's not going to "Love" Angela Jolie more because he doesn't know her to have that bond.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't rather shag her though!
If the lie detector wasn't bad enough, this certainly takes the cake of "tests" concerning the psyche of people. It's anything but unheard of that lie detectors are wrong (you can actually train that, go figure), and they at least have a semblance of a realistice chance to guess right. You are asked questions, your physical reaction is measured. That's at least straightforward. Worthless, because if you have a little control over your autonomic system (it's possible, to some degree) you can easily fool it, but at least there's a connection.
Now here's a man that loves his wife more than Angie. So? Maybe he's not into this kind of woman? Maybe he really loves his wife, or maybe he loves fat chicks, unless you ask him (and he chooses to tell the truth) you'll never know.
You add another variable to a test that is already guesswork at best: Personal taste and preference. It's not just true or false anymore. A lie detector is at least straightforward with the question, even if the answer is mostly just "maybe" in most cases. With this test, even the question is fuzzy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
With 25,000 of work, she could probably look like a movie star.
Why do people still think knives are instruments of beauty? Can you show me anyone who looked better one year after their surgery than they did before?
So, in a fundamentally subjective matter, you presume to tell people that their own perception is wrong? I'm used to this kind of crap coming from game fanboys, but it's a new twist to actually see it applied to something as _blatantly_ subjective as physical beauty.
If a woman X is attracted to man Y, that's it. That's by definition "attractive". He's attractive... for her. Hint: notice the common word root in there.
Who the fuckk do you think you _are_ to tell her that, in something that's 100% personal perception, her perception is wrong?
And yes, it's 100% subjective. Some people like older women. In fact, for some, it's a major turn on. There's a whole genre of porn about 70+ year old women. (So, yes, to answer that objection, that's one case he actually might like her more after 40 years of marriage.)
Some people like women who are anything between a bit overweight, to outright obese. Again, check out some of the BBW porn out there, and some looks like they filmed a vaguely humanoid blob of fat. Someone pays to watch those, you know?
Some people like huge breasts. Some actually like them small. And I won't just use porn this time, but look at the ideal of female beauty of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Look at all those sculptures that are barely A cup. Presumably because it represented a young woman who hasn't had children yet. (Ditto about the huge penis obsession recently, BTW: the greeks considered a perfect penis to be rather small, and they actually exaggerated in that direction in a lot of their statues. Huge phaluses were considered something the barbarians have.) To get back to breasts, the romans are sometimes credited with inventing the bra, but that's misleading. What actually got into fashion there wasn't some padded wonderbra, but just a strip of cloth tied over the breasts to press them down, so she looks like she has smaller breasts than she actually has.
A lot of people people like redheads, and especially in places where there aren't that many born naturally that way. But in the UK where they have the highest percentage of them, a lot of people aren't turned on by that mutation at all, and the term "ginger" is used as an insult.
Etc. It's really that subjective.
Maybe his wife wouldn't be "deeply beautiful" to you, but how do you know it isn't for him? Oh, right, you presume to tell someone that his tastes are wrong and yours are some kind of platinum standard for all humanity. Carry on.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Seriously, in your brain your wife is a very complicated entity that's backed with a serious amount of information. Where you sat on your first date? That (hopefully) subtle look on her face when she can't stand her friend's conversation matter?
Might be more interesting to see how much you 'love' someone you actually despise but know very, very well.
Unless you have a horrible marriage or are a child, your marriage is a unique thing to your brain. Comparing it to your feelings for Angelina Anybody is just a little different than comparing it to your feelings for your driveway pavement (unless you're delusional ... another result I'd love to see).
Feel free to tell me to RTFA, I skimmed :p
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
Why do people still think knives are instruments of beauty? Can you show me anyone who looked better one year after their surgery than they did before?
Yes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30586321/
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
The correct answer - "I don't know, take it off, I need to compare" at which point you go down on her and she forgets all about it.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.