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
If it was an honest test, they would have asked him about Kristen Bell.
of his wife.
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
"In a cruel twist of bioengineering, the romantic craving actually gets more intense post-dumping."
I would be very interested in seeing this same test run on somebody that just terminated a relationship, and then run once again after a rebound fling. Bonus points if the reboundie was blacked out.
...his wife is more bangable than Angelina.
No joke, no troll, just one hot lady!
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I don't know, I think comparing studio airbrushed photos of Jolie with candid snaps of his wife may not be the best experiment.
This whole thing seems not very scientific and more like "hey lets play with our toy".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Would anybody like to place a bet that Brad Pitt's brain would light up brighter for Jacobs' wife (assuming she's reasonably hot)? Does it mean either guy would even consider trading wives? Not for a second.
And let's not forget that there's a measurable time lag before the hormones kick in and that immediate flash of reflexive horniness morphs into something similar but far from identical.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I didn't RTFA, but why would you expect Angelina Jolie to love this man's wife more than he does? Have they even met?
sic transit gloria mundi
Imagine the scientist standing outside the fMRI.
Scientist: "Look at the following pictures, please. *Click* Next picture, *Click*, Next picture *Click*"
Patient: *Ding on metal sound*
Scientist: "What was tha--Oh!"
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.
If women hear about this...
Next argument:
"You don't really love me!"
"Baby you know I do!"
"Prove it! You, me and my sister are going down to the machine tomorrow!"
*Uh oh*
This guy is crazy to submit to this test. Here is a (near) pseudo-science test being applied to him with a loaded question that can have only one possible correct and right answer. And the machine is not assured to give him that correct answer. And he does it in a nationally published magazine.
Suppose this machine 'proved' that he was more turned on by a professional sexpot movie star than his own wife. Do you think that she would ...ever... let him live that down? If you say yes, then you don't know anything about women...go fuck your compiler.
Thirty years from now they have some silly disagreement. She says "..but you don't really love me..." He says " but, darling, honey, of course I do..." She says, "no, you really don't, and that machine proved it!".
There are some questions that have only one possible correct answer, regardless of what might be the 'truth'. The most important one is when your wife or girlfriend asks you " do you really love me?". Guys, listen to this, this is important, the only possible thing that you can ever say when this collection of sounds hits your ears is "YES". No hesitation, no ..uh.., no ponderous meaningful silences, just 'yes'. Anything else that you could say or not say would be taken by her to mean 'no, I don't love you'. It just takes one 'no' and she will never believe you next 10 million times that you say "yes, I love you".
Another example of question that has only one possible answer is when someone who has the ability and the inclination to destroy your life asks you: "Have you ever used drugs?" Here the only possible answer is NO!, even if you're standing there with a joint dangling from your lips. Please don't forget this as it may come in useful some day.
A third example is when someone is pointing a gun at you and asks you, "Do you believe in...". Fellas, this is not an occasion for amicable discussion imbued with gentle irony. Chuck it up, smile, and shout 'YES!'. I believe in jumpin' Jehovah, the lizard king, the holy rock, the flying pizza monster, whatever, and add that you're overwhelming glad to find another true believer, and " could you ...uh... maybe ...uh... put down that gun?"
So you or anyone else in the world has nothing to gain by allowing yourselves to hooked up to some machine and be asked one of the questions that have only one possible answer, and gambling that the machine affirms that you actually and truly believe that you are giving the right answer. You have nothing to gain if the machine says 'yes, he's telling the truth' and everything to lose if the machine indicates otherwise.
It's like playing Russian Roulette.
Show him a picture of a pile of green backs, contrasted with a picture of his wife or Angelina Jolie. I suspect that the green backs would win -- sad, greedy gits!
Myself and others wax scientific and rant extensively about the problems associated with using this technique. I'll keep mine short this time by keeping it to an example. From TFA in that eminent science journal Esquire:
"When you speak, blood flows to the language centers. When you blink your eyes, it flows to the eye-blinking centers."
The same region that makes something happen is also responsible for inhibiting that action. Each contains both accelerator and brakes. When you withhold speech, blood flows to the language centers. When you prevent your eyes from blinking, blood flows to the eye blinking centers. When the reaction is "I love my wife", blood flows to the I love my wife centers. When the reaction is "I don't love my wife", blood flows to the I love my wife centers.
It is not possible for fMRI to tell the difference between a positive and negative reaction, and is in fact measuring both reactions being considered prior to resolution in the sampling time. The two reactions may use some different Hebbian neural assemblies within the same region, but the low (ie. several cubic millimeters) spatial resolution of MRI catches both of them plus much more in the same voxel (3D pixel). The same problem emerges when different regions "light up" in the different conditions. It can't be determined whether that is excitatory or inhibitory activity.
By way of providing a reference, the above is what I was taught by a biophysicist who was working on his dissertation on this subject under Peter Fox, originator of the use of MRI for functional testing (ie. 'boxcar' design), including the use of SPM (statistical probability mapping) for analysis in comparing the MRI results in the different conditions. The above should also make it clear that using fMRI as a "lie detector" is fruitless.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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
If your man/woman wants to be sure you love her/him and suggests you a fMRI (as usual), I suggest you do the following:
- Think about Angelina (or Brad Pitt) when you are supposed to think about him/her;
- Think about him/her when you are supposed to think about Angelina's (Brad's) nice curves ;)