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?"
If it was an honest test, they would have asked him about Kristen Bell.
I don't think I've ever been so bored with a first post - EVER
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.
I originally assumed it was another of those 'gay nigger' posts which used to frequent slashdot. Still not sure though. I love my wife and she is deeply beautiful (also doesn't read slashdot) but that doesn't stop Angelina from being hot.
Well, I can detect lies (with a 100% success rate) - just by staring into the character of the electrons of a slashdotter's post.
And you are lying.
Oh, wait! Sorry, not lying - but self-delusional. The characteristics electron remnants of lying & self-delusion appear similar on occasions.
My pics.
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
Your prof's a dork. The longer people know me, the less they like me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The chances of your wife being 'deeply beautiful' are almost nil.
If that's true, you fucked up. Why the hell do you marry someone in the first place?
And no men don't gradually find girls they live with to be more and more attractive over time.
Bullshit.
On the other hand, women find men they like to be more attractive than they really are.
So now you know attractiveness better than the people whose opinion actually matters to each other? How is this crap Insightful?
I think it's great you found a wife who shares your interest in reading slashdot. Well Done!
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.
If you want to mess with people who drool over her, tell them to put her picture and one of Jon Voight side by side, then look at their mouths.
From then on whenever they look at her, they'll see him and find it nearly impossible to find her attractive.
But that may only work on right brained people. If any left brainers can confirm, that would be interesting.
He knows attractiveness better than people with both interference from emotional attachments and good reasons to lie about their opinions.
Again, bullshit. If you think attractiveness is or can possibly be objective, you never got tired of talking to a beautiful but incredibly stupid woman.
Ignorant people can be educated. Stupid people really, really can not.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
The chances of your wife being 'deeply beautiful' are almost nil. So yes you are sucking up to your wife. And no men don't gradually find girls they live with to be more and more attractive over time. On the other hand, women find men they like to be more attractive than they really are.
To me, and I'm sure also a lot of men (and women) out there, 'attractiveness' is more than just physical. Personality can also play a key role in attractiveness. I may find a "perfect 10" woman, but if she has no personality, some of that attractiveness is lost.
Women find men to be as attractive as those men are [b]to that woman[/b].
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Not true. Many slashdotter wives are "deeply beautiful". ...
You thought there was gonna be a joke here, but you're wrong. I know for sure that there's at least one slashdot user with a gorgeous wife (hi, honey).
[note to young guys: this is how you manage to still get oral on a regular basis after 20 years' marriage]
You are welcome on my lawn.
My experience seems to swing the opposite direction, but Ron White said it better than I did.
I didn't marry my wife for looks, and you shouldn't either. In a few years, if her boobs start to sag too much, there's a place you can go to and they'll lift 'em right back up to where they were. And you can point the nipple in any direction. Hell, you can go to a titty bar, pick out a set of titties and say "I want those titties on that woman right there." If she gets too fat and don't wanna work it off, you can get a tummy tuck. They'll give you a belly that looks like a cheerleader. If your eyesight starts to go bad, you can get Lasik surgery and they can give you 20/20 vision at any age. If your hearing starts to fail, they'll put a little device in your ear that makes you hear as good as when you were born. But let me tell you something folks- you can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take. There's not a class you can go to. Stupid is fo-evah.
It should also be noted that Bea Arthur beat out Angelina and the wife.
Left-brainers have the opposite effect; after comparing the mouths, they find Jon Voight strangely attractive.