The Science Behind Fanboyism

crookedvulture writes "We've all encountered fanboys. They lurk on messageboards and in comment threads, ready to trumpet the benefits of their product or brand of choice with Cheeto-stained fingertips. And it's not their fault. This analysis of the scientific research on the subject reveals that our brains unconsciously develop an affinity for products we choose over similarly attractive alternatives. Duh, right? But what's really interesting is that this affinity exists not just among adults, but also children, monkeys, and even amnesic subjects with no memory of their original choices. We're all hard-wired to be fanboys, it seems. Some of us just do a better job of overcoming our subconscious tendencies."

Comments

Why Cheeto-stained?

[Wolvenhaven]

When clearly Doritos are the superior snack food.

Re:Why Cheeto-stained?

[idontgno]

And by "Doritos" you mean the only true Doritos, the Taco flavor ones. Every other product in that line is a waste of perfectly good corn triangles, an abomination, the spawn of Anti-Dorito.

You do mean the Taco Flavor ones, right? Or are you one of the infidels?

Re:Why Cheeto-stained?

[jellomizer]

That is because Supermodels actually like Doritos more, But if they are in the house they will eat them and become fat. They cannot stand the vial nastiness of Cheetos thus will prefer men who eat those as it will not effect their diet and livelihood.

Although Supermodel is an interesting profession... Most people get jobs to put food on the table, The requirement for a Supermodel is to keep as much food off the table as possible.

Still out on...

[surgen]

Is there any research into what turns affinity for a product into to the need to be a dick about it?

Re:Still out on...

[Applekid]

The dick part comes in when you love something and some other imbecile shows up and starts shitting all over it with false and misleading information - trolling - purposeful or otherwise, then arguments and insults ensue...

Or, you know, shitting all over it with the truth.

THE FIGHT IS ON

Seriously, though, there really ought to be two words to extract out of fanboy: one related to being a fan of a product and the other related to being a boy (child) about defending it. Criticism, legitimate or not, shouldn't lead to rabid mouth foaming. I'm pretty surprised that it exists in nature since it seems that it wouldn't serve any useful purpose.

Re:Still out on...

[TaoPhoenix]

"Is there any research into what turns affinity for a product into to the need to be a dick about it?"

Yes. Hang on to your hat because it's a far more serious issue than you think!

Because people's self worth is increasingly swirled into what they buy, so when people dis' what they buy, it's three degrees from an insult to them for making a poor choice. Not counting stuff you're shoved into at work etc, a key part of all of life is Doing Stuff You Like. Usually this takes accessories, of all price ranges. So except for the famous discussion of cheap vs quality etc, you get right back to "what you like".

Now for the zinger. Switch the topic from "purchases" to "religion" and watch the sparks fly!

Re:Tribalism

[jhoegl]

I am the Exception that proves the rule. I am no follower
I lead by picking the best tool for the job.
Would a fanboi of the philips screwdriver use it instead of a flathead on a flathead screw?
So why use Windows in a case where Linux is superior, and Windows where Linux is superior?
Being a "fanboi" has its limitations, as fanaticism can lead to many bad things.
Stop hampering your visions with your emotional love for an inanimate object. Use your brain son!

Re:Tribalism

[jhoegl]

Curse you Freud!!!!

Re:subconscious tendencies

[Col. Klink (retired)]

The amazing thing about bias is our ability to see it in everyone but ourselves. I think it was best summarized by Homer Simpson with "Everyone is stupid except me."

But I'm sure your preference for exclusively making comments enclosed in teletype text tags is perfectly rational.

Re:No, not duh

[Daetrin]

It's an attempt to head off the inevitable attempts to discredit the article. Pretty much every science article on Slashdot suffers from one or more lame attacks on its credibility/importance. (I don't know if there's a set of slashdot anti-fanboys, or if it's just simply that there's always someone with poor logic skills who disagrees with any given article.)

The most popular attacks are:

Correlation does not equal causation: Used whenever statistics are involved, even if the researchers who did the study make no claims of causation.

Useless: They simply can't think of any good use for whatever is being discussed, so they just make fun of it.

Too early: The idea is years or possibly decades away from production. Will often be accompanied by comments like "we see a story like this every few months/years and it's always 5-10 years away from production, it's never going to happen." There will often be at least one reference to "where's my flying car?"

Too late: Either of the form "this is old news, there was an article talking about this subject weeks/months/years ago, what's up with the editors at Slashdot?" or "Everyone knew that already! Why are they wasting time researching that?" Will often be accompanied by "Scientists discover that water is wet, news at 11."

Obviously this case falls into the last category. Everyone already "knows" fanboys are irrational about their preferences, so the poster is acknowledging that before the trolls can harp on about it and trying to move us on to the part about trying to figure out _why_ that is.