×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FMRI Shows Man Loves Wife More Than Angelina Jolie

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the shouldn't-stand-up-in-court-though dept.

Biotech 347

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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

347 comments

So which celebrity does he prefer? (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991797)

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.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27991827)

I don't think I've ever been so bored with a first post - EVER

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (4, Insightful)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992019)

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.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (-1, Flamebait)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992071)

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.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992211)

And no men don't gradually find girls they live with to be more and more attractive over time.

Of course not, however both men and women will delude themselves that the-best-they-can-get is better than it is. So for him to believe that his wife is "deeply beautiful" is entirely plausible, whether anyone else does or not.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992255)

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?

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1, Flamebait)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992657)

He knows attractiveness better than people with both interference from emotional attachments and good reasons to lie about their opinions.

And it's insightful because it's true - men are lucky, we can improve how women perceive our appearance by having the proper attitude. Women don't have as much leeway as men do, in my experience.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992273)

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

Spoken like someone who goes home and inflates his lover.

It's all a matter of your point of view. We can all be either disgusting drooling snotty ape like creatures, or divine beings.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (3, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992367)

Utter nonsense. Pretty? Yeah sure, I'll give you that. 'pretty' is quite well defined by the media, and Miss World contests. But beautiful?:

"Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction."

Therefore a wife being 'deeply beautiful' isn't such a remote possibity, even if they don't fit the 'supermodel pretty' that we're told is what's important.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992685)

I call bullshit. This sounds like something the nerd in the basement figured out by reading a bunch of magazines found under his daddy's mattress. If a man says his wife if more attractive than some popular tart on the television screen, I believe him. My wife is. As for the "celebs" - phhht. There aren't very many of them who ARE better than trailer trash.

In a subjective matter? (5, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992771)

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.

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.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992227)

I've never understood people who talk like Angelina Jolie is like the hottest person in the world. Her face looks weird, her hair doesn't look good at all nor does her body because of those.

First post's trailer trash is a good term.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992261)

I love my wife and she is deeply beautiful (also doesn't read slashdot) but that doesn't stop Angelina from being hot.

No, what stops her from being hot is that she doesn't look good and has mental health issues.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992399)

So what you're really trying (but failing) to say is that you disapprove of the life she leads and has lead.
"mental health issues" is the most tiresome "I-don't-approve-of-your-brand-of-deviancy" accusation people have invented, ever.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992267)

Angelina, hot? Seriously? She looks like a horse sat on her face. She's grotesque.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (5, Funny)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992307)

I think it's great you found a wife who shares your interest in reading slashdot. Well Done!

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (-1, Offtopic)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991929)

90% success rate? That's all! I have a 95% success rate at detecting lies personally (no fancy equipment necessary, I just look at the guy and then I know).

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (5, Funny)

tpgp (48001) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992049)

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.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (2, Insightful)

chis101 (754167) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992051)

90% success rate? That's all! I have a 95% success rate at detecting lies personally (no fancy equipment necessary, I just look at the guy and then I know).

Right, because after someone lies to you, they notify you of the fact so you can tally it up into a percentage...

I'll just assume you meant that 95% of the time you that accuse someone of lying, you are correct.

Sorry if this was some joke that just went right over my head ;)

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992179)

Tbf, what they could mean is "I always acuse people of lying, and I'm right 95% of the time", but that would be a decidedly less interesting statistic than claimed.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991949)

Well, I did RTFA (quite interesting and the brevity of the summary gives it no justice) and his wife wasn't really gorgeous (but not bad either). I do however remember my psychology professor talking about beauty in class, and how people we know for longer have more appeal. He also demonstrated that we are attracted to a sort of mean of appearance, and showed computer generated image of a man and a woman that were composed of thousands of photos compiled into one. They didn't catch my particular fancy, but we did come to the consensus that they represented plain-old-vanilla beauty.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (2, Funny)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991963)

...Angelina Jolie. I think she's got no class.

I thought, Angelina was hot, until I learned, she has a Che Guevara tattoo [helium.com] ... Eeeewww...

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992081)

I thought, Angelina was hot, until I learned, she has a Che Guevara tattoo... Eeeewww...

Don't worry buddy ... there must be some Celeb out there that would suit you ... you know, with a Hitler tattoo.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992253)

Che Guevara wasn't the saint that people make him out to be.

He was responsible for a lot of innocent deaths.

He was, to be frank, a cold-blooded killer of many people who didn't agree with his philosophies and ideals.

I, personally, find both Hitler and Che Guevara to be repellent and disgusting individuals (and for the record, I'm an incredibly left-leaning socialist).

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992371)

Well, so was Reagan to be honest. Or Lenin, or JFK...

But all the facts are beside the point due to our penchant for idolatry.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992735)

You're a commie, with a short left leg? Hmmm. My dad had a short leg, which he fixed with a special pair of shoes. It stops the leaning, at least.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992387)

Is that actually true? Judging by her politics/personality, I wouldn't be at all surprised ... but I haven't been able to find any credible sources to support that claim. All I can find is articles saying something like "reportedly" she has it "somewhere on her body".

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992449)

"I thought, Angelina was hot, until I learned, she has a Che Guevara tattoo... Eeeewww..."

If you pick your women to match your politics then just be aware that a Reagan tattoo will not make Magret Thatcher's arse anywhere near as palatable as Angelina's. OTOH Palin would be ok if she was unarmed and wearing a mouthball.

Regardless that Che was just as "ruthless" as Kisinger, he was seen by many as a champion of the poor and a matyr, Kinsinger won a nobel peace prize, so what? - I grew up in the sixties and can barely rember a thing about either, except their pictures. Many of Che's biographies are flattering, Jolie probably read one and now idolises the "champion of the poor" myth - seems reasonable she would admire those mythical qualities, given her heavy involment in charity [google.com.au] . Wether ignorance/idolotry makes one an idiot is a matter of opinion but there is no denying Jolie is using her obvious good looks and fame for good works. Personally I love a mind fuck just as much as the other kind and would jump at the chance to examine her tattoo and do some pillow talking about where she's been and what she thinks Che represents.

In other news Nelson Mandela was listed as a terrorist by the US. - who cares now?

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992015)

I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie.

Next test - see if that (or what) stands after a lap dance with Angelina Jolie.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992017)

Ah! How cute! Someone who thinks that gay marriage is the same thing as real marriage. Make sure to show this to your "wife" so she can play you extra deep tonight!

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

patro (104336) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992023)

I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie.

They should have chosen a celebrity who the subject does find very attractive.

Choosing a generic attractive woman doesn't mean much. E.g. some prefer Kate Winslet to Angelina, so for them Angie is not the ultimate object of desire.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (2, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992095)

They should have chosen a celebrity who the subject does find very attractive.

That's exactly what they did.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992189)

I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie.

Did you just say you were more sexually attracted to rotten vegetables than a woman?

Interesting. What do you call yourselves? Turnipys?

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992281)

Did you just say you were more sexually attracted to rotten vegetables than a woman?

Well I guess you could classify her as a woman....just.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992233)

I wholeheartedly agree. Angelina Jolie for me is in that same category that contains also Madonna and a few other over-hyped (looks-wise) celebs.

Also, my wife does happen to be very hot. And no, I have no clue what she found in me. Will have to put that on my T-shirt one day.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992235)

Says a random Mr. Yousef. Eh. I'm sure you'll enjoy her covered up.

Re:So which celebrity does he prefer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992607)

Unless your tastes become more mainstream, we don't want to hear it. Why don't you visit a shoe fetish forum instead?

The test was rigged! (5, Funny)

NF6X (725054) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991821)

If it was an honest test, they would have asked him about Kristen Bell.

This thread is useless without pics (5, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991843)

of his wife.

Re:This thread is useless without pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27991877)

This is one time you may want to RTFA - there's even a pic of his wife with a half-naked boob (the wife doesn't have that movie star chiseled beauty but she's definitely bangable - maybe even more of a raw turn-on than Angelina).

Re:This thread is useless without pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992169)

Wow. I'm not saying she's unattractive, but uh...

Are you guys crazy? Everyone's falling all over themselves to say AJ is ugly, but a quarter-naked piece of boob gets y'all riled up? I'm going AC for this, because this seems bitchy and flame-baity, but some of you have been in your parents' basements for too long.

I think humans might just have the capacity to be somewhat attracted to their own mates, or we'd never be happy having sex with them. Love my wife - sex-wise, I'd like to rotate Angelina in every once in a while, too. Probably not going to be a viable compromise for my situation. I'd like to think I'm not so deluded that I'd pass the fmri test like this guy.

Re:This thread is useless without pics (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991885)

His wife is pretty- see the article. With 25,000 of work, she could probably look like a movie star.

(some actresses are approaching the $500,000 mark.)

Re:This thread is useless without pics (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992297)

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?

Re:This thread is useless without pics (1)

Cozminsky (452030) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992523)

Yeah, everyone knows the superior cosmetic enhancement techniques all involve acid.

Re:This thread is useless without pics (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992617)

Yeah, everyone knows the superior cosmetic enhancement techniques all involve acid.

Yup. You take some, and don't worry about your looks anymore. Compare Michael Jackson.

Re:This thread is useless without pics (1)

NF6X (725054) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991893)

of his wife.

+1!!

Hey, throw in some pics of Angelina and Kristen, too, while you're at it. For science...

RTFA and thou shall find... (4, Funny)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991919)

...his wife is more bangable than Angelina.

No joke, no troll, just one hot lady!

The next test (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991977)

Are you in love with A.J Jacob's wife more than your own wife?

Re:The next test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992681)

Are you in love with A.J Jacob's wife more than your own wife?

With systematic testing like this we could find the most attractive women on earth !

Re:This thread is useless without pics (1)

addie (470476) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992421)

There are three of them in the article, which apparently she agreed to. I'm impressed they both put their lives out on display like this, it's a pretty interesting (and quite witty) read.

Anonymous Coward (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27991853)

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...

Not interested in Jolie. (0)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991869)

a) Jolie kinda frightens me.
b) Jolie threatens me.
c) Jolie could easily get most men she was interested in.
d) Jolie is a bit freakish.

I find Jennifer a lot more attractive and a lot less scary (still "out of my league" but I don't have nightmares about her cutting out my liver and eating raw while I watch and bleed to death).

In general, I don't find strong pretty females attractive because of the reasons you see on "The Big Bang Theory".

Unless I feel safe that I'm needed by my spouse, I'm not interested. Of course, I'm co-dependent-- if someone clearly needs me, I'm immediately drawn to and interested in them. If they clearly do not need me, I'm repulsed. If they are in the middle, then it's more about whether I'm interested or not.

You frighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27991957)

And I'll take the opportunity with Angelina. Hell, my wife hit me when we watched Tomb Raider.

Thank you MythBusters... (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991903)

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

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (1)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991971)

> double (or more)-blind testing I don't know whether or not this is a joke. A double blind test is when neither the administrators nor the patients know what drug they are getting. Only after the trials are finished, and the patients tested for the substance, does it come to light who did and who didn't take the drug. How could there be a more blind study? Maybe I am just ignorant/unfunny.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (3, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992009)

I don't know whether or not this is a joke. A double blind test is when neither the administrators nor the patients know what drug they are getting. Only after the trials are finished, and the patients tested for the substance, does it come to light who did and who didn't take the drug. How could there be a more blind study? Maybe I am just ignorant/unfunny.

Not at all - in triple-blind studies, those who are interpreting the results also don't know which 'drug' is being tallied, and so can't know to shape numbers in a given way. Source [wikipedia.org] . For every level of interpretation that can occur before the study is 'complete' to publish, there's another level of blindness you could potentially apply.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (5, Funny)

LaurensVH (1079801) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992055)

There's also the quadruple blind test, where we don't give give the actual measurements to the statisticians, to remove all possible bias.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992147)

Well, fuck it. We're going to five blinds.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992221)

For quintuple blind, everyone involved in the experiment must be 100% visually impaired.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (2, Informative)

cgomezr (1074699) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992651)

And if you leave all the tables and conclusions blank when you publish the results, you have sextuple blind.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992035)

Triple blind tests is when the statistician does not know who took the real drug. That way they don't know what subset of the patents should/should not show an effect. Even better use more than one statistician with randomized subsets of the data, and then they don't know if there should be any effect.

The problem is that if you give someone data and tell them here is group one and here is group two, they will analyze the data with that "prior". Tell them which one had the treatment and add salary dependence on the experimental outcome....

There are lies, dam lies and then theres statistics.

Re:Thank you MythBusters... (2, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992069)

Wouldn't blind testing of romantic relationships involve a lot more touching and feeling? ;)

Follow up experiment (4, Interesting)

ouimetch (1433125) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991915)

"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.

Re:Follow up experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992571)

First 5yrs after my divorce from a 20yr marriage I spent fucking like a rabbit, it seems that as women hit fourty they leave their mate and go fuck their brains out with other abondoned mates, like the seventies but with gravity damage to the bodies.

Not very controlled. (4, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991921)

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".

Re:Not very controlled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992047)

Don't be silly. Nobody knows what Angelina Jolie looks like un-airbrushed. Of course they will want to compare his wife to "The Angelina he knows" and not with "hilariously makeup-less celebrity"

Needs to distinguish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27991979)

between love and arousal, as I'm one of those romantic types who reckons they're different things. The subject says love, the summary says arousal, I haven't read TFA yet (this is /. after all)... which is it?

Even telling the truth, your brain lies (3, Interesting)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#27991987)

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.

Re:Even telling the truth, your brain lies (2, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992033)

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.

"theoretical" study (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992119)

This is study is flawed, because he had sexual contact with his wife where it's highly unlikely he has ever or will ever have sex with Angelina.
Also, 2D images are don't stimulate the brain as much as 3D images or real life. His brain most likely jumped from 2D representation of his wife to feeling stored in his brain by human 3D observation.
Finally, Pavlovian conditioning is at work here - he responds more to his wife because he conditioned his brain to do that... how else would he get hard?
He should have watched Original Sin for year, not seen his wife for a year and THEN performed this half-assed test.

Re:"theoretical" study (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992311)

He should have watched Original Sin for year, not seen his wife for a year and THEN performed this half-assed test.

No. He should have fucked Angelina Jolie for a year, and then done the test.

Btw, how do you sign of for this studie?

Not Surprising (5, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992143)

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?

Re:Not Surprising (1)

boombaard (1001577) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992763)

The more interesting question to me is why the fuck we should care about this "man".
FFS, he writes for esquire. He's a nobody. This isn't a controlled study. Why do I care what/who some sod with a kid loves?

Depends on the person (3, Funny)

incognito84 (903401) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992157)

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!"

Well of course. (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992237)

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!

Not another pseudoscience "detector" test! (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992249)

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.

Re:Not another pseudoscience "detector" test! (1)

DZign (200479) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992667)

For those interested in fmri and marketing I suggest you read Martin Lindstroms book Buyology.

> unless you ask him (and he chooses to tell the truth) you'll never know.

What I learned from that book was that people don't know themselves if they tell the truth..
Our unconscious mind reacts very fast, makes impulse decisions (what product to buy, what you like, ..)
and when you're asked about it, our conscious mind will try logically explain it and make up a rationale (which may not be what actually happened)..

Ie when asked if they smoked less because of health warnings on cigarette packages, most people answer yes..
however the fmri showed it causes people to like smoking even more (the warnings make it even more a forbidden pleasure).

Good thing no women are going to read about this (1)

JDub87 (1391689) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992317)

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*

Good thing no women are going to read about this (5, Funny)

JDub87 (1391689) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992327)

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*

Re:Good thing no women are going to read about thi (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992701)

... only to find, that you are actually turned more on by her uncle Bernard than by her ... or Angelina Jolie :-)

This guy is crazy to submit to this test. (4, Funny)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992333)

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.

Brad Pitt (1)

missileman (1101691) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992491)

If Brad Pitt took this test it could cause a space-time paradox, possibly starting a chain reaction that could destroy the entire universe. Admittedly, that's a worst case scenario. :)

Try a banker (4, Funny)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992499)

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!

Not surprised (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992557)

I mean, you see a half naked pic of your wife and you also know that she goes off in the sack. Jolie, on the other hand, looks pretty but you just have no idea, or memory, of how much fun she is.

My wife also gets me excited. And really, that's no surprise. I know what she really likes and I really, really like it too. Everytime I think about it, it gives me a smile.

Results are no shock. Jolie is just eye-candy. That it.

So he isn't excited (1)

Roest (1556855) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992573)

about a woman that goes around and adopts children from all over the world. Neither am I.

Lip size (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992589)

Perhaps beauty is simply inversely proportional to lip size?

That could be an alternative explanation to these results.

uh, no it doesn't (1)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992669)

Actually, it does not show what the summary title claims.

"Love" is different from sexual arousal, and I mean that in a medical sense. While many details are still unclear, from what we do know, regarding hormones and brain scans (only one of which is covered by this research), there are marked differences, especially regarding long-term love and sex drive.

mhod do3n (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27992675)

need to scr3am that to place a paper Corporate

Brick Wall? Head. Head? Brick Wall. (5, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#27992765)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...