conscious. not conscience.

That. Is so. Cool.

It's not particularly scary, either...or at least it won't be until Walmart requires all customers to wear a special "Savings Helmet." Then we can start worrying.

Pure Bullshit. The study was initiated by marketing dillweeds trying to justify why companies need to pay marketing/advertising dillweeds so much money on ad campaigns when said dillweeds haven't a fucking clue ahead of time if their pretty ad campaigns will work.

Why would you say that this study (published in a peer-reviewed neuro journal) was initiated by marketers? Science has been trying to uncover the mechanisms behind our decision making for quite a while now. The implications go beyond simple marketing. Anyway, I think this study is pretty damn cool.

The link is bizznusted. well, not bizznusted, but mussed nonetheless.

In response to mark duffy, this is nut pure bullshit. This paper was published in one the best journals, one that has impeccable publishing standards, not some hayseed trade journal. Further, I just persued the text of the article looking for Conflict of interest statements...couldn't find any.

I suggest you read it before you call it pure bullshit, which is what I intend to do.

Completely off topic here, but where are the cat pictures this week? I kinda miss them.

Here I go picking on silly little statements.

Avacasso
"I just persued the text of the article"

and then after you perused the text of the article, you suggest mark read the article

"which is what I intend to do"

So which was it? Did you peruse the article? Or intend to read the article as you suggested to mark?

Am I becoming a troll or what?

So how will this technology change the way we advertise and shop? Or will it even make an impact at all?

btw I cant resist laughing at the image that comes to mind when I read,

"nut pure bullshit"

Please dont ban me Ben, I have one more...

so where did you persue the text of the article to Avasso? Was it like one of those chase scenes in a hollywood movie?

sorry, my spelling was poor. I perused the article. I define peruse as a quick look-over.

I will read the article later..reading an article involves not just looking it over...I guess this wasn't clear. I assumed that people wouldn't generally understand these difference between peruse and read, but maybe as somebody who is 'in science' I toss these terms around too loosely.

and it should read 'not' pure bullshit.

my only point that was lost due to the glamor of correcting spelling mistakes is that one should read and understand an article before you call it bull-shit. I cannot call it bull-shit or not bullshit at this point. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes holden, I really appreciate your comments.

christ, I can't type worth a damn:

I assumed that people would generally understand these difference between peruse and read

is what I meant to say.

bah! screw it.

Thank you for having a sense of humour about the matter Avacasso. I am open to being picked on as well, so if you find that I have left myself open, feel free to take a shot. Hopefully I am done posting completely off-topic comments today. I hope I still have commenting rights by tomorrow.