Software salesforce
May 31, 2005 10:24 AM Subscribe
Jedi mind tricks:No. AI mind tricks: yes. You need to read this. Not that you will necessarily know when you need to be aware. From Wired.
I don't see a practical application of this tech. How cost effective can marketing to a single individual be? I would think any attempt to disseminate the effect over a large group would be too diluted to have any impact. I could see this being influential in a "Minority Report" setting, but that scenario is still a ways off.
This does, however, sound like a effective way for live people to influence potential buyers, but I imagine that the best sales people already know that subtle mimicry would make the customer more comfortable.
posted by boymilo at 10:43 AM on May 31, 2005
This does, however, sound like a effective way for live people to influence potential buyers, but I imagine that the best sales people already know that subtle mimicry would make the customer more comfortable.
posted by boymilo at 10:43 AM on May 31, 2005
OmieWise writes "I did need to read this. But I might not necessarily know when I need to be aware. Did you see this in Wired?"
Omiewise beat me to it! (Khaaaaaaan!)
"Seriously, it's a pretty striking set of results. Scary would not be too strong a word for the implications and possible deployments."
Seriously, it is a pretty striking set of results. Scary would not be too string a word for it and its possible deployments.
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 AM on May 31, 2005
Omiewise beat me to it! (Khaaaaaaan!)
"Seriously, it's a pretty striking set of results. Scary would not be too strong a word for the implications and possible deployments."
Seriously, it is a pretty striking set of results. Scary would not be too string a word for it and its possible deployments.
posted by orthogonality at 10:57 AM on May 31, 2005
boymilo writes "I don't see a practical application of this tech. How cost effective can marketing to a single individual be?
Market to two people and convince them to market to two more, and the power of exponentiation will make you leader of your own thriving cult.
In all seriousness, evolutionary psychology has some very convincing experiments showing that humans seem to have dedicated "circuitry" for detecting cheating (that is, deal-breaking) by other humans; so the question then becomes, why don't most of us detect something this blatant?
Is it because no one's used this technique to cheat until recently (I find that highly implausible), or because there's a countervailing benefit to humans who are susceptible to this? That is, could it be both a method to bamboozle and a method of holding together a society?
Do "chameleon" leaders and their more easily-tricked followers create societies that prosper and out-compete societies of less credulous. more suspicious, and thus less cohesive (Cohensive?) individuals? Does this have anything to do with the mix of benefits and disadvantages to societies of organized religions and priesthood?
posted by orthogonality at 11:10 AM on May 31, 2005
Market to two people and convince them to market to two more, and the power of exponentiation will make you leader of your own thriving cult.
In all seriousness, evolutionary psychology has some very convincing experiments showing that humans seem to have dedicated "circuitry" for detecting cheating (that is, deal-breaking) by other humans; so the question then becomes, why don't most of us detect something this blatant?
Is it because no one's used this technique to cheat until recently (I find that highly implausible), or because there's a countervailing benefit to humans who are susceptible to this? That is, could it be both a method to bamboozle and a method of holding together a society?
Do "chameleon" leaders and their more easily-tricked followers create societies that prosper and out-compete societies of less credulous. more suspicious, and thus less cohesive (Cohensive?) individuals? Does this have anything to do with the mix of benefits and disadvantages to societies of organized religions and priesthood?
posted by orthogonality at 11:10 AM on May 31, 2005
boymilo writes:"I don't see a practical application of this tech."
The last paragraph of the article is:
"But Yee admits the lab's findings could lend themselves to unsavory exploitation. "You could get a postcard from President Bush that has 20 percent of your facial features."
Hmm, where would the federal government get facial features of all citizens? Why does the Real ID program spring to mind?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but thinking that applications are "still a ways off" is a tad Pollyanna-ish.
posted by birdsquared at 11:11 AM on May 31, 2005
The last paragraph of the article is:
"But Yee admits the lab's findings could lend themselves to unsavory exploitation. "You could get a postcard from President Bush that has 20 percent of your facial features."
Hmm, where would the federal government get facial features of all citizens? Why does the Real ID program spring to mind?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but thinking that applications are "still a ways off" is a tad Pollyanna-ish.
posted by birdsquared at 11:11 AM on May 31, 2005
Have you noticed that when people flirt, they mimic each other? Likewise, many friends have similar body language. Also, when someone is trying to fit into a group, they act the part?
This seems to be based on some really simple psychology whereby the salesperson (or whatever) demonstrates that they're "the same as you." Similarity makes people comfortable whereas difference makes them defensive.
In a more broad and basic way, this sort of similarity vs. difference manipulation already occurs in demographic marketing. It also occurs in film and television.
It's pretty easy to notice once you're aware that it happens constantly.
I don't think that this sort of technology is going to turn us all into blindly ignorant sheep who're the victims of insidious digital marketing. We're already relatively savvy. We can dissect the images and see through to the scam. Once these tools hit the market, it's more likely that we'll become more skeptical and cynical, forcing the advertisers to come up with something even more frightening.
posted by Jon-o at 11:22 AM on May 31, 2005
This seems to be based on some really simple psychology whereby the salesperson (or whatever) demonstrates that they're "the same as you." Similarity makes people comfortable whereas difference makes them defensive.
In a more broad and basic way, this sort of similarity vs. difference manipulation already occurs in demographic marketing. It also occurs in film and television.
It's pretty easy to notice once you're aware that it happens constantly.
I don't think that this sort of technology is going to turn us all into blindly ignorant sheep who're the victims of insidious digital marketing. We're already relatively savvy. We can dissect the images and see through to the scam. Once these tools hit the market, it's more likely that we'll become more skeptical and cynical, forcing the advertisers to come up with something even more frightening.
posted by Jon-o at 11:22 AM on May 31, 2005
I could have used this information when I was working door-to-door selling encyclopedias.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:25 AM on May 31, 2005
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:25 AM on May 31, 2005
Wil it help get teh hawt chix in the sac?
posted by sourwookie at 11:38 AM on May 31, 2005
posted by sourwookie at 11:38 AM on May 31, 2005
the question then becomes, why don't most of us detect something this blatant?
Heuristics serve us well in the majority of cases. Salesmen (et al) learn how to use these mental short cuts against us. Any undergrad psych class -- especially intro or social psych -- is going to run through the gamut
-- the limited resource is more valuable -- "going fast!" or "for a limited time only!"
-- the foot in the door -- "how about just a five dollar donation? what about ten?"
-- the door in the face -- "a hundred dollars is standard. well, then, what about twenty?"
and mimicking your target is, as the article suggests, a tried and true technique. One of the more counter-intuitive ones I remember, too, as you'd think that your target would catch on and be insulted, or at least unsettled. Like all good techniques, it can't be obvious if it's to work.
It's pretty easy to notice once you're aware that it happens constantly.
The more consistent you are, actually, the better it works. A machine would probably get the best results. People don't pay a lot of conscious attention to body language, which is why it slips so effectively under the radar.
posted by dreamsign at 11:39 AM on May 31, 2005
Heuristics serve us well in the majority of cases. Salesmen (et al) learn how to use these mental short cuts against us. Any undergrad psych class -- especially intro or social psych -- is going to run through the gamut
-- the limited resource is more valuable -- "going fast!" or "for a limited time only!"
-- the foot in the door -- "how about just a five dollar donation? what about ten?"
-- the door in the face -- "a hundred dollars is standard. well, then, what about twenty?"
and mimicking your target is, as the article suggests, a tried and true technique. One of the more counter-intuitive ones I remember, too, as you'd think that your target would catch on and be insulted, or at least unsettled. Like all good techniques, it can't be obvious if it's to work.
It's pretty easy to notice once you're aware that it happens constantly.
The more consistent you are, actually, the better it works. A machine would probably get the best results. People don't pay a lot of conscious attention to body language, which is why it slips so effectively under the radar.
posted by dreamsign at 11:39 AM on May 31, 2005
Funny, I used to get in trouble when I would mimic my older brother and I was not persuasive at all in parroting him. But then, I wasn't trying to get him to agree to give away more of his rights, I was just needling him.
There are tremendous applications for this information. Used car sales, computer sales, hell any sales. Or picking up chicks or defusing a tense situation. Very cool stuff and yes, it is scary but lots of technological advances are scary at first.
posted by fenriq at 12:03 PM on May 31, 2005
There are tremendous applications for this information. Used car sales, computer sales, hell any sales. Or picking up chicks or defusing a tense situation. Very cool stuff and yes, it is scary but lots of technological advances are scary at first.
posted by fenriq at 12:03 PM on May 31, 2005
In all seriousness, evolutionary psychology has some very convincing experiments showing that humans seem to have dedicated "circuitry" for detecting cheating (that is, deal-breaking) by other humans
This has been disproven. Humans are better at solving logic problems presented in interaction scenarios between other people then as abstract logic problems, regardless of whether or not those people are involved in "cheating".
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on May 31, 2005
This has been disproven. Humans are better at solving logic problems presented in interaction scenarios between other people then as abstract logic problems, regardless of whether or not those people are involved in "cheating".
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on May 31, 2005
Marketing isn't a suitably general term in my opinion. It's a communication to strongly influence the opinions and actions of the recipient, and which greets the recipient amicably.
The incorporation of statistical psychology into computational methods of communication is, uh, useful.
posted by nervousfritz at 12:46 PM on May 31, 2005
The incorporation of statistical psychology into computational methods of communication is, uh, useful.
posted by nervousfritz at 12:46 PM on May 31, 2005
To defeat this, we just have to throw out strange body ticks, that if mimiced will give the mimic attempt away. Like suddenly drop your shoulders, or do a little jig. Problem Solved!
posted by drezdn at 2:53 PM on May 31, 2005
posted by drezdn at 2:53 PM on May 31, 2005
Oh this works like a charm. When I was going door to door for a state PIRG last summer, (worst job ever) I frequently brought home the most bacon because I consciously employed this technique. It works particularly well if you can mimic speech. Thanks to an international military nomadic upbringing, I am the master of the accent.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 2:54 PM on May 31, 2005
posted by TheGoldenOne at 2:54 PM on May 31, 2005
Does this work if you hate yourself?
Does a similar phenomenon exist mimicing speech nuances for blind people? Are babyfood factories safe from terrorist? Why has the media not mentioned this? What are they hiding? Who am I? Where are my keys?
posted by breakfast_yeti at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2005
Does a similar phenomenon exist mimicing speech nuances for blind people? Are babyfood factories safe from terrorist? Why has the media not mentioned this? What are they hiding? Who am I? Where are my keys?
posted by breakfast_yeti at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2005
I third the this works camp. I actually used it several times on the guy that taught me the technique (an ex-sales guy who was my boss) in order to win arguments or lead a negotiation. Once he caught me, cracked up, and folded, because, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
A further note: the mimicry should be strictly postural, although adopting phrases or even a shade of your partner's accent is helpful. After a while, you (the mimic) can test the success of the technique by initiating a change in posture. If you're in the zone, your partner will follow. Then, you can close with something along the lines of "You really do want these droids, don't you. We both know it." As long as you nod your head when you say this, they will too, and remarkably, to them, they will discover feelings of agreement.
The mind is the servant of the body.
posted by mwhybark at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2005
A further note: the mimicry should be strictly postural, although adopting phrases or even a shade of your partner's accent is helpful. After a while, you (the mimic) can test the success of the technique by initiating a change in posture. If you're in the zone, your partner will follow. Then, you can close with something along the lines of "You really do want these droids, don't you. We both know it." As long as you nod your head when you say this, they will too, and remarkably, to them, they will discover feelings of agreement.
The mind is the servant of the body.
posted by mwhybark at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2005
Gee, isn't this something salespeople have known forever? The Wired angle to this is that computers can do it better, and on a large scale, but unless I'm missing something, it requires a recorder as well as a transmitter. This can't be generalized to the populace as a whole, because when they used unrelated people's gestures it didn't work. It's got to be one to one, which drastically limits the mass exploitation potential.
Furthermore, the wired article said that gestures accounted for 20% of the variance. I didn't dig too far into the article, but unless they were measuring 10 or more things that affected how people responded, one thing accounting for 20% of the variance isn't all that amazing. And how big is the variance in the first place?
In summary, psychology, despite recent aspirations, has a ways yet to go before becoming a real science. You know, the kind that produces quantitative data.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 8:47 PM on May 31, 2005
Furthermore, the wired article said that gestures accounted for 20% of the variance. I didn't dig too far into the article, but unless they were measuring 10 or more things that affected how people responded, one thing accounting for 20% of the variance isn't all that amazing. And how big is the variance in the first place?
In summary, psychology, despite recent aspirations, has a ways yet to go before becoming a real science. You know, the kind that produces quantitative data.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 8:47 PM on May 31, 2005
boymilo: "I would think any attempt to disseminate the effect over a large group would be too diluted to have any impact."
Mr. Gunn: "This can't be generalized to the populace as a whole, because when they used unrelated people's gestures it didn't work. It's got to be one to one, which drastically limits the mass exploitation potential."
The answer to your concerns is in these lines: "The killer app is in virtual worlds, where each inhabitant can be presented with a different image, and the chameleon effect is no longer limited to one-on-one interaction. A single speaker -- whether an AI or a human avatar -- could mimic a thousand people at once, undetected, transforming a cheap salesman's trick into a tool of mass influence."
The point being, in an online or "virtual reality" setting, the mimicry is customized to each individual viewer. No dilution, no limitation of mass exploitation.
posted by zebra_monkey at 12:30 AM on June 1, 2005
Mr. Gunn: "This can't be generalized to the populace as a whole, because when they used unrelated people's gestures it didn't work. It's got to be one to one, which drastically limits the mass exploitation potential."
The answer to your concerns is in these lines: "The killer app is in virtual worlds, where each inhabitant can be presented with a different image, and the chameleon effect is no longer limited to one-on-one interaction. A single speaker -- whether an AI or a human avatar -- could mimic a thousand people at once, undetected, transforming a cheap salesman's trick into a tool of mass influence."
The point being, in an online or "virtual reality" setting, the mimicry is customized to each individual viewer. No dilution, no limitation of mass exploitation.
posted by zebra_monkey at 12:30 AM on June 1, 2005
...flattery will get you everywhere.
posted by blue shadows at 11:52 PM on June 1, 2005
posted by blue shadows at 11:52 PM on June 1, 2005
« Older All the High School That's Fit to Print | We interrupt this mind control for more mind... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
[I feel dirty.]
Seriously, it's a pretty striking set of results. Scary would not be too strong a word for the implications and possible deployments.
posted by OmieWise at 10:33 AM on May 31, 2005