My Photo

Wardle McLean website

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    The Times Cities fit for cycling


    • Stats

      View My Stats

    « The pain of election leaflets ... | Main | SHOCK HORROR ! FOCUS GROUPS IGNORED! »


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    David L

    Great post.
    Measuring a brain activity might ‘show’ what emotion is being experienced; it might show that people respond more strongly to a particular part of an ad than another; but that is all it tells you.

    E.g. If the brain flashes in the ‘joy’ part of the brain, they must be experiencing joy (that’s even if it is that clear to locate).

    But that’s only as far as it goes. And so what anyway?

    In Ben Page’s paper it says on eye-tracking: “the methods also say nothing about why a particular area catches the eye”
    It seems rather an expensive and elaborate method to not to get insight.

    Rather than wiring brains, face-to-face communication can be simpler and accurate to 'read'.
    We can see ‘joy’ (for example) rather simply through body language (e.g a smile) or through faster paced speech.
    I mean, humans are intuitive (or hard-wired) to understand how they are responding (you don’t need a brain scanner to tell you that!)
    More primal emotions like joy or fear are very hard to hide. People respond through ‘immediate language’ which has not gone through any ‘filtering’ processes.

    And a researcher can then ask why they feel that way.

    And that’s where both false and true truths come in. And that’s why experience in interpretation is invaluable; where the rub lies, lies the truth (or something like that).

    Neuroscience has a long way to go before it proves itself (well to me anyway).

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Books We're Reading