People Feel Loyalty To Computers 476
stoobthealien writes "According to BBC News researchers have discovered that people have loyalty to specific computers because of a tendancy to associate "human attributes to them" - and I thought it was just me that speaks to my PC...."
I know what they mean (Score:2, Funny)
But I do....
<3
Re:I know what they mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know what they mean (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I know what they mean (Score:3, Funny)
Uhhhhhh (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uhhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know. The more flawed the system, the more I find myself nostalgicaly cherishing it for its flaws, in the way one looks back in foolish nostalgia on what were at the time the most irritating aspects of a relationship.
For example, I think I have more affection for my TI 99/4A [ystig.com] (why else would I regularly take pictures of it) than for any other system, all the more so due to its terrible system architecture (16-bit CPU with everything but 256 bytes of CPU RAM on an 8-bit bus), and due to the irritation of trying to get games running off of what is sometimes an infuriating cart+casette combo.
You really value and develop a relationship with your system when it takes genuine effort to get the bloody software working (e.g., off of casettes, and sometimes having to type it out manually in line number BASIC).
Unrequited love (Score:5, Funny)
"Open the pod bay door HAL...."
Re:Unrequited love (Score:5, Informative)
On a side note, is it just me or does the computer nerd that figures this out in the movie have something for hal? that long pause and "thank you hal..." at the end was creepy.
Re:Unrequited love (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unrequited love (Score:5, Funny)
my computers love me (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens when you start giving them names:
My desktop is called "Morpheus", and my laptop is called "Trinity". My fileserver is "Tank", and my router is "Ninja". I have had a healthy dose of male bonding with all but Trinity, who is the sexiest little notebook I've ever seen. Every now and then, I compile kernels for a little male bonding, or get down and dirty with Trinity's video drivers.
The only other computer in this house is called "Dad", which is dual-boot Windows/Linux, and I have a more love/hate relationship with it. Dad is like a Jeckyll and Hyde, and will change with a single reboot from the nicest gentleman to the sickest, most twisted machine.
But really, if your computers don't love you, have you considered that it's because you don't treat them right?
But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:2, Insightful)
They go where they've already got their P0rn/Games stashed.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't mean the other machines will never hit, or that the "visible" ones always hit. The ones at the bar are typically the worst.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:3, Informative)
It is a VERY BIG DEAL if this tracking fails or "hiccups" for any reason.
Also, most Vegas casinos tend to program the machines at the front door to win more, so people have the a better chance at seeing someone winning, so they'll come into the place. They may pay out less, but they win more.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not so surprising. I think the rationale is along the lines of "This machine has to spew out a lot of money at SOME point in its existence. So the longer I stay with this one, the more my odds go up that I'll be the one who pulls the lever at the right time." They feel that if they go around to other machines, they'll catch them at different points in their lives and have lower risk of winning.
I'd like to think that people are stupid about this, but I have to be honest, it's exactly the strategy I'd employ.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:3, Informative)
And you would therefore be falling into the trap of the Gambler's Fallacy [wikipedia.org], just like most of the idiots that think they can beat the house at Vegas.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:2)
I've just been using my iPod to boot one of the G4s in our lab.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to that the subtle signals we pick up when using a machine. Usually there will be little idiosyncrasies in a group situation, where a dozen computers might all sound a little different. whine differently. have their volume set just a little different compared to others, and the ones people are used to, or perhaps even NOTICE this about will be the ones they're drawn to.
I think the unconscious thought thing applies a great deal to Macs, PCs, Linux boxes. The first time I touched a Linux machine which was supposed to be stable, I locked it up. Why? I don't know. I can only guess that its user (a cousin) had his definition of "stable" defined by the routine of uses he went through every time he booted it, and never came across the particular odd combo I did. I found my Windows machine at the time stable as well (Win 98) but it'd guarantee to lockup within a few hours of use by someone who isn't me. non consciously, I think I'd learned to avoid the things to do that would crash it.
Bet it's similar with OSX boxes. put a windows or linux user who's never touched one before in front of it and it'll bluescreen, kernel panic or beachball soon after use, until they also built up the internal map of what not to do.
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article also seems to imply that attachment to a specific machine is irrational, but given how complex and unreliable computers are, it seems very sensible to me. If you know that you can do what you want on a particular machine, why introduce an extra unknown variable by switching to a different one?
But they're all supposed to be equal...
In the classroom where I do most of my teaching, typically only 4 or 5 of the six Windows machines are working at any given time. The other ones either have a virus/worm infection, or something else is wrong with them.
What's really irrational is to expect people to stay on the hardware and software upgrade treadmills. If you've got something that works, you should be able to stick with it. My father ran his law practice on a TRS-80 for ca. 15 years. It Just Worked.
BTW, I'm posting this from my FreeBSD box, Rintintin. He's the replacement for Lassie. I felt kind of bad about switching, but Lassie is in one of the classrooms at school now, hopefully turning young minds on to open source :-) --- I think she's OK with that.
Wow, so it isn't just me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:5, Informative)
I had the same problem with department groups. By contract with the primary customer, the subcontractors were told "no departmental 'ownership' of machines not in offices". That meant specifically no pictures, no knick-knacks, all documents locked up in another room when the worker goes home. No labels on machines.
Two things destroyed this idea;
IT never got out of firefighting mode to impose standards.
Departments and individuals immediately took the attitude "if I'm not here, others can use my machine" as if that would satisfy the contract requirements.
Reasons for why this does not work -- and many machines and people ended up being idle -- were basically;
Without being able to sit down anywhere (possible if IT did make that possible), people stopped trying to use just any machine and focused on one or a small group "in our area".
People would stop working if a specific -- "my machine" mentioned above -- was not available.
Add to this lack of customer interest and management, and this becomes a bit of meat to fight over when other tensions arise.
Loyalty to machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loyalty to machines (Score:5, Funny)
Computers are like cats. They're cute when they're brand new and purring along. After six months you realize they're useless and plotting to kill you. You want to kick the stupid thing out the window.
Re:Loyalty to machines (Score:4, Funny)
your presence new, i find the need
to advertise no hestitation
in premature defenstration
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Ground breaking stuff for slashdot.
next! <hits CTRL-R>
The real secret (Score:5, Funny)
Now we know which one had the hidden stash of pr0n!
Computers and Fashion (Score:5, Funny)
(plaid on plaid! I mean einstein could do it, but that ain't exactly the same!)
People like sitting in the same place (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:2)
The human does this, naturally.
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:5, Funny)
And the human speak the English in the person of the third.
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:5, Funny)
You're right -- it's usually "right behind the hot blond chick."
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:4, Interesting)
From time to time the technicians would swap machines around, and nobody really noticed. Users really preferred to sit at the front of the labs next to the door so they could reach the printers quickly. As a consequence the bad keyboards (sticky keys), used to get bubble sorted to the back of the lab. These were eventually replaced with the quietkey keyboards.
The most popular machines were those that were closest to the radiators, at the front of the room and quietkey keyboards. The most unpopular machines were those that were closest to the windows and/or had bad keyboards.
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:People like sitting in the same place (Score:3, Funny)
In a large lecture hall, I never seemed to care where I sat, and in some cases I sat wherever was available as I came in 5 minutes late.
In small classrooms with 20 or 30 desks, even if I didn't feel the need to always sit the same place, 80-90% of the class did. It was always awkward to be sitting in "someone elses" chair when they came in, even if there was no actual posession. So sitting in the same place e
Don't piss them off.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't piss them off.... (Score:3, Funny)
Mine takes it easy. It's just a running gag between us: he inhumans me, I anthopomorphize him, and so we have fun all the work day long...
Not all computers in a lab are the same (Score:3, Informative)
One for example freezes every 95 seconds after you login - so you have to save what you are doing and reboot.
Some of them seem prone to accidently give you administrator priviliges as well. So there are other reasons...
Re:Not all computers in a lab are the same (Score:2, Funny)
You should upgrade to Windows 98, it needs 98 seconds to freeze up.
OTOH, professional use Windows 2000. Half an hour of uninterruped work...
Ha! (Score:2, Interesting)
I know, I'm a nerd.
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Funny)
More Information Is Required (Score:5, Insightful)
- Do the computers that folks were willing to wait for have additional applications loaded?
- Are they perhaps known to be the most stable ones out of a given set?
- Did different machines have different monitors, keyboards, and mice?
- Are they in a location that makes them more desireable (lighting, temperature, lack of people, etc)
There are plenty of factors that influence choices such as this. Unless they took steps to ensure that the computers were 100pct identical in every way, the conclusions they have reached are suspect. The extrapolations they make about people blindingly trusting computers even more so.
A computer is a tool. Just like an artisan may have a favorite tool for a task a user may have a favorite computer for a task. I don't see anything too earth-shattering here.
Re:More Information Is Required (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More Information Is Required (Score:2)
You could also do some interesting variations on that. Assuming all the computers are externally identical (and you don't have any FUBAR'd mouse/kb's) just swap identification labels, change the maps, and see if anyone notices the difference.
Re:More Information Is Required (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually recall a library at a UK university which had two computers with 1024x768 resolution and high color quality, while the rest (about 25) were at lower resolutions and lower color settings. I was working on graphics at the time, so you can guess how useful most of the computers were. I'd sit down at a random computer and check email and read news until someone got off of one of the good PCs. There were a few terminals which consistantly crashed, and I simply wouldn't use.
Simply put, it's a matter of trust and reputation - if a computer works well consistantly, I stick with it. The odds of finding another "good" one is unfortunately low.
Ulysses Ship... err Computer (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, this also presents an interesting conundrum. My current computer has had every single part replaced since I bought the first iteration way back in 1998. Of course, not everything was replaced at the same time, but rather a gradual process of upgrades over the years.
So, is it really the same computer I started with? Or is it really some kind of sinister imposter only pretending to be my computer?
Re:Ulysses Ship... err Computer (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, not everything was replaced at the same time, but rather a gradual process of upgrades over the years. So, is it really the same computer I started with?
Your computer is not the only one that has undergone a "gradual process of upgrades" over time. Your body is not the same one you had a few years ago, or even a few hours ago for that matter... And don't forget the rather fickle and ever-changing mind, too.
Re:Ulysses Ship... err Computer (Score:3, Informative)
Brain cells do not regenerate. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Brain cells do not regenerate. (Score:3, Informative)
the world as they know it (Score:5, Insightful)
"A better advertising strategy might be to portray computers as something durable and reliable, something that grows with you," Prof Sundar told BBC News Online.
they can't do that. No, seriously.
This means that the industry would have to get off the treadmill of constant upgrades. It is no secret that MS is upset with the slow rate of people upgrading to XP. Most people now only upgrade when there is a definite need for it.
This would be the end of the world as they know it, and I feel fine.
Maybe not just the computer (Score:2)
Names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Names? (Score:2)
Re:Names? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone in any way connecting to a network... I mean, you don't really have a choice, right?
What is the name of your computer?
Currently sitting at Teleute, my primary machine (which slowly sucks away my life, thus the name). Across the room I have Lucien the file-server, and downstairs I have Virago (my SO's machine) and Bimbo (my masq'ing gateway).
Re:Names? (Score:2, Funny)
Its good to laugh a little when you connect to a network share. And you don't have to remember if that folder is on MN04523 or MN04526. Granted, in a large enough institution you will run out of names and/or offend somebody by naming a server butmunch.
Re:Names? (Score:2)
Re:Names? (Score:2)
Re:Names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Names? (Score:3, Interesting)
as an example, at my old firm, our main ldap/smb, ypserv and nfs server i named 'MOTHER', from the main computer in the original Alien movie. how appropriate too, that IBM Netfinity system really took care of our developers. Mother had an uptime of 378 days when our company decided to move our office. the new office was 20 miles away, and we contemplated keeping the machine on during the
There's more than the computer... (Score:2, Insightful)
Expandability (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope (Score:2)
is it the PC or its position relative to the room? (Score:2, Insightful)
Other explanations (Score:2)
Of course when you introduce computers (or any kind of equi
Re:Other explanations (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, it could be due to other reasons. (Score:2)
Apple Gets It (Score:3, Insightful)
Spend a few minutes talking to any user of an Apple product and you'll understand that Apple Gets It on this topic. Macs, iPods, etc, are all very personable computers, with interfaces designed to feel very organic (like the pulsing, heartbeat-like glow on sleeping monitors / iBooks, rounded edges on windows, shadows, etc).
Dodge also Got It in a big way back with the Neon, though unrelated to cars. Anyone remember the ads that had the Neons bouncing up and down and saying "Hi!"? Anyone who owned a Neon knows that everything down to the horn's sound reinforces that image :) (Yes, I owned one of those too...)
Re:Apple Gets It (Score:3, Funny)
It's that tough love ! (Score:2)
really isa really iss eally his deally iss reay is bzzt bzz t bzzzzt
not what I expected (Score:2)
But, after I RTFA, there seem to more questions than answers. For example, were they Windows PCs? I don't ask just because this is
As my economics professor explained (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure I'm not the only one that has certain places I prefer to sit. I'm comfortable with the view, etc, that they provide. Computers are simply an extension of that.
particularly computers associated with victories (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I am loathe to give it up because that's the machine that I played and beat Dark Forces on when I was in graduate school. (After my qualifying exams, I went home and played DF for about 4 days straight. Ah--those were the days!)
Dunno about talking to... (Score:2)
For example, one of the machines at work has a tendency to go into "sleep" mode and can't be revived without shutting them off. I tell my boss it has narcolepsy. Another won't connect to the network drive (where the data is kept) until you manually access it, even though it says the drive is mounted and ready. That one just doesn't like to
News Dependence (Score:5, Interesting)
I visited my public library just yesterday. And I can assure you that there is plenty of bunk there too.
Computer #12 (Score:2, Interesting)
Where I work, there are patrons who frequent a particular machine (#12) because it has exhibited features that the other machines don't seem to have. It played streaming audio when the other machines didn't. It was more stable and it was also in the back row. So that's stability, features, and location.
On the other hand, when I teach at the same place, I encourage people to name the
Why expect computers be different? (Score:2)
This is already happening. (Score:2, Funny)
The tendency to treat computers as human could lead to people favouring or even blindly accepting computer-generated information, to the point of depending on it over superior alternatives, warned Prof Sundar.
This sounds dangerously familiar. Just look at all those people who helped those poor Nigerian guy, or buying all those en.la/rg.em\ent pil|s, or checking out who loves them...
I won't even bother mentioning Slashdot... oops.
Loyalty?! (Score:2)
Good Info for Techies perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
I, and I suppose most techies, just think of a computer as a box of parts readied to be dumped as soon as any new piece of equipment comes along. The biggest pain to me is getting the configuration, not the data, moved from the old to the new. Users, on the other hand, don't have such an intimate knowledge of the inside of their machines and become attached to certain behaviours/modes of operation because they have attached those behaviours to ideas that they rely on.
They say things like, "After you boost the rams how will I get to word." One can either respond smugly, or, one can give the user words that make them comfortable. Of course upgrading ram will, at least in most cases, not affect things like access to applications. Instead of trying to educate the user with a technical diatribe simply say "This shouldn't affect your access to word, but we'll make absolutely sure before I leave, how's that?"
Of course this is slashdot, and I'm preaching to the choir. Given that I've seen SO MANY techs who don't recognize that a human touch would be beneficial to them, however, I felt a need to rant a bit.
plurvert
Re:Good Info for Techies perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
**snip**
Of course this is slashdot, and I'm preaching to the choir.
I'm not so sure you are. In my experience, I've found that the majority of people who are exceptionally good with computers, such as the general population of Slashdot, simply do not understand the mentality of someone who is not technically inclined. To the novice computer users (and I'm speaking mostly about Windows and Macintosh users here -- the vast majority of Linux users are not novices) a computer is so complex and so powerful that it seems almost like magic. It is a completely new world to them, and it can be a little frightening and/or intimidating, but they plow ahead anyway because this thing is supposed to be easy to use. They really have no intuition regarding how things work. To use your example from above: RAM. Ask a novice computer user what RAM does, and they will likely tell you that it makes their computer faster, or that it gives their computer more memory (and when they say "memory" they are really referring to "disk space" -- many people cannot distinguish the two). Us techies have intuition regarding RAM. We know how it's used as temporary space for running processes and such, and we understand how most of that works on a fundamental level, even if we don't actually hard-code memory locations in our programs. So asking if adding RAM to their machine will affect other areas is a valid question -- they've been told by other people that RAM "makes their computer faster"... i.e., it affects the entire machine. Most techies I know, since the definition of RAM is so basic to them, will usually respond, at first, with astonishment at the supposedly stupid question (even if they don't express it out loud). Many will express astonishment verbally and say something smug, like, "No, of course not," as if they were reminding the user that 2+2 is indeed 4.
The vast majority of computer users think they know how computers work; so when they ask what we perceive as "stupid questions" they are merely trying to reconsile all the conflicting views of their computers they have gotten from various sources. What the technical community has to learn is how to explain computers to novices without slipping into techspeak, without overwhelming them with information they don't need to know, without condescending, and with the idea that these people are not as passionate about computers as the techie.
I see a lot of people on Slashdot getting frustruated with "supid users," usually because the users ask what the techie hears as "stupid questions." So I issue a challenge to the technically inclined: if you are unable to explain to a novice how a basic part of the computer works (like the video card) without diving into techincal details the user doesn't care about or talking down to them, then you are bogged down in details and need to step back to see the big picture. You don't know how something works unless you can explain it to a five-year-old.
Re:Good Info for Techies perhaps (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in a talk a couple of years ago and the speaker was Jim Gray (winner of the turing award in 1998) and he also said something along these lines... as a researcher, you have a clear picture of what you are doing if you can easily explain your research to your partner (assuming of course that your partner is not in your field and assuming that he/she understands your explanation).
Work of Clifford Nass and others (Score:3, Informative)
To see the implications of this, consider that people on a team--no matter how assembled--tend to regard their teammates as smarter than those not on the team. In light of the social roles of computers, a reasonable question might then be: Would individuals "teamed" with a computer think that the computer is smarter than would computer users not on a team?
In an experiment, individuals were told that they were being teamed with a computer to solve a task. (How do you foster team identity when the team consists of a human and a computer? You declare the pair "The Blue Team," give the human a blue wristband, decorate the computer with a blue border, and place a "Blue Team" label on top. I'm not making this up.) The human member of each team then worked with the computer to solve the problem. Other individuals received the same responses from the computer in solving the task, but were not told they were on a team. Those teamed with the computer rated the computer as more helpful and insightful than those who were not.
Through numerous other experiments, Nass and his colleagues have shown that computer "personality" and other factors can be manipulated to elicit positive responses to computers by their users. (One experiment demonstrated that humans seem to be suckers for computer-generated flattery.) For AI researchers, Nass made the point that users can be encouraged to perceive computers as intelligent through social strategies that have little to do with intelligence.
Those interested in learning more might read The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places [amazon.com] in which Nass and Byron Reeves describe 35 experiments.
It is in our nature to do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my two cents...
Another Slow News Weekend (Score:3, Insightful)
In every case you could simply conclude that a complex selection process went on, that each individual may have had their own criteria, some of which might have been rational, some not (I like the color blue for example). On the other hand, such a study would probably not make the news. Why not ascribe human preference to some sort of totally irrational mechanism that will get a laugh. How about all our choices being controlled by space being in flying saucers? Maybe next years class will conclude that.
Meanwhile, whats with the editing of BBC News? They must be drawing their journalists from the Pennsylvania State University:
"The Penn State team set out to find discover just how far people were prepared to go to maintain a relationship with their favourite PC."
Personalities (Score:3, Funny)
Linux boxes: The computer equivalent of the guy on the streetcorner offering you the wonders of the world, if only you'll step into that alley with him. Sure, there's a bright light at the end of the tunnel, but you trip over a lot of shit getting there.
Macs: Like the friendly, artsy folks who invite you into their cozy little cafe downtown and make you one of the gang, it's only later, when you're naked and broke and surrounded by other MacHeads do you realize you've joined a cult.
Nothing new here (Score:4, Interesting)
But once a company tries to leverage it's market by playing on the established loyalty (i.e. coaxing Commodore 64 users to all gewt Amigas or long time mac OS Mac users to all switch to OS X) they may hurt their reputation even worse, as a loyal customer scorned they are in a good position to voice their opinions.
"DAVE, YOU'RE KILLING ME...DAVE" (Score:3, Funny)
far fetched? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as loyalty for a brand, that could be seen as well, but I see brand loyalty brighten and fade along with the president's approval rating. It's fickle. Just as an example I've moved loyalty from one graphics card manufacturer to the next over the years, neither one can keep making "great" cards, for some reason they are all doomed to be taken over by a start up it seems. It wasn't long ago ATI was the "kiddie" version and 3DFX had a corner on the market.
But for arguments sake, lets just read the brands i have slathered on my monitor in the form of stickers, case badges and markings of my own:
ATARI
Abit
Antec
Zalman
Needless to say i've got some "loyalty" to a few brands.
Linux is Cool, but I'm Loyal to my Windows PC (Score:3, Funny)
Re:false findings (Score:2)
Mount your home directory with NFS, and it will be the same no matter which computer you log onto. And when the NFS server needs to be replaced, just copy the whole directory to a new server. User settings and machine settings where meant to be kept seperate. Typically home directories live longer than the machines. My home directory on the department network is now on the fifth NFS server since I
Re:Loyalty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:naming (Score:2)
If I'm referring to the network, I'll refer to the system by it's DNS name. "It's on fileserver1, it's on rig, it's on gateway.tfinterlinecorp.link" for example.
Re:naming (Score:5, Interesting)
Those habits have been very usefull outside the lab and at other jobs but mostly when dealing with my parents. They have several computers and sometimes I have to troubleshoot over the phone. As they sometimes forget they switched locations of a coutple of computers since last I was there, it is VERY handy that I've gotten them to refer to computers by name (in this case we're using a Norse God Pantheon naming scheme, not Rocky).
Re:This is a suprise? (Score:5, Funny)
In the case of Windows, it's more likely to be Stockholm Syndrome than loyalty.
Re:This is a suprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
A relevant quote on the subject [sniggle.net]:
Jokes always seem funnier to me when I don't get them at first reading -- yeah, I actually did have to look up "Stockholm Syndrome."