Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. How is that supposed to be competitive?
If that is true then why do women respond better in face-to-face encounters?
Maybe we just don't want to deal with salespeople but instead judge the product on our own without being harassed. How is that supposed to be competitive?
If that is true then why do women respond better in face-to-face encounters?
Same as you. It costs $11 to read that thing and I assure you, nobody has read it (except maybe now that I said it out of spite). It looky like every other pop-psy study out there, many of which have been discredited over the years - at least the ones that people actually bothered with. It's unscientific trash designed to support broad generalizations and preconceptions. The entire field is known for making stuff up in a manner that is consistent with the cultural background and expectations of the study's authors.
The crux of the matter is that these studies are supposed to show how certain behaviors are biologically hardwired into humans, when in fact the vast spectrum of human behavior and perception is frighteningly flexible and subject to the change of cultural and personal values over time. Many people, including pop-psy researchers, have a vested interest in showing that our behavior is preprogrammed by nature. In fact, the prescription of what's natural has been used as a justification for laws and rules for many hundred years now, so it's kind of a tradition.
Any study of human behavior, especially if gender roles are concerned, needs to cite specifically the cultural context and timeframe the observations were made in. Advertising people know this. That's why they use different strategies in different countries, and it's also the main reason why advertising premises change over time.
Even brilliant people can make mistakes, and even brilliant scientists can be victims of their own preconceptions. I'm not trying to trash his life's work, I'm having serious doubts about the premises and results of this study specifically.
[Edit] Just a strange observation: yours is essentially an argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) and yet mods seem to love it.
The only fallacies are coming from your posts, not from the article in question... :\
> The only fallacies are coming from your posts, not from the article in question... :\
After fighting you guys for the last our without one single person agreeing with me, I'm inclined to say you're right. I should probably stop posting now. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone. I'm sorry.
Competitive much? :)
He confirms that it's a grossly misrepresentative pop-psychology spin on a real study.