It knows you now!

Nothing like a little geeky news to start off my morning.

“Ability neutral”—I like that. The one thing I took away from the brain study was that even with all this evidence, they don’t know whether men’s/ women’s brains are destined to be that way or whether it’s because we exercise them differently. So they know we process stuff differently, but nature vs. nurture is still a question. In a generation or two, with parents raising their kids in an ability neutral way, maybe they can figure things out more.

The caveman-behavior of the puzzle-solving guys seems hardwired, though. Cool stuff.

Later,

Kelly

The one you linked to is pretty good too, and makes sense. I mean, we are basically walking chemistry sets, and men & women have different sets of chemicals (slightly), so of course some of the more important parts would be different. Even stuff that isn’t so obvious, like our brains.

Perhaps we shouldn’t strive to think of the world as gender neutral, rather, ability neutral or something like that. I mean, let us celebrate our differences and at the same time agree that anyone can do just about anything with enough perseverance.

-Brett

That is the coolest study! Bookmarked. Absolutely fascinating, and not just because it means Claire Chaffington has got a chance.

Squared shoulders, more hands, big fish stories—all in the genes! OMG.

Here’s another one that fascinated/ disturbed me this week:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

You try so hard to see the world as gender neutral with a few little exceptions, and darn it, it’s not quite.

Thanks!

Later-later…

How dare you say “lusty” around here!

As long as you give me the “ack” ccomment to go fish it out, feel free. Must check your link now.

Later…

Ding! You win the prize today. One of the studies was examining just that, and they discovered that yes, the serious touchers are less likely to buy if they are not in person, *unless* you make that appeal to their sense of touch.

On the Internet, that can only be done with words, but in direct mail, you can do it through paper choice (touchers like good paper—ever feel a thin, flimsy business card and feel less like making a purchase from the person?), samples, interactive pieces, etc. Even magazine ads sometimes go for interesting paper choice to make the ad more of an Experience.

Words are the key everywhere, though. If I’m the salesperson, hopefully I’ve been trained to reinforce the feel of the car by talking with touch words, instead of just standing there and expecting you to get the point.

Later,

Kelly

^ ^
. .
^
o

-Brett

~Graham

Intersting study about the touchers. I wonder if the serious touchers are less likely to but on the Internet?

~Graham

(lusty bunch of animals, we are!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/20/scilust120.xml

-Brett

Brett Legree’s last blog post…viking fridays – a long road.

I believe Graham was discussing cherries. Ahem.

As to sense of touch: two major studies came out in the last year and I was certain there were going to be gender differences, but either they didn’t think to use gender as a variable (doubtful) or my experience that women are more touch-sensitive is wrong. I was really surprised.

What they did find is that you can separate us into serious touchers and kinda meh about touch. We all want to touch, but for some people it’s a lot more important than for others.

This applies to when you’re literally at the car dealer, say, and you’re touching the leather interior, or to when you’re reading an ad or brochure, and they’re describing the soft, warm leather interior (appealing so your sense of touch even though you can’t touch the product right then).

Something to think about the next time you’re reading one of those slick ads—see if you can tell if they were aiming at you or your husband (“feel” or see), and if they were trying to appeal to your sense of touch, as well.

Until later,

Kelly