SparkBlog by The Hartman Group

Does dissing yourself make you more attractive?

Hey, can I help the fact that I’m a bald, aging hipster who needs glasses to drive at night?

From the hallowed halls of academia we find another case of evolutionary psychology—which is all the rage these days—proving what most of us have intuitively understood all along.

The use of self-deprecating humor—basically insulting one’s self—makes one appear significantly more attractive, so long as your status is high enough.

“Self-deprecratory humor seems to be a form of 'costly signaling'—displaying an obvious handicap, like a peacock’s tail that requires strength to lift—that can demonstrate your overall robustness,” according to Gil Greengross and Geoffrey Miller at the University of New Mexico.

And, as one might expect, they also found that such tactics don’t work nearly so well for folks with poor self-images and low self-esteem.

So if you’re a putz like me, don’t go around admitting so. But if your George Clooney, the best thing you can do is make fun of the fact that you are George Clooney.

Hey Russell Crowe..are you listening?

How to Tell if You're Popular

Essentially the modern equivalent of contest judging via the clap-o-meter, the Party Timer Digital Clock gauges the success of your fete by decibels emitted by the crowd throughout the evening. Utter silence? Enter the “No Party” screen, where sad blobs reminiscent of a Zoloft commercial bemoan the absence of celebration. Attempting to permanently deafen your guests? Sounds over 161 db will activate the “Atom Party” screen.

The device practically begs for a consumer hack, from baby monitors to burglar alarms. Remember, if the kid reaches "club party" status, it's time to go change a diaper or two.

(via Gizmodo)

Coming to grips with design’s true impact on our civilization

If you read magazines, newspapers or websites, spend a lot of time at business conferences, of happen to be in the marketing community, you are by now very aware of design’s alleged importance in successful business strategy.

The only problem is that until (very) recently, the business community had absolutely no reason to ever really cross paths with the design world.

Designers were freaks inhabiting loft spaces who used old doors as desks or lived in socialist gulag states like Denmark or the Netherlands. Meanwhile business folks were found in the tops of tall buildings, buried behind desks of paper.

Sure, there were famous designers whose work somehow crept into everyday life, but only in a garish three-generation-removed sort of way. The original Eames chair was a masterpiece of modernity, but the business community waited for years before releasing their pale, inexpensive imitations to the masses.

And now all of that has changed. Flexibly-aligned business units, post-Fordist production systems, CAD and rapid prototyping now allow us to create custom-fabricated goods to meet any design specifications imaginable to the human brain, inexpensively, and with incredible speed and precision. But honestly, what does all of that high-falutin’ talk really mean?

It means we can now produce physical objects in real time based on nothing other than  a sketch in three dimensional space.

Put more simply, we can now design directly onto space.

The Swedish design group FRONT have developed a technique which allows anyone (artist, designer, hack, child, monkey, squirrel, etc.) to literally draw a sketch in three dimensional space and then inspect a real, physical, solid replica of the object cast from plastic in a matter of minutes.

That is correct.

If you can sketch your idea into three dimensional space, these folks can produce a physical prototype in minutes.

via | Core77

Have patience, my friend...

While speaking with my mom the other day, I was reminded that there was a time in the not too distant past in which durable goods—especially electronics—didn’t arrive to market with an assumed discount horizon.

As in “I’m going to wait another year till the price of plasma screen televisions comes down before taking the plunge.”

All we can say is, thank heaven for economies of scale, ’cause we can’t wait to get our hands on one of these toys. Pillows covered in Luminex, a light-emitting fabric that blends optical fibers with natural fibers connected to internal LED’s and a battery pack.

Cool. Cool. Cool.

Not so cool is the $449 price tag, which is why we are waiting…

While the folks behind this fabric, Zuzka of New York, have applied the fabric to other fashion-forward products like handbags, skirts and even umbrellas, currently the pillows appear to be the only commercially available products.

Genpet: Tomorrow's pet today

Looking for something a little different in the way of pets? Perhaps something with a little more pizazz than a hamster or rabbit; something offering the unconditional love of a dog, but without all the muss and fuss that canines bring to the table?

The nice men and women at BioGenica have brought to market the world’s first bio-engineered, pre-packaged pets. Grab 'em from the rack, bust open the plastic casing and inside you’ll find your next living pet. From the website:

"Genpets are not toys or robots. They are living, breathing genetic animals."

"We use a process called "Zygote Micro Injection" which is quickly becoming a favorable method to combine DNA, or to insert certain proteins from different species. Most notably it was used in 1997 to splice mice with bioluminescent jellyfish (link) and has since been used to create glowing rabbits, pigs, fish, and monkeys (link). Since then, human DNA has been injected into rabbits, chimpanzees, spider DNA into sheep, and now, Genpets have arrived!"

In addition, Genpets are color-coded to match one of several different genetically programmed personality profiles, so there's sure to be a Genpet perfect for you!

And because several people asked...no, of course the Genpet isn't "real" at least not in the commercial sense.  The Genpet, as well as the website, are part of a mixed media installation by artist Adam Brandejs.

Are most food allergies imagined?

Food allergies are a hot topic these days. Many schools are eliminating all peanut based foods in effort to protect allergy sufferers. Some are even considering adding milk to the list of banned foods. Moreover, the vast majority of consumers we speak with report having at least one food allergy in their household, and many report multiple allergies. Listening to these narratives, one might come to the reasonable conclusion that we’re growing increasingly allergic to contemporary society as a whole—a theme explored in Todd Hayne’s masterpiece Safe.

On the other hand, what if this were much ado about not so much? Maybe our growing food intolerances are (mostly) imagined, perhaps the expression of deeply-rooted anxieties with little basis in physiology?

Recent medical research certainly hints at that possibility. As reported in CNN, a recent study at the University of Portsmouth found that among the children of 969 parents, 54 percent of a group of one-year-olds were avoiding some foods because their parents perceived them to have had reactions to ingredients such as cow's milk, wheat, eggs or additives. Later testing revealed that only 2 to 6 percent of the infants actually had clinically confirmed food allergies or sensitivities, a figure that is in-line with most medical estimates of incidence of food allergy and sensitivity in U.S. populations.

So what do we make of this? Are we increasingly, as Michael Moore once famously suggested, a nation of “scaredy cats,” so fearful of contemporary society that begin projecting our fears onto our foods? Or is this merely another example of our medical science institutions callously refusing to recognize the fact that our environment is sickening us?

As it happens, our own research is in lock-step with the Portsmouth researchers. Traveling the country talking with consumers, we find that about half of all consumers we interview claim to have one or more food allergies or sensitivities, many of which significantly drive their associated consumer behavior. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases we find that the allergies are self-diagnosed; in many cases consumers haven’t even discussed the sensitivities or allergies with their physician.

And as to the question of what’s causing consumers to self-diagnose with food sensitivities and allergies? Simply put, we believe most self-diagnoses stem from an underlying cultural preoccupation with self-improvement. Consumers are compelled to work hard on multiple fronts to better their “selves.” Be it through exercise, proper sleeping habits, hygiene, diet, relationship maintenance, etc. consumers are always looking for new ways to “tweak” their selves and one very critical pathway is the pursuit of a highly-specialized, medically-mandated diet. Moreover, this tendency is only compounded by a similar cultural preoccupation with being a good parent. What better way to demonstrate hard work and devotion to one’s newborn than by imagining that your baby Huey is allergic wheat gluten and pursuing a gluten-free lifestyle for your family?

The mistake, of course, is to become preoccupied with the “why” questions here. Never mind that the vast majority of food allergies and sensitivities are likely imagined, the underlying point remains that the behavior in response to these “conditions” is still very real. No doubt, this observation is a boon to manufacturers and retailers serving the booming population of consumers with food allergies. For while the consumer may struggle with the typical challenges associated with restrictive diets, certain manufacturers and retailers are enjoying very real profits.

Research update: Chocolate

Remembering that we should never place too much stock in a profession whose first goal is to be disproved, from a consumer perspective is still important to consider scientific findings—if for no other reason than the narratives they provide sometimes drive behavior (c.f. consumption of Omega-3 acids).

In this case the subject is chocolate and the results suggest a mixed bag. 

Publishing in the Journal of Affective Disorders, two Australian scientists recently completed a massive lit review of the existing research on the link between chocolate and mood states. While the research was admittedly more behavioral than biological, the conclusion is that in the long run any benefits associated with chocolate consumption are short-lived.

In fact, chocolate consumption may actually be associated with increased depression over protracted use. While chocolate’s immediate benefits include anticipation and sensorial pleasure (indulgence), as well as temporary “comfort” in the long haul it is expected to “prolong rather than abort the dysphoric mood.” In straightford english, the author's mean "chocolate may cause depression."

Hmmmnnn...Maybe Starbucks knew something we didn't when they pulled the plug on Chantico?

Cloning pigs for your heart: how many holy grails can there be?

Once again, optimistic scientists have declared yet another "new era," to be upon us. Today's new era comes to us by way of a New York Times article which notes that some nutrition scientists and professors of medicine are optimistic that American consumers may soon be able to enjoy heart healthy pork which has been genetically engineered and cloned to provide optimum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

As Dr. Alexander Leaf, emeritus professor of clinical medicine at Harvard observes, "People can continue to eat their junk food...You won't have to change your diet, but you will be getting what you need."

According to the article, this idea came about when professors of nutrition science and medicine were tackling the challenges associated with current sources of omega-3's, namely fish.

"For years, people have been urged to eat fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids. But fish can be expensive, not everyone likes it, and omega-3's are in greatest abundance in oily fish like tuna, which contains mercury."

So the next logical step, from a scientific perspective, was to figure out how to genetically modify and clone pigs so they might offer up higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

Strangely, however, none of the scientist types ever thought to ask the consumer if this was a development they desired. When you think about it, it's actually kind of a surreal proposition, that our animals are being reconfigured by the powers above with not even the slightest concern that it is something we, the consumer, would want.

We at The Hartman Group have been researching the world of enhanced food, nutritionally-fortified food and nutraceuticals for the past ten years and continue to find strikingly similar results. That with the exception of beverages, which have a cultural precursor in the form of a smoothie, consumers almost always prefer their food to be food and their supplements to be supplements. It is as simple as that.

Beginning about 35 years ago with the fledgling "health food" movement, consumers began fortifying juice beverages with additional ingredients in what were known at the time as smoothies. Somehow, that model seemed to "stick," to the degree that we found it culturally acceptable to consume beverages with "stuff," in them. Now everywhere we turn we encounter beverages--from dairy products to juices to soft drinks--sporting all manner of fortification with added nutrients and ingredients.

But alas, there is no current cultural model which points to the acceptable practice of consuming foods with additional "stuff," in them. As much as the industry would like to believe otherwise, we appear to want our food to be food, as least for the time being.

Which leads to our general conclusion that this is all a bunch of wishful thinking on behalf of food scientists, a profession whose job is focused on dreaming up "new and exciting," solutions to problems which were actually solved centuries ago. Namely, eating.

And while we're open to the rebuttal that "pigs cloned and modified to sport high levels of omega-3 fatty acids," are not fortified as much as they are "genetically-reconfigured," our general response remains the same. Like those who've walked the planet before us for hundreds of years, contemporary consumers simply want their food to be food, nothing more. 

Or, as the late Wendy O. Williams of the Plasmatics was known to extol in a similar spirit:

"A pig is a pig. And that's that."

Thinking the unthinkable...

One of the trickiest urges to resist when it comes to figuring out how the world really works is the tendency to assume our current paradigms or worldview must be supreme—the obvious product of the gradual evolution toward (eventual) perfection.

Much of the problem stems from the fact that we reify our so-called “truths,” on a daily basis through everyday life. We fly on airplanes that rarely fall from the sky. We go to the dentist with a pain, he fills our cavities and the pain (usually) goes away. We head to the doctor with an upset stomach and he prescribes antibiotics after diagnosing us with an ulcer.

What we forget, however, is that it wasn’t always this way.

In fact, back when we held former “old-fashioned,” worldviews, the contemporary way of doing things probably seemed foolish, if not downright silly. After all, at the turn of the century everyone knew that humans weren’t meant to fly. More recently, up until the 1980’s everyone “knew” that ulcers were caused by stress, alcohol, or the consumption of spicy foods. And these weren’t cranks mind you, these were respected scientists and MD’s working for the finest research hospitals in the world. It was only when two maverick Australian physicians Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren published their findings in a 1983 issue of the Lancet—suggesting that the bacteria H. pylori was actually responsible for ulcers—that the rest of us began to “realize the real truth.” Namely, that ulcers are caused by bcteria and are best treated with conventional antibiotics.

Of course, despite the overwhelming evidence, this truth was no easy sell. For many years after, major medical encyclopedias still insisted that ulcers were caused by spicy foods. Even today, about 10% of the medical community refuses to go along. Heck, it’s probable that a good third of you reading this find these whole developments difficult to swallow.

All of this is a way of suggesting we need to recognize that in all likelihood our current truths and beliefs—no matter how commonsensical—will at some point be turned on their head. And as perverse as this may seem, this will likely happen in the name of something called progress.

So it should come as little surprise, then, to find out that researchers working at the University of Wisconsin have discovered that the human adenovirus Ad-37 causes obesity in chickens. Yes, that’s right, a human virus was found to be responsible for several forms of obesity in chickens. 

Moreover, as reported in Scienceblog:

“This finding builds on studies that two related viruses, Ad-36 and Ad-5, also cause obesity in animals. Moreover, Ad-36 has been associated with human obesity, leading researchers to suspect that Ad-37 also may be implicated in human obesity.”

In case you have a hard time following the connections, the suggestion is that some researchers are now wondering whether many forms obesity may, in fact, be caused by a virus. Perhaps your obese Uncle George simply drank from the wrong water fountain at the airport?

Of course, much more research is obviously needed to determine whether or not Ad-37 may cause obesity in humans but still, this could someday lead to startling developments. Among them a potential screening test (to determine those infected who are at risk of obesity) and, someday perhaps, a vaccine (to prevent infection).

And if any of this sounds absurd or far-fetched it might be worth taking a moment to think about how much of our routine thinking about disease has been shaped by our combined belief in genetic predetermination, environment and individual lifestyle.

It was only fairly recently, after all, that the “genetics paradigm,” came to dominate the cancer research field. Previously most researchers assumed many forms of cancer to originate from infectious vectors. But as the genetics paradigm took hold, it encountered difficulties. Namely, the genetic paradigm cannot intuitively explain concentrations and clusters of cancer (genes are generally assumed to be evenly distributed throughout a population). In response theorists developed elaborate arguments about environmental factors and lifestyle factors—lead, smoking, asbestos, etc. But even the most exhaustive research has rarely managed to find any clear linkages between obvious pathogens and cancer.

Meanwhile, many epidemiologists are exploring the old-fashioned maxim that whenever you see intense prevalence of disease (be it isolated or global), there is a reasonably good chance the cause could be infection. As the study noted:

“The nearly simultaneous increase in the prevalence of obesity in most countries of the world is difficult to explain by changes in food intake and exercise alone, and suggest that adenoviruses could have contributed. ‘It makes people feel more comfortable to think that obesity stems from lack of control,’ the researchers noted ‘It's a big mental leap to think you can catch obesity.'"

Of course the point here is not to suggest we are on the cusp of a new era in which freshly-vaccinated children will partake freely of the McDonald’s smorgasbord. Rather, we’re merely using this rather surprising and unusual finding to remind us that the future trajectory of health and lifestyle developments will likely have little to do with our current ways of thinking.

Put another way, if you envision a moment 30 or 40 years from now in which consumers are living longer, more healthful lives due to declining obesity rates—rates themselves brought about by better eating habits and more informed choices. Well, the chances are your vision will be far, far off the mark.

Bummer science day: Part II

According to the results of a large-scale epidemiological research study published in this week's issue of JAMA, diets high in Omega-3 oils--either from supplements or fish--are unlikely to prevent cancer. The study tracked 20 cohorts from 7 countries for 11 different types of cancer. 

As reported on scienceblog:

"Fifty-five of the 65 analyses conducted found no effects at all. Only 10 studies yielded statistically significant results, and these were mixed. Omega-3 fatty acids appeared to increase risk for developing some cancer, particularly for breast, prostate and lung cancer, while in other types it appeared to reduce the risk."

All told, it appears a wash for Omega-3 fatty acids--at least in the case of cancer.

Of course none of these results speak to the possible link between Omega-3's and heart health, a connection which remains strong and salient among health conscious consumers.