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...."
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: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: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.
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.
Re:Names? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But they're all supposed to be equal... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ulysses Ship... err Computer (Score:3, 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:Ulysses Ship... err Computer (Score:2, Informative)
Just a little nag.. the correct mereological [stanford.edu] problem is "Theseus's Ship," not "Ulysses's Ship".
/philosophy dork
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.
Brain cells do not regenerate. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Brain cells do not regenerate. (Score:3, Informative)
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, Informative)
Having working at a club(during university) that ran poker machines (in australia most pubs/clubs have them) I am sorry to tell you that each machine is uniquely configurable by the owners and not the manufacturer. You can set How many times a day it will pay, what the average size of the pay out will be etc.... there is very little randomness left in these machines now.
NB also they got reset every night so the rational 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. is not really going to hold up as every day is a new day for them.