Neuroscientists say brains of Apple fanatics the same as religious fanatics

[Pat]

People see this as something bad for Apple? Barrister goes defensive? How is this anything else than the greatest of compliments? (also proof about anything can easily take the place of religion but we knew that already)

[Pat]

What a strange thing to research.

I think it's an interesting & relevant topic from several angles.  Though, while I enjoy mocking iFanbois I suspect that there are other brands or non-religious causes that would give similar results.

Of course - the point isn't that Apple fanatics are unique. There is nothing "special" about Apple fundies. The point is just that fundyism, while typically religious in nature, is not actually a fundamentally religious phenomenon.

It is of no great surprise that the Apple fanbois are irrational about their allegiance in a very similar fashion to how religious fanatics are irrational.

What are you fanatical and irrational about?

Rationality.

[derspiess]

What are you fanatical and irrational about?

Semi-random stuff, usually.  Though one might call him an fundy atheist 

[Berkut]

What a strange thing to research.

I think it's an interesting & relevant topic from several angles.  Though, while I enjoy mocking iFanbois I suspect that there are other brands or non-religious causes that would give similar results.

Of course - the point isn't that Apple fanatics are unique. There is nothing "special" about Apple fundies. The point is just that fundyism, while typically religious in nature, is not actually a fundamentally religious phenomenon.

It is of no great surprise that the Apple fanbois are irrational about their allegiance in a very similar fashion to how religious fanatics are irrational.

What are you fanatical and irrational about?

My kids.

[Berkut]

People see this as something bad for Apple? Barrister goes defensive? How is this anything else than the greatest of compliments? (also proof about anything can easily take the place of religion but we knew that already)

Indeed, it is pretty much the ultimate marketing victory one can hope for, I would think.

[grumbler]

Your Apple fanaticism must be blinding you - to the fact that any serious response to the bullshit pseudo-science "theory" in the OP is, predictably, going to result in you being trolled. 

I can see the torches, pitchforks, pleated pants, and latte brigade up in arms already.

[MadImmortalMan]

Making that post stimulated Beeb's religion center in his brain.

[Berkut]

Making that post stimulated Beeb's religion center in his brain.

It's not like it was a tough target.

[Barrister]

Your Apple fanaticism must be blinding you - to the fact that any serious response to the bullshit pseudo-science "theory" in the OP is, predictably, going to result in you being trolled. 

I can see the torches, pitchforks, pleated pants, and latte brigade up in arms already.

I never drink lattes.   

[grumbler]

I never drink lattes.   

[Brain]You never drink pitchforks, either.  It's just a figure of speech![/Brain]

[DGuller]

My brother in law is also utterly uncritically religious, and utterly uncritically a Mac lover.  Maybe there is a pattern there. 

[derspiess]

Indeed, it is pretty much the ultimate marketing victory one can hope for, I would think.

If you're Apple, sure.  If you're an iFanboi I can certainly understand embarrassment, denial, etc.

[The Brain]

I never drink lattes.   

[Brain]You never drink pitchforks, either.  It's just a figure of speech![/Brain]

I'm pretty bright for a white guy.

[Pat]

People see this as something bad for Apple? Barrister goes defensive? How is this anything else than the greatest of compliments? (also proof about anything can easily take the place of religion but we knew that already)

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that, but this is the great fear that strangles the process of progress, and it is, actually, an argument against the dialectical process which is what religion should be and actually is to be found at the core of those religions that are capable of evolving (I could quote amply from hinduism and buddhism for example). The dialectical metaphysical process of filling the void left by god is still in its infancy and has some similarity between the dialectical process between man and physics we call science. So in the so-called soft sciences, to take an example, we have some people on the left saying there is no human nature, and some people on the right saying all humans are are nature. This is not different from when one greek said all is water and another said all is fire; one greek said all is flux and another greek said all is stationary. Very silly propositions, perhaps not expected to be taken literally even by themselves, but it started a process of dialectics that gave rise to science, and, unfortunately, christianity, which proceeded to retard both the internal metaphysical dialectical process as well as the process of dialectics between metaphysics and physics. The mistake often made, especially by people of the right who are afraid of the new, is to not understand and take this process too literally or not seeing it in a larger perspective. If a thesis is obviously incorrect the helpful thing to do is to position an antithesis, which, even if it's wrong, will help progress along, not to throw away the whole process.

[The Brain]

Soft sciences are crap. They don't have to be, but they are.