In Chapter 32 of the “You Cannot Make this**** Up Book of Internet Stupidity” I submit for your disapproval perhaps evidence that GPT AI is in use already for marketing pimple brains.

It was more than 10 years ago I began some relentless debunking of the oft-cited 60000 times faster assertion — “Researchers at 3M have shown that humans process images 60,000 times faster than text.” Even when cited, the source turns out to be a PDF of 3M promotional brochure. I spoke with 3M employees, other visualization experts doing similar research at the time claimed, and there is bubka’s for evidence. With the help of an ace research librarian, I traced it back to a computer magazine opinion columns from 1982 where the trail went cold.

If you ever see this claim question it severely. I am 100% sure it is not supported by any evidence.

I do get sporadic comments and rackpack pings from people who have questioned it, turned to the Google, and found my stuff (insert pat on the back). I feel I have contributed a tiny drop of sanity in demystifying of internet BS.

Until today.

I get a trackpack ping from a post from some consultants I will not give any more google juce by naming, but peek for yourself at Video is Still King!

The human brain processes visuals 60,000 times faster than text (source: 3M Corporation). (VISUAL) Video not only helps you remember, but it helps you connect. People connect to the company, connect to your brand, and tend to trust your brand more when they see your video.

Some Consultants from Mars

Look, they cite 3M Corporation as a source of evidence of the claim…. with a link

The link supporting my claim goes to my blog!

They have asserted a false claim by backing up as a source one of,my blog posts that debunks it!

I could not make this up. I would certainly line up to here these consultants, you should too! I just hope my blog does not alert them with a ping, it would be a shame to lose this specimen of poop on the web.

And I am only able to conjecture that ChatGPT is going to be the marketers dream for spitting out crap copy, not to mention authoring more realistic sounding phishing email attempts.

Thank you internet for putting the turd cherry atop another one of those days.


Featured Image: One of my own, a sort of internet reality distortion modulator…

Incredible Lobby
Incredible Lobby flickr photo by cogdogblog shared into the public domain using Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0)

If this kind of stuff has value, please support me by tossing a one time PayPal kibble or monthly on Patreon
Become a patron at Patreon!
Profile Picture for CogDog The Blog
An early 90s builder of the web and blogging Alan Levine barks at CogDogBlog.com on web storytelling (#ds106 #4life), photography, bending WordPress, and serendipity in the infinite internet river. He thinks it's weird to write about himself in the third person. And he is 100% into the Fediverse (or tells himself so)

Comments

  1. Obviously, we should all turn to a 40-year old marketing resource from the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company for our guidance on how people learn and how brains work. There has been literally no work on understanding learning and cognition by anyone outside of 3M, ever.

    I agree – at least, anyone who cites this thing are doing us a favour by indicating that their entire article/document/presentation/VC-pitch is complete bunk and can be safely ignored…

  2. (Got here from Research Buzz)
    Lord Kelvin said that if you can’t cite numbers then you are a dumbshit (quoted loosely.)
    These claims suggest that you can still be a dumbshit even if you do cite numbers.
    I think their point is that we come away with more of an impression from a moment of viewing an image than text. Dunno where 60k comes from.

    1. There is absolutely zero doubt that that Kelvin fella is wise, and quotable.

      I don’t disagree that we can process information differently/better/sometimes from images, after much investigation I am confident it was a marketing claim that just alluded to a research basis that does not exist, hence it was like an early alpha version of ChatGPT (it sounds like it is meaningful but has no proof/reference to stand upon, so it makes s*** up.

      Thank for stopping by! A friend of ResearchBuzz is a friend of mine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *