<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Neurosense: The marketing agency of the future?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trendplanner.com/2009/01/28/neurosense-the-marketing-agency-of-the-future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trendplanner.com/2009/01/28/neurosense-the-marketing-agency-of-the-future/</link>
	<description>A Planner Observes. Advertising, Marketing, Digital, Trends, Psychology, Fashion, Technology, Things…</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:11:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://trendplanner.com/2009/01/28/neurosense-the-marketing-agency-of-the-future/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trendplanner.com/?p=330#comment-81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dude. You really shouldn&#039;t be so easy on them. The rest of the scientific community are questioning both the reliability of the methods (i.e. blood flow to a part of the brain - which is what many techniques measure not brain activity - is not a great predictor of activity in that area), the soundness of their analysis (i.e. using the same scans to identify correlations between activity and mental states and then test the strength of the correlation) and - more fundamentally - whether or not particular brain activity can be predictive of a particular behaviour in the hugely complex and sophisticated environment in which we humans live.

Neuroscience truth-tests were thrown out of US courtrooms last year for being unreliable; maybe they see marketing dollars as the replacement for 09?

Pop by http://herd.typepad.com: lots of links and stuff there amongst the social stuff]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dude. You really shouldn&#8217;t be so easy on them. The rest of the scientific community are questioning both the reliability of the methods (i.e. blood flow to a part of the brain &#8211; which is what many techniques measure not brain activity &#8211; is not a great predictor of activity in that area), the soundness of their analysis (i.e. using the same scans to identify correlations between activity and mental states and then test the strength of the correlation) and &#8211; more fundamentally &#8211; whether or not particular brain activity can be predictive of a particular behaviour in the hugely complex and sophisticated environment in which we humans live.</p>
<p>Neuroscience truth-tests were thrown out of US courtrooms last year for being unreliable; maybe they see marketing dollars as the replacement for 09?</p>
<p>Pop by <a href="http://herd.typepad.com" rel="nofollow">http://herd.typepad.com</a>: lots of links and stuff there amongst the social stuff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

