Jump to content

Talk:Reality distortion field/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

  • Recent /. article could be included as reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.56.164 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Possibly insane projects"? Rather polemical. Let's be more serious here. Unnecessarily colorful language. glasperlenspiel 17:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bill Gates may be immune to Steve's RDF as he convinced him Microsoft will do no harm to Apple ?
  • Artikel should be edited: "the term was coined ... in 1981 to describe ... and its effects on devoted Macintosh users". Off course there were no Macintosh users in 1981 as the first model was released in 1984.
Indeed, but the Mac project was underway at that time, and the coining of RDF referred to Jobs' effect on its developers, not on it users. I will alter this accordingly. Graham 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, changed the text. There is one aspect of RDF that the article doesn't really get across. That is that those 'in the field' also are made to believe in the tremendous importance of, say, the Mac, to the exclusion of everything else. It's as if it were the Mac that had 90% market share, or whatever. It's hard to put into words this sense of RDF - but you see it in action at Macworld, etc, where each announcement is greeted as if it were a cure for cancer, rather than just another neatish, but not really very important, product. It can also make one believe (if you are susceptible!) that what anyone else does, like, say, Microsoft, really isn't important or worth paying any attention to. The field distorts reality to make it seem that things are very different from what they actually are. I don't think the article does such a great job of getting this across. Graham 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Graham: 1st- thanks for the edit I suggested. 2nd-Good point above. Who'll take up the challenge to put that in words in such a way that you don't start a flame:-) ?

I gave it a try--see what you think.

Looks awesome! STGM!

Redundancy error?

The whole article is redundant

The article says "RDF focuses less on outright deception and more on warping powers of judgment." Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't warped ability to judge simply the effect of deception?--70.229.255.75 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. Some RDF effects are not "outright" deceptions though in the sense that they are not untrue. It sounds more like a hype effect to me. For instance, compare if Apple releases a car in 2007 and loudly pronounces it has Innovative Dual Coke Bottle Lodging (cup holders), it would be true, although the innovative nature is questionable. An outright deception would be if they claimed that they it was the first car to offer cup holders.

Demonstration

Maybe there should be a link to the WWDC(2006)video on this page? As an example of the RDF; for example, when he revealed notepad and todolist(among other small improvements) the audience clapped like there was no tomorrow...

I was thinking the exact same thing... WWDC conferences Reality Distortion Field is an incredible phenomenon, truely wonderful for those under its spell, and creepy as hell to those left out. Other examples as the adding of 2 extra USB ports as a brilliant new idea, as well as... two optical bays? This is RDF truely in effect, plus this gets spread over the INTERNET via STREAMING RDF... i'd like someone to write an article on that! 66.242.70.33 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of this is confusing people's applause as being indicative of amazement when in many cases the applause is based on Apple answering a long and widely discussed deficiency. Often Apple users are highly critical of weaknesses in Apple products, especially OSX, and will complain about an issue for a long time. When Apple finally addresses it in a presentation it is often seen as something of an inside joke of the nature "well it's only taken us 5 years to include notes, but finally they are here." In such cases the applause is more about Apple finally fixing something than blind joy at being in Steve Jobs greatness. Stewsburntmonkey 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch out

This article has been slashdotted --frothT C 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference link is not working.

Major problems with article

In my opinion the whole article needs to be rewritten as it is severely POV. Jaysbro 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article belongs in folklore, fiction or included in "Bud Tribble" as a quote. It does not belong in psychology. ClickFlash 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk about jobs could be argued about where it belongs and npov, but the concept at least within IT and industry in general would not belong in folklore or fiction. WikipedianYknOK 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

" In many instances, RDF is considered more self-delusional than effective." These kind of statements do not belong on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.154.54 (talk) 07:35, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think things about Steve Jobs should be included in Steve Jobs entry, not around all Wikipedia... I hope someone agree with me :) --Have a nice day. Running 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not specific to Steve Jobs. Do not merge. 76.233.236.86 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the other entries(Stevenotes and Steve Jobs) should be merged, but not this one.--Gosox5555 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge

The R.D.F. as a concept is not specific to Steve Jobs, although he is the prime example of it, for whom the term was coined. But there are other examples in history of people with high charisma and personal confidence in what they were saying who were able to "sell freezers to Eskimos"

This concept deserves its own page. BrotherE 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Photographerguy (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree this should have its own page. --Jerebin (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We basically have a whole page here to describe the fact "Steve jobs was charismatic," the fact someone jokingly coined a term about it and that it was parodied is hardly cause for an entire article. 24.114.252.242 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Is there any way (other than vandalism) to work this link into the article? It seems appropriate. Bongomatic 05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reality_distortion_field/Archives/2013&oldid=1046614122"