Science confirms what we all knew anyway
Offline I've noticed several articles in the news recently dealing with dating, mating, and human nature. Granted, they're nothing earth-shattering, but it's nice to see some actual science making the mainstream romance pages. Here's a short recap of a couple of the more interesting ones:
Go figure, eh? Anyway, neither women nor men could tell if a woman was interested in a man during a speed dating experiment. Both men and women could tell when a man was interested in a woman, but a coin flip was essentially as accurate as both sexes at determining a woman's interest in a man.
The reasoning behind this is relatively simple. Women have more to invest in a mate, so it makes sense for them to do things that prolong courtship. This gives them more time to evaluate their potential mate and perhaps discover flaws that will be dealbreakers. Men, on the other hand, have every reason to make sure women know they're interested. Rule number 1: If she doesn't know you're interested, she's not going to fuck you.
Want to know how attractive you are? Do you really? Here's how you can tell, scientifically:
1. Symmetry will get you laid. If you are very symmetrical, you're more attractive. Period.
2. Waist-hip ratio. If you're a woman, and your WHR is 0.7, that's attractive.
3. Face. Estrogen-shaped faces tend to be smaller with softer edges. Testosterone-shaped faces are more sharp with larger jaws, chins, eyebrows, etc. Wonder of wonders -- straight men like estrogen-shaped faces and straight women like testosterone-shaped faces.
4. Smell. Women smell better during certain parts of the month. Symmetrical men smell better than asymmetrical men. Smell is a big deal in attraction.
5. Pheromones... who knows...
6. Like attracts like. Based on a set of heritable personality traits, similar genetics is 34% of a successful long term relationship.
7. Love is more powerful than sex. Even at the beginning. Fidelity is a very big deal to nearly everybody.*
* Just to throw a monkey wrench in the works, we need to realize that fidelity is really important precisely because it's not that easy to find. If everyone were faithful in relationships, nobody would think fidelity was that big a deal. They could get it anywhere. The fact that there's such a premium on it is all the evidence you need that humans are not primarily monogamous. Now, as to the question of whether one should be faithful, this is another topic. As far as the scientific description of humans, it's yet another nail in the coffin of the monogamy myth.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Oh you and your speculation. There are tons of reasons that women might hold back more. Fear, cultural pressure, their attitude towards social interaction, their past experiences with men ... "Women have more to invest in a mate" is a bit hasty.
Nuh-uh. Quite a number of women get driven into a tizzy by being ignored. That can't even be close to rule 1. That's like "low-grade tactic #43" or something.
Why would I want to know how attractive I am to average women, when I'm only interested in the outliers?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh, you and your hasty dismissals! Scientists account for these factors in their screening and data processing. We're also probably talking about two different things. I'm not talking about a woman being hesitant to have sex on the first date because she's been burned in relationships before. I'm talking about unconscious visual cues and body language.
Um... they do.
Women get driven into a tizzy by being ignored by attractive men who have previously shown interest.
I trust you didn't read any further, right? Save yourself now! Avoid the science noid!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Okay, so you have a point. Also, I was basically giving you a hard time. It entertains me.
Now that's something I'd like to test.
I kid! I kid!
I kid because I care.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh... I always have a point. I always have a point.
Well, I do enjoy being the center of attention... you should see me at karaoke parties.
It does beg the question... would you pass the initial screening and make it into this test? Or would you perhaps be part of the 'control'?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Was that done in a Yoda voice? I heard "You will be. You will be."
I'm sure I would enjoy the seeing more than the hearing. Bah-dum-bum.
Hmm. I'm a symmetrical guy attending a university filled with young women who'd love to date just such a symmetrical guy with his own place and car. I've been doing this test inadvertently for about two years now, and with young women, you can pretty much always tell if they're interested. Women my age, not so much. I'm thinking the older, the more mysterious. What do you think?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
So symmetry is what?.....equal distance from eye to nose, lip to nose..are there certain proportions that a person must have? (measurements of the face?) Beyond the 'soft features' of a estrogen shaped face?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Bah. You and your so-called "science." I already know how attractive I am. I see it every time I look in the mirror (which is pretty much 24/7):
I go to eleven.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
It has been my observation that women want quality and men want quantity. She wants a man who will stick around and help her come up with the 14 million calories it will take to raise a kid. She is the one who gets pregnant. Men generally want a healthy looking female who will have healthy kids, while he is off impregnating more healthy looking females.
I can solve this dilemma easily. I'll send you some pictures of myself to show you what attractive is. That's attractive, and everything else is sub-par.
It's science. You can't argue with science, Renee.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oooo ... when you talk science to me !!
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Haha - yeah, guys who are into themselves are sooooo hot. I'm sure you can hardly contain yourself.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I know I'm having trouble...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Not to interrupt the levity, but it's all about horizontal symmetry (if you're standing). Your eyes should be equidistant from your nose, your nose should be straight, your ears the same size and location, an even smile, and so forth, all the way down to your little toes.
Interestingly, in another recent study, it was clearly demonstrated that accounting for familiarity, skill, and individual differences in orgasmic frequency, women who have sex with symmetrical men have proportionally more and better orgasms than those with asymmetrical men. The kicker? The differences in symmetry were tiny, such that the women were not consciously aware of them.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Sigh. All this time spent honing my skills, and it turns out that my symmetry was the real edge in delivering those thousands of mentally crippling orgasms? This is terrible news. I feel devalued as an artist.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Geez, Will. When are you going to learn? I said that accounting for those factors, women had proportionally more and better orgasms with symmetrical men. Therefore, your symmetry added to your technical prowess.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Alright, fine. I admit that I'm awesome.
...
I don't think any other group of people has let me get away with such rambling bullshit for so long.
*sniff* I love you guys.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's all in good fun. I find that humor will stack, causing higher levels of humor with each new peice.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I don't know...there's only so much we can "prove" about attraction, since it's all subjective and based on cultural teachings and personal preferences.
For example, in the US men are more likely to prefer women with lots of make-up, big boobs and a "doll-like" face, as opposed to other parts of the world that don't put as much emphasis on "Barbie-doll" women. This doesn't equal skinny, it equates with women with "curves in all the right places" that are shown off, who have nice hair and make themselves up.
Of course, taste is a big part of it, but generally speaking this girl is considered attractive to guys in the USA:
However, many guys might say she's "too skinny" or "fake-looking", and might prefer a more "natural" someone like this
Also, confidence, the way one carries themselves, articulation, status and social skills play a very big cultural role.
So I don't think we can completely deduce it scientifically.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
It's dangerous to say that we "can't" deduce it when we haven't quite deduced it. Culture is a big factor in what is considered "the most attractive," but on average, people pretty much hook up with people they are able to hook up with. It's all about average attractiveness, not overall. So yeah, you're right that we will probably never have the ability to completely deduce everything, but to say we can't make remarkably accurate predictions is to say we haven't done the science. That's not a matter of inadequacy. It's a matter of time and research.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism