Mr White Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) ...cookie-cutter individuals (of either gender) are more successful in dating than genuinely cool people: http://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/Place_Todd_Penke_Asendorpf_in_press_-_Mate_copying.pdf Edited June 26, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 I wouldn't oversimplify the process based on that one study. People are far more complex than that. There are many exceptions to the theories developed in the study. Every person uses their own unique criteria in seeking out a person to date. Only a percentage evaluates a person as a possibility as a lifelong mate at the first or second meeting and whether or not someone else had selected them for same in the past. That would be insane based on little or no information. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Mr White Posted June 26, 2010 Author Share Posted June 26, 2010 yeah, yeah, yeah , all the usual disclaimers, The point is that this is a well-controlled study and there is a statiscially significant pattern. Perceptions of dating success of others ALONE directly influences how attractive people perceive their prospect, REGARDLESS of their own "uniqueness". Since, by extension, people will consider more attractive whatever "works" (i.e. leads to percieved dating success), there is a high cost to deviating from the established cliches, since there is little "track record" of it working. And that's the whole point - we are not nearly as unique as we like to pretend.. If we were, there wouldn't be the ubiquitous dating cliches and laundry/check lists. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 Mr. White: The ocean is black. Its all scientific an stuff. Other poster: The ocean where I live is greenish; not at all black. Mr. White: Yes well we are talking about science so I used generalizations. :rolleyes::rolleyes: All the times its not greenish, the ocean is black. Another poster: I'm on vacation right now and I'm telling you the ocean here is blue and beautiful. Mr. White: I'm not talking about YOUR ocean or any others that are not black, so when I tell you the ocean is black can you just recognize I'm trying to be all scientific with generalizations? Just agree with me so my threads will start making more sense. Link to post Share on other sites
ADF Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 yeah, yeah, yeah , all the usual disclaimers, No, no. Don't take that attitude. Sociobiology is often quite reductionist, and that is all people are saying. And they're right. The authors of this study, as meticulous as they are, base eveything on one central assumption: that a straight line of explanation can be drawn between human and animal behavior. The problem with this is that while animals do not have culture, human beings do. To dismiss cultural expalnations because they infere with your nice, clean line of sociobiological reasoning is an error. Link to post Share on other sites
Serenitynow Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 we are not nearly as unique as we like to pretend.. If we were, there wouldn't be the ubiquitous dating cliches and laundry/check lists. This is very true. There are many studies being performed on human behavior and they are finding that we are not as individualistic as we think we are. One example is making daily, routine choices. We like to THINK we are in total control of the choices we make, yet science is proving that we are not. There are millions of pieces of data that our brains take in each day. Our Conscious brain can only make sense of something like a 1/3 of that information. Our subconscious packs that other stuff away, without us realizing it and it does have an effect on future decisions. People just dont like to think about that stuff, they find it easier to write off anything they dont understand or have control over. I saw one study where the professor got volunteers to interview people like they were applying for a job. The person applying for the job was an actor. He acted and followed the same script with every person that interviewed him. The people conductiong the interview were the test subjects, with no knowledge of anything, except to rate the guys performance during the interview. 100 people were used in the test. The professor greeted each person in the lobby, they took the elevator up to the interview room. While in the elevator, the professor asked the person to hold his drink while he got some paperwork out of his briefcase. In 50 of the situations, he had a cold drink, that the person held for him, in the other 50, he had a warm drink. The 50 people that held the warm drink, gave significantly higher(positive) reviews of the candidate. The 50 that held the cold drink gave lower, negative reviews. All of you that think stuff like that is a bunch of bs have no idea how amazing our brains are. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts