TheDC Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 This is the biggest bullsh*t I've ever heard in my life. And you call yourself intelligent? What exactly do you call bull**** on? That the study was ever done, the results or their conclusions? It's pretty hard to look empirical evidence in the face and just call bull****, without having some equally strong evidence to prove so. And no your experience and other anecdotal "evidence" doesn't count for ****.
Art_Critic Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 And you call yourself intelligent? What exactly do you call bull**** on? That the study was ever done, the results or their conclusions? It's pretty hard to look empirical evidence in the face and just call bull****, without having some equally strong evidence to prove so. And no your experience and other anecdotal "evidence" doesn't count for ****. Actually MySugaree is posting quotes from sources that she mentions but nobody gets to verify or read up on... so it that respect it is BS.. Just casually mentioning a study and saying that info comes from the study doesn't make it accurate.. MySugaree wasn't posting her opinion.. she was posting info from an article..
MySugaree Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 " Originally Posted by RecordProducer: This is the biggest bullsh*t I've ever heard in my life. " RP, be nice. I simply thought the study was interesting and germane to the discussion. I wasn't endorsing the results. And, it's only a study--involving Undergraduates at that. Still, the findings do possess a certain intuitive appeal.
Star Gazer Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Good to see you, MySugaree (who is MALE, everyone). I read the study you posted somewhere previously... I forget where... Yahoo! News or something like that, and it made sense to me.
serial muse Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Bah, it is not bull****. You may not enjoy the results, or think they apply to you personally, but the study was done, and the results have been peer-reviewed and are now published (as of Dec. 06). You can easily find it online. There's no point in arguing over the results of this study - they simply are what they are. As Sugaree said, about 850 students (male and female) were asked to study pictures of male faces that had been altered to appear more or less "masculine" (thickness of lips, shape of jaw, heaviness of brow). They had to say which of the men they preferred as mates, dates, parents or friends for their girlfriends, as well as who might start a fight, sleep around, etc. Both men and women associated more "masculine" features with riskier and more competitive behavior. Take that for what you will; you can argue till the cows come home over whether you think it means anything significant. However. The point of this thread appears to be the question of whether the female students would prefer the more or less masculine faces as "dates", right? (we're not really so concerned with questions of starting a family on this thread, I don't think.) Well, since I haven't read the full study, I can't say. I'm sure it's in there, so if anyone has access to the journal (such as through a college library), maybe check it out.
MySugaree Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 We should both be working, StarGazer. I'm simply not in the mood. The University of Michigan School of Public Health facial preference study (or at least articles discussing the study) can be easily Googled. While appearance matters, I'm much more interested in that elusive "it" factor commonly known as chemistry. The right look might get one in bed, but it does not necessarily keep him or her there. I've been with some extremely attractive women and the relationships soon fizzled for want of chemistry. On the other hand, I've had very satisfactory relationships with "less" attractive women who sizzled both in and out of bed. One never knows whether the relationship will sizzle or fizzle until you dive in. That's the fun part!
serial muse Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 By the way, forgot to mention that it's in a social psychology journal called "Personal Relationships". The lead author is a guy named Daniel J. Kruger at Univ. of Michigan. Enjoy!
MySugaree Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 "By the way, forgot to mention that it's in a social psychology journal called "Personal Relationships". The lead author is a guy named Daniel J. Kruger at Univ. of Michigan. Enjoy!" Thanks for the info, serial muse. I'll try to snag a copy online.
RecordProducer Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 RP, be nice. I simply thought the study was interesting and germane to the discussion. I wasn't endorsing the results. And, it's only a study--involving Undergraduates at that. Still, the findings do possess a certain intuitive appeal.MySugaree, I AM being nice to YOU. You are a man and you might be misled by trusting some article about what women want. That article completely distorts reality about women. Women don't divide men "for sex" and "for marriage" like men do. Also every woman has ONE type of man that attracts her for sex, love or marriage (talking about looks solely). If you don't believe me, start a thread about it and see what other women have to say about it. I think that article is harmful if you believe in it. The guys who attract us physically are the guys that we hope to be our husbands (we meet them and hope that they will turn out to be Mr. Right). We totally don't have this mentality that a stupid blonde is good for sex only. A stupid guy is good for nothing in our book. When a woman wants a guy just for sex, it's usually because something is wrong in her life; perhaps she is married or afraid of being hurt or performs some kind of revenge or simply doesn't have time for a relationship. But we don't dream about a one-night stand with that hottie that works in Burger King, like most men do. Those results are not scientifically proven. They are based on mere interviews with people who think those are the right answers. If you've ever taken methodology of statistics as a subject at school, you'd know how most "studies" are imprecise, vague, and unreliable. If you read magazines, you will find many "discoveries" about medicine. They all come from famous universities and are scientifically "proven." However, you will find VERY FEW of those scientifically proven results included in the legitimate medical courses. It's actually more reliable to NOT believe in any of those studies then to believe in all of them. The researchers are approved a certain amount of budget to conduct those researches. Besides, they are all hungry for fame and Freud wannabes. TheDC, what exactly are you saying? That I shouldn't have written what I thought or that I shouldn't have THOUGHT what I wrote? I think it's the latter, because you didn't call me on my rudeness, but rather on my intelligence! Who put YOU in charge to decide who is intelligent and who's not? The part of your brain that makes you believe everything you read?
sb129 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 HAHAHAH what a debate over the obviouse. Yes girls like attractive guys, heck the only women who really argued other wise were in their 40's now. I'm 22 and very good looking, and when I go pick girls up at clubs, bars, or just out on the town I barely say anything, so I doubt its my personalty winning them over. I mean if you just start dancing with a girl at a club and she pushes you away but dances with some other guy she doesnt know, dancing skills aside thats pretty much all looks So says the self proclaimed "horniest man alive"..what a keeper You gave a bit away there... 22??? You have alot of living to get thru mate. Perhaps a title for a new thread? Post a pic of yourself and let US be the judge of how "very good looking" you are.... When you are mature, you know that it's an inner/outer thing. exactly. have been enjoying the intelligent debates... i agree with parts of all of them... keep it up
TheDC Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 MySugaree, I AM being nice to YOU. You are a man and you might be misled by trusting some article about what women want. That article completely distorts reality about women. Women don't divide men "for sex" and "for marriage" like men do. Also every woman has ONE type of man that attracts her for sex, love or marriage (talking about looks solely). If you don't believe me, start a thread about it and see what other women have to say about it. I think that article is harmful if you believe in it. The guys who attract us physically are the guys that we hope to be our husbands (we meet them and hope that they will turn out to be Mr. Right). We totally don't have this mentality that a stupid blonde is good for sex only. A stupid guy is good for nothing in our book. When a woman wants a guy just for sex, it's usually because something is wrong in her life; perhaps she is married or afraid of being hurt or performs some kind of revenge or simply doesn't have time for a relationship. But we don't dream about a one-night stand with that hottie that works in Burger King, like most men do. Those results are not scientifically proven. They are based on mere interviews with people who think those are the right answers. If you've ever taken methodology of statistics as a subject at school, you'd know how most "studies" are imprecise, vague, and unreliable. If you read magazines, you will find many "discoveries" about medicine. They all come from famous universities and are scientifically "proven." However, you will find VERY FEW of those scientifically proven results included in the legitimate medical courses. It's actually more reliable to NOT believe in any of those studies then to believe in all of them. The researchers are approved a certain amount of budget to conduct those researches. Besides, they are all hungry for fame and Freud wannabes. TheDC, what exactly are you saying? That I shouldn't have written what I thought or that I shouldn't have THOUGHT what I wrote? I think it's the latter, because you didn't call me on my rudeness, but rather on my intelligence! Who put YOU in charge to decide who is intelligent and who's not? The part of your brain that makes you believe everything you read? Well I'm calling bull**** on your "evidence". Where exactly are the studies that lead you to believe what you are stating. Again anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify. I have taken methodology and statistics and no I don't believe everything I read but I know how to defend a theory and what counts as good science and what isn't. And just because you "think" it's bull**** and your experience is different doesn't invalidate the results. I think the study was pretty straight forward. Point to the faces that you would be most interested in just having a fling with and those that you would want to marry. See if there is a pattern. In a proper double blind test not only would the test giver not know what the experimenter was expecting nor would the subjects. I don't really care about rudeness. I thought it interesting that you positioned yourself as an intelligent woman who liked intelligent men yet your initial dismissal of the study was anything but intelligent. I'm certainly no arbiter of who is intelligent but as the old saying goes, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck."
MySugaree Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 "Women don't divide men "for sex" and "for marriage" like men do. Also every woman has ONE type of man that attracts her for sex, love or marriage (talking about looks solely)." It's nice to know I wasn't in the dog house, RP! And I agree with your statement quoted above. I just don't believe that the Michigan Study's FINDINGS are necessarily inconsistent with how the mating game is played. I do know of some older women who've gone on certain web sites (Adult Friend Finder, for example) to connect with younger men. The mutual understanding, however, is that it's only about sex. (No, I'm not on, and I've never been on, AFF). Needless to say, the young men selected are picked primarily for their considerable physical attributes. That's the rare exception, however. In real life, women evaluate a man's mate potential based on a totality of factors. I suspect this totalistic assessment is mostly pre-conscious. It's not as if most women carry around a list of preferred traits to match against the male candidate. Thus it's possible that certain masculine/feminine facial preferences may play a role--not necessarily a determinative one--in mate selection. The problem with studies like the Michigan one is that individual differences get lost, and a certain disconnect exists between the study's findings and how real people exercise judgment in the real world or at least how we believe we exercise judgment in the real world. Still, it's fun learning why we do the things we do and like the things we like.
RecordProducer Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I'm certainly no arbiter of who is intelligent but as the old saying goes, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck."You totally don't make sense to me. Many writers have written books merely based on their personal observations and opinions and here you're telling me that I don't have a right to state my opinion. This world would have been a much better place if the mob didn't swallow everything that was served to it. I am very familiar with this "You can't be smarter than the books!" attitude. As if the books were not written by people. Sure, they were, but they were written by smart people. And I can't possibly be one of them... or at least that's what you're desperately trying to prove. Your opinion will certainly not make me any stupider or smarter than I already am. Will it make me feel stupid? You definitely hope so or you wouldn't be quacking so much about my intelligence - or the alleged lack thereof!
TheDC Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I think that's where the value comes in the Michigan study. Is trying to identify those physical characteristics that occur in the pre-cognitive stage of attraction. As we have seen personality plays and equal, if not more, significant role in attraction. But in the Michigan study, personality was not a factor in the decision making process. Thus looks were the sole characteristic used to determine marriageability. What is considered attractive obviously varies between individuals, but the fact that the Michigan study came back with these results (and I assume that the results were statistically significant ie. chi square tests etc...) then there is obviously some preconditioning going on that would give us these results.
alphamale Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 What is considered attractive obviously varies between individuals, not as much as you think...
VinaAmez Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Ok guys it's only a research article. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong. What one person says doesn't mean that the next person will come up with the same results. There is a lot to consider when looking at any research article. Espeically survey's. Those are full of errors. I think that's where the value comes in the Michigan study. Is trying to identify those physical characteristics that occur in the pre-cognitive stage of attraction. As we have seen personality plays and equal, if not more, significant role in attraction. But in the Michigan study, personality was not a factor in the decision making process. Thus looks were the sole characteristic used to determine marriageability. What is considered attractive obviously varies between individuals, but the fact that the Michigan study came back with these results (and I assume that the results were statistically significant ie. chi square tests etc...) then there is obviously some preconditioning going on that would give us these results. That is only THAT studies results. I could if I wanted to find another one that would contradict that. And since there were only 850 some students, that doesn't even compare what the results could be if it was done world wide. But even then errors most likely will occur. I'm not going to say they are wrong because that's what they found, but I wouldn't go by that fully.
Star Gazer Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Women don't divide men "for sex" and "for marriage" like men do. Also every woman has ONE type of man that attracts her for sex, love or marriage (talking about looks solely). ..... The guys who attract us physically are the guys that we hope to be our husbands (we meet them and hope that they will turn out to be Mr. Right). We totally don't have this mentality that a stupid blonde is good for sex only. A stupid guy is good for nothing in our book. When a woman wants a guy just for sex, it's usually because something is wrong in her life; perhaps she is married or afraid of being hurt or performs some kind of revenge or simply doesn't have time for a relationship. But we don't dream about a one-night stand with that hottie that works in Burger King, like most men do. I am surprised you wrote this, RP. I honestly could not disagree more. I absolutely size men up for a "purpose." Some men are just for a roll in the hay, others are marriage material. And yes, I'm talking about at FIRST SIGHT. A Brad Pitt-type would be "sex only," whereas a George Clooney-type would be "oooh I want to make babies and be grandparents with him!" type. I have a guy in my life who's "sex only" in my book, but tht does NOT mean "something is wrong in my life." I also have another guy in my life who's complete BF/hubby material. And guess what, they look completely different in every way. There goes YOUR theory, RP.
alphamale Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I have a guy in my life who's "sex only" in my book, but tht does NOT mean "something is wrong in my life." I also have another guy in my life who's complete BF/hubby material. maybe so SG...but you're still single and not getting any action
alphamale Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I have a guy in my life who's "sex only" in my book, but tht does NOT mean "something is wrong in my life." I also have another guy in my life who's complete BF/hubby material. maybe so SG...but you're still single and not getting any action
burning 4 revenge Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 not as much as you think... this is true. people think there's more subjectivity than there really is. i'm not saying subjectivity doesn't exist, just let's not carried away. just as there is general agreement among peers as to what's good art and what sucks, there's general agreement about what's attractive and what's repulsive. and it isn't all created by social norms.
burning 4 revenge Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 The problem comes when the high wears off and the relationship settles in for the long term. Those misgivings may come flooding back and start messing with her mind. Are you speaking from experience here?
Star Gazer Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 maybe so SG...but you're still single and not getting any action Uh, ya think so, eh Alpha? Have you been paying attention to my "booty call" guy? I'm getting plenty from him, while keeping my options open and actually DATING other people.
alphamale Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 this is true. people think there's more subjectivity than there really is. i'm not saying subjectivity doesn't exist, just let's not carried away. just as there is general agreement among peers as to what's good art and what sucks, there's general agreement about what's attractive and what's repulsive. and it isn't all created by social norms. all the studies & research done in different countries and cultures all came to pretty much the same conclusion as to what people find attractive in the oppostie sex (physically or otherwise)
monkey00 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Women's choice of men goes in cycles Women are attracted to more masculine-looking men at the most fertile time of their menstrual cycle, psychologists have shown. During the less fertile times, they choose men with more feminine-looking faces. These are seen as kinder and more co-operative, but less strong and healthy genetically. A controversial implication of the new research is that, in evolutionary terms, it is natural for a woman to be unfaithful in order to secure both the best genes and the best carer for her children. This is because a less masculine-looking man may be a better long-term partner, but the strongest, healthiest children would be produced by a quick fling with a more masculine-looking man. Not a moral judgement However, the head of the laboratory at St Andrews University where the research was done, Professor David Perrett, told BBC News Online: "This suggestion is a possibility, but we don't know how behaviour is affected by the preferences we see. We're assuming that preferences for different faces are affecting the choices women make." "But whatever is best in an evolutionary sense is not necessarily the moral thing to do socially. We are not advocating any particular strategy," he said. More masculine faces (right) have squarer shapes, heavier, straighter eyebrows and thinner lips The study was carried out by researchers in Scotland and Japan. They asked women to select the one face from a range that they were most attracted to as a partner for a short-term sexual relationship. They found that in the most fertile week of their menstrual cycle, women preferred more masculine faces. However, the choice of face did not vary for women using an oral contraceptive (i.e. not fertile) or those asked to choose the most attractive face for a long-term relationship. Smell of success The results are supported by previous research which showed that a male hormone smells unpleasant to women, except in the week of fertility. Also, the smells of more symmetrical, and therefore more attractive, men are preferred by women but again only in that week. Men who look more masculine have higher levels of male hormones and also show a better ability to fight off disease. This makes them attractive as potential mates because their children will inherit this useful characteristic. Professor Perrett believes that preferences for certain types of faces will have an effect on the partners people choose: "We keep finding very strong links between the appearance of males and their perceived personality. People reckon they can judge personality from the way others look." "And as long as those links are there, I think preferences will be a profound influence on choice," he said. He also points out that there are real links between face form and behaviour. For example, a study has shown that more masculine-looking US servicemen are more likely to get divorced and be violent towards their partners. Not real life However, Dr Paula Nicolson, a psychologist at the University of Sheffield, thinks this kind should not be seen as applicable to everyday relationships. She will deliver a lecture next month to the British Psychological Society's conference called "Evolutionary psychology is not the answer to everything." "The research uses experimental methodology which accounts for extraneous variables and for social context. So they find the essence of human nature, which in this case is to do with mating behaviour," she told BBC News Online. "But this methodology is also a weakness because this is not actually how people live - decisions about choice of partner are made on a whole range of issues. I think the effect of facial preferences is probably lost in today's social context. "It is important to look at human biology in a basic sense but even most biologists would admit that biology is not that clear-cut." The study is published in the journal Nature. The initial research was carried out through BBC Tomorrow's World Magazine, co-ordinated by Damian Carrington. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm 'nuff said.
Salicious Crumb Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Uh, ya think so, eh Alpha? Have you been paying attention to my "booty call" guy? I'm getting plenty from him, while keeping my options open and actually DATING other people. God help any man that winds up committing to you.
Recommended Posts