Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Science

Pretty Women Scramble Men's Sense Of The Future 100

Posted by timothy from the verifiably-true dept.
Adam_Trask writes "Psychologists in Canada have finally proved what women have long suspected - men really are irrational enough to risk entire kingdoms to catch sight of a beautiful face." The methodology is not air-tight, but how many scientists figure out a way to use Am I Hot or Not at work? See also "Women Live Longer Because Men Are Dumb."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pretty Women Scramble Men's Sense Of The Future More

Pretty Women Scramble Men's Sense Of The Future

Comments Filter:

  • Firstly (Score:3, Funny)

    by rhs98 ( 513802 ) * <rhs98@[ ]taboat.co.uk ['isi' in gap]> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:44PM (#7681462) Homepage Journal

    Firstly: "Psychologists in Canada" + "The methodology is not air-tight" = verifiably-true???!?!?!


    "But we hypothesise that viewing pictures of pretty women was mildly arousing"
    Duh! Thats what the internet was invented for...

    "If there's the prospect of getting a very [strike]attractive[/strike] rich partner it may pay a man to take more risks than if an average partner was available."

    Thats better...


    "If you are less attractive, with few potential partners, then it pays to take risks"
    I.e, go for the cute ones! Nice...thats where I am going wrong...lol

    • go for the cute ones! Nice...thats where I am going wrong

      Actually, that could be true. There was an experiment described in my old social psychology textbook where, when presented with the option of talking to a beautiful or average woman, men chose the average woman. Hypothesis was, they thought rejection was less likely. So maybe you should be going for the cute ones - perhaps everyone else is intimidated by them.
  • oh ya, i forgot about that...*click click typetty type*

  • Well (Score:1, Funny)

    by BrynM ( 217883 ) *
    I'm going to do some blatant karma whoring here so my status will fsdfjdfflll.... Wow! Lookit you! What's your name cutie? What am I reading? Slashsomething - it doesn't matter. You have gorgeous eyes.

  • Genetics again? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IANAL(BIAILS) ( 726712 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:53PM (#7681541) Homepage Journal
    Isn't this just millions of years of evolution at play? The only reason we are all here today is because our ancestors were successful in finding a mate and passing on their genetic information... and we simply are the product of that evolutionary background.

    The fact that both males and females were tested, and only males showed this behaviour tends to confirm this. For reproduction, females must spend far, far more resources than males do (as my old ecology prof used to say, 'sperm are cheap'). They can therefore afford to be more selective when it comes to mates. Males, on the other hand, aren't assured of passing down their genes, thus the evolution of such behaviour.
    • These results are hardly surprising. Love favors the bold. Discounting increases accordingly. Not even unrelated, since sex gifts are the norm for human males in Hamilton, ON.ca and many of those students will be cash-limited.

      More important to know ourselves and the manipulation we are subject to. Intersting that sex is used to sell beer very successfully, but not to sell geek toys (mobos, HDs, ...). Why?

      • More important to know ourselves and the manipulation we are subject to. Intersting that sex is used to sell beer very successfully, but not to sell geek toys (mobos, HDs, ...). Why?

        That's really easy. Beer often helps you get sex. Marketers and consumers know this, so their commercials are "hey drink this, get laid".

        I would venture to say that the number of times someone has gotten laid because of their computer components is around 10. And 6 of those were probably Steve Jobs.

    • Re:Genetics again? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SandSpider ( 60727 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:37PM (#7682531) Homepage Journal
      It may be hardly surprising from an evolutionary standpoint, but it doesn't mean that the study wasn't worth doing. The problem with Evolution as a Behavioural Theory is that it's very difficult to falsify. It's pretty easy to take existing data and fit it into an evolutionary theory, but it's very difficult to find data that proves that the behavior does not come from evolutionary factors. So it's a neat theory, and it's fun for TV shows and parties, but it's not all that useful from a scientific perspective.

      =Brian
      • but it's very difficult to find data that proves that the behavior does not come from evolutionary factors.

        Try fitting teen suicide to evolutionary theory.
        • Try fitting teen suicide to evolutionary theory.

          Survival of the fittest? (emotionally, mentally, whatever)

          Not that I think "Social Darwinism" is good policy myself.

        • Try fitting teen suicide to evolutionary theory

          Depression is a trait which, for the long-term survival of the species, is not beneficial. It reduces productivity and so on, so it should be elimintated. Because the adolescent period is one filled with excessive amounts of hormones, it's easier to exaggerate any difficulties that may cause problems with problems in the brain. If the difficulties are too great, the teenager will either kill him/herself explicitly or just end up doing something dumb.

          That's w

        • Evolutionary theory does not predict that individuals will never act so as to limit or even preclude their own reproductive success.

          In fact, that is going on all around us with dropping fertility rates in humans all over the world. Does that mean that humans are immune to natural selection? Not at all. As long as we are mortal (yep, still are), then those individuals who have the most surviving children will have the most descendants in the future human population and their genes will propagate. It's j

      • It's pretty easy to take existing data and fit it into an evolutionary theory, but it's very difficult to find data that proves that the behavior does not come from evolutionary factors.

        I think that's a really interesting point. Can somebody recommend a paper or source on the subject?

    • Not so. Evolution (which, by the way, is popular not proven) is an external process. Internal processes are effecting this behavior. Rather than claiming the all emcompasing and ever-changing Evolution, wouldn't it be simpler to chalk it up to selfishness? Doesn't (most) every guy want a pretty woman?

    • Re:Genetics again? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drox ( 18559 )
      For reproduction, females must spend far, far more resources than males do

      Not necessarily true. In general, females invest more directly in the rearing of the young, but males often have a considerable investment in courtship and in keeping rivals away from their mate. They may even have special structures (antlers, horns and the like) or coloration that serves no other purpose than to attract a mate and/or intimidate rivals. If that's not investment in reproduction, I don't know what is.

      ...as my old

  • my personal favorite (Score:4, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:53PM (#7681542)
    My favorite is when guy catches his girl cheating on him with another guy...and then goes after (or at least gets mad at) the guy, with whom he had no "emotional contract", shall we say.

    I don't know if scientists have a name for this most delicious of male irrationalities, but I like to call it the Jerry Springer Phenomenon.

    • Re:my personal favorite (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:02PM (#7681677)
      My favorite is when guy catches his girl cheating on him with another guy...and then goes after (or at least gets mad at) the guy, with whom he had no "emotional contract", shall we say.

      When a man chooses a partner, he chooses to invest a lot of energy into rearing her offspring. If, however, she is impregnated by another man, all that energy is wasted, from the point of view of his own genes, because the other man's genes are propogated. The woman, however, can still be used to propogate his genes. Overall, the best behaviour for your genes is to get furious at anyone who tries to mate with your woman, not with your woman.

      • Re:my personal favorite (Score:5, Funny)

        by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:35PM (#7681976)
        True. However, I do believe this line of reasoning would find its culmination with businessmen throwing their feces at each other during board meetings.
      • Wouldn't this mean that the cuckold should go after the other man's children

      • Re:my personal favorite (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drox ( 18559 )
        When a man chooses a partner, he chooses to invest a lot of energy into rearing her offspring.

        This applies to human beings and to very few other species (except among bird species, where it's quite common). Males of most species provide little to their offspring other than genetic material.

        Overall, the best behaviour for your genes is to get furious at anyone who tries to mate with your woman, not with your woman.

        Strangely enough, this would seem to apply across the board, whether a male invests dire
      • Yeah... that's kind of dumb... but wait until that guy is your best friend :) Just as dogs pee on car wheels to mark their territory, us, humans, as with many other species, tend to mark our territory through agression... That would't be so bad if I was a big guy, I'm a fat one, so for me I'll keep trying on that "nice shoes! wanna fuck?" and try to buy a fast car, cuz I'm not the running type :)
    • jealousus-bastardus I think is the technical name...
    • That goes both ways, like most things.

    • Bullshit! (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're just as likely to see the female go after the other woman at the same time she defends her love for the man that just cheated on her.

    • Re:my personal favorite (Score:5, Informative)

      by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:19PM (#7681854) Homepage Journal
      My favorite is when guy catches his girl cheating on him with another guy...and then goes after (or at least gets mad at) the guy, with whom he had no "emotional contract", shall we say.

      I don't know if scientists have a name for this most delicious of male irrationalities, but I like to call it the Jerry Springer Phenomenon

      It's called Sperm Competition [sciencedaily.com] and is a very real biological process in men of all species.
      • Way back when, there were several GNOME releases named after the Bonobo, rather like kernel 2.6-test releases are being named after the Turkey.

        Presumably anyone who looked into the Bonobo a little bit learned about sperm competition, from the most extreme example amoung primates, if not the animal kingdom.
      • It's called Sperm Competition and is a very real biological process in men of all species.

        How many species have men?

      • read your own article... sperm competition means the sperm competing for the egg(s), not men fighting each other.
        • From a strictly defined perspective, you are right. However, the term is used to describe the surrounding phenomina as well. Like most biological activities, there are psychological and physiological effects that manifest in most species when actual sperm competition occurs and when there is a threat of sperm competition. It wasn't easy in the time I had to find a great article on the subject, but I wanted to put something that would get the research ball rolling for people. This [yahoo.com] may clarify a little more:
      • It's called Sperm Competition

        Okay, that's pretty sick. I don't think that research was meant to be applied directly to human behavior like that. Then again there are some pretty sick people in the world.

  • Obligatory SCO joke... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by KDan ( 90353 )
    I guess Darl McBride must be living surrounded by top models then...!

    Daniel
  • I'd risk it all for boobies! Like the Bloodhound Gang sez... "Hurray for boobies!"

  • Men (Score:3, Funny)

    by ed333 ( 684843 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @12:56PM (#7681587)
    men really are irrational enough to risk entire kingdoms to catch sight of a beautiful face

    In other news today, the Earth has been reported to be round!

    • Re:Men (Score:3, Funny)

      by blamanj ( 253811 )
      Not only that, the physiological reason has been known for a long time, as well.

      All of the man's blood has rushed from his head and gone...other places.

  • Women?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by lostindenver ( 53192 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:01PM (#7681670)
    What are those? Whats this pretty? Is it like a simple command line or like a Gui..

    • Originally, when they mentioned pretty, I thought this [sourceforge.net] was what they were talking about.

      However, just to be sure, I also asked Google about "women" and "pretty". The second resulting link was about urination [restrooms.org], while the fifth link was about flatulence [bekkoame.ne.jp].

      I have since come to the conclusion that the concept of being pretty is horrendously overrated, bordering on disgusting, and will eventually perish - pretty soon, hopefully.

    • That's easy. Think "VR porn without the glasses".

  • It finally makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scottjantz ( 301727 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:04PM (#7681706) Homepage
    My wife is a sales associate at a small electronic retail store full of insanely high-priced gadgets. The people she works with are average looking while she is quite stunning. Her sales are more than three times the next highest sales associate. I once witnessed her sell two high end IPaqs and a Tablet PC to the same guy who didn't even know what he was going to do with them.

    Until this article I wasn't sure if it was her beauty, or some Jedi mind trick. Now I know.

  • It would be much more interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:05PM (#7681712) Homepage Journal
    I would have found it much more interesting
    if the study had included the impact of exposure
    to statistically attractive males and females
    to both male and female subjects.

    Clearly the interest of advertisers lies in
    gaining a favorable irrational reaction.
    But I notice that advertising geared toward
    women generally includes images of attractive
    females, not of attractive males. Thus I
    think the negative results obtained by
    exposing females subjects to statistically
    attractive males is unsurprising.

    I found the reasoning of the sociobiologist
    interviewed in New Scientist to be facile.
    If this study had been done 50 years ago,
    they would have interviewed a psychoanalyst
    and obtained a similarly affected "expert"
    deep analysis.
    • I would have found it much more interesting
      if there had been purty pictures to look at! Slobber Slobber Drool Drool Gah Gah

    • Re:It would be much more interesting.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by SandSpider ( 60727 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:44PM (#7682595) Homepage Journal
      I would have found it much more interesting
      if the study had included the impact of exposure
      to statistically attractive males and females
      to both male and female subjects.

      I see you're neither a Psycholog/Sociology grad student nor a professional researcher in the field. If you were, you would instead think, "A ha! Now I know my thesis/next paper!"

      But, yes, the cool thing is that you can take the results from earlier experiments and, preferably after appropriate verification of reproducibility, extend the experiment to include the new factors. I am sure someone will do this, but I doubt it will receive as much press as the original study. Unless it proves that all women are lesbians, in which case it'll probably get much wider coverage.

      =Brian

    • Re:It would be much more interesting.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by kryzx ( 178628 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @02:55PM (#7682711) Homepage Journal

      Mmmmm... "statistically attractive".

      One would be hard pressed to find another phrase so succinct, and yet containing so much "essence of UberDork".

  • Hmmm... I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Descartes ( 124922 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:09PM (#7681743) Homepage
    if they'd get the same results if they tested gay men (with the appropriate pictures). Or if they showed pictures of attractive men to straight men.

    It would be interesting to see if this breaks down on gender lines or sexual preference lines.
  • I seem to recall this woman, Helen [mit.edu] of Troy [warnerbros.com]?

  • Back to the Future (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:28PM (#7681918)
    The news item title sounds like a description of the "plot complication" in "Back to the Future III" where Doc Brown meets the schoolteacher.

  • I can confirm this! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fulkkari ( 603331 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:34PM (#7681968)

    Women have been exploiting this built-in feature in men for years!

    Unfortunately there are no vendor patches available at the time beign. A temporary fix is not to have any contact with these 'women' (this should not be a problem for usual /. reader)!

    NOTE: Even pr0n should be avoided while doing important decisions.

    Knowing these facts helps preventing such exploitaition in the future.

    • Re:I can confirm this! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sfjoe ( 470510 )
      Unfortunately there are no vendor patches available at the time beign.

      Depends on what you're "patching" for. Less attractive women have been buying cosmetics for centuries.
    • It's even more insidious than this.

      The women patch the men to improve them, and secretly insert interesting little clauses into the EULA that are effectively vendor lock in.
    • Unfortunately there are no vendor patches available at the time beign. A temporary fix is not to have any contact with these 'women' (this should not be a problem for usual /. reader)!

      There is, however, a workaround. Simply find a female of sufficient compatability in goals and personality, and marry said female.

      Sufficient time focused on said "honeypot female" will allow a male to operate relatively normally even in the presence of new attractive females.
    • well guys, what _can_ we do to patch this security hole? i mean obviously there are exploits running in the wild and all...the above poster's temporary fix is akin to 'hrm...we seem to have a bug in the kernel...so no one use linux for a few weeks.'

      this is my idea
      we find a female who we can trust and apply them as an interface with local reality.
      it will work like this

      world? -+- trusted woman -+- poor falliable guy.

      because the woman involved has no vested interest in exploiting our lack of future (bonu

  • Nostradamus (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @01:35PM (#7681973)
    "Pretty Women Scramble Men's Sense Of The Future"

    No where is this more apparent than comparing the work of Noastramus before, and after, he met the fetching Marie Rocque on a trip to Nice.

    Previous to this, his qautraines were known for their poetic quality and predictive power.

    After Cupid's arrow struck him, his writings were reduced to doggerell of no predictive ability, such as "Purple space alien destroy Russia in 1983", "Small Bears of Shicageau Win World Series 2001", "Cylons Led by Picard Destroy Babylon 4 in 2525", and "Matrix III Better than Matrix I".
  • I wonder which newspaper [theonion.com] that reporter will end up working for next?
  • Pretty Women Scramble Men's Sense Of The Future

    To be more thorough, Pretty Women Scramble Men's Senses, period.
  • So what's the cause and what's the effect?? When going out to, say, a nice restaurant, getting ready for me is a very straightforward matter. Dress pants, a nice button down shirt, and a tie if necessary. I, like most males of my species, own a single pair of dress shoes. Getting dressed takes no more than 5 minutes.

    My wife, OTOH, can take upwards of two hours trying on different combinations of clothes, shoes and accessories just to determine what she doesn't want to wear. Rest assured, when she does

    • Hmmm ... the old fashion furphy.

      It's not to impress men, but it is to outcompete the other women. Hence, they are disgusted and outraged when some else wears the same (or close enough) outfit. The only objective is to be or get "first pick".

      Men on the other hand have never had a hissy fit when someone else wears the exact same shade of black dinner suit/lounge suit/etc.

      As for "more visual" I'll leave that to explain p2p proliferation, Amsterdam and Hamburg.

  • An interesting followup might be to look at whether the student's major or area of studies had a relationship to his or her choice and the extent to which that choice was influenced by the treatment (exposure to attractive, as opposed to average, member of opposite sex).

    I think that it's plausable that some relationship exits. For example, students of majors such as Actuarial Science, Economics, Statistics, Applied Mathematics, and the like would be more likely to know exactly how to make a rational choice

  • For a second I thought this was the Paris Hilton study. Where Paris Hilton makes this desert storm night vision sex tape and then distributes it on the internet - just as her new show is coming out. So all the guys are like, "slut," but masturbate to the video every night and then subliminally cannot resist watching her show so the sponsors can add to her already enormous wealth. They stopped implanting orgasm inducing electrodes in male mice because they would just trigger it until they died. Men are

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close