Women Get Lots of Info From Male Faces 205
dtjohnson writes "Researchers
at UC Santa Barbara have found
that women have a remarkable ability to assess a man's testosterone
levels and his interest in fathering children by looking at his facial
features. Sixty-nine percent of the women were able to correctly
judge a man's interest in having children merely by looking at cues on
photograph's of his facial features. Saliva samples were also
taken from each man in the study and tested for testosterone with a
$2,000-a-pop test. The women in the study were able to correctly
identify the men with the highest testosterone levels just by looking
at their photographs. Of course, the study did not look at
what men were able to tell about women by looking at photographs
of their female body parts."
sensationalisation sucks (Score:5, Informative)
The summary (and the linked articles) are so sensationalised it is ridiculous.
The BBC have a slightly better written article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4751501.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2)
The problem with a "proper source" is that scientific journals are not available online and cost a shitload to subscribe to. Also, I don't want to wade through a scientific article; I want the meat of it. Like many people, I can recognize the sensationalism.
Go to a college and get their access codes (Score:2)
Re:Go to a college and get their access codes (Score:2)
Sheeeeeesh.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this instance I am referring to the preferable use of a news source which actually cares about the facts of the study over a news source which is simply using the research as a launching point for the journalist to present stereotyped opinions on male and female attraction.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2)
It takes a slashdotter to perform such researches anyway, everyone else can just get laid.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:4, Funny)
I am God ...try prove otherwise.
God doesn't leave out grammatically-significant prepositions.
QED
:)
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:5, Informative)
:)
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:5, Funny)
But it sometimes behaves as if it were a wave.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that He's omnipotent, I suspect He can past on /., digg, and Kuro5hin, all at the same time--and still have time to attach meaning to the fall of every sparrow.
The real question is: How often does He get modded as a troll for claiming He created the world in seven days?
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:5, Funny)
God's speling is korrekt. It's you're speling taht's wrong.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps God should address the situation of His Divine Foot, finding it firmly in-Mouth.
Prufe (Score:2)
If you were a deity, that would be "deities and our buddies". Though omnipotence means the power to make mistakes in every post.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2)
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2)
Research abstract and article (Score:5, Informative)
The summary (and the linked articles) are so sensationalised it is ridiculous.
The BBC have a slightly better written article
Better yet, here's the actual research abstract [royalsoc.ac.uk] and article [royalsoc.ac.uk] published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The article seems to be accessible without an institutional subscription, but just in case, here's the abstract text:
Reading men's faces: women's mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and interest in infants
James R. Roney, Katherine N. Hanson, Kristina M. Durante, Dario Maestripieri
This study investigated whether women track possible cues of paternal and genetic quality in men's faces and then map perception of those cues onto mate attractiveness judgments. Men's testosterone concentrations served as a proxy for genetic quality given evidence that this hormone signals immunocompetence, and men's scores on an interest in infants test were chosen as prima facie markers of paternal quality. Women's perceptions of facial photographs of these men were in fact sensitive to these two variables: men's scores on the interest in infants test significantly predicted women's ratings of the photos for how much the men like children, and men's testosterone concentrations significantly predicted women's ratings of the men's faces for masculinity. Furthermore, men's actual and perceived affinity for children predicted women's long-term mate attractiveness judgments, while men's testosterone and perceived masculinity predicted women's short-term mate attractiveness judgments. These results suggest that women can detect facial cues of men's hormone concentrations and affinity for children, and that women use perception of these cues to form mate attractiveness judgments.
On a related note, this reminds me of research previously done linking finger-length ratios [google.com] with things like testosterone levels, sexual orientation, and male aggressiveness.
A major oversight (Score:2)
All the publicity makes this out as a kind of mate selection, battle of the sexes thing -- when there's nothing in this research to show that it isn't just that all humans are good at perceiving hormone levels and infant attentiveness.
So why did they only use women in their perception sample group? Sheesh.
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:5, Informative)
How about a link to the study itself? http://primate.uchicago.edu/2006PROC.pdf [uchicago.edu]
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
"Of course, the study did not look at what men were able to tell about women by looking at photographs of their female body parts."
Of course they didn't, nay, COULDN'T look into that aspect. It would have to take into account the vast amounts of physical alterations that women have done to them these days, be it botox, a ton of makeup, boob-jobs, tramp stamps, nose jobs, etc. In that regard, it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to tell anything about one's "genes
Re:sensationalisation sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Sixty-nine percent of the women were able to correctly judge a man's interest in having children merely by looking at cues on photograph's of his facial features.
Wow, that's like... 7 in 10 instead of 5 in 10 you might expect to get from chance alone. Remarkable
Ok then (Score:4, Insightful)
So women don't just want a "nice on the inside" type of man.
Re:Ok then (Score:2)
Nothing in the article says this. Where are you getting this from? The study does not judge the relative importance of different drives in a woman. Perhaps, even though she is attracted to a certain type of man on a physical level, she will pick a man who has lots of money. Or treats her nice. Or badly, who knows, women are weird that way.
My point being that you can't draw that conclusion from the evidence given.
Let me fix that for you (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let me fix that for you (Score:2)
Of course, the study did not look at what men were able to tell about women by looking at photographs of their female body parts. .
Nor did it address those things men and women are able to tell about each other without so much as a glance.
Which is more important, your testosterone level or the fact that you're an unfeeling lunk, a good-for-nothing and a layabout; her complaisance or the fact that she's an inconstant and judgemental control freak?
signs of high testosterone level (Score:2, Funny)
Re:signs of high testosterone level (Score:2)
beards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:beards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:beards (Score:2)
PS. I always thought they wanted the source code to be free.
Re:beards (Score:2)
Re:beards (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, and money for autographs
Re:beards (Score:2)
Small sample size? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Small sample size? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Small sample size? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's sad that this seems to be quite often the problem with psychological and sociological research. The researchers present groundbreaking results about the human nature and when you look at their methods you find the results are based one nothing more than random results from a much to small sample...
The good old Cargo Cult Science [huji.ac.il]
Re:Small sample size? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Small sample size? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Small sample size? (Score:2)
Having lived in a household with 5 women, I can honestly say that 29 is about 24 too many unecessary samples.
And in the next study (Score:2)
Big Nuts (Score:2)
And (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:And (Score:2)
That's not true. They know they want to go shopping!
Hidden messages... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I just couldn't concentrate.
*whew* I totally misread that headline. ^^;;; (Score:4, Funny)
Women Get Lots of Info From Male Feces
Maybe I'm spending too much time on Fark...
Re:*whew* I totally misread that headline. ^^;;; (Score:2)
If elephants can do it, why can't we?
Re:*whew* I totally misread that headline. ^^;;; (Score:2)
I had exactly the same reaction. I thought "Oh GOD! Is there something else that I didn't know and couldn't possibly understand about women! They're looking at my feces now!"
So women get info about men from feces now, do they?
"Hey Agnes! It looks like your Frank's been eating sweetcorn again!"
I can usually tell a lot (Score:2)
Re:I can usually tell a lot (Score:2)
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation (Score:2)
So the women in the study were really looking at the pictures thinking "before" and "after".
What this means for us nerds: Disguise yourself! Get a haircut. Don't shave so often, instead use more aftershave. Buy a leather jacket and boots, and wear them off a bit. Drink. Smoke. Go out. Once the woman finds you, she'll want to turn you back i
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get involved with single mothers (Score:2, Insightful)
When a single mother coworker hits on you
When a female coworker tries to set you up with her single mother (friend/daughter/neighbor)
Trust me and not your penis! Avoid these women like the avian flu. They'll stop f*cking you a month after the wedding. They will ruin your life and drain y
Re:Don't get involved with single mothers (Score:2, Insightful)
And while we're generalizing, every man that takes a wife or even a girlfriend has to divert energy away from what they want to attending to her needs seriously altering your life. There's also a vigorous sucking in the trouser area that occurs - unfortunately it quickly moves from where you want to somewhere in your wallet.
Then you picked the wrong woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Your signifigant other and you should share goals and lifestyles; you should click into each other's lives with little to no behavioural modification for either party.
Your primary disagreements should be about *timing*, not philosophy - ie, you both want to do X, and the only real question is "when?". If you want X and she wants Y... problem.
Note that I'm talking in broad strokes here. Both of you will have to modifiy little bits of your behaviour as "social grease" to help make it easier to get along. There is plenty of give and take in a good marriage. But the give and take should be over small stuff, not major life issues & choices.
I was one of those guys who tried to overhaul his personality to fit the needs and wants of the Girl of the Moment, and that only ever led to tears. Once I decided to be me, and to find a girl that fit me the way I was (and vice versa) I met my wife and I've been blissfully happy (on the marital front at least) ever since.
I think a lot of guys, particularly technical, goal-oriented guys, get focussed on "making the relationship work" and start making these big personal sacrifices to that end, thinking that it gets them points. It doesn't. If you have to make radical alterations to who you are in order to keep your girlfriend, then let her go and find one who likes you as you are.
DG
And just where do we find... (Score:2)
Re:Then you picked the wrong woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoying a spouse openly, comfortably, and even vulnerably is certainly a trait of a successful relationship. However, a successful marriage is not built on enjoying each other and "being who you really are." Those are effects, not causes of a happy relationship, IMO.
Most couple don't truly realize marriage is (in theory) a lifetime commitment. Here's the big secret nobody tells young couples: people change. You and your spouse are going to change dramatically over the course of your marriage, and there's a likelihood that unless you are careful, you will end up disliking each other in 30 years. The best you can hope for is that as each of you changes, the other will adapt to your new personality or have ability to tell you calmly that you are changing for the worse. I won't go into a long tangent about the requisites for changing together successfully, but I basically think deep mutual respect and completely honest communication are the biggest ingredients.
Here's the other part of your sentiment that is slightly flawed. Perhaps you really need to change. Maybe you are an inconsiderate, arrogant asshole, and the only person who would date you is a meek little insecure person who will let you walk all over him/her. Maybe a partner is trying to change you for the better.
But yes, I absolutely agree with you: being comfortable and open with your partner is absolutely essential. If you don't have that, it seems that you're missing the fundamental point of dating and marriage (at least for secular humanists). The most you can hope for in this life is to understand yourself and this world around you. By loving, trusting, living with and focusing all of your powers of observation and appreciation on this one person, maybe -- just maybe -- you will understand humanity, yourself, and this whole absurd universe a tiny bit better.
That's my current theory at least. It will probably change next year.
Agree on concepts, disagree on terminology (Score:3, Insightful)
And maybe on this - yes, maybe you really are an arrogant asshole who NEEDS to change in order to become a better person. But that is YOUR responsibility, and you will have to realize the necessity and then actualize the change more or less on your own, or it'll never take.
Because if your girlfriend is attempting to change you away from that sort of behaviour... flip it around to her perspective. Now SHE is br
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Which justifies why EVERY sane man should quietly (ie, if you want your penis still attached the next morning, don't tell the wifey) get a paternity test of any kid "his" mate pops out.
But then, the same traits a female looks for in the daddy-wimp also most likely include a low risk that the sucker will get such a test done.
Not that the courts really care about the actual biological father when it comes to child support or ali
Re:Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee I thought it was my hat (Score:2)
Now it figures... (Score:3, Funny)
Right. Then why do so many women screw up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather then testing wich photograph someone likes better perhaps a better test to see if a male is truly intrested in being a father is to see if he is one? Baby pictures are cute. Crying shitting sex-ruining babies are not.
As for what women find more attractive. Well wasn't there another study not so long ago that claimed tha
Re:Right. Then why do so many women screw up? (Score:2)
Let's assume that the theory is correct. Just because women can recognize from a face that some guy is a brawler and another guy is a nebbish, it doesn't mean that things play out perfectly afterwards. Maybe the nebbish doesn't want to raise the kid that came along 6 months after he met the girl.
W....t..f? (Score:5, Funny)
Words cannot express my bewilderment.
Re:W....t..f? (Score:2)
J.
If this was true ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I missing something ? (and please spare the "women don't know what they want" comments
Re:If this was true ... (Score:2)
Re:If this was true ... (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
More at 6...
Originally Read: Women Get Lots From Male Faces (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Originally Read: Women Get Lots From Male Faces (Score:2)
Drew: I'm thinking about taking that new chick from Logistics. If things go right I might be showing her my O-face.........You know: Oooooooh! Ooooooooh!
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I can look at a chick's beard and tell she's got lotsa testosterone.
And another study (Score:4, Funny)
One participant in this study commented: "I just kept saying 'is willing' for each and every photo they showed me. In the end they told me i got every one of them right."
Another participant said that "this was just too easy" and that "the hanging drewling tongues and the eager looks or their [the men in the photos] faces where dead giveways".
Undisclousured sources told us of having overheard the main researcher on this study comment to his assistant that "this is our best scheme for getting girls phone numbers ever".
Uuuuuh (Score:2)
Re:Uuuuuh (Score:2)
Man, I am SOOOOO glad I'm not the only one!!
Control group (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Control group (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
slashdot article tag.... (Score:2)
anyone want to join in that testing?
disclaimer: joining such a test group doesn't mean it'll be pictures of playboy models....
Faces? (Score:2)
Stupid and Fairly Insulting (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm spoiled by having a lot of intelligent female friends, but we're looking for someone to spend time with, not just someone to make a baby with.
Re:Stupid and Fairly Insulting (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting your foot into the door has nothing to do with dating?
"Perhaps I'm spoiled by having a lot of intelligent female friends, but we're looking for someone to spend time with, not just someone to make a baby with."
TFA says you're actually looking for both, someone "to spend time with" but then somebody else to make a baby with on the side. None of your friends have ever done any
Re:Stupid and Fairly Insulting (Score:2)
So when does he inherit her father's massive corporate holdings? We want the details.
Re:Stupid and Fairly Insulting (Score:2)
The inverse is also true (Score:2, Funny)
Faces say a lot. (Score:2)
What Men Think (Score:2)
Manthought, "Boy! I'd like to stick my...
Slashdotmanthought, "I better get some Kleenex."
"The Naked Face" (Score:2, Informative)
I don't find any of this hard to believe. If we didn't subconsciously give away cues to our personalities, how would animation work? Or for that matter, acting? I think it's easy to be scared at just how much we do give away.
Re:Slashdot using daily nexus as source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot using daily nexus as source? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot using daily nexus as source? (Score:2)
Simple Hack (Score:2, Funny)
Worth a try?
Re:Causation? (Score:2)
Re: 100% (Score:2)
range (1.15*10^-1 to 1,24/9/*10^-1) + range (8.5*10^-1 to 9.4/9/*10^-1) can definately include 1./0/
Re: 100% (Score:2)
In a way that is my point. TFA presents the data as
At the most generous end of the spectrum the remainder comes to 3%. This seems very small. The 'undecided' figure is usually bigger than this. My conclusion is that the data is, at best, sloppily presented, and at worst, simply wrong. If this was presented to me as a paper it would be ha
Re: 100% (Score:2)
Not when about 90% answered the same way, it's not.
If you were to ask 1000 men, "do you feel the need to have a sex change?" the "undecided" percentage would probably be less than one percent.
If you asked 1000 women, "are you currently in or near the third trimester of a pregnancy?" I bet you would get an even smaller percentage of "undecided" answers.
If I were to ask
Re: 100% (Score:2)
Re:Face? You sure? (Score:2)
She might, but in general men are more interested in their dick size than the women who meet them are.
Re:Face? You sure? (Score:2)
...you hope.
Re:This is a pathetic excuse for "science." (Score:2)
Good article; it points out many of the obvious errors.
For those of you who are too lazy to REOTFA, I offer a highlight: the sample space of men was 39. The sample space of women was 29. And in the absence of information to the contrary, I can only assume that they were all from the same small geographical area. So you know what this study tells us about "inherent evolutionary imperatives" in the entire female gender? Bugger all, that's what.
Something the critical article doesn't address is the way