I was having coffee with a Greek friend of mine the other day, and, of course being Greek, means he has at least two P.h.d.'s. He mentioned that some tube lines on the underground had better looking people on them than others. He shared that he was a great advocate of the central and circle lines, and he wasn't so fond of the pickings on the Piccadilly line. Considering I have spent a good deal of my time in London living in the centre, or cycling, I can't say that I've been underground enough to 'test' if these theories were accurate. (If, in fact, they can be tested. I still believe everyone has different tastes as to what is considered good-looking)
Later that night, we were having dinner with a happily ever now hybrid of an American woman and her British, public school boy partner. We asked them what they thought of this hypothesis. 'Well, we met on the circle line 7 years ago' they said. Apparently, they were believers.
I still think we need a much bigger sample size before we can draw any conclusions.So, that is why I ask you, my dear readers. Do different lines have better looking people than others? And, I have usually said that the tube is a bad place to meet people. Due to lack of personal space, it's often seen as threatening to make extended eye contact with others. The way we give people space in a situation where there isn't much space, is to not make direct eye contact. This is why people are looking up, down, or anywhere but at you! But, what do you think? Is the tube a good place to meet others?
Tuesday 22 April 2008
Monday 14 April 2008
The social 'evolution' of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology has long been regarded as the answer to explaining why we are attracted to certain individuals. By looking at how our preferences have evolved, in regards to sexual selection of mates, the theories of evolutionary psychology outline very clearly who is the most desirable amongst us and who is least likely to pass on their genes. However, such theories disregard a few critical points. In our modern-day society, not everyone’s main goal is to pass on genes; for some, it’s to enjoy a successful career, for others, it’s to travel the world. Our present criteria do not necessarily coincide with our evolutionary ancestor’s. Additionally, evolutionary psychology ignores the all- important social factors which also affect the choosing of a mate, factors such as who do I enjoy spending time with, and who is least likely to reject my advances.
In a study done in the 90’s, by a proponent of evolutionary psychology, David Buss found that men were universally attracted to young, good-looking females, whose physical features indicated their fertility potential, while women, were drawn to powerful males with money. In their book ‘The Psychology of Physical Attraction’ Swami and Furnham explain the allure of this theory by saying, “The fundamental theories of evolutionary theory are clear, testable, and easily understood, which makes it intuitively appealing.”
But many theories proposed by evolutionary psychology as to why we did things in the past, are not applicable in our present day. In many western societies, women’s earning potential matches men’s, therefore deeming it unnecessary to opt for older males with money. Do you think Ashton Kutcher’s earning potential is on the mind of Demi as they snuggle up for a good night’s sleep? Equally, men do not necessarily go for youth when flirting to find a mate, because due to advances in medical technology, women are able to bear children at a much later age in life. And, as mentioned previously, our ancestors’ goals of propagating the species, aren’t necessarily our own. Therefore, the all-important signals of fertility, such as youth and hip to waist ratios, have been replaced by more relevant, social indicators, such as signals of approachability, as in, who will not reject me?!
At the end of the day, it's less about waist/hip ratio and more about who will make us feel special, unique, and understood. In my own research, where I asked over 250 people what sort of characteristics they are attracted to, the majority began listing personality characteristics before physical one. This point alone is very indicative as to what people value as important. Secondly, there was never a clear pattern in responses as to physical traits which were universally appealing, at least in a European/North American context. (Except for the French who preferred "Bruce Willis"/"Winona Ryder" types)
As the great Marlene Dietrich said, “The average man is more interested in a woman who is interested in him than he is in a woman with beautiful legs”
In a study done in the 90’s, by a proponent of evolutionary psychology, David Buss found that men were universally attracted to young, good-looking females, whose physical features indicated their fertility potential, while women, were drawn to powerful males with money. In their book ‘The Psychology of Physical Attraction’ Swami and Furnham explain the allure of this theory by saying, “The fundamental theories of evolutionary theory are clear, testable, and easily understood, which makes it intuitively appealing.”
But many theories proposed by evolutionary psychology as to why we did things in the past, are not applicable in our present day. In many western societies, women’s earning potential matches men’s, therefore deeming it unnecessary to opt for older males with money. Do you think Ashton Kutcher’s earning potential is on the mind of Demi as they snuggle up for a good night’s sleep? Equally, men do not necessarily go for youth when flirting to find a mate, because due to advances in medical technology, women are able to bear children at a much later age in life. And, as mentioned previously, our ancestors’ goals of propagating the species, aren’t necessarily our own. Therefore, the all-important signals of fertility, such as youth and hip to waist ratios, have been replaced by more relevant, social indicators, such as signals of approachability, as in, who will not reject me?!
At the end of the day, it's less about waist/hip ratio and more about who will make us feel special, unique, and understood. In my own research, where I asked over 250 people what sort of characteristics they are attracted to, the majority began listing personality characteristics before physical one. This point alone is very indicative as to what people value as important. Secondly, there was never a clear pattern in responses as to physical traits which were universally appealing, at least in a European/North American context. (Except for the French who preferred "Bruce Willis"/"Winona Ryder" types)
As the great Marlene Dietrich said, “The average man is more interested in a woman who is interested in him than he is in a woman with beautiful legs”
Signals of approachability
By the time he has come up to you and said,'Fancy a drink' he might be thinking the whole thing was his ingenious idea, but this might not always be the case. Psychologist Monica Moore, has spent more than 3,000 hours observing the flirting behaviour of women in various contexts. According to Moore, not only did women initiate the flirting encounters two-thirds of the time but they used non-verbal communication, leaving men to believe that they were the ones who started it. Not only that, the women who were the most successful, were the ones who sent the most signals. Says Moore, “Those who displayed more than 35 displays per hour elicited greater than four approaches per hour.” She also notes, “The more variety the woman used in her techniques, the more likely she was to be successful.” It seems these days, men are less concerned about the golden .7, hip-waist ratio, and more concerned with who is least likely to reject their advances.
I found similar results about the importance of approachability signals in my research, comparing the flirting habits of singles in six, Western European and North American cities. When asked the question, “What makes you want to flirt with someone?” The most common responses for London males were ‘smiles’ and ‘she looks approachable’.
London males stressed that looks were important (although their answer as to what is attractive varied considerably) but they also were quick to emphasize that looks alone weren’t enough. As Alex, 30, said, “I’m not going to flirt with someone just because she has a great body or is a great dresser”.
The danger in conforming to evolutionary psychologies well-worn theories, which dictate a woman’s best means in attracting a man is her physical attractiveness and for men, his power and money, gives people an unnecessary sense of helplessness, one that the advertising industry is more than happy to exploit. In the end, if your skin is not always spot-free (another indicator of evolutionary psychology to aid in mate selection) or you don’t pull in a six-figure salary, does not mean that there’s no hope for finding a worthy partner. It seems that showing signals of approachability is a much more important catalyst for attraction.
I found similar results about the importance of approachability signals in my research, comparing the flirting habits of singles in six, Western European and North American cities. When asked the question, “What makes you want to flirt with someone?” The most common responses for London males were ‘smiles’ and ‘she looks approachable’.
London males stressed that looks were important (although their answer as to what is attractive varied considerably) but they also were quick to emphasize that looks alone weren’t enough. As Alex, 30, said, “I’m not going to flirt with someone just because she has a great body or is a great dresser”.
The danger in conforming to evolutionary psychologies well-worn theories, which dictate a woman’s best means in attracting a man is her physical attractiveness and for men, his power and money, gives people an unnecessary sense of helplessness, one that the advertising industry is more than happy to exploit. In the end, if your skin is not always spot-free (another indicator of evolutionary psychology to aid in mate selection) or you don’t pull in a six-figure salary, does not mean that there’s no hope for finding a worthy partner. It seems that showing signals of approachability is a much more important catalyst for attraction.
Sunday 13 April 2008
Does economic theory pertain to economics of the heart?
Economic theory's 'laws of scarcity' proffers that with less abundance a greater value is attached. If applying this theory to 'dating' terms, it means that the more highly valued individual would be the one who is less available. Therefore, this might lead us to the conclusion that 'playing hard to get' works. But, before we all rush out and say 'I'm busy' when the first person that we actually fancy asks us out, we must first ask the question 'Can the laws of economic theory be equally applicable in matters of the heart'?
Is it always true that 'we want what we can't have' and 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' and other such useful (insert cynicism here) adages?
While these types of sayings might be fun and easy to throw around, their validity must be questioned. It is accepted, that as humans, we like to be liked. And, more importantly, we like people who like us. When choosing between someone who has given us little to no attention and someone who has given us their singular attention by making us feel understood, special, and unique, I think it's pretty fair to say that we will choose the latter rather than the former. So, why is this 'playing hard to get' notion, repeatedly championed as the premiere plan of action?
Some evolutionary psychologists propose that the purpose of playing hard to get is to signal to potential mates that we are not ‘easy’, and so we become more desirable as a result. Besides the fact that evolutionary psychology is a load of rubbish, studies by psychologists have shown this is not necessarily the case.
In a study by Walster (1973), college men were asked to each call five female participants and ask them out on a date. Those women who were deemed ‘easy to get’ and responded positively to the date were rated more favourably than those deemed ‘hard to get’ who responded with reluctance and acted as if they had other dates. Walster concluded that the most rewarding scenario is where the date is easy for us to get, but difficult for everyone else to get.
Going back to the law of economic scarcity and its relation to dating scarcity, I guess this means that while you might pay exorbitant amounts for honey collected by monks on the mountain tops of Tibet, it doesn't necessarily mean that you want your 'honey' to be just as scarce.
Is it always true that 'we want what we can't have' and 'absence makes the heart grow fonder' and other such useful (insert cynicism here) adages?
While these types of sayings might be fun and easy to throw around, their validity must be questioned. It is accepted, that as humans, we like to be liked. And, more importantly, we like people who like us. When choosing between someone who has given us little to no attention and someone who has given us their singular attention by making us feel understood, special, and unique, I think it's pretty fair to say that we will choose the latter rather than the former. So, why is this 'playing hard to get' notion, repeatedly championed as the premiere plan of action?
Some evolutionary psychologists propose that the purpose of playing hard to get is to signal to potential mates that we are not ‘easy’, and so we become more desirable as a result. Besides the fact that evolutionary psychology is a load of rubbish, studies by psychologists have shown this is not necessarily the case.
In a study by Walster (1973), college men were asked to each call five female participants and ask them out on a date. Those women who were deemed ‘easy to get’ and responded positively to the date were rated more favourably than those deemed ‘hard to get’ who responded with reluctance and acted as if they had other dates. Walster concluded that the most rewarding scenario is where the date is easy for us to get, but difficult for everyone else to get.
Going back to the law of economic scarcity and its relation to dating scarcity, I guess this means that while you might pay exorbitant amounts for honey collected by monks on the mountain tops of Tibet, it doesn't necessarily mean that you want your 'honey' to be just as scarce.
Saturday 12 April 2008
The brainwashing of biology
This morning I was a guest 'expert' on the Vanessa Feltz show. I was asked to comment on a recent study which reported that women could tell by a man's facial features whether he was looking for a one-night stand or a committed relationship. You will be unsurprised to hear me report that I thought the study was a load of rubbish.
Studies such as these are ignorant and misleading. I'm sorry to say, but life is not as simple as an absolute formula, big forehead + square jaw + close set eyes = gigolo...watch out! I believe that indicators such as an individual's stage in life, mood, levels of alcohol, and other contextual factors provide a much greater clue as to one's intentions than a square jaw.
Additionally, studies like this propagate the hegemonic view of masculinity which places women in constant pursuit of long-term relationships, trying to duck and weave their way out of purely sexual encounters. Again, it's not as straightforward as that. This is 2008, times have changed!
It's dangerous to link physical features to behavioural patterns or personality characteristics, as not only is the link false, but it supports racism, nationalism, stereotypes, and segregation, to name just a few of the nasties. Take it from the dumb blond.
Studies such as these are ignorant and misleading. I'm sorry to say, but life is not as simple as an absolute formula, big forehead + square jaw + close set eyes = gigolo...watch out! I believe that indicators such as an individual's stage in life, mood, levels of alcohol, and other contextual factors provide a much greater clue as to one's intentions than a square jaw.
Additionally, studies like this propagate the hegemonic view of masculinity which places women in constant pursuit of long-term relationships, trying to duck and weave their way out of purely sexual encounters. Again, it's not as straightforward as that. This is 2008, times have changed!
It's dangerous to link physical features to behavioural patterns or personality characteristics, as not only is the link false, but it supports racism, nationalism, stereotypes, and segregation, to name just a few of the nasties. Take it from the dumb blond.
Monday 7 April 2008
There's a fine line between flirting experiences and encounters.
My annoyance with the complete absence of buses was exacerbated by the fact that it was almost mid-April and I was shivering under my winter coat. My discontent immediately dissipated as I looked up and realized I was being watched by a very handsome voyeur who had stepped outside the nearby restaurant for a smoke.
In the growing darkness we let our eyes meet for an unusually long time in order to register if indeed we were checking the other out. Once we both realized that we were, we immediately broke eye contact and then politely took turns looking at each other while the other one was pretending not to notice. As I admired the joie de vivre in which he inhaled his cigarette, I willed the bus not to come. I figured that if the bus took long enough, and I gave him enough signals of approachability in the darkness, he would eventually come over. Yeah right, who was I kidding? London males don't randomly come up to strangers at bus stops. This only happens in New York. And, because for the first time, I actually didn't want the bus to come, it came within moments. He saw it was coming too. Just to make sure that our subtle flirting wasn't a figment of my imagination, I gave him another glance as I got on the bus. Yep, he was definitely looking.
Now that I was safely on the bus, it was much easier to show my interest, and, as I made my way to the very back, I took a final look out the back window to make sure the whole thing wasn't just my imagination. It wasn't. He was still looking, or rather, we were still looking. As the bus pulled away, I thought of the New Yorkers responses to my flirting research. They indicated that they were never content with flirting just for flirting's sake, in the case of someone they fancied. In answer to the question what they would expect after an evening of flirting with someone they were attracted to, the majority answered they would only be happy if there was some tangible result at the end: a phone number, date, a shag, or a kiss. The idea of flirting, solely for the sake of it, did not bode well with the New Yorkers. They much preferred the tangible encounters. I heard of many woeful New Yorkers who had seen someone on the tube, made eye contact, didn't do anything about it, and ended up chagrining themselves for years to come. I gently tried to point out the joy in the experience, and that having an encounter wasn't always necessary. They told me to be quiet and offered me a bagel and lox.
I am a big fan of flirting 'experiences'. I believe that every contact with someone doesn't have to be huge and significant. Some experiences make you smile, some make you happy, some make you feel attractive, some make you feel wistful, some put you in touch with humanity. But, what if one of those experiences should have been an encounter, and, because it's such a fine line between the two, that you just couldn't see it? Then, what?
Well, I guess you just wait for the next one.
Flirting opportunities are like buses. Wait ten minutes and another will come along.
In the growing darkness we let our eyes meet for an unusually long time in order to register if indeed we were checking the other out. Once we both realized that we were, we immediately broke eye contact and then politely took turns looking at each other while the other one was pretending not to notice. As I admired the joie de vivre in which he inhaled his cigarette, I willed the bus not to come. I figured that if the bus took long enough, and I gave him enough signals of approachability in the darkness, he would eventually come over. Yeah right, who was I kidding? London males don't randomly come up to strangers at bus stops. This only happens in New York. And, because for the first time, I actually didn't want the bus to come, it came within moments. He saw it was coming too. Just to make sure that our subtle flirting wasn't a figment of my imagination, I gave him another glance as I got on the bus. Yep, he was definitely looking.
Now that I was safely on the bus, it was much easier to show my interest, and, as I made my way to the very back, I took a final look out the back window to make sure the whole thing wasn't just my imagination. It wasn't. He was still looking, or rather, we were still looking. As the bus pulled away, I thought of the New Yorkers responses to my flirting research. They indicated that they were never content with flirting just for flirting's sake, in the case of someone they fancied. In answer to the question what they would expect after an evening of flirting with someone they were attracted to, the majority answered they would only be happy if there was some tangible result at the end: a phone number, date, a shag, or a kiss. The idea of flirting, solely for the sake of it, did not bode well with the New Yorkers. They much preferred the tangible encounters. I heard of many woeful New Yorkers who had seen someone on the tube, made eye contact, didn't do anything about it, and ended up chagrining themselves for years to come. I gently tried to point out the joy in the experience, and that having an encounter wasn't always necessary. They told me to be quiet and offered me a bagel and lox.
I am a big fan of flirting 'experiences'. I believe that every contact with someone doesn't have to be huge and significant. Some experiences make you smile, some make you happy, some make you feel attractive, some make you feel wistful, some put you in touch with humanity. But, what if one of those experiences should have been an encounter, and, because it's such a fine line between the two, that you just couldn't see it? Then, what?
Well, I guess you just wait for the next one.
Flirting opportunities are like buses. Wait ten minutes and another will come along.
Sunday 6 April 2008
Are you flipping your hair or suffering from whiplash?
The other night I was hanging out with the 'boys' at my dear friend's birthday party. The last time I had seen the 'boys' was on London's sunny summer day at a picnic in Hyde Park. One of them reminded me that I brought a bag of crisps which they all politely turned down in lieu of carrot sticks. Ah, memories...
At the time of the picnic, which can more accurately be described as them munching carrot sticks and drinking Evian water and me eating, I had just finished my international flirting study. The boys wanted me to ask them some of the questions from my study. Interestingly, their answers were almost identical to those of the heterosexual boys. This made me start to consider that when it comes to men and women getting together, the only thing that stands in the way is the opposite sex!
This thought was confirmed at the party on Saturday, while I sat listening intently to 'flirting tips', being generously doled out by the boys. "Okay Jean, this is one of my favourites. I take out some lip balm and put it on my lips. Then, I say to him 'You look like you might need some too' and then I rub it on his lips. It works every time." Now, as skeptical as I was about this technique working between men and women, knowing this cutie, I bet it works well for him.
But, the problem with using this flirting technique on women, is that it just wouldn't work. In fact, I think that most women would be repulsed if a man they were flirting with did this to them. It all comes down to the different communication styles of men and women. Forgive me for generalizing for a moment, but men are much more direct and obvious in their flirting encounters, while women much prefer subtleties. The gay community has on their side the knowledge of how their gender communicates. There's none of the misinterpretation of a woman batting her eyelashes with the intention of appearing coy and demure and the man assuming she has something in her eye.
That's not to say that some of the issues in the straight community aren't shared in the gay community. One friend would woefully complain that he just couldn't find a boyfriend. He regaled tales of meeting many 'fit' men at various clubs, taking them home, having a wonderful time (I will spare you the details), and them leaving the next morning and never calling again.
I tried to show him that how would any of these men assume that he was looking for a committed relationship, when he met him in the arena of 'quick shag'? People only know what we tell them, so make sure that your message is clear.
And, speaking of messages, it might be easier to get your point across of you are communicating with the same sex but, a little dollop of empathy, mixed with a measure of good listening skills, makes communication with the opposite sex all the more achievable and interesting!
At the time of the picnic, which can more accurately be described as them munching carrot sticks and drinking Evian water and me eating, I had just finished my international flirting study. The boys wanted me to ask them some of the questions from my study. Interestingly, their answers were almost identical to those of the heterosexual boys. This made me start to consider that when it comes to men and women getting together, the only thing that stands in the way is the opposite sex!
This thought was confirmed at the party on Saturday, while I sat listening intently to 'flirting tips', being generously doled out by the boys. "Okay Jean, this is one of my favourites. I take out some lip balm and put it on my lips. Then, I say to him 'You look like you might need some too' and then I rub it on his lips. It works every time." Now, as skeptical as I was about this technique working between men and women, knowing this cutie, I bet it works well for him.
But, the problem with using this flirting technique on women, is that it just wouldn't work. In fact, I think that most women would be repulsed if a man they were flirting with did this to them. It all comes down to the different communication styles of men and women. Forgive me for generalizing for a moment, but men are much more direct and obvious in their flirting encounters, while women much prefer subtleties. The gay community has on their side the knowledge of how their gender communicates. There's none of the misinterpretation of a woman batting her eyelashes with the intention of appearing coy and demure and the man assuming she has something in her eye.
That's not to say that some of the issues in the straight community aren't shared in the gay community. One friend would woefully complain that he just couldn't find a boyfriend. He regaled tales of meeting many 'fit' men at various clubs, taking them home, having a wonderful time (I will spare you the details), and them leaving the next morning and never calling again.
I tried to show him that how would any of these men assume that he was looking for a committed relationship, when he met him in the arena of 'quick shag'? People only know what we tell them, so make sure that your message is clear.
And, speaking of messages, it might be easier to get your point across of you are communicating with the same sex but, a little dollop of empathy, mixed with a measure of good listening skills, makes communication with the opposite sex all the more achievable and interesting!
The hippocampus vs. the amygdala
I have a friend. We will call him timid Tim, both because sometimes he is timid, and because it’s fun to say. Timid Tim never fails to give off the wrong signals around a woman that he likes. Unfortunately, while Timid and I both know that he is only acting stand-offish because he really likes a particular woman, the poor woman interprets this behaviour as disinterest and wanders elsewhere.
We were at the pub on Saturday night and Timid was up to his usual tricks, once again. I am happy to report that the ending was happy, but he would have lost her if his good friend the ‘flirting expert’ hadn’t had been there to show him the error of his ways!
You see, in our daily lives, the hippocampus (the rational, ‘thinking’ part of the brain) and the amygdala (the emotional part of the brain) usually shares the role of moderator between our heads and our hearts quite nicely. But, it appears in flirting situations, the amygdala takes over and all logical thought is discarded. This explains why intelligent, successful people turn into bumbling 16 year-olds in the presence of someone they fancy. Furthurmore, as a self-inflicted protective mechanism of the heart, people pretend to not be interested in someone they like. One of the great keys in flirting is to be able to convey this message of ‘I rather fancy you’ to the person whom you actually fancy.
If you are able to do this, it is very powerful (not to mention effective) because people respond to those who they feel like them. Let’s face it, we like to be liked! When given the choice between someone showing interest and attention and someone either ‘playing it cool’ or flitting around amongst everyone, we will choose the individual attention every time.
After a stern talking to with Timid, he made his interest in her much clearer. She in turn, reciprocated. The last I heard, they were having a beautiful Sunday lunch together.
We were at the pub on Saturday night and Timid was up to his usual tricks, once again. I am happy to report that the ending was happy, but he would have lost her if his good friend the ‘flirting expert’ hadn’t had been there to show him the error of his ways!
You see, in our daily lives, the hippocampus (the rational, ‘thinking’ part of the brain) and the amygdala (the emotional part of the brain) usually shares the role of moderator between our heads and our hearts quite nicely. But, it appears in flirting situations, the amygdala takes over and all logical thought is discarded. This explains why intelligent, successful people turn into bumbling 16 year-olds in the presence of someone they fancy. Furthurmore, as a self-inflicted protective mechanism of the heart, people pretend to not be interested in someone they like. One of the great keys in flirting is to be able to convey this message of ‘I rather fancy you’ to the person whom you actually fancy.
If you are able to do this, it is very powerful (not to mention effective) because people respond to those who they feel like them. Let’s face it, we like to be liked! When given the choice between someone showing interest and attention and someone either ‘playing it cool’ or flitting around amongst everyone, we will choose the individual attention every time.
After a stern talking to with Timid, he made his interest in her much clearer. She in turn, reciprocated. The last I heard, they were having a beautiful Sunday lunch together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)