The Internet never ceases to amaze me. Not only does it enable you to find the perfect margarita recipe, locate your nearest belly dancing class, and check the price on tickets to Cuba, it also enables 24 year-old boys in Brazil to ask me for flirting advice.
I received the sweetest email from Paolo (name has been changed to protect the innocent) who needed advice about a girl at his college. I have to say that my two younger brothers, and all of their friends, have been asking me for advice on the fairer gender for years. This brought back fond memories.
The reason I am writing a blog on this topic, besides the fact I am delighted to be giving flirting advice to people who dance samba, is that Paolo's dilemma is very common. And, in fact, can be found all over the world. Paolo and a lovely lady at his school have been exchanging smiles. Paolo can feel there is something in her smile, while his friends say that he is just imagining it. First of all, whatever you do, don't listen to your friends! They have biased opinions and their own subjective views playing in their heads. You are the one feeling/experiencing this, not them. As I learned from my research on flirting, good flirting is not one-sided. It takes two to samba!
Paolo is wondering what he should do. I told him, as I will tell you, because you are probably in the same dilemma, that you should talk to her. She is sending you a 'signal of approachability' by always smiling at you. Most likely, she is waiting for you to go over and talk to her. In fact, if you don't, she will assume that you don't like her.
Besides, what is the harm of talking to a beautiful girl? If you don't have any motives or agendas when you begin the conversation (ahem....boys!) then there isn't anything to lose. Besides, worst case scenario is that she is not interested, and then you go find the many others who are interested. It's a win/win situation.
Okay, next query?
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Guest blog on playing hard to get
It seems the blog on economic scarcity and economics of the heart caused quite a reaction. Here is one of the responses that I particularly liked, from someone who works in the business of risks and probability.
"Individuals search around for a flirt/mate etc. They identify a
potential individual who is likely to respond positively. Everyone wants
to be liked / loved, so they are never going to flirt with someone
who is likely to reject them. No one wants rejection. That is the
"normal" market.
Therefore, playing hard to get just prices you out of the market
normal. The price of playing hard to get is too high for someone who
places a high probability on the pay-off being rejection. The only
way playing hard to get will work is if the initial flirt has a non-
normal expectation of the probability of rejection. They may well
also be a "hard to get" person, but identifying the same type brings
on a challenge. They are operating in their own market.
Individuals should stick to the market in which they are
comfortable. Why do people go to clubs to meet people? Because they
would be keen to meet people who go to clubs. Why do people play hard
to get, because they want to be highly selective and meet only the
same small minority of the niche market that also plays hard to get."
What do you all think? Do people play 'hard to get' in order to meet other highly selective people?
"Individuals search around for a flirt/mate etc. They identify a
potential individual who is likely to respond positively. Everyone wants
to be liked / loved, so they are never going to flirt with someone
who is likely to reject them. No one wants rejection. That is the
"normal" market.
Therefore, playing hard to get just prices you out of the market
normal. The price of playing hard to get is too high for someone who
places a high probability on the pay-off being rejection. The only
way playing hard to get will work is if the initial flirt has a non-
normal expectation of the probability of rejection. They may well
also be a "hard to get" person, but identifying the same type brings
on a challenge. They are operating in their own market.
Individuals should stick to the market in which they are
comfortable. Why do people go to clubs to meet people? Because they
would be keen to meet people who go to clubs. Why do people play hard
to get, because they want to be highly selective and meet only the
same small minority of the niche market that also plays hard to get."
What do you all think? Do people play 'hard to get' in order to meet other highly selective people?
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Smiley and Busty's train encounter
I was in the corner observing, which is my favourite place to be when I am not in the thick of the action. The setting was the overland train. The two subjects were a small and smiley Indian man and a Busty Black woman. They both stood at the door waiting for their freedom. The smiley one said to the busty one, "How are you today?" The busty one looked alarmed, visibly prayed that the doors would open, and said with a forced politeness, "Fine, thank you". She then proceeded to put on the sour 'London face' and look anywhere but at him. Ouch! If that man ever gets up enough courage to say hello to another human being, let alone a woman, I will be very proud of him.
For the rest of my journey, I pondered what would have made Busty respond in such an unnecessarily, unfriendly manner. I came up with three hypotheses.
1) Busty's dog had been run over by a car earlier that day and she was still in a state of shock and grief.
2) Busty assumed that because a strange man had said hello to her, that he obviously wanted something that she was not willing to give...
3) Busty is not comfortable gracefully exiting conversations. I refer back to an earlier post and again, stress that those people who are most comfortable getting out of conversations, are more likely to get into them in the first place. Busty must not have felt adept at exchanging one minute pleasantries with smiley Indian men and then leaving.
Or, it could be a completely different reason. But, at the end of the day, I always go back to humanity. Why can't we all just be nice to each other? (This is assuming the other person isn't a complete eejit!) I am sure the flirting revolution will catch on when everyone realizes how much more enjoyable life is when we are sweet instead of sour.
For the rest of my journey, I pondered what would have made Busty respond in such an unnecessarily, unfriendly manner. I came up with three hypotheses.
1) Busty's dog had been run over by a car earlier that day and she was still in a state of shock and grief.
2) Busty assumed that because a strange man had said hello to her, that he obviously wanted something that she was not willing to give...
3) Busty is not comfortable gracefully exiting conversations. I refer back to an earlier post and again, stress that those people who are most comfortable getting out of conversations, are more likely to get into them in the first place. Busty must not have felt adept at exchanging one minute pleasantries with smiley Indian men and then leaving.
Or, it could be a completely different reason. But, at the end of the day, I always go back to humanity. Why can't we all just be nice to each other? (This is assuming the other person isn't a complete eejit!) I am sure the flirting revolution will catch on when everyone realizes how much more enjoyable life is when we are sweet instead of sour.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Handsome on the Hammersmith or pug ugly on the Piccadilly?
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)