Post: #1

Link from http://www.psychologytoday.com

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/everyb...them-score

Do Men Strikeout So Much Because It Helps Them Score?
By Nate Kornell, Ph.D. on March 22, 2012 - 6:17pm
I asked my colleague Carin Perilloux to write a guest post about an article she published recently in Psychological Science. Here's what she wrote.

Ladies, gents, we all know the scenario: Woman is waiting for her coffee at the café counter, guy behind her sidles up for the traditional rite of awkward small talk until the barista slings over a venti mocha caramel frappuccino, prompting the woman's departure. Afterwards, she thinks, "Well that was a friendly conversation;" meanwhile he is smiling to himself thinking, "Oh yeah, she definitely likes me."

Men think women are more interested in sex, and more interested in them, than women really are. This has been shown across tons of different study methodologies from self-report to in-lab observations to even looking at photographs!

Why do guys mistake women's friendliness for sexual interest?

Why does this bias exist? One might say that the media sexualizes men and makes them see sex wherever they look. This can't be the whole answer, though, because guys don't overestimate ALL women's interest (e.g., they don't overestimate their sisters' interest in other men)--if I'm a man, I overestimate women's interest in me. But what of the argument that the media depicts women as less interested in sex and having a lower sex drive than men? If that's the case, we should see men assuming that women are just generally not that interested; and should see women perhaps holding the opposite bias: assuming that men are more interested. So these proximal causes have yet to be ironed out.

Evolutionary causes may also have an impact. In ancestral environments, the cost of missing a chance to reproduce was potentially the loss of an offspring; the cost of the other type of error, thinking a woman was more interested than she really was, was some embarrassment. In the currency of reproductive success, clearly the former error looms larger.

Perfect accuracy is not an option in this case since -- as a woman, and a human being -- I can tell you that the cues we use to figure out if someone is interested, or to show our own interest, are far from perfectly predictive! Ladies, just think of the last time you flashed a big smile, made your voice more girlish, and giggled when asking someone for a favor (a la in Mad Men when Betty Draper asked the tow truck driver to fix her car on the cheap). So guys whose "error management" strategy was to overestimate women's sexual interest would have had a reproductive advantage (increasing reproductive success is certainly not implied here to be a conscious motivation).

Is men's overperception universal?

Along with my colleagues Judith Easton and David Buss, I designed a speed-meeting study to determine whether all guys misperceive in the same way. In this study, groups of 5 men and 5 women reported to the lab for an experiment on "first impressions" in a platonic setting. Each male-female dyad went into a lab room for a few minutes to make small talk. Afterwards they privately rated one another. These ratings assessed, among other things, their interest in their partner and their estimate of the partner's interest in them - allowing us to calculate misperception.

We found that men overestimated the women's interest overall, but some men did so more than others. There were two traits in men that predicted this difference: mating strategy and attractiveness.

Men who had a more short-term mating strategy (read: interested in casual sex and one night stands) were even more likely to overestimate how interested the women were. Also, guys who rated their own attractiveness higher also overestimated women's interest more.

Interestingly, though, guys whom the women in the study rated as more attractive were less likely to overestimate. These attractive men didn't overate women's interest because the women really were interested!

So before you think that all guys have taken a page from Lloyd at the end of Dumb and Dumber,

Lloyd: What are my chances?
Mary: Not good
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like... one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!

Keep in mind that some guys are less susceptible to this bias. Good-looking men who are interested in long-term relationships--a desirable bunch--seem to be least susceptible. But if you're looking to avoid the over-estimators, ladies, keep the flirtatious signals to a minimum - guys are more than willing to pick up on even the slightest hints of interest!

Post: #2

This article is a bunch of nonsense. If when you talk to a girl and assume there's no sexual interest on her part why even bother talking to them? Cause you like to hear the smart things they say? We are generating the interest.. Girls listen up! Without that pussy nobody cares what you have to say. It's the only reason guys talk to you at all.

Post: #3

(03-23-2012 09:12 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Evolutionary causes may also have an impact. In ancestral environments, the cost of missing a chance to reproduce was potentially the loss of an offspring; the cost of the other type of error, thinking a woman was more interested than she really was, was some embarrassment. In the currency of reproductive success, clearly the former error looms larger.

Basically, evolution selected for men who are more likely to thing a women is into him when she isn't, because the reproductive cost of not realizing a woman is attracted to you is far greater than the cost of rejection.

Remember, only roughly half of all males who have ever lived have produced offspring (at least any that survived) because of a high mortality rate due to being murdered and of course that a select few (the alpha's) got a greater chunk of the sex.

Post: #4

I think you're right mech. They're not accounting for game. They're basing it completely on looks.

Post: #5

You gotta strike out alot if you wanna learn how to hit homeruns.

Baseball is a good analogy for Game because in baseball you can strike out 7 out of 10 times and still be a pro. Being successful 3 out of 10 makes you an all-star!

(03-23-2012 09:22 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  Girls listen up! Without that pussy nobody cares what you have to say. It's the only reason guys talk to you at all.

Post: #6

Another reason to keep swinging is because of the randomness and uniqueness of each female. They all are different. Add in other factors like individual stress, peer-pressure and just plain "wants", approaching women really becomes a timing thing so you never know when your approach will actually work....so why not try?

Post: #7

I think some guys missed the science behind this article. Basically overrating women's attraction for us has been selected for in our evolution.

Post: #8

(03-24-2012 06:22 AM)P Dog Wrote:  I think some guys missed the science behind this article. Basically overrating women's attraction for us has been selected for in our evolution.

P Dog we don't care if women are attracted to us. We only care if we're attracted to them. Game creates their attraction to us beyond superficial looks. I think I heard someone call it psychosexual attraction.

Post: #9

(03-24-2012 07:19 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 06:22 AM)P Dog Wrote:  I think some guys missed the science behind this article. Basically overrating women's attraction for us has been selected for in our evolution.

P Dog we don't care if women are attracted to us. We only care if we're attracted to them. Game creates their attraction to us beyond superficial looks. I think I heard someone call it psychosexual attraction.

Maybe it's because I'm tired as hell and sleepy, but I don't follow

Post: #10

Ah, more blue-pill pretty lies...

What difference does it make if guys think women are hot for them when they're not? Well, this article is dripping with a key phenomenon: women have contempt and disgust for the mere thought of sexual advances from unattractive guys. So if the wrong guys are motivated to escalate, it creepy-crawly for girls.

"Why do guys mistake women's friendliness for sexual interest?"

Because:
-Female sexuality tends to be reactive, so the only way most women WILL get sexually interested is if the man is motivated to escalate. In other words, men gain from a risk-tolerant mindset.
-Because women appear to be very bad at communicating interest vs non-interest in a way men can read easily...but this is actually a feature, not a bug, as it gets men to do all sorts of favors and investment for women when they (wrongly) think there's a payoff waiting.

Someone else said it: if women had to approach, escalate, and get rejected, and get up to do it all over again, all reproduction would stop.

Mainstream writing on sexuality is so weird and bass-ackwards - none of them seem to understand that sexuality operates on a visceral, instantaneous level, not on the superliminal plane. People don't sit around over cups of tea and make pro-con charts on whether they should rationally decide to find someone else attractive (women especially don't).

Post: #11

I'll quote it here just to back up my point:

"Keep in mind that some guys are less susceptible to this bias. Good-looking men who are interested in long-term relationships--a desirable bunch--seem to be least susceptible. But if you're looking to avoid the over-estimators, ladies, keep the flirtatious signals to a minimum - guys are more than willing to pick up on even the slightest hints of interest!"

Women are horrified by the idea that the "wrong" man might hit on them.

Post: #12

Quote:Men think women are more interested in sex, and more interested in them, than women really are.

Sexless scientist is sexless.

It amazes me how delusional this studies are about how sex really goes down.

Every living organism on this planet is all about bumping uglies, whether they want to aknowledge it or not. "Oh, we asked 5 women and they said they where totally not attracted, so that must be true..."

Assholes.

Post: #13

(03-24-2012 12:05 PM)germanico Wrote:  

Quote:Men think women are more interested in sex, and more interested in them, than women really are.

Sexless scientist is sexless.

It amazes me how delusional this studies are about how sex really goes down.

Every living organism on this planet is all about bumping uglies, whether they want to aknowledge it or not. "Oh, we asked 5 women and they said they where totally not attracted, so that must be true..."

Assholes.

http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/03/1...rk-truths/

Self-reported data is useless. Always look at the revealed preference.

Post: #14

You have to be confident enough to feel like your fly enough for any and every woman to want you. The law of averages of course says that that wont be true, but thats the mindset that you should be working with. Youll find out she doesnt like you after you shoot your shot. Assuming a woman doesnt like you before you know indefinitely is a losers mindset.

Post: #15

I'm missing why some here object to the study and the article describing it. In game speak it's basically saying that men who are "irrationally confident", and assume that chicks are into them when some of them may not be, are more succesfull than those who have a realistic or pessimistic view of which chicks are actually attracted to them.

Basically the realistic and pessimistic men will miss out on some opportunities to fuck. The pessimistic ones for obvious reasons, and the "realistic" ones because their perception of reality, while good, is not perfect. So they'd miss the odd chance with a girl because their belief told them she wasn't interested when she was.

The study supports, rather than attacks, game. People are getting hung up on the fact that they say that men generally overestimate women's attraction for them. If this was coming from a feminist organisation I may agree this was meant as an insult. But I sincerely doubt there are any true-blue feminists, as we define them here, studying evolutionary physchology. Their brains would explode after 15 minute of investigation if they did.

Overestimate/underestimate/shmundrestimate. For us, and in the long march of evolution, it only matters what works. This study is saying it is overestimation (of womens attraction for us) that works.

Post: #16

It always amazes me how quick people are to attack scientists who study attraction. For those who are attacking the article: these guys have empirical data to back up what they are saying. They used the scientific method and ran their statistical analysis to arrive at their conclusion.

Where is YOUR data that is derived from a carefully controlled study?