A simple logical reasoning test
Initial attraction starts only approximately all relationships of any kind ever in mankind's history.
Whether or not you talk to a person, even in a friendly manner, depends on your initial attraction to that person.
And apparently, initial attraction depends mainly on physical beauty in women and status in men.
Initial attraction starts only approximately all relationships of any kind ever in mankind's history.
Whether or not you talk to a person, even in a friendly manner, depends on your initial attraction to that person.
And apparently, initial attraction depends mainly on physical beauty in women and status in men.
i had posted a study a while back that showed that after a group of people interacted with each other for just a few days, ratings changed by as much as 4 points on a 10 point scale. so a previously unattractive person becomes attractive, and vice versa. this would not occur in ea speed dating event, but it definitely could happen as mutual friends get to know each other or people become acquainted at work or church.
initial attraction is not that important in the grand scheme of dating.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Where can I find that? It could prove an interesting read.
initial attraction is not that important in the grand scheme of dating.
Definitely a factor, but most relationships don't seem to start there, and those assume people have a very limited range of social contacts. I'll wait until reading the entire thing before saying this definitively, but unless this is about practical relationships documented from the point of origin, this is what the study I posted served to discredit - theoretical attraction is rarely even similar to practical attraction, and practical attraction is based primarily on status/wealth and beauty.
practical attraction != to actual relationships. a woman might be initially attracted to Brad Pitt but could be turned off from his personality after a few dates. same with a man dating Megan Fox. interestingly, both of those individuals are married to people of equal looks AND roughly equal socioeconomic status (in one couple, the female is the higher earner, and the reverse is true for the other couple, but they are all in the highest income bracket).
also worthy of noting is the fact that most people date and marry others who have equal socioeconomic status, so the idea that women must be focusing on wealth is clearly untrue. if it were true, women would be routinely marrying men of higher status.
the study is summarised here:
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilso ... /DSW13.pdf
there are at least 3 other studies that have shown that levels of attraction change with growing acquaintance. but really, this is obvious - most people have changing attraction for others over time. this study simply went so far as to have people rate each other with numbers.
this is a gem from that study:
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Indications of theoretical factors that contribute to attraction are nothing unless they are acted upon. That does not happen in any case where initial attraction is not present. You see, even with people who 'grow to love each other' in a relationship, there was one point where they felt each other to be suitable partners. If one is asked to draft a list of desirable traits in a potential partner, that list will - with any human test group - invariably consist mainly of socially-acceptable drivel (men saying they want intelligence; women saying they want a man with a sense of humour) that usually forms a sharp contrast with their actual choices.
What you linked to was an interesting study, but one that seems to confirm my theory between the lines. Interestingly, part of it indirectly confirms my theory (that it's about status for women and that it's about beauty for men). According to one of their charts, men rating women rated them mostly on initial attraction, in which physical attraction invariably plays a major role. Women, on the other hand, based their attraction mainly on factors that developed over the period where they were made aware of men's talents and social standing within the group.
once again, you are incorrect. people date others who they are not initially attracted to... all of the time. they become attracted to them over time. most people don't walk up to strangers on the street and start dating them; they usually get to know future partners in social situations.
hilariously, you are arguing that lists of desirable traits are worthless, yet you are using a similarly flawed list to try to explain how people ultimately date each other.
i believe you misunderstood the study - they showed that initially, men focused more heavily on looks, but over time it became less important. you're not really focusing on the conclusion. both men and women changed their opinions drastically upon getting to know each other - and that included looks as one facet thatchanged.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
And why do they get to know these potential partners, and not the other six billion, millions of whom they'll probably see or encounter in some way throughout their single lives? That's where initial attraction works its magic. Even if they're colleagues, there will be groups where some people hang out, including some people and excluding others.
Firstly, glad you admit these lists are flawed. Secondly, no - the things I'm using have been observed across cultures, and even across species.
And why do they get to know these potential partners, and not the other six billion, millions of whom they'll probably see or encounter in some way throughout their single lives? That's where initial attraction works its magic. Even if they're colleagues, there will be groups where some people hang out, including some people and excluding others.
Firstly, glad you admit these lists are flawed. Secondly, no - the things I'm using have been observed across cultures, and even across species.
they get to know them.... because they work together. i think perhaps you're not aware of how many other individuals an average person must get to know in their daily life. some of them stand out over time, and they are not necessarily attractive at the outset.
you're getting into strange territory by implying that groups form for some ulterior motive. i had a bunch of friends that hung out at the pub who ranged across all ages and demographics. we just enjoyed each other's company.
i didn't say the lists were flawed - you did.
observing beavers will teach you about beavers, and observing nuthatches will teach you about nuthatches. it is not comparable.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
hmmm, let's see.......................
Some men are murderers
Tom is a man
Therefore Tom is a murderer
A. True / B. False / C. It can be either true or false regardless of the premises
-----------------------------------------
All men are murderers
Tom is a man
Therefore, Tom is a murderer
A. True / B. False / C. It can be either true or false regardless of the premises
------------------------------------
Some men are murderers
Jane is a woman
therefore Jane is not a murderer
A. True / B. False / C. It can be either true or false regardless of the premises
-------------------------------------
Whore is a word meant for female prostitutes
Some prostitutes work on the street
Lucy works on the street
therefore Lucy is a whore
A. True / B. False / C. It can be either true or false regardless of the premises
--------------------------------------
Whore is a word meant for female prostitutes
Some prostitutes work on the street
Lucy is female
therefore Lucy is a whore
A. True / B. False / C. It can be either true or false regardless of the premises
Last edited by blunnet on 15 Jul 2012, 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.