Slashdot Mirror


Women Get Lots of Info From Male Faces

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."

26 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. sensationalisation sucks by malsdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

    How about using a proper source for this study?

    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

    1. Re:sensationalisation sucks by Teach · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am God ...try prove otherwise.

      God doesn't leave out grammatically-significant prepositions.

      QED

      :)

      --
      Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
    2. Re:sensationalisation sucks by drix · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well "Teach," if you want to be a pedant, the missing "to" in that sentence isn't a preposition. It's one half of the full infinitive "to prove," making it a particle.

      :)

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    3. Re:sensationalisation sucks by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Funny
      In addition to proper grammar, I'd think that God would pay attention to spelling as well.

      God's speling is korrekt. It's you're speling taht's wrong.

    4. Re:sensationalisation sucks by optikSmoke · · Score: 3, Funny

      If God would kindly reread the definitions of both therefor and therefore, God would find that while both are valid words, their meanings are somewhat different. God should note that, in the context He used it, "therefor" was incorrect.

      Perhaps God should address the situation of His Divine Foot, finding it firmly in-Mouth.

    5. Re:sensationalisation sucks by Joen_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      >How about using a proper source for this study?
      How about a link to the study itself? http://primate.uchicago.edu/2006PROC.pdf

    6. Re:sensationalisation sucks by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's one half of the full infinitive "to prove," making it a particle.

      But it sometimes behaves as if it were a wave.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  2. Ok then by fireman+sam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what we have here is researchers have discovered what physical attributes of men women find attractive (whether they want short term or long term relationships). Just as it is known what physical attributes of women men find attractive.

    So women don't just want a "nice on the inside" type of man.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  3. Let me fix that for you by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Researchers [CC] at U Name It have found that women have a remarkable ability to assess a man's finance levels and his interest in making women feel good by looking at how much money he spends. Sixty-nine percent of the women were able to correctly judge a man's ability to buy them diamonds merely by looking at cues in his wallet. Spending samples were also taken from each man in the study and tested for wanton spending on women with a $2,000-a-pop test. The women in the study were able to correctly identify the men with the highest spending levels just by looking at their wallets. 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, though further study is being considered at several men's clubs around the country."

  4. beards by mikesd81 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And men with beards? What do they want?

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    1. Re:beards by Zardus · · Score: 3, Funny

      They want all software to be free, of course!

      Oh, and money for autographs :-)

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
  5. Small sample size? by presidentbeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A group of 29 undergraduate students hardly seems enough to be able to generalize the results to the entire female gender.

    --
    Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
    1. Re:Small sample size? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 4, Funny

      You ever hear of a one sample t-test? You can prove whether or not something is significant with only one sample! You don't even need something to compare it to! Oh, wait - no you can't. That's not what a one sample t-test is at all. Either way, you can do some amazing shit with statistics. Especially if you don't understand what you are doing.

    2. Re:Small sample size? by mano_k · · 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

  6. Hidden messages... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Funny
    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...

    Sorry, I just couldn't concentrate.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  7. *whew* I totally misread that headline. ^^;;; by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Funny
    Did anyone else misread the headline? I could have sworn it said:
    Women Get Lots of Info From Male Feces

    Maybe I'm spending too much time on Fark...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  8. Translation by ebrandsberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Women are able to judge someone with aggressive genes that can father a strong child, then pick a sucker to stand with her to raise them.

    1. Re:Translation by Dis*abstraction · · Score: 5, Informative

      You jest, but some researchers think that's a very accurate description: "WHAT'S a girl to do when faced with the choice between a powerful action man who has great DNA but is likely to love her and leave her, and a carpet-and-slippers kind of bloke who will hang around and bring up the kids but may not be Mr Right in the genes department? Well, ideally, she should fool the latter into bringing up the former's children. And a piece of evidence that this is exactly what happens emerged this week from a research group led by Jan Havlicek of Charles University, in Prague."

  9. W....t..f? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the article:
    About nine out of 10 men chose the baby picture, roughly 12 percent expressed no interest in the baby picture, and the remaining subjects had a range of interest.

    Words cannot express my bewilderment.

  10. In other news... by Khyber · · Score: 3, Funny

    69% of women were able to correctly identify their husbands purely by the sound and odor of their flatulence.

    More at 6...

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. Originally Read: Women Get Lots From Male Faces by TheBashar · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sit on my face and tell me that you love me." --Monty Python

  12. Research abstract and article by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Informative

    How about using a proper source for this study?

    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 and article 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 with things like testosterone levels, sexual orientation, and male aggressiveness.

  13. And another study by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Funny

    In another study it has been found that women are very able at reading a man's williness to have sex from his face.

    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".

  14. Re:Slashdot using daily nexus as source? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're getting your news from a site that currently has a Pirate vs Ninja poll on the front page.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  15. Then you picked the wrong woman by DG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, if you have to make major alterations to your lifestyle in order to keep your wife/girfriend happy, then you chose the wrong wife/girlfriend.

    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

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Then you picked the wrong woman by Alric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This advice is fine but not necessarily true.

      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.