Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Discover Irresistible Dance Moves
sciencehabit writes "To find out if certain dance moves are more attractive to women than others, researchers recruited a bunch of college guys and used motion-capture to create avatars of them dancing. When women watched the avatars (2 videos included in story), the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs. The researchers say dancing is thus an honest signal to women of the man's strength and health, just as it is in crabs and hummingbirds, who also move in special ways to attract mates."
made my day
In the face of real science, so-called common sense is often wrong.
...make sure your avatar dances like the example on the bottom. Otherwise, you're never going to pretend to get laid.
> without flailing their arms and legs
That's all well and good for impressing the ladies, but how then am I supposed to scare of my competition?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Common sense is neither common nor sensical. Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster. Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic and can't be american. Common sense says that man can't be descended from apes. Science is as much about proving common sense to be wrong as it is about discovering the rare occurences it is correct.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If this article is any indication, it sounds like Will Farrell and Chris Kattan should be the most irresistible men on the planet.
Baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
"Kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs" seems useful in adapting our ways to attracting mates, though. Seems like the moves might be quite doable while sitting on a couch.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Neave says pilot studies by his group found that asking women who's a good dancer is the same as asking who's attractive.
Does this not undermine their argument? When actual men are involved, it boils down to who is better looking. So how he moves is of little importance as long as the women find him attractive.
My mother asked me why our generation never came up with any dances. Her generation had the Twist, the Mashed Potato, etc.
I replied that Micheal Jackson killed dance. Nobody else could move like him, so we all gave up and just mosh and twitch randomly.
That is moshgirl. Old meme is old.
This sort of study might be interesting but it seems clear that the article and one of the quoted anthropologists are assuming that this is a human universal or close to that. But this study was done in a single country with a small group of people. Without a lot more detail it isn't possible to tell if this is an ingrained preference or is culturally driven. Overarching conclusions from interesting but not broad studies like this give ev psych and anthropology a bad name.
What they have established is who is considered a better dancer. I doubt anyone finds a blue figure "attractive" so they a judging who is the better dancer.
In real life the guy who moves the least is considered more attractive but a poor dancer. The reason is that the less you can get away with moving while dancing the more it will look like the girl is dancing "for you" and not "with you", demonstrating you have values worth fighting for even if you are a terrible dancer.
What, no analysis of social dancing? Ya know, dancing with girls? With a lead and a follow?
I guess that kind of research will have to wait for a scientist willing to ask a girl to dance... might take a while.
You can't take the sky from me...
What are you talking about? Everyone's known for years that guys who dance like they're a frog in a blender don't make the cut.
This is NOT news. Except maybe to nerds, [...]
... which is why /. links to the whole article, for your convenience.
How to score chicks
1) Cut off own arms and legs; leave head connected.
2) Flail
3) Commence to tapping ass
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Huh? Common sense isn't supposed to be illogical.
It depends on whether your commoner uses Newtonian or quantum physics.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
How much of that is in our genes vs how much is in fact cultural? The dance of 500, 1000 or 10000 years ago was probably considered irresistible at their own time and boring now.
Probably is just culture what makes things (dance moves, clothing, hair styles or whatever) irresistible or not. Maybe is not just physical fitness what is being seen there, but also ability to perform or create a meme. "Functional" attractiveness of the opposite sex has changed with culture too
Imagine for a second that you're a woman getting drilled away by a perfect mate, how much of that guy are you going to see? Pretty much just his torso, head, and arms, right? That would explain why the legs are unimportant in teh decision making process.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
who are you to tell techno-viking he can't dance?
They're using their grammar skills there.
No, she's still a chick.
Her daughters say she was always a woman.
It is hard to believe that your post was modded as "insightful". It is funny how you seem to equate two beliefs commonly attributed to the Christian right with what the society at large considers "common sense". Obviously you do this to bolster your point.
I think you can do better.
If your point is that science regularly proves the beliefs of religious people to be incorrect - I agree. However, saying that without context or qualification is no different in terms of results than an outright lie.
Science also regularly proves that many of the beliefs of liberals, non-liberals, conservatives, faux conservatives, and flightless birds are incorrect.
Intellectual honesty much?
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Yeah, but at one time that meme totally ate my balls.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
What happens as you increase the mass of the feather until it weighs more than the moon? Does G magically change to be the gravitational pull of the feather once its mass becomes larger, or is it possible that the equations you learned in high school are only useful approximations of what is going on?
I have no doubt that slashdotters can be stupid, so I'll not hold it against you that you don't think beyond what your high school teachers tell you..
which is totally what she said
These two are 27 years old, and are the current innovators. Not Choreographed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGP8CEklpGg
Again, not choreographed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcHzqr8a34
Yes, these are professional West Coast dancers that compete in a circuit 30 weeks a year or so.
-Rick
A=F/M2
And what happened to
A=F/M1
?
which is totally what she said
It could just mean that the guys who used more legs and arms were just exposing their #fail more than the ones who didn't.
If you did this same test with professional dancers, how would it come out?
What women want degenerates into a common knowledge problem. Just read this thread, it illustrates what any sensible woman already knows: the incredible male fascination with easy ways to get laid without doing any real emotional work.
Even if the ruse works, you'll likely end up with the kind of chick who is easily duped by a shallow ruse. The pussy might be good in the short term, but soon you'll have to gnaw your arm off.
To really understand what women want involves tensor calculus: it's a varying function of what the women currently has. The tensor system has fairly strong immunity to fixed points. It tends to loop through sex, babies, parenthood, graduation, sex, babies, parenthood, etc.
As soon as you achieve one of these, your emotions migrate to the next stage. There's no gloriously horny fixed point.
Sometimes you find a woman who is so disillusioned with life, she gets off the bus. She's often found in the company of a man who is sexually exhausted (beyond caring), and disillusioned with disillusioned. Who knew that caring about life makes a woman more attractive?
The other term that confuses matters is that a women evaluates what she knows about you differently than what you've stated about yourself explicitly, even if these are the same thing. This tends to happen when a woman consciously knows better, but subconsciously continues to hope.
That's where real emotional work enters the picture. To have any real success with women, you have to be able to navigate the simultaneous equations. Sometimes you wander into a cul de sac, where there's no solution at all. Then you have to jump bravely from one ledge to another. This involves the use of that other male bone, the backbone. Anakin Skywalker is not your role model.
If the relationship has any emotional equity, the backbone move is termed "conflict resolution". Many relationships suck at this. A quick test for sucking at conflict resolution is when your typical relationship goes directly from great sex to Armageddon.
These days, for people who live in urban areas, there are a lot of fish in the sea. Nevertheless, the Armageddon cycles eventually build up, until you find yourself sitting around in your underwear watching Seinfeld reruns.
And you still don't know what women want.