Beating Dead Horses and What People Want

So I guess that Indiana University got the rights to some video clips of speed dating in Germany, and they are mining that data just as hard as they possibly can.

As previously reported, Indiana University combed through the footage trying to figure out if speed daters who appeared interested in their partner would indicate genuine interest when they filled out the card at the end of the date. The findings announced that women were tricky and men were easy to read, (but this may only apply in Germany). Building on that dramatic breakthrough, Indiana University looked at the footage again.

Their shocking new finding? You will look to the opinions of others to determine whether or not someone is hot. I'll give you a moment to collect yourself. After all, who would have thought that things are more attractive when it looks like someone else wants them?

To summarize: research subjects found people more attractive if they watched a video of someone else finding them attractive first. That, and Indiana University needs to do something besides watching old clips of German speed-dating sessions.

Chicks Are Inscrutable

And that's not just my opinion. It's backed up by science. Outside observers are better at reading the intentions of men than they are at figuring out what women are thinking.

Indiana University conducted a study where observers watched clips from speed-dating interactions and were asked whether or not the participants were interested in each other. Neither men nor women were particularly effective as observers when it came to figuring out which daters were interested. However, the speed-dating men were easier to "read," and both male and female observers were able to figure out whether the interest on their part was genuine. Speed-dating women were more deceptive, and misled observers as to whether or not they were interested more frequently.

There were some other interesting side notes to this study. For one thing, there was no difference in accuracy on the observers' part whether they viewed a full 30 seconds of interaction or only 10 seconds (Hi there, Malcolm Gladwell!).

The other point worth noting was that while the observations were conducted in Indiana, the actual speed-dating sessions were conducted in Germany. So as far as we know, it's only German men who are transparently easy to read.

It's No Barry White

I'm no scientist. If I was, then I would have known for "some time" that the irritating whine that mosquitoes make is "the sound of love," according to this press release. Hopefully, romantic love, but knowing those mosquitoes I wouldn't be surprised if it was the kind of love that $5 would buy you out by the dumpster behind a Denny's on a Saturday night.

Anyway, they've been studying mosquitoes and found out that they actually change pitch when they're mating "in love." I'm not sure how they measured that, exactly. Oh, sure, the article mentions tiny microphones attached to the mosquitoes, and tethered mosquitoes, but it's still kind of odd to me. I mean, how the hell do you tether a mosquito in the first place?

Oh, hey. Aren't you glad that this was part of a $19.7 million grant from the National Institutes of Health? I'm sure that's taxpayer money well spent, even before we get into all the money that the new stimulus package is slinging around.

Walkin' Farther and Doin' It More

In the title of this post, "doin' it" is not referring to walking, it's referring to... you know, doin' it.

It's an an interesting mix of theory and speculation put forward by Washington University in St. Louis. After studying a bunch of mammals (161 different species), researchers found that the animals that traveled the most had the most offspring.

I would have guessed that all the walking was done by bigamist mammals who were trying to make sure that their wives stayed far enough apart that they never bumped into each other, but the researchers had a simpler explanation: the animals that walk more find more food. They find more food, it gives them more energy, and so they get busy more often.

Does this translate to the human species? I kind of doubt it. We can drive places to get food. I think that walking as part of an exercise plan to keep up your appearance could lead to more romantic encounters, but I don't think that people would find a direct link in humans between daily distance walked and number of children.

Anthropologists Check Out Ladybutts

At least, that's how they do it in Utah. Seriously. do you spend a lot of time worrying about a lady's waist-to-hip ratio? Because anthropologists in Utah do. But they're a little hung up on reality versus fantasy.

First, they state that men prefer a hip-to-waist ratio of 0.7 when selecting a mate (which "makes perfect sense, according to evolutionary psychologists"). Then they note that the average waist-to-hip ratio for women is higher than 0.8. Dedicated couch potato that I am, this is the part where I'd say "Men want what they can't have, end of story."

But the anthropologists at the University of Utah wouldn't let it rest there. Instead, they've released this study declaring that the larger-than-desired ratios are actually desired in some parts of the world. According to them, narrow waists and wide hips show a predominance of estrogen, making for more dependent women who need to be provided for. Wider waists are associated with an increased level of androgens, meaning that the women are more assertive, dominant, and willing to take initiative. Then they go on to say that in cultures that value submissive women (like Greece, Japan, and Portugal), men prefer their women to have narrow waists (and so they try to make themselves that way), but some cultures value women who can fend for themselves and their women are correspondingly wide of waist.

Honestly, does anyone really work that way? I mean, aside from sitcoms where the guy's mother makes some crack about his girlfriend's "child-bearing hips," are there people out there who are evaluating the waist-to-hip ratio of women and basing their decision to get involved in a relationship with them solely on that information?

In completely unrelated news, check back this afternoon! I'm rolling out an entirely new series for this site, and I'm very excited about it. The first installment goes up later today.

The Oceans Will Be the Death of Us

Sharks haven't needed to evolve for thousands of years. Why would they bother? They're nearly perfect killing machines.

And now it turns out that they're even more of a menace than we had originally thought. Female sharks can conceive babies without the help of a male (word of the day: parthenogenesis!). They're not asexual, since they have males and females, but if you leave a female alone for too long, she can knock herself up.

Scientists have seen it happen. Twice.

Sure, they're trying to downplay it, saying things like "It may just be an occasional mistake that sometimes occurs when eggs are left unfertilized," but I know the truth. Sharks are a pervasive threat that cannot be stopped!

I'm going to start doubling the amount of shark cartilage I take each day^*. It's them or us, people!

*I'm not actually taking any shark cartilage these days, so my total consumption will still be zero.

This One's (Not) For The Ladies

Okay, I'm not a bisexual black male, but I've watched a few crime shows. They were very helpful in explaining what it means to be "on the down low." It's not something I'd normally spend a lot of time thinking about, but it's getting some serious coverage in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Um, tolerance is good, and blaming bisexuals on the spread of HIV is bad, I guess? I mean, the journal has an entire section dedicated to discussing bisexual latino and black men, which is way more detail than I would normally concern myself with.

(Hormone-Laden, Teenage) Monkeys See, Monkeys Do

It turns out that teen dating isn't all skinny-dipping and trips to the malt shop (like anyone under 75 has actually gone to a malt shop). According to St. Louis University, teenage relationships are rife with physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

What's going to solve this problem? Bracelets, naturally. Like the livestrong bracelets with an anti beating-your-partner message. Bracelets and constant vigilance.

Wait, Is This Study Racist, Sexist, Or Both?

I mean, come on, people.

It says that Mexican immigrants are less likely to use contraception than Mexican-American women before they have a baby. Can we rephrase that a little more offensively? All we need is Pat Buchanan to draw some inflammatory conclusions from it, and we're good to go.

The author suggests that this could be "simply because they want to start having children as soon as possible," noting that contraceptive use among Mexican immigrants was similar to contraceptive use among women in Mexico. The study notes that 69 percent of sexually active women in Mexico use contraception, but contraception is only used by 24 percent of childless women.

Outrage by the numbers: blah blah anchor babies, blah blah how many times before they learn their lesson, blah blah no wonder they're outbreeding the Anglos. I think we're done here.

Won't Some Canadians Think of the Children?

Yes, actually. Canadian researchers have been looking into ways to reduce risky behaviors in teenagers. "Risky behaviors" defined as all the fun things in life that are wholly inappropriate for anyone under age 18.

The catch is that for safer teenagers, you have to make everyone more affluent and make them believe that they live in a safe, trusting, and helpful place. As if that's going to happen anytime soon. So it looks like no matter how many strict rules we lay down for them, they'll still be smoking, drinking, and screwing.

Yes, They Need It Spelled Out For Them

They're kids, they don't know any better.

It turns out that growing up in a nonsmoking household isn't enough. According to researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health, if you don't want your kids to smoke, you need to take an extra step. Households that had an explicit ban on smoking did a better job of keeping their kids from using cigarettes than homes that were only populated by nonsmokers.

So much for leading by example. It's leading by example and then laying down the law in clear, black-and-white directives that gets things done. Have you ever tried getting through to a teenager? It makes sense that they wouldn't pick up on the subtle nuances of someone trying to act as a role model.

So to recap, firm ground rules and strict parenting are great ways to get your kids to stop smoking and start having sex.

Hot, Wet Teens Define "Hot" and "Wet" Differently from Adults

Abstinence-only programs don't work. We all knew that, but a University of Washington study is trying to find out why. They're saying that adults and teens define abstinence differently.

The researchers propose an "escalator theory," saying that once teens start thinking about abstinence, it makes them aware of sex, and their awareness of sex leads to them having sex. I'm not sure if it's arguing that we're just never supposed to tell teenagers about sex ever, or what. I guess that we could just start telling teenagers that bras are supposed to serve the same purpose as road flares, or something.

Attn: Strict Parents

Your kids are totally doin' it.

Nearly 5,000 American teens have been surveyed, and it turns out that strict parenting leads to increased sexual activity.

First, they found out that more than two out of every three American teenagers have had intercourse before the age of 19. Second, they found that familes that children with parents that practice "negative and psychologically controlling behaviors" are more likely to be sexually active.

When looking at the results, it's important not to mistake correlation and causation, but the study notes that parents who try a more democratic method of communication with their children might be making them better-equipped to deal with tough choices.