Understanding the attraction between men and women

Dr Goh Pei Hwa  from Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Science

HOW many times have we all, at some point in our lives, misinterpreted signs?


Movies like He’s Just Not That into You, which is based on Greg Behrendt’s and Liz Tuccillo’s 2004 self-help book of the same name, tells people that if a man in whom you are interested in is not making an effort to pursue you, he is “just not that into you.”

Research has long indicated that it is mostly men, who tend to misperceive friendliness as sexual interest. They overestimate the sexual interest of potential mates. Even when two people have clearly defined their relationship as platonic, more often, it is the men, who are attracted to their opposite-sex friends.

According to Dr Goh Pei Hwa from the Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, this is not always the case.

While the majority of existing findings show the abovementioned pattern of men overperceiving sexual interest, relationship researchers have demonstrated that among heterosexual couples in committed relationships, men were more likely to underperceive sexual interest from their partners.

Men from certain cultures were also less likely to overperceive sexual interest than others.

In other words, the “male over perception bias” appears to be less universal than previously assumed.

In her recent work, Dr Goh revisited the question of gender differences in sexual perception accuracy using a face-to-face, laboratory-based interaction paradigm on a sample of university students in Malaysia.

Participants consisted of 62 previously unacquainted heterosexual dyads aged 20 years on average. Each participant was randomly paired with another participant of the other sex, and each dyad engaged in a semi-structured conversation task for five minutes.

After the interaction task, participants completed measures capturing their degree of sexual interest in their interaction partner and an estimation of their partner’s sexual interest in them.

Results revealed that people’s perception of their partner’s sexual interest did not match their partner’s actual sexual interest. This indicates that people generally lacked accuracy in their perception of sexual interest.

In fact, people’s perception of sexual interest was highly in line with their own sexual interest in their interaction partner.

More importantly, no gender differences were found. This means that both men and women were equally inaccurate and equally likely to project their own sexual interest onto their estimations of their partner’s sexual interest.

“In essence, people are bad at interpreting sexual interest from strangers. Based on the research, Malaysian men do not overperceive sexual interest as past studies have suggested. Women, on the other hand, tend to underperceive sexual interest, supporting past studies,” says Goh.

The current study advances our understanding that people are generally underperceiving sexual interest in initial interactions, regardless of gender.

That is, people are either not communicating their sexual interest effectively or missing all the sexual interest cues being expressed by someone else.

Here, it translates into a lot of potentially missed opportunities. This is highly applicable to first meetings between potential partners, which begs the question: does technology further impede our ability to gauge the sexual interest of others accurately?

With dating apps, we typically already know that we are chatting with someone who finds us attractive or appealing to a certain extent.

Thus, there is no need to try to decipher whether or not someone is into us based on the interaction.

Goh concludes: “If you like someone or have some interest in a person, express it more overtly. This will invite the other person to respond according to his or her own interest in you.

“Let the other person decide if he or she is interested, not you and your potentially (or most likely) wrong perceptions”.

■ For more details, look out for the advertisement in this StarSpecial.

 Source link

Life like video games?

Video games may be considered adolescent, but imagine if our lives were like video games where you constantly get rewarded for small accomplishments? Great, no?

ALWAYS looking to validate my gaming addiction, I checked out TED talks – everyone’s go-to source for out-of-the-box, forward-thinking smart talk to drop at dinner parties – to see if I could find any ammunition.

As usual TED talks didn’t disappoint.

A speaker named Jane McGonigal, an American game designer (and a woman as well, meaning she gets her choice of gaming geeks), not only argues that video games are good, but goes as far as to advocate spending more hours playing video games because that will make the world a better place.

That’s definitely an argument that I can get behind.

McGonigal argues that games like World Of Warcraft encourage users to tackle seemingly insurmountable tasks, and not only do players accept these epic mission but they work hard to achieve it. She then hits us with the crazy-sounding stat that collectively we have (some of us more than others) spent 5.93 million years playing World Of Warcraft.

Did you know that homo sapiens have spent a total of 5.93 million years alone playing World of Warcraft? Makes you wonder what Darwin would have thought of this feat

McGonigal then puts that in perspective by saying 5.93 million years ago, humans stood on two legs for the first time.

Playing video games for the same amount of time that it takes a species of primate to go from dwelling in trees and dining on insects to building metal mega-cities and flirting with space travel really does put things into perspective. Yeah, suddenly that seems like a heck of a lot of wasted time on gaming.

But McGonigal is undaunted, saying the amount of time a person spends on video games by the time they are 20 years old is 10,000 hours, the same amount of time that that person will have spent in school – and also, incidentally, the same amount of time author Malcolm Gladwell cites as necessary for someone to become really good at something. To quote rapper Macklemore, who was basically quoting Gladwell, “The greats weren’t great because at birth they could paint; the greats were great because they painted a lot.”

Well, McGonigal is saying we’re playing a lot of games, but what is it exactly that we’re getting good at?

She’s not quite sure but she knows gamers are Super Empowered Hopeful Individuals. Yeah, SEHI is the acronym for that. That doesn’t really roll off the tongue.

She then goes on to conclude, somewhat uninspiringly, that if we could only create educational games we could start to harness some of the millions of years we’ve wasted on games.

Yeah. Except McGonigal forgot that educational games are pretty much terrible across the board.

It may seem like I’m denigrating McGonigal’s talk but what I really found interesting was the idea that we are in a period of mass exodus into gaming. There are 500 million gamers in the world, and this number is only growing.

McGonigal talks a bit on why games are so inviting, basically saying that it’s because reality sucks. She’s right.

In games, at any moment you could gain any number of seemingly random achievements.

Your characters can gain in skills any time. Maybe you’re attacking zombies, and suddenly get a +1 strength. Jumping over barrels, +1 agility. Read a science book, +1 science. Basically video games give us a ton of positive feedback. What if life was like that, McGonigal quips. The crowd laughs.

But seriously, what if life was like that?

What if when I submitted this article, I received the 60th Article Submitted but only 4th prior to the Official Deadline Achievement? What if we could get the Constant Bus Rider achievement for taking the bus for the 100th time? What if at work we didn’t get rewarded for huge seemingly unachievable goals but for small daily completed tasks?

Wouldn’t it feel great to field a call from an irate customer, hang up, and get the 50th Complainer Customer Achievement? At least it’d put a positive spin on an experience that is otherwise fairly unpleasant.

With smartphones and their ability to track our movements and activities, it’s not very far-fetched to think that this sort of reward system could become possible sometime in the near future, while employers would probably be able to implement some sort of reward system right now. Not that I want this kind of reward system to be used by corporations to manipulate people into work, but it’s sort of inevitable, isn’t it?

It works so well in video games to hook people.

The entire idea of “gamifying” life may sound nuts but if we’ve spent 5.93 million years playing video games, games are doing something right. Maybe it’s time for life to imitate art.

And if this idea sounds like something that would come from a Super Empowered Hopeful Individual, then maybe McGonigal is on to something.

Big Smile No Teeth
By JASON GODFREY

> Jason Godfrey can be seen hosting The Link on Life Inspired (Astro B.yond Ch 728). Write to him at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related posts:
 Why do some youngers resort to extreme violence?
 Video games turned casinos gambling in Penang
 Get rid of illegal casinos gambling now !
Cyber crooks target gamers; E-gambling dens menace, raid in Penang ... 

Why do some youngers resort to extreme violence?

Child serial killers”, “Kids murdering their parents” – these are the headlines we are increasingly seeing in the news.

Last month, a 19-year-old Japanese teenager allegedly killed and dismembered his mother because he did not like her apparently, and also because he wanted to know more about dissection.

It’s shocking that a teen who is still considered a minor under Japanese law would resort to murder for something as mundane as “not liking his mum”. I’m sure we have all disliked our parents at some point of our lives but letting that be the reason to do away with someone who gave birth to you in cold blood is absurd.

Two other recent cases of alleged parental murder and harm were sparked by computer use and gaming.

The first, reported in China Daily (chinadaily.com.cn), happened in Ziyang, Sichuan province. The 14-year-old boy is said to have mixed farm chemicals into the family’s cooking oil, which led to his parents, elder brother and sister-in-law suffering stomach problems and vomiting. The boy later confessed to his crime and said he was upset over his mother banning him from playing computer games.

Another 18-year-old boy – from Yuen Long village in Hong Kong – was arrested on suspicion of stabbing his father to death and wounding his mother. According to a source at the scene, a fight had broken out when his father tried to stop him from playing video games.

Why has it become so “normal” for teens to solve problems with violence?

In New Mexico in the United States, 15-year-old Nehemiah Griego allegedly shot his parents and three younger siblings in January. The incident left the public wondering how a sweet, home-schooled teen described as a doting older brother – who has no history of violence or anti-social behaviour – could commit such an act.

According to a New York Daily News report (nydailynews.com), Griego appeared “unemotional” when confessing to the murders but turned animated when discussing his favourite violent video games.

Could it be, then, that overexposure to blatant violence in the video games caused him to “go rogue” and violently kill his family?

It’s not unreasonable to assume that repeated exposure to violence on television and in games might have an impact on youth development. It is true that exposure to violent media results in desensitisation to violence. Furthermore, media violence rarely shows the consequences of violence.

However, the media-violence link isn’t as simple as a headline would have us believe. The teens’ personality is a major factor in determining whether screen aggression will lead to aggression in the real world. A recent article in the Review Of General Psychology journal asserts that exposure to violent media has a much greater impact on those who are more emotionally reactive and less agreeable, careful and disciplined than their peers.

In addition, teens who are isolated and have few connections to healthy adults and a lack of identity and purpose (what one of the researchers, J. Kevin Cameron, calls “empty vessels”) are at higher risk of identifying with perpetrators of violence in television and video games, and might therefore be more likely to engage in violent behaviour.

This conclusion seems more plausible than the notion that violent media invariably leads to an increase in violent behaviour.

Therefore, it makes sense to limit exposure to media violence, but it is not realistic to completely shield our teens from it. Parents should be aware of the TV programmes, movies and video games consumed by their teens. Talking to teens about the things that they see on the screen is also important.

However, I believe the bottom line is to build a strong relationship with our teens. It is this meaningful connection with our teens that will enable them to empathise with others and make sense of what they watch on screen.

If you notice your teens exhibiting signs of anti-social behaviour or a sudden change in their lifestyle and behavioural patterns, find a way to talk to them so it won’t reach a point where they just “snap”.

On the other hand, we, as parents, must recognise that we may not always have all the answers. Whenever we are in doubt, we should seek professional help, so that situations do not turn too “dangerous”.


TEENS & TWEENS
By CHARIS PATRICK

Charis Patrick is a trainer and family life educator who is married with four children. Email her at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related posts:
Video games turned casinos gambling in Penang
Get rid of illegal casinos gambling now !
Reading opens up minds

Laws of attraction

Are men attracted to women who look like them?

THE next time you happen to be with your spouse or your partner, take a good look at their features. Do they look a bit familiar?

And no, I don’t mean familiar just because you’ve been with that person for a while. I mean familiar in the sense that you’ve seen those same features, or at least some of them, somewhere else. Like, in the mirror every morning.

If the results of a French study are anything to go by, men are most attracted to women who look like them. That being the case, my partner must have left his glasses at home the day we met. I mean to say, his eyes are blue, while mine are brown, his eyebrows are thick, while mine are thin (too much plucking back in the 70s), his nose is slender, while mine is more rounded, and he has full lips, while mine are lacking plumpness.

I can only conclude that he is more attracted to my wit, charm and personality than some narcissistic ideal. Either that or the female versions of him were a bit thin on the ground when he was looking for a partner.

According to another study, physically attractive people generally date other physically attractive people. Leaving the not-so-attractive people to date other not-so-attractive people. It’s almost like a caste system that’s difficult to break out of.

Right about now you might be asking, “How do these researchers account for those not-so-attractive, rich men who opt for a “trophy wife”? Shouldn’t Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Woody Allen be seen around town with women who are more homely than the much younger, more attractive women who currently appear by their sides?”

It seems that attractive women who date someone below their level of attractiveness tend to justify their choices by saying something like, “He sure is ugly, and it’s kinda embarrassing to have to appear in public with gorilla man, but as long as I have access to his money, my life will be beautiful.”

However, such cases are the exceptions.
In a nutshell then, the so-called experts will have you believe that attractive people generally date other attractive people who look a bit like themselves; while ugly people generally date other ugly people who look a bit like themselves.

When the experts talk about people dating others who look like themselves, this concurs with yet another study that indicates that a woman often looks for a man who looks like her father, while a man often looks for a woman who looks like his mother.

Like, how creepy is all that? Fancy waking up in the morning to find someone resembling your mother or father snoring on the pillow next to you!

Researchers are quick to point out that there is nothing narcissistic about these attractions. We are attracted to people who look like ourselves (and possibly our parents as well) simply because of the comfort we get from familiarity.

I’m not disputing the results of the research, but they certainly don’t apply in my case. My father was an Irishman with light brown hair and green eyes, whereas my ex is a Chinese Malaysian. One of my sisters married a man of Italian origin, another married a Hispanic guy, and yet another married a blond-haired, blue-eyed Scottish man. None of our partners, past or present, look remotely like my father.

Of course, other researchers might tell me that my father was not a good role model and so we were all looking subconsciously for completely different men.

But who gives a toss, anyway?

All of this research into the laws of physical attraction really tells me just one thing: we are wasting a lot of money on studies that can’t be put to any practical use. Unless of course, you’re a fortune teller.

I can just imagine the scene in the fortune teller’s tent as she gazes into her crystal ball, with a young woman sitting opposite her: “Ah, I can see a man with blond hair and blue eyes in your life. He even looks a bit like you. Cross my palm with silver and I will reveal more.”

Most research costs money and is time consuming. As such, I think we ought to be more discerning about how we apply our research funds. Instead of focusing on who we might be attracted to and why, it might be better if the funding could be used to finance research on things like climate change, green energy, and how best to persuade newspaper editors that you really deserve a raise.

Perhaps I can get someone to fund a study on how much money has been wasted on useless studies.

But Then Again

By MARY SCHNEIDER 

Check out Mary on Facebook at www.facebook.com/mary.schneider.writer. 

Reader response can be directed to star2@thestar.com.my