There’s Someone for Everyone: The Science!
By Heath Shive

When we're feeling negative, the 2 genders can have a mean view of each other.

“Men are all ….”

“Women are just …”

These sentences never end well. 

But it turns out we are mostly wrong, and that’s great news for everyone!

To the science!

What Women Think About Men

In 2009, psychologist Glenn Geher performed a study on “the ability to assess the mating desires of the opposite sex.”  A successful romantic strategy requires that you read the thoughts and feelings of potential mates.  So Geher designed a fairly large study – nearly 500 young men and women – to get some data. 

In the study, women were asked to guess who men would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical females.  The list has been abbreviated for this article as follows:

A.  “Who said chivalry was dead?  Open doors for me…I will make your favorite sandwich when you wake up hungry in the night.”
B.  “I am looking for a fling of epic proportions…Human beings are not meant to be paired for life, like lobsters.”
C.  “I know all the words to Grease…I am looking for someone who can make my heart sing.”

Of the study’s women, the majority (53%) thought men would choose option B – i.e., the “fling” lady.  But as it turns out, the majority of the study’s men (54%) chose the “chivalry” lady from option A!

Only 24% of men chose the horny B option.  And surprisingly enough, 22% of the men wanted the musical lady option!

Women had a tendency to oversexualize men’s choices.

What Men Think About Women

In the study, men were asked to guess who women would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical males.  This list has been abbreviated as follows:

A. “I’m pretty busy working all week, but that doesn’t stop me from having fun, usually out and about a couple nights during the week…”
B.  “I’ve been described as a very energetic individual…I’m a man in a uniform looking for some fun.”
C.  "I’m spontaneous and I like to try new things.  I enjoy diversity, cultures, art…good food and intelligent conversation.”

Of the study’s men, almost half (49%) thought women would choose option B – the man in uniform.  But as it turns out, almost half of the women (48%) chose option C – the diversity and arts man!

Only 29% of the women chose the very masculine man in uniform (B).  And surprisingly enough, 23% of the women chose the fairly ordinary guy in option A!

Men had a tendency to oversexualize women’s choices. 

Conclusion

So both men and women had a tendency to oversexualize the thought processes of the opposite gender. 

​But look at the numbers again.  Even though the musical “Grease” lady was the least picked option, still at least 1 in 5 men wanted to date her!

Even though the “ordinary” guy was the least picked option, still about 1 in 5 women wanted to date him!

You do not have to be the most popular option to be chosen!

Given the billions of men and women in the world – and the myriad varieties of desires in that mad tumble – you can afford to be optimistic.  Somebody out there wants to date you!

But the trick is…how do you find them?

Sigh.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Geher, Glenn, and Kaufman, Scott Barry.  Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love. Oxford University Press, 2013.       

There's a Formula for Self-Esteem?
By Heath Shive

Worried about your self-esteem?  You are not alone. 

The term “self-esteem” was coined by the great psychologist William James over a hundred years ago in his masterpiece Principles of Psychology. 

To James, your self-esteem could be determined by a simple equation: 
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions

So you could increase your self-esteem in two ways.  As Alain de Botton – author of the book Status Anxiety – writes, “On the one hand, we may try to achieve more; and on the other we may reduce the number of things we want to achieve.” (Italics added).

“Success” is usually defined as more money, more prestige, more status, more sex, more power, more influence, more fame, more achievements, etc.

For more self-esteem, you could increase your success.  Or…you could also reduce your pretensions. 

How so?

To the philosophy!

Pretensions and the F-word

Pretensions are simply what you think you should have. 

You drive a minivan, but you think you deserve a SUV (even though both just carry your butt to the same place).  You think your kids should be in private school (even though plenty of kids are going to public and doing just fine).  You think you should be promoted (even though your work performance isn’t the best). 

As Mark Manson – author of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck – writes: “It has become an accepted part of our culture today to believe that we are all destined to do something truly extraordinary.  Celebrities say it.  Business tycoons say it. Politicians say it.  Even Oprah says it (so it must be true).”

Even if people didn’t say such platitudes, then commercials, TV and movies would blast the same message at you anyway. Manson writes: “Everyone and their TV commercial wants you to believe that the key to a good life is a nicer job, or a more rugged car, or a prettier girlfriend…The world is constantly telling you that the path to a better life is more, more, more…”

According to James’ equation, as you increase  your pretensions you decrease your self-esteem!

So Manson advocated that people not give “a f*ck” (i.e., reduce your pretensions), then the “stress and anxiety of always feeling inadequate and constantly needing to prove yourself will dissipate” so that “the knowledge and acceptance of your own mundane existence will actually free you to accomplish what you truly wish to accomplish, without judgment or lofty expectations.”

Conclusion

Lowering your goals to the point where they are already met is the definition of the word "mediocrity." 

But James, Manson, and de Botton are not advocating mediocrity.  They are preaching independence.

Then, your self-esteem will be created, maintained, and fueled entirely by you.  This will probably not reduce work and pain – but it could decimate your anxiety. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
De Botton, Alain.  Status Anxiety.  Pantheon Books, 2004.

James, William.  The Principles of Psychology.  H. Holt and Company, 1918.

Manson, Mark.  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life.  HarperOne, 2016.                                   
 

The Emotional Bank Account: Is A Relationship Just About Making More Deposits Than Withdrawals?
By Heath Shive

Imagine the perfect mate.  The two of you never argue, never fight, and never make fun of each other’s family. 

This is basically the plot line of the classic movie The Stepford Wives. 

But sweetness is not the same as flavor – which is why you don’t see a plain bowl of sugar on a dessert menu. Sometimes, it is the tartness (as in berries) or bitterness (as in chocolate) that makes something wonderful.

So what is the prime balance between sweet and sour? 

Or in this case, what is the ratio of positive to negative that is healthy for a relationship?

To the science!

The Emotional Bank Account

The idea of a perfect mate is either impossible or pathological.  Therefore, there has to be a mixture of positive and negative that psychologist John Gottman compared to a stable predator-prey dynamic – that “there is a balance between the necessary predator of negative affect and the necessary prey of positive affect.”

John Gottman is a noteworthy psychologist who specializes in couple dynamics.  He runs a couple’s therapy think-tank called the Gottman Insititute.  Blog articles for the institute regularly mention a concept called the Emotional Bank Account. 

The concept is rooted in an earlier study by psychologists Gary Birchler, Robert Weiss, and John P. Vincent. 

According to the Birchler team, nondistressed couples had a positive-to-negative (“pleases” to “displeases”) ratio of 29.6 to 1.  Distressed couples only had a ratio of 4.3 to 1.  

So you needed 29 pleasing moments to 1 negative moment to be a happy couple?

Gottman in one of his works reported that the ratio of positive to negative interaction during conflict resolution was 5 to 1, whereas the ratio was 0.8 to 1 in unstable marriages.

Conclusion

So 29 to 1 for "good," but at 5 to 1 the relationship needs help.    

So if the relationship is getting “rocky,” you will need to make positive deposits in your Emotional Bank Account - because a little negative feels like a big withdrawal.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Birchler, G.R., Weiss, R.L., & Vincent, J.P. (1975).  Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between martially distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360.

Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998).  Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1), 5-22.