The Wedding Ring Effect: The Science of “You Ain’t Taking My Man!”
By Heath Shive

Among mammals, males battle each other for access to females.  Stallions battle for a herd, lions battle for control of the pride, and bucks charge each other for does.

Obviously men compete with each other for prized women – even to the point of violence. 

It is just as obvious – if often unstated – that women compete with each other for prized men.

And some women fight dirty.  There is cheating - which is a temporary sexual affair.  But there is also mate poaching - strategic acquisition of another woman's man.

Turns out, it might have something to do with what is called “the wedding ring effect.”

A married woman’s greatest competition is a single woman.

Don’t believe me?

To the science!

Mate Poaching Psychology

Psychologists Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley peformed a study on the impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching.  

In their study, Parker and Burkley gathered 184 participants, both male and female, roughly half of whom were “attached.”  One male face and one female face were chosen in pre-testing as “moderately attractive.”  The women were shown the male face, and men were shown the female face. 

Participants were randomly assigned to read that the target face was either single or in a current romantic relationship.  The participants then rated the desirability of the person. 

The results? 

Whether the woman was single or attached, single men showed no difference in their attraction,  

But single women showed a considerably greater interest in the target when he was attached! 

Unlike single women, attached women were not more attracted to the attached man compared to the single man.

Conclusion

The researchers concluded that “single women were more interested in poaching an attached man rather than pursuing a single man.”

And that is the wedding ring effect!

Oddly enough, that means the single women in the study were more interested in the man that was technically less available.

In a way, it makes sense.  If a woman is looking for commitment, attached men have already proven themselves capable.  From an amoral standpoint, why should a single woman deal with an untested man when there is a proven man right there…with another woman?

The writer Tucker Max – and I know he is a polarizing figure – wrote something about this in his book Mate:  “Sluts” aren’t derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it’s because they’re experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women.

Men aren't the only insecure mates in the world.  Attached women also have to look over their shoulders. 

That might be why women always notice dress, styles, and clothing on other women. 

Have you ever noticed that the Other Woman always has longer hair?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Parker, Jessica, and Melissa Burkley.  Who’s chasing whom?  The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (4) 2009, 1016-1019   

A Woman Is the Best Wingman (2): Your Desirability Is Decreed by Committee?
By Heath Shive

What did Dean Martin sing? 

You’re nobody till somebody loves you…

We tend to think of the heart as sacred – or fickle – but often the heart is really just a conformist. 

Romantic desire does not originate solely from inside us – but rather there are external cultural influences on who we want as well. 

In the last blog, the studies indicated that animals don’t just rely on their instincts to find a mate.  Animals also use social cues (external advice) to find out who is the best choice. 

Are humans any different?

To the science!

Desirability by Social Decree

In an article in Scientific Reports – an online super-journal of science – a team of researchers experimented on the effect of social cues on what a group of women found attractive.

It was a small study, involving 49 female subjects.  They were presented with pictures of men’s faces…and pictures of men’s hands, and of abstract art too. 

Faces are a typical reference for desire.  The hand-pictures were a way of exploring non-facial attractiveness.  The abstract art was used to measure attraction outside the sexual domain (unless that’s your thing?).

First, the subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of the picture.  Then – a short while later – subjects were asked to rate the picture again, but they were also shown the average rating of all the other participants in real time. 

Now the subjects knew what the group thought!

The results of the second rating?

On average, a participant changed their initial rating of the facial pictures by 13% towards the group rating! 

They moved in the direction of the group decree.

Conclusion

It should be noted that the subjects changed their initial ratings on the face-pictures and hand-pictures and abstract art by roughly the same amount (13% for hands, 14% for abstract art).

The study was really a reflection of the human tendency to conform.  People don’t just conform using their clothing styles or jargon.  Our ideas and beliefs conform as well. 

As noted in the previous blog, we don’t conform to just any old group. 

We conform to our specific group – whichever group we identify with. 

Conservative or liberal?  Religious or agnostic?  Old or young?  Male or female?  Professional versus blue-collar?

Group identity offers many advantages – networking, community resources, solidarity, protection, and support.  The group also controls how we will be measured too.

So we come back to same old conclusion as last week.  Guys, hang out with more women - because other women will notice.  And ladies, hang out with men to be seen as more approachable and social.

Who knows?  We might just learn to talk to each other!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Street, Sally E, Thomas J.H. Morgan, Alex Thornton, Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland & Catharine P. Cross.  Human mate-choice copying is domain general social learning.  Scientific Reports 8, 1715 (2018) – Accessed online 3 Feb 2019

​ A Woman Is the Best Wingman: The Science of Fish Mating...and Modern Dating?  
By Heath Shive

When I was back in high school, there was a short list of ladies that all the guys thought were "hot."

I remember that - a few years later - I was looking at the same old high school yearbook and thought...differently. 

How could I find a woman desirable in one context, but - a relatively short time later - find the same woman remarkably less attractive. 

There are whole episodes of TV dedicated to this premise - most notably by Barney Stinson's "cheerleader effect" used in How I Met Your Mother (Season 4, episode 7).    

Of course, there is a science to this too.  

Sound fishy?  It will.  

To the science!  

The Birds and the Bees…and Fish?

There is not a one-to-one correlation in the behavior between humans and animals.  For example, animals lack our abstract conceptions, like morality, music, honor, or sympathy. 

But the amazing (or disconcerting) thing is how similarly humans and animals do act - especially in primal activities, like mating.

In 1992, the biologists Lee Dugatkin and Jean Godin made a study – which is pretty well-known in academia – involving the mating behavior of guppies.  They discovered that small females by themselves will choose mates based on their instincts. 

But in a group, something else happens. 

Large female guppies have rank in the group.  Large size is a sign of longevity, and therefore a sign of evolutionary success.  Small females will likely abandon their first mating choice – to pursue the males that large females pursue. 

Dugatkin and Godin believed that a female’s choice of mate wasn’t just driven by individual genetics, but also by cultural cues. 

In 2002, two biological researchers named Klaudia Witte and Michael Ryan performed another similar study using sailfin molly fish.  In this study, they discovered that a male fish will choose a female who is already accompanied by a male, rather than pursue a lone female.  And a female molly fish will choose a male fish who is already accompanied by a female. 

The fish only pursued mates that others were pursuing!

Your reference group determines your social value, and therefore it determines your options.   
 
How Does This Help Me?

It is easier to look at animal studies and stay objective.  I have found that it is when we mention human studies that listeners can become defensive.  So...just so you know, I will be using human studies on this same subject soon.  I am trying to warm you up to the idea. 

But the idea is obvious.  You are judged by others around you.  Some (and only some, not all) of those judgments carry weight - but the only important and personal judgments are those made by your own reference group, your culture. 

There are many cultures and sub-cultures in humanity.  But the key here is your culture. 

Your reference group (culture) determines your social value.  Whoever has rank in your reference group will determine your own social value…and influence your mate selection.  That’s why there are generalized dating sites (e.g. Match.com), but there are also dating sites geared specifically towards specific sub-groupings – e.g., Jewish, Christian, rural, professional, racial, etc. 

But the studies show us something more too: We want what others have! 

So, ladies, you can bring male dates to weddings, office parties, and bars that you have no romantic/sexual interest in.  The male escort not only gives you external validation, it improves your perceived social value and can cultivate new male interest, even jealousy.  Next time you flirt, your attention will have more social value.  Next time you ask a man out, your regard will have more power.   

Guys, next time do not go out with your male buddies.  Find a woman to go out with you instead - not as a romantic target per se, but as a way to enhance your social value. If she’s just a friend, that’s fine.  Her presence still enhances your value.  The more attractive this woman is, the more other women will notice – and increase your social value. 

That’s why this is a frequent trope in TV and movies.  It’s based on reality – our culture and system of social values. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 

Strauss, Neil.  The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pick-Up Artists.  Regan Books, 2005.

Dugatkin, L. A. & Godin, J.-G. J. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 249, 179–184

 Witte, Klaudia and Michael J. Ryan.  2002.  Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna in the wild. Animal Behaviour, 2002, 63, 943–949

Seduction Victims:  The 18 Types from Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction”
By H. Shive

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.  There cannot be seducers without the seduced.

Robert Greene - the same author who gave us the 9 Types of Seducers - wrote another list of the 18 Types of Seduction Victims. 

Do you see yourself somewhere on the list?  Be careful!

The 18 Types of Seduction Victims

1. The Reformed Rake or Siren: They were once seducers themselves, but they settled down.  They feel the loss.  To seduce them, they must feel like they are back in the game again.  For a Reformed Rake, get his attention indirectly and let him burn with desire.  For a Reformed Siren, make her feel irresistible once again.  These people are unfaithful by nature; they will yearn for the return of their power, but…they will also suffer the consequences.
2. The Disappointed Dreamer:  These people read the big books and watched the epic movies.  They grew up with profound internal fantasy lives.  Now they’re grown up; they’ve compromised.  But a part of them still yearns for  grandiosity!  To seduce them, know that they have great imaginations and will respond to anything romantic or mysterious.  They desperately want a focus for their pent-up energy.  Make them feel adventurous and audacious.  Show them only some; their imaginations will fill in the blanks.  But reality will be your enemy.  Once the real you – real life – is seen, the illusion is destroyed. 
3. The Pampered Royal:  These people were spoiled children.  Most kids learn to entertain themselves somewhat, but the Pampered Royal thinks other people should entertain them.  They are looking for that parental figure that will spoil them again; that is what they crave!  To seduce them, the key is variety – provide distractions, create mysteries, give them spectacles and colors.  Once hooked, they will be dependent on you, as they were on their parents.  Recognize this type by their snobbery and pretension – they think they’re aristocrats.
4.  The New Prude:   Do not mistake puritanism for prudery.  Prudes don’t care about righteousness per se.  Prudes are obsessed by how others view them.  They stringently uphold societal standards of tastefulness, political sensitivity, and values.  They are judgmental and critical.  Deep down, they are excited by guilty pleasures and vices.  New Prudes will be seduced by simply being in contact with a Rake or Siren.  Once they finally let go of their inhibitions, they become your followers – and may even overwhelm you with their newly awakened energies.
5. The Crushed Star:  Once upon a time, these people were celebrated – she may have been the most beautiful woman in the room, he may have been the star athlete, or she was a rising star in the company.  But they have fallen.  To seduce them, do this:  make them the center of attention.  Be charming and attentive, fawning on their words, especially regarding their past glory.  Your attention relieves their inner pain.
6. The Novice:  They are innocent because they don’t have experience.  But they yearn for experience!  No one is as angelic as they seem.  Novices are attracted to those who seem like they have the most to teach – they are attracted to the rogues, the promiscuous, and wicked.  To seduce them, be wicked but look approachable.  You’re a fun rogue!  The best course is to mix innocence and corruption, and then they will be fascinated by you.
7. The Conqueror:  These people yearn for power.  They want to dominate, and they feed on aggression.  To seduce, do not be easy prey.  They want to chase; they want challenge; they want victory.  Coquetry works on them – because it keeps them off their balance.  Exhaust them and sooner or later they become dependent.  Just look at how Josephine controlled Napoleon.  Conquerors can be male or female.
8. The Exotic Fetishist:  These people are not just interested in the new (we all are), but they are obsessed with it as well.  They are really empty on the inside and don’t like who they are.  They think that their exhilaration is far outside themselves – the exotic.  To seduce: make yourself look exotic – make yourself theater to their need for the new.  But their inherent shallowness will make them weary of you quickly.      
9. The Drama Queen:  Both men and women can be Drama Queens.  Know them by the numerous tragedies and traumas in their life.  They want the pain and bother of drama – they identify with it.  If you are stable and secure, they will be bored with you.  Drama is necessary to alleviate their boredom.  To seduce them, you must show them your rough side – it’s the only thing they respect…or desire.
10. The Professor:  These people overanalyze everything.  Their minds are overdeveloped, usually at the expense of their physicality.  Underneath intellectual strengths are deep insecurities.  They want the physical, without analysis, without bars!  To seduce: offer them an escape from the mind.  Provide the physical stimulation that they cannot provide themselves.  They will be addicted.
11. The Beauty: Beauties know that they’re beautiful – it’s the source of their power.  But it can make them feel the lack of their other qualities.  Most people worship beauty from far away, and those who come closer only want one thing.  The Beauty can feel isolated.  To seduce: you must worship their body of course (it’s their power), but praise their other virtues, their skills, their principles, etc.  The Beauty has never had to work at romance before; a Beauty will be passive.  Coquetry would be used well here.  But beware!  Beauties are high maintenance. 
12. The Aging Baby:  Some people never want to grow up.  This can be tragic after a while – what was so sexy as a twenty-something can look tragic on a forty-something.  What they desperately want is someone else to be the “adult” in their life.  They want to be taken care of, so that they are free to play more often.  They are like children, and like children they can be narcissists. 
13. The Rescuer:  Rescuers are sensitive people and they may genuinely love to help the sad and weak.  But at the same time, they enjoy playing the rescuer – it strengthens their egos and makes them feel superior.  To seduce a Rescuer male, play the damsel in distress.  To seduce a Rescuer female, play the victim in a heartless world.
14. The Roué, or Rogue:  Rogues have lived the high life and have experienced every pleasure they could find.  By exhausting their carnality, they exhausted themselves.  They are jaded.  They yearn for the youth and innocence which they can never have again.  To seduce them: you will need to at least look young.  Claim that you are inexperienced to seem more innocent.  They will be drawn to your innocence, even as they try to steal it from you. 
15.  The Idol Worshipper: Everyone feels a little empty on the inside, but Idol Worshippers are emptier than most.  They will look for great causes or great people to adore and serve, thus distracting them from their inner emptiness.  To seduce them:  let romance and their “religion” combine.  At first, share their cause, and then become it.  Hide your flaws, or give them a holy polish.  Keep yourself elevated; mirror the qualities that inspire them.     
16. The Sensualist:  All people like pleasure, but Sensualists have overactive senses – and those senses demand to be fed.  Sensualists will be sensitive to lights and colors, get thrills from a scents or aromas, and love the touch and texture of things.  To seduce them:  aim for their senses!  Find out what they enjoy, like favorite colors, scents, and sounds.  Appeal to their senses and they will be distracted and vulnerable.  Variety in kind and quality will keep them from being bored. 
17. The Lonely Leader:  Powerful people are distrustful of others – who are often fawning and complimentary just for something in return.  They lose respect for other people and feel isolated.  That isolation is the key to their seduction.  Try talking to them as an equal, because – without flattery – you will seem more genuine.  There’s not much room for seduction in their minds, perhaps because they have become hard or arrogant.  But keep a way to stay active in their mind, and they will enjoy the escape you provide from the mean details of their world. 
18. The Floating Gender:  People of this type feel that the distinction between genders is a burden.  In more traditional societies, they may go underground – repressing the one side and expressing the other.  They may be considered latent homosexuals – but they could just as well be very heterosexual, just expressing different energies.  What they seek is someone who allows them to relax their self-control, so that they can explore their repressed energies.  If you’re not a Floating Gender yourself, don’t bother to seduce them – your lie will be quickly discovered.  

Conclusion

Robert Greene wrote of what he called the “Victim Theory” of seduction:  “Nobody in this world feels whole and complete.  We all sense some gap…When we fall in love, it is often with someone who seems to fill that gap.  The process is usually unconscious and depends on luck…But the seducer does not leave such things to chance.”

Seducers will not wait for luck. They will make their own luck.  They will chase you, hunt you, and ravish you. 

That’s exactly what some people want!  Even if you are a victim, can you honestly say that you went unwillingly into their arms?  

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
Sources:
Greene, Robert.  The Art of Seduction. Penguin Books, 2003.

Sex Appeal, Debt, and Deceit: The Science of a Saturday Night
By Heath Shive

​Are you the sexiest beast in town?  Congratulations! 

But there is also a price.

The biology that's hard-wired into our bodies drives us to action.  All actions have consequences.  One of the consequences is debt...as no doubt you have experienced after a weekend out.  

To the science of Saturday night and its bio-economics!

Players Are Poor? 

In 2008, Daniel Kruger released a paper that showed that the more sexually active a man was – thus “successful” in evolutionary terms – the more likely he had large credit card debt.  The group tested was comprised of men between the ages of 18 to 45, from different zip codes, incomes, and marital status.  But the results were the same.  The men who admitted to the largest number of sexual encounters also admitted to having the smallest savings and higher debt.

Higher mating success correlated directly to higher financial consumption.

Mating Needs Money?

Kruger's study is cited - among many others - by psychologists Glenn Geher and Scott Kaufman in their amazing book Mating Intelligence Unleashed.  Despite the goofy title, this book is the most comprehensive text on the subject of evolutionary psychology (“mating intelligence”) today!

Geher and Kaufman pointed to Kruger’s study for a reason: to show that deceit can be part of a mating strategy too. 

Kruger’s study showed that “wealth signals” – expressed as higher consumption – were not the same as real wealth.  By definition, someone who spends everything doesn’t have “wealth,” they have the opposite – called “debt.”

You don’t own a car or house until you make the last payment.  You can lose your job.  Debt can ruin your credit score.  But high financial consumption still “signals” wealth and so can be an effective mating strategy.     

Women Use Money and Deceit Too?

Yes, women can be guilty of deceitful mating strategies as well!

For starters, women spend much more money than men on makeup and clothing.  Creams and moisturizers can hide wrinkles and smooth skin.  High heel shoes lift the buttocks and tone the calves.  Hair dye conceals the gray.  Makeup can enhance sensuality.  Provocative clothing (high heels, short skirts, décolletage, etc.) are ways of provoking a sexually exciting response…even when she herself is not in a sexually aroused state.  

In another study, researchers found that women could lie about other things to provoke male desire.  For example, she could lie about wanting a short- or long-term relationship, about wanting children, or even how much she likes sex!

Deceiving Is Believing?

There’s an old maxim: Fake it till you make it.  And sometimes we fool ourselves!

In a study - by researchers Saad and Vongas (2008) - male subjects were given two cars to drive: a “clunker” and a Porsche.  Their testosterone levels were measured afterwards.  After driving the Porsche, the subjects’ testosterone levels were boosted! 

Higher financial consumption is not only more attractive, it can genuinely make you feel sexier too!

So in a way, our spending can deceive us too.

Conclusion

Just because a strategy can be effective doesn’t mean that it’s for the best.  Debt is poison to long-term finances.  You need savings to build wealth. 

Deceiving people with a false sexual allure is not going to be successful in the long-term either.  That’s why we have reputations.  Is such deceit a sound basis for a relationship? 

The mating instinct drives us.  What price are we really willing to pay?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
​
Buss, D.M.  The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.  Basic Books, 2003.

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

Haselton, M. G., Buss, D.M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005).  Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology deception between the sexes.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3-23. 

Kruger, D.J. (2008) Male financial consumption is associated with higher mating intentions and mating success.  Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 603-612.

Saad, G., & Vongas, J. (2008).  The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone levels.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 80-92. 

“Peacocking” and the Von Restorff Effect: The Science of Standing Out
By Heath Shive 

Back in the 2000s, there was (and might still be) a legion of people on the internet identifying as pickup artists. 

The most famous pickup artist (PUA) of them all was a man named Mystery, who was the central character of the best-selling book The Game by Neil Strauss.

Mystery popularized the idea of "peacocking” – the use of flair and wild dress to invoke interest.  He would enter bars with rings on all his fingers, platform shoes, black fingernails, and a crumpled black velvet hat. 

The point was to first get noticed – only then could a PUA begin to cultivate interest.

In psychology, the von Restorff effect predicts that the stimulus that differs the most from others is most likely the stimulus remembered. 

More different is more memorable.   

During the 2000s – following the lead of the PUA gurus – God-only-knows how many men were walking into bars with rings, rhinestone glasses, and shaved heads. 

It’s easy to notice such men – but people ignore Science at their own peril. 

To the science!

The von Restorff Effect

The von Restorff Effect is named after Hedwig von Restorff.  She is the most famous (though not the first) early researcher on the role of distinctiveness on memory. 

Von Restorff’s most obvious contribution was that the distinctiveness of an item depends on a strong similarity among the non-isolated items. 

Read the following list: 1, 2, 3, 4, purple, 6, 7.

Easy to see that the word purple stands out.  All other items on the list are numbers, thus strongly similar. 

Distinction Can Be a Bad Thing Too

Now read this list: otter, raccoon, tarantula, penguin, giraffe. 

Now which word stands out?  Most likely you say tarantula.  But why?  Haven’t you noticed that giraffe is also very different?  The giraffe is an herbivore, all the others are hunters. 

But tarantula has a greater emotional response than giraffe. 

Psychologist R. Reed Hunt - who wrote a great summarization of the subtleties of the von Restorff effect – reminds us that equating “perceptual salience with distinctiveness blurs a fundamental distinction.” 

In other words, difference is dissimilarity with the surroundings; but distinctiveness is the “psychological effect of dissimilarity.”   

So you can be a vivid memory, but what is your psychological effect?  Are you distinctly...awful?

Conclusion

Mystery and his hat-wearing, purple-boa sporting crew went into urban night clubs – places where they could be different…but not in a bad way.

When I read The Game, not once did I read of Mystery and his gang walking into a country-western bar or biker bar or a bar next to a Marine base – places where their flair would be a bad distinction. 

For that matter, I never read of them going to Trent Reznor or Marilyn Manson concerts – where their wild clothing would make them strongly similar (conform) rather than isolate them distinctly. 

In other words, “peacocking” must be tailor-made – done in a specific way in specific crowds for specific effects.

Standing out can make you distinct – and it can make you an easier target too.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Hunt, R. Reed .  (1995).  The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.  2(1), 105-112 (Accessed 15 Oct 2018)
Strauss, Neil.  The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.  Reganbooks, 2005.  

The Ghost of Your Ex: Country Music and the Law of Contagion
By Heath Shive 

Country artist Jason Aldean has a song out called Drowns the Whiskey.  He sings: "Maybe it's the bar or the stool I'm on/Maybe it's the band and the sad old song/ That keeps me buying rounds." 

The "sad old song" is not literally making him drink.  It's the association between the song...and her.  This is actually a rule in psychology known as the Law of Contagion. 

To the science! (And a sad old story) 

Once Upon a Time 

Once upon a time, I was crazy for a woman.  I drove half-way across the state and back just to spend evenings with her!  Crazy! 

She told me that I had better like country music – it was a “deal-breaker.”  I didn’t hate country music.  It just hadn’t appealed to me earlier.  But lo and behold, I came to like the stuff!  Even put a country station on my car’s radio button.   

But, the candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.  A while later, she and I parted ways. Not long after, I was listening to country music…and I couldn’t stand it.  Changed the music station on my radio button.

But why? 

“Country music” itself was not responsible for my broken heart.  I didn’t have a torrid affair with Reba McEntire or Miranda Lambert – though I would invite both of them to try (wink).

But she loved country music – therefore country music had been compromised.

Sounds crazy, but it actually has to do with an idea in psychology called the law of contagion – an idea that first got its start as a law of sympathetic magic!

Don’t believe me?

To the science and magic!

The Science of Roach Juice

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of studies on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, students were asked to taste and rate 2 kinds of juice (apple and grape) from 2 different glasses.  Afterwards, one juice glass was touched by a sterilized, dead cockroach and the other was touched by a plastic candle holder.  Do I have to say it?  The students rated the “roached” juice with intense dislike – even though, scientifically speaking the juice was fine. 

But here’s the trick.  Fresh juice was then poured into new glasses!

Whichever juice had touched the roach in the previous experiment was subsequently judged worse than the original rating! 

This was fresh juice in a new glass – but the memory of contamination remained and conditioned the students’ judgments.

The Law of Contagion

The law of contagion states that a lasting connection is created between 2 objects that have been in contact with each other – or at least, if we “connect” them mentally.  The law of contagion is generally ascribed to James George Frazer – author of the seminal work The Golden Bough.   

It’s a magic trope.  If an evil person dies in a house, then you get a haunted house.  Or conversely, a saint’s bones or relics have benevolent powers. 

But Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff showed that there were psychological underpinnings to the idea, or that the “magic” involved was only a reflection of real and unconscious instincts. 

Conclusion

Our ancient ancestors didn’t have hygiene science or even soap!  Dangerous contagion was real and all around.  It shouldn’t surprise us that an instinct developed to urge us in the right direction. 

But that instinct can be evoked in crazy ways.  And I was pretty crazy about her…once upon a time.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

Is Love Just a Fantasy?  Is That a Good Thing?
By Heath Shive 

As one critic put it, Terry Pratchett was “the wisest and gentlest of teachers.”

Terry Pratchett is my favorite author.  He had more than 85 million copies of his books sold, in more than 37 languages. Pratchett was also a knight in the United Kingdom!

But he’s most famous for his Discworld series, of which there are 41 novels. 

Pratchett thought that Mercy and Justice were fantasies. 

And he thought that was a wonderful thing, even an essential thing for people!

I would say the same about Love. 

Want to know why?

To the Terry Pratchett!

Hogfathers and the Power of Fantasy

In Pratchett’s Discworld, magic is so strong that if enough people believe in something, then it becomes real.  If enough people believe in a certain god, the god will pop into existence.  Gods can also die from a lack of belief. 

There are also Auditors – creatures of the Universe who keep the laws of Nature running smoothly.  The Auditors hate life because life is sloppy, messy, and chaotic.  But Death (who is a person) admires life – because he admires the way we continually try.

In the novel Hogfather, the Auditors set out to assassinate the Hogfather – a kind of Santa Claus that brings bacon, sausages, and hams to good boys and girls every winter.

Death and his step-granddaughter Susan set out to stop this.  And they succeed.  But at the end, Susan wants to know Why. 

Why would Death care about whether children have a Hogfather to believe in?  
 
Death explains: children need to practice believing in little fantasies (like the Hogfather), so they grow up to believe in even bigger fantasies, like mercy and justice!

Susan shouts, “They're not the same at all!”

But Death responds (in capital letters): “YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY…”

To Death, the universe gives us carbon, methane, water, etc.  But there is no mercy or justice or love in the universe. Humans invented these concepts. 

It is the very invention of these fantasies – including Love – that make us human!

Or as Pratchett’s Death says, these fantasies make humans “THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.”

The Fantasy of Love

Without these fantasies (Love, Mercy, Justice, etc.), we cannot be human.  We would just be another animal.

That is why a public education has to be about a common pool of fantasy.  How else could large groups of people believe in the same concepts of freedom, equality, and justice?
 
Because a fantasy must be shared in order to grow. 

Two people can share a great love – which means they both have the same fantasy at the same time.  A few couples share this fantasy for a lifetime.  The fantasy exists – it becomes real – as long as you believe in it.

And sometimes, one of those two lovers (or both) stops believing in the same love – the same fantasy – which leads to a reality called divorce.

The older that I become, the more I distrust the fantasy of Romantic Love. 

However, the older that I become, the more I believe in the fantasies of Kindness and Compassion – which are also kinds of Love.

But the real question is this: What will you believe?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Source:
Pratchett, Terry.  Hogfather.  HarperPrism, 1998. 

The Power of Charisma: How Do They Do It?
By Heath Shive 

Charisma projects outward from an individual and stimulates us.  A charismatic person can seduce people one-by-one or on a massive scale.

Robert Greene – author of the The Art of Seduction – tells us that a Charismatic relies on the power of words because words are the quickest way to create emotional stimulation. Words can elevate, energize, and motivate.

But which words?  And how?

Maybe charisma is just narcissism – extroverted and eloquent narcissism.

To the science!

Bragging Is Better?

In 1992, psychologists Lynn Miller, Linda Cooke, Jennifer Tsang, and Faith Morgan performed some studies on the nature of “positive” disclosure versus “boastful” disclosure.  Both positive and boastful disclosures involve communicating your achievements, but boasting adds an element of competition and “one upmanship.”  Boasting implies that you beat somebody.

In one of the studies, the researchers had the study subjects respond to characters who disclosed in either a boastful, positive, or negative fashion.  The respondents rated both the boasters and positive disclosers as more competent than the negative “wimpy” (my word) disclosers.

Later, respondents rated the positive discloser to be more “socially involved.”

But the boasters were rated as more competent! 

The Charisma of Popularity

In 2011, psychologists Mitja Back, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff performed a study on the first impressions that popular people make.  They gathered 73 college students on their first day of class (so that they didn’t know each other). All the students had to introduce themselves individually in front of the class.  Immediately after this introduction, the rest of the class evaluated the student (no pressure!).

Then, each student had to fill out a questionnaire at home which determined whether the student’s personality was – among other things – self-centered (narcissist) or self-transcendent (nice).

The most popular people in the class were of 2 types: extraverts and the self-centered.  Extraverts were considered popular because they were seen as more fashionable, more self-assured, had a friendly facial expression, strong voice, and an original introduction.

Self-centered people were popular for the exact same reasons!
 
Perhaps at first, we can be attracted to self-centered people not because they are self-centered, but because they superficially seem to be like extraverts!

But whereas extraverts genuinely like other people, self-centered people view others as being inferior.

But Sooner or Later

In 1998, psychologist Delroy Paulhus performed a study on 124 college students, who were divided into groups.  Each group contained a narcissist.  At the end of the 1st meeting, the narcissists were considered intelligent, confident, and entertaining.  The group seemed to enjoy their presence.

But by the 7th meeting, narcissists were not liked at all.

Conclusion

Robert Green warns that charisma is as volatile as the emotions it stirs.  Too much charisma for too long creates fatigue, and a desire for calmness and order.

So when I hear someone say “charisma,” I think “narcissist who talks well…for now.”

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Back, M.D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010b). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance.  European Journal of Personality. 3, 225-238.

Miller, Lynn, & Cooke, Linda & Tsang, Jennifer & Morgan, Faith.  (1992). Should I Brag?  Nature and Impact of Positive and Boastful Disclosures for Women and Men.  Human Communication Research.  18 (3).  364-399.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998).  Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
​

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.