Male scientists aren’t known for being the most ‘manly’ of men and it is my suspicion that it was not strictly an interest in human sexual selection that motivated this study…
The idea was simple, get a bunch of guys and take pictures of them as their facial hair progressed from ‘Baby Face’ to ‘Grizzly Adams’. Then have a bunch of people rate each image on attractiveness and other perceptions. Careful analysis of the results should tell the average guy the how much facial hair to grow to attract the average lady. It should likewise tell us stubbly-challenged researchers how disadvantaged we are, thereby helping us gauge on what level of desperation we need to operate.
The results? Not good for us baby-facers… The difference between Baby-Face and the Short Stubble ‘Sully’ look (RE: Dr. Quinn) was marginal in most cases, with the exception that more facial hair tended to correlate with higher masculinity across the board. Damn. More hair also trended with better perceived parenting skills, which makes some sense if you assume facial hair also trends with physical and mental maturity (it doesn’t).
On the ‘Attractivness’ scale the models over all scored dismally low. That’s what happens when you use yourself as a data point in your own project… However, assuming that the general ugliness of the models didn’t skew the study, it seems that ‘Heavy Stubble’ Wolf-man was rated the most attractive. So, the short stubble look that is so popular right now is off my at least 5 millimeters maybe 10, at least among the women studied (which may or may not have included the scientists’ Moms).
The bottom line? I’m glad that my beautiful bride hates facial hair of any kind. She’s an outlier, thank goodness. Otherwise I’d have to invest in a lot of Rogaine for my face and spend a lot more in razors than my current thrice weekly shave currently requires.
Thanks ScienceNow for reaffirming our fears
I almost died. Until about 20 minutes ago an 8 foot metal cased, pull down, projector screen hung in our office area between two desk stations. The left side of the projector decided to free itself from its mooring and came crashing down directly beside me, upsetting my coffee cup and putting a sizable dent in the microwave and stack of papers next to me.
Nearly died may be an exaggeration, but had my head been a foot to the left I would certainly be at the emergency room right now, and yet I’m only just now starting to feel upset about it. Just another example of my peculiar blessing/curse and what I really want to write about here.
Most scientists have social quirks, but most of those quirks make them less compatible with normal society. I myself have a rather significant quirk Continue reading
Fascinating report involving the use of machine learning in dream decoding! The algorithm was trained by watching brain activity while hundreds of images were shown to subjects. Then brain activity during dreaming was input for the same subjects. It’s still VERY primitive, but the computer predict that the subject had dreamed about a car, not a chair. It only worked if the computer was given two choices, but still that’s rather impressive.
Two things I get from this, we are one step closer to ‘Minority Report’ and I need to finally get around to watching ‘Inception’.
Excellent post from Tyler Wardis:
…I recently began tracking this negative self-talk in order to observe the influence it had in my life. What I found was resistance at it’s best.
“I dont have the right to be here. | You’re stupid. | I’m going to be out of work within the month. | No one understands you. | Failure is inevitable for you. | You will never find your place.”
Disturbing, I know, but these were the most reoccurring negative thoughts I had in a two day period of time. Even more disturbing is that I’ve lived for a long time believing that some level of this self-talk was the truth…
Read more at http://www.tylerwardis.com
I’m not paying $60 to see how smart my dog is, but there is some interesting discussion about dog behavior and psychology later on in the article.
I call it ‘Man eyes’
Researchers show that Doctors looking for cancer in a CT scan completely miss the Ape picture inserted into the image. They are looking for what they expect and the brain filters everything else out, even though the look right at the aberrant monkey in the scan.