— FEATURED —
Lexicon: smart, sharp technothriller from Max "Jennifer Government" Barry
The 'Geisters: spooky, scary novel
Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
— COMICS —
Real Stuff: The Joeist Philosophy
Brain Rot: Hip Hop Family Tree, Chuck D and Spectrum City
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: Workin' in the Data Mine...
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala: Genocide in Our Hemisphere—livestreamed event in D.C. today
Guatemala: Genocide in Our Hemisphere event D.C. May 29 with scholars, survivors; Xeni moderating
Photos: Throughout Latin America, protests demand justice for Guatemala after genocide trial overturned
— RECENTLY —
The Snowden Principle
Carl Hiaasen's Bad Monkey
Atoms for Peace play a surprise intimate show in Los Angeles
Blunders of Genius: interesting errors by Darwin, Pauling, and Einstein
"By His Things Will You Know Him," a short story
Topsy Turvy World: surreal kids' picture book, now out in the USA
Hubsan X4 quadcopters: tiny cheap, powerful copter
Monsters and Legends: kids' monster book now in the USA!
Akissi: kids' comic about a mischievous girl in Cote D'Ivoire [now in the USA!]
A User's Guide to Neglectful Parenting, by Guy Delisle
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Rob Beschizza at 5:52 am Wed, Dec 5, 2012
[comment that's horribly misogynistic] HURR HURR HURR
Obligatory sexist joke: A man could tell a “cheating woman” if he’d look at her face instead of her breasts.
Is a joke sexist if it’s true?
Quote from the article:
“Men, on the other hand, seemed to have no clue. They tended to perceive attractive, feminine women to be unfaithful, when there was no evidence that they were, the scientists noted.”
Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
Really though, what’re the odds of getting that question wrong in the first place? :)
So… how terrible is this study? If they want to make statements like “Men have no clue”, shouldn’t they at least had put forward something about men’s assessment of other men’s faces?
Because it seems like the exact same bias going both ways, it’s just that in men’s case the features actually have a (small to moderate) correlation. Which means that they were wrong more than they were right, I’d imagine.
Eh, probably just a case of poor reporting – I doubt the original study would make such a silly claim.
The interesting bit to me is that women and men kind of used the same determining factor: women said more “masculine” guys were more likely cheaters, men said more “feminine” women were more likely cheaters. Women just happened to be RIGHT about their assumption. Which tells me the interesting correlation is more about “masculine appearance” and infidelity, rather than women’s ability to judge it.
Chris Rock famously once said, “A man is as faithful as his options.” The women were identifying men that they would consider being unfaithful with. If they would consider being unfaithful with a man, then other women had too – thus broadening the man’s options and increasing the likelihood that the man had cheated in the past.
Was Chris Rock on the peer-review panel then?
*Dreams of of peer-review panel with bill hicks, Lenny Bruce & George Carlin on it*…
A female friend with a very handsome rugby player brother described his whole crowd of friends as “guy whores.”
Corrected headline: [Some] women can tell a cheating man just by looking at them [at a rate slightly higher than chance].
Bonus points for the Boing Boing (‘ding ding’) reference contained therein.
While science journalism is a popular theme for internet comics, this one really nails the news filtration hierarchy.
Correlated to self reported sexual histories; In other words, men who were more masculine looking tended to REPORT that they were more unfaithful.
Furthermore, I would suggest it’s relatively easier for a man with a positive attitude to cheating to regulate how masculine he looks. It’s really not that hard to increase muscle volume and grow a bit more facial hair (depending on your starting point of course) compared to the near impossibility of naturally increasing typical feminine traits such as fuller lips, wider hips, bigger eyes etc.
What I am suggesting is that the man intent on cheating wouldn’t have too much difficulty building up a rugged masculine look if he so wished and as such certain features may have become a tell-tale sign of ‘cheater’. Whereas the equivalent female would just have to get her conquests with whatever she’s got. Therefore feminine traits as such big hips cannot be realistically be considered the look of a ‘cheater’.
I must beg to differ! Putting on muscle mass takes WORK. Or hormones. Or genes that lead themselves to building muscle. Fuller lips, wider hips, and bigger eyes can be accomplished with through the cunning use of makeup and clothing choices. There is the additional issue, of course, of why we associate those particular traits with femininity and implicitly pressure women to manufacture them, but that is another argument for another day.
Hans Moleman and I will have to give this subject some thought.
Small data set of self reported sexual activity = Science Fail
Not only is it impossible to infer meaningful results from such a small data set, there is nothing to ensure the entire data set is not completely false. Further, extrapolating a data set of 189 Aussies to make general statements which encompass the whole of humanity is laughable.Men tend to play up their sexual exploits while women tend to downplay them. With a set of 189 data points, three or four lies would produce statistical variance significant enough as to render the study questionable at the very least.
One thing we do know for certain – people will lie.
“Science Fail” … sigh, guess it’s back to the bible for me.