Manaaja kirjoitti:Sanoo mr. most-fucked-up-prospects-ever, joka ei haista kiimaa eikä saumaa vaikka sitä hierottaisiin suoraan sieraimeen.Gat kirjoitti: Niin totta Vitussa miesten luontainen toivo ja yritys flirtistäsi on, että josko tuota pääsis PaNemaan. Jokainen (harviNainen) mahdollisuus täytyy yrittää hyödyntää. Evolutsioonipsykologia määrää.
Toisaalta imartelevaa, mutta toisaalta surullista, että asia saattaa olla noin. Mielestäni todenmukaista raporttia olen täällä joskus antanut. Niin live-elämässä, ei niinkään minut jo tietävien kitinämisujen kanssa.Ehkä olisikin helpotus, että kaikki johtuu enemmän psykopatologiastani kuin muusta.. eikä sille voi mitään, että käy näin (linkki oli jo ennen):
http://kvantti.tky.fi/in/72.shtml
Lisäksi toistan, että flirtti ei ole mitä tahansa kamuilua yleensä ihmisten kanssa, vaan sillä on romanttis-seksuaalinen väritys. Joka evoluutiopsykoillen ajatellen on se tärkein pointti siinä. Selitettäessä miksi miehet reagoivat flirttiin kuin iskuyritykseen. Mitä siis ihmettelit.Suvinen kirjoitti: Joo. Tähän liittyy vähän sama kuin mitä gat yritti tuossa selittää, eli onhan flirtti kuitenkin jonkinasteinen hyväksymisenosoitus, ainakin teoriatasolla, ihmiselle. Siis ei vihreä valo vaan ennemminkin se keltainen. .
Enkä edes keksinyt edellisen sivun asiaa itse, vaan erään evoluutiopsykologin blogista, kahdesta paikkaa:
http://tinyurl.com/65pkch
http://tinyurl.com/aqgjp4
BEAVIS JA BUTTHEAD, idolini, näissä esimerkkinä tyypillisestä miehen käyttäytymisestä!
Muutenkin fanitan blogin äijää:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/t ... amentalist
Piruuttani kopypastaan suurimman osan tekstistä tänne suoraan, on se niin hyvää shittiä:
"Imagine a typical scene in Beavis and Butt-head, on a rare occasion when the boys are not sitting on the couch watching videos. (I haven’t watched MTV since 1994, so I hope their show is still on; otherwise, I might as well be talking about Uncle Miltie and the Texaco Star Theater.) So Beavis and Butt-head are walking down the street, and pass a couple of young, attractive women, dressed in their obligatory tank tops and hot pants. As the women pass, one of them turns to Beavis and Butt-head, smiles, and says “Hi!”
Now what happens? Beavis and Butt-head freeze, their entire cognitive functions (such as they are) on hold, and they mutter, “Whoa.... She wants me.... She wants to do it.... I’m gonna score....”
As comical as Beavis and Butt-head’s spectacular misunderstanding may be, experimental evidence suggests that their reaction is quite common among men. In a typical experiment, a man and a woman engage in a spontaneous conversation for a few minutes. Unbeknownst to them, a male observer and a female observer watch the interaction from behind a one-way mirror. After the conversation is over, all four of them (the male participant, the female participant, the male observer, and the female observer) judge how romantically interested the female participant was in the male participant. The data show that the male participant and the male observer often judge the female participant to be more romantically interested in the male participant than the female participant and the female observer do. The men think that the woman is coming on to the man when the women don’t think she is.
Whether you are a man or a woman, if you think about your own life for a minute, you’ll soon realize that this is a very common occurrence. A man and a woman meet and engage in a friendly conversation. After the conversation, the man is convinced that the woman is attracted to him and perhaps wants to sleep with him, when the woman is entertaining no such thought; she’s just being nice and friendly. It is a common theme of many romantic comedies (as well as virtually every episode of Three’s Company.... Am I dating myself?) Why does this happen?
Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory offers a very convincing explanation. Their theory begins with the observation that decision making under uncertainty often results in erroneous inference, but some errors are more costly in their consequences than others. Evolution should therefore favor an inference system that minimizes, not the total number of errors, but their total costs.
For example, in the case at hand, the man must decide, in the absence of complete information, whether the woman is romantically interested in him or not. If he infers that she is when she is in fact interested, or if he infers that she is not when she is in fact not interested, then he has made the correct inference. In the other two cases, however, he has made an error in inference. If he infers that she is interested when she is in fact not interested, then he has made an error of false positive (what the statisticians call the “Type I” error). In contrast, if he infers that she is not interested when she is in fact interested, then he has made an error of false negative (what the statisticians call the “Type II” error). What consequences do the false positive and false negative errors entail?
If he made the error of inferring she’s interested when she’s not, then he’d come on to her but ends up being rejected, laughed at, and possibly slapped in the face. If he made the error of inferring she’s not interested when she is, then he’d missed an opportunity for sex and possible reproduction. As bad as being rejected and laughed at is (and, trust me, it is), it is nothing compared to missing a genuine opportunity for sex. So, Haselton and Nettle argue, evolution has equipped men to overinfer women’s romantic and sexual interest in them, so that, while they may make a large number of false-positive errors (and, as a result, get slapped all the time), they would never miss a single opportunity for sex."
"ALL MEN ARE BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD
By Satoshi Kanazawa on March 30, 2008 - 6:27pm in The Scientific Fundamentalist
In my earlier post, I used the example of Beavis and Butt-head as an illustration of how men always overinfer women’s sexual interest in them. You may think that Beavis and Butt-head are buffoonish cartoon characters, and real men and boys don’t behave like them. Well, you’d be wrong, and I have a Federal class-action lawsuit to prove it.
In January 1998, the American supermarket chain Safeway (which is unrelated to the British supermarket chain of the same name and similar logo, which has recently been acquired by the rival chain Morrisons) started implementing what it called the “superior customer service policy.” It required all Safeway employees to look customers in the eye and smile. If the customer paid by check or credit card, cashiers were required quickly to scan the customer’s last name and thank them by their last name, as in “Thank you, Mr. so-and-so, for shopping at Safeway,” while looking at them in the eye and smiling.
On a personal note, I was living in Palo Alto, California, during the summer of 1998, while I was Summer Scholar at the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, and I did my grocery shopping at a local Safeway. I was very amused that, at every checkout, the Safeway employee would stare at my credit card for 30 seconds and mutter “Thank you, Mr.... umm... Mr. Ka... Kana... umm... Mr. Kanazaina... for shopping at Safeway.” At the time, I had no idea that it was a newly enforced company policy.
I suspect Safeway’s “superior customer service policy” was invented by some management consultant with an MBA from a leading business school. True to the microeconomic model of the singular and unitary actor dominant in business schools, which makes no distinction between men and women, Safeway’s policy makes no distinction between the sexes. In the policy, there are no men and women, only employees and customers. It required both male and female employees to greet both male and female customers in the identical, “friendly” manner.
As it turns out, the policy worked very well roughly three-quarters of the time, between a male employee and a male customer, between a male employee and a female customer, and between a female employee and a female customer. However, the policy backfired when the employee was female and the customer was male. When the female employee gazed deeply into his eyes, smiled, and thanked him by his name, the male customer “naturally” assumed that she was attracted to him, and started harassing her by following her around on and off work. In other words, many of the male customers turned into Beavis and Butt-head. Eventually, five female employees had to file a Federal sex discrimination charge against Safeway to force it to stop this policy, which the supermarket chain did when it reached an out-of-court settlement.
This fiasco was an embarrassing and costly episode for Safeway. It could have been avoided entirely had the management consultant who devised the “superior customer service policy” had any knowledge of evolutionary psychology in general, and Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory in particular (although, to be fair, the theory had not been invented in 1998). Any evolutionary psychologist could have predicted that Safeway’s new customer service policy was a disaster in the making, because all men are essentially Beavis and Butt-head. Only economists would be so blind.
To anticipate your question, the answer is, no, I did not follow the female Safeway employee around in Palo Alto. Obviously, she was not truly in love with me if she couldn’t even remember my name."
. Kesä ja kärpäset, oli aivan toinen ääripää mun yleisestä miesmausta (38v. tatuoitu kaljupää) *taputapu*
(tai jos koulusta tarttui enkun lukutaitoa)
