[Distance]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Agreed there, and also with what Distance said below you. (My first annoyed response was to the replies on this thread, not to the OP itself.) Which raises a valid question: how is this study defining "ovulation"? I've usually heard it refer to some time period lasting about a week, presumably during "peak hormones" time, which if my memory of biology serves correctly lasts considerably longer than 24 hours.

Might this be where your confusion lies?

	During my ovulation time, how many days am I really fertile? During the time of ovulation, an egg is available to be fertilized for only about 12-24 hours. But since sperm can live in the body for 3-5 days and then the egg is available for one day, your most fertile time is considered to be about 5-7 days.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some sexy dudes do make great dads and others don't. Some non-sexy dudes make horrific dads and some make great dads.

I wasn't saying otherwise. At least, I don't think I did.

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, all people are subject to hormones. Also emotions. That's not surprising. The question is whether or not older women (the ones more likely to be making mate decisions in regards to the child-rearing ability of the man) may not see as strong an effect because they have more experience and a more developed brain. Even then, though, like I said above, women aren't making decisions about who to have kids with based on a profile/photo/5 minute conversation and within the 14 hours they ovulate during.

Granted, the study seems more politically correct in that sense. But you can't label a study "The men women are more likely to fuck during a given time in their cycle." And you certainly can't publicize it as such.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Granted, the study seems more politically correct in that sense. But you can't label a study "The men women are more likely to fuck during a given time in their cycle." And you certainly can't publicize it as such.

If that was their intention, which I doubt, they should make the effort to ensure that their PC equivalent is actually synonymous.

[Nemesis]

It's official: scientific literacy is dead.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's official: scientific literacy is dead.

Who is scientifically illiterate? The researchers or the people posting in this thread?

[Zephyranthes]

As it's been said, dumb study is dumb. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.

So many bad assumptions made too, like the nice guy is the equivalent of winning the lottery and the "cad" is a wet dirty dollar bill on the side of the road. After she makes her choice, she gets labeled as illogical and inconsistent, so now we're bashing the guys she likes as bad fathers, and bashing her as an irrational ovulating mess of confusion, and still trying to pass off mr "nice guy" as what she should actually be attracted to, even though he's incredibly boring and she feels nothing for him.

Are there many other fields of research where you can consistently put out bad conclusions and still be considered a valid "expert" on your field?

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As it's been said, dumb study is dumb. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. So many bad assumptions made too, like the nice guy is the equivalent of winning the lottery and the "cad" is a wet dirty dollar bill on the side of the road. After she makes her choice, she gets labeled as illogical and inconsistent, so now we're bashing the guys she likes as bad fathers, and bashing her as an irrational ovulating mess of confusion, and still trying to pass off mr "nice guy" as what she should actually be attracted to, even though he's incredibly boring and she feels nothing for him. Are there many other fields of research where you can consistently put out bad conclusions and still be considered a valid "expert" on your field?

Of course.

And yes, all of them.

[catzmeow]

I think it's interesting that good looking guy = cad for these researchers, and average looking guy = responsible guy. What a flawed, biased assumption.

Ridiculous study.

[DrCiao]

I think this is a flawed study for many reasons, and hardly scientific.

First of all, having actors play a cad and a stammering average guy is not going to have any affect on a woman's choices in men aside from their preference in stand up comedy. Most women choose their partners by scent- by subconscious genetic preference.

Secondly, to physically embody a cad, we have to take in a wide range of internal and character assimiliations, which is not going to be visible by someone playing an accountant or an adventurer. BTW, I think most accountants are crooks.

3rd, to denote meaning to one's profession as CAD or a good guy is ludicrous; why not a pimp or drug dealer, which is much more clearly a CAD than an award winning advernturer.

[mieu]

Right, because I as a woman can tell you that I make ground-breaking, life-altering decisions like who I'd like to bear my children and spend of the rest of my life with based on a 10-minute conversation with a total stranger at a time in my life where I probably haven't even had the experience of living alone and supporting myself yet. I don't know why any males bother dating at all. If she doesn't ask for your sperm within a half-hour, she's obviously not interested in becoming your lifelong mate.

It's official.

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1) That women rate better-looking men as better fathers for their own children when ovulating, when these factors should be independent of each other from a rational standpoint. 2) That suitability for fathering their own children and suitability for fathering others' children were independent of each other during ovulation, when from a rational standpoint they shouldn't be.

I know, right? I break up with my boyfriend every time I ovulate and see someone better looking, then get back together with him once I'm back to being a reasonable human being that isn't so hormonal. I may be inconsistent and irrational, but life is so hard and confusing when the man you were attracted to Monday is mediocre on Tuesday (or even worse, downright hideous!)

[ummon]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So then why judge women for the same thing. You should reasonably expect them to go for the best looking guy.

Because most women don't admit their preferences.

Additionally, I judge both shallow men and women.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does it need to be? Scientific studies try to determine facts. That's what science is for. Unless there's a specific purpose laid out in the funding, I think most useful things to come out of studies are little more than happy coincidences combined with the fact that truth does tend to become useful at some point.

That was kind of my point. Unless you are actually in the scientific field studying this exact thing, then this study should have zero impact on your life.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	3rd, to denote meaning to one's profession as CAD or a good guy is ludicrous; why not a pimp or drug dealer, which is much more clearly a CAD than an award winning advernturer.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but while saying the adventurer (someone who would likely leave for the next great adventure) is a cad and flaws the study, a pimp or drug dealer (who would be socially acceptable to refuse outright as a dad by any means) would most certainly flaw the study.

[Saggita]

It is official: we should make a study on how hormones afect the understanding of poorly done studies.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So in or should I say, open to cadillacs?

If it's an old one with fins, I'm all in.

	Women want hot guys. Bizarre!

Actually hot guys are kind of a turn off for me. Odds are good they'll be too damned full of themselves to be of much interest.

---------- Post added 05-13-2012 at 06:55 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does that make sense, smart women subject to hormones.

Pheremones don't do their magic on the frontal lobe either.

And "smart" and "wise" are not the same thing.

---------- Post added 05-13-2012 at 07:00 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which raises a valid question: how is this study defining "ovulation"? I've usually heard it refer to some time period lasting about a week, presumably during "peak hormones" time, which if my memory of biology serves correctly lasts considerably longer than 24 hours.

Going by the white crusty deposit in panties, I'd say around 4-5 days.

Hey, you asked. Don't blame me if it's TMI, but I had more success with the rhythm method (Vatican roulette) than other forms of birth control.

	...I completely missed that there were two studies here.

Yeah, I missed that too. I'm used to articles in the lay press screwing up studies in major ways, but this is the first time I've seen such a mish mash.

[curiousgeorge01]

I've noticed that women tend to like a certain kind of good looking and not all types of good looking pass. For example, I have two very good looking cousins, one's is quiet and looks calm (A) and the other is a party-er (B). The quiet one is very capable and smart but the girls always seem drawn to the more wild cousin who can't hold down a job. The events I've seen them go together where B attracts more than A are at weddings, parties and family dinners/get togethers. So I'm not sure if it's the sample size of the women, like the more expressive type who like B or is it a more general tendency.

I think A would be open to short term relationships, but he always seems to attract women who want long term ones. Also A seems to be much more capable of holding substantial conversations but that doesn't seem to be valued by the short term women.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually hot guys are kind of a turn off for me. Odds are good they'll be too damned full of themselves to be of much interest.

The word 'hot' is a subjective term. So is 'full of themselves'. Hot to me, might not necessarily be hot to anyone else.

Let's take Leonardo DiCaprio or Justin Timberlake. Neither are hot to me and yet, a lot of women believe them to be hot. I can appreciate their talents but they leave me cold.

And yet men like Obama and the character of Helo in Battlestar Galactica (don't know enough about Tahmoh Penikett to say either way) are hot to me. What's interesting is that both Obama and Helo are family men, where the former is intelligent/professor-like and the latter, just a sweetheart with integrity to burn, far from dumb but not in the top percentiles of intelligence bracket. Neither is loud and boisterous. Both are contained men.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's official: scientific literacy is dead.

To what level of confidence?

[Muse]

I don't think this study shows very much, if anything. Almost seems to have more to do with sociology than hormones.

[Zodd]

I don't really understand that study and what's being said here, also haven't read of it much, but I recently made a post in PlotThickens blog that might have to do with this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(It has pictures in it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[SwedenF]

I'd love to see that study repeated on purely demisexuals. And I'd like to be in it. I would hope I'd be above my hormones, but who knows, maybe I stop being myself for a couple of days each month.

Also, I personally don't even want to read studies made with so few subjects. 21 is nowhere near enough.

[Storm]

There were only 21 people in the study? Which one?

So, what we have here are the opinions of 21 co-eds, and no indication as to whether difference was even statistically significant.

[Amphorian]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There were only 21 people in the study? Which one?

The first study mentioned had 33, and the second had 21.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd love to see that study repeated on purely demisexuals. And I'd like to be in it.

You can't be in it now that you know the purpose.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[babsa]

I don't even know why this study is significant. First and foremost, it posits that there is a universal definition for what kind of guy makes a good dad... it is all subjective. Second, 13% is hardly much of a difference, and even if it is significant to some of you, it is bothersome that it matters. Woah! Hormones have an affect on judgment?! No wai!