| PUA Forum https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/ |
|
| Studies claim to have proven our IOIs as wrong https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=38561 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Pulsebeat [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Studies claim to have proven our IOIs as wrong |
Hey guys! Today I found an article online which said that the IOIs PUAs work with aren't as reliable as we might think. I'll quote the article for you but first I want to point out some things that aren't worked out well. I am very doubtfully about this article's truth: - First off, they do not mention who these observer were. Whether they were professors or normal people? - They don't explain after what criteria they made their decisions. Not even a brief description of how they figured it out (whereas grooming made sense since she wants to pretty up to make her sexually more interesting or get ones attention). So here we go. This is the article about the Florda State University: "ONE OF THE more important skills in the male repertoire is figuring out whether a female is interested in mating. Researchers at Florida State University have new insights into the matter. They asked women to participate in an experimental task that was ostensibly about trying to solve a Rubik's Cube in cooperation with a stranger, each using only one hand and not speaking. The stranger was a "fairly attractive" male research assistant. A video (without audio) of the session was then shown to other people, who assessed the behavior of the woman. The observers were pretty accurate in guessing a woman's promiscuous disposition, though women, and the jealous, did a better job. Surprisingly, smiling, laughing, tilting one's head, an open posture, touching one's hair, hand gestures, physical proximity, and provocative dress were not associated with a woman's promiscuous disposition. The reliable signals, it turned out, were eyebrow flashes, glances, and distraction from the task at hand. Stillman, T. & Maner, J., "A Sharp Eye for Her SOI: Perception and Misperception of Female Sociosexuality at Zero Acquaintance," Evolution and Human Behavior (forthcoming)." Also, here's the link to one pua's thought about this article. http://www.pickupfreak.com/?p=352 Personally, I think these IOIs aren't justified why they are "more reliable". And about the pua's conclusion that our former IOIs are only of "social interest" rather than sexual interest, I can't understand exactly whether there's a social interest that's clearly seperated from sexual interest. So I'll stick with the IOIs I know since it has worked well. Just my 2 cents. I would like to hear your opinions on this! Pulsebeat |
|
| Author: | Jaybot [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think IOI's are more for the newer people as most people just know on a subconscious level if someone is interested. |
|
| Author: | KristallNachte [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
but that's only because the advanced don't actively read the IOIs, they do it subconciously. |
|
| Author: | Maf-PbC [ Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yea see this is always the grey area people touch on, ive often got caught up in there. IOI's sometimes show then other times nothing...but then again the situation wasn't a in-game male to female interacting. People were solving a rubiks cube silently? You know this study is missing some info or something otherwise it sounds incomplete as hell. IOI's exist for a reason, you the person have to decipher and add up whether or not they mean anything(since you were actually there to witness them). Count em or not... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|