Interesting clues about short vs. long term mating: Participants accurately identified an opposite sex person’s sociosexuality (i.e., how comfortable one is in engaging in short-term mating), … by attending to how often the individual gazed at a confederate, how much time they spent trying to solve a puzzle (as opposed to looking at the confederate), and the number of eyebrow flashes the target displayed. … A few behaviors led participants to misidentify sociosexuality … includ[ing] smiling, laughing, closeness to the confederate, and the confederate’s attractiveness and provocativeness of dress. …
> So those who are better able to read and respond to subtle social clues are more likely to engage in short term mating,
Badly controlled for confounding variables. That would be some of the most beneficial abilities to actually succeed in getting a (short term) mate... IOW, they do it because they can.
Individuals with high self-monitoring tend to not establish committed relationships and maintain an unrestrictive sexual orientation. I would like to think that the "and" here means "and, additionally,", but I suspect the writers intended it to mean "but rather".
This correlation leads high self-monitors to prefer partners with high social status, physical attractiveness, financial resources, and sex appeal, and low self-monitors to prefer partners with loyalty, honesty, kindness, and similar beliefs and education.
What happens when opposites attract? A high self-monitor and a low self-monitor ought never come together. But in literature and in life, they sometimes do. Conflict is inevitable. Yet there can be quite compelling reasons why particular individuals who differ in this regard are nonetheless deeply attracted to one another.
> So those who are better able to read and respond to subtle social clues are more likely to engage in short term mating,
Badly controlled for confounding variables. That would be some of the most beneficial abilities to actually succeed in getting a (short term) mate... IOW, they do it because they can.
FYI, this got 12 shares on Google Reader, but only 7 pushes of your "like" button and 4 comments (prior to this).
Individuals with high self-monitoring tend to not establish committed relationships and maintain an unrestrictive sexual orientation. I would like to think that the "and" here means "and, additionally,", but I suspect the writers intended it to mean "but rather".
This correlation leads high self-monitors to prefer partners with high social status, physical attractiveness, financial resources, and sex appeal, and low self-monitors to prefer partners with loyalty, honesty, kindness, and similar beliefs and education.
What happens when opposites attract? A high self-monitor and a low self-monitor ought never come together. But in literature and in life, they sometimes do. Conflict is inevitable. Yet there can be quite compelling reasons why particular individuals who differ in this regard are nonetheless deeply attracted to one another.
This Empirical Literary Darwinism is really cool.It is better than the Horoscope you get in the newspaper or those things you get in fortune cookies.
The paper seems to say that high self-monitoring men seek short-term mating, but that SM is irrelevant for women.