NationStates Jolt Archive

...or at least that's what a study suggests:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7884223.stm
A woman's personality traits may be "written all over her face", research has suggested.

The Glasgow University and New Scientist study examined whether self-assessed personality characteristics could be identified from appearance.

It claimed that women's faces were easier to read than men's faces, with greater success in matching traits.

This is just a classic example of people who spend more time looking at scientific data or analyzing wierd things in test tubes than they do talking to women. Anyone who has talked to a woman for more than 10 minutes knows for a fact that there is almost no way to divine thier personality or even what they actually want.

I like how the traits are "self-assessed" - maybe women are just better at knowing and articulating their "traits"?

Or maybe the researchers are predominantly male and thus spend more time looking at female faces, especially in an effort to find "traits" in them, and thus have much more training deciphering female faces?

Or, you know, maybe the whole study and its aim are bullshit.

I like how the traits are "self-assessed" - maybe women are just better at knowing and articulating their "traits"?

Or maybe the researchers are predominantly male and thus spend more time looking at female faces, especially in an effort to find "traits" in them, and thus have much more training deciphering female faces?

Or, you know, maybe the whole study and its aim are bullshit.

Yeah, along with evolution bullshit.

Anyways, the scientists collected the data, they didn't judge the faces, the public did.

Yeah, along with evolution bullshit.
Do elaborate.

Anyways, the scientists collected the data, they didn't judge the faces, the public did.

Ah, "the public". Always a nice factor in scientific research. Anyhow, that's what I get for being a true Generalite and no even reading the link provided.

Do elaborate.

If you're going to dismiss something scientific because it offends your beliefs and sensibilities, creationists are legitimate.

...or at least that's what a study suggests:
[/url]

No poker face for women.

Meh.

Anyone who has talked to a woman for more than 10 minutes knows for a fact that there is almost no way to divine thier personality or even what they actually want.
Bollocks.

Women; More transparent when made of glass.

I've long had the hunch that people are pushed into roles given their faces - and we primarily look at the face naturally - and, separate from who they actually are, might describe themselves according to those roles.

It may be that females accept roles more readily than males, hence the higher correlation, I accept that's a contentious issue but I suspect, suspect only, that females - and this is a generalisation - assume, or are pushed into, a role more readily than males.

That is to say, one's face might say little about who one is, but something about how people perceive you and consequently the role you take upon yourself.

There's interesting studies in terms of family roles, how people change out of a family setting yet revert to type once back in.

Bollocks.

You sir, need to get your funny bone checked.

Anyone who has talked to a woman for more than 10 minutes knows for a fact that there is almost no way to divine thier personality or even what they actually want.
You have either not been listening, or have not asked the right questions.

The right question being, "So, what do you want?"

No poker face for women.

Meh.
Not in my experience. ;)

You have either not been listening, or have not asked the right questions.

But you have boobs! Do you know how hard it is not to be distracted by boobs?! Its like... its like trying to go on a diet but being destracted by a strategically placed pizza.


The right question being, "So, what do you want?"


Huh... oh sorry what?

Bollocks.

Some women may want bollocks, but those generally convey at least some signals about that desire. :D

You sir, need to get your funny bone checked.
Bollocks.

:P

Bollocks.

:P

Thats a little bit better.

Oh, I thought you meant "transparent"... literally.

Oh, I thought you meant "transparent"... literally.

No, fortunatly not.

what the hell does a lucky face look like?

According to Google, lucky looks like this (http://www.kalkutta.diplo.de/Vertretung/kalkutta/en/02/Botschafter__und__Abteilungen/Pic_20Gallery/PicGallery__1__lucky/bild__galerie__1__lucky__2,property=BildDaten.jpg)

I'm not overly surprised by these results. Can't think how any of this is faintly useful or newsworthy, mind.

I'm not overly surprised by these results. Can't think how any of this is faintly useful or newsworthy, mind.

Science doesn't have to be useful. Thats just a big con perpetutated by the evil research grant cabal.

I'm not overly surprised by these results. Can't think how any of this is faintly useful or newsworthy, mind.

Because like the last two articles along these lines its science involving women.

Science doesn't have to be useful. Thats just a big con perpetutated by the evil research grant cabal.

Indeed.

*Mutters bitterly about the research council refusing to fund my study on splatter patterns when kittens are put in a blender without the lid on*

So basically this study was left entirely to the individual participants. The participants took unknown amounts of time to fill out the survey and selected their own photos (the only criterion for the photos is that they're looking straight at the camera). Maybe the fact that women wear makeup influenced the results (i.e. maybe women with certain personality traits [or who think they have certain personality traits] put on makeup in different ways, surely this would effect the composites). Also, since the amount of time someone took to complete the survey is unknown, perhaps there's a trend among men to do it quickly and not think about it as much and for women to take their time.

They should do this by hauling people in, have them all strike the same pose and take the pictures for this study with any makeup, jewlery etc removed.

If they had a big enough budget, they should also try getting an idea of what these people consider "lucky" or not as this would be another issue.

It is because men can grow beards in order to conceal their faces. If women started stapling bits of shag carpeting to their cheeks, they'd be just as hard to interpret as men.

what the hell does a lucky face look like?
NSFW, probably.

If you're going to dismiss something scientific because it offends your beliefs and sensibilities, creationists are legitimate.

Then the "bullshit" you're referring to is "creationist" or "anti-evolution" bullshit. It was the way you phrased your first post that elicited the justifiable call for elaboration.

NSFW, probably.

i demand to see it...for science!

If you're going to dismiss something scientific because it offends your beliefs and sensibilities, creationists are legitimate.

That is correct.

However, even after going back and re-reading my post several times, I fail to see where I rejected the study and its findings because it offended my beliefs or sensibilities.

In the name of learning and scientific discourse, I'd be thrilled if you could point out where this happened so I can better myself.

i reckon they looked at womens boobs and if they shaked it means they are happy. if they drooped they are sad. and if they have burger nips the really like... you get the idea ;P

i reckon they looked at womens boobs and if they shaked it means they are happy. if they drooped they are sad. and if they have burger nips the really like... you get the idea ;P

No. Likely because we can't understand...especially that last sentence.

No. Likely because we can't understand...especially that last sentence.

Thanks, I was afraid I just wasn't hip to the new lingo. Not that I wanted to be.

No. Likely because we can't understand...especially that last sentence.

Oh thank God, I was kinda afraid I was alone there. I was all, "keep it together, virgin. You can bluff your way through this".

Thanks, I was afraid I just wasn't hip to the new lingo. Not that I wanted to be.

Ach, sweetie. Happiness and fulfillment is just one click away..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=burger+nips

http://images.google.com/images?q=the%20invisible%20woman&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Transparent woman?

Alternative hypothesis: While growing up, women are judged more on appearance and told more to rely on others' judgment, influencing their self-reported personalities to conform to expectations of their facial appearances.

This would also cause this effect in the data, and I find it more likely than a genetic variance correlating inherent personality traits and appearance only in women.

Maybe it all balances out, men are harder to read but women are better at reading them; women are easier to read but men just aren't as good at reading them.

Gender is stereotypical quality, while other gender is opposite stereotypical quality.

Gender is stereotypical quality, while other gender is opposite stereotypical quality.

Lies and calumny. You are wrong because of scientific study and news article. Now smug patronising comment bearing a veiled insult to your intelligence and/or maturity, while not yet serious enough to be considered outright flaming.

This is just a classic example of people who spend more time looking at scientific data or analyzing wierd things in test tubes than they do talking to women. Anyone who has talked to a woman for more than 10 minutes knows for a fact that there is almost no way to divine thier personality or even what they actually want.

Are we so hard to understand?

Are we so hard to understand?

Natsu, I was kidding. Please read how I defended it when other people brought it up; I was making fun of men :p.

No. Likely because we can't understand...especially that last sentence.

burger nipples are a jokey term for really big nipples haha. and i thought that people would of got that i ment they really liked burgers lol :p

I think it's interesting that women's personality traits may be easier to read than men's, but their dating preference is apparently harder to judge (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090130084155.htm).

Natsu, I was kidding. Please read how I defended it when other people brought it up; I was making fun of men :p.

Buddy, relax, I know enough of your posting style to know that, in that, you may very well have been kidding.;)

If you're going to dismiss something scientific because it offends your beliefs and sensibilities, creationists are legitimate.
I'm a scientist, have been one professionally for years, and if I dismissed scientific findings simply because they offended me, I'd be fired.

With that said,

Any time you run across a study purporting to find "differences" between the social or sexual behavior of men and women, there is an 85% chance it is either 1) a completely crap study, or 2) completely misrepresented by the media.

This particular study is both.

For one thing, their methodology doesn't control for the overt and constant sexualization of female faces, something which is not done with male faces.

(If you think I'm full of shit, try this experiment on your own: ask somebody to draw the classic yellow smile-face, then ask them to make that face look sexy. They will make exaggerated red lips and/or "feminine" eyelashes pretty much every time.)

It also doesn't control for inherent biases in how males and females are performed. Past research that has been repeated and verified has confirmed that if a male person and a female person each are taught to flex PRECISELY the same facial muscles to create a given expression, people will respond radically different to that expression.

And it really, really doesn't control for the conditioning and social training that we all receive as we grow.

The reporters also don't mention the cultural breakdown of the results, which (in my opinion) would be the most insightful and interesting part of the study. Contrary to what the conclusion of the article states, the "genetic" side of this study is not remotely fascinating. What's cool is the information we could get about how cultural context impacts perception of features and personality. The "genetics" side of this study is totally unsupported by their data and is basically just speculation and random guesses. Snore.

[snip a bit, and then a bit more, and some more..] Snore.
Jeez, you're one of those people who toss and turn for ages before they finally come to the sleep conclusion, yes?

Jeez, you're one of those people who toss and turn for ages before they finally come to the sleep conclusion, yes?
Nah, it doesn't require any effort for me to critique bad science at this point. I fall asleep almost instantly, and I can spot bad science even faster. :D

Actually it is very easy to know what a woman wants. But the true is that we don't care :P

"It's possible that there is some correlation between appearance and personality because both are influenced by our genetic make-up." It's also possible there is some correlation between appearance and personality because people have certain expectations about the personality of people with certain appearance. And maybe, due to social pressures in our patriarchal society women are more strongly influenced by that.
Y'know, possibly.

I suppose it's worth further investigation. The correlation by itself is interesting enough.

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about women in transparent clothing...