A study finds, unsurprisingly, that guys are clueless about interpreting women's signals.
More precisely, they are somewhat oblivious to the emotional subtleties of non-verbal cues, according to a new study of college students.
"Young men just find it difficult to tell the difference between women who are being friendly and women who are interested in something more," said lead researcher Coreen Farris of Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
This "lost in translation" phenomenon plays out in the real world, with about 70 percent of college women reporting an experience in which a guy mistook her friendliness for a sexual come-on, Farris said.
Some might think the results come down to "boys being boys," and so even the slightest female interest sparks sexual fantasy. But the study, to be detailed in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science, also found that it goes both ways for guys - they mistake females' sexual signals as friendly ones. The researchers suggest guys have trouble noticing and interpreting the subtleties of non-verbal cues, in either direction.
I admit I haven't read the actual study, so the following must be said with the caveat that I assume the above reporting accurately reflects the findings.
I'm afraid that in this case, it is the researchers who are surprisingly clueless. Women's signals to men are intentionally ambiguous. If women's signals were clear communication of interest, that would be a direct come-on. But women generally don't take the initiative, certainly not in our culture (those that do, often get a bad rep both among women and men!). A vague hint in the direction of a male is intended to make him take the initiative, and thus be the one risking rejection, and it retains deniability for the woman. This is the way the game works.
The upside for women is obvious. The downside is that since there is very little, if any, difference between any friendly, even polite, attention and a real invitation, women experience that undesirable males also try their luck. Unfortunately, they can't have it both ways. "Clueless guys" have no choice but to keep guessing.
Surprisingly, our species still seems to be able to procreate.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the BBC has admitted to recently making two serious errors in reporting about Israel.
In a news item on March 7, following the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva attack, the BBC showed a bulldozer demolishing a house, while correspondent Nick Miles told viewers: "Hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his family home. Later, mourners set up Hamas and Islamic Jihad banners nearby."
The house, however, was not demolished; the BBC was embarrassed when news reports from other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son's actions.
More than an error, this sounds like making things up. If nobody had caught the use of old footage of a house demolition (that belonging to Islamic Jihad leader Muhammad Shehadeh, in fact), I doubt this apology had come out. How do you make a "mistake" like that, anyway?
The other error was a gross misrepresentation of statements by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
It is hardly a coincidence that all such "errors" tend to be unfavourable to Israel. This is most unfortunate, because the BBC is really a good source of international news, once you are aware of its biases and tendencies.
The police in Italy are hunting an alleged thief who has used hypnosis to rob supermarkets:
Police in Italy have issued footage of a man who is suspected of hypnotising supermarket checkout staff to hand over money from their cash registers.
In every case, the last thing staff reportedly remember is the thief leaning over and saying: "Look into my eyes", before finding the till empty.
Apparently, the CCTV confirms the incident, and the cashier says she remembers none of what happened.
Seriously, I believe none of this at all, whatever the police says. If there is a human being on this planet who can put people into a trance just by looking into their eyes, he could accomplish far more than stealing 800 euros from a supermarket!
Quite famously, the CIA did some serious (well, wrong word, but there you go) studies of hypnosis with or without drugs back in the 1960s, with far less than spectacular results. It wasn't possible to turn people into robots. It still isn't.
PS: Paul McKenna doesn't count. It's entertainment, folks. If he could do what he pretends to be doing, he would not be in show biz. He would rule the world.
