Part 1: Fisking
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-are-attracted-to-nonconformist-women/
This article is stupid for like 10 different reasons.
“Men are often advised to stand out from the crowd to attract women—there can be only one alpha male.” Somebody watched Highlander recently. There can be only one alpha-male? Sure. Okay.
“Women, on the other hand, are told not to be too weird.” You catch the tautology? “too weird”. By definition, that means so weird as to be unpalatable. Everybody is taught not to be too anything, because that’s how the expression “too ___” works.
“This advice has sunk in: a 2006 study found that when in a mating mind-set, men become less conformist and women become more so.” Yeah, you know, that study they did in 2006. You know the one. Also, no self-respecting scientist or science writer would throw the word “mating” around re humans so casually. Does mating mean sex, or procreating? Because that is a massively important distinction in human psychology.
“A paper in the June issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, however, reports that we have it all wrong.” Can we have a link? No? Just going to take your word for it now. Not sure that’s how science works.
” In the new work, which studied subjects who identified as either heterosexual or bisexual,”
So sociologists have conclusively proven that bisexuals and heterosexuals look for the same thing in “mating”? Because if they don’t, then these numbers might be skewed.
” both women and men preferred nonconformist partners” Yet the title of the article is only about what men are attracted to in women.
” those whose clothes, opinions or life decisions broke the norm”
HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU RELIABLY QUANTIFY THOSE!?!?!
” when selecting from online dating profiles” Okay, so, what’s their objective in online dating? Is this Tinder or Match?
” describing ideal partners or picturing dates with people they had just met ” What people describe to researchers as what they imagine a partner–again, in what sense?–to be is now a valid indicator for what people choose in reality? Right, because the success rate between fantasy in reality is more than zero….
” Men showed just as much interest as women in oddballs” HOW ARE YOU DEFINING THESE NEBULOUS TERMS!?!?
” Further, independent-minded people—in the U.S., the U.K. and India” Just because Aziz Ansari wrote a dating book doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to take data from a culture that’s completely different and say it’s supporting evidence for the hypothesis.
“—reported more success in both short- and long-term dating.” So, not objectively demonstrated then? So this is about self-reporting then. People think their date is special. We needed a study for this? What, did psychologists think that people went around calling their significant other a dime-a-dozen?
“Other research has shown breaking rules to be a good indicator of status and power” Oh, okay. Sure. That one study showed really subjective things. Cool.
“which may explain part of its appeal for both sexes, but gender role expectations have yet to catch up.” According to whom? Maybe there’s some other study they did somewhere. You know, a study.
“‘The old-fashioned gender stereotype—that men go for conformist, submissive women—has been slow to die,’ says lead author” Okay, men going for women who are submissive /to them/ is probably still very much a thing. Women rebelling against society is one thing, women rebelling against the man attracted to them is an other (sic). Holy fucking shit, this guy is a psychologist and didn’t distinguish between how people see others as relating to themselves versus society? Do they just not even teach the history of psychology anymore? For as insane as the old masters were, this oversight never would have slipped past them.
“‘I’m intrigued by the notion of the ‘girls’ night out’” I see…
“‘and how many women feel as though they can be more unguarded without men around—more relaxed, more crass, more honest, more funny.'” Is this actually a thing? I feel like none of the women I know are this stupid and insecure.
Part 2: The Study
The study they referenced is behind a paywall.
http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTE3Ny8wMTQ2MTY3MjE1NTc3MzY2/10.1177%400146167215577366.pdf