More trash from "junkscience.com": 'Clueless Guys Can't Read Women'

they are clueless when women are using them.
they are clueless when women really only want them for their income.
they are clueless when their finances get controlled by the woman.
they are clueless when she lies to him.
they are clueless in divorce court.
they are clueless when they loose their kids.
and they are clueless NOT to know that women kill and abuse more children in US homes than any other perp.

oregon dad

We're clueless because women are manipulative, infantile, children, who expect us to be mind readers. They never say what they're feeling, we're just expected to know. Then they lie about things on top of that. So, it's tough to not be clueless when half of what you hear from the woman is a lie anyway.

Besides, why the hell should we have to read women anyway? Why don't they grow some hair and ask us out if they like us, instead of waiting for us to come to them, or just be more straightforward with their intentions? I respect courage in a woman.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

If women are perplexed by men who don't pick up on their non-verbal communication then I have a suggestion:

Let the woman take the risk of rejection by letting the man know she's interested.

..........................................................

"The sunshine bores the daylights out of me.
Chasing shadows moonlight mystery."

[Rolling Stones]

True.

Its funny because normally you cant get them to keep their traps shut. Then your expected to mind read there BS.

"If you loved me you would know"

It comes down to women want stuff but cant even be bothered to actually tell you, as their personal slave you should know what they want- even before they do!

I hope they weren't basing this on hearsay, or they might want to take a second look.

I know plenty of guys who joke around about this stuff. They'll see some girl smile at them, and then joke with their buddies about how badly she wants him.

Hell, I like to give my girlfriend a hard time by doing the very same thing. "That girl smiled at me, you better go kick her ass before she starts coming onto me."

I will say though, some guys really ARE completely clueless. And it's hilarious to watch the struggle.

I have come around to the exact opposite theory that "women are manipulative, infantile, children, who expect us to be mind readers..."

I believe women are very capable and sophisticated predators who employ the masquerade of childishness and infantilism to get what they want.

They know fully well what they are.

They will almost never discuss it.....

Guys are clueless because they're not mindreaders.
-ax

And the answer is:

"The study's funding came from the National Institutes of Mental Health and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism."

The 6th paragraph! Want to know which way a study of this type (the sudoscientific craptastic kind) is going to lean? Just ask who funded it. Funded by two feminist organizations. Study organized and carried out by 5 feminist women. Gee, I wonder what the study is going to find?

This crap science is as useful as phallometric testing in determining who is a sex offender or which sex offenders will re-offend. Why do people always think that one or a few peoples opinions can be applied broadly across the entire scope of human existence with any sort of accuracy?

tracked down the study:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/ps/19_4_inpress/Farris.pdf

A few interesting points.
The study was conducted entirely by female scientists.
They used twice as many male subjects as female subjects.
The study was based only on photographs of women.
"truth" of emotion in the photograph was determined based on a criteria of majority.... majority of females and majority of males had to agree for part of the selection criteria...

Given that there were twice as many males as females; this means that women's votes counted twice as much as men's as to the "truth" of women's display of emotions; and the assessment was judged by a team of female scientists. No; no bias there...

Instead of reiterating what's already been said (all of which I agree with):

"The students viewed images of women on a computer screen and had to categorize each as friendly, sexually interested, sad or rejecting. Each student reported on 280 photographs . . ."

I think that the use of photographs for a study like this is ridiculous. Because obviously all social cues can be clearly represented in a one-dimensional image depicting a fraction of a second in time. Right. It sounds like they (consciously or not) set their test subjects up for failure.

". . . which had been sorted previously into one of the categories based on surveys completed by different groups of students."

The photographs weren't sorted according to what the woman believed she was portraying?

So let's say Vanessa is told to portray "friendship," and so she does. However, the survey decides she's actually inviting sex. The guys participating in the study who put her picture down as "friendship" get it wrong.

What kind of logic is that?

This whole study is absurd.

That's how the title should read. In my experience the guys that immediately reject any sort of "mind-reading" expectant behavior are the ones that have women crawling all over them.

Women don't want a mind-reading boyfriend. What they want is a man who is strong, independent and won't put up with even the slightest nonsense from his woman. If a man is easy to manipulate, then he quickly becomes boring to the woman - and more importantly, she sees him as a risk because some other woman who is more skilled at manipulation than her could come along one day and steal her man away.

The man who avoids manipulation is in demand because the woman knows he is sticking around only because he WANTS to be there, not because of anything she could possibly do to keep him there.

With respect, I disagree.

The majority of women are simply seeking a male wallet.

Most women are not intellectual or interested in the things that men are ... sports, philosophy, politics, etc.

Women just want to be secure. (Enough to be able to shop frequently....)

That is the essential nature of the female species.

They have had forty years of feminism now to pantomime as "liberated and empowered" and what do today's young women want?

To marry a rich guy and go home and make babies. (And this is true even for the most privileged university women at the best schools!)

Evolutionary psychology.

After the trip to the altar, she can slightly reduce her manipulation of the man.

But it truly never ends.

Ever seen a cat play with a mouse it intends to eventually eat?

Gender Warfare.

It is what it is....

I changed my signature and noticed I've been affiliated with MANN for 1 year 35 weeks. Its an important anniversary

I don't mean to sound greedy, but don't I deserve a Rolex or at least a gift certificate to Radio Shack?

..........................................................

Check out his site:

www.thenononsenseman.com ("the no-nonsense man dot com" without the dash)

-ax

On further reflection, it seems to me that what they actually measured was that a larger sample of people (the 178 male subjects) had a greater variability in the test than a smaller sample of people (102 female subjects).

I believe this and the bias to "truth" to the women as listed previously explains the findings. The larger population of men had more variability (hardly surprising)... their baseline for scoring was biased against men, and they used a product of probabilities as their measure (has similar problems as using an average, except differences are magnified more). Put that together and you get a difference against men and in favour of women that looks bigger than it is.

On another note: one of the most interesting quotes I saw was this:

A significant interaction between gender and clothing style, F(1, 278) = 22.49, p < .001, ηp² = .075, depicted in Figure 2, revealed that women modified their decisional criterion for detecting sexual interest on the basis of clothing style (Tukey’s HSD, p < .01). They adopted a more lenient criterion for labeling positive affect sexual interest when target women were dressed provocatively and a more stringent criterion when target women were dressed conservatively. The same pattern was reflected in men’s decisional processes, but was not significant in post hoc analyses.

In other words; women weight their judgments more on how someone is dressed than men do. Interesting that even in a biased study; they couldn't hide that (although they sure tried to spin it in favour of the women).

Women judge a person based on their clothes, no way, women are far to caring and empathetic to ever do something as childish and superficial as that. Only men hurt peoples [read: womens] self esteem by their superficial snap judgments based on looks. Women simply can't be guilty of judging people on something even more trivial and superficial then their looks.

This just in! The Earth orbits around the sun. Who knew?

xtrnl, I remember an old joke that went something like "if your wife won't speak to you she's trying to tell you something"

Of course, we all know women are better communicators really...

Did you hear about the recent study? Brain scans show women's brains work harder than men's during language processing tasks (it was a actual study posted as a topic on this board very recently, with a link to the study). I'm not sure if "better communicators" has directly to do with "better language processing", but anyhow, the idiot scentists who did the study came to the conclusion that women are better at language than men, since more brain areas are working during these processing tasks.

I say they're idiots, because it was apparently not even considered, or at least not reported, that another possible conclusion is that women's brains need to work harder during these tasks, i.e. to get up to at least the level of performance of men.

Their conclusion is somewhat like saying, "a man that runs a mile in 5 minutes, and is breathing extremely heavily when he's done, works harder than a man who runs a mile in 5:15, and sounds like he isn't even breathing when he's done. Since the first guy worked harder, he is necessarily the most capable runner."

-ax

No, I didn't see that one, but I did read about one study that investigated people's brain activity during a series of facial recognition tasks.

There was a big difference in the way the male and female brain performed during these tasks, and most interestingly they found men's brains were much more active during the tasks than women's.

But there's a twist. The scientists who conducted this research concluded that men's brains are "less efficient" than women's.

What a surprise!