Why Men Like Curvy Bottoms

[BonesCom]

An equally valid hypothesis would be that women with a significant lumbar curve run slower and are therefore easier to chase down and rape.

Nope, not in this study. If the study was looking at the frequency at which more lumbar curve occurred in a population then yes this would be a valid hypothesis. However, they looked at what men consider attractive, regardless of the frequency of the trait.

Or maybe they were smaller and ate less.

Eh? Trying to think what you mean... Not sure that makes sense.

Or maybe they also had big bones so were genetically stronger and able to kill their rivals.

Again, invalid as this would rely on the increased frequency of the trait.

[Andy_S]

SNIP
the study had to do with lumbar curvature and not bottoms
SNIP

I thought it was about the angle of the aforesaid? Which is entirely germane to the point Steve and his article were making, as, depending upon the angle of the spinal curve, the bot itself will appear larger or smaller; it's all (visually) relative.

BTW, who was the maiden with the, er, appropriate angles of lumber curvature that to ideally position her, given her apparent evolutionary soundness, as desirable to male hominids?

[Bhassler]

An equally valid hypothesis would be that women with a significant lumbar curve run slower and are therefore easier to chase down and rape.

Nope, not in this study. If the study was looking at the frequency at which more lumbar curve occurred in a population then yes this would be a valid hypothesis. However, they looked at what men consider attractive, regardless of the frequency of the trait.

Or maybe they were smaller and ate less.

Eh? Trying to think what you mean... Not sure that makes sense.

Or maybe they also had big bones so were genetically stronger and able to kill their rivals.

Again, invalid as this would rely on the increased frequency of the trait.

My examples were in response to the theories *why* the given lumbar curve were more attractive, which really had nothing to do with the study. None of it is testable so any bullshit is just as valid as any other. The only conclusion of the study was that the curve was more attractive-- anything beyond that would be out of scope.

I thought it was about the angle of the aforesaid? Which is entirely germane to the point Steve and his article were making, as, depending upon the angle of the spinal curve, the bot itself will appear larger or smaller; it's all (visually) relative.

They specifically stated that both larger and smaller bottoms were included, and that bottom size did not factor in. If it was about visual perception of the bottom itself, then a genuinely large bottom should score as well as a small bottom stuck out to appear larger.

BTW, who was the maiden with the, er, appropriate angles of lumber curvature that to ideally position her, given her apparent evolutionary soundness, as desirable to male hominids?

You, sir, should be ashamed! That is none other than the venerated (and adorable, and incontrovertibly desirable) Scarlett Johansson. I demand that you go immediately to the I Heart Scarlett thread and review the relevant study materials. Making additional posts to said thread in tribute would not be amiss, either.

[BonesCom]

I think the thing I find the most interesting about this type of research is how people respond to it.

Bhassler, your response is quite a common one.

I have a friend who conducts similar research, he was at one point looking at how male facial affects attractiveness to females. One interesting thing that he found that when women were is oestrus they preferred men with facial hair, whereas when they weren't they preferred a clean shave. With technology these days it is possible to measure a whole range of autonomic responses (he was using eye-tracking software at one point to see what parts of a female body men were focusing on), combined with questionnaires this is quite a powerful way to determine some of the base biological drivers of attractiveness (i would add here though that he was specifically probing the immediate response, not the one that takes a bit of time to formulate). And by and large his research was/is met by similar response to Bhassler's, turns out that people (particularly men) don't like it when some of their biology is reduced down to simple correlations and trends...

At the end of the day you can't argue with the data (as long as it is collected in a rigorous, controlled manner), you might question some of the hypotheses proposed to explain the data, but you must remember that this is an area of research that have been developing over the last few decades, these guys have been doing it longer than you and would generally make mince-meat of most of your arguments...

[Taste of Death]

The test subjects just need more Darkenfloxx.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_of_December:_Stories
"Escape from Spiderhead"
Because he was convicted of a crime, Jeff has been sent to an experimental prison where inhabitants are guinea pigs for a man named Ray Abnesti, a sort of warden who develops pharmaceuticals. In an experiment to determine the strength of love, Abnesti puts Jeff in a room with a woman named Heather. Neither finds the other very attractive until a drug is administered and they suddenly fall deeply in love with each other and have sex. This continues until the drug stops being administered, when they suddenly lose all love for each other. The process is repeated with Jeff and a woman named Rachel. The next day, Abnesti brings both Heather and Rachel into a room and asks Jeff to decide which woman should be drugged with Darkenfloxx, a drug that causes extreme mental and physical distress. Jeff wants no one to be hurt, but has no preference as to which should endure the drug. Satisfied, Abnesti decides not to administer the drug. Later, Jeff finds himself in a room with another man who he realizes also had sex with Rachel and Heather. He realizes that Abnesti is asking one of the women which one of the men should be given Darkenfloxx. The same result happens each time, and the drug is never administered. Later, after Abnesti presents the love drug he is developing to his superiors, he says he must go into greater depth and gives Heather Darkenfloxx, saying that Jeff must say exactly what he feels while he watches Heather suffer in order to prove he has no romantic feelings for her. But the Darkenfloxx is so damaging that Heather commits suicide to escape the pain. When Abnesti reveals that he will do the same thing to Rachel to determine whether Jeff has a romantic attachment, Jeff refuses to participate. He insists that the drug should not be used. Abnesti leaves to get a warrant to administer drugs to Jeff that will force him to comply. To prevent Rachel from being tortured, Jeff administers Darkenfloxx to himself, and while under its influence kills himself.

[Andy_S]

TOD, thanks, what a relevant and inspirational story. But didn't you forget the kicker?

OK, allow me:
"And they all lived happily ever after."

[jimmy]

[Steve James]

Or this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLnZ1NQm2uk

[grzegorz]

Posted previously but still hella funny.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wAN1msFgBjU

[Bhassler]

I think the thing I find the most interesting about this type of research is how people respond to it.

Bhassler, your response is quite a common one.

I have a friend who conducts similar research, he was at one point looking at how male facial affects attractiveness to females. One interesting thing that he found that when women were is oestrus they preferred men with facial hair, whereas when they weren't they preferred a clean shave. With technology these days it is possible to measure a whole range of autonomic responses (he was using eye-tracking software at one point to see what parts of a female body men were focusing on), combined with questionnaires this is quite a powerful way to determine some of the base biological drivers of attractiveness (i would add here though that he was specifically probing the immediate response, not the one that takes a bit of time to formulate). And by and large his research was/is met by similar response to Bhassler's, turns out that people (particularly men) don't like it when some of their biology is reduced down to simple correlations and trends...

At the end of the day you can't argue with the data (as long as it is collected in a rigorous, controlled manner), you might question some of the hypotheses proposed to explain the data, but you must remember that this is an area of research that have been developing over the last few decades, these guys have been doing it longer than you and would generally make mince-meat of most of your arguments...

Wrong. The study was about lumbar curvature. The article was about booties. Butt =/= lumbar spine. What the article was about is not what the study was about. That was my point. The comments about various conclusions and hypotheses as to why were ancillary (but relevant) and they are separate arguments.

[BonesCom]

Wrong. The study was about lumbar curvature. The article was about booties. Butt =/= lumbar spine. What the article was about is not what the study was about. That was my point. The comments about various conclusions and hypotheses as to why were ancillary (but relevant) and they are separate arguments.

Bhassler you started by complaining that the new piece did not reflect the content of the journal article:

Gee, what a shock-- what the article is reporting bears only a passing resemblance to the actual study.

Then your next sentence is about how the article itself is drivel:

It's also worth noting that all the bullshit about why men prefer that is pure speculation, most likely driven by the study authors' desires to get in the news and secure their next round of grant money. This sort of drivel is why Americans (I can't speak for the rest of the world) get continually stupider and more and more "knowledge" is nothing but cash driven nonsense.

And then you offer alternative hypotheses:

An equally valid hypothesis would be that women with a significant lumbar curve run slower and are therefore easier to chase down and rape. Or maybe they were smaller and ate less. Or maybe they also had big bones so were genetically stronger and able to kill their rivals. Or maybe it's a statistical anomaly. Or maybe the preference is purely cultural and there happens to be a correlation of morphology. Science, my ass...

You have now said that

What the article was about is not what the study was about. That was my point.

So you are saying that the main point of your comment was the one sentence:

Gee, what a shock-- what the article is reporting bears only a passing resemblance to the actual study.

. Which makes up less than 20% of your post, yet the other 80+%, including your invalid alternative hypotheses, are ancillary comments? Um OK...

Now to address your hypotheses. This is the method section from the paper in question:

2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
One hundred two men(Mean age =19.00 years, SD =2.41,age range: 17 – 34 years) were recruited from the psychology subject pool at The University of Texas at Austin. Participants received course credit for participation.
2.1.2. Photographic stimuli and attractive ratings
Fifteen images were generated in AdobePhotoshop by manipulating the angle of lumbar curvature of female targets. For each target,we generated five morphs of varying angles of lumbar curvature (see Fig. 2).
These stimuli captured the naturally occurring range of lumbar curvature in the population (stimuli range: 14 – 69 degree; see Fernand & Fox, 1985). The targets' lumbar curvature was the sole variable that we manipulated.
All morphs were presented in random order to participants, who rated the attractiveness of each morph on a 10-point scale (1 = extremely unattractive, 10 = extremely attractive).

I'll say this again: your two hypotheses that actually made sort sort of sense (1 and 3 I believe) would be valid if there was an increased proportion of females with greater lumbar curvature in the current population AND if this is what the study was measuring. BUT, they were not measuring this, they measured how attractive a group of men found a set of images.

most likely driven by the study authors' desires to get in the news and secure their next round of grant money..... more and more "knowledge" is nothing but cash driven nonsense.

Yeah, fuck those people that want to try and add something to the sum total of human knowledge AND put food and their families plates, what pricks!

[Bhassler]

Yeah, fuck those people that want to try and add something to the sum total of human knowledge AND put food and their families plates, what pricks!

Now you're finally getting it!

I should have prefaced my original comments with a <RANT> disclaimer, so as not to confuse the issue. It was unclear writing on my part.

If I'm reading your comments right, we can both agree that:
-The study was about lumbar curvature while the article was about booty. These are not the same.
-My hypotheses were ridiculous. To me, that was the idea, to illustrate how any number of bad hypotheses could be drawn from that same bit of info, none of which are verifiable or refutable without more info.

I contend that the article was drivel because it misrepresented both the study and how science works. That's not a condemnation of the scientists-- it's just bad journalism (but good business).

I also think the scientific community is largely driven by the need for funding and there's also a weird kind of competitive fame/ego system at work. The first part is not the scientists' fault. The second may or may not be, but geniuses are rarely entirely stable as personalities, so maybe that's part of what drives the real breakthroughs. I'm willing to pay the price for both of those (as if I really had a choice), but it would be nice if people in what claims to be a rational society actually understood the methods at work and had the wherewithal to see for themselves what's actually shown in a study vs. what's spewed out by a corporation's marketing department (or editor) to make money.

[Dajenarit]

Orwell was a prophet. Doublespeak is real.

[BonesCom]

I should have prefaced my original comments with a <RANT> disclaimer, so as not to confuse the issue. It was unclear writing on my part....

...I also think the scientific community is largely driven by the need for funding and there's also a weird kind of competitive fame/ego system at work...

Ahhhh, now I get it, yes interweb communication is a prickly beast!

I agree with much of what you said. I just want to make it clear to those reading that yes we (the scientific community) is largely driven by funding, but that it is a necessity. Without funding you can't perform the research you feel is important/essential/impactful etc... There is just too much for one person to do, we need help. We need capable techs, we need upcoming PhD students and post-docs.

And you're right, it requires a certain degree of ego to push the envelope, but this is (often, though not always) balanced by the peer-review process and self-criticism. There should be a good level of humility that is generated by being wrong (or not quite right) 99% of the time!

[Strange]