Lost Parody: Flash Forward With Fred Series

Well, I wonder as well what prompted the researchers to engage, but I'm sure they had a rationale for their approach.  I think you're pretty far off the mark if you're really serious that you think selling webcam porn had anything to do with it.  Personally I find the result even more fascinating because of the things the researchers read into the results. 

Your angle on things bringing up the intentions of the subjects has made this subject even more interesting to me, as it's really an extension of the whole problem.  I do find myself wondering what lengths individual people will go to "prove a stereotype" or rationalize their perceptions of people ... and then (because the researchers are people susceptible to these same stereotypes and faults) I find myself going back again to think - what do the researchers intend to do with these results?

You do raise an interesting question about "societal noise"..."how could anyone not be confused?"
It seems apparent to me that the source of the difficulty is trying to put people into these stereotypical boxes in the first place.  Treat everyone like a unique individual, be careful to avoid your own biases and you've cut through 9/10ths of the crap - IMO.

But in regard to the study... to me the answer isn't really to question the questioner and put the study on trial, but to question the question.  I do think that the study may statistically show some viable trend, but what that trend really is - would be the point and the debate to me.  I certainly don't agree with the conclusion that men are clueless.  That is what was so absurd that it made me laugh (in case that isn't clear).

....sorry, smiley failed me that time. It was just a joke.

Well,  I find it even more interesting what kinds of studies could follow up from this one. 'Tis why I didn't focus on the study itself...  pweese excuse my wandering mind.

"Following this idea, men and women would be aware of the same behavioral cues, but men would have a lower threshold for what qualifies as sexual interest. In contrast, women would wait for compelling evidence before labeling a behavior as sexual interest."

This quote in the article kind of reminded me of a study I read a long time ago that had nothing to do with sexual interpretations between the sexes. The study was meant to distinquish the male brain from the female brain, and the research indicated that females tend to pay closer attention to detail - I remember two examples being "color" and "clutter" around the house... even things as detailed as dust on a table - men just don't notice it. I'm not sure of the validity of the study, though. But as you say, it's interesting that certain "sexes" studies tends to show a viable trend.

Societal noise/"putting people in steretypical boxes in the first place" - yes, and that's not a basis for relations between the sexes to begin with, interpreting the data to fit ones prejudices. I thought this part of the article was interesting and I find it to be generally true, "I would say that there are many factors that could relate to men demonstrating insensitivity to women's subtle non-verbal cues," said Pamela McAuslan, associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, who was not involved in the current study. These factors would include socialization, gender roles and gender stereotypes, she said."

But furthermore, how 'bout this... I'd mention (errr, and hesitantly so) that "outlandish feminism" could be involved as well. An extreme example of such would be a man's gesture holding the door open for a woman and getting scolded for it because "I don't need anyones help opening a door" or something like that. Basically, her undertone being she wouldn't accept his gesture because he is male. The point is to illustrate that men do receive mixed messages about what's acceptable and what's not, which doesn't necessarily encompass why "men were quite likely to misperceive sexual interest as friendliness" but I think it's worthy of attention. In any case, it's still "noise".

Kat, in the article it was saying that men can misinterpret a woman's smile to mean a sexual come-on, and conversely a woman's attempt to flirt non-verbally as just being friendly. Are you saying above that it is the responsbility of the sender--in this case the woman--to make sure the receiver understands? What are women supposed to do about smiling then...I mean how make sure it isn't misinterpreted? And if the receiver (the man) misinterprets a smile as sexual this is the sender's (woman's) responsibility?

No... I was going beyond that study because personally, I don't think that study is effective. But that's just my opinion. And I'm actually not holding either sex responsible, but if the sender (male OR female) KNOWS they are being unclear and thus, a misinterpretation occurs, then yes I believe it to be the sender's responsibility to make sure the signal is clear. Smiling? There's no excuse to take that as a sexual come on - too many possible meanings. So if the receiver misinterprets a smile as sexual then no, I don't believe it to be the sender's responsiblity.

Well, I wasn't really speaking to deliberate manipulation. Knowingly sending a message... sorry, more like... carelessly sending a message and thus confusing the receiver of the message (like what I just did, heh). When it is established that the wrong message was perceived, then the sender ought to fix the inconsistency. A female, for example, can send a message (excluding gestures like smiling or the like) that they didn't realize would be misinterpreted such as "I didn't realize I was flirting." It wouldn't be fair to place the blame on the man that misinterpreted her true intentions, even if she didn't realize it herself. But the proper approach thereafter would be to correct the situation if one should feel so inclined.

I know that wasn't the focus of the study. I don't fully agree with the study in that they extend misinterpreting a message to that of misinterpreting messages in real life. I just don't think it's conclusive that men are really as oblivious as the study tries to show... as I said, there is a lot of "noise" when it comes to interpreting non-verbal messages from men and women alike. If the study said that females were solely to blame, I still wouldn't agree. So I explored a bit further and dipped into the reality of it. Or what I thought to be the reality of it.

The stereotype would show that men are clueless, whereas women ought to be more clear. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not... but the study, in my opinion, isn't fit to make that distinction.

But back to that study, I guess an interesting follow-up would be to observe men and womens abilities to communicate to others of the same sex. If men understand the sexual intentions of other men, but women don't understand the sexual intentions of other women, then isn't it women who are oblivious? Or if women understand each other but men don't, then it's men who are oblivious? But if men understand each other and women understand each other, but men don't understand women and women don't understand men, then what? "Venus and Mars"? THAT was a mouthful.

I see at least three different topics emerging here--not all of them about gender and communication--some just about communication regardless of the gender of the people involved. So I'm going to divide them up to be discussed separately:

1) "A female, for example, can send a message (excluding gestures like smiling or the like) that they didn't realize would be misinterpreted such as "I didn't realize I was flirting." It wouldn't be fair to place the blame on the man that misinterpreted her true intentions, even if she didn't realize it herself."

To my way of thinking, a person cannot flirt without intention because flirting is about a romantic and/or sexual intention towards another person.

Also I don't think one can have "true intentions" without realizing what they are. To intend one has to be conscious of what one is doing.

I think it is fair to blame a man who acted sexually towards a woman without her clear verbal consent whether he said he misinterpreted her intentions or not. Why? Because his intepretation of her intentions could be anything--it could be her smile, the length of her skirt, the fact that she accepted a drink, the fact that they were on a date together....etc. I once had someone tell me that the fact that I had let him pay for a concert ticket was a signal that I was agreeing to some kind of romantic or sexual encounter (though he said it a bit more bluntly than that). Now, I'm sure you agree that is ridiculous...but under what you said above--he would actually have a case. He could claim that he misinterpreted an unclear signal on my part (accepting his paying for the ticket).

2. More generally I think if a sender gives out an unclear message and a receiver misinterprets--then it's not just up to the sender to fix the inconsistency. The receiver also has to make clear what their understanding or misunderstanding is, or otherwise the sender doesn't know that there's anything to fix.

3. I think the general point of the study would imply that men would also misunderstand the sexual intentions of other men if those intentions were expressed through non-verbal signals. Just generally that men did not read body or facial gestures as well as women. But maybe men would be better at reading some other kind of communication (verbal maybe?). One argument that might be made about why women would be better at reading facial signals (just generally) is that reading those kinds of non verbal cues are important for interacting with infants. That would be an interesting follow up study. See how men and women responded to facial cues from infants. Though, the difficulty would be I suppose in establishing the baseline of what those facial cues meant.

AAAAAnnnnntonneeeee!

Heh, anyone remember those old Prince Spaghetti ads?

Texas UFO

What does it mean, Fred?  What does it mean?!!!

" 'You hear about big bass or big buck in the area, but this is a different deal,' Sorrells said...Sorrells said he has seen the object several times. He said he watched it through his rifle's telescopic lens..."

Why do I think this giant saucer shaped disk is gonna be appearing in this guy's trophy case sometime soon?

*sigh*

Ugh... he just HAD to say that...

Texas isn't full of rednecks, you know...

My co-worker doesn't have the heads of two deer hanging on his office wall or anything...

Crap.

Heyyy kat, you knows I don't think that...

I took what he said to be indicative only of the kind of thinking of a guy--well, who would contrast a UFO sighting to big game while using his rifle to scope out said alien invasion.

And as a person who grew up in Florida...well, somewhere's on the site is the story about when the police circled my family's home 'cause there had been a report of kids throwing grapefruit at a neighbor's house, and there was a police chopper, and one of our other crazy neighbors got out his shotgun and threatened to shoot it down 'cause it was making too much noise...

which is not to say I'm making a generalization about gun owners

only about people whose reactions to large and either unknown or annoying objects flying overhead is to shoot 'em out of the sky.

LMAO!!

I AM crying over here. 

Them there rednecks real rascist, they shoot ya even if ya white!

I feel tons better, thank you.

Let me help you out with that...

He's creepy.

Alright, so he's a little creepy... but only in the most adorable way possible.

He's actually quite cute, you know? Sooo that, you know, helps to... "off set the creepy".

So THERE YOU HAVE IT! He's just... "Adorably-Creepy"! And that's that!

(sigh...oh, who am I kidding? He's HOT, dad gummit... so very, V-E-R-Y HOT!)

LOL! Oh c'mon, that's hilarious!

wink

 "BG"!