As someone familiar with dieting, I’m very aware that when temptation comes my way, in the form of a cream bun or a chocolate, immediate gratification tends to win over my long-term goals. This is almost a universal psychological phenomenon. However some researchers believe that those in committed partnerships will tend to show the opposite, favouring the long term goal of a committed relationship to short term gratification, e.g. starting an affair.

While leading a research team at the University of California, Gian Gonzaga came to the conclusion that people in love are blinded to the charms of other potential partners. In a study of 60 heterosexual students, who had been in a relationship for an average of three years, they showed each subject a photo of a stranger, who they found to be attractive, and then asked the subject to write a five minute essay on what was attractive about that person, followed by another brief essay describing an ideal first meeting.

The subjects were then split into three groups and each group was asked to write a further two five-minute essays. One group had to write about the time they had felt the most love for their current partner and when they last felt such love; another group were to write about the time they felt the most sexual desire towards their current partner and the most recent time. The last group were told to write about whatever came to mind.

While writing their second essay, all the subjects were instructed not to think about the attractive person in the photo. Then, during the last essay they were encourage to do so, having been given a piece of paper to record every time their attention turned to thoughts of the person in the photo. The number of ticks made by a subject was then recorded.

When allowed to think about the attractive stranger, the “love” group marked their paper only one-third as often as the “sexual desire” group, and only one-sixth as often as the control group. Also, when prompted at the end of the experiment, the “love” group remembered significantly fewer details about what had made the person in their photo more attractive than the other two groups.

When people are instructed to not think of something, a “rebound effect” occurs, causing the taboo thought to present itself even more frequently than it otherwise would. Each groups’ repressed thoughts might have expressed equally high “rebound” during writing the final essay, but this wasn’t the case.

Gian Gonzaga said:

Feeling love for your romantic partner appears to make everybody else less attractive.

Posted by Oliver as Psychology, Sociobiology at 3:32 PM BST

No Comments »

The word “subliminal” is derived from a construct of the “limen of consciousness”, which is a threshold that separates conscious from unconscious. This concept quite literally dates back to the very start of modern psychology, and the writings of Johan Friedrich Herbart. Herbart argued that perceptions and thoughts differed from one another in strength, and further, that they compete to achieve enough strength to rise above the “limen of consciousness”, and thus become experienced consciously. Ideas below that threshold would still exist, and therefore would be able to influence which other ideas, including themselves, were subsequently experienced consciously. In this way, perceptions obtained only subliminally (i.e. below the “limen of consciousness”) could still affect what we experience consciously (i.e. what we think about) and how we behave.

Now, this idea, or some variation of it, is what influences most popular discussions of subliminal persuasion or perception. Although, except for Freudian Psychology (which isn’t really a credible scientific theory of perception or cognition), very few models of perception and cognition actually take such ideas seriously.

First, contrary to popular ideas about Psychology in the media, no modern theory actually puts forward “an unconscious”; that is to say, a mind-entity separate from consciousness which ideas, beliefs, perceptions and desires can slip through or exert influence from one side to the other. Instead, perceptual and cognitive processes can, and often do, occur without our awareness, and without us needing to be able to consciously control them.

Consider riding a bicycle, playing a sport, or even reading this article. Not only do they happen “automatically” (assuming that you’ve already become competent at them) and without awareness of how you are doing them; but any attempts to gain conscious control of them will most likely result in the process coming to a sudden halt (i.e. you fall off your bicycle). The important point here is that these processes occur unconsciously — that is to say, without all the internal dialogue that normally accompanies what we would term a “conscious” process. However, there are no reasons to suggest that they would therefore occur in a special mind-place named “the unconscious”, in the same way that you couldn’t claim that the internal mechanisms of your computer, DVD player or your car happened in an “unconscious”; although they most definitely occur unconsciously (i.e. without awareness).

Secondly, there are very few current cognitive or perception theories that hold to the idea of an absolute sensory / information threshold, dividing the events we are aware of from those that we are not aware of. Instead, both perception and cognition are viewed as a continuum along which the amount of information or sensation that we need for any given event, before we are prepared to say that we are aware of it, varies as a function of the event itself, task demands, payoffs and the context etc.

This form of decision making about sensory and other kinds of events happens because the event itself always occurs in the context of both internal and external “noise” i.e. a background of half-formed, fleeting thoughts, desires, sensations, impressions and beliefs of varying and unpredictable intensity. It is against this background that we must detect the event in question; sometimes, for example, this background “noise” is low enough that even relatively weak signals can confidently be detected; at other times, the “noise” completely overwhelms even the most intense of signals, so that a confident decision is impossible.

Unfortunately, we are rarely completely sure which state we are in; sometimes mistaking noise for signal and other times mistaking signal for noise, so we constantly need to balance the costs of deciding that an event happened, when in fact it didn’t, against the costs of failing to detect the event when it did. Thus, when you say that you are “aware” of a given event, you are claiming that in your opinion, for the demands of the specific task in question, you have gathered enough sensory or other evidence to conclude that the event actually happened.

From this perspective, experimental Psychologists have been able to define two different “thresholds” of awareness. The subjective threshold, which refers to the level of information or stimulus intensity at which the person claims to be “just guessing” (or responding at a level equal to chance) which just “feels” as if they have no information to decide one way or another about some event. Note that this threshold corresponds to a testimonial; subliminal events in this respect of being below the subjective threshold are the events whose presence individuals do not report¹.

In contrast, the objective threshold, refers to the lower level of information or stimulus intensity, at which the individual is no longer able (even by guessing) to discriminate between events; for example, detecting the presence or absence of a signal, at a level above chance. Subliminal events in this sense are events whose presence the observer can’t detect¹. The results of research using events below the objective threshold are definite: there is no compelling evidence for unconscious or subliminal perception of them, and no evidence that the meaning or content of such events could affect people’s behaviour². Put more simply, if an event is below an individual’s objective threshold, they cannot detect it, and thus it has no effect on them at all.

The subjective threshold, however, is different; here we can demonstrate an effect on the observer. Consider the results of what was one of the first pieces of Psychological research. In this experiment, Pierce and Jastrow³ investigated their own abilities to discriminate small differences in pressure with their fingertips, and discovered that the accuracy of their decisions was still well above chance (i.e., above what Psychologists call the “objective threshold”,) even when they were convinced they were just guessing. In a similar experiment reported a few years later, Sidis⁴ found that subjects shown cards marked with a single character, at a distance where the subjects claimed to see nothing more than a blur or a spot (and therefore were convinced that they were just guessing), were still able to name the characters at a level above chance. Numerous experiments of this type continued right up to the present time, and virtually all produced the same result: by adjusting the intensity or duration of the target stimulus, people brought to the point of being convinced that they can no longer detect differences between events, for example in a picture or an audio recording with and without an embedded message, still obtain enough information (in their view “unconsciously”) to perform better than chance when forced to guess.

So, this is subliminal perception in the sense of dissociation between awareness and the acquisition of information. However, two important points do still need to be noted about it:

• It is a long-established, unsurprising phenomenon in Psychology, and no special devices or sophisticated processes are needed to produce it. Indeed, many of the techniques claiming to exploit this phenomenon, such as the famous ‘Eat popcorn / Drink Coke’ experiment (a message was allegedly superimposed on a cinema screen for 0.0003 seconds, which was claimed to increase popcorn/cola sales) or the messages contained on self-help audio recordings, are well-below people’s objective thresholds, and therefore are incapable of producing any effect.

• There is no convincing evidence that the effect, when it occurs at all, extends much beyond improving the accuracy of people’s guesses in forced-choice tasks. That is, there is no good evidence that the meaning or content of such events can affect people’s behaviour.

Given the extreme difficulty of ensuring that the stimuli used are simultaneously above the objective threshold, but below the subjective threshold, many cognitive scientists seriously doubt whether there has been a convincing demonstration of the effect even on forced-choice guessing – just because people claim to be “just guessing” doesn’t mean that they had no awareness of the event – possibly they were just being overly careful in attributing awareness, and were saying that they were guessing, unless they were absolutely sure. Doing this on just a few trials would be enough to establish the effect^{1, 2}

References:

1. Moore, T. E., ‘Subliminal Perception: Facts and Fallacies’, Skeptical Inquirer (1992) 16:3
2. Holender, D., ‘Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal’, Behavior and Brain Sciences (1986) 9:1-66;Greenwald, A. G., ‘New look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed’, American Psychologist (1992) 47, 766-779
3. Pierce, C. S., & J. Jastrow, ‘On small differences in sensation’, Memoirs of the National Academy of Science (1884) 3, 75-83
4. Sidis, B., ‘The Psychology of Suggestion‘ (1898) New York: D. Appleton and Company

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology at 1:42 AM BST

No Comments »

Over at The Science Creative Quarterly, they’ve been applying hard science to some of the clichés and generalizations that romantics nearly always throw around, when waxing lyrical about the nature and mysteries of love.

So, anyway, now you too can find out whether or not old chestnuts such as “All we need is love”, or “Love means never having to say you’re sorry”, have any truth behind them.

Here’s a good example of there application of The Scientific Method to the idea that “It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all”.

The results my surprise you, and doubtless will be of tremendous value to anyone with even the slightest interest in seduction.

Posted by Jonathan as humour at 2:59 PM BST

No Comments »

Ant colonies are often cited as the model for social co-operation, with individuals working together for the benefit of the colony, rather than for selfish promotion of their own individual genes. But that isn’t the case claim researchers from the University of Leeds and the University of Copenhagen.

It seems that ants can be as sneaky as humans, since Dr. Bill Hughes and Professor Jacobus Boomsma have found evidence that certain ants are able to cheat the system, ensuring that their offspring become reproductive queens rather than sterile workers.

It had been thought that a larvae’s chance of becoming queen was purely a matter of luck, but the researchers have found that it largely depends upon who its father was – A handful of breeding males pass on a genetic advantage that give their offspring a much better chance of growing up into a queen, instead of being condemned to the life of a worker.

Dr Hughes explained:

The accepted theory was that queens were produced solely by nurture: certain larvae were fed certain foods to prompt their development into queens and all larvae could have that opportunity, but we carried out DNA fingerprinting on five colonies of leaf-cutting ants and discovered that the offspring of some fathers are more likely to become queens than others.

These ants have a ‘royal’ gene or genes, giving them an unfair advantage and enabling them to cheat many of their altruistic sisters out of their chance to become a queen themselves.

The mechanism by which male ants are able to pass on an unfair advantage to their offspring remains unclear, but researchers believe they must limit themselves intentionally, because these ‘royal’ genetic lines were always rare in each colony.

If too many larvae grew into queens, it could upset the balance of the colony, reducing its survival prospects. Additionally, the imbalance would be noticed by the “commoner” workers, who might then kill the surplus.

Queen leaf-cutter ants have multiple matings and are able to store the sperm throughout their lives. It is thought that males who pass on the “royal gene” to their offspring, mate with lots of females but provide only a small quantity of sperm each time. This way they have many offspring, but spread throughout several colonies.

Dr Hughes added:

The most likely explanation has to be that the ants are deliberately taking steps to avoid detection. If there were too many of one genetic line developing into queens in a single colony, the other ants would notice and might take action against them. So we think the males with these royal genes have evolved to somehow spread their offspring around more colonies and so escape detection. The rarity of the royal lines is actually an evolutionary strategy by the cheats to escape suppression by the altruistic masses that they exploit.

Dr Hughes and Professor Jacobus Boomsma said the royal gene discovery, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, debunks the notion of unadulterated egalitarian cooperation within ant colonies.

When studying social insects like ants and bees, it’s often the cooperative aspect of their society that first stands out

However, when you look more deeply, you can see there is conflict and cheating – and obviously human society is also a prime example of this. It was thought that ants were an exception, but our genetic analysis has shown that their society is also rife with corruption – and it’s royal corruption at that.

Posted by Jonathan as Biology, Sociobiology at 12:35 PM BST

No Comments »

French women are the country’s new ‘sexual predators’, while one-in-five younger French men “has no interest in sex”, according to a survey of the love lives of over 12,000 French individuals.

Women now have more than twice as many partners as they did in the 1970s, and are losing their virginity earlier, according to a study by the French National Research Agency on AIDS, which is backed by the government.

One of the biggest changes in recent years, according to the report, was that male and female sexual behaviour has become increasingly similar. “Are women just like men?” asked Le Nouvel Observateur, which released extracts of the Study on Sexuality; a 600-page tome of interviews conducted with people of all ages, during the period 2005-06.

Only 34% of women in the country have had just one partner in 2006, in comparison to 43% in 1992 and 68% in 1970, and the average number of partners for a woman aged 30-49 now stands at just over five (up from under 1.5 in 1970), while the average number of partners for a man now stands at almost thirteen (about the same since 1970).

The most significant finding wasn’t what women want, but what men don’t want. According to the research, 20% of men aged between 18 and 24 claim they have no interest in sexual or romantic activity whatever, and abstinence rates for those under 35 are currently twice as high for men as they are for women.

The French female’s first experience of sex is now almost as early as that of the males: in 1950 there was a two-year difference, but the gap has now narrowed to just four months, at 17.2 years for French men, and 17.6 for women (Comparable figures for the U.S. show average age for first intercourse as 17.3 years for males and 17.5 for women.) Meanwhile, more women remain sexually active for longer: nine-out-of-10 women over 50 are sexually active today, compared to just 50% of that age group in 1970.

“The good old dichotomy (male predators, females patiently awaiting the warrior’s return in front of the cave entrance) is in big trouble,” notes Le Nouvel Observateur.

Despite the changes in female behaviour observed in the study, some things hadn’t altered in 40 years. Men found it easier than women to disassociate sex from love, but the research suggested this was due to nurture rather than nature. The study said: “Young women are still educated to consider their entrance into sexuality as a sentimental-relationship experience.”

The study suggests that the reasons for the changes are largely due to increased accessibility to sexual material and the greater ease with which like-minded partners can find one another. 10% of women and 13% of men said they’d use websites to link up with prospective partners; and at younger ages the percentage of women using the net to arrange dates surpassed that of males.

Surprisingly, the report also finds that two out of every three children in France has seen a pornographic film by the age of eleven: The sociologists who compiled the research said that the French had fewer sexual taboos and inhibitions than before, but were more anxious about lovemaking. Nearly 36% of French women say they’ve suffered “frequent or occasional” sexual dysfunction in the past year of their lives, while just over 21% of French men admitted the same.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 11:28 PM BST

2 Comments »

I’ve been reading through the Sex and Society advice over at Pravda.ru recently. And a few of the articles there have left me asking “Just what was the point of writing that?”

The translation isn’t too amazing, however it is understandable, although unfortunately I don’t have the time to correct it properly. Anyway, see what you think… The Russians point out:

It is generally believed that the difference between men and women is enormous. Women and men differ in almost every imaginable aspect of human life, especially when it comes to psychology.

• A woman does not have a man’s habit to scratch her noggin when she thinks of an answer to a confusing question, for example. Women do not like to show they are confused. They never want to ruin their hairdo with that gesture either.

• Women will never understand why footballers stand in a line with their hands crossed before a penalty kick during a match. In addition, women never shudder when a male character gets kicked in the groin in a movie.

• When a woman yawns she covers her mouth with the palm of her hand, not with a fist.

• After taking a bath, a woman grabs a towel and makes a turban on her head from it, at least for one minute. The reasons of such a weird Oriental ritual are unknown.

• A woman does not get mad when her underwear gets stuck between her buttocks. Women joyfully wear those items of torture called bikinis.

• Many women worry about their looks when having sex.

• Women open bottles with bottle openers.

• A woman feels awkward if she does not carry anything in her hands. That is why they always carry their handbags around.

• Women are absolutely indifferent to their genitals; they hardly know each other. Women do not talk to them, they do not give funny nicknames to them and they never get angry with them.

• Sitting down in public transportation, women keep their legs together. That is why men often prefer to sit next to a woman because in this case they can sit spread-eagle.

• If a woman finds her fly unzipped in a public place, she does not seem to care too much about it.

• When a woman dresses up to go out, she puts on a blouse first. Pants come second. Men work it vice versa.

• Finally, when an act of love ends, women do not feel like sleeping. They feel like talking and kissing.

Posted by Jonathan as Miscellaneous, Psychology at 1:15 AM BST

No Comments »

Some people think it’s solely a man’s duty to be romantic on Valentine’s Day. Therefore, these people believe they should get some payback for the roses, the surprise trip to Paris, or the jewellery hidden in her desert after dinner.

So, since they feel left out, they’ve declared the invention of “Steak and Blowjob Day“; which allows women to show their men just how much they care for them.

Apparently, no cards, flowers or special nights on the town are needed, and the simple and effective name of the celebration says it all… It’s just a steak and a BJ.

You can even sign a petition, to make it that little bit more official.

Posted by Jonathan as humour at 1:08 PM BST

No Comments »

Rather surprisingly, I’ve been informed by a reader who contacted me, that they liked the idea of seeing more occasional polls and surveys here.

So, just for fun this time:

Posted by Jonathan as Polls & Surveys at 1:06 AM BST

No Comments »

I discovered an interesting guide to stopping a girl’s aversion to blowjobs from ruining your relationship, recently.

Much of the preliminary information should be completely obvious to people with even the tiniest amount of seduction experience (smelling clean, being hygienic and not appearing overly hirsute etc.) But, I felt that a quick write-up of the main themes, as well as adding a few extra ideas, would be a worthwhile article. I also omitted the original comments to resort to begging and pleading, when you don’t get your way, since this is always counterproductive.

As with so many other aspects of seduction, much of the advice seems to boil down to adequate communication, willingness to talk, persistence and compromise where appropriate. The original guide points out that everyone isn’t into oral sex: There could be one reason for this and there could be more, therefore – you may find out what the reasons are, and then you might not. So, just be respectful, and don’t force people to do things that they aren’t comfortable with.

She doesn’t want semen in her mouth
So, don’t come in her mouth! Promise not to, and keep to your word. If you decide to “accidentally” surprise her and forget to pull away or give warning, then her blowjob hang-ups are going to become blowjob rejections. If she does want to try it, she will tell you – in no uncertain terms.

She doesn’t like the taste of semen
Your diet can affect the taste of semen, so if she’s not completely against having you cum in her mouth, then it’s possible that altering your diet may have beneficial effects. Eating additional pineapple and celery is a good choice to start with; then try some experimentation with the girl, she may be curious to find out what else works well for her, next time she blows you.

Lack of reciprocation
Many men are lazy, ignorant, brainless idiots that give the rest of the male population a bad reputation. So, go down on her, and do a good job of it! If you aren’t giving her a fun time sexually, then what’s her motivation to reciprocate?

Feeling physically unprepared
It might not be the right time: She may have a dry mouth, cracked lips, be unclean, or physically unprepared to give you a blowjob for whatever reason. In this case, she’ll blow you when she’s ready. Encourage her, be patient and you’ll get it soon enough.

Fear of gagging
In this case, just keep still and let her manipulate you as she sees fit. You can give directions if you want, but just stay still and she’ll find her way. She needs to trust that you’re going to let her work at her own pace and not jam her head down. You may have to live with the fact that she just has a sensitive gag reflex and therefore can’t deep throat you. Don’t force it or you’ll just make her more resistant to trying; and be careful about how you place your hands on her head (assuming she wants you to) while resisting the urge to thrust, as this may cause her to gag.

Procrastination
Sometimes women can be just as lazy as men, so if you’re sure she’s dragging her feet then let her know that the holiday is over. Her last boyfriend might have been a lethargic, clueless fool, but you want more lusty action. If necessary, withhold some emotional experience that she enjoys, so that you encourage a prompt response from her.

Feeling inadequate
If the hang-up is feeling inadequate, it could be that she is inexperienced, or was told she gave awful blowjobs at some point in the past; she could fear failing again and thus be scared to try. Encourage her with moans and gentle directions, and she’ll soon be more confident. Don’t laugh, sneer or say negative things (even if the blowjob is poor) – she’ll get better with practise.

Fear of being judged (religious or otherwise)
This sort of hang-up can be tricky to overcome. The church and many other organisations are almost completely against sexual activity, and she may have been indoctrinated that “Oral sex is a sin”, “Sex is bad” or “Genitals are dirty”.

Each person has a belief system, which may or may not be easy to change. The simplest way to work round this is to talk about things openly and honestly; discuss the logic of her beliefs, how they came about and how other belief systems differ. Having a frank, open (yet still respectful) discussion about things can bring about a change in thinking.

Her blowjob hang-ups could be religiously based, in which case they may be much harder to change or overcome, since they will have been instilled at a very early age, so here more effective communication is the key to breaking through. Just don’t pressure her, as this will only create resistance.

Previous trauma
It’s possible that your partner was abused by some macho dunderhead in the past; she may have some significant issues with sex, trust or men in general. Sorting these problems out with the help of therapy will aid the situation immensely, and she will need love and support from you, in the interim. In this case, it’s not just an issue with sex; it’s an issue with her life and self esteem.

If your lover just had a bad experience with someone, who did something stupid like “head-jamming” (having her head grabbed and pushed down till she gags), then she may be reluctant to engage in oral sex for fear of a repeat performance. This is easier to deal with, since after you’ve used some persuasion and encouragement, she may just give it another go. However, she will need to trust you more, so work on building up her faith in you, and help her let go of her blowjob hang-ups.

Take things slowly, and give her enthusiastic feedback.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 11:59 PM BST

No Comments »

The best sex should last between seven and thirteen minutes, and even three minute sex is deemed “adequate”, a major survey of American experts has concluded; after examining the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex.

The report, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, is the first to review what experts believe is the ideal length of time to have penetrative sex.

A random sample of Americans and Canadians interviewed said seven to thirteen minutes was the most desirable length of time.

Intercourse lasting between three and seven minutes was adequate, but anything less was too short, and beyond thirteen minutes was too long.

The study was designed to help calm unrealistic beliefs among couples that healthy sex should last a long time.

Lead researcher, Dr Eric Corty, from the Behrend College in Erie, Pennsylvania, said:

In the fantasy model of male sexuality, men have large penises, rock-hard erections, and can sustain sexual activity all night long.

It appears that many men and women hold this fantasy. The results from the present study, by providing a realistic not a fantasy model of sexuality, are useful both in treating people with sexual concerns and dysfunctions, and, with wider circulation, in preventing the onset of sexual dysfunctions.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 7:16 PM BST

No Comments »