What women want on the dance floor, according to science
By Christopher Ingraham
March 24 at 12:47 pm
A group of evolutionary biologists looked at the science of bump and grind, and say they have figured out exactly which dance movements catch a woman's eye. ... "
Interesting, some scientists look at a population of 37 women, have them watch animation of dancing and answer a few questions, and publish results, which even they state are not statistically significant. (
While not statistically significant, these findings suggest that there might be something to that old adage about "two left feet" after all.
)
Not sure why the Washington Post chose to publish this, but I'd hope it wasn't published in any journal (well maybe Arthur Murray Monthly).
It's amusing, but reporting of these results is premature at best.
It is so grounding to hear how easily the wholly uninformed dismiss new information.
Biology Letters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biology Letters
Biology Letters cover.gif
Abbreviated title (ISO 4) Biol. Lett.
Discipline Biology
Language English
Edited by Brian Charlesworth FRS
Publication details
Publisher Royal Society Publishing (United Kingdom)
Publication history 2005-present
Frequency Monthly
Impact factor
(2012) 3.348
Indexing
ISSN 1744-9561 (print)
1744-957X (web)
Links
Journal homepage
Biology Letters is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It was split off as a separate journal from the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences in 2005 after having been published as a supplement. Originally it was published quarterly, and then bimonthly. Since 2013 it has been published monthly. The journal publishes short articles from across biology. The editor-in-chief is Brian Charlesworth FRS. As of 2013 (2012 JCR index), Biology Letters has an impact factor of 3.348 and is ranked 13th in Biology.
If you're interested you can research how "letters" in scientific communications are different from full articles. Often a separate journal just for 'letters' is split off from the original journal hence "Tetrahedron" and "Tetrahedron Letters", "Journal of Chemical Physics" and "Chemical Physics Letters", "Journal of Organic Chemistry" and "Organic Letters"&c.
It is so grounding to hear how easily the wholly uninformed dismiss new information.
Gee, do you think all that condescension will fit up your ass? Why don't you try and put it there?
If you're interested you can research how "letters" in scientific communications are different from full articles. Often a separate journal just for 'letters' is split off from the original journal hence "Tetrahedron" and "Tetrahedron Letters", "Journal of Chemical Physics" and "Chemical Physics Letters", "Journal of Organic Chemistry" and "Organic Letters"&c.
Thank you Capt. Obvious. Letter are different from full articles. I'm sure you really think you're the only one who knew that, but then, you're th expert on everything, right?
Gee, do you think all that condescension will fit up your ass? Why don't you try and put it there?
Since he's already got his head and most of the "information" he brings here stored in that location, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of room left to fit anything else in there...
A "scientific" study was required for a group of scientists to realize that a good male dancer on a dance floor attracts women more than a bad male dancer?
This says a lot more about the scientists who couldn't figure that out without an experiment than it does about their results.
Next on their agenda: A study to determine what attracts women more - A man who doesn't brush his teeth or a man who does?
I'm sure one person here will be surprised and excited by the results.
To be fair, the study authors concluded more than that, they broke down what sort of dance moves appealed to women and which did not, or were neutral; however they did concede that the results were not statistically significant so I'm not certain what can really be concluded.
I don't think this is fatuous. There are some moves on a dance floor that say, "I'm a good dancer," and others that say, "I'm a dork." Often the tendency and ability to make these moves are distributed along racial lines.
My wife and I took group dancing lessons from a couple, and the husband knew all of the detailed movements of every new step they demonstrated, but still managed to convey the impression that he was a klutz. Maybe if he knew which movements, exactly, were perceived as graceful he could have done better.
Big RR wrote:To be fair, the study authors concluded more than that, they broke down what sort of dance moves appealed to women and which did not, or were neutral; however they did concede that the results were not statistically significant so I'm not certain what can really be concluded.
The difference between those two animations is that one shows a person who is moving fluidly and has a variety of body movement and the other shows a person who is moving stiffly and looks as though he is just walking funny.
It looks to me as though it was concluded that a person who moves smoothly on the dance floor is more appealing than one who doesn't.
But you're right. The study is insignificant.
Only a moron who thinks the result is new information would see anything meaningful in it.
Y'all blew it. "Scinece" is clearly not the same things as say, "Science."
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
That was a different article in a different journal published 5 years before the study in "Biology Letters". But it shows the great strength of the scientific process. Everything is published and open to replication.
And what would I have to retract? I did not say that the results were true I only linked to a fun article for the purpose of entertainment and enjoyment. I think this intent was obvious in the title and opening sentence:
The Real reason men invented scinece.
...
To hook up with hot chicks.
You have all missed the fact that the OP was meant to amuse. But revealed in the end more about you. An ugly truth.
You started a thread based on a bogus "scientific" study...
How was anyone supposed to figure out that was intended as humor? It's what you always do....
And your unprovoked gratuitous insults to Big RR were a real hoot...
If you had intended this as humor, you wouldn't have referred to it in a follow up post as "new information", and attempted so vigorously to defend it's legitimacy.
You were fool enough to think you had found a legitimate study, and now that you once again have been caught with your pants hugging you ankles, instead of acting with integrity and admitting it, you've cooked up an after the fact story about how the whole thing was intended as a joke...
After all these years, I can read you like a book rube...
(and it's a very short book with simple words, large print, and lots of pictures... )
