Article Description
Long distance signals protect brain from viral infections entering through nose The brain contains a defense system that prevents at least two unrelated viruses -- and possibly many more -- from invading the brain at large.
Ruth Hoffman obituary My friend Ruth Hoffman, who has died aged 91, was a psychiatrist specialising in children who worked closely with leading Jungian figures and was an analysand of Michael Fordham. She also corresponded with Primo Levi, who, in the words of his biographer, Ian Thomson, "seems to have been immediately attracted to Hoffman, and she to him". Among her impressive collection of letters there is a note from General Charles de Gaulle.Ruth, born in Vienna, was 16 when, in 1938, her father decided it was time to send her away from her home in Bielsko, in Silesia, in Poland. He owned a fabric factory, so Ruth was to go to Switzerland to learn about fabrics. Switzerland refused Ruth a visa, but Britain granted her one at the last minute. This is why, shortly before the war, Ruth arrived in Scotland. She was struck, she recalled, by how many other red-headed Jews there were, until she realised that, unlike in Poland, red hair did not tend to signal Jewishness.She quickly abandoned the study of fabrics and completed the qualifications necessary to study medicine at Glasgow University. Without parental encouragement – indeed, against their vision of her future – she qualified as a doctor shortly after the war. She gained positions at various psychiatric hospitals, including Rubery Hill, Birmingham, Warlingham Park, Surrey, and Powick, Worcestershire, but, dissatisfied with the interventionist methods of even the more enlightened places, she turned to Jungian psychoanalysis, working in child guidance clinics in London and in private practice.Retirement afforded her the opportunity to read – she was fluent in German, English, French, Italian and Polish – and to attend lectures, exhibitions and concerts, and to cultivate her many friendships. She made friends easily, sometimes for life, after a lecture or a concert or a converstaion on a bus. Indeed, this is how I met her: after a lecture at the Polish Embassy. She made a joke, which turned into a chat, which turned into a follow-up meeting, which turned into a friendship. If her friends moved, she sustained the link with erudite and amusing correspondence and phone calls. She supported numerous charities and causes, including, in gratitude for the opportunity it gave her, Glasgow University.With typical generosity of spirit, Ruth remembered the country of her childhood fondly for its snowy mountains and skating rinks, on which she skied and skated expertly and with joy. But it was Scotland, London and Britain as a whole for which she reserved her love and allegiance.Ruth is survived by her nephew, Prof Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot, and his family.PsychologyMental healththeguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
If You Want More Out of Life, Just Ask There is no technique in the psychological literature with more power to persuade than simply asking.read more
Mechanism elucidated: How smell perception influences food intake A research team has succeeded in elucidating how the endocannabinoid system controls food intake through its effects on the perception of smells.
Experts predict the end of smoking in America Public health leaders are begininng to use phrases like "endgame" and "tobacco-free generation."
Matchmaking this Valentine's Day: How it can bring you the most happiness If you follow your instinct to play Cupid this Valentine's Day, it'll pay off in happiness -- not necessarily for the new couple, but definitely for you. According to new research, matchmaking, a time-honored tradition, brings intrinsic happiness to the matchmaker. To maximize the psychological benefits of matchmaking, you should take care to introduce two people who not only seem compatible but who would be unlikely to meet otherwise, researchers say.
Have You Heard? Some Gossip Can Be Good for Groups A study of gossip has found that it can have positive effects on group behaviour, including encouraging cooperation and deterring selfishness.Some gossip, researchers find, can help protect against the exploitation of nice people and promote the ostracism of bullies. The findings comes from a new study by Feinberg et al. (2014) who had 216 participants playing a game in groups which involved financial choices... Continue reading - - > → Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and author of PsyBlog. His latest book is "Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick"
The Sochi stray dog dilemma: does the world care more about Russia's animals than humans? | Heather Long Out of the many problems with the Olympics, the global outcry and outpouring of resources seems loudest to aid the dogsIt's hard to know where to start with the problems at the Sochi Olympics, but the one that appears to have attracted the widest worldwide outrage is the killing of stray dogs. Even in Russia, where they have chastised western media for being on a witch hunt for bad stories, it was a Russian billionaire who stepped forward with a donation to save Sochi's dogs. Oleg Deripaska heads up several energy and commodities businesses. He's about as pro-Putin Russia as you can get, yet he didn't want to see the dogs "culled" either. Some question whether his funding for animal shelters in Sochi will extend beyond the length of the games, but it's still a big gesture that can only be read one way: one of Russia's most powerful men thinks the dog killing policy is wrong. When news broke last week that thousands of dogs were going to be eliminated in one way or another, the Humane Society and numerous other animal rights groups mobilized their networks and offered help. There are even websites up already with detailed instructions for people around the world who want to adopt a Sochi dog.Western media has given a lot of coverage to Russia's anti-gay policies, among other human rights abuses. There have been protests and social media campaigns calling for LGBTQ tolerance and rights. But the dog stories – with their adorable photos –stirred a level of outrage that seemed to cross greater political and geographical boundaries. And they certainly achieved faster results. It raises a quandary: do we care more about what happens to animals than other humans?What we're seeing with Russia isn't new or unique. CNN war correspondent Michael Holmes lamented in 2008 that he could write about death, disease and suffering in Iraq (among other places), but if he included something about an animal being mistreated, the story would elicit more passionate response. He summed it up thus: Of all the stories I have covered during my frequent trips to Iraq, most of the viewer feedback I received asked about the animal victims of war rather than the human ones. I make no judgment on that – it is just an observation.Online, people like and support causes and charities having to do with animals almost 2 to 1 over causes having to do with just about anything else, according to a study that came out last summer. As Holmes says, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's notable.Last year, researchers at Northeastern University conducted an interesting investigation to test if humans have more empathy for animals. They wrote a fake news story about a beating and then made four versions of it. The articles varied only in the type of victim that was hurt: a one-year-old child, an adult in his 30s, a puppy, or a 6-year-old dog. Participants in the study received one version and then rated their sympathy for the victim. The sympathy rankings were far higher for the dogs than adult humans (it was more even between animals and children). I saw this tendency play out when I spent several years as an opinions editor of a newspaper in Pennsylvania. One of my tasks was to read letters to the editor submissions. Four topics stand out for generating vast and intensely worded outrage. The first was the Penn State University/Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case. The second was the debate leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The third and fourth both dealt with dogs. A person left their dog in a car on a hot summer day for several hours. Someone called the police, which is how local media learned about it. The dog was taken to a local shelter, and the ex-owner received hate mail and death threats for weeks. The letters came to the newspaper, too. People couldn't wait to publicly shame the person and declare them a monster. Another time a lifestyle columnist wrote a piece about buying a dog with her kids. It was supposed to be a feel good column, but readers immediately assumed the dog was from a "puppy mill" since it came from a pet store. Again, an avalanche of outrage and death threats.Helping animals is the right thing to do. The Northeastern researchers concluded that many people view animals as innocent and helpless, similar to children. How we treat the weakest in our society is a reflection of who we are. I also think that aiding animals like the Sochi dogs is, in many ways, an easier problem to solve than many of the world's largest human tragedies: war, poverty, child abuse, trafficking, disease, etc. While there are some cultural differences in how we treat certain animals (note the recent dolphin culling by Japan that drew criticism from US ambassador Caroline Kennedy), we don't have to deal with as many geo-political and legal issues to help animals. To put it another way, it was pretty easy to take the dog away from the person who left it in the hot car and find it a new home. It's not as simple to remove a child from the parents or a child bride from a spouse.Frankly, I don't want us to have any less sympathy for animals. The outpouring of support for the Sochi strays is wonderful. It's exactly the "spirit" and global mobilization we want at the Olympics. But alongside that, I wish we could raise our sympathy levels and support for other causes. We have to be careful that we aren't numbing ourselves to human tragedy.Winter Olympics 2014Animal welfareAnimalsRussiaAnimal behaviourPsychologyPhilosophyHeather Longtheguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Book Review: Scaling Up Excellence As owner of the WorkplacePsychology.Net website, which continues to get a high number of visitors daily, I am frequently asked to review books. In fact, publicists and sometimes even authors will ask me to review their books. I rarely need or want to reach out to authors. Robert I. Sutton is one of those authors […]
Changing women's portrayal in stock photos Nonprofit organization and stock photography provider offer collection of images that represent women and families in more empowering ways.
Movie-and-Talk: Can This Simple Exercise Help Save a Marriage? A new three-year study finds that divorce rates were more than halved by watching movies about relationships and discussing them afterwards.Researchers compared a "˜movie-and-talk' condition against groups following other, more intensive forms of couples therapy, and were surprised at the results. Continue reading - - > → Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and author of PsyBlog. His latest book is "Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick"
The algorithm method: how internet dating became everyone's route to a perfect love match Six million Britons are looking for their perfect partner online before Valentine's day on Friday, but their chance of success may depend on clever maths rather than charismaIn the Summer of 2012, Chris McKinlay was finishing his maths dissertation at the University of California in Los Angeles. It meant a lot of late nights as he ran complex calculations through a powerful supercomputer in the early hours of the morning, when computing time was cheap. While his work hummed away, he whiled away time on online dating sites, but he didn't have a lot of luck – until one night, when he noted a connection between the two activities.One of his favourite sites, OkCupid, sorted people into matches using the answers to thousands of questions posed by other users on the site."One night it started to dawn on me the way that people answer questions on OkCupid generates a high dimensional dataset very similar to the one I was studying," says McKinlay, and it transformed his understanding of how the system worked. "It wasn't like I didn't like OkCupid before, it was fine, I just realised that there was an interesting problem there."McKinlay started by creating fake profiles on OkCupid, and writing programs to answer questions that had also been answered by compatible users – the only way to see their answers, and thus work out how the system matched users. He managed to reduce some 20,000 other users to just seven groups, and figured he was closest to two of them. So he adjusted his real profile to match, and the messages started rolling in.McKinlay's operation was possible because OkCupid, and so many other sites like it, are much more than just simple social networks, where people post profiles, talk to their friends, and pick up new ones through common interest. Instead, they seek to actively match up users using a range of techniques that have been developing for decades.Every site now makes its own claims to "intelligent" or "smart" technologies underlying their service. But for McKinlay, these algorithms weren't working well enough for him, so he wrote his own. McKinlay has since written a book Optimal Cupid about his technique, while last year Amy Webb, a technology CEO herself, published Data, a Love Story documenting how she applied her working skills to the tricky business of finding a partner online.Two people, both unsatisfied by the programmes on offer, wrote their own; but what about the rest of us, less fluent in code? Years of contested research, and moral and philosophical assumptions, have gone into creating today's internet dating sites and their matching algorithms, but are we being well served by them? The idea that technology can make difficult, even painful tasks – including looking for love – is a pervasive and seductive one, but are their matchmaking powers overstated?In the summer of 1965, a Harvard undergraduate named Jeff Tarr decided he was fed up with the university's limited social circle. As a maths student, Tarr had some experience of computers, and although he couldn't program them himself, he was sure they could be used to further his primary interest: meeting girls. With a friend he wrote up a personality quiz for fellow students about their "ideal date" and distributed it to colleges across Boston. Sample questions included: "Is extensive sexual activity [in] preparation for marriage, part of 'growing up?'" and "Do you believe in a God who answers prayer?" The responses flooded in, confirming Tarr's suspicion that there was great demand for such a service among the newly liberated student population. Operation Match was born.In order to process the answers, Tarr had to rent a five-ton IBM 1401 computer for $100 an hour, and pay another classmate to program it with a special matching operation. Each questionnaire was transferred to a punch-card, fed into the machine, and out popped a list of six potential dates, complete with address, phone number and date of graduation, which was posted back to the applicant. Each of those six numbers got the original number and five others in their response: the program only matched women with their ideal man if they fitted his ideal too.When Gene Shalit, a reporter from Look magazine, arrived to cover the emerging computer-dating scene in 1966, Operation Match claimed to have had 90,000 applications and taken $270,000 in revenue. Even at the birth of the computer revolution, the machine seemed to have an aura about it, something which made its matches more credible than a blind date or a friend's recommendation. Shalit quoted a freshman at Brown University who had dumped her boyfriend but started going out with him again when Operation Match sent her his number. "Maybe the computer knows something that I don't know," she said. Shalit imbued it with even more weight, calling it "The Great God Computer".The computer-dating pioneers were happy to play up to the image of the omniscient machine – and were already wary of any potential stigma attached to their businesses. "Some romanticists complain that we're too commercial," Tarr told reporters. "But we're not trying to take the love out of love; we're just trying to make it more efficient. We supply everything but the spark." In turn, the perceived wisdom of the machine opened up new possibilities for competition in the nascent industry, as start-up services touted the innovative nature of their programs over others. Contact, Match's greatest rival, was founded by MIT graduate student David DeWan and ran on a Holywell 200 computer, developed in response to IBM's 1401 and operating two to three times faster. DeWan made the additional claim that Contact's questions were more sophisticated than Match's nationwide efforts, because they were restricted to elite college students. In essence, it was the first niche computer-dating service.Over the years since Tarr first starting sending out his questionnaires, computer dating has evolved. Most importantly, it has become online dating. And with each of these developments – through the internet, home computing, broadband, smartphones, and location services – the turbulent business and the occasionally dubious science of computer-aided matching has evolved too. Online dating continues to hold up a mirror not only to the mores of society, which it both reflects, and shapes, but to our attitudes to technology itself.The American National Academy of Sciences reported in 2013 that more than a third of people who married in the US between 2005 and 2012 met their partner online, and half of those met on dating sites. The rest met through chatrooms, online games, and elsewhere. Preliminary studies also showed that people who met online were slightly less likely to divorce and claimed to be happier in their marriages. The latest figures from online analytics company Comscore show that the UK is not far behind, with 5.7 million people visiting dating sites every month, and 49 million across Europe as a whole, or 12% of the total population. Most tellingly for the evolution of online dating is that the biggest growth demographic in 2012 was in the 55+ age range, accounting for 39% of visitors. When online dating moves not only beyond stigma, but beyond the so-called "digital divide" to embrace older web users, it might be said to have truly arrived.It has taken a while to get there. Match.com, founded in 1993, was the first big player, is still the biggest worldwide, and epitomises the "online classifieds" model of internet dating. Match.com doesn't make any bold claims about who you will meet, it just promises there'll be loads of them. eHarmony, which followed in 2000, was different, promising to guide its users towards long-term relationships – not just dating, but marriage. It believed it could do this thanks to the research of its founder, Neil Clark Warren, a then 76-old psychologist and divinity lecturer from rural Iowa. His three years of research on 5,000 married couples laid the basis for a truly algorithmic approach to matching: the results of a 200-question survey of new members (the "core personality traits"), together with their communication patterns which were revealed while using the site.Whatever you may think of eHarmony's approach – and many contest whether it is scientifically possible to generalise from married people's experiences to the behaviour of single people – they are very serious about it. Since launch, they have surveyed another 50,000 couples worldwide, according to the current vice-president of matching, Steve Carter. When they launched in the UK, they partnered with Oxford University to research 1,000 British couples "to identify any cultural distinctions between the two markets that should be represented by the compatibility algorithms". And when challenged by lawsuits for refusing to match gay and lesbian people, assumed by many to be a result of Warren's conservative Christian views (his books were previously published in partnership with the conservative pressure group, Focus on the Family), they protested that it wasn't morality, but mathematics: they simply didn't have the data to back up the promise of long-term partnership for same-sex couples. As part of a settlement in one such lawsuit, eHarmony launched Compatible Partners in 2009.Carter says: "The Compatible Partners system is now based on models developed using data collected from long-term same-sex couples." With the rise of Facebook, Twitter, and celebrity-driven online media, have come more personalised and data-driven sites such as OkCupid, where Chris McKinlay started his operation. These services rely on the user supplying not only explicit information about what they are looking for, but a host of assumed and implicit information as well, based on their morals, values, and actions. What underlies them is a growing reliance not on stated preferences – for example, eHarmony's 200-question surveys result in a detailed profile entitled "The Book of You" – but on actual behaviour; not what people say, but what they do.In 2007, Gavin Potter made headlines when he competed successfully in the Netflix Prize, a $1m competition run by the online movie giant to improve the recommendations its website offered members. Despite competition from teams composed of researchers from telecoms giants and top maths departments, Potter was consistently in the top 10 of the leaderboard. A retired management consultant with a degree in psychology, Potter believed he could predict more about viewers' tastes from past behaviour than from the contents of the movies they liked, and his maths worked. He was contacted by Nick Tsinonis, the founder of a small UK dating site called yesnomayb, who asked him to see if his approach, called collaborative filtering, would work on people as well as films.Collaborative filtering works by collecting the preferences of many people, and grouping them into sets of similar users. Because there's so much data, and so many people, what exactly the thing is that these groups might have in common isn't always clear to anyone but the algorithm, but it works. The approach was so successful that Tsinonis and Potter created a new company, RecSys, which now supplies some 10 million recommendations a day to thousands of sites. RecSys adjusts its algorithm for the different requirements of each site – what Potter calls the "business rules" – so for a site such as Lovestruck.com, which is aimed at busy professionals, the business rules push the recommendations towards those with nearby offices who might want to nip out for a coffee, but the powerful underlying maths is Potter's. Likewise, while British firm Global Personals provides the infrastructure for some 12,000 niche sites around the world, letting anyone set up and run their own dating website aimed at anyone from redheads to petrolheads, all 30 million of their users are being matched by RecSys. Potter says that while they started with dating "the technology works for almost anything". RecSys is already powering the recommendations for art discovery site ArtFinder, the similar articles search on research database Nature.com, and the backend to a number of photography websites. Of particular interest to the company is a recommendation system for mental health advice site Big White Wall. Because its users come to the site looking for emotional help, but may well be unsure what exactly it is they are looking for, RecSys might be able to unearth patterns of behaviour new to both patients and doctors, just as it reveals the unspoken and possibly even unconscious proclivities of daters.Back in Harvard in 1966, Jeff Tarr dreamed of a future version of his Operation Match programme which would operate in real time and real space. He envisioned installing hundreds of typewriters all over campus, each one linked to a central "mother computer". Anyone typing their requirements into such a device would receive "in seconds" the name of a compatible match who was also free that night. Recently, Tarr's vision has started to become a reality with a new generation of dating services, driven by the smartphone.Suddenly, we don't need the smart algorithms any more, we just want to know who is nearby. But even these new services sit atop a mountain of data; less like Facebook, and a lot more like Google.Tinder, founded in Los Angeles in 2012, is the fastest-growing dating app on mobile phones but its founders don't like calling it that. According to co-founder and chief marketing officer Justin Mateen, Tinder is "not an online dating app, it's a social network and discovery tool".He also believes that Tinder's core mechanic, where users swipe through Facebook snapshots of potential matches in the traditional "Hot or Not" format, is not simple, but more sophisticated: "It's the dynamic of the pursuer and the pursued, that's just how humans interact." Tinder, however, is much less interested in the science of matching up couples than its predecessors. When asked what they have learned about people from the data they have gathered, Mateen says the thing he is most looking forward to seeing is "the number of matches that a user needs over a period of time before they're addicted to the product" – a precursor of Tinder's expansion into other areas of ecommerce and business relationships.Tinder's plans are the logical extension of the fact that the web has really turned out to be a universal dating medium, whatever it says on the surface. There are plenty of sites out there deploying the tactics and metrics of dating sites without actually using the D-word. Whether it's explicit – such as Tastebuds.fm, which matches up "concert buddies" based on their Spotify music tastes – or subtle, the lessons of dating research have been learned by every "social" site on the web. Nearly every Silicon Valley startup video features two photogenic young people being brought together, whatever the product, and the same matching algorithms are at work whether you're looking for love, a jobbing plumber, or a stock photograph.Over at UCLA, Chris McKinlay's strategy seems to have paid off. After gathering his data and optimising his profile, he started receiving 10-12 unsolicited messages every day: an unheard of figure online, where the preponderance of creeps tends to put most women on the defensive. He went on 87 dates, mostly just a coffee, which "were really wonderful for the most part". The women he met shared his interests, were "really intelligent, creative, funny" and there was almost always some attraction. But on the 88th date, something deeper clicked. A year later, he proposed.Online dating has always been in part about the allure and convenience of the technology, but it has mostly been about just wanting to find "the one". The success of recommendation systems ,which are just as applicable to products as people, says much about the ability of computers to predict the more fundamental attractions that would have got McKinlay there sooner – his algorithms improved his ability to get dates, but not much on the likelihood of them progressing further.In the end, the development of online dating tells us more about our relationship with networked technology than with each other: from "the Great God Computer", to a profusion of data that threatens to overwhelm us, to the point where it is integrated, seamlessly and almost invisibly, with every aspect of our daily lives.Online datingDatingValentine's DayChemistryInternetSmartphonesMobile phonesBiologyPsychologyNicola DavisJames Bridletheguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Paul E. Meehl: Smartest Psychologist of the 20th Century? In 1975, my undergraduate abnormal psychology teacher made a claim that I will never forget: that Paul E. Meehl was "the smartest living psychologist." Meehl died in 2003. In this post I consider whether Meehl indeed might have been the smartest psychologist of the 20th century.read more
Feds to expand gay rights The Justice Department is set to extend new benefits to same-sex married couples.
Memory is Not Like a Video Camera: Rather The Present Can Be Spliced into the Past New memories can be edited and spliced into old ones, according to a new study.A new study demonstrates that the way memory works is far from the popular imagination of a video camera; in fact it's continually being edited cut and spliced together. The study, conducted by neuroscientists at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine demonstrate how how current memories can be inserted into older ones... Continue reading - - > → Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and author of PsyBlog. His latest book is "Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick"
Get in Touch with Your Relationship Myths We all hold the idea of the "perfect" relationship, an idea that may lead some people to spend their lives turning down otherwise great, if not perfect, partners. By identifying your own relationship myths, you can better enjoy your current, if not future, opportunities for true intimacy.read more
Huntington disease prevention trial shows creatine safe, slows progression The first clinical trial of a drug intended to delay the onset of symptoms of Huntington disease reveals that high-dose treatment with the nutritional supplement creatine was safe and well tolerated by most participants. In addition, neuroimaging showed a treatment-associated slowing of regional brain atrophy, evidence that creatine might slow the progression of presymptomatic disease.
How chemistry decides the success of a first date You have spent weeks trawling through monotonous profiles and blurry selfies to finally find someone who shares your love of travel, Proust and Morris dancing. But will the chemistry be there when you meet face to face?THE GLANCELooks aren't everything but love, it would seem, is far from blind. Across cultures and sexes, some features hold greater appeal. "More symmetrical faces do seem to be rated more attractive," says Tamsin Saxton, a senior lecturer at Northumbria University and part of the evolution, perception and behaviour research group. "The theory goes that your genes provide a template for symmetrical bodies, symmetrical face. [When] there's some sort of problem – you get ill or you encounter some problem with the environment – that can sometimes throw the symmetry off a little bit," she says. "So it might be that if you are picking a symmetric partner then you are actually picking somebody whose genes are fairly well suited to the environment around you."And while striking faces may sometimes be drop-dead gorgeous, studies have shown we are generally drawn to Mr or Ms Average, whatever our culture. According to scientists including Professor Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico, average features could be a sign of genetic diversity and good health.But is there such a thing as a "type"? Women with feminine features, such as a smaller chin and fuller lips, tend to be deemed more appealing by both sexes, Saxton tells me, but preferences for male features are far from clear-cut. "When women are more likely to be able to conceive that seems to be the time when they are liking more masculine facial features [in men] and also more masculine bodies, voices and male behaviour," says Saxton. So a disaster date might genuinely be a case of right person, wrong time. But it is possible to disrupt the trend. "There's a good deal of evidence that use of the hormonal contraception pill is associated with greater preference for more feminine male facial features." And it isn't only chemicals sloshing around inside that can tip the balance. "Women seem to prefer more masculine male faces in countries where health prospects are poorer," Saxton says.It seems the suggestion of heroics could also fuel a romance. A study conducted by researchers at Liverpool and Stirling Universities recruited 115 women and 64 men, asking one group to assess images of the opposite sex with digitally added facial scars while another group viewed blemish-free mug shots. The upshot was that women rated slight scarring in a man's face marginally more attractive when considering a short-term fling – men viewed scarring in women with indifference. The researchers say that scarring may be read by women as a sign of masculinity, courage and strength.But whether or not you are looking for Indiana Jones, good health is a key quality and once again there may be subtle, chemical cues. In 2009 researchers at St Andrews University asked 54 people to digitally tweak the hue of a selection of male and female Caucasian faces to make them look "healthy", finding that a light yellow tint and pink flush is perceived to be indicative of the hale and hearty. Follow-up collaborative studies supported the view that yellow colouring is deemed more attractive across cultures, and suggested that an increase in the intake of carotenoid pigments, such as those found in fruit and veg, may increase this yellow tint, although other influences can't be ruled out. But, hot or not, your date has only just begun and it's time to make that opening gambit.THE CHATIt turns out, that it is not just what you say, but the way that you say it that flags up a successful date. One such indicator appears to be the use of function words such as personal pronouns, articles and conjunctions."The more you use this group of words, called function words, similarly, the more you like each other," says Molly Ireland a psychologist at Texas Tech University. Ireland and her colleagues studied how such words are used by heterosexual men and women by examining 40 speed dates, using special computer programs to analyse the speakers' language. The study found that speed dating couples were more likely to mutually wish to see each other again if their language style matched better. "When two people are matching each other's use of, say, personal pronouns and articles, that means that they are on the same wavelength in terms of how they are connecting their thoughts and how they are thinking about the situation," she says.So if your date is speaking in a detached fashion, using "the", "it" and "that" often but you are throwing in plenty of "I" and "we", then chances are there is no point swapping numbers. "It's a very strong predictor," says Ireland.And while talking a lot may point to a good date, Ireland says their study showed it wasn't the strongest factor. "If you are on a date with somebody who is relatively quiet and maybe you are a relatively quiet person, too, that doesn't matter as long as you are using similar speaking styles," she says. According to Ireland it isn't an easy effect to fake – not only is it difficult to consciously pick up on function words but it is also tricky to deliberately manipulate them.Speed-dating also threw up some interesting observations for researchers at Stanford University who studied more than 900 heterosexual dates to work out what makes people click. "Dating is just a great way to study what are the linguistic signs more generally of people creating a bond," one of the authors, Dan Jurafsky, explains. "Men tend to choose skinny women and women tend to choose tall men, but you'll be happy to know that even after controlling for these physical characteristics, people's language is still an excellent predictor of whether they clicked."After analysing voice-recordings from the dates, they found that for couples who reported "clicking", both the men and the women seemed excited. The men varied their volume and laughed more; while women changed both their loudness and pitch. "By contrast, people feeling awkward use more qualifiers – they say "kind of" and "sort of" and "a little bit" a lot," says Jurafsky. "It's as if they are feeling so uncomfortable with the date that they can't even commit to their sentences." Interestingly, however, Jurafsky and colleagues found it was only when the woman felt uncomfortable that both parties failed to report clicking.And while women preferred men who spoke loudly, sympathised with them and interrupted them, both men and women preferred it when the woman made herself the focus of the conversation. But perhaps it is best to avoid grilling your date. "We found questions were used by women to keep a lagging conversation going, and they were used by men who had nothing to say," the authors wrote.And bad news chaps – if you're looking for a lady it could be tough. Women were found to report clicking less frequently than men. "The women are the empowered party," says Jurafsky.THE LATE NIGHT SMOOCHIf the date works out, a kiss may be on the cards. It's a crucial moment that could fan the flames or snuff out the spark."Each of these stages involves closer and closer spatial relationships so you get in close enough where you can actually smell the person," explains Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Oxford.And the clues you are picking up, he says, are genetic. "Your smell and your taste are all determined by a particular complex of genes that determine your immune system."These major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are vital in determining how resistant you are to diseases, and have been found to influence the odour of fluids such as saliva, urine and sweat. In a study conducted by Claus Wedekind from the University of Lausanne, nearly 50 female participants were asked to sniff T-shirts worn for two nights by men and rate the attractiveness of the whiff. The results showed that the women preferred the odour of T-shirts worn by men with a dissimilar MHC type.While you may look for similarities with your date, when it comes to MHC genes, genetic variety is the spice of life as offspring are likely to have a wider diversity of immune-system genes, enabling them to fight of a host of maladies.But how can you tell all this from a kiss? "You don't go, 'oh yes that tastes like a different major histocompatibility complex to me'," explains Dunbar. "What you sense it as is you enjoyed it or you didn't enjoy it."Once again oral contraceptives can cause confusion, with studies including those by Craig Roberts at Stirling University showing that women taking the pill seem to prefer men with similar MHC type. "This is a disaster," says Dunbar. "Women's judgment about how much they like a prospective partner or the smell of a prospective partner is completely derailed."Kissing or sniffing can also help you pick up on other signals. "One of the other cues it is giving you is health, because that is really strongly affected in both your odour and your taste," says Dunbar.While kissing is common to many cultures other customs, such as "rubbing noses", can also yield such crucial information. But, Dunbar says, the description is misleading. "What they actually do is put their nose next to the other person's nose and breathe in deeply. They are smelling the smell."But don't worry if your date is doused in perfume or aftershave. A study of 137 men and women by Wedekind and Manfred Milinski found that preference for certain scents appears to be correlated with the wearer's MHC genotype. "Everybody assumes you buy perfumes to cover up all your horrid unwashed smells, it's absolutely quite the opposite," Dunbar explains. "You buy the ones that match and enhance your natural smell signature."And the sizing up process doesn't stop there. Waist-to-hip ratios in women, waist-to-shoulder ratios in men and even hairiness are all being judged over the evening. But if your chemistry clicks, your mouse may never need to click again.DatingPsychologyValentine's DayChemistryBiologyNicola Davistheguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Genetically Engineered Monkeys Born, Could Humans Be Next? Chinese scientists announced the birth of the first primates created with a precision gene modification technique, raising both hopes about new insights into human diseases and concerns about new attempts at human inheritable genetic engineering.read more
Surprising new clue to the roots of hunger, neurons that drive appetite A scientific team has made a surprising discovery about the brain's hunger-inducing neurons, a finding with important implications for the treatment of obesity.