Playing Hard to Get is Usually a Turn Off, Study Shows

“…Sexual desire seems to thrive on reduced uncertainty.” It’s not something I typically write much about, but seeing that fallacious reasoning play out enough in my life prompted me into creating an entry on it.

When you first start dating someone, at least one of your friends will tell you to “play it cool.” It’s a piece of advice that’s almost as old as dating itself, and it’s based on the idea that if you act like you’re not really eager for the relationship, you suddenly become irresistible.

According to a new study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour, you can try your best with that method, but it probably won’t work.

The team, led by IDC Herzliya psychology professor Gurit Birnbaum, conducted a series of six studies – some experiments and some looking at diary entries – to see whether uncertainty about a partner’s romantic intentions affected how sexually attractive they were perceived to be.

In the first study, 51 women and 50 men, aged 19 to 31 and all single, were told they were chatting to another participant online who was in another room. Then they were told their photo would be shown to the other person and they could see a photo of who they were talking to in return. In reality, the other person in the chat was one of the researchers, and every participant was shown the same photo of someone of the opposite sex.

At the end of the chat, participants could send one final message. Some were told their chat partner was waiting for them, while others were told they weren’t. The idea was to create certainty or uncertainty about the online partner’s interest. Then, participants rated their partner’s sexual desirability and how much they wanted to talk to them again.

Those who knew the partner was eager to hear from them perceived them as more sexually attractive than those who were uncertain. The rest of the studies showed a similar pattern – that sexual desire seems to thrive on reduced uncertainty. And this was true for men and women in committed relationships too.

So where did the idea come from that playing hard to get is a turn on? According to the study authors, it could all come down to self-preservation.

“People may protect themselves from the possibility of a painful rejection by distancing themselves from potentially rejecting partners,” said Harry Reis, a professor of psychology and Dean’s Professor in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at Rochester, and co-author of the study.

Birnbaum added that the findings suggest sexual desire may “serve as a gut-feeling indicator of mate suitability that motivates people to pursue romantic relationships with a reliable and valuable partner,” and “inhibiting desire may serve as a mechanism aimed at protecting the self from investing in a relationship in which the future is uncertain.”

In other words, we all fear rejection and playing it cool makes us appear less vulnerable. But in reality, by pretending you’re not interested, that’s exactly how you come across – literally not interested.

So if playing it cool is your dating method of choice, good luck with that. It might work if you’re attracting a player or someone with an avoidant attachment style. But if you’re looking for long-term happiness with someone who’s right for you, it seems honesty really might be the best policy.

A Note to Frequent Visitors/Followers of Enlights.org

If you look at this site on a fairly regular basis, it’s likely enough that you found it through my coverage of a specific issue. This is when I cover many different issues, as I attempt to enlighten others about what’s most important and relevant about them.

The point I want to make here though is that it might be weeks or even months before I post about what you originally found this website for. During that time I may post a lot of material on different subjects, as again, I am fortunate enough to have the ability to address a wide range of topics. If you’re going to view/follow the site, you should probably be aware of this scope of coverage though.

Sometimes I provide coverage of truths that can be unpleasant and of issues that are controversial in the mainstream. If you find a serious problem with this and no longer visit the site, I will probably understand, but know that it’s rare for me to engage in self-censorship.

The corporate mass media does a horrible job overall and I sometimes feel the need to compensate for their failures. For example, society faces the existential threats of climate change, nuclear war, and arguably even of the extreme inequality that perpetuates numerous problems. That those topics are covered as infrequently as they are by mass media outlets is an ongoing, corrupted, and irresponsible scandal to me.

This post will probably be updated at a later date, but what’s said here is adequate for now. If you have a question or comment, you can leave a comment below or send me an email or contact me otherwise.

Trump Regime Plans to Allow Oil/Gas Drilling off Almost All of U.S. Coast

A very horrible move that’s not only terrible for the affected environments, but a step in the wrong direction for using fossil fuels over clean renewables. The Trump regime’s recent policy changes as a result of its servitude to Big Oil will probably cause some major oil spill(s) in the years ahead.

The Trump administration has unveiled a plan that would open almost all US offshore territory to oil and gas drilling, including previously protected areas of the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans.

Ryan Zinke, the secretary of the interior, said a new oil and gas leasing programme, which would run from 2019 to 2024, would make more than 90% of the outer continental shelf available for what would be the largest ever number of lease sales to fossil fuel companies.

The draft plan includes nearly 50 lease sales in all but one of 26 planning areas in US waters, including 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, seven in the Pacific, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and nine in the Atlantic. The plan reverses protections put in place by the Obama administration and would introduce drilling for the first time to the Atlantic seaboard – a prospect fiercely opposed by communities along the east coast.

[…]

But the prospect of oil rigs deployed across huge areas of US territorial waters brought immediate condemnation from an unlikely alliance of environmental groups and some senior Republicans.

Rick Scott, the Republican governor of Florida, said he opposed drilling off the state’s coast due to environmental concerns.

“I have already asked to meet immediately with Secretary Zinke to discuss the concerns I have with this plan and the critical need to remove Florida from consideration,” Scott said.

Other states reacted with hostility to the new plan, with the governors of New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina all expressing concerns about the potential impact upon marine ecosystems and coastal economies that rely on tourism and fishing. The governors of west coast states – California, Washington and Oregon – have also condemned the prospect of drilling in the Pacific for the first time since 1984.

Opponents of drilling have raised the spectre of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. The incident on the BP rig caused 215m gallons of crude oil to flood into the gulf, coating beaches and seabirds and leaving a toxic legacy that is still felt. BP has paid more than $60bn in penalties since the disaster.

Feature on the Opioid Crisis

The Empire Files program did a feature on the opioid crisis that focuses on the behavior of criminogenic pharmaceutical corporations. It is particularly notable for noting that big pharmaceutical corporations have targeted and still do target economically ravaged places suffering from significant despair.

Economic despair is at the core of the opioid epidemic. A lot of those people addicted to opioids would have done much better if they had meaningful work to occupy their time and give them a sense of purpose. Unfortunately though, in many sectors the economic system is so dysfunctional that it fails to provide even basic elements of meaningful community work for people.

There’s a disturbing graph that shows utilization of capacity, and it reveals that there are many, many billions of dollars being lost due to capacity such as buildings not being used. It isn’t because there’s a lack of needed work — on the contrary, looking around plenty of places will have a reasonable person saying that there’s a lot that needs to be done. So there’s a lot of work that needs to be done and a lot of capacity (23 percent in the graph) pointlessly sitting idle, and there’s an economic system that isn’t putting them together for productive benefits.

Screenshot-2017-12-5 Capacity Utilization Total Industry

The U.S. government could enact a massive infrastructure project that would create millions of jobs and/or it could provide low interest loans to support worker cooperatives in economically downtrodden communities. There are other solutions too, and they also need significant will to be applied. The point to make here though is that the situation doesn’t have to be that bleak for the communities, and there’s actually a clear enough method to reconstruct what has been mismanaged.