Wrong impression: Wearing skimpy clothes in an environment like the office can have a negative impact
Posted on 11/13/2011 6:53:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
he girls on The Only Way is Essex might not look like rocket scientists, but new research suggests that they are much cleverer that their skimpy outfits may lead you to believe.
A study into human perceptions has discovered that revealing more flesh can significantly change the way we think - about both men and women. If we see someone wearing revealing attire we automatically assume they are less competent.
The findings were revealed in a study by a team of psychologists led by Professor Kurt Gray, from the University of Maryland.
He said: 'In six studies we show that taking off a sweater, or otherwise revealing flesh, can significantly change the way someone's intelligence is perceived.' Research suggests that when men see a woman wearing very little they focus on her body and less on her mind.
And new findings show this is the case for both sexes. Prof Gray said: 'An important thing about our study is that, unlike previous research, ours applies to both sexes.
'It also calls into question the nature of objectification because people without clothes are not seen as mindless objects, but they are instead attributed a different kind of mind.
'We also show this effect can happen even without the removal of clothes.
'Simply focusing on someone's attractiveness, makes you see her or him as less of a person who acts and plans, more as an "experiencer".'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I don’t understand.
I need more examples.
Women wearing skimpy clothes make men dumber.
Nothing has changed. The world is ruled by bare young women. Too bad most of them are too dumb to know that.
It can also get a high earner to keep her in fashion for the rest of her life, without working.
young people in the ‘hood are always covered up,
even when it’s 70 or 80 degrees in los angeles.
but they are some of the world’s dullest people.
If we see someone wearing revealing attire we automatically assume they are less competent.
Absolutely
Liz Claman on a cold CNBC set.
The article states, “Research suggests that when men see a woman wearing very little they focus on her body and less on her mind”.
Bwwahhhahhahha! They needed “research” to come to that conclusion?! Can I add one more “conclusion?” Men looking at a beautiful woman in a bikini are statistically not able to answer “what eye color does the model have?”
)
This needed research?
It’s a simple equation. Males of all species have the single biological sexual prerogative to give their sperm to as many females as possible. Human females, however, have the double prerogative to both get the best possible sperm donor, and the best provider male to help them raise their offspring.
For this reason, most males act like predator animals to seek out fertile females, and in *some* species, females perform a “display” to let potential males know that they want to mate.
In practice, this is why men have a fascination with “attractive” women, even in pornography. Women also tend to be very focused on women who are “displaying”, in the manner of “scoping out the competition”, to see what the most successful means of display is at the moment. aka fashion.
However, when there is an abundance of males, the odds of the best sperm donor and the best provider male are slim. This, and the male prerogative are why humans innovated socially enforced marriage, as it gives a much more satisfactory condition for males, and females, and their children.
That is, in exchange for only mating with a single person, the man gets greater assurance that the children will be his; the woman that the man will only make children with her, so that all his provision will go to her and her children, not be divided up. But it only works when marriage is held by society to be sacrosanct.
A problem is that not all people should have children. But those that aren’t supposed to are a problem. This might go far to explain any number of oddities, from homosexuality to prostitution, as ways to protect the “breeders” from outside interference by non-breeders.
This means in an ideal situation, the non-breeders should involve themselves in improving the situation of the group as a whole, which leaves the breeders to just having and raising children.
A situation comparable to a wolf pack, where only the alpha breeding pair have offspring. All the other wolves have other tasks to perform in support of the pack.
Leading to the “bare flesh” phenomenon. People who bare flesh want to mate and raise children, ergo, they don’t have the time or energy to be intellectual.
RE: This needed research?
Sometimes, what seems obvious to everyone needs statistical confirmation to make the result more “scientific” ( also, we have way too much money in terms of taxes, the money has to be spent somehow, hence the study).
Um....I’ve always wondered, where does one find clothing that large? Just askin’....
“... where does one find clothing that large?”
From a previous FR post, I have learned that there are people called, “Chubby Chasers”. Women can find online catalogs of clothing that is more appropriate for thinner women but made in extremely large sizes. The stuff I learn on Free Republic!!
But just recently the IUCN had declared the West African Black Rhinoceros as “extinct.” Your photo however proves beyond a doubt that this is not correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Black_Rhinoceros
heheh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.