First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face.

[eduardkoopman]

I always tought, first impressions happend like in 3 seconds. But no, it's more brutal then that.

In 100 miliseconds. or in numbers: 0.1 second;
Then the first impression is already made on: attractiveness, likeability, trustworthiness, competence, and aggressiveness.

So within 0.1 seconds, a woman decided if she finds you bangeable or not.

Study link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866745

Now just be yourself bro's; and don't work on your first impression. It's all about personality anyways.

 

[Deleted member 209]

its amazing how fast out minds operate when it comes to looks

 

[Ethnicope]

SIMPLY IMAGINE THAT STACY IS IN POWER OF DECIDING IF THE INCEL IN FRONT OF HER IS WORTHY OF HER BODY OR NOT AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (EXACTLY 0.1 SECOND)






ITZOV3R

 

[Roping Subhuman]

Just LOL if you didn't know this.

It's over within a nanosecond.

 

[eduardkoopman]

It's over within a nanosecond.

yes. or on, within 0.1 second.
Eyes tell all, often within seconds.

Eyes Reveal Sexual Orientation

The size of your pupils may indicate what you're attracted to, new research finds.

www.livescience.com

Love or lust? The eyes tell all

Where someone's gaze falls could indicate almost instantly whether attraction is based on feelings of love or of lust.

www.futurity.org

Women’s self-rated attraction to male faces does not correspond with physiological arousal

There has been little work to determine whether attractiveness ratings of faces correspond to sexual or more general attraction. We tested whether a measure of women’s physiological arousal (pupil diameter change) was correlated with ratings of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How Beauty Determines Gaze! Facial Attractiveness and Gaze Duration in Images of Real World Scenes

We showed that the looking time spent on faces is a valid covariate of beauty by testing the relation between facial attractiveness and gaze behavior. We presented natural scenes which always pictured two people, encompassing a wide range of facial attractiveness. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Love is in the Gaze: An Eye-Tracking Study of Love and Sexual Desire

Reading other people’s eyes is a valuable skill during interpersonal interaction. Although a number of studies have investigated visual patterns in response to a broad variety of emotions, little is known about eye gaze when it comes to differentiating ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Pupillary Response as an Age-Specific Measure of Sexual Interest

In the visual processing of sexual content, pupil dilation is an indicator of arousal that has been linked to observers’ sexual orientation. This study investigated whether this measure can be extended to determine age-specific sexual interest. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[eduardkoopman]

Neurophysiological research has found that mere eye contact with an attractive person activates reward-related brain areas and prompts approach

The Many Subtle Ways Women Signal Romantic Interest

It's often women, not men, who initiate the first approach.

www.psychologytoday.com

"research shows that it is women who typically signal whether a man can make an approach in the first place — initiating the entire process. "
"They consistently noted that women signaled men who interested them, helping to ensure their approach. "

"What are the nonverbal behaviors that women engage in to signal their interest in a particular man? Here was a typical scenario: A woman walks into a bar with some of her friends. She engages in a long, steady scan around the room, ultimately fixing her gaze on a man she finds attractive. Gaze is important here, and a key component of signaling interest. The woman maintains an extended gaze at the man until he notices her, she smiles, then she breaks the gaze, returns the gaze again, smiles, and again breaks the gaze. A woman interested in a man then might primp or self-groom, fixing her hair a bit, adopting an open body posture (e.g., arms away from the body), or starting to orient her body to face him.


Once he approaches (as he almost always does) both orient their bodies toward each other, and the woman may engage in other nonverbal behaviors, such as palming (displaying an open wrist and palm), self-touching (such as a breast graze), or exposing her neck, perhaps by leaning back or canting her head."


"Trained observers have been able to predict to a startlingly high degree of accuracy the outcomes of interactions between women and men based on women’s nonverbal signaling behaviors alone (see Moore & Butler, 1989).
One of the best predictors of who would be approached was signaling frequency: High-signaling women of average attractiveness were much more likely to be approached than low-signaling, beautiful counterparts. In addition, the rate of signaling on the part of women was strongly correlated with how much interest they elicited in the men (Grammer, Honda, Juette & Schmitt, 1999).


Some men mistakenly approached a woman who had not signaled them, but they were typically shut down quickly. Researchers describe these individuals as having poor "decoding" abilities. Women have an equally impressive array of nonverbal shut-down behaviors, such as leaning away, crossing their arms over their chest, avoiding eye contact, and negative grooming behaviors, such as picking one’s teeth — the mirror-opposite of signaling behaviors (Moore, 1998). Unfortunately, men often were worse at picking up rejection signals"

Aka. Debunks a bit or totally:
* Men have to initate evrything;
* Women play hard to get;
* One can't predict/guestimate before one chats up a woman how it will go.

since this study showed: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadp...semi.1989.76.3-4.205/semi.1989.76.3-4.205.pdf

• of the 8 women that did send out invitation signals (40% pf the total group). these 8 women got approached by 17 men. While of the 12 women that send no or very limited invitation signals, only 2 women got approached (total 3 times). Confirming, most men wait for invitation signals.
• men approached a total of 17 times, and women a total of 6 times. Aka, men approach 3x as often as women.
• I found confusing. that "only"; although it's actually not a bad percentage. women sending invitations, accepted the male approach 11/17 times (about 66%) and rejected his approach 6/17 times ( about 34%).
  The question arising. Do women send invitation signals to a man, and then as he approaches she still rejects him 1/3 of the times; pr maybe the invitation signal was meant for another man/men; and the wrong dude mistook it as directed for/to him.

This study is also from same researcher and interesting on this subject matter:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ip_patterns_in_women_Context_and_consequences

This one also tried to see, differences in settings/locations.

*At a bar setting in 1 hours time: out of the 49 appraoches. 38 were done by men, and 11 were done by women (aka again: 77% by men; and 23% by women)
*At a snackbar setting: out of the 8 appraoches. 4 were done by men, and 4 were done by women (aka : 50% by men; and 50% by women).
*At a library setting: out of the 5 appraoches. 4 were done by men, and 1were done by women (aka : 75% by men; and 25% by women)
* at a womens conventiom, nothing happened.

So women do approach men. But much less. I assume if women don't apporach they do send invitation signals like: direct eye-gaze (either with or without time intervals) with (or not) extra blinking; smile, eyebrow lift; hair flick, neck display/tilt, etc..

 

[eduardkoopman]