Recently we’ve heard some science news that we weren’t quite sure what to do with. While these aren’t medgadgets, these scientific breakthroughs could easily lead to several new devices.
First up was the revelation, last week, that the desirability of backsides could be mathematically described:
The magical figures are (S+C) x (B+F)/T = V. Though the equation looks rather complicated, it is, according to the scientist, simple… It assesses shape, bounce, firmness and symmetry – all factors that add up to the bottom line.
S is the overall shape or droopiness of the bottom, C represents how spherical the buttocks are, B measures muscular wobble or bounce, while F records the firmness.
V is the hip to waist ratio, or symmetry of the bottom, and T measures the skin texture and presence of cellulite.
Then we heard this breakthrough: Men’s decision-making becomes less rational when they catch sight of a beautiful woman. What’s more, the effect is dependent on testosterone levels they experienced during development:
Men about to play a financial game were shown images of sexy women or lingerie… The men’s performance in the tests showed those who had been exposed to the “sexual cues” were more likely to accept an unfair offer than those who were not.
The men’s testosterone levels were also tested – by comparing the length of the men’s index finger compared to their ring finger.
If the ring finger is longest, it indicates a high testosterone level.
The researchers found that men in the study who had the highest levels performed worst in the test, and suggest that is because they are particularly sensitive to sexual images.
Dr Siegfried DeWitte, one of the researchers who worked on the study, said: “We like to think we are all rational beings, but our research suggests … that people with high testosterone levels are very vulnerable to sexual cues…
…The researchers are conducting similar tests with women. But so far, they have failed to find a visual stimulus which will affect their behaviour.”
Remember when scientists and the media used to report things that weren’t obvious? Oh well. At least we were tickled by these finger-length presumptions, which are apparently well-validated and becoming increasingly common in social studies and press reports.
Perhaps someday soon these two UK researchers will get together and find a formula to describe attraction and distractibility, based solely on finger length ratios. They can use this paper as a launching point.
