this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
417 points (92.8% liked)

News

23399 readers
4936 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

NewAtlas.com

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 119 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 46 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Reminds me of the fact that female ducks have really complex vaginas to try to avoid getting raped (and it doesn't work).

[–] TH1NKTHRICE@lemmy.ca 36 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It doesn’t prevent the rape, but they do have “cul-de-sac pouches en route, that could prevent fertilisation by capturing unwelcome sperm.” So they can choose whether or not they get fertilized. Which is at least some sort of a defense. Edit: link for quote

[–] Blackmist@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (2 children)

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Turns out he was thinking about ducks all along.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 11 months ago

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female ducky has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

FTFY

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Male ducks have corkscrew penises, and female ducks have corkscrew vaginas that go the opposite direction.

[–] spearz@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I will think of this comment the next time I’m opening a bottle of wine

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 104 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Before playing the game, the participants sniffed either female tears or a saline solution

Why would they not include male tears in the test?

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 63 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Because dad says boys don’t cry.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If male tears were the only control, then they run the risk of not finding any result. If you have 3 groups, you need a substantially larger sample size because you are running a less powerful statistical test.

Easier to start with the test that's most likely to work, and narrow it down from there if you succeed

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Having men sniff three different samples would still allow for saline as a control and wouldn't really make the data set that much more complicated.

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Is that an assumption or do you have experience with research like this?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Just college lab courses, but come on, it's pretty basic. The experiment merely tests a single variable by changing it while keeping everything else the same. There could have been dozens of different samples that men sniffed and it wouldn't really make the data complicated.

It would increase the length of the test, though, so dozens of samples would have been cumbersome. But just two? Literally just "see how the test group responds to sample 1, sample 2, and the control sample"? That's not complicated science. You probably did that in highschool lol

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 13 points 11 months ago

Testing multiple hypotheses this way still requires additional sample size because there is an increased error likelihood. From a statistical point of view, the most efficient test may be to stick to one variable like this.

[–] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I'm guessing they had to stay within their funding/budget and didn't want to reduce the sample size to increase the number of variables tested. MRIs are expensive

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ryumast3r@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They said they had a hard time finding men who would cry.

They also didn't test women sniffing women's tears, or men sniffing men or women sniffing men, or animal tears.

They left a lot of variables out of this one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolrami@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I thought the same thing, so I checked the real paper and they do end up explaining their reasoning.

As for social interactions among humans, future research will explore whether the new study’s findings apply to women. “When we looked for volunteers who could donate tears, we found mostly women, because for them it’s much more socially acceptable to cry,” Agron says.

I'm interested if the results are same for male tears and also if they're the same for women who smell either gender's tears.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 68 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As the wise man Borat once said:

"Do not fear me gypsy, all I want from you is your tears. Please give them to me or I will take them."

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 64 points 11 months ago (7 children)

What am I supposed to do with this information

[–] rosymind@leminal.space 37 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Uh, bottle the tears of women and throw them (the tears, not the women) on your male enemies?

[–] ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Throwing women would also work, blunt force trauma does not discriminate, it only mushes

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Start fucking dropping tears en masse in chem trails across the country, maybe that'll help. They already think we do it anyway.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is a fucking crazy statistic. What the shit.

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Now, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have conducted a series of experiments to investigate whether, like in rodents, sniffing human female tears reduces aggression in men and what functional effect it has on their brains.

“We knew that sniffing tears lowers testosterone and that lowering testosterone has a greater effect on aggression in men than in women, so we began by studying the impact of tears on men because this gave us higher chances of seeing an effect,” said Shani Agron, the lead and co-corresponding author of the study.

There’s limited evidence of human tear chemosignaling, but a previous study by some of the researchers involved in the current study found that women’s tears contain an odorless chemical signal that, when sniffed by males, reduced self-rated sexual arousal, physiological measures of arousal, and testosterone levels.

First, the researchers tested whether sniffing female tears reduced aggression in men. ‘Emotional’ tears were collected from six human donors aged 22 to 25 who watched sad film clips in isolation to induce crying. Twenty-five men were asked to play a two-person monetary game with an opponent they were told was human but was, in fact, a computer algorithm. The game was designed to elicit an aggressive response by the male toward their opponent, whom they were led to believe was cheating. When given the opportunity, the male could get revenge on their opponent by causing them to lose money with no personal gain to them.

Before playing the game, the participants sniffed either female tears or a saline solution – both are odorless – but were not told what they were sniffing. The researchers observed a 43.7% reduction in aggression following exposure to tears. To evaluate the robustness of their results, they ran a bootstrap analysis, a statistical procedure that resamples a single data set to create many simulated samples. The analysis found that the probability of obtaining this outcome by chance was 2.9%, suggesting that, like in rodents, chemosignals in human emotional tears have a primary aggression-blocking function.

[–] Fungah@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I have this thing where I tend to get a raging hard-on when a woman is crying near me, like if a my girlfriend is sad and I'm consoling her:: boijg.

I have no intellectual inte=st a woman crying, and generally don't feel "turned on", like, I'll generally just try and }pretend like it's not happening and have no urge to do anything about it. I've always kind of wondered "what the fuck" every time it happens since there's nothing I find remotely interesting sexually about it. Now though, I wonder.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Welcome to being an animal!

There's some crazy shit about our biology that affects how we think and act.

[–] Maddie@sh.itjust.works 48 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Must be why they prefer to make us suffer from a distance, sitting safely in Congress and the courts where they won't be exposed to our tears

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Can we do something to induce tears from women without causing any serious harm? Like tickling your feet with a feather duster or something? It just seems like the perfect thing to pour on Trump's head.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

There are entire websites for precisely that. I've heard.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Hallmark channel movies.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 43 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The journal isn't such a high prestige journal. It's actually a new one with open access, which doesn't attract best studies. Combined with the fact it's a psychological study, which is hard to replicate, and somehow the authors employed MRI, which doesn't really prove anything by itself, I think the authors knew it wouldn't be perceived as the best quality article.

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Your first statement is completely wrong.

PLOS Biology, the journal this article is published in, is founded in 2003, so hardly a new journal, and has an impact factor of ~9, which means that it IS a prestigious journal.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes I wonder how much I am really in control and how much it is biochemical weapons by living things around me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How... uhh... yea like how did someone even come up with this as a thing to uhhh... study? How the shit did someone's brain arrive at "let's get women's tears and uhhh present them to aggressive men." Like... what?

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

The only difference between a scientific experiment and screwing around is writing it down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Ok, liberal women of America. Here's your chance. Cry those liberal tears they all want you to cry and then throw the tear jars in their faces!

[–] Rosco@sh.itjust.works 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Chemical warfare at its finest.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It usually makes me horny, but yeah, I guess you could say that’s not aggressive.

[–] TurboDiesel@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Bloodhound Gang had it right; the lap dance really is better when the stripper's crying!

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It just gets me hard, not a good combo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theodewere@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

sniffing the tears of men just makes us more powerful

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 months ago

I could imagine, yes, that 44% of aggressive men would stop dead in their tracks if shouted "SMELL MY TEARS! SNIFF'EM, GEORGE!" mid fight

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago (4 children)

How does one even begin to have a hypothesis to even decide to test this? Why does one? Any answer feels like it would be morally questionable or involve a fetish of some kind.

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Well not to get dark. But if theres a domestic issue and man is abusing a woman to the point she is crying... And then the man calms down once she starts crying... Or maybe there's a really stressful situation and both partners are frustrated and the woman crys and the man some how bucks up - Maybe - I dunno. Weirder shit has been done. I'm not trying to say woman weak and do a cry. I dunno I'm not a tear doctor

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

As for why, imagine if they could isolate the compound that reduces aggression. It could be really useful for de-escalating violent situations.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

So eh...what is this going to lead too if the effects are worth the effort?

Like women farms, to harvest their tears that will be sold as medicine at a premium or something?

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who the hell designed this study? We're going to get a bunch of dudes super mad and then make them sniff tears of women.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›