Just over a week ago I tried my hand at an exceedingly short, no-background, no nonsense science post about a current topic in the literature. This post was met with positive reviews, so today I have returned to follow this protocol yet again and hopefully produce for you something that is both interesting (or at least a bit silly as today's article might be) and not a big time investment!

For this post let us turn to a topic that is completely outside my wheel house... metaphorical language and romance (neither or which biochemists are known for!) and discuss an article published in the journal Nature: Scientific Reports titled "Women prefer men who use metaphorical language when paying compliments in a romantic context"

"Your eyes are ocean waves rearranging the beach that is my heart"

---

What Were The Authors Studying?

Metaphorical language and romance. Metaphorical meaning implying something different then what you are saying. This was one weird ass study where the authors:

investigated 124 female students’ preference for compliments paid by males incorporating either literal or metaphoric (conventional/novel) language and targeting their appearance or possessions (house) throughout their menstrual cycle.

Certainly not what I usually find my self reading about after work! Hmm yes... whats this article... complements... hmm... menstrual cycle?... that's weird... okay I guess I will read it!

Basically the authors paired up pictures of guys with written statements then asked the women rate the attractiveness of the guys. The girls were told that the statements were written down by the person pictured and as was quoted above the guys either "talked" more about the girls appearance, or stuff they had, and then used varying degrees of language going from very literal to very metaphorical. The results they found may or may not surprise you (they actually surprised me!!)

Gals love the metaphors, prefer complements about themselves rather than their houses (duh)

The guys who talked about the girls appearances were statistically reported as more attractive then were guys who talked about possessions that the girls had (maybe not surprising, who doesn't prefer a complement directly at you, as opposed to someone complimenting your house). The bar graph above shows this where the *** indicates that the difference between those two topics of discussion was statistically significant (p <0.001). Secondly we can see that talking literally was much less attractive then even whipping out some cliche conventional metaphors. Here we see ** which means P > 0.01. Still pretty good.

Are You Wondering What A Conventional Metaphor Is In The Eyes Of These Scientists?

Metaphors about the girls appearance:

Your eyes are morning dew or Your smile is a naughty goblin is from the category of conventional metaphors on appearance.

Holy shit, the ladies were into guys telling them their smile is a naughty goblin?

Metaphors about possessions:

Your roof is a lover’s shoulder or Your garden is the sea of flowers belongs to the category of novel metaphors on possessions

Well I think I have some Idea why the girls preferred the personal metaphors more... who wants to hear about their roof? Ohh baby... tell me more about how my roof's shingles keep your heart safe.. so dreamy.

It Gets Better... what about the "literal" statements

Your lips are so sexy or Your door is very strong are literal expressions.

Now I am pretty sure I know why the literal statements didn't do so well... I don't think too many people recommend the pickup line " Your door is very strong."

"I just had to come over to introduce my self and tell you how strong your door is"

Some Conclusions From The Article

• Women prefer complements about themselves, over their possessions, and perceive men delivering those complements as more attractive.
• Men who use metaphors are more attractive then men who do not.
• Women IN relationships are more responsive to metaphorical language then single women.
• Women more likely to get pregnant (due to menstrual cycle progression) who are IN relationships find men complementing their appearence more attractive then those complementing possessions, this trend is less significant for those IN relationships and less likely to get pregnant.
• Single women LESS likely to get pregnant find men complementing their appearence more attractive then those complementing possessions. This trend was NOT there for single women who were more likely to get pregnant.
• The authors state that the use of metaphorical language (especially metaphors that the women are not familiar with) is an illustration of creativity, which is a desirable trait in a potential mate.

Are You A Single Guy? What Should You Take From This?

1. Looks like it's time to investigate what metaphors are, will make people perceive you as more attractive!
2. Try not to go out and hit on girls by complementing the strength of the doors of their houses/apartments.

That is one strong door

---

Sources

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40871

All Non Cited Images Are From Pixabay.com And Are Available Under Creative Commons Licenses

Any Gifs Are From Giphy.com and Are Also Available for Use Under Creative Commons Licences

---

As was the case with the previous brief post, I don't expect this article to make the splash that perhaps one of my more expansive weekend posts would. That said, I again will be distributing all SBD rewards in the form of Steem Power out equally to anyone who comments in this article (commenting more than once will not gain you more, it will be calculated per user, the fewer user comments the bigger your potential prize... the more comments, smaller your prize, everyone who comments will get something). This served as a nice way for me to reward my followers for their kindness and support, encourage discussion, and also help distribute steem power to newer and smaller users. It was a Win, Win, Win really... so let's do it again!

If you like this work, please consider giving me a follow: @justtryme90. I am here to help spread scientific knowledge and break down primary publications in such a way so as to cut through the jargon and provide you the main conclusions in short (well compared to the original articles at least!) and easy to read posts.