Check out these latest by: Joyce Keller
These are the hottest places we came about during our nights out....
Try a few martinis and a couple of nights here!
AccessVegas.com Showroom - The Orleans Hotel Las Vegas, NV Saturday 4/25/2015
Le Rêve The Dream Date: Monday 4/27/2015 5 Day(s) Time: 9:30 pm - 11:00 pm Jobbing.com Kenny Chesney with Jake
Owen and Chas... Tickets Now Available
Wednesday, April 29, 2015 @ Jobing.com Arena
April 26, 2015 Sunday 7:30 PM
Talking Stick Resort
9800 E Indian Bend road Scottsdale, Arizona 85250
Ask: The Counterintuitive Online Formula to Discover Exactly What Your Customers Want to Buy...Create a Mass of Raving Fans...and Take Any Business to the Next Level by Ryan Levesque
"What Ryan Levesque has done is give you the art and the science behind figuring out EXACTLY what your prospects want... and then delivering it via an incredibly effective sales process Tsunami by Saddleback Educational Publishing Staff Themes: Hi-Lo, Family life, adventure, travel. These traditional reads are brimming with spirited characters and positive values--but with a little extra excitement and bite, so hold on to your hats! Written expressly for the middle grade struggling reader, the series does not contain strong language, edgy themes, or dysfunctional families. Creature by Saddleback
Educational Publishing Themes: Hi-Lo, Family life, adventure, travel. These traditional reads are brimming with spirited characters and positive values--but with a little extra excitement and bite, so hold on to your hats! Written expressly for the middle grade struggling reader, the series does not contain strong language, edgy themes, or dysfunctional families
Every day, millions of single adults, worldwide, visit an online dating site. Many are lucky, finding life-long love or at least some exciting escapades. Others are not so lucky. The industry—eHarmony, Match, OkCupid, and a thousand other online dating sites—wants singles and the general public to believe that seeking a partner through their site is not just an alternative way to traditional venues for finding a partner, but a superior way. Is it?
With our colleagues Paul Eastwick, Benjamin Karney, and Harry Reis, we recently published a book-length article in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest that examines this question and evaluates online dating from a scientific perspective. One of our conclusions is that the advent and popularity of online dating are terrific developments for singles, especially insofar as they allow singles to meet potential partners they otherwise wouldn’t have met. We also conclude, however, that online dating is not better than conventional offline dating in most respects, and that it is worse is some respects.
Beginning with online dating’s strengths: As the stigma of dating online has diminished over the past 15 years, increasing numbers of singles have met romantic partners online. Indeed, in the U.S., about 1 in 5 new relationships begins online. Of course, many of the people in these relationships would have met somebody offline, but some would still be single and searching. Indeed, the people who are most likely to benefit from online dating are precisely those who would find it difficult to meet others through more conventional methods, such as at work, through a hobby, or through a friend.
For example, online dating is especially helpful for people who have recently moved to a new city and lack an established friendship network, who possess a minority sexual orientation, or who are sufficiently committed to other activities, such as work or childrearing, that they can’t find the time to attend events with other singles.
It’s these strengths that make the online dating industry’s weaknesses so disappointing. We’ll focus on two of the major weaknesses here: the overdependence on profile browsing and the overheated emphasis on “matching algorithms.
Ever since Match.com launched in 1995, the industry has been built around profile browsing. Singles browse profiles when considering whether to join a given site, when considering whom to contact on the site, when turning back to the site after a bad date, and so forth. Always, always, it’s the profile.
What’s the problem with that, you might ask? Sure, profile browsing is imperfect, but can’t singles get a pretty good sense of whether they’d be compatible with a potential partner based on that person’s profile? The answer is simple: No, they cannot.
A series of studies spearheaded by our co-author Paul Eastwick has shown that people lack insight regarding which characteristics in a potential partner will inspire or undermine their attraction to him or her (see here, here, and here ). As such, singles think they’re making sensible decisions about who’s compatible with them when they’re browsing profiles, but they can’t get an accurate sense of their romantic compatibility until they’ve met the person face-to-face (or perhaps via webcam; the jury is still out on richer forms of computer-mediated communication). Consequently, it’s unlikely that singles will make better decisions if they browse profiles for 20 hours rather than 20 minutes.
The straightforward solution to this problem is for online dating sites to provide singles with the profiles of only a handful of potential partners rather than the hundreds or thousands of profiles that many sites provide. But how should dating sites limit the pool?
Here we arrive at the second major weakness of online dating: the available evidence suggests that the mathematical algorithms at matching sites are negligibly better than matching people at random (within basic demographic constraints, such as age, gender, and education). Ever since eHarmony.com, the first algorithm-based matching site, launched in 2000, sites such as Chemistry.com, PerfectMatch.com, GenePartner.com, and FindYourFaceMate.com have claimed that they have developed a sophisticated matching algorithm that can find singles a uniquely compatible mate.
These claims are not supported by any credible evidence. In our article, we extensively reviewed the procedures such sites use to build their algorithms, the (meager and unconvincing) evidence they have presented in support of their algorithm’s accuracy, and whether the principles underlying the algorithms are sensible. To be sure, the exact details of the algorithm cannot be evaluated because the dating sites have not yet allowed their claims to be vetted by the scientific community (eHarmony, for example, likes to talk about its “secret sauce”), but much information relevant to the algorithms is in the public domain, even if the algorithms themselves are not.
These curvaceous gals would have had an evolutionary advantage, in that they appeared able to bear multiple children easily, the researchers said.
"This spinal structure would have enabled pregnant women to balance their weight over the hips," said study leader David Lewis, a UT Austin alumnus and now a psychologist at Bilkent University in Turkey.
"These women would have been more effective at foraging during pregnancy and less likely to suffer spinal injuries," he said in a UT Austin news release. "In turn, men who preferred these women would have had mates who were better able to provide for fetus and offspring, and who would have been able to carry out multiple pregnancies without injury."
This preference evolved over thousands of years and is likely to persist for a long time, the researchers noted.
Their conclusions came from a two-part study in which 100 men were asked to look at images of women and rate their attractiveness. Women with a 45.5-degree in the lower back were rated as most appealing. The researchers next determined from a group of 200 men that guys preferred this degree of lower back curvature regardless of a woman's butt size
