If you get ‘the ick' often, you probably possess this negative personality trait — study says
If you're someone who regularly gets the ick from someone you're dating — you might be a narcissist.
The term that refers to the feeling of disgust from something a romantic partner does, says or even wears has gone viral on social media in recent years.
And according to a study published in Personality and Individual Differences, those who experience this feeling often might possess personality traits that indicate narcissism.
For the study, researchers analyzed 74 men and 51 women, ranging in age from 24 to 72. They asked the participants if they knew what getting the ick meant and if they've ever experienced it.
The study then measured the 'likelihood of experiencing the ick in response to specific behaviors, completed personality assessments and answered questions about their dating experiences,' according to Psy Post.
Regarding the personality assessments participants took part in, those who showed narcsictic behavior were more likely to negatively react to a person's imperfections — especially if it contracticed what they want in a potential romantic partner.
The results of the study also indicated that women experience the ick more often compared to men — which isn't surprising considering adult females are 'more sensitive to grossness than males,' according to a scientific dive by NatGeo.
The results of the study indicated that women experience the ick more often compared to men.
Getty Images/iStockphoto
'Anything we are averse to, that we want to avoid, or that we shrink back from — including the ick — is controlled by this area of the brain [called the habenula],' Dr. Kyra Bobinet, a California behavioral neuroscientist and author of 'Unstoppable Brain,' told Fox News Digital.
'This area of your brain is scouting for anything that's not going to work out for you,' she said. 'It has a negativity bias.'
As a result, people will either immediately (26 %) or eventually (42%) end things with someone over an ick that turned them off, according to the Personality and Individual Differences study.
'This area of your brain is scouting for anything that's not going to work out for you,' said Dr. Kyra Bobinet.
Getty Images/iStockphoto
While many daters are quick to get rid of a potential suitor because of their quirks, study author Eliana Saunders said that people should take icks with a grain of salt and maybe think twice before completley writing off someone.
'While this feeling of disgust could be a valid marker of mate incompatibility, it could also be a symptom of high sensitivity to disgust, narcissism, other-oriented perfectionism, etc.'
'Before dumping a partner because their feet dangle when they sit in a chair, we should think critically about why we're feeling 'icked' out. Ask yourself: Is this something I truly can't deal with, or am I being overly critical? Is this 'ick' their fault, or is it mine?''
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Virginia's federal lawmakers want to make childbirth free
(Photo by Getty Images) Childbirth can cost thousands of dollars, with certain conditions also posing extra costs for parents-to-be who have private health insurance. New legislation proposed by Virginia's Capitol Hill lawmakers and their colleagues could prevent cost-sharing for prenatal, childbirth, neonatal, perinatal and postpartum care, keeping families from being saddled with big bills after birth. U.S. Rep. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, remembers the stress and fear of dealing with placenta previa, a life-threatening maternal condition, when carrying her second child, Samantha. Her placenta wasn't in the right position, placing her and her fetus at risk and spurring a cesarean section birth and neonatal intensive care unit stay for the baby once it was born. She also remembers the extra medical costs that were associated with managing the condition to keep both herself and her daughter alive. The condition is rare but tricky if it develops later in pregnancy as McClellan's did, and exemplifies how costly maternal care can be, especially if there are complications or emergencies. Bipartisan and bicameral legislation she helped create would provide birth-related benefits similar to the ones offered by Medicaid to Americans who are covered by private health insurance. Reducing out-of-pocket costs like copays can help more families stay on top of monitoring conditions to prevent crises and be better able to respond when they do arise, McClellan said. 'The idea here is this will help get more people in for prenatal and preventative care so that hopefully you will have fewer emergencies,' McClellan explained. U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, said if the measure becomes law, it would represent a big shift in maternal health care for the country. 'Childbirth should be free in the United States, and that's a big idea,' Kaine said , who is a co-patron of the Senate version of the bill. That's already the case in some countries, while in others like Finland, France and Great Britain, costs are curbed for expecting families and efforts to reduce maternal and infant mortality rates have proven successful. Applying the concept to America is something that Vice President J.D. Vance (who also serves as president of the Senate) has previously been on board with, Kaine said. Last year, Kaine workshopped the idea with then-Sen. Vance before he was tapped to be President Donald Trump's running mate. Kaine then connected with Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Mississippi, Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, to introduce the bill this year. 'Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt,' Hyde-Smith said in a statement announcing the legislation. 'By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood.' The House and Senate versions of the bill can unify the 'left and the right, the 'pro-choice' and the 'pro-life,'' Kaine said, adding that the measures could fare well in the nation's legislative branch and end up on Trump's desk. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements
(Stock photo via Getty Images) If you know anyone who works in the service industry, you should be very familiar with the problem of hour volatility. When work hours aren't set, worker schedules can vary greatly from week to week and from month to month. This can make a steady stream of income difficult to achieve for service workers. It can also affect eligibility for public benefits. The Ohio Department of Medicaid is currently working with the federal government to implement work requirements for Ohio's 'Medicaid expansion' population–the 760,000 Ohio residents who receive health insurance through the Kasich Administration-era expansion of Medicaid. These work requirements would apply to households at 138% of the federal poverty level and below. Low-income households tend to be headed by people who work in the service industry. My colleague Michael Hartnett estimates that cooks and waiters are the second- and fifth-most common jobs among people in the bottom 20% of income in Ohio. A new analysis by Brookings Institution researchers looks at how the volatility of hours for service workers will impact eligibility for benefits like Medicaid and SNAP. One of the things they look at is the mental model that undergirds the current work requirement system. In 1976, only 26% of low-income employees worked in the service sector. By 2024, that number had risen to 38%. This means that 50 years ago, the contours of an unsteady sector had less of an impact on month-to-month hours than it does today. These researchers used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to estimate that 64% of service workers worked less than 80 hours in at least one month in 2022. A third (34%) of workers who work an average of 80 hours a month had at least one month that year that they worked less than 80 hours. That means that a monthly work requirement of 80 hours would have disqualified a third of service workers at some point during 2022 from benefits like Medicaid or SNAP. The researchers also find these volatile work hours are largely outside of the control of the workers. According to their analysis, three-quarters of service workers with irregular schedules say their schedules are at the request of their employers, not their own. This is also a high rate among non-service workers, where over 3 in 5 low-income workers with irregular schedules are conforming to employer requirements. So what does this mean? It means tens of thousands of low-income workers in Ohio could lose their health insurance because of work hour volatility out of their control. The labor market has changed a lot over the past fifty years, especially for low-income workers. This has led to less certainty about hours, which makes thresholds like monthly hours not as effective for gauging whether people are participating in the labor force. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about work requirements. The fact that working people will lose health insurance because lack of control over work hours is just another one to add to the list. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone
Opinion writer Jay Bookman argues that Trump administration officials are being dishonest when they say cuts to Medicaid won't lead to people losing benefits. the_burtons/Getty Images After repeatedly promising on the campaign trail that he would never cut Medicaid benefits, Donald Trump is pushing a 'big, beautiful' spending bill that would slash Medicaid and other health care spending by $800 billion over the next decade. And if you still believe the administration, they're going to make those cuts without anyone losing benefits. As White House official Russell Vought put in last week, 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense. No one will lose coverage as a result.' If your BS detector isn't ringing by now, you need to take it in for repair. Confronted with the absurdity of claiming that you can cut $800 billion without canceling health care coverage, Trump officials retreat to their fallback position. Yes, they admit, they'll be cutting benefits, but only for those who don't deserve it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' another White House official told Politico. 'So no one is getting cut.' Once again, though, your BS detector ought to be blaring. Under existing federal law, undocumented immigrants are already barred from getting Medicaid. They're promising to cut benefits to people who are already not getting those benefits. So no savings there. And the truth is, most of the able-bodied men who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to worry about jumping through the hoops needed to get Medicaid health-care coverage. Such men do exist, no doubt, but in numbers far too small to generate $800 billion in savings. To get savings on that scale, you have to look elsewhere. And the truth is that millions of lower-income Americans, many of them working people, would be stripped of their health insurance if the bill becomes law. In Georgia alone, the projections are that as many as 200,000 people would lose coverage. And because Medicaid plays a larger health care role in rural communities, where the population is older and private sector jobs less likely to offer health insurance, the impact would be greater in those areas, putting additional financial strain on rural hospitals and health-care providers already struggling to stay open. (If Congress also refuses to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act later this year, as seems likely, the total number of Georgians who lose health insurance could top 700,000.) And no, the money saved by such measures would not be used to reduce the nation's deficit. It would instead be used to finance tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which would benefit the wealthy. A big chunk of the projected savings, an estimated $280 billion, would come from instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The model for that nationwide requirement is supposedly the Pathways program instituted here in Georgia in 2020 by Gov. Brian Kemp. By most measures, however, that program has proved a massive disappointment. According to the original projections by the Kemp administration, some 25,000 low-wage Georgians should have been enrolled in Medicaid through the program in its first year of operation. The actual number was 4,300. By the end of its second year of operation, which comes next month, total enrollment was projected to be almost 50,000. As of April 25, it was 7,400, according to reporting by ProPublica and The Current. The monthly reporting requirements, record-keeping and bureaucratic red tape proved so discouraging that many Georgia applicants gave up in frustration, choosing instead to take the risk that they would not need coverage. If it seems odd that such a program would be embraced as a model by the GOP, it might be a matter of perspective. It might be that your idea of a failure is somebody else's idea of a success, because the two of you have different goals in mind. In this case, if your goal is to provide at least a bare-bones health insurance plan to lower-income Americans, then Georgia's Pathways program has failed. However, if your goal is to discourage and obstruct as many Americans as possible from participating in that coverage, because you want to generate $800 billion in savings so the rich can get more tax cuts, then it starts to look a whole lot better. Those yachts aren't going to buy themselves. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
