
Are YOU a good flirt? Take the five-minute test to see how your skills stack up against your peers
Yet in the real world, some people struggle mightily when it comes to chatting up someone they fancy.
So, are you a good flirt?
Experts at Psychology Today have developed an easy five-minute test that reveals how your skills stack up against your peers.
'There are five flirting styles: physical, playful, polite, sincere, and traditional,' the team explained.
'Physical flirts use body language; playful flirts think it's a game; polite flirts are cautious; sincere flirts look for authentic connection; and traditional flirts rely on conventional gender roles.
'See where you fall on this flirting personality scale.'
If your flirting skills are rusty, panic not - a recent study revealed the best tactics for men and women.
Psychology Today has created two versions of the flirting test - one for men, and one for women.
Both tests feature 20 statements, with respondents asked to respond with how strongly they agree or disagree with them.
Sample statements from the test for men include 'When flirting, I typically make more eye contact than usual,' and 'I try to be humble when I'm flirting.'
Meanwhile, women can expect statements such as 'When flirting, I often toss my hair,' and 'I frequently touch the person I'm flirting with in some way, such as on the arm.'
At the end of the test, you'll be given a score out of 100 and told what this means.
For reference, the average score for women is 68, while the average score for men in 66.
If you scored 0-24, you're classed as 'not a flirty person.'
'You are likely not comfortable flirting and may not be aware when you're being flirted with,' Psychology Today explained.
The test features 20 statements, with respondents asked to respond with how strongly they agree or disagree with them
At the end of the test, you'll be given a score out of 100 and told what this means. For reference, the average score for women is 68, while the average score for men in 66
'While some people like the games and mystery of flirting, you'd prefer to speak plainly.'
A score of 25-39 is classed as a 'subtly flirtatious personality.'
'You are likely not comfortable flirting and may not be aware when you're being flirted with,' the experts explained.
'While some people like the games and mystery of flirting, you'd prefer to speak plainly.'
If you scored between 60 and 68, you have a 'moderately flirtatious personality', according to Psychology Today.
It explained: 'While you'd prefer to speak plainly sometimes, you're not afraid to turn on the charm.
'Others may not describe you as a flirt, but you are no stranger to the language of romance.
'If some people get lost in the games of leading on prospective lovers, you've struck a balance between being standoffish and a full-blown flirt.'
Taking this up a notch, you have a 'flirtatious personality' if you scored 69-86.
'You are an expert at laying on the charm and knowing what to say when,' Psychology Today said.
'Your romantic conversations can be very effective, but you may lead people on. You are an expert in the language of sexual mystery.'
Finally, you're a 'master flirt' if you scored between 87 and 100.
'You are a natural flirt,' the experts said.
'You have perfected the language of romance and are an expert at turning on the charm.
'You may love the game of flirting but you may also lead people on. You cultivate an air of sexual mystery.'
If you're disappointed with your score, don't panic - help is at hand.
In 2022, scientists from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology revealed the best flirting tactics for men and women.
For men, the key is being funny and generous, according to the team.
On the flip side, males prefer the opposite sex to appear sexually available and to laugh at their jokes.
'What's most effective depends on your gender and whether the purpose of the flirtation is a long-term or short-term relationship,' said Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, a professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Scientists led by Menelaos Apostolou from the University of Nicosia in Cyprus anonymously asked men on Reddit why they thought they were still single.
They analysed more than 6,700 comments and revealed the top 43 reasons why people are unable to find a partner.
Here is the complete list —
Poor looks (including baldness, and short stature)
Low self-esteem/confidence
Low effort
Not interested in relationships
Poor flirting skills
Introverted
Recently broke up
Bad experiences from previous relationships
No available women
Overweight
Different priorities
Shyness
Too picky
Anxiety
Lack of time
Social awkward
Enjoying being single
Depression
Poor character
Difficult to find women to match
Poor mental health
Lack of achievements
Stuck with one girl
Lack of social skills
Have not got over previous relationship
Don't know how to start a relationship
Lack of money
I do not trust women
Not picking up clues of interest
Sexual issue
Fear of relationships
'I am not interesting'
Fear of rejection
'I will not be a good partner'
Attracted to the wrong women
Homosexual
Given up
Is not worth the effort
Fear of commitment
Health — disability issue
Difficult to keep a relationship
Addictions
Other
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Digital resurrection: fascination and fear over the rise of the deathbot
Rod Stewart had a few surprise guests at a recent concert in Charlotte, North Carolina. His old friend Ozzy Osbourne, the lead singer of Black Sabbath who died last month, was apparently beamed in from some kind of rock heaven, where he was reunited with other departed stars including Michael Jackson, Tina Turner and Bob Marley. The AI-generated images divided Stewart's fans. Some denounced them as disrespectful and distasteful; others found the tribute beautiful. At about the same time, another AI controversy erupted when Jim Acosta, a former CNN White House correspondent, interviewed a digital recreation of Joaquin Oliver, who was killed at the age of 17 in a 2018 high school shooting in Florida. The avatar of the teenager was created by his parents, who said it was a blessing to hear his voice again. In June, Alexis Ohanian, a co-founder of Reddit, posted on X an animation of his late mother hugging him when he was a child, created from a photograph. 'Damn, I wasn't ready for how this would feel. We didn't have a camcorder, so there's no video of me with my mom … This is how she hugged me. I've rewatched it 50 times,' he wrote. These are just three illustrations of a growing phenomenon of 'digital resurrection' – creating images and bots of people who have died using photographs, videos, voice messages and other material. Companies offering to create 'griefbots' or 'deathbots' abound, and questions about exploitation, privacy and their impact on the grieving process are multiplying. 'It's vastly more technologically possible now because of large language models such as ChatGPT being easily available to the general public and very straightforward to use,' said Elaine Kasket, a London-based cyberpsychologist. 'And these large language models enable the creation of something that feels really plausible and realistic. When someone dies, if there are enough digital remains – texts, emails, voice notes, images – it's possible to create something that feels very recognisable.' Only a few years ago, the idea of 'virtual immortality' was futuristic, a techno-dream beyond the reach of ordinary people. Now, interactive avatars can be created relatively easily and cheaply, and demand looks set to grow. A poll commissioned by the Christian thinktank Theos and carried out by YouGov in 2023 found that 14% of respondents agreed they would find comfort in interacting with a digital version of a loved one who had died. The younger the respondent, the more likely they were to be open to the idea of a deathbot. The desire to preserve connections with dead loved ones is not new. In the past, bereaved people have retained precious personal items that help them feel close to the person they have lost. People pore over photos, watch videos, replay voice messages and listen to music that reminds them of the person. They often dream of the dead, or imagine they glimpse them across a room or in the street. A few even seek contact via seances. 'Human beings have been trying to relate to the dead ever since there were humans,' said Michael Cholbi, a professor of philosophy at the University of Edinburgh and the author of Grief: A Philosophical Guide. 'We have created monuments and memorials, preserved locks of hair, reread letters. Now the question is: does AI have anything to add?' Louise Richardson, of York university's philosophy department and a co-investigator on a four-year project on grief, said bereaved people often sought to 'maintain a sense of connection and closeness' with a dead loved one by visiting their grave, talking to them or touching items that belonged to them. 'Deathbots can serve the same purpose, but they can also be disruptive to the grieving process,' she said. 'They can get in the way of recognising and accommodating what has been lost, because you can interact with a deathbot in an ongoing way.' For example, people often wonder what a dead loved one might have done or said in a specific situation. 'Now it feels like you are able to ask them.' But deathbots may also provide 'sanitised, rosy' representations of a person, said Cholbi. For example, someone creating a deathbot of their late granny may choose not to include her casual racism or other unappealing aspects of her personality in material fed into an AI generator. There is also a risk of creating a dependency in the living person, said Nathan Mladin, the author of AI and the Afterlife, a Theos report published last year. 'Digital necromancy is a deceptive experience. You think you're talking to a person when you're actually talking to a machine. Bereaved people can become dependent on a bot, rather than accepting and healing.' The boom in digital clones of the dead began in the far east. In China, it can cost as little as 20 yuan (£2.20) to create a digital avatar of a loved one, but according to one estimate the market was worth 12bn yuan (£1.2bn) in 2022 and was expected to quadruple by 2025. More advanced, interactive avatars that move and converse with a client can cost thousands of pounds. Fu Shou Yuan International Group, a major funeral operator, has said it is 'possible for the dead to 'come back to life' in the virtual world'. According to the China Funeral Association, the cost is about 50,000 yuan per deceased person. The exploitation of grief for private profit is a risk, according to Cholbi, although he pointed to a long history of mis-selling and upselling in the funeral business. Kasket said another pitfall was privacy and rights to digital remains. 'A person who's dead has no opportunity to consent, no right of reply and no control.' The fraudulent use of digital material to create convincing avatars for financial gain was another concern, she added. Some people have already begun stipulating in their wills that they do not want their digital material to be used after their death. Interactive avatars are not just for the dead. Abba Voyage, a show that features digital versions of the four members of the Swedish pop group performing in their heyday, has been a runaway success, making about £1.6m each week. Audiences thrill – and sing along – to the exhilarating experience while the band's members, now aged between 75 and 80, put their feet up at home. More soberly, the UK's National Holocaust Centre and Museum launched a project in 2016 to capture the voices and images of Holocaust survivors to create interactive avatars capable of answering questions about their experiences in the Nazi death camps long into the future. According to Cholbi, there is an element of 'AI hype' around deathbots. 'I don't doubt that some people are interested in this, and I think it could have some interesting therapeutic applications. It could be something that people haul out periodically – I can imagine they bring out the posthumous avatar of a deceased relative at Christmas dinner or on their birthday. 'But I doubt that people will try to sustain their relationships with the dead through this technology for very long. At some point, I think most of us reconcile ourselves with the fact of death, the fact that the person is dead. 'This isn't to say that some people might really dive into this, but it does seem to be a case where maybe the prospects are not as promising as some of the commercial investors might hope.' For Mladin, the deathbot industry raises profound questions for ethicists and theologians. The interest in digital resurrection may be a consequence of 'traditional religious belief fading, but those deeper longings for transcendence, for life after death, for the permanence of love are redirected towards technological solutions,' he said. 'This is an expression of peak modernity, a belief that technology will conquer death and will give us life everlasting. It's symptomatic of the kind of culture we inhabit now.' Kasket said: 'There's no question in my mind that some people create these kinds of phenomena and utilise them in ways that they find helpful. But what I'm concerned about is the way various services selling these kinds of things are pathologising grief. 'If we lose the ability to cope with grief, or convince ourselves that we're unable to deal with it, we are rendered truly psychologically brittle. It is not a pathology or a disease or a problem for technology to solve. Grief and loss are part of normal human experience.'


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
TV tonight: the wife of a serial killer speaks out in a grim documentary
9pm, Sky Crime Between April 1984 and August 1985, Richard Ramirez murdered at least 15 people in California. He died in 2013 while awaiting execution on San Quentin's death row. In this two-parter, interviews with Ramirez's wife (Doreen Lioy), friends, female admirers and family members, along with those with his victims' family members, are aired for the first time. It also examines 80s fan culture, and why he was celebrated by some like a rock star. Hollie Richardson 6.20pm, BBC Two 'One, two, three. One, two, three.' It's a celebration of waltzes in this special lineup to mark 200 years since the birth of 'waltz king' Johann Strauss II. The programme starts with his Die Fledermaus overture and ends with By the Beautiful Blue Danube, performed by the BBC Concert Orchestra. HR 7.15pm, BBC One More remarkable wildlife parenting lessons from David Attenborough, this time in the oceans. He starts on a reef with Banggai cardinal fish – the mother lays eggs in the father's mouth then he protects them for four weeks, unable to eat anything. And after they hatch, they don't leave his mouth until it's safe. HR 8pm, ITV1 Adrian Dunbar's eponymous retired detective returns for a second series. In the opener, a violent jewellery heist escalates into murder when a key witness is killed. Ridley and his former protege, DI Carol Farman (Bronagh Waugh), mount an undercover sting to stop the criminal mastermind behind the gang, before more lives are snuffed out. Ali Catterall 8pm, Channel 4 One for real Titanic heads, this two-part documentary series focuses not on the world's most infamous maritime disaster, but on subsequent efforts to find its wreck. Texas oil magnate Jack Grimm funded a cutting-edge mission in the 80s – but why was he so insistent on bringing a monkey with him? Hannah J Davies 9.15pm, BBC One Dorrigo is having a very bad week in the penultimate episode of the torrid Australian miniseries. His illicit affair with Amy is rudely interrupted when his call-up papers arrive – and before long he's shipped off to a Japanese PoW camp to face some brutal realities, leaving him haunted by loss in every sense. AC Jimmy's Hall, 1.10am, Film4 Eight years after his 2006 film The Wind That Shakes the Barley delved into the 1920s Irish war of independence and civil war, Ken Loach returned to the country to assess its uneasy peace circa 1932. In an absorbing, fact-based story, communist Jimmy (Barry Ward) returns from the US to his County Leitrim home to reopen a community hall, which exposes the continuing rift between the working class and 'the masters and the pastors' who dictate their lives and block democratic change. Simon Wardell Community Shield Football: Crystal Palace v Liverpool, 2pm, TNT Sports 1 At Wembley Stadium.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Digital resurrection: fascination and fear over the rise of the deathbot
Rod Stewart had a few surprise guests at a recent concert in Charlotte, North Carolina. His old friend Ozzy Osbourne, the lead singer of Black Sabbath who died last month, was apparently beamed in from some kind of rock heaven, where he was reunited with other departed stars including Michael Jackson, Tina Turner and Bob Marley. The AI-generated images divided Stewart's fans. Some denounced them as disrespectful and distasteful; others found the tribute beautiful. At about the same time, another AI controversy erupted when Jim Acosta, a former CNN White House correspondent, interviewed a digital recreation of Joaquin Oliver, who was killed at the age of 17 in a 2018 high school shooting in Florida. The avatar of the teenager was created by his parents, who said it was a blessing to hear his voice again. In June, Alexis Ohanian, a co-founder of Reddit, posted on X an animation of his late mother hugging him when he was a child, created from a photograph. 'Damn, I wasn't ready for how this would feel. We didn't have a camcorder, so there's no video of me with my mom … This is how she hugged me. I've rewatched it 50 times,' he wrote. These are just three illustrations of a growing phenomenon of 'digital resurrection' – creating images and bots of people who have died using photographs, videos, voice messages and other material. Companies offering to create 'griefbots' or 'deathbots' abound, and questions about exploitation, privacy and their impact on the grieving process are multiplying. 'It's vastly more technologically possible now because of large language models such as ChatGPT being easily available to the general public and very straightforward to use,' said Elaine Kasket, a London-based cyberpsychologist. 'And these large language models enable the creation of something that feels really plausible and realistic. When someone dies, if there are enough digital remains – texts, emails, voice notes, images – it's possible to create something that feels very recognisable.' Only a few years ago, the idea of 'virtual immortality' was futuristic, a techno-dream beyond the reach of ordinary people. Now, interactive avatars can be created relatively easily and cheaply, and demand looks set to grow. A poll commissioned by the Christian thinktank Theos and carried out by YouGov in 2023 found that 14% of respondents agreed they would find comfort in interacting with a digital version of a loved one who had died. The younger the respondent, the more likely they were to be open to the idea of a deathbot. The desire to preserve connections with dead loved ones is not new. In the past, bereaved people have retained precious personal items that help them feel close to the person they have lost. People pore over photos, watch videos, replay voice messages and listen to music that reminds them of the person. They often dream of the dead, or imagine they glimpse them across a room or in the street. A few even seek contact via seances. 'Human beings have been trying to relate to the dead ever since there were humans,' said Michael Cholbi, a professor of philosophy at the University of Edinburgh and the author of Grief: A Philosophical Guide. 'We have created monuments and memorials, preserved locks of hair, reread letters. Now the question is: does AI have anything to add?' Louise Richardson, of York university's philosophy department and a co-investigator on a four-year project on grief, said bereaved people often sought to 'maintain a sense of connection and closeness' with a dead loved one by visiting their grave, talking to them or touching items that belonged to them. 'Deathbots can serve the same purpose, but they can also be disruptive to the grieving process,' she said. 'They can get in the way of recognising and accommodating what has been lost, because you can interact with a deathbot in an ongoing way.' For example, people often wonder what a dead loved one might have done or said in a specific situation. 'Now it feels like you are able to ask them.' But deathbots may also provide 'sanitised, rosy' representations of a person, said Cholbi. For example, someone creating a deathbot of their late granny may choose not to include her casual racism or other unappealing aspects of her personality in material fed into an AI generator. There is also a risk of creating a dependency in the living person, said Nathan Mladin, the author of AI and the Afterlife, a Theos report published last year. 'Digital necromancy is a deceptive experience. You think you're talking to a person when you're actually talking to a machine. Bereaved people can become dependent on a bot, rather than accepting and healing.' The boom in digital clones of the dead began in the far east. In China, it can cost as little as 20 yuan (£2.20) to create a digital avatar of a loved one, but according to one estimate the market was worth 12bn yuan (£1.2bn) in 2022 and was expected to quadruple by 2025. More advanced, interactive avatars that move and converse with a client can cost thousands of pounds. Fu Shou Yuan International Group, a major funeral operator, has said it is 'possible for the dead to 'come back to life' in the virtual world'. According to the China Funeral Association, the cost is about 50,000 yuan per deceased person. The exploitation of grief for private profit is a risk, according to Cholbi, although he pointed to a long history of mis-selling and upselling in the funeral business. Kasket said another pitfall was privacy and rights to digital remains. 'A person who's dead has no opportunity to consent, no right of reply and no control.' The fraudulent use of digital material to create convincing avatars for financial gain was another concern, she added. Some people have already begun stipulating in their wills that they do not want their digital material to be used after their death. Interactive avatars are not just for the dead. Abba Voyage, a show that features digital versions of the four members of the Swedish pop group performing in their heyday, has been a runaway success, making about £1.6m each week. Audiences thrill – and sing along – to the exhilarating experience while the band's members, now aged between 75 and 80, put their feet up at home. More soberly, the UK's National Holocaust Centre and Museum launched a project in 2016 to capture the voices and images of Holocaust survivors to create interactive avatars capable of answering questions about their experiences in the Nazi death camps long into the future. According to Cholbi, there is an element of 'AI hype' around deathbots. 'I don't doubt that some people are interested in this, and I think it could have some interesting therapeutic applications. It could be something that people haul out periodically – I can imagine they bring out the posthumous avatar of a deceased relative at Christmas dinner or on their birthday. 'But I doubt that people will try to sustain their relationships with the dead through this technology for very long. At some point, I think most of us reconcile ourselves with the fact of death, the fact that the person is dead. 'This isn't to say that some people might really dive into this, but it does seem to be a case where maybe the prospects are not as promising as some of the commercial investors might hope.' For Mladin, the deathbot industry raises profound questions for ethicists and theologians. The interest in digital resurrection may be a consequence of 'traditional religious belief fading, but those deeper longings for transcendence, for life after death, for the permanence of love are redirected towards technological solutions,' he said. 'This is an expression of peak modernity, a belief that technology will conquer death and will give us life everlasting. It's symptomatic of the kind of culture we inhabit now.' Kasket said: 'There's no question in my mind that some people create these kinds of phenomena and utilise them in ways that they find helpful. But what I'm concerned about is the way various services selling these kinds of things are pathologising grief. 'If we lose the ability to cope with grief, or convince ourselves that we're unable to deal with it, we are rendered truly psychologically brittle. It is not a pathology or a disease or a problem for technology to solve. Grief and loss are part of normal human experience.'