Are you saying that making a bad decision which still has a net positive effect is a sign that you're likely to make a bad decision with overall negative effect? I'm sorry. That's impossible to accept.
A bad decision is a sign of bad decision making ability. You see a brand new iPhone and you want it, but you've not thought about your total financial situation or other phones, but you buy it anyway. That's a bad decision, even if, say, two months later, the monthly plan for an iPhone is cut in half making the result of the decision good after the fact.
Mmmm? No? Picking ice-cream flavor is not the same as picking a place to live in. The importance of both isn't even close. Again, decision which still has a net positive effect can not be compared with a decision with negative consequences.
So, how do 'cute' guys affect women's judgment? Is the whole thing a wash.
Without having a competing link or anything, usually what a study like this means is that when you're reminded of a benefit of work/winning/whatever, you become more impatient. Essentially, it's easier to plan "I will take the $2.00 a day for life, because that will be more" when you're not thinking "Shiiiit I really want GTA 4, maybe I should just take $80 now..."
The use of bikini-clad ladies is really tangential to the general phenomenon.
How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?
That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.
Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.
Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.
Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.
I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.
Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.
Hard to say.
Yea, I mean this was haggling, right? The scientists didn't go "So, you want $10 or $20?" and have the dudes jump all over the $10, right? When it comes to haggling, most people stop at what seems like a fair deal and I getting paid to look at some titties seems like a fair deal to me.
People who watch a movie they enjoy are also less likely to demand a refund.
Read the study:
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
Maybe I'm just missing it, but that seems to be saying that they both chose the larger delayed sum, but the guys that looked at titties didn't push for quite as much of an increase. If they had just grabbed the 15 euros and hauled then I would agree with your assessment.
Read the study:
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
Uuuh, that's not what the paragraph you quote says.
Edit:
If they had just grabbed the 15 euros and hauled then I would agree with your assessment.
I'd always take a smaller amount now rather than more money later. Especially in that range.(no titties necessary...)
How do they know the men who saw the more sexually stimulating imagery weren't just in better moods and therefore less determined to get more money?
That doesn't matter, because in economic terms, the decision to make less money is a worse decision.
Even in non-monetary terms, the other study showed that sexual arousal changes man's perceptions of what he considers attractive dramatically. The differences in results are well beyond any reasonable margin of error.
Er, your "worse decision" fails to account for externalities. Being generous is only the worse decision in a strictly mathematical sense.
Edit: And it still fails to account for whether this had to do with solely sexual arousal or just a better mood.
I fail to see how "better mood" translates to "being less determined to get more money." This is IRT to your original quote.
Even a non-greedy rational person will choose to get more money over less money. The only thing I can think of - maybe this is what you're hinting at - that might convolute the reasoning of the conclusion is that of the diminishing marginal value of money, i.e. an additional ten dollars will mean less to a rich person than to a poor person.
Hard to say.
Yea, I mean this was haggling, right? The scientists didn't go "So, you want $10 or $20?" and have the dudes jump all over the $10, right? When it comes to haggling, most people stop at what seems like a fair deal and I getting paid to look at some titties seems like a fair deal to me.
People who watch a movie they enjoy are also less likely to demand a refund.
Read the study:
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
That doesn't say they took the extra 5 euros right away. In fact based on the first line it implies they bargained for the extra 5 to come a month later. So even the sexy images dudes still bargained for more money than the initial 15, they just didn't bargain as hard.
So either it's poor wording in describing the test, or the conclusion doesn't seem to follow.
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
This is addressed earlier when people mentioned, that a person who is content, or happy, is less likely to be greedy. Also, you could run the same test, like someone mentioned earlier, comparing eating cookies and watching sports, to doing math problems, and you'd probably get similar results.
So, how do 'cute' guys affect women's judgment? Is the whole thing a wash.
Without having a competing link or anything, usually what a study like this means is that when you're reminded of a benefit of work/winning/whatever, you become more impatient. Essentially, it's easier to plan "I will take the $2.00 a day for life, because that will be more" when you're not thinking "Shiiiit I really want GTA 4, maybe I should just take $80 now..."
The use of bikini-clad ladies is really tangential to the general phenomenon.
Yes, indeedy. And I do recall reading about pretty much the same thing done before, but without the bikinis. My thoughts were also duuuh. I'd take research money to 'study' women in bikinis in no time flat, so I don't blame them.
And one day I'll convince someone to give me money to study the effects of girl-on-girl-action on men. For science!
Are you saying that making a bad decision which still has a net positive effect is a sign that you're likely to make a bad decision with overall negative effect? I'm sorry. That's impossible to accept.
A bad decision is a sign of bad decision making ability. You see a brand new iPhone and you want it, but you've not thought about your total financial situation or other phones, but you buy it anyway. That's a bad decision, even if, say, two months later, the monthly plan for an iPhone is cut in half making the result of the decision good after the fact.
Mmmm? No? Picking ice-cream flavor is not the same as picking a place to live in. The importance of both isn't even close. Again, decision which still has a net positive effect can not be compared with a decision with negative consequences.
Picking ice cream flavor would not result in a bad decision, in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant.
And I think my iPhone example does show a good comparison of one act possibly resulting in both a negative and positive consequence.
So, how do 'cute' guys affect women's judgment? Is the whole thing a wash.
Without having a competing link or anything, usually what a study like this means is that when you're reminded of a benefit of work/winning/whatever, you become more impatient. Essentially, it's easier to plan "I will take the $2.00 a day for life, because that will be more" when you're not thinking "Shiiiit I really want GTA 4, maybe I should just take $80 now..."
The use of bikini-clad ladies is really tangential to the general phenomenon.
Yes, indeedy. And I do recall reading about pretty much the same thing done before, but without the bikinis. My thoughts were also duuuh. I'd take research money to 'study' women in bikinis in no time flat, so I don't blame them.
And one day I'll convince someone to give me money to study the effects of girl-on-girl-action on men. For science!
Hell, if anyone was making the poor choice here it was the scientists. They could have kept the bikini girld video for themselves.
Are you saying that making a bad decision which still has a net positive effect is a sign that you're likely to make a bad decision with overall negative effect? I'm sorry. That's impossible to accept.
A bad decision is a sign of bad decision making ability. You see a brand new iPhone and you want it, but you've not thought about your total financial situation or other phones, but you buy it anyway. That's a bad decision, even if, say, two months later, the monthly plan for an iPhone is cut in half making the result of the decision good after the fact.
Mmmm? No? Picking ice-cream flavor is not the same as picking a place to live in. The importance of both isn't even close. Again, decision which still has a net positive effect can not be compared with a decision with negative consequences.
Picking ice cream flavor would not result in a bad decision, in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant.
And I think my iPhone example does show a good comparison of one act possibly resulting in both a negative and positive consequence.
That was exactly my point. Choosing between 20 or a 50 bucks would not result in a bad decision in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant. So, seriously there is no fucking way that should be enough to draw a conclusion about actual decision under pressure process.
Edit: We really shouldn't call them scientists.....seriously. Somebody paid money for that.
Choosing between 20 or a 50 bucks would not result in a bad decision in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant. So, seriously there is no fucking way that should be enough to draw a conclusion about actual decision under pressure process.
So what you're saying is that if a decision is life vs death, there's no point studying it?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Choosing between 20 or a 50 bucks would not result in a bad decision in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant. So, seriously there is no fucking way that should be enough to draw a conclusion about actual decision under pressure process.
So what you're saying is that if a decision is life vs death, there's no point studying it?
I'm really not getting what you're saying here.
I'm saying that:
The importance of the decision the men were lead to make under sexual arousal does not permit us to conclude that they may actually make a harmful to themselves choice in that condition as the study used something trivial, without ANY importance and actually offering them to benefit no matter what they choose. Do you disagree?
Wait, are we really accepting of the premise of women in less clothing make men act in less than desirable ways? Because I said something like this once in D&D and it didn't go over too well.
Wait, are we really accepting of the premise of women in less clothing make men act in less than desirable ways? Because I said something like this once in D&D and it didn't go over too well.
No, did you read the OP?
Sexual arousal interferes with decision making in males when it comes to "giev me $20" vs "geiv me $25"
Or "Yeah I'd do a threesome" vs "No I wouldn't do a threesome"
Choosing between 20 or a 50 bucks would not result in a bad decision in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant. So, seriously there is no fucking way that should be enough to draw a conclusion about actual decision under pressure process.
So what you're saying is that if a decision is life vs death, there's no point studying it?
I'm really not getting what you're saying here.
I'm saying that:
The importance of the decision the men were lead to make under sexual arousal does not permit us to conclude that they may actually make a harmful to themselves choice in that condition as the study used something trivial, without ANY importance and actually offering them to benefit no matter what they choose. Do you disagree?
To say nothing of the fact that there was no negative in their decision making. Everyone left with more money than expected. The happier ones just didn't care to try as hard.
Wait, are we really accepting of the premise of women in less clothing make men act in less than desirable ways? Because I said something like this once in D&D and it didn't go over too well.
No, did you read the OP?
Sexual arousal interferes with decision making in males when it comes to "giev me $20" vs "geiv me $25"
Right, I got that. The tunnel vision aspect talks about, with sexy images, men focusing in on the sexy thing rather than anything else. I guess I should have said "focus on the sexual opposed to all else" than "act in less desirable ways" for clarity. In my defense, though, the behavior described in the tl;dr is basically undesirable behavior.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that sexual arousal impairs men's judgment and makes them more impulsive.
I draw the line at suggesting that women have evolved to use this effect to their advantage.
Especially since I'd wager that women put through similar tests would produce similar results. Seems rather foolish to claim women alone have developed an adaptation to this before trying to see if they're equally effected themselves.
I never claimed that women alone have developed the adaptation. It's just that, given the information we have, that is as far as one can go at the moment.
That's why I said it will be interesting to see if women are vulnerable to a Beckham effect.
Could you explain what is backing up your statement about evolution of women, if, as you said, it's not the studies linked in the OP?
Okay, let me give you a purely hypothetical but more concrete example.
Suppose that, today, we hardwired the brain of every single men in the world to find large breasts extremely repulsive. And suppose that it's a genetic hardwiring so its heritable.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that there are no more large breasted women alive, because they have been sexually weeded out; sexual selection has favored small breasted women because the opposite sex finds them and only them attractive.
This is sexual selection.
Now, another example. Suppose that we hardwire the brains of some women (not all, just some) to make it so that they gain the impulse to clap their hands three times in succession when they're angry or afraid. And suppose we hardwire every single man in the world to make it so that they become 100% obedient to a woman when the woman claps her hands three times.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that women with the hand-clapping impulse have been naturally selected because their impulse has given them a fitness advantage, i.e. the ability to make men obey.
This is just like the other sexual behaviors that have evolved. Women subconsciously play with their hair when they find a man attractive because self-grooming is an evolutionary impulse designed to make them more attractive (a lot of animals do it too). Similarly, I am suggesting that the reason women have evolved the ability to sexually manipulate men is because sexually manipulating the opposite sex to get your way is a behavior that gives you a fitness advantage. And I am saying that it is not a far stretch to believe that women have vulnerabilities of their own (such as the hypothetical beckham effect) that have ended up with men being the way they are. (and again, I'm trying to describe behavior, not prescribe it)
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
This is addressed earlier when people mentioned, that a person who is content, or happy, is less likely to be greedy. Also, you could run the same test, like someone mentioned earlier, comparing eating cookies and watching sports, to doing math problems, and you'd probably get similar results.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter. If you're choosing to have less money because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis, it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
This is addressed earlier when people mentioned, that a person who is content, or happy, is less likely to be greedy. Also, you could run the same test, like someone mentioned earlier, comparing eating cookies and watching sports, to doing math problems, and you'd probably get similar results.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter. If you're choosing to have less money because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis, it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
I paid ten bucks yesterday to see a film. It would have been a better financial decision to not go see the film. You see, the guys may have felt unwilling to push the issue since they enjoyed themselves.
Which has nothing to do with sex.
[EDIT] Instead of more money, they got the same value in entertainment. The net value is the same.
Why is the ability to make men obey a sign of fitness ege
Are you implying that women know how to make the best decisions and therefore the species is better off when women are in charge...?
And again, as with your playing with the hair example, how can you make that conclusion? Because you observe other animals grooming themselves, and women sometimes play with their hair while flirting, you conclude it must be an evolved behavior?
There is a disconnect here and I'm not sure you're seeing it.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter. If you're choosing to have less money because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis, it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
"In each test, the researchers offered the men the choice between being paid 15 euros immediately or bargaining for a larger sum that they'd be willing to wait a week or a month for. In all the tests, the men exposed to the sexy imagery or bras cited delayed reward amounts that were lower than the amounts cited by the men who saw sex-neutral imagery. For example, while a man who looked at landscapes might have demanded an extra payment of 10 euros a month later (totaling 25), the bikini-gazer might have been willing to settle for five extra (totaling 20). The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls."
So yes, they were offered the choice. It was between less money now and more money later. The sexually aroused ones tended to favor the former.
This is addressed earlier when people mentioned, that a person who is content, or happy, is less likely to be greedy. Also, you could run the same test, like someone mentioned earlier, comparing eating cookies and watching sports, to doing math problems, and you'd probably get similar results.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter. If you're choosing to have less money because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis, it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
I paid ten bucks yesterday to see a film. It would have been a better financial decision to not go see the film. You see, the guys may have felt unwilling to push the issue since they enjoyed themselves.
Which has nothing to do with sex.
[EDIT] Instead of more money, they got the same value in entertainment. The net value is the same.
But they are not paying for a movie. They are getting paid after watching the movie, and their getting paid is completely unrelated in context. It's the complete opposite of you paying to see a film, so your value in entertainment explanation doesn't really explain anything.
I mean, if they were paying for the tickets after watching the movies, and the ones that watched the sex movies or whatever agreed to pay more than the other guys, then yes, you could say that they gained more satisfaction out of the sexual ones so they agree to pay more (which is also a worse financial decision). Then your explanation would have some power. But it doesn't apply to the current study.
I'm with the crowd that wants to see the study repeated with eating cookies vs. digging ditches or something similar to see if it boils down to enjoyment.
Why is the ability to make men obey a sign of fitness ege
Are you implying that women know how to make the best decisions and therefore the species is better off when women are in charge...?
Think about it how much men were in charge back in the day and how much power they held in society. How they used to provide everything from food to social status to safety and protection.
Are you following now?
And again, as with your playing with the hair example, how can you make that conclusion? Because you observe other animals grooming themselves, and women sometimes play with their hair while flirting, you conclude it must be an evolved behavior?
There is a disconnect here and I'm not sure you're seeing it.
Well, it can also be a learned behavior.
Then again I can't realistically see any woman learning "must play with hair while flirting" because it's a subconscious, impulsive thing for most people. Unless your hair is a mess and you know that you must put it back in shape or something.
Okay, let me give you a purely hypothetical but more concrete example.
Suppose that, today, we hardwired the brain of every single men in the world to find large breasts extremely repulsive. And suppose that it's a genetic hardwiring so its heritable.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that there are no more large breasted women alive, because they have been sexually weeded out; sexual selection has favored small breasted women because the opposite sex finds them and only them attractive.
This is sexual selection.
Now, another example. Suppose that we hardwire the brains of some women (not all, just some) to make it so that they gain the impulse to clap their hands three times in succession when they're angry or afraid. And suppose we hardwire every single man in the world to make it so that they become 100% obedient to a woman when the woman claps her hands three times.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that women with the hand-clapping impulse have been naturally selected because their impulse has given them a fitness advantage, i.e. the ability to make men obey.
I don't know. I detect a flaw in your reasoning.
The first example might be true because no man would ever impregnate large breasted women ever again. As you yourself stipulated, this is not the case in issue two. The women who do not gain the impulse to clap their hands may be culturally inclined to do so because they are not stupid. Regardless whether they do, enough will still get impregnated.
Whether nature favors the hand-clapping gene depends on whether the environment/nature favors a race where half of a members are unthinking slaves to the other. Supposing that this is not the case, a case could be made that the hand-clapping gene gets wiped out instead.
Also, since we're talking about people here, nothing is as simple as just that. There are so many factor and possibilities to make conjecture without a huge body of research virtually worthless.
When you decide to post something other than "nuh uh!" let me know.
I mean am I supposed to teach you how evolution works, Feral, and how evolutionary pressures are the reason every living thing on the planet is the way it is today?
Okay, let me give you a purely hypothetical but more concrete example.
Suppose that, today, we hardwired the brain of every single men in the world to find large breasts extremely repulsive. And suppose that it's a genetic hardwiring so its heritable.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that there are no more large breasted women alive, because they have been sexually weeded out; sexual selection has favored small breasted women because the opposite sex finds them and only them attractive.
This is sexual selection.
Now, another example. Suppose that we hardwire the brains of some women (not all, just some) to make it so that they gain the impulse to clap their hands three times in succession when they're angry or afraid. And suppose we hardwire every single man in the world to make it so that they become 100% obedient to a woman when the woman claps her hands three times.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that women with the hand-clapping impulse have been naturally selected because their impulse has given them a fitness advantage, i.e. the ability to make men obey.
I don't know. I detect a flaw in your reasoning.
The first example might be true because no man would ever impregnate large breasted women ever again. As you yourself stipulated, this is not the case in issue two. The women who do not gain the impulse to clap their hands may be culturally inclined to do so because they are not stupid. Regardless whether they do, enough will still get impregnated.
Whether nature favors the hand-clapping gene depends on whether the environment/nature favors a race where half of a members are unthinking slaves to the other. Supposing that this is not the case, a case could be made that the hand-clapping gene gets wiped out instead.
Also, since we're talking about people here, nothing is as simple as just that. There are so many factor and possibilities to make conjecture without a huge body of research virtually worthless.
I know that the examples I gave are overly simplistic. I was just explaining something, and I think they did serve their purpose.
I showed this article to my friend.
He said:
anyone who has gotten an erection before knows that it makes you stupid
you dont need neuronomicists
or whatever to tell you this
When you decide to post something other than "nuh uh!" let me know.
I mean am I supposed to teach you how evolution works, Feral, and how evolutionary pressures are the reason every living thing on the planet is the way it is today?
For reference, I am not claiming that this is how things are for sure, and I am not claiming the study I linked in the OP is proof for it.
Posts
Mmmm? No? Picking ice-cream flavor is not the same as picking a place to live in. The importance of both isn't even close. Again, decision which still has a net positive effect can not be compared with a decision with negative consequences.
The use of bikini-clad ladies is really tangential to the general phenomenon.
Uuuh, that's not what the paragraph you quote says.
Edit:
I'd always take a smaller amount now rather than more money later. Especially in that range.(no titties necessary...)
edit2: I butchered the fucking quote twice.
I object to the notion that this adaptation exists at all, and if it does exist, that it is a result of evolutionary pressure.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That doesn't say they took the extra 5 euros right away. In fact based on the first line it implies they bargained for the extra 5 to come a month later. So even the sexy images dudes still bargained for more money than the initial 15, they just didn't bargain as hard.
So either it's poor wording in describing the test, or the conclusion doesn't seem to follow.
This is addressed earlier when people mentioned, that a person who is content, or happy, is less likely to be greedy. Also, you could run the same test, like someone mentioned earlier, comparing eating cookies and watching sports, to doing math problems, and you'd probably get similar results.
Yes, indeedy. And I do recall reading about pretty much the same thing done before, but without the bikinis. My thoughts were also duuuh. I'd take research money to 'study' women in bikinis in no time flat, so I don't blame them.
And one day I'll convince someone to give me money to study the effects of girl-on-girl-action on men. For science!
Picking ice cream flavor would not result in a bad decision, in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant.
And I think my iPhone example does show a good comparison of one act possibly resulting in both a negative and positive consequence.
That was exactly my point. Choosing between 20 or a 50 bucks would not result in a bad decision in terms of decisions that are somewhat significant. So, seriously there is no fucking way that should be enough to draw a conclusion about actual decision under pressure process.
Edit: We really shouldn't call them scientists.....seriously. Somebody paid money for that.
What exactly would the feminine traits evolved to take advantage of this be?
My curiousity demands more information.
Round ass & perky titties.
<< successfully fought the urge to post lotsa perky boobies.
Durrrrrrrrrr
*drool*
Wait, what are we talking about?
hi5 for using perky to desribe boobies separately!!!!
So what you're saying is that if a decision is life vs death, there's no point studying it?
I'm really not getting what you're saying here.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
<< is boob free enough to know that was a bad decision
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I'm saying that:
The importance of the decision the men were lead to make under sexual arousal does not permit us to conclude that they may actually make a harmful to themselves choice in that condition as the study used something trivial, without ANY importance and actually offering them to benefit no matter what they choose. Do you disagree?
No, did you read the OP?
Sexual arousal interferes with decision making in males when it comes to "giev me $20" vs "geiv me $25"
Or "Yeah I'd do a threesome" vs "No I wouldn't do a threesome"
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Okay, let me give you a purely hypothetical but more concrete example.
Suppose that, today, we hardwired the brain of every single men in the world to find large breasts extremely repulsive. And suppose that it's a genetic hardwiring so its heritable.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that there are no more large breasted women alive, because they have been sexually weeded out; sexual selection has favored small breasted women because the opposite sex finds them and only them attractive.
This is sexual selection.
Now, another example. Suppose that we hardwire the brains of some women (not all, just some) to make it so that they gain the impulse to clap their hands three times in succession when they're angry or afraid. And suppose we hardwire every single man in the world to make it so that they become 100% obedient to a woman when the woman claps her hands three times.
Fast-forward enough time, and you'd find that women with the hand-clapping impulse have been naturally selected because their impulse has given them a fitness advantage, i.e. the ability to make men obey.
This is just like the other sexual behaviors that have evolved. Women subconsciously play with their hair when they find a man attractive because self-grooming is an evolutionary impulse designed to make them more attractive (a lot of animals do it too). Similarly, I am suggesting that the reason women have evolved the ability to sexually manipulate men is because sexually manipulating the opposite sex to get your way is a behavior that gives you a fitness advantage. And I am saying that it is not a far stretch to believe that women have vulnerabilities of their own (such as the hypothetical beckham effect) that have ended up with men being the way they are. (and again, I'm trying to describe behavior, not prescribe it)
Again, the distinction doesn't matter. If you're choosing to have less money because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis, it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
I paid ten bucks yesterday to see a film. It would have been a better financial decision to not go see the film. You see, the guys may have felt unwilling to push the issue since they enjoyed themselves.
Which has nothing to do with sex.
[EDIT] Instead of more money, they got the same value in entertainment. The net value is the same.
Are you implying that women know how to make the best decisions and therefore the species is better off when women are in charge...?
And again, as with your playing with the hair example, how can you make that conclusion? Because you observe other animals grooming themselves, and women sometimes play with their hair while flirting, you conclude it must be an evolved behavior?
There is a disconnect here and I'm not sure you're seeing it.
Feel free to produce some evidence that amounts to more than blatant conjecture and wild hypotheticals pulled out of your own ass.
...at your convenience.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But they are not paying for a movie. They are getting paid after watching the movie, and their getting paid is completely unrelated in context. It's the complete opposite of you paying to see a film, so your value in entertainment explanation doesn't really explain anything.
I mean, if they were paying for the tickets after watching the movies, and the ones that watched the sex movies or whatever agreed to pay more than the other guys, then yes, you could say that they gained more satisfaction out of the sexual ones so they agree to pay more (which is also a worse financial decision). Then your explanation would have some power. But it doesn't apply to the current study.
Think about it how much men were in charge back in the day and how much power they held in society. How they used to provide everything from food to social status to safety and protection.
Are you following now?
Well, it can also be a learned behavior.
Then again I can't realistically see any woman learning "must play with hair while flirting" because it's a subconscious, impulsive thing for most people. Unless your hair is a mess and you know that you must put it back in shape or something.
I don't know. I detect a flaw in your reasoning.
The first example might be true because no man would ever impregnate large breasted women ever again. As you yourself stipulated, this is not the case in issue two. The women who do not gain the impulse to clap their hands may be culturally inclined to do so because they are not stupid. Regardless whether they do, enough will still get impregnated.
Whether nature favors the hand-clapping gene depends on whether the environment/nature favors a race where half of a members are unthinking slaves to the other. Supposing that this is not the case, a case could be made that the hand-clapping gene gets wiped out instead.
Also, since we're talking about people here, nothing is as simple as just that. There are so many factor and possibilities to make conjecture without a huge body of research virtually worthless.
The hypotheticals are there to explain a concept.
When you decide to post something other than "nuh uh!" let me know.
I mean am I supposed to teach you how evolution works, Feral, and how evolutionary pressures are the reason every living thing on the planet is the way it is today?
I know that the examples I gave are overly simplistic. I was just explaining something, and I think they did serve their purpose.
He said:
anyone who has gotten an erection before knows that it makes you stupid
you dont need neuronomicists
or whatever to tell you this
I will agree.
For reference, I am not claiming that this is how things are for sure, and I am not claiming the study I linked in the OP is proof for it.
I was simply wondering out loud.