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?
Yes, I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.
Reputable journals regularly publish studies, especially behavioural studies, where the difference between two available options is simply a matter of preference (color or flavour for example). In this case, the fact that the available options were reasonable were the only way to test between one choice and an objectively better one.
If the choices weren't reasonable such as "have a million dollars or get shot in the face", nothing short of high quality brainwashing would get subjects to choose the worse option. That study would be useless.
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 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
I will agree.
Man, there was a whole section in one of my sociology textbooks that was headed something like "Everyone Thinks They Already Know Everything About Sociology." And it was just them going "You're all assholes!"
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?
Yes, I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.
Reputable journals regularly publish studies, especially behavioural studies, where the difference between two available options is simply a matter of preference (color or flavour for example). In this case, the fact that the available options were reasonable were the only way to test between one choice and an objectively better one.
If the choices weren't reasonable such as "have a million dollars or get shot in the face", nothing short of high quality brainwashing would get subjects to choose the worse option. That study would be useless.
Not only were they reasonable, they were also measurable in absolute terms.
Unlike, say, contentedness, or value in entertainment.
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?
Yes, I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.
Reputable journals regularly publish studies, especially behavioural studies, where the difference between two available options is simply a matter of preference (color or flavour for example).
Are the conclusions to those studies disproportional to the methodology though? I'd think that in most cases when the subject of the study is a matter of preference, the result is a conclusion on preference?
In this case, the fact that the available options were reasonable were the only way to test between one choice and an objectively better one.
If the choices weren't reasonable such as "have a million dollars or get shot in the face", nothing short of high quality brainwashing would get subjects to choose the worse option. That study would be useless.
I can think of several ways of actually facing the candidates with a slightly negative choice, but I would still support that the conclusion would be invalid as it sits on a whole different scale.. Why do you give the result any validity? I doubt it's "others do the same" and I'm ready to listen. It's just that when I was reading the OP, the leap of logic I quoted in the post on page 1 really struck me as impossible. If I can actually follow how the rational thought goes from the laboratory set up to the conclusion, I may even agree with it.
Edit: Ege, I was attacking the methodology with regard of the conclusion. If they have said "Less likely to pay attention to reward." or something in a similar sense, I would have it down as a perfect study. Kind of doubt it makes headlines in such a case.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
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.
I guess if you can't "see it" then that's some nice evidence there that it must be the way you think it is.
Hokay.
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
Hell, you could argue that they're simply rationally balancing their time's worth. I might expect $8 for an hour at work, but I'll pay $8 an hour to watch a movie that I think looks fun.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
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.
Fine. Let me replace some of the words in my argument.
"Whether nature favors the MANIPULATING-MEN gene depends on whether the environment/nature favors a race where half of a members are MORE EASILY INFLUENCED BY the other. Supposing that this is not the case, a case could be made that the MANIPULATING-MEN 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."
So the argument that women will be genetically predisposed to manipulate men because it gets them laid depends on a lot of assumptions which might not be right. That women are culturally predisposed to do so, however, is a lot more easy to swallow since it doesn't depend of the on and off switch of genetics.
So no, I don't think your examples served their purpose.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
But if they haven't controlled for this specific variable (contentedness) then the results are not accurate.
Wait... men and women can't be evolutionary competitors, can they? Isn't the mere idea of that completely incompatible with evolutionary theory?
Natural selection can't favor the evolution of a trait that benefits one sex at the expense of another. This is because, since there's always a 50% chance your offspring will be male, there's a 50% chance he'll be screwed by the trait instead of benefitting from it, so over time the net benefit for any genetic line that carries the trait is null. Right?
I can imagine the evolution of a trait that benefits women without having much effect on men, but I don't think this study is necessarily evidence of such a case.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Too bad the world has all those pesky externalities.
And again, why make this particular distinction. Why "sex makes men dumb" and not "happiness makes people generous."
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
You're assuming the king doesn't have the genetically predisposed ability to recognize being played which causes him to behead all uppity women. Genes compete. Why assume one will win over the other.
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Too bad the world has all those pesky externalities.
And again, why make this particular distinction. Why "sex makes men dumb" and not "happiness makes people generous."
Sex vs. happiness because they were measuring how sex affected men's judgment and decision-making.
Dumb vs. generous because the choice wasn't only between more money vs. less money, it was also between a short-term immediate gain vs. a long-term gain. Whether one is generous or not, the long term gain was the wiser decision.
I don't necessarily mean sex makes men dumb; that was my tongue-in-cheek interpretation. But you would still be on my ass if I said "sex makes men make worse decisions" because then you'd be flapping your "is generosity a bad decision" red herring around.
In that situation it would appear to me that she learned what his sexual preferences were and then applied that knowledge to gain herself a better position in the harem.
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
Honestly I see no path, either through logic or association, by which you could arrive at this conclusion based on that study. What's this stuff about manipulation anyway? Men are attracted to women with certain characteristics, women are attracted to men with certain characteristics. Is this a new discovery? How does this lead to manipulation techniques?
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
You're assuming the king doesn't have the genetically predisposed ability to recognize being played which causes him to behead all uppity women. Genes compete. Why assume one will win over the other.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
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.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Too bad the world has all those pesky externalities.
And again, why make this particular distinction. Why "sex makes men dumb" and not "happiness makes people generous."
Sex vs. happiness because they were measuring how sex affected men's judgment and decision-making.
Dumb vs. generous because the choice wasn't only between more money vs. less money, it was also between a short-term immediate gain vs. a long-term gain. Whether one is generous or not, the long term gain was the wiser decision.
I don't necessarily mean sex makes men dumb; that was my tongue-in-cheek interpretation. But you would still be on my ass if I said "sex makes men make worse decisions" because then you'd be flapping your "is generosity a bad decision" red herring around.
Again, the distinction doesn't matter.If you're choosing to have less money(1) because you're content as a result of watching women in bikinis,(2) it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.(3)
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
No, because you start the entire line of argument by begging the question.
No, I am simply explaining why the distinction doesn't matter.
1. You're choosing to have less money.
2. Because you're content(2.a) as result of watching women(2.b).
3. it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
How does this argument prove that 1 & 2 imply 3 if my side is that the distinction does matter and the feeling of content is the reason for 3?
It's begging the question(your first phrase is the reason, as it is the base for your proof and at the same time the disagreement.). Why do you insist it's not? Take a bit of time to think about it, but if your next argument is going to be durr-durr it's not, you need not bother.
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the 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.
Why make that particular distinction? And you've yet to demonstrate how generosity is a bad decision.
Seriously, why are you making this particular distinction. Why not just say people in a better mood aren't as greedy or as demanding of material consolation for their time?
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Too bad the world has all those pesky externalities.
And again, why make this particular distinction. Why "sex makes men dumb" and not "happiness makes people generous."
Sex vs. happiness because they were measuring how sex affected men's judgment and decision-making.
Dumb vs. generous because the choice wasn't only between more money vs. less money, it was also between a short-term immediate gain vs. a long-term gain. Whether one is generous or not, the long term gain was the wiser decision.
I don't necessarily mean sex makes men dumb; that was my tongue-in-cheek interpretation. But you would still be on my ass if I said "sex makes men make worse decisions" because then you'd be flapping your "is generosity a bad decision" red herring around.
Because the world doesn't work on pure economics.
Yes, I am glad you're able to dismiss the results of a neuroeconomics study by saying "the world doesn't work on pure economics."
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
How about with something that makes people happy in general and doesn't rely on gender stereotype notions?
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
You're assuming the king doesn't have the genetically predisposed ability to recognize being played which causes him to behead all uppity women. Genes compete. Why assume one will win over the other.
Why would he do that? He is benefiting too.
Well, in that example, he is genetically predisposed. People do stupid things all the time; logic doesn't enter into it.
In the larger discussion, you are assuming the human race will be better off if the women were good manipulators of men; as in, the couples where women manipulate men into doing their bidding is more likely to survive. This may not be true. If it isn't, then survival of the fittest will weed out these couples.
And you also keep saying that everything else except the purely financial decision is red herring. This is not true either. If there had been a man with a gun outside of the experiment room waiting to kill everyone who had taken the purely financial decision, then that decision is not the best in general. In the real world, the purely financial decision has to compete with other factors, like the metaphorical man with the gun.
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
Yup. That's a pretty good idea. As long as something equally attractive to all men in the group can be found(which I guess is rather difficult) or as long as they use personal "happy things".
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
How about with something that makes people happy in general and doesn't rely on gender stereotype notions?
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
Yup. That's a pretty good idea. As long as something equally attractive to all men in the group can be found(which I guess is rather difficult) or as long as they use personal "happy things".
Well it's a good thing then that we're not jumping to conclusions over an incomplete oh wai-
This study is bullshit. They've setup a false dichotomy (sexual imagery vs neutral imagery) and also added an unneeded variable (immediate vs later reward which people are going to both have genuine trouble with normally and which is going to be a problem based on who's in the experiment in the first place).
The entire thing reeks, doubly so when compared to their idea of a prior experiment (the masturbation one - the two are not remotely comparable).
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
How about with something that makes people happy in general and doesn't rely on gender stereotype notions?
I find gender studies to be far more interesting.
Hey if you're down with skewed results that's cool I guess.
I can think of several ways of actually facing the candidates with a slightly negative choice, but I would still support that the conclusion would be invalid as it sits on a whole different scale.
My point wasn't that the options couldn't be negative, but the options must be relatively close to see outside influences. To ask the question, "would you trade x for y?" the goal would be to get a fairly even split in the control group to see the effects of any external stimuli. If 100% of the control group answered the same way, subtle effects wouldn't be noticed.
Why do you give the result any validity? I doubt it's "others do the same" and I'm ready to listen. It's just that when I was reading the OP, the leap of logic I quoted in the post on page 1 really struck me as impossible. If I can actually follow how the rational thought goes from the laboratory set up to the conclusion, I may even agree with it.
Well, I'm not going to put complete faith in this study without knowing more about it, but the results do seem reasonable to me, though I assume the title "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice" seems to emphasize something different than the MSNBC reporter.
At any rate, a group exposed to certain stimuli behaves differently than the control group. Getting a larger amount of money vs a smaller amount is an objectively better or worse outcome that is affected by the viewing of boobies. Assuming the methodology is reasonable and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant, we can accept that the study itself is valid insofar as what it actually measures.
Knowing the day to day experience of being on the edge of making a purchase or not, I can believe any stimuli that can make someone just a bit more impulsive, could lead to a purchase that might not have occurred otherwise.
That's why I view the conclusion, “Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase", seems reasonable to me. The fact that well funded marketing departments seem to feel the same way, does nothing to dissuade me.
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.
Also to pose another question, has anyone in the thread yet managed to find how exactly men were asked to bargain for the extra money?
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
How about with something that makes people happy in general and doesn't rely on gender stereotype notions?
I find gender studies to be far more interesting.
Hey if you're down with skewed results that's cool I guess.
No, because I like studies that show the psychological differences between men and women.
One of the replications of the Milgram experiment was, for instance, that women are more likely than men to continue to obey orders from authority figures even if those orders lead to someone's suffering. (last paragraph of the replications section)
Posts
Yes, I disagree, but I see where you're coming from.
Reputable journals regularly publish studies, especially behavioural studies, where the difference between two available options is simply a matter of preference (color or flavour for example). In this case, the fact that the available options were reasonable were the only way to test between one choice and an objectively better one.
If the choices weren't reasonable such as "have a million dollars or get shot in the face", nothing short of high quality brainwashing would get subjects to choose the worse option. That study would be useless.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Not only were they reasonable, they were also measurable in absolute terms.
Unlike, say, contentedness, or value in entertainment.
Are the conclusions to those studies disproportional to the methodology though? I'd think that in most cases when the subject of the study is a matter of preference, the result is a conclusion on preference?
I can think of several ways of actually facing the candidates with a slightly negative choice, but I would still support that the conclusion would be invalid as it sits on a whole different scale.. Why do you give the result any validity? I doubt it's "others do the same" and I'm ready to listen. It's just that when I was reading the OP, the leap of logic I quoted in the post on page 1 really struck me as impossible. If I can actually follow how the rational thought goes from the laboratory set up to the conclusion, I may even agree with it.
Edit: Ege, I was attacking the methodology with regard of the conclusion. If they have said "Less likely to pay attention to reward." or something in a similar sense, I would have it down as a perfect study. Kind of doubt it makes headlines in such a case.
I guess if you can't "see it" then that's some nice evidence there that it must be the way you think it is.
Hokay.
And no I don't follow you. "Back in the day" women were severely oppressed and treated like property. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow women were secretly sexually manipulating all the men to the higher parts of society so that they could reap the benefits of....being considered the inferior sex and treated like property.
Hell, you could argue that they're simply rationally balancing their time's worth. I might expect $8 for an hour at work, but I'll pay $8 an hour to watch a movie that I think looks fun.
Men, cower before my manipulative ways.
In purely economic terms, it is a bad decision.
The rest is red herring.
Fine. Let me replace some of the words in my argument.
"Whether nature favors the MANIPULATING-MEN gene depends on whether the environment/nature favors a race where half of a members are MORE EASILY INFLUENCED BY the other. Supposing that this is not the case, a case could be made that the MANIPULATING-MEN 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."
So the argument that women will be genetically predisposed to manipulate men because it gets them laid depends on a lot of assumptions which might not be right. That women are culturally predisposed to do so, however, is a lot more easy to swallow since it doesn't depend of the on and off switch of genetics.
So no, I don't think your examples served their purpose.
But if they haven't controlled for this specific variable (contentedness) then the results are not accurate.
Natural selection can't favor the evolution of a trait that benefits one sex at the expense of another. This is because, since there's always a 50% chance your offspring will be male, there's a 50% chance he'll be screwed by the trait instead of benefitting from it, so over time the net benefit for any genetic line that carries the trait is null. Right?
I can imagine the evolution of a trait that benefits women without having much effect on men, but I don't think this study is necessarily evidence of such a case.
And again, why make this particular distinction. Why "sex makes men dumb" and not "happiness makes people generous."
The purpose isn't to enjoy the benefits. The purpose is to increase one's chances of survival and reproduction, preferably with a mate that will ensure the safety of the woman and the child.
If you're one of the women in the harem, and the king spends more time with you because you're better at pressing his buttons, this is a good thing in fitness terms.
Well, what you say seems more like a logical fallacy...(and I have no clue what that tree of the discussion was about before that post), I just saw the quote above and thought that the syllogism doesn't pass as you're overlooking the "content" factor while saying it doesn't matter?
You're assuming the king doesn't have the genetically predisposed ability to recognize being played which causes him to behead all uppity women. Genes compete. Why assume one will win over the other.
Sex vs. happiness because they were measuring how sex affected men's judgment and decision-making.
Dumb vs. generous because the choice wasn't only between more money vs. less money, it was also between a short-term immediate gain vs. a long-term gain. Whether one is generous or not, the long term gain was the wiser decision.
I don't necessarily mean sex makes men dumb; that was my tongue-in-cheek interpretation. But you would still be on my ass if I said "sex makes men make worse decisions" because then you'd be flapping your "is generosity a bad decision" red herring around.
Honestly I see no path, either through logic or association, by which you could arrive at this conclusion based on that study. What's this stuff about manipulation anyway? Men are attracted to women with certain characteristics, women are attracted to men with certain characteristics. Is this a new discovery? How does this lead to manipulation techniques?
It's not a logical fallacy.
If a leads to b and b leads to c, then a leads to c. This is a perfectly logical argument.
No, because you start the entire line of argument by begging the question.
Ditto. I also t hought it's begging the question.
Why would he do that? He is benefiting too.
No, I am simply explaining why the distinction doesn't matter.
1. You're choosing to have less money.
2. Because you're content(2.a) as result of watching women(2.b).
3. it still follows that watching women in bikinis have caused you to make a worse decision.
How does this argument prove that 1 & 2 imply 3 if my side is that the distinction does matter and the feeling of content is the reason for 3?
It's begging the question(your first phrase is the reason, as it is the base for your proof and at the same time the disagreement.). Why do you insist it's not? Take a bit of time to think about it, but if your next argument is going to be durr-durr it's not, you need not bother.
Furthermore (which I believe is what Quid is getting at), I hardy think this establishes anything about sex and potentially establishes a lot more about the greediness of happy people. I mean, watching hills and fields for a half hour or so is pretty damn boring whereas watching hot women (especially in any type of group of men) is far more likely to put people in a happier mood immediately afterwards. It hardly has to have anything to do with sex.
I guess they can repeat the experiment with other things that make men happy (e.g. sports) and see the results.
Yes, I am glad you're able to dismiss the results of a neuroeconomics study by saying "the world doesn't work on pure economics."
Congratulations.
How about with something that makes people happy in general and doesn't rely on gender stereotype notions?
Well, in that example, he is genetically predisposed. People do stupid things all the time; logic doesn't enter into it.
In the larger discussion, you are assuming the human race will be better off if the women were good manipulators of men; as in, the couples where women manipulate men into doing their bidding is more likely to survive. This may not be true. If it isn't, then survival of the fittest will weed out these couples.
And you also keep saying that everything else except the purely financial decision is red herring. This is not true either. If there had been a man with a gun outside of the experiment room waiting to kill everyone who had taken the purely financial decision, then that decision is not the best in general. In the real world, the purely financial decision has to compete with other factors, like the metaphorical man with the gun.
Yup. That's a pretty good idea. As long as something equally attractive to all men in the group can be found(which I guess is rather difficult) or as long as they use personal "happy things".
I find gender studies to be far more interesting.
This study is bullshit. They've setup a false dichotomy (sexual imagery vs neutral imagery) and also added an unneeded variable (immediate vs later reward which people are going to both have genuine trouble with normally and which is going to be a problem based on who's in the experiment in the first place).
The entire thing reeks, doubly so when compared to their idea of a prior experiment (the masturbation one - the two are not remotely comparable).
Hey if you're down with skewed results that's cool I guess.
Yep.
My point wasn't that the options couldn't be negative, but the options must be relatively close to see outside influences. To ask the question, "would you trade x for y?" the goal would be to get a fairly even split in the control group to see the effects of any external stimuli. If 100% of the control group answered the same way, subtle effects wouldn't be noticed.
Well, I'm not going to put complete faith in this study without knowing more about it, but the results do seem reasonable to me, though I assume the title "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice" seems to emphasize something different than the MSNBC reporter.
At any rate, a group exposed to certain stimuli behaves differently than the control group. Getting a larger amount of money vs a smaller amount is an objectively better or worse outcome that is affected by the viewing of boobies. Assuming the methodology is reasonable and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant, we can accept that the study itself is valid insofar as what it actually measures.
Knowing the day to day experience of being on the edge of making a purchase or not, I can believe any stimuli that can make someone just a bit more impulsive, could lead to a purchase that might not have occurred otherwise.
That's why I view the conclusion, “Hence I do think that men might spend money on something they might otherwise not purchase", seems reasonable to me. The fact that well funded marketing departments seem to feel the same way, does nothing to dissuade me.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
No, because I like studies that show the psychological differences between men and women.
One of the replications of the Milgram experiment was, for instance, that women are more likely than men to continue to obey orders from authority figures even if those orders lead to someone's suffering. (last paragraph of the replications section)
But I digress.