5 ms·

>At the end of the survey, each participant was entered onto a draw for $100, and was given the choice to keep their winnings or to donate it to a charity. Part

by zeteo 10y ago

>At the end of the survey, each participant was entered onto a draw for $100, and was given the choice to keep their winnings or to donate it to a charity. Participants again reported on their sexual histories, completed a personality measure, as well as a scale to capture socially-desirable responding and a measure of narcissism. Results showed that, even when controlling for these variables, those who donated reported having more lifetime sex partners, more casual sex partners, and more sex partners over the past year Apparently they haven't controlled for the obvious variable - money. Wealthier people will care less about a chance to win $100 while having more choice in sexual partners. Also people might feel more generous after being reminded of a good love life (and vice-versa), so the choice to donate should have been at the beginning. This study doesn't really do much to prove that altruism leads to sex.

SkyMarshal 10y ago
That was my first suspicion on reading the headline too. Correlation != Causation. More likely both altruism and more sex partners are the results of some other causing factor, like overall wealth. Or, altruism is a signal of wealth to potential mates.
gopalv 10y ago
> Wealthier people will care less about a chance to win $100 This might not be the only factor - altruism for status is a consistent trend on those who do not suffer the lack of food or other resources - Happiness by giving, is still an emotional reward at the level of self. This SMBC cartoon captures the whole of the altruistic status seeking by the well-to-do. http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-cheese-platters http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-cheese-platters
pmoriarty 10y ago
"Wealthier people will care less about a chance to win $100 while having more choice in sexual partners." Except that studies have shown that poor people tend to be more altruistic with their money than the rich: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more/ http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_m...
- pyromine 10y ago
  Except that doesn't eliminate the confounding factor, so while your statement is true the parents is also.
- Jugurtha 10y ago
  I think the study set a cutoff that is too low. It'd be great to be looking at the richest and the poorest for symmetry reasons. I've always nursed the idea that the only people who don't "care" about money are the extremes of wealth distribution; the wealthiest for there is too much, the paupers for there's too little. Anyone in-between cares because marginal utility makes sense. In other words, is it not legitimate to interpret the study showing that egalitarianism being most shared amongst the poor as follows: we want equality the most when we're at the bottom, not so much so when we're at a relative top. A less optimistic view about human nature, but I think it's safe not to dismiss incentives and self interest in these studies.
_eht 10y ago
I'm pretty financially comfortable to the point where I don't care about a gain or loss of $100. I also enjoy winning. If I stumbled across the survey I would do it honestly and take the win. In this case $100.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  I enjoy winning too. But you can win and donate in this situation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jondubois 10y ago
I was thinking that there had to be a flaw in the study because my intuition tells me that the opposite of what they found is true. Altruistic people would have more difficulty breaking up with their sexual partners (they care more about the other person); so I would assume that they would be more willing to compromise and, therefore, their relationships would last longer (and thereby they would have fewer of them). You could argue that altruistic people get dumped more often but that would go against basic evolutionary principles.

by zeteo 10y ago

SkyMarshal 10y ago

That was my first suspicion on reading the headline too. Correlation != Causation. More likely both altruism and more sex partners are the results of some other causing factor, like overall wealth. Or, altruism is a signal of wealth to potential mates.

gopalv 10y ago

> Wealthier people will care less about a chance to win $100 This might not be the only factor - altruism for status is a consistent trend on those who do not suffer the lack of food or other resources - Happiness by giving, is still an emotional reward at the level of self. This SMBC cartoon captures the whole of the altruistic status seeking by the well-to-do. http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-cheese-platters http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/on-cheese-platters

pmoriarty 10y ago

"Wealthier people will care less about a chance to win $100 while having more choice in sexual partners." Except that studies have shown that poor people tend to be more altruistic with their money than the rich: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more/ http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_m...

pyromine 10y ago
Except that doesn't eliminate the confounding factor, so while your statement is true the parents is also.
Jugurtha 10y ago
I think the study set a cutoff that is too low. It'd be great to be looking at the richest and the poorest for symmetry reasons. I've always nursed the idea that the only people who don't "care" about money are the extremes of wealth distribution; the wealthiest for there is too much, the paupers for there's too little. Anyone in-between cares because marginal utility makes sense. In other words, is it not legitimate to interpret the study showing that egalitarianism being most shared amongst the poor as follows: we want equality the most when we're at the bottom, not so much so when we're at a relative top. A less optimistic view about human nature, but I think it's safe not to dismiss incentives and self interest in these studies.

_eht 10y ago

I'm pretty financially comfortable to the point where I don't care about a gain or loss of $100. I also enjoy winning. If I stumbled across the survey I would do it honestly and take the win. In this case $100.

paulddraper 10y ago
I enjoy winning too. But you can win and donate in this situation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jondubois 10y ago

I was thinking that there had to be a flaw in the study because my intuition tells me that the opposite of what they found is true. Altruistic people would have more difficulty breaking up with their sexual partners (they care more about the other person); so I would assume that they would be more willing to compromise and, therefore, their relationships would last longer (and thereby they would have fewer of them). You could argue that altruistic people get dumped more often but that would go against basic evolutionary principles.