The article makes no reference to a possible strongly correlating factor, age. If research is to be done and claims made like this, they need to be along age intervals. It seems apparent that the older you get, the more sexual partners you have and PROBABLY the more altruistic, as you have the means too. This shouts Occam's razor to me.
Well said. The article's title makes it sounds like "more" is somehow good or desirable, but really, the "more" referred to here is likely just a series of failed relationships, which nobody wants. If you look at it from this perspective, it sounds like the "altruistic people" described by the article are actually getting the short end of the stick.
To be fair, the study does specify undergraduates, so unless there are a few mature students in their confounding things, it's probably about the only demographic where the number of sexual partners rises with age but wealth/income doesn't
They should do a larger study but I find it weird that all of the comments here seem to be so negative when the authors are up front about some of the flaws and the results make a lot of sense.
There is also a strong correlation between money and # partners...all else being equal.
By saying all else being equal, you are singling out one quality. If people were to judge ONLY on that quality (all else being equal) everyone gravitates towards perceived positive qualities.
To prove my point look at the following statements:
- All else being equal, money correlates directly with number of partners (rich have more free time/access to partners)
- All else being equal, beauty correlates directly with number of partners (beautiful people have more access to partners)
- All else being equal, kindness correlates directly with number of partners (kind people have partners gravitate to them and stay with them)
- All else being equal, confidence correlates directly with number of partners (confident people generally have better access to partners)
The phrase "all else being equal" does not mean what you are presenting it as. It's only used to introduce a thought experiment where someone is trying to understand the effect of one variable independently of all the other forces at work, and that person is warning the listener/reader that they are intentionally glossing over lots of other meaningful factors so that they can focus on the one factor they wish to understand.
It is not a statement by the speaker that all other things actually are equal, in fact it's usually an acknowledgement that they're not. If all else really was equal, nobody would ever start a sentence with that phrase.
That's a more concise way of saying what I was trying to say. The person I was responding to appeared to think it was a statement that the other variables were insignificant, rather than controlled (at least that's how I interpreted their post).
You lost me at "Blood donation". It's common sence that this is used by new couples to check if they have STDs, without the unconfort of going to a clinic.
Relating to the 2nd study, 100$ or 1$ is the same (not significant) for someone with high income so they just found a correlation between "rich" people and higher number of sexual partners.
Blood donation is a terrible way to screen for STDs.
I get that people might ask about it because people who donate blood do have their blood tested for some STDs, but just asking isn't going to help a whole lot if you are talking to a liar.
The actual story differentiates between "short term" partners (think 1 night stands, hookups) vs "long term" mate (think husband / wife / long term boyfriend / girlfriend ).
I understood it to say that Jerks / Bad Boys / Narcissists also have a lot of sexual partners, but only for a short period, whereas the "Nice Guys" / Atruistic people have more sexual partners also, but for a longer term / time frame.
Did I interpret this incorrectly? If not, a more apt title is "Altruistic People Have More Long Term Sexual Partners"
From dictionary.com: Altruism is defined as "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism )."
So, yes, it does have something to do with whether or not you're a jerk.
This seems stupidly obvious (even as a very altruistic person in their mid-30s who has only had a single partner).
Good sex, in general, is about generosity. So those who are more generous are likely to be better at it, and those do more of it. I know there are many factors that could influence, but the basics seem obvious.
1. Skim academic journals without vetting look for anything you can spin into a sensationalist statement
2. Once you find it spin up articles using words like "statistically significant" and dropping Ivy League research names ("he went to Harvard, he must not be fallible")
Step 1: be attractive.
Step 2: are you attractive yet? If not, be attractive.
Step 3: did I mention be attractive yet?
Step 4: and I suppose being altruistic can help you have many sexual partners. As long as you've followed steps 1 to 3.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Since people are enjoying their own interpretations of the headline, I'll propose yet another:
Largely the interpretations are based on unstated belief that a higher number of sexual partners is universally pursued or at least a proxy for some type of success, and the unstated belief that altruism is a universally valued trait. Yet, these two beliefs are particular to a specific cultures.
Moral Foundations Theory[1] seeks to identify some of the fundamental qualities that inform more complex moral judgments that members of different groups will make. In that list of fundamentals, a couple stand out as consistent with the popular interpretations here: care for others (altruism), and liberty (freedom to share intimacy with others).
However, other groups place a much greater emphasis on sanctity or purity, respect or authority, and fairly rendered justice. It is not difficult to imagine a group that feels people should be self-sufficient rather than receiving handouts, and that also believes the romantic ideal involves wooing a single partner for a lifetime.
So, the alternate interpretation of this headline could be that there is an association between valuing altruism highly, and openness to multiple sexual partners.
Thanks. I was a little miffed that the article automatically assumed that, as you said "a higher number" is "at least a proxy for some type of success". It's just such a terrible and short-sighted assumption to make.
This will remind me to stay away from the "Scientific American" in the future.
56 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadDamn, human interaction is so nuanced. >:\",
Words fail me...
"...all else being equal" <--- the reason why altruism doesn't get you partners in the real world (outside of polyamory).
By saying all else being equal, you are singling out one quality. If people were to judge ONLY on that quality (all else being equal) everyone gravitates towards perceived positive qualities.
To prove my point look at the following statements:
- All else being equal, money correlates directly with number of partners (rich have more free time/access to partners)
- All else being equal, beauty correlates directly with number of partners (beautiful people have more access to partners)
- All else being equal, kindness correlates directly with number of partners (kind people have partners gravitate to them and stay with them)
- All else being equal, confidence correlates directly with number of partners (confident people generally have better access to partners)
It is not a statement by the speaker that all other things actually are equal, in fact it's usually an acknowledgement that they're not. If all else really was equal, nobody would ever start a sentence with that phrase.
Relating to the 2nd study, 100$ or 1$ is the same (not significant) for someone with high income so they just found a correlation between "rich" people and higher number of sexual partners.
Do you concur?
I get that people might ask about it because people who donate blood do have their blood tested for some STDs, but just asking isn't going to help a whole lot if you are talking to a liar.
I understood it to say that Jerks / Bad Boys / Narcissists also have a lot of sexual partners, but only for a short period, whereas the "Nice Guys" / Atruistic people have more sexual partners also, but for a longer term / time frame.
Did I interpret this incorrectly? If not, a more apt title is "Altruistic People Have More Long Term Sexual Partners"
So, yes, it does have something to do with whether or not you're a jerk.
Good sex, in general, is about generosity. So those who are more generous are likely to be better at it, and those do more of it. I know there are many factors that could influence, but the basics seem obvious.
1. Skim academic journals without vetting look for anything you can spin into a sensationalist statement
2. Once you find it spin up articles using words like "statistically significant" and dropping Ivy League research names ("he went to Harvard, he must not be fallible")
3. Paywall & profit?
1. Come up with some counter-intuitive-sounding idea for a solution to a common problem.
2. Skim academic journals without vetting, noting down articles you can spin to support your idea.
3. Write a book.
4. Profit more.
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.
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
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_m...
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.
I also enjoy winning. If I stumbled across the survey I would do it honestly and take the win. In this case $100.
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.
Largely the interpretations are based on unstated belief that a higher number of sexual partners is universally pursued or at least a proxy for some type of success, and the unstated belief that altruism is a universally valued trait. Yet, these two beliefs are particular to a specific cultures.
Moral Foundations Theory[1] seeks to identify some of the fundamental qualities that inform more complex moral judgments that members of different groups will make. In that list of fundamentals, a couple stand out as consistent with the popular interpretations here: care for others (altruism), and liberty (freedom to share intimacy with others).
However, other groups place a much greater emphasis on sanctity or purity, respect or authority, and fairly rendered justice. It is not difficult to imagine a group that feels people should be self-sufficient rather than receiving handouts, and that also believes the romantic ideal involves wooing a single partner for a lifetime.
So, the alternate interpretation of this headline could be that there is an association between valuing altruism highly, and openness to multiple sexual partners.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
This will remind me to stay away from the "Scientific American" in the future.