More $$ = More Sex? 'We don't think so.'

[jakethasnake]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040610/ts_alt_afp/us_sex_money_040610175035




Y'all are gonna like this one. Any thoughts on this article?

 

[CLOONEY]

lol, doesnt rule out that richer people are getting HIGHER QUALITY woman. haha, man I am an economist in a year and most of this economics crap measuring hapiness is absoulte bullsh*t. How about utility curves, any of you guys know about those? lol, how the fukc can u measure any of that. It is all very general and vague.

 

[HuuBinh]

nice article, thanks Jake.

Clooney, since you're going to become an economist, I am surprised you don't know how they measured happiness in their research.

Don't dismiss anything you don't understand.

The way they did it was, they used Econometrics models in order to estimate the relationship between sex & money. Although sex & money were the main focus, i am sure they included many other demographic variables such as age, income, marital status, race etc..They surveyed 16,000 Americans to get these data, and then they probably used ordinary least squares (OLS) or other estimating method in order to find if there's significan't relationship between sex & money.

So you think that happiness can't be measured huh?, the article mentioned:

This was the first effort to study "econometric happiness equations in which sexual activity is an independent variable."

In this econometric model, i am confident the way they measure happiness was they used happiness as a dummy dependent variable while sexual as activity as one of their independent variable.

Y = a + bX+ .... + u;

where Y = happiness, X = sexual activity, u = error term, a and b are parameter estimates.

Happiness (Y) takes the value of 1 if the individual is happy, and 0 otherwise. This is how they measure happines in this model. Of course Y will never reach 1, because there will always be other variable in u (error term), variables left out of the model. But, all they wanted to find out was if sexual activity (X) was statistically significant in influencing happiness.

"The paper finds that sexual activity enters strongly positively in happiness equations," the economists wrote.

What this means is that b ( the estimate for sexual activity) is positive.

 

[ShortTimer]

Clooney, since you're going to become an economist, I am surprised you don't know how they measured happiness in their research.

Oh I'm sure he understood it, but dismissed it anyway. The idea that you can objectively measure a subjective human experience is pure bull****. Firstly they'd have to define "happiness" and explain to us why their definition is correct. Oh wait, thousands of years of philosophers haven't been able to make anything concrete about it but some Yahoo news article can? Wait, wait, I'm trying not to choke from laughing here.

The *best* part about "measuring" happiness is how we can easily have the spectacle of a person who should be happy according to the equation but report themselves as miserable in real life (and vice versa). Not everyone places the same value on the same things, so within everyone’s individual life each of the variables will have a different weight or no weight at all. Dear lord, after the failure of social programming in the 20th century, as well as the work of Hayek, I can’t actually believe anyone takes this crap seriously.

 

[HuuBinh]

Firstly they'd have to define "happiness" and explain to us why their definition is correct.

In the paper, happiness is defined as the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his/her life as favorable.

This definition seems reasonable. The paper also listed several factors correlating with happiness level, such as unemployment, positive/negative events, assesment of a person's happiness by his/her spouse and several others.

The *best* part about "measuring" happiness is how we can easily have the spectacle of a person who should be happy according to the equation but report themselves as miserable in real life (and vice versa). Not everyone places the same value on the same things, so within everyone’s individual life each of the variables will have a different weight or no weight at all.

Eventhough each individual is different in the assesment of his/her happiness. Remember that this is an empirical study of 16,000 people, which is a very good sample size.

Of course not everyone is the same, but this studies shows that on average individuals are happier as sexual activity increases, and more money does not equate to more sex. The statement that you made

The idea that you can objectively measure a subjective human experience is pure bull****.

is not necesarily true. You and I may be evaluate happiness differently. More sexual activity may not increase your happiness as the study showed, but they objectively made inference to the entire US population, not individually.

If you're interested, you can check out the entire article:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/w10499.pdf

 

[legolas]

I heard Vin Diesel last night on Jay Leno say that when he was poor, he was a hunter and was getting lots of sex, but now that he has lots of money, he has become the hunted and isn't getting any. Obviously he made a joke about it, but I do believe there is some truth to it. And you know how in Vin Diesel looks

 

[NatureGuy]

Interesting article, although I would think common sense would draw the same conclusion. Like most of these types of studies, they're limited by and confounded by the fact that they are based on unverifiable survey responses. Not to mention the biases that may be present in the actual questions.

 

[FlyGuy]

Its interesting, but I always fall back to common sense with this stuff. Surveys and equations can often be interpretted in different ways. But I think everyone here knows that women are attracted to power, and money is power. That doesn't mean you can drop cash on any woman and she'll give it up, but you could certainly get more opportunities if you're loaded.

 

[NewMan]

You see I always figured the less money you made, the more sex you would be getting.

There's a number of factors - most important of which are Intelligence levels and social factors.


I think people with higher intelligence tend to well on things such as happiness more than those of lower intelligence. Just because you make more money - doesn't mean pressures of life is any less - in fact I would agrue that people who make more moeny have more daily pressures than those that have a lower income.

I often look at some of my oild school friends - and I don't believe my life is any better than theirs. They work the regular 9 to 5 - get the job done on the shop floor then go home - hang with friends whatever. My hours are very much longer - I work more and have less free time. Add to that the pressure of the corporate mentality - where everyone is trying to screw you over....

Then look at the social factor. Income (in general) tends to hang with others of the same income. Again it's much more likely that someone making 20K is hanging out at bars on a weekday partying - than some guy making 80K sho had to get his a## up at 6 in the morning to present to his boss.

Now I understand I'm making huge generalizations - and I know that, but I always thought that through life pressures and time, the people making less cash would have more time - and would be fvcking more.

 

[Cheiradawg]

If you believe that people can accurately report how happy they are then the math follows and you can believe the conclusions of this paper. "Happiness" is the only subjective data in that paper, and if you are willing to make the leap and say people can correctly judge how happy they are then ok.

That paper was written by an economist but social scientists have been preaching the same message for a few years now.
While respected economists were afraid to make the leap described above sociologist made it several years ago.

There are a great number of reports with this kind of information!!!

One I found particually interesting was:

Click here

 

[Hamaraz]

I did not read the article but here my take:

Men with money are older.
Men with money are geeker.
Men with money do not have alot of time to DJ.
Men with money are not the DJ types, no fun, workaholics.
Men with money are not in DJing, womanizing. They are into money. Look at Warren Buffett or most any other rich guy except Donald Trump. They are not the James Bond type of guys.


But put the geek and jock together and you have sex galore, professional athelites.

Vin Diesel? I cannot say much about that except I think he likes chasing chicks, a hunter and is not used to having chicks chase him. He may rightly think, that these biitches are after his wade, not his diick but this $$$$$$$. And this turns him off. This is probably why celebrities date celebrities and Diesel is so ugly he has a hard time pullying hot hb celebrities. It was easier in the old days when he was pulling street trash biitches. That is my take on him.

 

[FlyGuy]

Men with money are older.
Men with money are geeker.
Men with money do not have alot of time to DJ.
Men with money are not the DJ types, no fun, workaholics.
Men with money are not in DJing, womanizing. They are into money. Look at Warren Buffett or most any other rich guy except Donald Trump. They are not the James Bond type of guys.

Clearly you have a stereotypical view of men with money


There are dudes in their mid to late 20's with money who aren't workaholics. I guess it also depends on what you consider to be a significant salary. If you're talking about millionaires then yeah, most of those dudes are workaholics.

 

[Hamaraz]

I am refering to $100,000 a year and above, doctors, lawyers, investors, business owners. Usually, you do not hit that level until 30. Average dude with money, 50 year old.

 

[FlyGuy]

That's reasonable... of course there are always exceptions. I could be making that much right now as a computer network engineer, and I would still have time to party. I just don't like travelling two weeks out of every month.

 

[Hamaraz]

Originally posted by FlyGuy
That's reasonable... of course there are always exceptions. I could be making that much right now as a computer network engineer, and I would still have time to party. I just don't like travelling two weeks out of every month.

Well you would have to be more educated so you would be at least 21. But IMO, you do not have alot of cash, you are a nerd with a good job. Look at the time span of AVERAGE, lets say 21-65, average computer geek 45 years old. Plus, the AVERAGE computer nerd as no game with girls and dresses like a nerd, does not work out, etc........

So, it is not $$$$$$ not getting you chicks, its the profile of the average guy with disposible income to give girls.

Girls want the cash, girls want the car, the rich lifestyle, but most of the guys that can give chicks that kind of lifestyle are 50yr old.

Younger dudes with game, players, like pop stars, actors, atheletes can certainly get pusssy.

 

[DJ_Dork]

People with lower intelligence get more sex.

I noticed that people who have IQs higher than 115 their sex rate starts dropping. While it starts going higher for people who have IQs lower than 115. No offense dumb boys who will soon be working for MY company. You get the sex just like those animals, but it's just sex.

 

[Hamaraz]

Originally posted by DJ_Dork
People with lower intelligence get more sex.

I noticed that people who have IQs higher than 115 their sex rate starts dropping. While it starts going higher for people who have IQs lower than 115. No offense dumb boys who will soon be working for MY company. You get the sex just like those animals, but it's just sex.

Great point!!!!!!!!

You know why?

Because chicks,and the hotter they are the more true it is, could care less about anything really important, i.e. physics, economics, politics, and the intellectual men find those type of girls unapproachable because the the mental gap. These dudes are cerebral and the girls only relate to feelings and how the guy can stimulate good feeling in her. Intellectuals could care less about stimulating pleasurable feelings but rather only care about logic. Girls are illogical.

 

[FlyGuy]

you do not have alot of cash, you are a nerd with a good job.

So having a computer job makes me a nerd? lol Anyway I know I'm not loaded, I have other priorities than money.

Because chicks,and the hotter they are the more true it is, could care less about anything really important, i.e. physics, economics, politics, and the intellectual men find those type of girls unapproachable because the the mental gap. These dudes are cerebral and the girls only relate to feelings and how the guy can stimulate good feeling in her. Intellectuals could care less about stimulating pleasurable feelings but rather only care about logic. Girls are illogical.

Very true. However, not all intelligent guys are completely left-brained. There are many types of intelligence...

 

[Ebach]

What's the opposite of ugly? What's the opposite of sexy? Jeez, I'm trying to figure out these definitions. Sexy people get sex (I would include Vin Diesel in this category). Handsome people are sometimes very boring. I'd rather be sexy than handsome anyday.

I've heard a lot of handsome haters say damn look at that ugly fool get that chick. Thing is, they're sexy and you're just a boring basterd. End of story.

Sexy in man is defined as masculine, alpha male, blagh blah ...read the fvcking DJ bible!