• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

hot chicks will make men take more risks?

richardycc

Diamond Member
just saw this online somewhere, thought I'd share it with you ATOT folks.



"Pretty women scramble men's ability to assess the future"
10 December 03
NewScientist.com news service

Psychologists in Canada have finally proved what women have long suspected - men really are irrational enough to risk entire kingdoms to catch sight of a beautiful face.
Biologists have long known that animals prefer immediate rewards to greater ones in the future. This process, known as "discounting the future", is found in humans too and is fundamental to many economic models.
Resources have a value to individuals that changes through time. For example, immediately available cash is generally worth more than the same amount would be in the future. But greater amounts of money in the future would be worth waiting for under so-called 'rational' discounting.
But some people, such as drug addicts, show 'irrational' discounting. For example, preferring a small amount of heroin today rather than a greater amount in the future.
Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada decided to investigate discounting behaviour and see if it varied with sexual mood.
Male students, when shown pictures of pretty women, were more likely to opt for short-term economic gain than wait for a better reward in the future.

Sexual opportunity

Both male and female students at McMaster University were shown pictures of the opposite sex of varying attractiveness taken from the website 'Hot or Not'. The 209 students were then offered the chance to win a reward. They could either accept a cheque for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50-$75 at a variable point in the future.
Wilson and Daly found that male students shown the pictures of averagely attractive women showed exponential discounting of the future value of the reward. This indicated that they had made a rational decision. When male students were shown pictures of pretty women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an "irrational" way - they would opt for the smaller amount of money available the next day rather than wait for a much bigger reward.
Women, by contrast, made equally rational decisions whether they had been shown pictures of handsome men or those of average attractiveness.
"We have not elucidated the psychological mechanisms mediating our results," says Margo Wilson. "But we hypothesise that viewing pictures of pretty women was mildly arousing, activating neural mechanisms associated with cues of sexual opportunity."
Tommaso Pizzari, an evolutionary biologist at Leeds University, offers another possible explanation: "If there's the prospect of getting a very attractive partner it may pay a man to take more risks than if an average partner was available."
He told New Scientist: "If this is a response to sexual selection then you would expect men who are less attractive to take more risks. If you have many attractive potential partners then it does not pay to take risks. If you are less attractive, with few potential partners, then it pays to take risks."
 
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.

Date with this supermodel and a $15 check or a date with this 400lb woman that looks like she was in the movie lord of the rings with no makeup for $30. Oh, and you have to sleep with them at the end of the date.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.
this is a fine example of bad science - no doubt

 
Amazing all these useless "studies" doctors do.
Franky, I think its a big scam to siphon money into other sectors.
 
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: yllus
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.

Date with this supermodel and a $15 check or a date with this 400lb woman that looks like she was in the movie lord of the rings with no makeup for $30. Oh, and you have to sleep with them at the end of the date.
In your example, Kelvrick, there is a correlation between picking the more attractive female and the reward money. Pick sexy, get $15. Pick ugly, get $30.

In richardycc's article, there is no such correlation. Pick sexy, you can get $50-$75 in the future. Pick ugly, you can still get $50-$75 in the future. There were no conditions upon the reward. The only thing we have going here is a lame hypothesis about "discounting the future".

If I was a student in this position, I'd look at any old chick they put in front of me and "pick" $15-$35 tomorrow. Who knows how long these two idiots Margo Wilson and Martin Daly are going to be around? With research as dumb as this I wouldn't count on them being in university X days from now. I'll take my money tomorrow. THAT is a logical choice.
 
Fools! (those guys)

I'd take the money later as long as it wasn't say 10yrs down the line then the $50-70 or so isn't worth it as it is too long a time frame.

Koing
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: yllus
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.

Date with this supermodel and a $15 check or a date with this 400lb woman that looks like she was in the movie lord of the rings with no makeup for $30. Oh, and you have to sleep with them at the end of the date.
In your example, Kelvrick, there is a correlation between picking the more attractive female and the reward money. Pick sexy, get $15. Pick ugly, get $30.

In richardycc's article, there is no such correlation. Pick sexy, you can get $50-$75 in the future. Pick ugly, you can still get $50-$75 in the future. There were no conditions upon the reward. The only thing we have going here is a lame hypothesis about "discounting the future".

If I was a student in this position, I'd look at any old chick they put in front of me and "pick" $15-$35 tomorrow. Who knows how long these two idiots Margo Wilson and Martin Daly are going to be around? With research as dumb as this I wouldn't count on them being in university X days from now. I'll take my money tomorrow. THAT is a logical choice.

Keep in mind that this is an abridged version of the research. We don't know what qualifying statements the psychologists have made concerning how effectively they "proved" anything. Until we see the actual journal article, there's no point attacking the legitimacy of the research.
 
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: yllus
uh. I find this completely and utterly flawed. What does the showing of an attractive HotOrNot member have to do with the cash reward? There's no logical link that I can see unless I'm missing something big.

Date with this supermodel and a $15 check or a date with this 400lb woman that looks like she was in the movie lord of the rings with no makeup for $30. Oh, and you have to sleep with them at the end of the date.
In your example, Kelvrick, there is a correlation between picking the more attractive female and the reward money. Pick sexy, get $15. Pick ugly, get $30.

In richardycc's article, there is no such correlation. Pick sexy, you can get $50-$75 in the future. Pick ugly, you can still get $50-$75 in the future. There were no conditions upon the reward. The only thing we have going here is a lame hypothesis about "discounting the future".

If I was a student in this position, I'd look at any old chick they put in front of me and "pick" $15-$35 tomorrow. Who knows how long these two idiots Margo Wilson and Martin Daly are going to be around? With research as dumb as this I wouldn't count on them being in university X days from now. I'll take my money tomorrow. THAT is a logical choice.

Keep in mind that this is an abridged version of the research. We don't know what qualifying statements the psychologists have made concerning how effectively they "proved" anything. Until we see the actual journal article, there's no point attacking the legitimacy of the research.
Granted, but in that case they shouldn't have written that they proved anything. I think it's fair to say the paper has not been peer-reviewed yet. I don't think, from what's written, it would pass such a test.
 
Granted, but in that case they shouldn't have written that they proved anything. I think it's fair to say the paper has not been peer-reviewed yet. I don't think, from what's written, it would pass such a test.
They didn't say anything. Whoever wrote that article wrote that they "proved" something. I doubt that the two psychologists told anyone that they proved conclusively that x causes y.
 
Originally posted by: Spoooon
Granted, but in that case they shouldn't have written that they proved anything. I think it's fair to say the paper has not been peer-reviewed yet. I don't think, from what's written, it would pass such a test.
They didn't say anything. Whoever wrote that article wrote that they "proved" something. I doubt that the two psychologists told anyone that they proved conclusively that x causes y.
That's what I meant. NewScientist.com tends to be a little tongue in cheek with its articles, which I think is the culprit here.
 
The point was the fact that they wern't thinking rationally casued by the excitment of the attractive women. Picking less money ( but sooner ) instead of waiting for more.
 
I think maybe they mean behaviors we guys will do to take a look at a good looking woman.

None of you have ever sped up a little on the freeway to catch a glance at the driver of a car in front of you? Or drive around in a parking lot to get a second look at somebody walking around?
 
Back
Top