
Altruistic People Have More Sexual Partners - ohjeez
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/altruistic-people-have-more-sexual-partners/
======
zeteo
>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.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" 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_m...](http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more/)

~~~
pyromine
Except that doesn't eliminate the confounding factor, so while your statement
is true the parents is also.

------
rz2k
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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory)

~~~
winter_blue
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.

------
reducesuffering
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.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
Additionally: More sexual partners can plainly be interpreted as either:

    
    
      - Polyamory
      - A long series of failed monogamous relationships
    

That's assuming age is constant.

~~~
elmin
It could be a long series of successful monogamous relationships. Not all good
relationships last a lifetime.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
That's true. All relationships end with either death or a breakup, but just
because it ended doesn't mean it wasn't good while it lasted.

Damn, human interaction is so nuanced. >:\

------
brilliantcode
How to profit with scientific articles:

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?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Another strategy:

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.

------
sean_patel
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"

------
aklemm
If anyone needs help with a project, do not hesitate to ask. I'm here for you.

~~~
finishingmove
"This guy fucks."

------
gok
I must be even more uncharitable than I thought.

------
JoeAltmaier
Self-reported partners. So a correlation between altruism and exaggeration?

~~~
johncolanduoni
Or just exaggeration and exaggeration? The article touched on it, but I think
that's more of a confounded than they let on.

------
NTDF9
>> Research has shown that we prefer altruistic partners, all else being equal

"...all else being equal" <\--- the reason why altruism doesn't get you
partners in the real world (outside of polyamory).

~~~
jawarner
I don't follow. The study did show correlation between altruism and # partners
in the real world.

~~~
NTDF9
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)

~~~
mwfunk
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.

~~~
roel_v
What? No, it doesn't - it means 'when controlled for all variables except this
one in our significance analysis'.

~~~
mwfunk
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).

~~~
roel_v
Oh ok, I got it the other way around - that gp meant a statistical concept and
you just as a narrative.

------
jboggan
Figures here in free preview:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12208/epdf?r...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12208/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Wait. An article about altruism was paywalled?

Words fail me...

------
thewhitetulip
Not in India. We meet our sexual partners after marriage.

------
Alex3917
This article doesn't make much sense. Being altruistic has nothing to do with
whether or not you're a jerk.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
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.

------
passive
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.

~~~
dkarapetyan
It's not obvious at all. Tons of studies also show the opposite preference.
Domineering and self-centered people getting it more than the altruists.

~~~
lqdc13
Yup. Here's an article on the topic with some studies cited:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-
minds/200910/...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-
minds/200910/do-assholes-really-finish-first)

------
racl101
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.

------
tropo
Both of these traits are predictable from political leanings.

------
norea-armozel
I must be the most selfish jerk on the planet since I haven't had sex in over
15 years.

~~~
popobobo
For a 15 year old boy, you are totally normal my friend.

~~~
norea-armozel
Try 36. But thanks for playing.

------
hamai
Altruism is about to get a new meaning. Thanks, science!!

------
myf01d
What about autistic people?

------
rikibro
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.

Do you concur?

~~~
maxerickson
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.

------
Pica_soO
Surely, if you been sucked in and chewed, and been left - you would proudly
report this to a researcher.

