
Sex and shopping - it's a guy thing - alexandros
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427392.700-sex-and-shopping--its-a-guy-thing.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
======
araneae
I think that idea that men use wealth to attract mates is pretty damn obvious,
but I never really considered that women use displays of altruism to attract
males. But makes sense that women would want to say "look! I'll make a good
mommy! I am nice and selfless!"

But to go back to our usual question of women-in-tech, people often remark
that women tend to go into fields that are more "helping" i.e. medical
professions, non-profits. In general, I think the implication that women go
into more "helping" fields and men go into more revenue generating fields is
used to paint men in a bad light; but here they've shown that women are being
just as selfish when they appear to be more altruistic than men. After all,
they're much more likely to do charity when a potential mate is watching.

~~~
nopassrecover
Well "pretty damn obvious" wasn't so clear. As a concept it sounds nice and
clean that we're all motivated by sex but when you (I'm assuming you're male)
go and buy a new car, new watch or a trip to Europe, are you really thinking
"this will impress the ladies"? Because that's what this study has actually
proved for once - conspicuous purchasing decisions are motivated by sex
(conversely conspicuous charity for women).

~~~
araneae
I guess what is obvious to me is that conspicuous behavior != conscious
behavior. No one is really thinking "this will impress the ladies" or "this
will impress the guys" when they perform these behaviors, but that's really
irrelevant.

Most of human behavior, I would argue, is _not_ conscious. We're conscious
_of_ the decisions we make, but not always about the ultimate (evolutionary)
causes. And why should we? It's completely unnecessary for the evolutionary
reasons for our behavior to be conscious, only that we act in a manner that
will produce more copy of our genes.

~~~
krakensden
"Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal"

------
cturner
The article underneath about 'givewell' was more interesting still.

<http://www.givewell.net/charities/top-charities> """ GiveWell was founded in
2006 by former hedge-fund workers Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld.
Frustrated by the absence of evidence provided by charities that they are
delivering the goods in terms of their charitable ends, the pair decided to
use their data-analysis skills to evaluate charities' effectiveness. They were
appalled at what they found. Evidence-based charity lags far behind evidence-
based medicine: virtually no charities do randomised, controlled trials
regarding which interventions work. In fact, almost no charities collect any
systematic data on whether or not their well-intentioned activities are
actually doing any good. """

------
diego
Spent is a great book. I particularly liked the descriptive part of it, should
be required reading for anyone working in marketing or trying to sell
products. I'm not so sure about his prescriptive ideas. He proposes different
ways to shape policy so that people rely less on consumerism to send status
signals to each other. In general they are interesting but sound a bit
impractical. Still, it's very well written and enjoyable.

------
mberning
So what happens when I go out and buy a sports car, but don't tell anybody
about it and generally try to draw as little attention to it as possible? Or
put another way, what would the explanation be if I buy some high status item,
but then actively work to downplay it?

~~~
radu_floricica
Reminds me of a point made in a similar article: why are people so surprised
high profile figures like Bill Clinton risk so much to have affairs, when from
an evolutionary standpoint they got there in order to have affairs.

As for downplaying a sports car, it's not very likely you'll do that.
Possible, of course, but just not very likely.

~~~
Imprecate
I've had a brand new high-end German car for almost a year and some of my
closest friends don't even know I own it (I live in a large city where driving
isn't that common).

I like to keep a low profile for the most part. I don't want to attract the
wrong kind of attention, look like a "young hot-shot kid" at work, etc.
There's nothing wrong with women appreciating your success and ambition, but
nobody wants to be a meal ticket.

I think women like confidence more than money, but having both never hurts. I
once joked to a friend that my luck hadn't improved significantly despite
earning much more; he quipped "you were still a guy who was going to make a
lot of money back then, you just didn't have it yet."

The most interesting signaling behavior to me is being a hipster. Not having
to work is really showing familial wealth and status. Most people don't come
from a background where they can spend all day finding cool music and weird
clothes rather than working a 9-5.

------
ShabbyDoo
I wonder if the ever increasing average age of marriage (at least in the US)
leads to more consumption. Imagine that most people get married right after
high school graduation. Men certainly would have consumed within their means
to attract women, but they would have been limited to what their parents gave
them and what they could earn in after-school jobs. Would they still consume
so much? Perhaps the "promiscuous" men would continue spending so they could
attract additional mates?

------
pwnstigator
_Study 4 showed that women rated a man driving a Porsche Boxster as more
attractive for a short-term sexual relationship than a man driving a Honda
Civic._

The fact that women are even capable of conceiving of short-term sexual
relationships is a sign that our society is impotent and dying.

~~~
pwnstigator
This was voted down why, exactly?

Everyone knows I'm right. A society that fails to impel people to better
themselves is next to useless.

~~~
lionhearted
> This was voted down why, exactly?

It might be from the combination of proof-by-assertion _and_ people disagree
with you. Take your first comment:

"The fact that women are even capable of conceiving of short-term sexual
relationships is a sign that our society is impotent and dying."

See, I'm not sure that's quite right, but I'm always open to being convinced.
If you cited, for instance, the fall of Rome when making your point, or GDP
per capita growth in traditional/modern societies, or population growth rates,
well you might make a point. Instead you're just asserting that you're right.

> Everyone knows I'm right.

Like that. That doesn't work so well. Data, evidence, argument,
counterargument. You've actually got some good arguments on your side -
replacement rate in population growth, birthrates of the Islamic world vs. the
rest of the world, and so on. I just got a copy of The History of the Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I think Gibbons points to changes in Roman
family life as one of the big causes. So, you could probably make a really
interesting and nuanced argument that challenged our beliefs and made us think
more.

Now, it goes against a lot of people here's base views, so it would likely
receive mixed feedback, but it would definitely get some positive points and
discussion going. Heck, I'd be up for reading and discussing with you if you
made those arguments because I'm not sold either way on what's going to happen
to modern society 100 years out - it's a fascinating and interesting topic. I
think data, citations, research, books, and a more flushed out argument and
you could really make some interesting points and get some good discussion
going.

~~~
pwnstigator
Cross-cultural study shows us that monogamy is required for a stable, future-
oriented, low-violence society. No non-monogamous society has managed to
achieve a fraction of what predominantly monogamous ones have, and
civilizations become more monogamous (by necessity) as they develop.

The danger of accepting and encouraging casual sexuality is that it inexorably
leads to strong-man polygamy and the subjugation of women, which most people
would consider a regression.

~~~
whimsy
This assertion is relevant to my interests. Do you have references to these
studies?

