‘Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of college-educated women believe it is more important to prioritize protecting the environment…’
And who have never gone hungry, never had to go without, struggle, live in some grotty, tiny, dank apartment with three or four kids, and unable to find a job.
I am gaining some sympathy with Pol Pot’s idea to drive the educated and intellectuals out of the cities to work in the fields and know what subsistance, hard work and hunger is about.
I was a bit surprised by that too, although maybe the age range skews older? Or maybe it is considered socially undesirable to say you think about sex now among younger men?
Well, the results for that question at least. The bias from social desirability might not be correlated across all the questions, or of the same magnitude.
As I recall, some researchers argued that testosterone doesn't increase your sex drive so much as your drive to seek status. I can't remember the name of the paper, but Lindybeige mentioned it in one of his behavioral evolution / why do soldiers do what they do videos. (I think this one https://youtu.be/WFxOxU9qQyQ Even if that isn't it, his videos are really fun, so if I come across it rewatching them again I will post the proper link.) But yea, the idea was that sex was the overall goal, but men increase access to sexual partners through achieving higher social status, in direct competition often. So testosterone drives desire for status gains in the group, which with interest in sex fixed still leads to more sex. Something like that.
Could they, though? I mean, it would have to be a pretty big hole to get enough through... more like a glory Dutch door?
Seriously, thanks for the input! That is a useful data point, even with a small n. It is always worth remembering that any given study is likely to be wrong, even in large numbers, especially in a system as complex as humans. I know I am not certain enough to make any bets on which way is correct!
(Although there might be other reasons lesbians are less sexually driven than gay men that have little to do with either testosterone or architectural features.)
Re. attitudes about environmental concern and about Trump, I am not surprised, but let us not fall into the trap of saying that men who did not go to college favor the economy over the environment or favor Trump because they are uneducated/ignorant. Rather, those attitude differences arise because those who finished college have been indoctrinated and/or hold the snobbish view that graduates are "experts" because it validates their own choices of affiliation.
Granted, I am biased in that direction, so treat me with skepticism too.
On the attractiveness question, I think there had been a taboo on any man thinking another man was "attractive," even as a matter of aesthetics. When I was younger, I'd never have said or even consciously thought that a man was attractive. Now, I have no problem discussing a man's attractiveness with my wife or anyone. (I find that some resemblance to me is a correlative factor!)
The first question is not well posed. It should be how much discounted future harm are people willing to accept to maintain/increase growth in consumption of non-environmental goods and services. It's not clear that there IS any trade off of GD_P_ and CO2/methane reduction, just a need to shift to investment in a lot of new net CO2 reducing technologies. And certainly it is wrong to ask the question as if environmental investments will mean fewer JOBS. The Fed can hit its inflation-employment targets as well with a tax on net CO2/methane emissions as without one.
‘Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of college-educated women believe it is more important to prioritize protecting the environment…’
And who have never gone hungry, never had to go without, struggle, live in some grotty, tiny, dank apartment with three or four kids, and unable to find a job.
I am gaining some sympathy with Pol Pot’s idea to drive the educated and intellectuals out of the cities to work in the fields and know what subsistance, hard work and hunger is about.
> Nearly half (47 percent) of men report that they think about sex most days or every day.
This seems drastically low. Throws the whole study into question!
I was a bit surprised by that too, although maybe the age range skews older? Or maybe it is considered socially undesirable to say you think about sex now among younger men?
And that would through the survey results into question as well.
Well, the results for that question at least. The bias from social desirability might not be correlated across all the questions, or of the same magnitude.
As I recall, some researchers argued that testosterone doesn't increase your sex drive so much as your drive to seek status. I can't remember the name of the paper, but Lindybeige mentioned it in one of his behavioral evolution / why do soldiers do what they do videos. (I think this one https://youtu.be/WFxOxU9qQyQ Even if that isn't it, his videos are really fun, so if I come across it rewatching them again I will post the proper link.) But yea, the idea was that sex was the overall goal, but men increase access to sexual partners through achieving higher social status, in direct competition often. So testosterone drives desire for status gains in the group, which with interest in sex fixed still leads to more sex. Something like that.
Could they, though? I mean, it would have to be a pretty big hole to get enough through... more like a glory Dutch door?
Seriously, thanks for the input! That is a useful data point, even with a small n. It is always worth remembering that any given study is likely to be wrong, even in large numbers, especially in a system as complex as humans. I know I am not certain enough to make any bets on which way is correct!
(Although there might be other reasons lesbians are less sexually driven than gay men that have little to do with either testosterone or architectural features.)
Re. attitudes about environmental concern and about Trump, I am not surprised, but let us not fall into the trap of saying that men who did not go to college favor the economy over the environment or favor Trump because they are uneducated/ignorant. Rather, those attitude differences arise because those who finished college have been indoctrinated and/or hold the snobbish view that graduates are "experts" because it validates their own choices of affiliation.
Granted, I am biased in that direction, so treat me with skepticism too.
On the attractiveness question, I think there had been a taboo on any man thinking another man was "attractive," even as a matter of aesthetics. When I was younger, I'd never have said or even consciously thought that a man was attractive. Now, I have no problem discussing a man's attractiveness with my wife or anyone. (I find that some resemblance to me is a correlative factor!)
I don't see how evolutionary psychology has any implications for the reported changes in hetero-gender attraction.
The first question is not well posed. It should be how much discounted future harm are people willing to accept to maintain/increase growth in consumption of non-environmental goods and services. It's not clear that there IS any trade off of GD_P_ and CO2/methane reduction, just a need to shift to investment in a lot of new net CO2 reducing technologies. And certainly it is wrong to ask the question as if environmental investments will mean fewer JOBS. The Fed can hit its inflation-employment targets as well with a tax on net CO2/methane emissions as without one.
Growth, even just stasis, requires energy. If you don't have energy, you don't have life.
Did I say anything to imply that I do not know that? Or are you making a different point?