I'm assuming this is from the book, not the blog of same name?

What's arusal? Sounds icky.

Seeing as slipping a drug in someone's drink would almost certainly have to be a premeditated act, at least that big spike doesn't mean there are a lot more guys out there who will actually do it.

I wish he had done something similar with women. "Would you sleep with a 60-year-old?" definitely cuts both ways, as do some of the other questions.

Arusal, I like that on my salads.

What, no data on how arousal affected guys' support for single-payer? Am I on the wrong blog?

I wonder if part of it had to do with the fact that in the second part they'd be indicating their answers with their non-dominant hand?

Was "yes" always the first option, or were response choices randomized? Because if one were... distracted... one might be more likely to just slap the "enter" key or click "ok," without regard for the actual question or answers...

Ezra,

You move from "people express different preferences when they're aroused than when they're not" to "people are less rational when aroused". But that's a fairly move, is it not? It may be the case that I'm willing to pay for more for aspirin when I have a headache than when I don't, but that doesn't show that I'm IRRATIONAL when I have a headache. Quite the opposite. When I have a headache, I have an immediate use for the aspirin. When I'm headache-free, it's of no use to me at all. Aspirin SHOULD be worth more to me when I have a headache. That's not irrationality at work, that's a paradigm case of being rational.

Now, this isn't an exactly parallel case. Why doesn't the study just show that getting off is more important to people who are near climax than it is to people who are nowhere near climax?

Nate

"SEX MAKES US CRAZY"

I'd say the more accurate (but less snappy) headline would be:

"Routine denial of our sexuality makes our common definition of sanity woefully inadequate."

Ezra,

You move from "people express different preferences when they're aroused than when they're not" to "people are less rational when aroused". But that's a fairly dicey move, is it not? It may be the case that I'm willing to pay for more for aspirin when I have a headache than when I don't, but that doesn't show that I'm IRRATIONAL when I have a headache. Quite the opposite. When I have a headache, I have an immediate use for the aspirin. When I'm headache-free, it's of no use to me at all. Aspirin SHOULD be worth more to me when I have a headache. That's not irrationality at work, that's a paradigm case of being rational.

Transposing that point to the current case, why doesn't this study just show that getting off is more important to people who are near climax than it is to people who are nowhere near climax? Why isn't this just a case of circumstance-driven preference change?

Nate

Um, isn't the big jump here from "they asked a set of men attending UC Berkeley"

to

"Not only did the answers to the same questions, by the same people, change, but they changed drastically."

The experiment was done on undergraduate men, known to be a horny bunch, but Ezra (and Ariely?) extrapolate that to all people.

My understanding is that this is a methodological problem with a LOT of psychological research, and a lot of research in general. It's just much easier and cheaper to get students to participate in these studies (as an undergrad, "volunteering" for two studies was a pre-requisite for passing PSYCH 101). So a lot of research - economic, psychological, sociological, medical, etc. -is drawn from the student population. I think the worry is valid, but it's a very broad net you're casting. If you're gonna be skeptical about this result on those grounds, you're gonna have to be skeptical of a lot of other research too.

The implications of this are significant. Someone desperate for money to pay the rent or purchase a home is less rational when they meet a loans counselor, someone terrified of a cancer diagnosis is less likely to prove an effective comparison shopper.

And that is why socialized medical care should be all about controlling spending through denial of care. Governments have been much better at denial of care than insurance companies. Many insurance companies still pay for back and neck surgery even after many studies have shown no net benefit, hopefully government would say sorry it does not help. I was just at the post office this morning and a clerk was fighting with one of the customers telling her that she filled out the forms wrong and so it was her fault. Government employees are in a better position than private businesses to saying no.

One of the most appropriate analogies for how sex affects the psyche was from Star Trek. The ever logical Vulcan's literally went mad for sex on occasion. The only difference to reality is that it happens to humans much more frequently.

First of all, your conclusion is hardly a stunning or original insight - the sad thing is that anyone would think it is even contentious.

Second of all, your data don't support your conclusion very well. Arousal could instead have a framing effect - for instance when aroused a man might call to mind a rather different sixty-year-old than when not. When presented with a specific question about each woman, the answer might be consistent across arousal states. Indeed, only the 12-year-old and animal questions do not easily admit of such an explanation.

Hmmm, normally I only come here to get very non-sexual, boring political stuff. C'mon, that's not really fair.

This is the very first time I've gotten an erection from reading one of Ezra's posts.

Wow.

Anyway, about those superdelegates.......

This is the first time I almost literally threw up from reading a chart. I was practically in a fetal position after reading the animal and 12-year-old questions. WTF? We can't chalk it up to people just being at the point of climax because a lot of people still said no. Remind me never to go to Berkeley (which means that this study isn't probably a good one for a school's reputation to do).

Yeah, the "aroused" answer to the 12-year-old question is disturbingly high.

"I was practically in a fetal position after reading the animal and 12-year-old questions. WTF?"

If you don't think 12yo's can be arousing, you're really not thinking correctly. Sex with them wouldn't be against the law if people didn't want it.

There are plenty of things that can be arousing that folks should avoid actually doing for moral reasons. Non-consensual acts are at the top of that list.

But thinking that good morality precludes arousal is insane thinking.

Petey, please tell me you're joking or that is someone trolling. If you think that, that's not normal.

Keep in mind that this study was of a group of college-age men willing to answer questions while masturbating to pornography, not a random sample of people, of men, or of college-age men.

"Petey, please tell me you're joking or that is someone trolling. If you think that, that's not normal."

I think what I said is perfectly normal, whether it offends your moral sensibilities or not. In the history of humankind prior to the last 200 years, the sexual attractiveness of adolescents was considered to be obvious enough to not even warrant debate.

We've made societal moral decisions since then to declare acting on that to be out of bounds, which seems sensible to me in many cases. But you're just arguing against some rather basic human nature here.

How about this: arousal makes fantasies more appealing? I am not going into detail, but I believe that arousal can frequently involve fantasies about doing things one would never do if the living breathing person were actually in front of you. I don't think arousal can be compared to destitution as a motivating factor for doing things that you really, really, think are wrong. Anyway, I think the test doesn't really show what it purports to.

Echoing what Vermonstrous said, it would be rather difficult to eliminate the possibility that people were willing to answer anything to get the prompt box off the screen quickly.

" It's just much easier and cheaper to get students to participate in these studies (as an undergrad, "volunteering" for two studies was a pre-requisite for passing PSYCH 101). So a lot of research - economic, psychological, sociological, medical, etc. -is drawn from the student population"

The most famous case of this is the game theory experiment in one person in a pair has a $100, and has to offer some of that to the other person. If the recipient agrees, they get that amount. If they don't, nobody gets anything. Game theory dictates that you should off $99, because $1 is better than nothing, and that's exactly what happened when economics students were used as test subjects. When a more diverse range of subjects were chosen, the average offer was much closer to $50.

Had a bit of a brain spasm there. Obviously, it should read "you should offer $1 and the other person should accept, because $1 is better than nothing".

This is pretty good, but the gold standard for your world in charts, masturbation edition still has to be Cryptonomicon, even if fictional

Is arusal a plant in the arugula family?

Just goes to prove the value of advice I was given as a teenager by my father:

"Never make a decision with a hard-on"

I don't understand how the "Can you imagine being sexualy excited by contact with an animal?" results could be so low. I mean, if not animals, what does excite these guys? Plants? Fungi? Protists? Archaebacteria? Inanimate things? I thought that animals were overwhelmingly what most college-aged guys were into. I wonder what sort of porn they were masturbating to then.

On a more serious note, the most disturbing one for me was the 45% level for "would you keep trying to have sex after your date said no?" one.

I'm hoping that meant "badgering" and not anything more forceful. The question was a little vague in that respect, but I can imagine the researchers might be hesitant to add "forced sex" to that list.

As for the 12-year-old thing... I think it mostly just says something disturbing about sexuality, full stop.

(Unless you're willing to say, "oh, Berkeley, they're all a bunch of pedophiles", you can't dismiss it. Much as one really, really would prefer to.)

seks shop

diyetle zayıflamak

sex shop

diyetle zayıflamak

zayıflama ilacları

zayıflamak istiyorum

erotik shop

thanks very good .

thanks

gömlekçi

oryantal kostüm

gömlekçi

Had a bit of a brain spasm there. Obviously, it should read "you should offer $1 and the other person should accept, because $1 is better than nothing".

On a more serious note, the most disturbing one for me was the 45% level for "would you keep trying to have sex after your date said no?" one.

I enjoy your article!

M2TS Converter

zayıflama hapı

zayıflama

side hotels side manavgat manavgat haberleri.

penis büyütücü

seks shop

erotik sağlık merkezi

istanbul erotik center

I follow your site constantly and offers a very good share. I expect continued share

thanks

I want to say - thank you for this

THANKS

göğüs büyütücü krem

sex shop

penis büyütücü

zayıflama

seks shop

biber hapı

zayıflamak

sex shop

göğüs büyütücü

zayıflama hapı

seks shop

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü

sex shop

saç ekimi

saç ekimi merkezi

zayıflama biber hapı

zayıflama biber hapı

porno dvd

porno dvd

porno dvd

thank you

penis büyütücü

That was nice info.

vakum