New sociosexuality research could revolutionize how we think about casual sex

https://www.psypost.org/new-sociosexuality-research-could-revolutionize-how-we-think-about-casual-sex/

by isaacfrond • 2 years ago

11 18 2 years ago

psypost.org

tuatoru• 2 years ago

Self-report survey of mechanical turkers gave results slightly different from orthodoxy.

Revolutionary! Ground-breaking!

spacebacon2• 2 years ago

I agree, surely a Mechanical Turk worker is going to have a specific psychographic edge that unites nearly all of them to blindly inject a systematic form of bias into all Mechanical Turk survey based studies.

NotGMan2• 2 years ago

If you actually want to know how humans works as far as intra-sexual relationships go you need to read the stuff that pickup artists realized in the last ~25 years.

Start with books from Rollo Tomassi and Rian Stone.

"The seduction community has done more to advance the understanding of intersexual dynamics in the last 15 years than the whole of psychology and sociology has done in the past 150 years." – Nick Krauser

m1n7• 2 years ago

you can have sex without manipulating women...

chmod775• 2 years ago

Calling that manipulation is just insulting the intelligence of women.

Acting confident, putting forward your best leg and trying to be attractive is not manipulation anymore than most other social interactions.

Especially since appearing desirable generally means your partner will have a better time. Few people have sexual fantasies about sleeping with a loser.

zo1• 2 years ago

We're all deceiving and manipulating everyone else all the time to some degree. It's one in a million the person that behaves 100% in accordance with their internal beliefs and values, and they're quickly ostracized or marked as eccentric and to be avoided.

0xAFFFF• 2 years ago

Who do we really want to trust? Long time grifters exploiting male insecurities and considering women as barely human, or professional researchers in their field of expertise? A mind-boggling question really.

PhilipRoman• 2 years ago

Whoever can make theories with most predictive power I guess.

spacebacon2• 2 years ago

Both are experts at reducing human experience to anecdotal categorizations that serve themselves in becoming a pseudo authority.

Semiotics is the better way to understand the complexity and layers of culture and philosophy that brought us the DSM-5 and “psychology”.

lazide• 2 years ago

Which ones pass reality testing the best?

NotGMan2• 2 years ago

Yes because modern psychology has a real good track record :clown face:

devit• 2 years ago

I think a study like this is mostly worthless.

The issue here is that humans are a combination of their natural state (how they would be if they were raised with no contact, direct or indirect, with society) and social conditioning (the system of induced emotions and mental strategies that society instills in people to sustain and propagate itself).

"Committed relationships" are in the natural state most likely naturally living in a tribe, with probably little or no pair bonding/coupling in humans, while western social conditioning is about committed relationships, marriage, etc. with several very different flavors (traditional marriage, polyginous marriage, hierarchical polyamory, etc.)

"Casual sex" in the natural state probably "just happens", while social conditioning has a whole lot of mental ideas about with whom/when/how much you should do it, what it means if you do/don't do it, etc.

The problem with studying the natural state is that there are little or no humans living in it (and certainly none accessible to most/all researchers), and the closest animals, chimpanzees and bonobos, are significantly different between them in their sociosexuality.

The problem with studying social conditioning is that it massively varies between gender, location, subculture, age, historical period, and varies randomly between individuals.

So this study at best might manage to describe the average social conditioning that currently affects Mechanical Turk users (clearly chosen because it's easy and cheap to target them, rather than any attempt at producing quality research), and thus is pretty much useless.

eltoxo• 2 years ago

I thought the article seemed pretty bad so tried to read the actual paper too.

It really might be one of the worst papers I have read. It is basically a magazine article using more scientific sounding language.

There is a huge age/experience confound that I can think of from my own life. My answers would be so much different at 25 vs 55 after so many failed attempts at pair bonding. From my dating experience and life I would say the time average and ensemble average are not equal. Even forgetting about experience we know hormone levels change drastically over time. I can think of all kinds of ridiculous experiments in other domains that would be analogous to studying sex without accounting for sex hormones.

New sociosexuality research could revolutionize how we think about casual sex

Related Stories