rhollerith_dot_com comments on Absolute denial for atheists - Less Wrong

39 Post author: taw 16 July 2009 03:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (571)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 18 July 2009 12:05:32AM *  0 points [-]

Our civilization does indeed have quite solid evidence that rich men have more sex and have sex with a greater variety of women than less-rich men. However, that removes only a small fraction of the support for the proposition that the kind of heterosexual single man reading these words is better off hiring a pickup/seduction trainer or spending heavily on dentists, hairdressers, gym memberships, etc, than seeking to enter the top percentile of wealth or power if his goal is to increase his sexual access to the sorts of women who will most improve his life -- because it is not as if getting a few million dollars is easy. All the dollars in the world are owned by persons, and these persons invariably resisting giving the dollars up. It is significantly easier to identify the women with whom sex will most improve your life and then get them to give the sexual favors up.

Comment author: taw 18 July 2009 02:12:13PM 4 points [-]

Our civilization does indeed have quite solid evidence that rich men have more sex and have sex with a greater variety of women than less-rich men.

Give me this evidence. I want numbers. I suspect the correlation will be ridiculously tiny, perhaps far smaller than with stuff like height etc.

Comment author: Brian_22 18 July 2009 03:25:58AM 2 points [-]

I suspect that while wealth is indeed correlated to sex, the causation runs from status and social skills to wealth and sex, meaning that a male at the 90th percentile of wealth and 10th percentile of status (think well-paid but socially inept geek) will have significantly less than average success with women.