If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

---

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

 

 

 

Closest community background reading: http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/criminal-justice-reform

 

Scale

 

prevalence

 

Back of the envelope estimate of the number of abused excluding those who are emotionaly abused and neglected (because those stats aren’t on the wikipedia page for child abuse):

 

>Despite these limitations, international studies show that a quarter of all adults report experiencing physical abuse as children, and that and 1 in 5 women and 1 in 13 men report experiencing childhood sexual abuse. Emotional abuse and neglect are also common childhood experiences ("Child maltreatment: Fact sheet No. 150". World Health Organization. December 2014)

 

If all those physically abused are the same as those sexually abused (most conservative estimate) then 0.2 of all people are abused as children. If they are completely seperate populations then ((1/5 + 1/13)/2) + (1/4) = 0.39 (~0.4) of all people are abused as children. So, 0.2-0.4 of all people are abused.

 

>A long-term study of adults retrospectively reporting adverse childhood experiences including verbal, physical and sexual abuse, as well as other forms of childhood trauma found 25.9% of adults reported verbal abuse as children, 14.8% reported physical abuse, and 12.2% reported sexual abuse

 

More likely ¼ of all people are abused as children in some way or another

 

Harm (qualitatively)

 

>reduction in lifespan of 7 to 15 years (Kolassa, Iris – Tatjana. "Biological memory of childhood maltreatment – current knowledge and recommendations for future research" (PDF). Ulmer Volltextserver – Institutional Repository der Universität Ulm. Retrieved 30 March 2014.)

 

>more likely to suffer from physical ailments such as allergies, arthritis, asthma, bronchitis, high blood pressure, and ulcers (Dolezal, T.; McCollum, D.; Callahan, M. (2009). Hidden Costs in Health Care: The Economic Impact of Violence and Abuse. Academy on Violence and Abuse.)

 

>emotional abuse has been linked to increased depression, anxiety, and difficulties in interpersonal relationships ("Reactive attachment disorder")

 

>One long-term study found that up to 80% of abused people had at least one psychiatric disorder at age 21, with problems including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicide attempts.[95] One Canadian hospital found that between 36% and 76% of women mental health outpatients had been abused, as had 58% of women and 23% of men schizophrenic inpatients.[96] A recent study has discovered that a crucial structure in the brain's brain's reward circuits is compromised by childhood abuse and neglect, and predicts Depressive Symptoms later in life.[9]

Exponential growth, externalities or diminishment of the problem

>90 percent of maltreating adults were maltreated as children (Starr RH, Wolfe DA (1991). The Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect (pp. 1–33). New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 978-0-89862-759-6)

 

>children who experience child abuse and/or neglect are 59% more likely to be arrested as juveniles, 28% more likely to be arrested as adults, and 30% more likely to commit violent crime ("Child Abuse Statistics". Childhelp. Retrieved 5 March 2015.)

 

> A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment. When some of these children become parents, especially if they suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociative symptoms, and other sequelae of child

 

Shut up, stop dumping qutes and give me the QALY’s

 

>The combined strata-level effects of maltreatment on Short Form–6D utility was a reduction of 0.028 per year (95% confidence interval=0.022, 0.034; P<.001). (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377283/)

 

0.028per year * world population * 0.25 = 51800000 QALY’s per year

 

Neglectedness

 

>In the U.S. in 2013, of the 294,000 reported child abuse cases only 81,124 received any sort of counseling or therapy. ("National Statistics on Child Abuse". National Children's Alliance. Archived from the original on 2 May 2014.)

It's likely to be more neglected in low and middle income countries.

 

Tractability

 

>Most acts of physical violence against children are undertaken with the intent to punish.[106] In the United States, interviews with parents reveal that as many as two thirds of documented instances of physical abuse begin as acts of corporal punishment meant to correct a child's behavior, while a large-scale Canadian study found that three quarters of substantiated cases of physical abuse of children have occurred within the context of physical punishment.[107] Other studies have shown that children and infants who are spanked by parents are several times more likely to be severely assaulted by their parents or suffer an injury requiring medical attention. Studies indicate that such abusive treatment often involves parents attributing conflict to their child's willfulness or rejection, as well as "coercive family dynamics and conditioned emotional responses".[16] Factors involved in the escalation of ordinary physical punishment by parents into confirmed child abuse may be the punishing parent's inability to control their anger or judge their own strength, and the parent being unaware of the child's physical vulnerabilities.[15]

 

>Some professionals argue that cultural norms that sanction physical punishment are one of the causes of child abuse, and have undertaken campaigns to redefine such norms.[108][109][110]

 

>Into the 21st century many countries have taken steps to eradicate domestic violence, such as criminalization of violence against women and other abuses. Organizations have been formed which provide assistance and protection of domestic abuse victims, laws and criminal remedies, and domestic violence courts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_domestic_violence)

 

 

What can we do about it?

Given that ‘’three quarters of substantiated cases of physical abuse of children have occurred within the context of physical punishment’’, (see tractability section) assuming that a ban on corporal punishment towards children could be enforced with just 10% compliance worldwide, we could save a minimum of 10% * ¾ * 51800000 QALY’s per year = 3885000 QALY’s per year.

Now how cost effective would it be? What could we use as a reference class for how much resources would need to be invested to outlaw and enforce bans on corporal punishment of children? I don’t have the subject matter experience to say, so if anybody can help me out here please do. If you can also estimate how much money would be saved from everything from healthcare costs to criminal justice aversion costs, please chime in.

Instead, let’s compare with one Open Philanthropy Project funded area [clearing the organ donation waitlist](http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/organ-transplantation). They’ve simply funded trying to figure out the solution, whereas some steps are more obvious for child abuse. They decide to go ahead on that based on estimates for merely thousands of QALY’s. It should be overwhelmingly evident that averting child abuse probably dominates the organ donation waitlist problem.

Faced with such aberrant findings, I think it’s appropriate to hand this over to the community for input before collaboratively investigating this area. Could averting child abuse be the most important cause? If it is at least an important cause, what does it’s neglectedness from the cause prioritisation community thus far say about the methods by which potential important causes are identified?

A half-baked literature review: Skills training for dating anxiety

In order to infer whether sociosexual skills training is a useful adjunct to standard treatment of anxiety, the first page of Google scholar was systematically reviewed for unique interventional studies that include with any measure of anxiety as an outcome, studies with comment on methodological issues or otherwise theorising with implications for the interpretation of the empirical evidence were discovered using the search terms: (1) social skills training for anxiety and (2) heterosexual social skills and (3) dating anxiety. And (4) behavioural replication training and (5) sensitivity training 10 studies were found, each very dated. The search space was expanded from (1) to searches (2) till (5) due to the keywords found in potentially relevant studies.

Studies that did not contextualise in terms of sexual motivations (e.g. dating) were excluded (namely: the study - Social skills training augments the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy for social anxiety disorder : www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800619)

The studies found were (strike out: excluded):

 

• Social skills training and systematic desensitization in reducing dating anxiety: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796775900546
• Treatment strategies for dating anxiety in college men based on real-life practice.: psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1979-31475-001
• Evaluation of three dating-specific treatment approaches for heterosexual dating anxiety.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/43/2/259/
• A comparison between behavioral replication training and sensitivity training approaches to heterosexual dating anxiety.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/23/3/190/
• Social skills training and systematic desensitization in reducing dating anxiety: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796775900546
• Social skills training augments the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy for social anxiety disorder : www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800619
• Skills training as an approach to the treatment of heterosexual-social anxiety: A review.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/84/1/140/
• Self-ratings and judges' ratings of heterosexual social anxiety and skill: A generalizability study.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/47/1/164/
• Heterosexual social skills in a population of rapists and child molesters.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/1/55/
• The importance of behavioral and cognitive factors in heterosexual-social anxiety1: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00834.x/abstract

 

The search is halted prematurely due to the discovery of a systematic review (see: Skills training as an approach to the treatment of heterosexual-social anxiety: A review.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/84/1/140/) However, other studies emerged after the review anyway. In any case, the review’s conclusions are likely to hold true and they do suggest that there is promise to sociosexual skills training, but methodological issues will hold back good empirical research. Therefore, it is not expected to be productive to continue this review.

It is hypothesised that the evidence is so dated due to changes in terminology. The literature approximates exposure treatments for social phobia or social anxiety. However, searches of the first page of Google Scholar (exposure therapy and social anxiety; exposure therapy and social phobia) yield no results except where pharmacotherapies are in adjunct to the therapy) which are inappropriate for our purposes.

 

Tl;dr. See: Skills training as an approach to the treatment of heterosexual-social anxiety: A review.: psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/84/1/140/

 

Research translation idea

 

I have an idea for teaching certain vulnerable young people the skills needed to achieve social skills without intoxication. I was wondering if you have any feedback for my proposal so that I can revise it. Many students report they drink or get high for the disinhibiting effects that help them socialise with the other sex. It is hypothesised that this is because of latent anxieties and inproper self-medication. Due to the irresponsiveness of the target population at universities to respond to demand reduction programs and health promotion, the inflexibility of the university’s institutions to delivering supply reduction campaigns,  and the relative resource intensity of harm minimisation programs, alternative, innovative interventions are sought. One innovative strategy is to treat the underlying anxiety that motivates substance use in young people. The purpose of this social skills training program is to train groups of young people to socialise romantically and sexually with the opposite sex to replace substance-assisted romantic and sexual initiatory behaviour. Initial steps will be surveying the evidence-base, followed by the design, implementation and evaluation of a pilot program. This will be disseminated for critique by the broader scientific and clinical community before scaling if and as appropriate. The success of the program will be evaluated by structured interview eliciting psychological distress.

Background reading

 

Gender differences in social anxiety disorder: results from the national epidemiologic sample on alcohol and related conditions. - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21903358

 

Examining Sex and Gender Differences in Anxiety Disorders - www.intechopen.com/books/a-fresh-look-at-anxiety-disorders/examining-sex-and-gender-differences-in-anxiety-disorders

 

not academic but interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSZky8dk7OE

Typology: since not elsewhere disambiguated, divestment will be considered a form of shareholder activism in this article.

The aim of this call for information is to identify under what conditions shareholder activism or divestment is more appropriate. Shareholder activism referrers to the action and activities around proposing and rallying support for a resolution at a company AGM such as reinstatement or impeachment of a director, or a specific action like renouncing a strategic direction (like investment in coal). In contrast, divestment infers to withdrawal of an investment in a company by shareholders, such as a tobacco or fossil fuel company. By identifying the important variables that determine which strategy is most appropriate, activists and shareholders will be able to choose strategies that maximise social and environmental outcomes while companies will be able to maximise shareholder value.

Very little published academic literature exists on the consequences of divestment. Very little published academic literature exists on the social and environmental consequences of shareholder activism other than the impact on the financial performance of the firm, and conventional metrics of shareholder value.

Controversy (1)

One item of non academic literature, a manifestos on a socially responsible investing blog (http://www.socialfunds.com/media/index.cgi/activism.htm) weighs up the option of divestment against shareholder activism by suggesting that divestment is appropriate as a last resort, if considerable support is rallied, the firm is interested in its long term financial sustainability, and responds whereas voting on shareholder resolutions is appropriate when groups of investors are interested in having an impact. It’s unclear how these contexts are distinguished. DVDivest, a divestment activist group (dcdivest.org/faq/#Wouldn’t shareholder activism have more impact than divestment?) contends in their manifesto the shareholder activism is better suited to changing one aspect of a company's operation whereas divestment is appropriate when rejected a basic business model. This answer too is inadequate as a decision model since one companies can operate multiple simultaneous business models, own several businesses, and one element of their operation may not be easily distinguished from the whole system - the business. They also identify non-responsiveness of companies to shareholder action as a plausible reason to side with divestment.

Controversy (2)

Some have claimed that resolutions that are turned down have an impact. It’s unclear how to enumerate that impact and others. The enumeration of impacts is itself controversially and of course methodologically challenging.

Research Question(s)

Population: In publicly listed companies

Exposure: is shareholder activism in the form of proxy voting, submitting shareholder resolutions and rallying support for shareholder resolution

Comparator: compared to shareholder activism in the form of divestment

Outcome: associated with outcomes  - shareholder resolutions (votes and resolutions) and/or indicators or eventuation of financial (non)sustainability (divestment) and/or media attention (both)

[Relationships help us flourish](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/2/20/stronger-relationships-make-for-a-stronger-you.html). The [science is interesting](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/15/infographic-the-10-most-interesting-dating-studies-of-2014.html) e.g. men can more accurtely detect flirting than women - twice as well, in fact; And, cuddling after sex significantly improves sexual and relationship satisfaction (IMO, it's the best part!); And multiracial daters are the most desirable; Plus, Men but not women see a friendly (responsive) strateger as more attractive (feminine/masculine). [Relationships can help neurotic personalities stabilise](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2014/05/a-healthy-romantic-relationship-can-stabilize-neurotic-people/) too. Think your grannies wisdom has got your back? Opposites don't attract: 'Although there are competing common sense beliefs, the existing research overwhelmingly supports the idea that similarity leads to attraction and better quality relationships.1' - www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/4/14/do-opposites-attract.html. That's why I'm doing this very informal 'literature review'...

The following notes are designed to be useful without having to follow the links* I read through somewhere like 10 pages of the Science of Relationship blog, and the first page of their facebook page and clicked on any interesting links. Then, I disregarded that which isn’t directly supported by the study, and those studies with very small sample size, or that didn’t replicate. The remainder are reported here:

These points are formatted to be inserted into a discussion level post (in response to this, or a bro-sciency relationship claim) for further discussion while keeping the links in-tact.

[For the 144 speed daters, Vacharkulksemsuk says, "expansiveness (open body language) nearly doubles chances of getting a yes [to see each other again.]"]( http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/30/472250698/to-catch-someone-on-tinder-stretch-your-arms-wide)

 

[there’s enough dopamine triggered by sexual activity to actually make a person fall in love with their partner](http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/simple-carefree-casual-sex-as-if)

 

[Virgins are stigmatised]( http://www.glamour.com/story/stigma-against-virgins)

 

[Avoidants are moralise against privacy violations, the anxious moralise against potential infidelity]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/18/moral-boundaries-in-relationships-relationship-matters-podca.html)

 

[non symbolic gift giving is bad for relationships]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/17/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-you-the-science-of-gift-giving.html)

 

[surprise gifts are bad, gifts specifically on a partner’s wish list are good]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/19/this-holiday-season-get-your-romantic-partner-exactly-what-h.html)

 

[Principle 1: Give Experiences, Not Stuff, Principle 2: Give the Gift of Anticipation, Principle 3: Focus on Giving Quantity + 'we’ve got you covered. In previous articles, some of the best gifts for your relationship are ones that announce your relationship to the world, erotic photos, or simply exactly what your partner asked for']( www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/17/tis-the-season-5-principles-for-spending-your-money-wisely-d.html)

 

Don’t think you’re relationship material? [ two studies which found that relationships where there was self-expansion and self-pruning increased one’s willingness to be accommodating toward a partner, forgive a partner, and sacrifice for a partner. In contrast, self-adulteration and self-contraction increases thoughts about breaking up, attention to mate alternatives, and seeking revenge against a partner.](www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/11/how-relationships-change-us-over-time-relationship-matters-p.html)

 

[we may have an intuitive ability to sense other’s cheating ways  based on a few minutes from a video](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/9/can-you-spot-the-cheater-it-should-only-take-you-a-few-minut.html)

 

Are they looking for lust or love? [When deciding whether a given photo portrayed love, male and female participants focused on the faces depicted in the photos, but very little attention was paid to the individuals’ and couples’ bodies. In contrast, when looking for signs of lust, both males and females generally focused more on the bodies in the photos. The researchers suggest this work could inform interventions for therapists who want to identify how couple members view each other.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/12/2/love-or-lust-follow-the-eyes.html)

 

What’s marriage material? [For example, in one study researchers asked women what they were looking for in a partner.3 The women indicated that they were looking for someone who was financially stable, willing to commit, and emotionally secure. Unfortunately, the women in the study felt like they knew very few people in their community who fit the bill. As a result, they said that they would rather be on their own than make a mistake and marry the wrong person. Getting married only to later get divorced is a fear that many people share](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/25/four-things-you-need-to-consider-when-deciding-to-get-marrie.html)

 

[three types of social influence predict adolescent sexual behavior: peer pressure, thinking your friends approve  (injunctive norms)and thinking your friends are doing it (descriptive norms)](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/20/social-influence-and-teen-sex-what-matters-and-what-doesnt.html_) >The research team3 combined the results from 58 independent studies conducted between 1980 and 2012, including almost 70,000 adolescents from 24 countries, using a statistical technique known as meta-analysis...Of the three types of social influence, descriptive norms had the largest association with adolescent sexual behavior. Injunctive norms were the next best predictor of teenage sex, and peer pressure was the weakest. So normalness > normativity > normalisation

 

[So the next time your beloved shares a personal success, remember that a heartfelt “congratulations!” goes a long way towards fanning those warm feelings that sustain relationship happiness.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/18/are-you-listening-cold-shouldering-a-partners-successes-leav.html)

 

[In terms of general personality traits (e.g., openness to new experiences, neuroticism), online and offline daters are not significantly different from each other.1](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/7/the-truth-behind-online-dating-how-it-compares-to-offline-da.html)

 

[Two Is Stronger Than One: Shared Chocolate eating is More Intense ](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/11/3/two-is-stronger-than-one-shared-experiences-are-more-intense.html). The article generalises to shared experiences, but that’s insubstantiated.

 

[ A classic study from the 60s on in-person dating found that a date’s hot body/face predicted romantic attraction more than personality traits, intelligence, popularity/charisma, mental health, and self-esteem.2More recent “speed-dating” research shows similar results; beauty mattered more than political attitudes, preferred hobbies, values/ethics, and even attachment security.3 Perhaps unsurprisingly, some results from OKCupid’s data crunching show similar findings.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/31/the-truth-behind-online-dating-what-motivates-users-and-comp.html)

 

>Online dating exists as a business to turn a profit. It sounds like a cynical perspective to take, but the online dating website/app companies aren’t 100% enthusiastic about you finding a successful relationship, because if you do, then they lose a customer.

 

[It isn’t surprising that a person’s self-esteem may affect how she or he approaches flirting. When the risk of being rejected is high, men with high self-esteem use more direct techniques than those with low self-esteem, perhaps because they’re less concerned with how being shot down may affect them. However, men with low self-esteem are bolder and use more obvious approaches than men with high self-esteem when the target is clearly interested and rejection risk is low. This may be because encountering a sure thing is one of the only contexts in which a guy with low self-esteem feels safe making advances, so he has to make it count.]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/27/a-flirters-dilemma-subtlety-vs-success.html)

 

 >When rejection risk is low for women, they’re more direct regardless of their self-esteem. Women traditionally initiate relationships less often than men, so when the chance arises perhaps women decide to throw caution to the wind and just go for it. Of course it is also possible that women are using the technique that they know works better when men try to flirt with them.

 

 >When it comes to flirting technique the research is pretty clear: while subtlety is more likely to protect the flirter’s self-esteem, if you really want to get your message across, direct is best. A study asked college students about the most effective ways to show interest in someone. Both men and women agreed that subtle flirting was less likely to get the job done, and that the best approach would be a direct “Do you want to go to dinner with me?” 

 

[any reliable associations that the researchers found were in the opposite direction from what marketing would suggest. For example, people who had spent between $2000-4000 on an engagement ring had significantly higher rates of divorce compared to people who spent between $500 and $2000. Similarly, couples who spent less than $1000 on their weddings had significantly lower rates of divorce even compared to people who spent between $5000 and $10,000. People who reported having spent more than $20,000 on their wedding tended to have higher divorce rates compared to those who spent less. Furthermore, any cases where spending more was associated with better relationship outcomes were explained by demographic factors like having a high income. In other words, it wasn’t that spending more made things better. Other factors were responsible.It gets worse. The researchers found that high levels of wedding-related spending—for example, having a wedding that cost more than $20,000—was associated with stress over wedding-related debt. The researchers posit that this stress may help to account for some of the negative associations between high spending and marital outcomes. Couples spend money on their wedding that they don’t have, which later puts a strain on their marriage when they have trouble paying off the resulting debt.These results suggest that if anything, high levels of wedding-related spending have a negative effect on marriage, not a positive one. Of course, this study is cross-sectional, meaning that the researchers did not follow people over time. It would be great to see a longitudinal study where newlyweds first report on their engagement ring and wedding spending, and are then followed over time to see who splits up.](www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/17/diamonds-arent-forever-expensive-rings-and-weddings-may-lead.html)

 

[If you ask people who identify as straight, but then have sex with someone else of the same gender, this experience does not necessarily make them “bisexual,” but it does make them sexually fluid.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/13/debunking-myths-about-sexual-fluidity.html)   >In addition, romantic/emotional bonding is fundamentally different from sexual desire (love and sex are governed by different parts of the brain and different hormones in the body). In the words of Lisa Diamond, “one can ‘fall in love’ without experiencing sexual desire.” 4 The processes of affectional bonding (or romantic love) are not oriented specifically toward other-gender or same-gender partners.

[Researchers have found through more than two-dozen studies that relationship dissatisfaction accounts for 44% of a depressed partner's symptoms¹ (such as loss of interest and motivation, hopelessness, changes in appetite and sleep). Shockingly or not, partners in distressed relationships experience a 10-fold increase in risk of depression]( http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/7/28/what-does-it-matter-why-depression-is-so-important-in-troubl.html)

[Of the Big 5 personality traits, having a conscientious spouse was associated with important benefits for job success. Specifically, participants with more conscientious partners reported higher incomes, higher job satisfaction, and they were more likely to have been promoted during the study. A partner’s conscientiousness had more of an impact on earnings in single-income couples than in dual-income couples, perhaps because the partner’s supporting role is magnified. These benefits all occurred above and beyond any benefits of one’s own personality. That is, regardless of your own personality, having a conscientious partner relates to job success.According to study author Brittany Solomon, “…while previous research has shown that people desire romantic partners high in agreeableness and low in neuroticism, our findings suggest that people should also desire highly conscientious partners. While having a conscientious partner could seem like a recipe for a rigid and lackluster lifestyle, the findings indicate that having an especially conscientious spouse is likely to lead to both relationship and occupational prosperity.”](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/2/for-richer-how-your-spouse-influences-your-job-success.html)

So, you’ll probably automatically select an agreeable and less neurotic partner. But, go out of your way to get a conscienscious partner.

[More recently, researchers have advanced a Social Surrogacy Hypothesis that claims parasocial relationships (e.g. tv characters, pickup gurus) help to fend off real life rejection.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/8/29/parasocial-relationships-i-get-by-with-a-little-help-from-my.html). The author implies actual friends are better for that anyhow.

[Those who read more men’s magazines reported a lower likelihood of requiring consent before having sex; those who read more women’s magazines reported a greater likelihood to refuse unwanted sex. We can’t infer that reading men’s magazines causes these troublesome opinions about sexual consent; however, it does warrant paying greater attention to the messages that men’s magazines send and about those who are inclined to read them.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/8/27/no-means-no-reading-mens-and-womens-magazines-linked-to-sexu.html)

[It may be intuitive that when two people enjoy the same thing (similarity), they can enjoy it together. However, similarity itself did not predict satisfaction. On the other hand, when one person likes receiving what the other likes giving (complementarity), then everyone is be more satisfied. What may be less obvious, however, is the impact that the overestimating these things can have on sexual satisfaction.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/4/sexual-satisfaction-do-you-and-your-partner-have-to-be-the-s.html)

[Since when is human sexuality supposed to be simple and straight-forward? If psychologists claimed that people’s levels of introversion or neuroticism (two of the “Big Five” personality traits) fluctuate over time, that would perhaps seem intuitively obvious and uncontroversial (of course people can be shy in childhood and grow up to be more outgoing). But because we’re talking about sexual variables, some may assume they are (or should be) completely stable over time. I’m speculating here, but perhaps political liberals want to believe that sexuality is stable across the lifespan, thus giving credence to the idea that since people cannot change or control their sexual preferences (they are simply “born that way”), it would be a rallying cry for equitable treatment (equal rights) based on gender and sexual orientation. It’s worth mentioning that this research on sexual fluidity has also been abused and misused by anti-gay activists in favor of “conversion therapy” (see more here), but this a complete misrepresentation of the scientific research. While I whole-heartedly agree that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be treated equally under the law (or otherwise), the idea that people’s sexuality does not fluctuate across their lives is scientifically inaccurate. Dismissing all of the supporting research does not do anyone any favors. I’m not sure why some people may believe that the theory of sexual fluidity is sexist, or at all insidious. But if folks are upset at the notion of sexual fluidity, then we should have a constructive, sex-positive conversation about specifically how it is damaging (if it is at all) and then how to fix it.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/13/debunking-myths-about-sexual-fluidity.html)

[These findings are one of the first to establish a causal link between stress and relationship behaviors. Specifically, they show how individuals’ acute stress experiences undermine relationships by making those individuals less likely to compliment one’s partner and more likely to pay attention to other potential partners.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/8/two-key-ways-that-stress-undermines-your-relationship.html). Keep your partner's stress low to keep your partner happy and your esteem in tact!

[ Good-looking men tend to be more interested in one-night stands and brief affairs, and owning an expensive electronic status-symbol might help them to attract partners. So we might expect to see handsome men first in line for the next iPhone.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/10/6/his-new-iphone-may-signal-hes-single-and-looking-to-hook-up.html)

[Results of the study indicate that men and women reported a similar number of lifetime “loves” and similar occurrences of falling in love first. However, compared to women, men reported physical attractiveness was more important and were more likely to mistakenly overestimate sexual interest from another person. Men also reported more occurrences of “love at first sight” and were more likely to fall in love without a partner reciprocating that feeling. Men who were more likely to overestimate females’ sexual interest fell in love more frequently, while women did not show a similar pattern. Men who place more importance on physical attractiveness fell in love first in their relationship more often when they thought they were with a highly attractive partner. Finally, women with a higher reported sex drive also reported falling in love more frequently. Overall, men seem to fall in love easier than women, but why? It may be that men fall in love easier because they think being in love is important to women. Thus,men fall in love is a way to show female partners that they are committed to the relationship. The fact that men were more likely to fall in love when they over estimated sexual interest suggests that a man may be more likely to have interest in a women once he believes she has sexual interest in him. That is, the way to a man’s heart is through his…well you know. Of course it is also possible that men who fall in love more easily are also inclined to overestimate sexual interest as a way of validating his own feelings.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2014/9/19/who-falls-in-love-the-easiest.html) >Though there may be true differences between men and women, it is also possible that this study tells us more about who falls in “lust” more easily. The researchers definition of love focuses heavily on the more passionate aspects of love such as powerful emotions, attraction, excitement, and intense desire. It is possible that a study focusing on more companionate or friendship-based love could yield a different pattern of results.

 

[the famous Czech writer Milan Kundera mused, “[it is] one of life’s great secrets: women don’t look for handsome men, they look for men with beautiful women.”1](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/12/1/i-want-what-shes-having-women-copy-other-womens-mate-choices.html). Women who thought other women regarded their partner to be attractive were more likely to experience an orgasm. What is interesting here is that this relationship holds even after other variables (eg. partner attractiveness) are statistically controlled for. In other words, even when all men are treated as being equally attractive, the ones that are perceived as being liked by other women are more likely to give their partner an orgasm. The authors were able to demonstrate that perception of other women’s assessment of partner’s attractiveness uniquely predicted likelihood of orgasm.

[The vast majority of teens do no meet romantic partners online...Overall, 64% of teens have never been in a romantic relationship (leaving about 36% of teens who have been). Of those who have been in a relationship, only 8% met a partner online.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/11/11/lets-talk-about-tech-and-teen-relationships.html)

>Why do teens use social media in their relationship?

The majority of teens (59%) report using it to feel more connected or closer to their partners. They also report that it gives them a chance to show their partners they care (47%) and to feel emotionally closer (44%). While those are positive sentiments for the relationships, 27% report that social media leads to feelings of jealousy and relationship uncertainty.

>How much do teens want to communicate with their relationship partners?

>The vast majority (85%) expect at least daily or more frequent communication, and 11% expect hourly communication from their partner. When asked what their partner expected from them, the numbers were nearly the same.

[Attachment style describes the degree to which we perceive our relationships (usually romantic partnerships) as being secure, capable of meeting our needs, and a source of comfort in times of distress.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/27/anxious-avoidant-duos-walking-on-thin-ice-in-relationships-a.html)

>It’s easy to see how an anxious-avoidant pairing could snowball into relationship dysfunction: in the face of an attachment threat, such as an argument or confrontation, anxious individuals are likely to pursue their attachment figures in an attempt to reestablish feelings of closeness, just as Anna did when she ventured out into the blizzard to chase after Elsa. When the avoidant partner responds by pulling away – as Elsa did when she told Anna her intention of never returning home – the anxious person’s fears are reinforced and the relationship is likely to suffer (i.e., Anna feels abandoned yet clings to her hope of reconnecting with her sister; Elsa feels overwhelmed and inadvertently strikes her sister with a nearly-fatal blast of ice).

>If you recognize a troublesome anxious-avoidant dynamic in your relationship, know that it’s possible to “unfreeze” bad patterns. After all, when Anna and Elsa finally empathized with each other and stopped letting their fears control them, they experienced self-growth and reconnection. Simply knowing your own attachment orientation can help you to understand your strengths and vulnerabilities in relationships. Likewise, noticing how your partner responds to relationship stressors can help both of you develop ways of communicating that fulfill each others’ attachment needs and reinforce relationship security over time. If Anna and Elsa can melt the ice and rekindle their bond, there’s hope for a happy ending for us all.

[“Parents Report More Positive Emotions Than Non-Parents; Age, Income, Marital Status Are Factors”](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/19/parents-are-less-happy-fact-or-fiction.html)

[reciprocity in disclosure facilitates more liking than engaging in only one of the two disclosing roles. This is where our measurement of interaction enjoyment, perceptions of being liked by the other, and perceived responsiveness came into play. We saw that all of these variables uniquely explained the difference in liking we saw between the two disclosure conditions. For example, because people found that engaging in reciprocal disclosure was more fun than non-reciprocal disclosure, they liked each other more.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/10/8/let-me-get-a-turn-dont-do-all-the-talking-in-a-conversation.html)

[when conversation flows easily between strangers, people tend to feel bonded with one another and this flow can indicate the beginning of a meaningful relationship. Likewise, when conversations are disrupted or otherwise difficult, this lack of flow can make people who have just met feel disconnected. But what about long-term relationships? Is a disruption in conversation as detrimental to couples as it can be for strangers? Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have tackled this question,1 and their work suggests that a conversational lull can actually benefit your romantic relationship - IF you feel already mentally connected to your partner](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/9/8/silence-is-golden-how-staying-hush-may-benefit-your-relation.html)  

>For people who reported being secure and strongly connected to their partner, having a disrupted conversation (with the one second delay) actually resulted in feeling more validated and in agreement with their partners during the conversation compared to those experiencing an undisrupted conversation.    

>This group of researchers report similar results in other close non-romantic pairs (e.g., friendships and family). It seems that the closer you feel to someone, silence or other interruptions in conversation can be beneficial for your relationship due to feelings of agreement that tend to accompany the disruptions. In relationships, sometimes silence is golden.

[anxiously attached partners are more likely to Facebook stalk their partners in an attempt to alleviate anxiety and (hopefully) confirm their partners’ undying devotion. Such findings suggest that individuals use the internet as a means to cope with their own desires to learn more about another.](http://ww.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/9/1/when-and-why-we-isnoop-on-others.html)

[when relationship partners idealized each other more, over time the individuals in the relationship actually changed to become more like their partner’s ideal.6 In other words, if you think long enough about your partner as fulfilling your ideals of what a romantic partner should be, sooner or later it may no longer be much of an illusion; they may actually be more like your ideal partner.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/11/15/and-for-my-next-trick-the-magical-effects-of-positive-illusi.html)

[we all come to view and appreciate our bodies in the context of our intimate relationships. In other words, how we feel about our bodies impacts our relationships and our relationships impact our feelings about our bodies.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/15/my-body-your-body-our-relationship-5-links-between-our-body.html_

>Fourth, working with our partners to achieve health, fitness, and our “best body” can be advantageous to all involved. Working with our partners should not involve denigrating or shaming them into eating well or spending more time on the treadmill. Research suggests that encouragement and support are likely to go a lot further. And, why not make it a team effort? Joining forces may mean skipping the ice cream aisle at the grocery store if you think your partner should eat less ice cream. Eat off of smaller plates to help control your portion

[We find out how our rational minds go all screwy when we're faced with attractive rivals or sexual competitors. Three new experiments show how sexual rivalry primes men to be cruel, self-centred, and prone to risk.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/7/catching-up-with-the-psychology-of-attractiveness-podcast.html)

Reddit’s The Red Pill (TRP) has a cannon theory called ‘alpha fucks and beta bucks’. It’s empirically false: [A study of 2,757 participants from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth examined how spouses’ relative earnings (i.e., who makes more money) influences likelihood of cheating. Results indicate absolute income did not predict infidelity, so simply earning more money did not make a person more likely to cheat. However, being the breadwinner (i.e., earning more than a spouse) was associated with men being more likely to cheat; the opposite was true for women-- they were less likely to cheat when they made more money than their husbands. Being economically dependent on a spouse (i.e., one spouse makes a lot more than the other) was associated with increased likelihood of cheating in both men and women, though the effect was stronger in men.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/2/is-it-better-to-be-the-breadwinner-implications-for-infideli.html)

[what you want and what you get may be two different things. Study 1 shows that everyone prefers a potential partner with high mate value. No surprise there. However, consistent with the matching hypothesis, only those with similarly high mate values sought out the high value potential partners. Importantly, this was self-imposed behavior. Study 1 can’t say whether the lower value initiators would be successful if they had tried to “date up.” Rather, the study suggests people don't generally try. Study 2 shows, that at least when it comes to online dating, this is what people try to do. They try to “date up” by pursuing others who are more attractive and essentially out of their league. It is likely that the low stakes environment of online dating where advances don’t result in outward or obvious rejection, but rather a much easier to handle lack of response. As a result, a “shotgun” approach where you contact lots of more attractive people is a more viable strategy that is less threatening to your ego. And really, you can’t blame a guy or gal for trying. But if you’re going for a higher success rate, Study 2 suggests that you’re better off sticking to others in your own league. Thus, the matching hypothesis operates on the more practical level of what type of partner you actually get, and not in terms of what people want. All in all this makes perfect sense. In an ideal world you may really want the best highest paying job there is. Yet, because of all of the other applicants, some of whom are more qualified than you, you end up matched to a job that most closely matches your skills and abilities. So if you ever find yourself in that room with other singles or online dating, while you may want to “date up” by pairing up with the most attractive partners, unless you are also one of the most attractive you’ll have better luck playing within your league.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/22/is-it-better-to-date-up-or-play-within-your-own-league.html)

[Individuals in committed romantic relationships tend to downplay the attractiveness of potential partners. This derogation of alternatives, as researchers refer to it, helps the relationship’s long-term future by decreasing the likelihood that partners will be tempted by others.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/2/see-no-evil-smell-no-evil-possible-alternative-partners.html)

[Now, if you’re getting married and want to potentially avoid any post-wedding blues, what should you do? First, talk to your partner about marriage, and be open and honest about your expectations. And if you have doubts now, you might consider why that is and take the time to figure things out before proceeding. Second, all relationships are better when they have the support and involvement of (nonproblematic) others. Celebrate your marriage, but do so with your friends and family.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/5/27/something-old-something-new-something-borrowed-something-blu.html)

[Why do people cheat? It’s a question we get (and address) here at ScienceOfRelationship.com regularly. Our coverage of the topic generally reflects the state of research on the topic, which focuses on proximal predictors of infidelity --- or science jargon for those things about individuals or relationships that directly increase the likelihood somebody will cheat, such as low commitment, more attractive alternatives, lack of impulse control, narcissism, and so on.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/5/19/cheating-its-a-family-affair.html)

>Students who had cheated on a partner were twice as likely to have had a parent who cheated compared to those students who had not cheated on a partner (44% vs. 22%). Interestingly, having a cheating parent didn’t affect the way students viewed cheating  -- they were no more accepting of the idea of cheating in general (at least that’s what they told the researchers)-- so it’s not entirely clear exactly how having a parent cheat increases the odds that somebody may one day do the same. It’s most likely that knowing your mom or dad was a cheater somehow influences one of the many proximal predictors of cheating (e.g., feelings of commitment to partners), but future work is needed to clarify the chain of events that links your parents’ cheating ways (or not) to your own.

[80% of people had experienced a desire discrepancy with their partner in the past month; in other study, couples reported some degree of desire discrepancy on 5 out of 7 days a week. And we know from past research that disagreements related to sex can be very difficult to resolve successfully](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/4/27/what-happens-when-your-partner-wants-to-do-it-and-youre-not.html)

>Across all three studies we found that a person’s motivation to meet their partner’s sexual needs, termed sexual communal strength4 (also discussed here and here) plays an important role (a) in the decision to engage in sex in these situations and (b) in the maintenance of both partners’ sexual and relationship satisfaction.

>People who are high in sexual communal strength—those who are motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs without the expectation of immediate reciprocation—were less concerned with the negatives of having sex -- such as feeling tired the next day. Instead, these communal people were more focused on the benefits to their partner of engaging in sex, such as making their partner feel loved and desired. In turn, these motivations led the communal people to be more likely to engage in sex with their partner in these situations and also led to both partners feeling more satisfied with their sex life and relationship. This means that even though they engaged in sex to meet their partner’s needs, they reaped important benefits for themselves. In fact, communal people maintained feelings of satisfaction even in these desire discrepant situations.

>Our findings suggest that if one partner is interested in having sex, but the other partner isn’t in the mood, being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs can benefit both partners. It is very important, however, that this motivation to meet a partner’s needs comes from a place of agency, where people feel that they are able to meet their partner’s needs, and a delight in seeing ones partner happy. Situations that involve coercion or where a person ignores their own needs in the process (termed unmitigated communion) do not lead to the same benefits. In fact, an important part of communal relationships is that both partners are attuned to and responsive to each other’s needs. At times this may also mean understanding and accepting a partner’s need to not to engage in sex.

[Greater self-perceived attractiveness increased romantic self-confidence, which produced higher self-esteem. It seems looking good makes you more confident about your ability to attract and maintain relationships, which bodes well for your self-esteem.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/4/6/your-self-perceived-relationship-desirability-influences-you.html)

[People high in extraversion typically posted about social activities and everyday life, motivated by using Facebook to communicate and connect Low self-esteem was positively correlated with posting about romantic relationships Conscientiousness was positively associated with child-related updates (a topic often associated with a high number of “likes”) Those high in narcissism used Facebook to seek validation and typically posted about their accomplishments and diet/exercise routine (and reportedly received a greater number of “likes” and comments about their accomplishments)](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/6/18/what-are-you-sharing-on-facebook-and-what-does-it-say-about.html)

[In our second study, we asked half of our participants to read about the benefits of engaging in approach-motivated sex and we then instructed them to try and focus on approach-motivated reasons for having sex over the next week. That is, we asked them to think about the positive outcomes that they might expect to gain from having sex with their partner. One week later we followed up with them and asked them to report on their sexual experiences and relationship over the past week. People who focused on approach-motivated reasons for having sex (compared to people who were not given any information or instructions about approach-motivated sex), reported having sex more to pursue positive relationship outcomes and ultimately reported more satisfying sexual experiences during that week and felt happier with their overall relationship.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2016/4/22/why-you-have-sex-matters-for-your-desire-and-satisfaction.html)

[A majority of men and women admit feeling somewhat attracted to an opposite-sex friend at some point, but men report such feelings significantly more often than women do.3 Men are also more likely to want female friends for the purpose of casual sex, and are more likely to befriend women they find physically attractive.4 Even if they are in a committed relationship, men admit that feelings of physical attraction and sexual desire are important for initiating cross-sex friendships (physical attractiveness matters less to women in choosing their male friends); men are also more likely to end the friendship if they are rejected or denied sex.5 In contrast, women report wanting male friends more for social and physical protection (a “buffer” from the potentially creepy/dangerous men in the dating pool), although women also report wanting this kind of protection from their female friends as well. Like men, women will end their friendships with men if these needs aren’t satisfied.4,5](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2011/10/12/sexual-strategies-in-cross-sex-friendships.html)  

>Interestingly, women are often blind to the fact that their male friends are looking for sex to be part of the friendship—women underestimate the degree to which their male friends are attracted to them. In contrast, men overestimate the degree to which their female friends are attracted to them. This is part of what creates the confusion and ambiguity in cross-sex friendships. Men and women are often on different wavelengths in terms of their perceived romantic attraction.5,6 It’s also part of the reason why men are so protective and even violent when faced with a rival7     

[In both studies, the researchers found that partners who had greater executive control sacrificed more. They searched longer for the difference between the identical pictures and they typed out more letter strings. Partners who reported more commitment on the surveys also sacrificed more, but executive control was more strongly related to their sacrificing behaviors. Overall, these studies showed that commitment to a partner isn’t always enough on its own to promote sacrifice, especially when the sacrifice requires considerable time and effort. While sometimes it seems like we can effortlessly and automatically meet our partners’ needs, there are other times when we have to exert some extra mental effort to get past our own self-serving desires. So, even if it might take a little extra work to abandon your Netflix cue, the effort you put in to helping your partner could pay off big time for you both.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/30/id-do-anything-i-can-for-you-sacrifice-requires-more-than-ju.html)

So, smarter partners are better partners!

[being around an attractive woman can impair his cognitive ability..… on average women are more sexually satisfied than men....women find humor attractive perhaps because it shows his cognitive sophistication and intelligence....…women are typically more picky about who they date than men, but that this may have more to do with dating norms (i.e., men are expected to approach women and ask them out rather than vice versa) than with innate differences between men and women.…women were more in love actually initiated sex less often, perhaps as an invitation for seduction...](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/27/10-essential-relationship-lessons-that-men-should-learn-abou.html)

So, if you want sex, avoid getting fallen in love with!

 

[In comparison to the control conditions, savoring a specific past positive moment led to greater positive emotion in participants after the relational stressor. But, there’s an important catch. The savoring task appears to work mostly for those who are happy in their long distance relationship; the results mostly disappear when people are generally unhappy with their relationships.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/26/relational-savoring-in-long-distance-relationships-relations.html)

[While this study doesn’t conclusively show that self-expansion causes relationship quality, there is strong evidence from other studies4,5 that does support the idea that self-expansion improves relationship quality. In short, engaging in new, interesting and challenging activities with your partner can have a positive impact on your relationship over the long-haul.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/3/11/self-expansion-a-key-for-lasting-love.html)

[You need to show lots of active enthusiasm for your partner’s interests and activities5 (even if personally you find them dull or boring). You need to help them feel safe and protected when they experience distress.6 You need to show lots of gratitude and appreciation for your partner. 7,8 You need to put aside your own selfish goals for the good of the relationship (scientists call this pro-relationship motivation),9 or to resist responding with negativity when your partner makes a mistake10 (and everyone makes mistakes from time to time). These are all variables that are associated with long-term relationship health, and all of it is “work,” which can be challenging for many people even if they deeply love their partners. If you label these behaviors as something different, that’s totally fine, but when all is said and done, they’re still work. If it feels really good to make that kind of effort, then it simply means your choices are paying off.](http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/11/3/ben-affleck-was-right-relationships-are-hard-work-and-thats.html)

Based on that string of evidence, I think I’ll shift my goal from relationships, to … uhh… casual...

 

And with that, I am left with a list of the articles I have yet to extract conclusions as they relate to individual, evidence-based relationship decisions. So, here’s what I missed:

How Having Couple Friends Helps You Feel the Love - | - Science of Relationships

The Big Bang Theory Tests “The Intimacy Acceleration” Procedure - | - Science of Relationships

When Friends' "Help" Hurts - | - Science of Relationships

| - Science of Relationships

Afraid to Ask Someone Out? Read This. - | - Science of Relationships

How Do I Get (More) Intimate With A Woman? - | - Science of Relationships

Could You Be Loved, and Give Love? Cultural Differences in Pursuing a Partner - | - Science of Relationships

The Art of Pickup: Misogyny in Action - | - Science of Relationships

When Are Pick Up Lines Most Effective? - | - Science of Relationships

How Superficial Disclosures May Hurt You: Relationship Matters Podcast 44 - | - Science of Relationships

It’s Not Just About You and Me: How Social Networks Impact Relationships - | - Science of Relationships

Want to Increase Your Happiness? Science says… - | - Science of Relationships

How Sex Changes Across Stages in Relationships - | - Science of Relationships

Does Parenting Make People Happy or Miserable? - | - Science of Relationships

Stronger Relationships Make For A Stronger You - | - Science of Relationships

Got a Cold? Think Hugs, Not Drugs - | - Science of Relationships

Feeling Cold? How About a Romance Movie? - | - Science of Relationships

Give the Gift of Simultaneous Orgasm This Valentine’s Day - | - Science of Relationships

Valentine’s Day Sex: Extra-Special or Not-to-Be Expected? - | - Science of Relationships

Self-Esteem and Relationship Initiation: Relationship Matters Podcast 43 - | - Science of Relationships

"Survey Says": The Valentine's Day Proposal? - | - Science of Relationships

Should You Go See the Fifty Shades of Grey Movie for Valentine’s Day? - | - Science of Relationships

Survey Says: What Do Men Want for Valentine's Day? - | - Science of Relationships

A Feminist Valentine - | - Science of Relationships

Self-Esteem Affects When People Flirt - | - Science of Relationships

Stronger Impulses or Less Control? Why Men Succumb to Sexual Temptations - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #2 - How I Met Your Mother's Cheerleader Effect - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #3 - Feeling Like a Doormat - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #4 - How Your Attachment Influences Relationship Quality - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #8 - Don't Let Fear of Rejection Hold You Back - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #9 - How Relationship Events Impact You - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #12 - Does Your Partner Make You a Better Person? - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #15 - Three Pillars for Building a Lasting Relationship - | - Science of Relationships

2014 Editors' Choice Awards: #13 - Are There Benefits to Playing Matchmaker? - | - Science of Relationships

“Clear for Takeoff”: Turbulence in Romantic Relationships - | - Science of Relationships

Putting Your Best Foot Forward: How Insecure People Attract Dates - | - Science of Relationships

Much Ado About Nothing: The Result of Biases about Partners’ Negative Emotions - | - Science of Relationships

Should You Be My Valentine? Research Helps Identify Good and Bad Romantic Relationships - | - Science of Relationships

“Give me a minute”...Before I Behave Badly - | - Science of Relationships

If At First You Don’t Succeed: A Strategy for Effectively Stealing a Romantic Partner - | - Science of Relationships

First, Best, Worst, Forbidden, and Regretted: Kisses and Kissing - | - Science of Relationships

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Five Predictors (and Five Not So Good Predictors) of Relationship Success  - | - Science of Relationships

| - Science of Relationships

Ideal and Actual Marriage Proposals: We Asked, You Answered - | - Science of Relationships

The Pornography Effect on Men and Their Romantic Relationships - | - Science of Relationships

Mythbusting Online Dating - | - Science of Relationships

7 Ways to Use Science to Help Your Partner Meet His or Her Goals - | - Science of Relationships

Do Your Preferences for a Romantic Partner Influence Your Actual Choice of Romantic Partner? - | - Science of Relationships

Negative Consequences of Emotional Suppression: Relationship Matters Podcast 46 - | - Science of Relationships

Face It, Recover the Self to Recover from Break-Up - | - Science of Relationships

I (Don’t) Want 2 B w/ U: Texting, Sexting, and Avoidant Attachment - | - Science of Relationships

The Psychology of Attractiveness Podcast - Preventing Cheating with "Coalitional Mate Retention" - | - Science of Relationships

Do "Birds of a Feather Go Together" or "Opposites Attract"? - | - Science of Relationships

Misattribution in Paradise: Would the Bachelor Contestants Have Connected without all of the Arousal Inducing Dates? - | - Science of Relationships

Two of a Kind?: What Facebook Profile Similarity Says About Couples - | - Science of Relationships

The Ghost of Relationships Past - | - Science of Relationships

All Women Lie - | - Science of Relationships

Creating Closeness: In the Lab and In Real Life - | - Science of Relationships

Who’s Hot, Who’s Not? Time Will Tell - | - Science of Relationships

How Do Romantic Relationships Get Under The Skin? Perceived Partner Responsiveness Predicts Cortisol Profiles 10 Years Later - | - Science of Relationships

Date Night Done Right: How To Maximize the Effects of Spending Time Together - | - Science of Relationships

Rejecting People is Hard to Do: Why People Fail to Turn Down Unwanted Dates - | - Science of Relationships

Break Up Kindly With Compassionate Love - | - Science of Relationships

For Better or for Worse: Attachment and Relationships Over the Long Haul - | - Science of Relationships

Infographic: The 10 Most Interesting Dating Studies of 2014 - | - Science of Relationships

Easy Love: Is it Easier for Some People to Love than it is for Others? - | - Science of Relationships

No Means No? Reading Men’s and Women’s Magazines Linked to Sexual Consent - | - Science of Relationships

Take Your Relationship to the Movies - | - Science of Relationships

An Attitude of Gratitude as a Relationship Rx - | - Science of Relationships

Getting Serious About Cuddling - | - Science of Relationships

Are You Over It? - 4%

Are You Over It?

What Kind of Sexual Personality Do You Have? - | - Science of Relationships

Have To or Want To?: Deciphering Your Partner’s Motivations for Helping You - | - Science of Relationships

Are “Rebound Relationships” Bad? Relationship Matters Podcast 36 - | - Science of Relationships

The "Awesomeness Factor" on Freakonomics Radio - | - Science of Relationships

How Love Usually Goes... - | - Science of Relationships

 

Hope this was useful because a day of dedicated work went into this:)

 

 

 

If you have a goal worth setting then it goes here. 

---

Notes for future GSJ posters:

1. Please add the 'gsj' tag.

2. Check if there is an active GSJ thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. GSJ Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. GSJ Threads should run for no longer than 1 week, but you may set goals, subgoals and tasks for as distant into the future as you please.

5. No one is in charge of posting these threads. If it's time for a new thread, and you want a new thread, just create it.

I just read this article about the felicific calculus of parenthood.

 The average happiness worldwide is 5.1 on a one out of ten scale; Americans are at 7.1. Arbitrarily deciding that one year of a 10 life is equivalent to two years of a 5 life, the cost per QALY of having a child for total utilitarians is $5500.

However, NICE’s threshold for cost effectiveness of a health intervention is about $30,000 (20,000 pounds) per QALY. Therefore, for total utilitarians, having a child may be considered a cost-effective intervention, although not an optimal intervention.

...surrogacy is an underexplored way to do good. Rather than costing money, the first-time surrogate earns thirty thousand dollars, which can grow to forty thousand dollars for experienced surrogates– and it still creates 109 QALYs that otherwise would not exist. These children are likely to grow up in wealthy families who really, really want to have them, and are thus likely to be even happier than this analysis suggests.

 In the comments section, the following grabbed my attention.

Estimates for the size of a sustainable human population appear to mostly range between 2 billion and 10 billion, and the meta-analysis here (http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/3/195) suggests that the best point estimate is around 7.7 billion. Meanwhile most estimates of population growth over the next hundred years suggest the total population will reach 10-11 billion. It seems likely that at some point in the next couple hundred years, the population will decrease substantially due to a Malthusian catastrophe. This transition is likely to cause a great deal of suffering. Surely even a total utilitarian would agree that it would be better for the necessary drop in population to be as small as possible.

And even if the population never rises above sustainable carrying capacity, it’s not obvious that total utilitarians should see a larger population as preferable. The drop in happiness due to increased competition for resources could outweigh the benefit of an additional person existing and having experiences.

Then, I read this article. Here are the highlights:

 

Bryan Caplan’s excellent book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids[7] reviews the evidence from 40 years of adoption and twin studies with a frankly liberating result: *barring actual deprivation or trauma, children are largely who they are going to be as a result of their genetic makeup. In long-term measures of well-being, education and employment, parental influence exerts a temporary effect which disappears when we are no longer living with our parents. So costly added extras (music lessons, coaching and tutoring, private school fees) are probably not going to change your child’s life in the long term.  (However, data on the antenatal environment suggests benefit to taking iodine, but avoiding ice-storms and licorice during pregnancy.[8]) Sharing time together and finding common interests can build a good relationship and help a child develop without major costs.

In addition to straightforward financial outlay, parenthood comes with costs of time and opportunity. Loss of flexibility and leisure mean you won’t be able to take all opportunities (like taking on extra work to make more money or advance your career). Late notice travel is unlikely to be possible. You will probably be sleep deprived for a large part of the first year or more of your child’s life, and this may impact on your work performance. The work of parenting will take time, though some of it may be outsourced at the cost of increased financial outlay.

So, this baby is going to cost you about £2000 a year and take a variable but large amount of your time, which will equate in the end to another chunk of money. For parents taking parental leave or working less than full time to provide childcare, there may be delay to career progression as well as income.  Does this represent an unacceptably large sum of money and time to be compatible with the goal of maximising our impacts for the good?

In the light of this reality, the rationalist suggestion I have encountered – that one guard against a desire to become a parent by pre-emptively being sterilised before the desire has arisen – seems a recipe for psychological disaster.

 Finally we may ask whether parenthood – and the resulting person created – will benefit the wider world? This is a harder good to calculate or rely upon. The inheritance of specific character traits is difficult to predict. It’s certainly not guaranteed that your offspring will embrace all of your values throughout their lifetime. The burden of onerous parental expectations are extensively documented, and it would appear foolish to have children on the expectation they will be altruistic in the same way you are. However, your child is likely to resemble you in many important respects. By adulthood, the heritability of IQ is between 0.7 and 0.8,[13] and there is evidence from twin studies of significant heritability of complex traits like empathy.[14] This would give them a high probability of adding significant net good to the world.

 

That's rather confronting:

* a '5' on a scale of happiness ain't that bad

* don't stress too much when raising your biological kids, you can't do that much

* they're probably not worth having anyway

Just kidding. But, the evidence is quite fascinating.

Raison d'être

My original reason for risking my money for more, and the reason I tell myself, is that the marginal value of losing just about any amount of my money at the moment is negligible. I am fairly austere in my consumption habits and have no big ticket debt. Though, having lots and lots of money would certainly improve my options in life.

 

History

I am a bad gambler, better and investor. I lost thousands using the Martingale betting strategy which seemed to work on short-time line simulations that I tried, but failed to work in real life. I now understand why it doesn't work fortunately. I lost thousands on poker, which I’m awful at. Now, I’ve lost thousands on speculating in stocks.

 

Insight

I understand why I lost money when I gambled. It’s less clear to me now as a speculator. My consistent failure has resigned me to avoid any active management of my money making by investing for the foreseeable future because maybe I'm just a gambler and rationalizing all my irrationality in finance away. I was hoping someone here could help me understand what’s going on?

Strategy

My current stock portfolio is down 6000 dollars. My prior is that I have just been the liquidity in the market. My basic strategy has been buying mainstream stocks whose price has tanked for one reason or another (in the hope of a turnaround, or capitalising on people’s fear causing them to dump the stock below its actual value. And, to buy a few biotech stocks that seem high potential. This is all on the ASX cause it’s a hassle to open accounts to trade internationally:

Performance: underpriced

* BHP Billiton crashed due to low oil and an environmental disaster in brazil

* Slater and Gordan crashed due to getting class action law-suited by its own investors (ironic, since slater and gordan specialises in just that) through its main competitor

* Woolworths crashed due to price war with competitor and weaker profits

 

Growth: High potential, tractable and neglected

* Bionics limited is putting through some psychiatric medications in trials and I thought it would almost be good philanthropy to sponsor it since it’s quite novel compared to existing treatments

* Integral diagnostics is mainly owned by doctors who own clinics that order the machines so I feel like it’s undervalued by people not connected to it

* Regis healthcare gives me cheap exposure to the aging population market

* Tissue Therapies sounded like it was about a wound healing thing from a superhero comic but turned out to just be some niche diabetic product

* Donfang modern agriculture grows mandarins or oranges in China, and I wanted exposure to China and thought it was interesting that they’re listed on the Australian stock exchange

 

Portfolio optimization

 

Outcomes

I’ve either made a significant loss on each of these, over the course of a month, or basically no change in the price. The exception is tissue therapies that I bought ages ago and lost lots on too. I was going for long term appreciation anyway, so maybe things are okay? Help me become stronger! The first stock I picked I did extensive quantitative research on the fundamentals. However, I couldn't integrate all the information I collated into a single indicator for what decision I should make and I still don't know what that would look like so I just had to go with my gut. I made a loss anyway despite having found evidence that the team involved were actually quite pathetic because I already did all the research and thought it sad if I didn’t participate (plus shorting seemed to complicating!). I know technical analysis is bullshit, and I don’t see how any inefficiencies in machine learning of stock data that I could replicate in a timely manner with my average brain haven’t already been taken advantage of by existing quants.