As math requires, men and women cheat in equal numbers: [Researchers] gave 203 young heterosexual couples confidential questionnaires asking them whether they had ever strayed, and whether they suspected or knew their partner had strayed. In this, 29 per cent of men said they had cheated, compared with 18.5 per cent of women. The men were better than women at judging fidelity. "Eighty per cent of women’s inferences about fidelity or infidelity were correct, but men were even better, accurate 94 per cent of the time" … However, men were also more likely to suspect infidelity when there was none. … Complex statistical analysis of the data hinted that a further 10 per cent of the women in the study had cheated on top of the 18.5 per cent who admitted to it in the questionnaires, whereas the men had been honest about their philandering.
Clearly my attempt to introduce this news piece via three word reference to equal-cheating math theorems failed, as it distracted from the main point. Yes the actual data mentioned in this news piece is not of the right form to directly test equal-cheating theorems.
That ought to be really important, but it's not clear to me what it should cause. eg, it's not obvious that it should cause people to care more about the cases where they have a credible threat.
Robin's "as math requires..." comment is quite troubling to me.
Up until now everything I've seen from Robin has been impressive, and he has appeared to be amazingly rational and intelligent. How could such a person make the assumption that people only cheat with others who are also in committed relationships? (Are there similarly unjustified assumptions plagueing Robin's other writings? Am I missing these errors along with him when I accept his arguments?). And even with that weird assumption, did he really not see that all the male cheaters could be cheating with the same woman (the article talks about % of people who cheat, not # if cheating incidents)? Or is there some miscommunication?
When evaluating Alcor vs. The Cryonics Institute I was giving a lot of weight to Robin's selection of Alcor, assuming that he did a lot of investigation and used the good judgment that I thought I saw previously in him. Now I fear his choice was based on various flawed assumptions and reasoning errors, and that my brain would have been accidentally destroyed had I signed up with Alcor, while all the brains at CI would live happily ever after..
Robin, will you please clarify this? Or give some account explaining your post (you were drunk, in a hurry, etc)?
Another problem is that men and women sometimes have different ideas about what constitutes "cheating" and whether or not they are in a monogamous relationship.
Daniel Reeves has merely set the explanation back a step. Does anyone have a theory on what might underly that mindset?I underscored a possibility in my wording: people control that which goes into their bodies.
Also, the fact that women are physically weaker is another possibility. Physical strength may facilitate societal views of men as the domineering ones and women as the submissive ones. Therefore, a man who has lots of sex is expressing his dominance; a woman who has lots of sex is expressing her lack of will to abstain.
"The math doesn't say that the same number of heterosexual men and women have to cheat. I think it only says that they have to have the same average number of partners."
Bit of a tautology, isn't it? And if that's the case, "men and women cheat in equal numbers" is highly misleading. It's pretty obvious that, if you narrow the sample to two heterosexual and married partners, there will be, on average, the same number of partners for the average man and woman. I think the confusion in the comments stems from the implication that the same number of unique women in a sample cheat as unique men. That is, the wording makes it seem that in a universe of 100 married couples, 30 different men will cheat with 30 different women. [Avg of 1.3 partners]. However, if the actual claim is simply that the average number of partners will be the same, then it could easily be that 30 different men cheat with 1 married [and busy] woman. The average is the same at 1.3, but the number of unique individuals who did the cheating is unbalanced between the genders. Robin, perhaps it's time to clarify exactly what you meant by the intro so we can move to the more substantive issues.
Also, let's get over the instinctive distrust of "complex statistical analysis." If you have an objection to the methodology, find out what it is and then critique.
The math doesn't say that the same number of heterosexual men and women have to cheat. I think it only says that they have to have the same average number of partners.
There are actually a huge amount of typos in that post ("jeans" being the most embarassing well ahead of "waisting".) I honestly have no idea how I did that (three times by my count).
Sure am glad you "love" it though, superflat, you card, you.
Robin, what are these "equal-cheating theorems" of which you speak :) ? Googling that phrase only brings up your comment here.
Clearly my attempt to introduce this news piece via three word reference to equal-cheating math theorems failed, as it distracted from the main point. Yes the actual data mentioned in this news piece is not of the right form to directly test equal-cheating theorems.
Robin's thinking Cousin, Cousine here.
Stephen,
No, it wouldn't. "Ceteris paribus" is used to isolate a causal relationship, not to enable people to make false assumptions.
I second Bob V!
Would it help if someone said "ceteris paribus?" Damn.
"For math, I did have in mind average hetero cheat partners with also-coupled others. "
Why would you assume "with also-coupled others"? That seems absurd.
Eric,There's no credible threat there!
That ought to be really important, but it's not clear to me what it should cause. eg, it's not obvious that it should cause people to care more about the cases where they have a credible threat.
Robin's "as math requires..." comment is quite troubling to me.
Up until now everything I've seen from Robin has been impressive, and he has appeared to be amazingly rational and intelligent. How could such a person make the assumption that people only cheat with others who are also in committed relationships? (Are there similarly unjustified assumptions plagueing Robin's other writings? Am I missing these errors along with him when I accept his arguments?). And even with that weird assumption, did he really not see that all the male cheaters could be cheating with the same woman (the article talks about % of people who cheat, not # if cheating incidents)? Or is there some miscommunication?
When evaluating Alcor vs. The Cryonics Institute I was giving a lot of weight to Robin's selection of Alcor, assuming that he did a lot of investigation and used the good judgment that I thought I saw previously in him. Now I fear his choice was based on various flawed assumptions and reasoning errors, and that my brain would have been accidentally destroyed had I signed up with Alcor, while all the brains at CI would live happily ever after..
Robin, will you please clarify this? Or give some account explaining your post (you were drunk, in a hurry, etc)?
Robin, it is not sufficient to acknowledge such an important assumption in the comments. You should add something to the post to make it clear.
What analysis allows them to infer that the women were untruthful? Not that I would find it hard to believe.
I couldn't access the article so perhaps reading it would change my thoughts on the matter.
Another problem is that men and women sometimes have different ideas about what constitutes "cheating" and whether or not they are in a monogamous relationship.
Daniel Reeves has merely set the explanation back a step. Does anyone have a theory on what might underly that mindset?I underscored a possibility in my wording: people control that which goes into their bodies.
Also, the fact that women are physically weaker is another possibility. Physical strength may facilitate societal views of men as the domineering ones and women as the submissive ones. Therefore, a man who has lots of sex is expressing his dominance; a woman who has lots of sex is expressing her lack of will to abstain.
"The math doesn't say that the same number of heterosexual men and women have to cheat. I think it only says that they have to have the same average number of partners."
Bit of a tautology, isn't it? And if that's the case, "men and women cheat in equal numbers" is highly misleading. It's pretty obvious that, if you narrow the sample to two heterosexual and married partners, there will be, on average, the same number of partners for the average man and woman. I think the confusion in the comments stems from the implication that the same number of unique women in a sample cheat as unique men. That is, the wording makes it seem that in a universe of 100 married couples, 30 different men will cheat with 30 different women. [Avg of 1.3 partners]. However, if the actual claim is simply that the average number of partners will be the same, then it could easily be that 30 different men cheat with 1 married [and busy] woman. The average is the same at 1.3, but the number of unique individuals who did the cheating is unbalanced between the genders. Robin, perhaps it's time to clarify exactly what you meant by the intro so we can move to the more substantive issues.
Also, let's get over the instinctive distrust of "complex statistical analysis." If you have an objection to the methodology, find out what it is and then critique.
The math doesn't say that the same number of heterosexual men and women have to cheat. I think it only says that they have to have the same average number of partners.
Aside from any other reasons for why the numbers of men and women cheating don't have to be equal, there's prostitution.
There are actually a huge amount of typos in that post ("jeans" being the most embarassing well ahead of "waisting".) I honestly have no idea how I did that (three times by my count).
Sure am glad you "love" it though, superflat, you card, you.