Sex and the cost benefit analysis
January 25th 2011 23:36
Cost benefit analysis just got sexy, in an ugly kind of way.
A survey – the kind commissioned by a company with the aim of promoting the company – was conducted recently by an American dating site. The researchers, whose principal task in these projects is to find the sort of quirky facts which tabloid newspapers like to run with, were delighted to unearth the following: women who are thought ugly by some men and not others have the best chance of finding love on dating sites.
Women whose looks polarise male opinion get up to three times as many hits as those rated consistently attractive, said the press release, quoting the dating site.
It’s a bit of a spin on something most men know from the time they are old enough to talk to women without trembling or stuttering, which is that members of the average male majority are intimidated by stunners, and feel they have a better chance approaching somone plainer.
Things got interesting, and novel, however, when the PR people putting together the dating site’s research promotion contacted Dr Lauren Rosewarne, a political science lecturer at the University of Melbourne in Australia, and asked her to comment.
The academic’s answer was entertaining. The paradox, she said, was explained by cost benefit analysis.
“It's a numbers game,” she said. “When a woman is considered conventionally attractive, men may feel that she will attract a lot of attention and competition. A man is working out his chances are better with a woman not considered conventionally attractive.''
Why they didn’t ask a psychologist is not explained, nor is it clear why a political scientist turned to economic analogy to answer, but anyone who can get sex and cost benefit analysis into one idea gets an ovation from us.
mxnet.com.au
| 30 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Liz Layton
Quite a good read too.
- Liz.
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Thanks for that. I've long thought that economics could be used to provide empirical answers in all sorts of areas, the problem being that such a commonsense approach wouldn't suit politicians. No arguments means no headlines.
Are Rosewarne's cost-benefit exercises as pioneering as they sound? And does she look at infidelity in terms of economic cost, or human cost, or both?
Thanks again for your comment,
Chris
PS For anyone interested, here is a link to Dr Rosewarne's book.
Comment by Liz Layton
Comment by Kiwi Tony
Not the kind of thing I'd normally read, but recommended nonetheless.
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither