from the world's big
That Dating vs. Hooking Up Study
A recent study on college students' preferences for dating vs. hookups is, unaccountably, generating national media attention. The authors found that a bunch of 19-year-old college freshmen in the South embraced traditional gender norms. The study is called "To Hook Up or Date: Which Gender Benefits?" Notice the operative assumptions: That hooking up and dating are mutually exclusive; and that college intimacy is a zero-sum game that pits one gender against the other.
The paper opens with a startling claim, namely that "hooking up has replaced dating" on college campuses. The authors go on to say that college students now report more hookups than first dates. The authors define a hookup as an encounter between strangers or passing acquaintances with no expectation of commitment. The physical component can be anything from kissing to intercourse.
The authors acknowledge that theirs was a "sample of convenience. 221 subjects completed the 20-minute pencil and paper survey. They were all undergraduates, mostly freshmen, at James Madison University, a public school in Virginia. Their average age was 18.72 years. Women subjects outnumbered men by more than 2:1 (presumably because there were more female psych students in need of research participation credit).
If hookup culture killed dating, you wouldn't know it from this sample. Nearly half the subjects said they were in a relationship: 29 had been dating for less than 6 months; 76 had been dating for at least 7 months, and 1 was engaged. Unfortunately, the study doesn't break down relationship status by gender.
Students were asked whether they preferred traditional dating or hooking up in general. They were also asked about their preference for dating vs. hooking up in a variety of specific situations. For example, if they were drinking alcohol with an attractive person, would they prefer to go on a date with them or hook up with them? If they saw a potential for a long-term relationship with someone, would they prefer to date or hook up?
When they authors say "traditional dating," they're not kidding. The survey made it clear that students were being asked about the 1950s-style courtship. Traditional dating means the guy always asks, always pays, and always chooses where to go and what to do. On this model, the guy always makes the first sexual move. The researchers traditional model of dating paints women as passive. They have the right to refuse to date or decline a guy's sexual advances.
46.67% of women and 45.07% of men said they preferred traditional dating to hooking up in general. 41.33% of women said they strongly preferred traditional dating compared to 19.72% of men. Overall 95.3% of women and 77.47% of men expressed some degree of preference for traditional dating over hookups. Men were more likely than women to prefer a casual hookup to a casual date. Interestingly, men and women were about equally likely to prefer a date to a hookup when they saw a potential for a long-term relationship with their hypothetical partner.
Amanda Marcotte finds the results unsurprising. All other things being equal, you'd expect women to prefer a traditional date to a hookup. On a traditional date, the guy pays for everything and takes all the risk of rejection. So, if you're planning on sleeping with him anyway, wouldn't it be nice if he magically intuited that and took you out for dinner first?
Let's not forget the potential social desirability bias at play. According to the traditional narrative, women are supposed to like relationships and men are supposed to like anonymous sexual conquests. Psychologists know that people tend overstate preferences they believe to be socially desirable and understate preferences they think will make them look bad--even on anonymous questionnaires. Interestingly, despite some differences in stated preferences, men and women reported engaging equal numbers of first dates and hookups.
There's a lot of faux concern among conservatives that sexual freedom hurts women by killing chivalry. Before we get misty eyed about how great traditional dating is for women, let's remember the scenarios the women were asked to imagine: The guy they're interested in will either take them out or hook up with them. That's the upside. A real-life traditional dating system also involves a lot of sitting around, waiting for the guy you like to ask you out. The point is that the woman gets to choose the guy in the thought experiment. If that doesn't happen in real-life, traditional dating doesn't give the woman much recourse.
This study will no doubt be cited as proof of the "natural" or "innate" differences between men and women. It can just as easily be argued that this study is proof of the social constraints that men and women face. A culture of "traditional" dating and gender offers incentives for conformity and punishments for deviance. Women gain status by attracting male attention through acceptable channels (dating) and risk losing status if they are perceived promiscuous. The more entrenched the traditional dating culture, the more likely the group is to shame women who seek sex outside dating. The authors repeatedly stress that fear of rape has a lot to do with women's reticence about hookups. The incentives are reversed for men: No strings attached sexual conquests are generally status-enhancing while having a girlfriend can be seen as an emasculating constraint.
College students are a convenient population for study, but I'm amazed that the hypothetical preferences of a bunch of 19-year-olds in a conservative part of the country are being discussed as proof of anything.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Are we genetically inclined for superstition or just fearful of the truth?
- From secret societies to faked moon landings, one thing that humanity seems to have an endless supply of is conspiracy theories. In this compilation, physicist Michio Kaku, science communicator Bill Nye, psychologist Sarah Rose Cavanagh, skeptic Michael Shermer, and actor and playwright John Cameron Mitchell consider the nature of truth and why some groups believe the things they do.
- "I think there's a gene for superstition, a gene for hearsay, a gene for magic, a gene for magical thinking," argues Kaku. The theoretical physicist says that science goes against "natural thinking," and that the superstition gene persists because, one out of ten times, it actually worked and saved us.
- Other theories shared include the idea of cognitive dissonance, the dangerous power of fear to inhibit critical thinking, and Hollywood's romanticization of conspiracies. Because conspiracy theories are so diverse and multifaceted, combating them has not been an easy task for science.
A growing body of research suggests COVID-19 can cause serious neurological problems.
- The new study seeks to track the health of 50,000 people who have tested positive for COVID-19.
- The study aims to explore whether the disease causes cognitive impairment and other conditions.
- Recent research suggests that COVID-19 can, directly or indirectly, cause brain dysfunction, strokes, nerve damage and other neurological problems.
Brain images of a patient with acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis.
COVID-19 and the brain<p>A growing body of research reveals alarming neurological complications among COVID-19 patients. On Wednesday, for example, researchers from University College London published a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/doi/10.1093/brain/awaa240/5868408" target="_blank">study</a> in the journal Brain that describes how some patients have suffered temporary brain dysfunction, strokes, nerve damage, and other neurological problems concurrent with COVID-19.</p><p>Some patients suffered brain inflammation as a result of a rare disease called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, which can cause numbness, seizures, and confusion. One patient in the study even hallucinated monkeys and lions in her home.</p>
Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images<p>A separate study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7198407/" target="_blank">Journal of Clinical Neuroscience</a> notes that some COVID-19 patients have also suffered neurological complications like impaired consciousness and acute cerebrovascular disease. The study notes that past viruses like MERS and SARS also seemed to cause neurological problems.</p><p>A troubling finding among this growing body of research is that some patients seem to suffer neurological damage even when respiratory symptoms aren't obvious. Additionally, scientists aren't sure whether damage from the disease will be permanent.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Given that the disease has only been around for a matter of months, we might not yet know what long-term damage COVID-19 can cause," Dr. Ross Paterson, joint first author of the University College London study, said in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-07/ucl-iid070620.php" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Doctors needs to be aware of possible neurological effects, as early diagnosis can improve patient outcomes."</p><p>If you've been diagnosed with COVID-19 and want to enroll in the study, visit <a href="https://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/studies/covid-brain-study" target="_blank">cambridgebrainsciences.com/studies/covid-brain-study</a>.</p>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.