muscadine: (Science/Teaching)
With the usual caveat that science reporting is not always top notch...

There's a story in today's paper about a study in London that found male financial traders with higher testosterone levels achieve better short-term financial success through more risk-taking, but longer-term high levels over several days probably mean long-term financial instability because of the same.

But, more interesting to me was the reporters' linking this finding to studies demonstrating that young heterosexual men shown erotic pictures of women were more likely to make a larger financial gamble than if they were shown a picture of something scary or neutral. They used brain scans to demonstrate that this was because "money and women trigger the same brain area" - the "reward area." Hmmm...

Also interesting: They didn't test whether the link exists in women because it is more difficult to find an erotic image that would appeal to many different heterosexual women compared to heterosexual men. Hmmm...
muscadine: (Bookworms Rule)
I don't think I've mentioned a couple of little treasures I picked up from Bookman's last week:
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
and
Sexual Behavior in the Human Female
by Kinsey et al
A matching set.
The former is a fifth printing (which took place a mere month after the first printing, in January 1948).
The latter looks to be a first printing, 1953.
No dust cover, but otherwise in pretty good condition.

< / book nerd > < / sexualities nerd >
muscadine: (Default)
A group of us were talking over dinner last week, and (mostly based on [livejournal.com profile] acutegirl's contributions to the conversation) came up with four rough criteria (in no particular order) people use to decide whether they will enter into a certain sexual situation or not:
(a) Is it illegal? (are there laws - perhaps also policies/rules - against it?)
(b) Is it immoral/unethical? (do I believe it to be harmful to myself or others, does a Higher Power forbid it, etc?)
(c) Is it beneficial or is it in my/their interests? (beyond strict answers to above considerations, will it be unharmful and perhaps helpful in some way - psychologically, socially, etc. and probably actually includes consideration of consequences of (a) & (b). This criterion was the most vague and may actually need to be explicated further and teased apart more from (b).)
(d) Is it a preference? (do I like or want to do it, does it turn me on, etc)

Clearly, this set of criteria probably applies more broadly than sexual situations. How these four considerations are weighed against each other depends upon the person, and probably varies across situations for at least some persons. For example, some people would never do anything they knew to be illegal. Other people wouldn't much care about the legality. Some people might care a great deal about the legality in business matters, but not sexual matters. Sociopaths would only consider (d) and a limited aspect of (c) in regard to decision-making about pretty much anything. And so forth.

I decided to write about this now, beyond the fact that I considered the above conversation very interesting, because of how I thought about it being applicable in another case I recently ran into. On an LJ gaming community I posted part of a post by Gabe from Penny Arcade, an interview of his grandpa who fought in World War II. The interview ended with the following exchange:
Interview excerpt cut for length )

At the end of this quote I asked about what kind of moral/ethical lines people drew in regards to the games they play. I was only somewhat surprised to get back a couple of responses along these lines:
"I play what I like. I don't like moral/ethical values stand in the way."
"I do not avoid video games based on morals or ethics. The line should be drawn when games stop being fun."
In other words, mostly using (d), with perhaps a limited consideration of (c). Sound familiar?

As I thought about it, it seems to me this is actually a common attitude towards media in general. Certainly there are things individual people won't read or watch, but it varies quite a bit from person to person, and often tends to be expressed more in terms of personal preferences than ethics or morality. Indeed, there is often lots of criticism and contempt heaped upon groups that recommend avoiding a movie or book because of the ethics or morality it displays (of course, this is somewhat confounded by a history of actual censorship or attempts at censorship, and/or un/misinformed viewpoints about content of a book or movie). So I would venture to say most people will read books or watch movies in which various sorts of unethical and indeed horrifying behavior takes place, even when portrayed in anything from a neutral/ambiguous to sympathetic light. Witness the Hannibal Lecter fandom, as a quintessential example of this phenomenon.

So it should not be shocking to find people extend this attitude to other forms of media including video games. But, in the case of video games, it seems to me people tend to find this more worrisome. While in a sense people may "take on the role" of characters in any form of media, in video games this is much more explicit and active. The main character "is" the person playing in a way they are not for the person viewing or reading. Certainly I find it somewhat worrisome, although upon reflection I think perhaps we should also do more worrying than we do about other media as well. What does it mean that many of us use a logic arguably akin to sociopathy to decide what media we consume?
muscadine: (Default)
Found in comments else-blog.
This is fun and interesting, especially if you have a background in the physical, biological, and/or social sciences:
http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/index1.html
muscadine: (Default)
recent rantings about sociology versus "hard" sciences

I sometimes share this quote with my classes:

An Indian-born economist once explained his personal theory of reincarnation to his graduate economics class, “If you are a good economist, a virtuous economist, you are reborn as a physicist. But if you are an evil, wicked economist, you are reborn as a sociologist.” A sociologist might say that this quote shows what is wrong with economists: they want a subject that is fundamentally about human beings to have the mathematical certainty of the hard sciences … But good economists know that the speaker was talking about something else entirely: the sheer difficulty of the subject. Economics is harder than physics; luckily it is not quite as hard as sociology. -Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity

Pluto

Aug. 24th, 2006 08:35 am
muscadine: (Science/Teaching)
All the news sources are making a big deal about Pluto no longer being a planet, but last time I checked a "dwarf planet" was still...a planet. Dwarf stars are still stars. ISTM they have expanded the definition of planet, just in a different way than expected.

Also, if the supposed reason Pluto isn't a planet is that it crosses Neptune's orbit...why is Neptune a planet? It crosses Pluto's orbit. Is it then implied that whichever one is larger is the planet?
muscadine: (Science)
From the BBC website via [livejournal.com profile] queerbychoice

On a spectrum from 100% Female to 100% Male with 0% in the middle, and where the average female scores 50% female and the average male scores 50% male, I score 0% overall.

[IOW, according to this test I have an androgynous brain. I guess they arrive at this score based on the fact that I score high on everything, although it seems to me if I assign points for "masculine" or "feminine" scores on each of their sections, I get more points for "feminine.]

Detailed Results )

Profile

muscadine: (Default)
muscadine

October 2015

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios