61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What way of thinking? OP listed some untypical benefits that come with sex - I think we are all aware of the typical benefits. He/she didn't say "these are the reasons you should have sex"
Shoehorning productivity as a benefit to things in life that should have nothing to do with productivity. It reeks of viewing activities in life as means to increase productive output, which is... Sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's a drug already helping many elderly stay sexually active, and now they also remember with who. This is great news. And kinda funny.
And you're welcome to find it funny. But I don't welcome a long thread of Reddit-style stupid jokes about this here. If I wanted that I'd go to Reddit.
PS. Today is Friday and it is my duty to shower at-least one of my colleagues with a new dad joke. I take this duty quite seriously and won't let anyone down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, sex is just awesome in every sense. Regular sex lowers the level of stress in the body and increases the level of oxytocin. As a result, people feel more motivated to work and experience greater satisfaction from their work as soon as the stress level decreases. It also leads to increased life expectancy, so people have more time to work and more time to have sex - it's a complete cycle
> people feel more motivated to work and experience greater satisfaction from their work It kinda weirded me out to see work/productivity being listed in regards to benefits of sex. Yeah, it might help but this way of thinking sounds absolutely horrendous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points. I will comment though: Passive skepticism is important too. At this stage, the bigger problem is treating one study outcome as if it were fact. Dismissing established, well-replicated science is, of course, a problem as well, but at least from what I've seen, the much bigger problem is that you have one correlational study. Popular media runs with it. People make products based on it. The underlying scie…
> [...] but if we ignore all science from the past 20 years, we're still left with pretty good science But what if the people of 20 years ago had made that same choice? And the people 20 years before then? Etc. It's not a tenable long-term position. > Popular media runs with it. People make products based on it. The underlying science is nonsense. This has always been the case, though. A majority of people are dumb a…
1) People aren't uniform. I read all the papers in my narrow field and evaluate them. On the other hand, in 99% of fields, you and I are a popular audience. We should rely on established science. And in my field, you should also not rely on hot-off-the-press because most of it is nonsense.
2) Science becomes established -- over decades -- when you have multiple corroborating results, replicated, with multiple methodologies. We know the earth isn't flat because we e.g. sent a man to the moon. That's a very different standard of knowledge than Viagra and Alzheimers. Before acting on this, let experts in this field do their thing for another decade and understand the pathways, do an RCT, etc. At that point, it will be 20-year-old fact. Or perhaps it will turn out to be a correlation / causation issue, and you'll never hear about it again. Either way.
TL;DR: It takes a long time to bake good science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shoehorning productivity as a benefit to things in life that should have nothing to do with productivity. It reeks of viewing activities in life as means to increase productive output, which is... Sad.
What do you have against productivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] but if we ignore all science from the past 20 years, we're still left with pretty good science But what if the people of 20 years ago had made that same choice? And the people 20 years before then? Etc. It's not a tenable long-term position. > Popular media runs with it. People make products based on it. The underlying science is nonsense. This has always been the case, though. A majority of people are dumb a…
It's a perfectly tenable long-term position. You're missing two points: 1) People aren't uniform. I read all the papers in my narrow field and evaluate them. On the other hand, in 99% of fields, you and I are a popular audience. We should rely on established science. And in my field, you should also not rely on hot-off-the-press because most of it is nonsense. 2) Science becomes established -- over decades -- when yo…
I'd feel a lot better if "established" meant something more like well-replicated (with an economic/academic model to support that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a perfectly tenable long-term position. You're missing two points: 1) People aren't uniform. I read all the papers in my narrow field and evaluate them. On the other hand, in 99% of fields, you and I are a popular audience. We should rely on established science. And in my field, you should also not rely on hot-off-the-press because most of it is nonsense. 2) Science becomes established -- over decades -- when yo…
I'd say the method that science becomes established is one of the problems, because a big chunk (50%?) of that process is non-scientific (political people processses). I'd feel a lot better if "established" meant something more like well-replicated (with an economic/academic model to support that).
It's easier to be objective looking back, and all the entrenched interests hyping things or slandering things are usually gone or different.