[Link] A Mathematical Argument Against Men's Promiscuity

入得谷来,祸福自求。
Post Reply
Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

[Link] A Mathematical Argument Against Men's Promiscuity

Post by Jun » 2007-08-13 14:52

An article by our friend Gina Kolata of NY Times had me laughing out loud.
The Myth, the Math, the Sex
By GINA KOLATA
EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.

It is about time for mathematicians to set the record straight, said David Gale, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true for purely logical reasons,” Dr. Gale said.

He even provided a proof, writing in an e-mail message:

“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”

Sex survey researchers say they know that Dr. Gale is correct. Men and women in a population must have roughly equal numbers of partners. So, when men report many more than women, what is going on and what is to be believed?

“I have heard this question before,” said Cheryl D. Fryar, a health statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics and a lead author of the new federal report, “Drug Use and Sexual Behaviors Reported by Adults: United States, 1999-2002,” which found that men had a median of seven partners and women four.

But when it comes to an explanation, she added, “I have no idea.”

“This is what is reported,” Ms. Fryar said. “The reason why they report it I do not know.”

Sevgi O. Aral, who is associate director for science in the division of sexually transmitted disease prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there are several possible explanations and all are probably operating.

One is that men are going outside the population to find partners, to prostitutes, for example, who are not part of the survey, or are having sex when they travel to other countries.

Another, of course, is that men exaggerate the number of partners they have and women underestimate.

Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”

Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted.

Ronald Graham, a professor of mathematics and computer science at the University of California, San Diego, agreed with Dr. Gale. After all, on average, men would have to have three more partners than women, raising the question of where all those extra partners might be.

“Some might be imaginary,” Dr. Graham said. “Maybe two are in the man’s mind and one really exists.”

Dr. Gale added that he is not just being querulous when he raises the question of logical impossibility. The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”

In fact, he added, the survey data themselves may be part of the problem. If asked, a man, believing that he should have a lot of partners, may feel compelled to exaggerate, and a woman, believing that she should have few partners, may minimize her past.

“In this way,” Dr. Gale said, “the false conclusions people draw from these surveys may have a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.”
:mrgreen:

karen
Posts: 3020
Joined: 2003-11-22 18:51

Post by karen » 2007-08-13 15:13

想到严谨的数学家揪这个调查的小辫子,真逗! :-D 这个很有conservation of energy的调调。

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2007-08-13 15:21

Maybe women simply forget about the guys after ONS, but guys carve a line on the wall to indicate they've scored. :mrgreen:
有事找我请发站内消息

J
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-01-18 20:54

Re: [Link] A Mathematical Argument Against Men's Promiscuity

Post by J » 2007-08-13 20:34

The author of this article apparently doesn't know any math...
The American survey talked about "median" and he didn't even mention what the British number is average or median.
The mathematicians are of course right: if we are talking about *average* sex partners then these survey results cannot be true.

But median is an entirely different business! Imagine a population with 10 men and 10 women. Each man is paired with one woman. In addition, there is one woman who sleeps with every man. Then there are 9 men each sleeping with 2 women, 1 man sleeping with 1; and 9 women each sleeping with 1 man and 1 woman sleeping with 10. What are the medians? 2 for the men population and 1 for the women population.
Jun wrote:An article by our friend Gina Kolata of NY Times had me laughing out loud.
The Myth, the Math, the Sex
By GINA KOLATA
EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.

It is about time for mathematicians to set the record straight, said David Gale, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true for purely logical reasons,” Dr. Gale said.

He even provided a proof, writing in an e-mail message:

“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”

Sex survey researchers say they know that Dr. Gale is correct. Men and women in a population must have roughly equal numbers of partners. So, when men report many more than women, what is going on and what is to be believed?

“I have heard this question before,” said Cheryl D. Fryar, a health statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics and a lead author of the new federal report, “Drug Use and Sexual Behaviors Reported by Adults: United States, 1999-2002,” which found that men had a median of seven partners and women four.

But when it comes to an explanation, she added, “I have no idea.”

“This is what is reported,” Ms. Fryar said. “The reason why they report it I do not know.”

Sevgi O. Aral, who is associate director for science in the division of sexually transmitted disease prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there are several possible explanations and all are probably operating.

One is that men are going outside the population to find partners, to prostitutes, for example, who are not part of the survey, or are having sex when they travel to other countries.

Another, of course, is that men exaggerate the number of partners they have and women underestimate.

Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”

Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted.

Ronald Graham, a professor of mathematics and computer science at the University of California, San Diego, agreed with Dr. Gale. After all, on average, men would have to have three more partners than women, raising the question of where all those extra partners might be.

“Some might be imaginary,” Dr. Graham said. “Maybe two are in the man’s mind and one really exists.”

Dr. Gale added that he is not just being querulous when he raises the question of logical impossibility. The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”

In fact, he added, the survey data themselves may be part of the problem. If asked, a man, believing that he should have a lot of partners, may feel compelled to exaggerate, and a woman, believing that she should have few partners, may minimize her past.

“In this way,” Dr. Gale said, “the false conclusions people draw from these surveys may have a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.”
:mrgreen:

karen
Posts: 3020
Joined: 2003-11-22 18:51

Post by karen » 2007-08-13 21:06

I guess one way to test the accuracy of the data set is to compute the mean for men and women separatedly. Assuming the samples are taken in a closed set (the effect of foreign vacation sex is neglible compared to the sample pool), the two means should be the same, for reason explained by the math profs. Otherwise, something is wrong with the data collected, and the medians aren't reliable.

Furthermore, if the means concur and the medians are still as such, this implies that there are also quite a lot of women who reported very high numbers of sexual partners, much more than men's median! They are the Samatha Jones that are giving the boys' median the boost! :-) This throws the "men-are-more-promiscuous" theory in the dust bin.

幻儿
Posts: 1636
Joined: 2007-07-31 10:47

Post by 幻儿 » 2007-08-13 21:40

There has to be a lot more women than men in the sample size for the data to be correct. If it's not likely, the data reveals what people want to say about themselves, which are not necessarily truth.

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2007-08-14 7:22

Well, I have another theory. Men who answered in the survey counted their homosexual partners too (even if they were only asked about female homosexual partners...). :mrgreen:

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2007-08-27 14:34

Hmm. A new publication by researchers at Stanford seems to explain the promiscuous tendencies in men. I guess there were more sexually active men than women throughout human history until recent years.
In matters of sex and death, men are an essential part of the equation

Stanford scientists show in a forthcoming paper that traditional mating patterns make men the key to explaining away the “wall of death,” an enduring puzzle in the study of human longevity.

The paper, to appear in the August 29 issue of the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, proposes a solution to a conundrum in the study of human lifespan: why don’t we drop dead soon after the age of last female reproduction" Our understanding of the evolution of lifespan suggests that we have no defense against mutations that occur after we reach the end of our reproductive lives. As a result we expect a rapid increase in mortality -- a “wall of death” -- just after female menopause.

The authors show that the standard practice of tracking only female life histories leads to mistaken conclusions about the forces that shape human evolution. The reason is that men’s and women’s age patterns of fertility differ in important ways.

The paper brings together data from hunter-gatherer populations to show that male reproduction begins and ends later than women’s, and declines much more gradually. In many populations, historically and even today, some fraction of men continue to father children into their 60s and 70s with younger women.

In some groups, most notably Australian aboriginal and African polygynous societies, late-age male reproduction is common. In many hunter-gatherer societies, which may tell us most about how our ancestors once lived, men begin to reproduce a few years later than women of the same age and they typically continue to father children for several years after the age of female menopause due to the marriage gap in the ages of couples.

The marriage gap, in which older men marry younger women, appears to be a near-universal human trait.

hh
Posts: 67
Joined: 2006-09-14 23:30

Post by hh » 2007-08-27 20:21

ÎÒÏëµ½¸ö¿ÉÒÔÀà±ÈµÄÀý×Ó£¬¹Å´ú檵ĴæÔÚ²»ÄÜËµÌØ±ðÆÕ±é£¬µ«Ò²²»ÉÙ¼û£¬²»ÄÜnegligible°É£¬µ«ÐÔ±ð±ÈÀýÉÏÄÐÐÔÒ»°ã»¹¸ßЩ£»ÆäʵÕâ¸öprostitute effect negligibleÎÒÒ²Óе㻳ÒÉ£»»¹ÓÐÒ»¸öÄÃÀ´½âÊ͵ÄÊÇ×ÜÈË¿ÚÄÚûÓÐpartnerµÄÄÐÐÔ¸ßÓÚÅ®ÐÔ£¬ÔÙ¼ÓÉÏÄÇЩhomoµÄ¡£
不是所有歌声都掠过耳旁,而不留在心上

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2007-08-28 8:08

总人口内没有partner的男性高于女性
That's very possible. Probably more so in the past than now as the wealth and resource gap was much higher in older societies. Think about all the slaves and peasants with little money to find a wife -- since marriage was almost entirely tied with $$$.

This brings up an interesting point. Perhaps the democratization of wealth in the industrialized modern society is the main reason behind the changed nature of marriage. The separation of financial (ie, survival) resources/power from the mechanism/device of marriage really changes the whole meaning and purpose of marriage. The marriage institution used to be of material importance, literally, for the financial longevity of both clans/families/gene pools. Now that element is weakened or gone, why should marriage carry much weight in society anyway?

The democratization of wealth has vastly increased the number of individuals -- first men then both men and women -- who are able to mate if they want to, and heck they do want to thanks to the genetic drive we all carry. So the "eligible" number of maters have more or less equalized only in the last and current centuries. A recent phenomenon. But the habit of the past -- the assumption that men are more promiscuous -- persists because our mind and beliefs do not change as quickly as the reality. What might be true in the past (eg, fatter is more beautiful and healthier) is no longer true now, but we just don't realize it yet.

Post Reply