Berkeley Masturbation Study (Seriously)
The Guardian has a report on a slightly odd study performed on Berkeley students. The actual study can be found here (PDF). Here are excerpts from the Guardian article:
When a young man masturbates, exactly how distracted does he get? An experiment performed on students at the University of California, Berkeley aimed to find out.
Full details are in a study that will be published in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Dan Ariely, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and George Loewenstein, of Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, describe their arousing achievement in dry, formal terms: “We examine the effect of sexual arousal, induced by self-stimulation, on judgments and hypothetical decisions made by male college students.”
…
[The researchers] explain how they recruited 35 students, offering to pay each a small fee for the effort of masturbating while answering a survey. Each student was given a laptop computer with a keypad “designed to be operated easily using only the non-dominant hand.”Some of the volunteers had instructions to answer the questions “while in their natural, presumably not highly aroused, state”. Others “were first asked to self-stimulate themselves, and were presented with the same questions only after they had achieved a high but sub-orgasmic level of arousal.”
The computer screen displayed “an ‘arousal thermometer’ with regions colored from blue to red representing increasing levels of arousal. Two keys on the keypad allowed the user to move the probe on the arousal meter to indicate their momentary level of arousal. The panel on the top-left occupied the largest part of the screen, displaying diverse erotic photographs.”
The screen also showed the long series of survey questions. Some asked about the attractiveness of different sexual activities, items and opportunities. Among them: women’s shoes; a 12-year-old girl; an animal; a 50-year-old woman; a man; and an extremely fat person. Other questions probed the risks the volunteer would take in order to obtain sexual gratification.
The volunteers were instructed to press the computer’s tab key if they ejaculated. None reported doing so.
Ariely and Loewenstein say their results are “striking” and more than confirm what most people believe about young men as a group - that when aroused, they (1) become sexually attracted to things otherwise offputting; (2) grow more willing to engage in morally questionable behaviour that might lead to sex; and (3) are more likely to have unprotected sex.
“[Our] study shows that sexual arousal influences people in profound ways,” they write. “Efforts at self-control that involve raw willpower are likely to be ineffective.” This is a dig at theorists - the ones who advise people to just say no - from experimentalists who are unafraid to get their hands dirty.
My reactions:
1. It speaks well of Berkeley that researchers from two other universities would come here to perform this study. Glad to know that when academics need willing volunteers to rub one out that they turn to us.
2. All joking aside, this is actually an interesting study, and the results, while intuitive, are still worth seeming confirmed in a seemingly rigorous academic study. [Although it was pointed out to me that 35 people doesn’t seem like a particularly large sample size.] If the researchers are ever looking for more volunteers to assist in this noble scientific cause, I think I might know where they could *cough* find another willing subject.
3. There are plenty of stereotypes about the differences between men and women, expecially as they relate to sexuality, and I think the researcher’s findings beg for further study of whether a similar effect occurs with women.
4. There are some obvious but subtle connections between this study and concerns about rape, date rape, or sexual assault. The researchers treat this subject with only a brief aside, summed up with this comment, “Indeed, it can create the perverse situation in which people who are the least attracted to their dates are most likely to experience date-rape because, being unaroused themselves they completely fail to understand or predict the other (aroused) person’s behavior.”
5. It is reassuing that both the Guardian writer and the original researchers treat this subject with an apropriate level of humor. The last line of the Guardian article is especially good.
I wonder if they washed those keyboards…
Comment by blah — November 26, 2005 @ 1:57 am
hahah…I thought the same…the study did have a small pool…kinda lame
Comment by Anonymous — November 26, 2005 @ 2:04 am
The pool is large enough to be statistically valid.
Comment by Anonymous — November 26, 2005 @ 11:40 am
The above comment must come from a humanities studier. A sample of 35 to represent ~100,000? Next to random.
Comment by McMike — November 26, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
Dammit Stanfurd lost… we’re probably going to the insight bowl.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 26, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
CNN has us in the Sun bowl against Iowa, but it’s just a projection.
Comment by Josh — November 26, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
42% of male undergrads are shoe fetishists? Whoa.
Comment by yami — November 26, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
RepBast, leave the football talk to other people.
Arizona State has already accepted bid to Insight Bowl. It’s hard not to pick the hometown favorites.
Cal will most likely go to the Las Vegas Bowl on December 22nd. There’s an outside chance (very slim to none) that Oregon will get the at large BCS bid, which jumps us the Sun Bowl. However, there’s a chance that Sandy Barbour might say no to the Las Vegas Bowl because it’s during finals and we could instead go to the Emerald Bowl in SF (again, another slim to none chance).
Josh, I’m guessing you’re talking about Stewart Mandel’s projections on CNN/SI, but I’ve got to say, his reasoning is flawed. If you were the Fiesta Bowl, would you rather take a ND/OSU matchup or ND/Oregon match up? It’s the pac-10’s fault that we haven’t really advertised the conference as we should, but ND and Ohio State are much bigger names in football than Oregon ever will be, unless they win a national championship someday. If you remember, back in 2001 they were #2 in both Polls but did not participate in the BCS Championship Game.
Comment by ? — November 27, 2005 @ 12:17 am
#4, yes it’s enough, if the sample is chosen randomly.
Comment by Anonymous — November 27, 2005 @ 12:35 am
Which it wasn’t.
Comment by Beetle — November 27, 2005 @ 11:35 am
Wait why would Arizona State be going to the Insignt Bowl? Aren’t we ranked higher in the PAC-10?
Comment by Anonymous — November 27, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
According to this, the number 3 seed in the pac 10 plays MWC #1 (TCU) in the emerald bowl while Pac10 #4 goes to the Las vegas bowl to meet MWC #2 (BYU). Since USC will go to the national championship, Oregon gets PAC10 seed #1, UCLA #2, Cal #3, ASU #4. If Oregon gets a BSC bid, then LA, Cal, and ASU bump up, giving us the Sun bowl against Big 10 #4 (Iowa, I think).
Comment by McMike — November 27, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
I’m pretty sure that wikipedia thing is f#cked up. It lists the Insight Bowl as Big 12 versus Big 10, and yet we know that Arizona State accepted an Insight bid yesterday.
In reference to the Anonymous post #11, for one thing, Cal and ASU are both 4-4 in conference (though we have a better overall record). Also, “Pac 10 #4″ just means that they get the fourth choice of a bowl-eligible Pac 10 team, not that they necessarily must select the fourth best Pac 10 team. And they’re going to sell a hell of a lot more tickets with ASU basically playing a home game in the Insight Bowl.
Comment by chet — November 27, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
McMike, I’m absolutely positive that Wikipedia thing is fucked up. The Emerald Bowl gets the Pac-10 #5 (although, it doesn’t count the Pac-10 championship as the #1 seed, so it would be #5 in their rankings).
Our ordering of bowls go like this:
Pac 10 Champion: BCS Berth (Rose Bowl Pref.)
Pac 10 #2: Holiday Bowl (Against Big-12)
Pac 10 #3: Sun Bowl (Against Big-10)
Pac 10 #4: Insight Bowl
Pac 10 #5: Las Vegas Bowl
Pac 10 #6: Emerald Bowl
Chet’s completely right. Insight Bowl know it would sell more tickets with the ASU invite rather than a Cal invite. Can you really blame them?
Comment by ? — November 27, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
Now it looks wrong. Anyone have a better breakdown?
Comment by McMike — November 27, 2005 @ 9:35 pm
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_games.html
Comment by McMike — November 27, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
Fucked by the bowl system again. Bullshit!
Comment by Anonymous — November 27, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
Dude, fucked by the Bowl System is ok. This happened to Cal in the early 1970s when they were denied a slot in the Rose Bowl: they waited so long they didnt get a berth to any bowl at all.
What upsets me, though, is the fact that 9-2 Notre Dame (who barely beat Stanfurd, 38-31) is qualified for a BCS Berth. Now, I have no problem with the Bowls picking Ohio State (9-2, with losses to Penn State #3 and Texas #2) over Oregon, but I do have a problem with Notre Dame (with losses to 5-6 Michigan State and 11-0 USC) getting the nod over Oregon because they have the “storied” tradition and a national fanbase.
Oregon was fucked by the BCS in 2001. USC in 2002. Cal in 2004. And now Oregon in 2004.
Kinda makes me miss the days when the Pac-10 Commish, Tom Hansen, threatened to pull out the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl out of the BCS if Oregon State didn’t get a much deserved BCS berth (ironically enough, Oregon State demolished a 9-2 Notre Dame). But since we signed a new contract extension with the BCS until 2009, the Pac-10 can’t do shit except advertise itself, which is just depressing if you think about it.
Comment by ? — November 27, 2005 @ 11:54 pm
Whoops, I mean Oregon in 2001, USC in 2003, Cal in 2004, and Oregon in 2005.
Comment by ? — November 27, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
“Dude, fucked by the Bowl System is ok. This happened to Cal in the early 1970s when they were denied a slot in the Rose Bowl: they waited so long they didnt get a berth to any bowl at all.”
How the fuck is that justified?
Comment by Anonymous — November 28, 2005 @ 5:41 am
In all honesty, I fail to see how we were “fucked by the bowl system” this year. Cal and ASU were both 4-4 in conference, and didn’t play each other head to head. We went 3-0 non-conference, against three teams with a combined record of 4-30. ASU went 2-1 non-conference, beating a 7-4 Northwestern team and losing by 4 points to LSU (#3 in country). You could make a solid argument that they’re better than us anyway.
Comment by chet — November 28, 2005 @ 9:09 am
It’s ok to get fucked by the Bowl System because everyone’s been fucked by the Bowl System before. It’s the BCS that seems to selectively screw the Pac-10
Comment by ? — November 28, 2005 @ 11:31 am
Don’t forget that the PAC-10, unlike other conferences has good athletic teams that are also good academic powerhouses. USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA are all teams with credible academics as well as sports. On the other hand, you see teams with powerhouse athletics in other conferences that aren’t up to par on the academic end, while our equals in the Northeast don’t know what good athletics are.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 28, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Wouldn’t ya know, the eggheads produce a study about why Ayoob is sucking so hard.
Comment by mano — November 28, 2005 @ 1:51 pm
Cal was screwed by the human polls in 2004, due to Mack Brown’s campaigning.
The 2003 BCS was right to list USC #3 because Texas, LSU and USC were each 10-1, but the former two lost to quality teams while USC lost to us (the season following our 1-10). In all, Texas and LSU had schedule a noth stronger than USC, but USC is insanely popular among media folk.
There are only two things wrong with BCS:
1) The ease at which it’s controllers pollute it to match media popularity
2) The whole obsession with having one clear winner. Sports fans ever agree on who is best, so embrace the arguing: it’s good for the sport.
Comment by McMike — November 28, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
Mano, I’d like to see you try throwing a ball timed just correctly so it arrives at any point in space at the right time while being given the information of the known play and other variables like coverage, receiver speed relative to the cornerback/linebacker, and time left on the clock during which you are being rushed by 3-4 300+ pound men whose sole job is to throw you to the ground. That’s not counting the 60,000 fans who are cheering/booing at you, depending on their mood and the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude.
You, sir, are an diot. He’s still a California Golden Bear, and he’s doing his best for the University, and you should treat him as such.
Comment by ? — November 28, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
?, mano wasn’t recruited with scholarship money (as far as I know) for his football skills. academic standards weren’t lowered for mano (wait a sec, perhaps they were…but i digress) so he could come to cal and play some ball.
ayoob has been essentially preparing his whole life honing the ability to throw a football under the difficult conditions you cite. the fact that he isn’t very good at it means he’s going to get some justified criticism.
i do agree that booing your own QB is in very poor form, however.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 28, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
I think it’s safe to say, Bhanu, that there’s more of a chance of Joe Ayoob contributing to the University more than ever will (or could, for that matter).
Comment by ? — November 28, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
Meant to say more than Mano ever will.
Comment by ? — November 28, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
Yeah, well at least Joe Ayoob tries to do something productive for Cal. Mano just tries to screw things up.
Comment by Anonymity — November 28, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
From the Stanford Daily,
Fire Walt Harris. Do it now. Forget about giving the guy a chance. How does a team lose to UC-Davis and get blown out by a mediocre Cal team and nearly beat UCLA and Notre Dame?
So now we’re a mediocre team?
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 28, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
At least we had one Marshall Scholar this year.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 28, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
stanfurd should schedule UCSD next year. maybe they can go 0-4 against the UC system.
Comment by chet — November 28, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
haha. tough time taking a joke there? at any rate, i ALSO can’t throw a football, and id hate to be in ayoob’s cleats right now, thats for sure.
PS: as a “football” player, ayoob technically contributes to something like a subsidiary business of the university, rather than the main entity. in other words, the fortunes and finances of the football program and the university are kept insulated from one another, and this is intentional.
Comment by mano — November 28, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
Except the part where it states that he’s a student.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 28, 2005 @ 6:11 pm
hey mano-
how come you didn’t respond to this guy’s post on the previous thread?
How do you feel about the palestinians asking the JEWS for help kicking the ISM f#cktards out of Hebron? I thought that these ISM boners were supposed to be “fighting the occupation” (whatever that means). It turns out that they’re just teaching palestinian kids to do drugs and sleep around. Wieners.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=93549
“mano smashT”
Comment by chet — November 28, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
mano’s too embarrassed that the only thing he lives for in life just isn’t working out.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 28, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
chet, read the article: its a sad, sorry piece of journalism. if you take that seriously, you aint doing too well.
now lets see, earlier we learned you like to pretend you are a ceo. now we know some more: you arent a journalism student.
of course, my current conception of you involves your feeding tube, and i guess swallowing everything that gets tossed your way is consistent with the designation… you ahve no choice.
Comment by mano — November 28, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
We did read the article, mano, and we concluded that the Palestinians don’t want the help of the leftist groups anymore.
Comment by Anonymous — November 28, 2005 @ 10:24 pm
I read the article, and I learned that the Palestinians are angry, because the ISM wieners are teaching their children to smoke drugs and have premarital sex, which offend their religious sensibilities.
PS I’m a former cabinet undersecretary in the Carter administration.
Comment by captain anoymous — November 28, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
is calstuff going to be covering the west oakland liquor store violence?
Comment by captain anoymous — November 28, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
If you already know about it, Calstuff doesn’t need to cover it, eh?
Comment by Beetle — November 28, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
Bhanu, you might be inetrested in an article that might come out int he DC tomorrow
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 28, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
RepBast, good article. It’s about time.
I think the point should also have been made that out of staters are generally more academically qualified, so there is the tangible benefit of improving quality of the student body (in addition to bringing together a more geographically diverse class and extending Berkeley’s visibility beyond CA borders).
But on the whole, I certainly agree with it.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 29, 2005 @ 9:44 am
Yeah, I wanted to write abotu the fact that more out of state students are more qualified than in-state students (ELC, etc.) However, I figured I would be more convincing with the diversity argument since the diversity argument will probably attract more people. It’s great how I got to defend Prop 209 and “critical mass” in the same sentence.
Comment by RepBast1984 — November 29, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
Yeah, I noticed that.
Sad that the diversity argument would potentially appeal more strongly than a quality of student argument. That’s fucked up.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — November 29, 2005 @ 4:26 pm