Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Armchair: There is some possibility that in addition to the other answers there is a cascade affect. If some females respond by having sex, others may copy. There is evidence that females in other species copy each other's matings decisions. That might happen in humans as well. Female Acorn Woodpeckers for example go to elaborate lengths to ensure that they are all breeding at the same time. The question of course is, if females copy each other in humans as well, why don't we see stronger birth patterns? I've copied a related abstract from an article in the American Naturalist that discusses the topic. JOURNAL. Pruett-Jones, S. "Independent Versus Nonindependent Mate Choice do Females Copy Each Other?" American Naturalist, v.140, n.6, 1992:1000-1009 Abstract: There is increasing evidence from both observational and experimental studies that females may copy each other's mating decisions. Female copying can be defined as a type of nonindependent choice in which the probability that a female chooses a given male increases if other females have chosen that male and decreases if they have not. The important characteristic of copying behavior that separates it from other similar processes is that the change in the probability of choice is strictly because of the actions of other females and not the consequences of those actions (e.g., male's behavior changing as a result of successful matings). A game-theory model suggests that the adaptive significance of female copying may depend primarily on the ratio of the costs to the benefits of active mate choice. Copying behavior, and more generally conspecific cueing, may be important in many behavioral processes beyond mate choice. - Original Message - From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, October 1, 2001 12:08 pm Subject: Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust > Fabio Rojas wrote: > >An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress > >change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal > >during times of stress. > > William Dickens wrote: > >Well that (if the LA Times got it right) is a very odd fact. Why > would we > >be programmed to make babies when we are under stress as opposed > to when > >we are fat and content? ... it really seems that such an impulse > would be > >counter productive. ... Perhaps our emotional/behavioral systems > simply > >aren't sophisticated enough to parse out different types of > arousal, but > >if that is true that should throw a lot of suspicion on the whole > >enterprise of evolutionary psychology since the mechanisms that > are being > >posited concerning sexuality and social interaction are usually > much more > >highly nuanced than this. > > One evolutionary psychology interpretation would be that when a > group is > suddenly threatened, its members are programmed to reassure each > other of > their affection and loyalty. Sex can do that. Babies may result, > but > perhaps other processes can reduce that effect when babies are > less desired. > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 >
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
With regard to Mr. Dickens' comment regarding whether stress should cause sexual arousal, I am tempted to think that evolutionary psychology can certainly explain this phenomenon. Early societies, according to most models of human development, used the males as hunters and warriors; females were gatherers. With this division of labor, males certainly incurred the more perilous part of the community's job. Before an important hunt or major battle, it is manifestly in the male's evolutionary favor to become sexually aroused; after all, this may be his genome's last chance to reproduce itself! Even if he dies in battle, his sex partners -- still safely at home -- will be able to bear his young. From an economic perspective, a man who expects to die tomorrow discounts the future at a rate of infinity and thus strives to consume as much product as possible immediately. Some variant of this story is likely true for women as well; if virtually the entire male contingent of the tribe (and probably the fittest contingent at that) is going off to war, women must be impregnated immediately if they are to bear fit offspring. Hence they, too, increase the rate at which they discount the future. I would suppose that this increased rate is the cause of increased happiness in the public. If people discount the future at a high rate, they are likely to indulge in "instant gratification," intensifying their spending and reaping the short-term utility of their action. This boosts their level of happiness, causing the poll results. (This might also suggest that the oft-noted increase in wartime GDP stems in part from the private sector.) Any thoughts? --Brian Auriti
Re: Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse?
A lot of firms have been using the attack as an excuse... somehow, terrorists have even inhibited the buying of guitars since The Guitar Center announced potential losses blamed on the attack! Seriously, there may be some truth to things. A business on the brink of bankrupcy depends on the leniency of creditors for continued existence. If creditors think that consumers will purchase less, as has happened after the attack, then they may be reluctant to make further loans. Firms on the margin live week to week and even a short term dip in purchases may push them to far into the red. Fabio > The day after the 9/11 attack, Midway Airlines basically closed shop, > suspending all of its flights and announcing 1,700 layoffs. They had > already filed for Chaper 11 bankruptcy protection; it almost seemed as if > they used the attack as an excuse to close shop earlier than expected. In > fact, the failing company may, perversely, be staying afloat due to the > attacks -- today, their CEO announced that they'd resume operation, and > expect to receive $12 million in federal grant money and another $28 > million in federal loans. > > Now, Mademoiselle magazine is folding. It hasn't made a profit "for years" > (according to the article I'm reading, cited below), but stayed open. The > attacks changed their tune: > > ``Mademoiselle was having a weak year, but once the Sept. 11 disasters took > place, we had to make some very difficult economic decisions,'' company > spokeswoman Maurie Perl said. > > ``We expect, as with most businesses, it will be a difficult fourth > quarter, and we forecast it will be a difficult business year in 2002, > which caused us to make some very difficult, but final decisions, with > Mademoiselle,'' she added. > > What possible reason would businesses NOT expecting a bailout have for > closing shop now? Steve Brill's Contentville also closed up, but they gave > a more realistic reason -- "we simply were unable to entice enough people > for us to see our way to a viable enterprise." Are failing companies just > using the attacks as an excuse? If they were failing before, why didn't > they close up then? > > Any thoughts? > > Dan Lewis > > > Some relevent links (I'm probably posting this to my website, so I have the > URLs handy): > * Midway suspends future flights: > http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010912/bs/air > lines_midwayairlines_dc_1.html > * Midway To Get Federal Aid Money: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wxii/20011001/lo/916790_1.html > * Conde Nast to shut down Mademoiselle magazine: > http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011001/n01353510_3.html > * Contentville's statement: > http://www.contentville.com/ >
RE: Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse?
It would not surprise me if some are using the attacks as an excuse to end a previously faltering concern. Some might be tempted to do so just as a way of saving face. It can be humbling to fail in business, but to fail as an indirect cause of an act of war might be a badge of contribution to the war effort or at least be good for some sympathy. Lynn Gray -Original Message- From: Dan Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse? The day after the 9/11 attack, Midway Airlines basically closed shop, suspending all of its flights and announcing 1,700 layoffs. They had already filed for Chaper 11 bankruptcy protection; it almost seemed as if they used the attack as an excuse to close shop earlier than expected. In fact, the failing company may, perversely, be staying afloat due to the attacks -- today, their CEO announced that they'd resume operation, and expect to receive $12 million in federal grant money and another $28 million in federal loans. Now, Mademoiselle magazine is folding. It hasn't made a profit "for years" (according to the article I'm reading, cited below), but stayed open. The attacks changed their tune: ``Mademoiselle was having a weak year, but once the Sept. 11 disasters took place, we had to make some very difficult economic decisions,'' company spokeswoman Maurie Perl said. ``We expect, as with most businesses, it will be a difficult fourth quarter, and we forecast it will be a difficult business year in 2002, which caused us to make some very difficult, but final decisions, with Mademoiselle,'' she added. What possible reason would businesses NOT expecting a bailout have for closing shop now? Steve Brill's Contentville also closed up, but they gave a more realistic reason -- "we simply were unable to entice enough people for us to see our way to a viable enterprise." Are failing companies just using the attacks as an excuse? If they were failing before, why didn't they close up then? Any thoughts? Dan Lewis Some relevent links (I'm probably posting this to my website, so I have the URLs handy): * Midway suspends future flights: http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010912/bs/air lines_midwayairlines_dc_1.html * Midway To Get Federal Aid Money: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wxii/20011001/lo/916790_1.html * Conde Nast to shut down Mademoiselle magazine: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011001/n01353510_3.html * Contentville's statement: http://www.contentville.com/
Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse?
The day after the 9/11 attack, Midway Airlines basically closed shop, suspending all of its flights and announcing 1,700 layoffs. They had already filed for Chaper 11 bankruptcy protection; it almost seemed as if they used the attack as an excuse to close shop earlier than expected. In fact, the failing company may, perversely, be staying afloat due to the attacks -- today, their CEO announced that they'd resume operation, and expect to receive $12 million in federal grant money and another $28 million in federal loans. Now, Mademoiselle magazine is folding. It hasn't made a profit "for years" (according to the article I'm reading, cited below), but stayed open. The attacks changed their tune: ``Mademoiselle was having a weak year, but once the Sept. 11 disasters took place, we had to make some very difficult economic decisions,'' company spokeswoman Maurie Perl said. ``We expect, as with most businesses, it will be a difficult fourth quarter, and we forecast it will be a difficult business year in 2002, which caused us to make some very difficult, but final decisions, with Mademoiselle,'' she added. What possible reason would businesses NOT expecting a bailout have for closing shop now? Steve Brill's Contentville also closed up, but they gave a more realistic reason -- "we simply were unable to entice enough people for us to see our way to a viable enterprise." Are failing companies just using the attacks as an excuse? If they were failing before, why didn't they close up then? Any thoughts? Dan Lewis Some relevent links (I'm probably posting this to my website, so I have the URLs handy): * Midway suspends future flights: http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010912/bs/air lines_midwayairlines_dc_1.html * Midway To Get Federal Aid Money: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wxii/20011001/lo/916790_1.html * Conde Nast to shut down Mademoiselle magazine: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011001/n01353510_3.html * Contentville's statement: http://www.contentville.com/
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Fabio Rojas wrote: >An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress >change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal >during times of stress. William Dickens wrote: >Well that (if the LA Times got it right) is a very odd fact. Why would we >be programmed to make babies when we are under stress as opposed to when >we are fat and content? ... it really seems that such an impulse would be >counter productive. ... Perhaps our emotional/behavioral systems simply >aren't sophisticated enough to parse out different types of arousal, but >if that is true that should throw a lot of suspicion on the whole >enterprise of evolutionary psychology since the mechanisms that are being >posited concerning sexuality and social interaction are usually much more >highly nuanced than this. One evolutionary psychology interpretation would be that when a group is suddenly threatened, its members are programmed to reassure each other of their affection and loyalty. Sex can do that. Babies may result, but perhaps other processes can reduce that effect when babies are less desired. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
I think I recall also reading somewhere that suicide rates dropped markedly during both the Great Depression and WW II. John At 11:43 AM 10/1/01 -0400, you wrote: >A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were >happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! >-- > Prof. Bryan Caplan >Department of Economics George Mason University > http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we >ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught >books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* >thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of >light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the >lustre of the firmament of bards and sages." > --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Well that (if the LA Times got it right) is a very odd fact. Why would we be programmed to make babies when we are under stress as opposed to when we are fat and content? The standard evolutionary psychology line says that any innate response such as this has to have conferred some advantage on our pre-human ancestors. The only thing that I can think of is that stress might be caused by competition from some other tribe or another species and it might be advantageous in such situations to increase the number of "soldiers." However, given how long it takes humans to grow to the point that they are useful for such purposes, and given how significant a drain young are on resources, it really seems that such an impulse would be counter productive. Now if this was a grief response this might be more understandable. It would make sense that you might want to replace lost population, but stress seems awfully non-specific. Perhaps our emotional/behavioral systems simply aren't sophis! ticated enough to parse out different types of arousal, but if that is true that should throw a lot of suspicion on the whole enterprise of evolutionary psychology since the mechanisms that are being posited concerning sexuality and social interaction are usually much more highly nuanced than this. - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 12:21PM >>> An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal during times of stress. I can easily imagine a similar effect for just plain happiness. Fabio On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Robin Hanson wrote: > The Washington Post had two interesting articles yesterday about the > recent disaster changed public opinion, on happiness and on trust. > > On happiness, when asked last weekend to rate the overall quality of > their lives on a seven point scale, more than 44% picked the highest > rating. In June that was 30%, and in December 1999 it was 31%. This > seems to me to be an enormous problem for those who want to measure > economic policies by how much they increase reported happiness. Was > this disaster good for the nation because it made people happier?! > > On trust, when asked Sept 25-27, 64% of Americans now trust the > federal government nearly always or most of the time to do what is > right, more than double the percentage who said so in April 2000, and > the highest it has been for three decades. If we interpret this to > be a factual estimate by those questioned, rather than a statement > of values, this seems very hard to square with rationality. What > evidence of federal behavior in the last two weeks could possibly > be the basis for this huge change in opinion? The big info has to > be that the disaster was allowed to occur, and most federal action > since then has been a promises to do useful things, rather than > doing anything demonstrably useful. This seems to me a clear case > of wishful thinking, where people believe what they want to be true. > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 >
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal during times of stress. I can easily imagine a similar effect for just plain happiness. Fabio On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Robin Hanson wrote: > The Washington Post had two interesting articles yesterday about the > recent disaster changed public opinion, on happiness and on trust. > > On happiness, when asked last weekend to rate the overall quality of > their lives on a seven point scale, more than 44% picked the highest > rating. In June that was 30%, and in December 1999 it was 31%. This > seems to me to be an enormous problem for those who want to measure > economic policies by how much they increase reported happiness. Was > this disaster good for the nation because it made people happier?! > > On trust, when asked Sept 25-27, 64% of Americans now trust the > federal government nearly always or most of the time to do what is > right, more than double the percentage who said so in April 2000, and > the highest it has been for three decades. If we interpret this to > be a factual estimate by those questioned, rather than a statement > of values, this seems very hard to square with rationality. What > evidence of federal behavior in the last two weeks could possibly > be the basis for this huge change in opinion? The big info has to > be that the disaster was allowed to occur, and most federal action > since then has been a promises to do useful things, rather than > doing anything demonstrably useful. This seems to me a clear case > of wishful thinking, where people believe what they want to be true. > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 >
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
Bryan Caplan wrote: > > A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were > happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! Selection bias! Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disaster Raises Happiness, Trust
A lot of Soviet citizens, similarly, (retrospectively) claimed they were happiest during World War II, when something like 1-out-of-8 perished! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
