Income/Employment Status and Sexual/Relationship Success

Post Reply New Topic

At time of posting this the results are as follows:

23 with no sexual partners, 5 with brief/infrequent sexual relationships, and 17 with long-term/steady or frequent sexual relationships, so exactly half of the respondents are getting no sex at all.

a ) People with a high/above average income divide up as follows: 4 with no sex, 1 with a little, and 6 have long-term or frequent sexual relationships, ie. a slight tendency for people with an above average income to have more regular/frequent sex than the average, but it is only a slight difference in numbers of real people, ( as opposed to in percentages ), and might disappear with just a few more votes.

b ) Average income: 2 no sex, none with a little, and 2 have longterm or frequent sexual relationships. Exactly half of the people with an average income have regular sex, ie. no advantage either way. This matches the average sexual activity of the "sample" so far.

c ) Low/below average income: 5 with no sex, 1 with a little, and 3 have long-term or frequent relationships. Definitely appear to be at a disadvantage ... but how much of this is because low income and unemployment correlate with lower social skills, etc ( ie. more "severe" ASD's )?

d ) Unemployed: 5 with no sex, 0 with a little, and 2 have long-term or frequent sexual relationships. As above.

e ) Students: 7 getting no sex, 3 a little, and 3 have long-term or frequent relationships. Almost half have some sex, which matches the overall average, and the higher number of brief or infrequent sexual relationships may correlate with the age and corresponding ambitions of the average student.

The low-paid and the unemployed definitely seem the worst off.

But for people with low to average to high income things are not so clear cut. The fact that 4 of the high-paid aren't getting any sex compared to 6 who are suggests that money is not as powerful a factor as all that.

I am curious to see whether things become more clear cut or less so with more votes.
.

Just thinking that it's interesting that of the 45 votes in income categories so far a surprising 11 describe themselves as high-paid, compared to 5 on average incomes, 9 low-paid, 7 unemployed and 13 students.

ie. 25% of the people who voted in this poll ( in an income category ) are apparently on high/above average incomes. ! !!

... which suggests that the membership of WP is actually rather privileged, financially at least, compared to the general population. :lol

Just wondering whether that might account for some of the feelings of entitlement so often expressed in this forum, because an above average income is so often associated in the media and in advertising with sexual success. We're taught to believe that they go automatically together, but, as the above results tentatively suggest, maybe they don't.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 21 Sep 2010, 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

LOL I wonder how much French ppl get paid compare to everyone else across the globe.

Times are tough and most of the women in my family have had to be the bread winners as well.

They could be overestimating where their income puts them in terms of this poll. Or it could be people messing with the poll for whatever reason.

It is surprising if neither of those is not the case.

I think if I was financially well off I wouldn't spend much time on WP, if any. Not that there's anything wrong with WP.

Last edited by Moog on 21 Sep 2010, 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ this and what nekowafer said make this poll so unreliable.

I'd stick to the scientific studies.

Well, noone has been pretending that this poll would satisfy the standards of a peer group review! :lol

It was, as I already explained on the first page, intended simply to gather a bit of data rather more quickly and concisely than Invader's original thread on the subject, and was always going to suffer massively from selection bias among other things.

I actually don't think that people have been messing with the poll, because people can only vote once, ( not enough to make much of a difference ), and because I think most people on WP actually take this sort of "research" fairly seriously, vote honestly etc.

And although it is possible that some people, particularly aspies/auties, might have a tendency to perceive what is actually an average income as being above average, I think that most people know more or less what an "average" income ( in their country at least ) is and can evaluate their own in comparison to that.

I think that it is very possible that the membership of WP ( as a whole ), is financially better off than the average ... levels of literacy alone would suggest so.


Which ones do you mean? Do you have some links?
.

I guess they would be found in journals relating to sociological pursuits

Failing that a Giddens Sociology text book will have some referances

I think it is proven that the more money you got, the more sex you can get. It'll be from gold diggers, of course, but sex is sex I guess

As for a proper relationship, I personally think having more money will reduce your chances of one because of aforementioned gold diggers.

Actually it isn't proven, far from it:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ ... -happiness


.

That's interesting, actually, thanks for that.

Though, no one study can be conclusive, and logically speaking, someone with more money can afford more fancy prostitutes.

As of posting 53 people have voted in an income category.

High income earners still make up 25% of the sample, as do students.

But out of the 19 people in steady/long-term or frequent sexual relationships 8 are high-income earners, ie. over 40%, in other words aspie/autie men on a high or above average income are clearly getting more sex.

But according to the study I linked to and quoted from above there is in fact no correlation between income and level of sexual activity in the general population ... so the fact that in this poll of aspie/autie men, ( which as I have said is bound to suffer from massive selection bias so it can only ever be "suggestive" rather than conclusive ), there is a small correlation between them does rather suggest that money may ( in some cases/to some extent ) function as a substitute or compensation for a lack of social skills etc. ...

ie. it may not be that surprising that so many men on this forum believe that women are gold-diggers, that women are attracted to men with money above all else, etc, etc, etc and are bitter/cynical about women as a result, because that may well have been their experience; that when they have money they are more sexually successful than usual/otherwise ... something which an NT guy would not experience, ( according to the studies ). ... unless it is simply that those in higher-paid jobs are far more able socially anyway ... ? ...

... which makes me I wonder about the 5 highly-paid people who have no sexual partners.

I hope that more aspie/autie men, ( and women with AS partners who won't be voting ), will vote here to so that we can see if the trend continues/consolidates or whether it dissipates again. It's very interesting.

If include "infrequent and/or brief sexual relationships" in the analysis then 9 high-paid aspie/autie men are getting sex, and 7 students, compared to 3 average income, 5 low income, and 2 unemployed. It looks as if the "potentially bright/wealthier future" implicit in student status, and/or the social networking and lifestyle of students makes up for lack of money at that stage.

PS. I think I'm going to post a poll in General Autism Discussion to see what correlation there is, if any, between level of social skills ( necessarily self-evaluated ) and income. Here it is:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt138473.html
.

The question asks: "How much do you earn in relation to the average joe"?, not "are you a millionaire"?

It could be as simple as this: Aspies are basically geeks on stereoids. Geeks usually work with IT. IT makes you more money than the average joe. At least that is why i voted that way.

Yep, the IT angle might well explain it. I don't understand computers much at all though. I nearly slid into accounting, ( another well paid and partly geeky career ), from a job in the Inland Revenue, but was going through a really bad manic-depressive and alcoholic patch at the time such that I slid very quickly out of it again! :lol
.

Well, I do. So here's the results of your poll:

IH=High/above average income
IA=Average income
IL=Low/below average income
IU=Unemployed
IS=Student

SF=success
SS=average success
SN=no success

P(IH) 30%
P(IA) 9%
P(IL) 18%
P(IU) 18%
P(IS) 26%

P(SF) 35%
P(SS) 16%
P(SN) 49%

P(SF|IH) 53%
P(SS|IH) 12%
P(SN|IH) 35%

P(SF|IA) 60%
P(SS|IA) 0%
P(SN|IA) 40%

P(SF|IL) 30%
P(SS|IL) 20%
P(SN|IL) 50%

P(SF|IU) 20%
P(SS|IU) 10%
P(SN|IU) 70%

P(SF|IS) 20%
P(SS|IS) 27%
P(SN|IS) 53%

Here's the discriminator:
Linear Difference =P(SF|X)-P(SF)-P(SN|X)+P(SN):
X=IH 0.32
X=IA 0.34
X=IL -0.06
X=IU -0.36
X=IS -0.19

Analysis
Both high and average income are successful, low income is average, academe is moderately unsuccessful, and unemployment is unsuccessful.

Conclusion
In this completely unscientific and systemically biased study, success is strongly correlated with income from none to average, with no correlation above average.

Good work, Admiral.

Wow! Thank you very much for doing that!

So there really is something funny happening among the high-paid? !

Thanks again!
.