Oh, so that’s what happened to the economy (rolls eyes). I don’t know what to make of this. Given what women have had to deal with because of monthly hormonal surges, the idea that men are ruled by their hormones isn’t exactly a novel concept, but this kind stereotyping is useful…how?
The hormone that drives male aggression and sexual interest also seems able to boost short term success at finance. But what seems to start out well can turn bad, with elevated testosterone levels over several days possibly leading to irrational risk-taking, according to researchers at the University of Cambridge in England.OK — now this is worth a belly laugh…“If people want to get practical, it would be good for both banks and the financial system as a whole if we had more women and older men in the markets,” said John M. Coates, lead author of a study appearing in this week’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Coates and Herbert’s study comes less than two weeks after U.S. researchers reported that young men shown erotic pictures were more likely to make a larger financial gamble than if they were shown a picture of something scary, such as a snake, or something neutral, such as a stapler.Take that and run with it…Money and women trigger the same brain area in men, those researchers said.
20 Responses to “Study: men ruled by their hormones take stock market risks”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Jake Young:
And people wonder why casinos have scantily dressed women handing out free alcoholic beverages to gamblers, most of whom are successful, youngish males.
Oooooh! Oooooh! Pick me! I’ve got it!:
Men regard women as a commodity to be traded, the same way they regard the greenbacks.
Can we then revitalize the stock market by showing porn on the floor of the stock exchange?
So the take home message of the study is not to surf for porn while doing online banking?
ps Amanda already posted on the study.
“also seems able to boost short term success at finance”
Wow….where to begin. Excessive risk taking doesn’t result in success in finance. Even in the short term. So add to the list of things this author knows nothing about.
1. Men
2. Hormones
3. Science
4. Finance
“Wow….where to begin. Excessive risk taking doesn’t result in success in finance. Even in the short term. So add to the list of things this author knows nothing about.
1. Men
2. Hormones
3. Science
4. Finance”
I wonder if Cheney/Bush has any openings. Sounds like a perfect fit…
Wait, I thought WOMEN were the ones who are supposed to be turned on by money, ‘cos we’re all mercenary gold-digging hos.
Men aren’t turned on by money itself, we’re turned on by the fact we’ll be getting laid by the mercenary gold-digging hos who are turned on by the money.
It’s okay, I’m a man so I understand these things. There’s a study out there that says so!
(The preceding was snark: people who mistake it for actual opinions held by myself will be made fun of.)
What about men with teh gay?
Money and women trigger the same brain area in men, those researchers said.
I guess that explains why rich guys are always marrying beautiful models. Or something.
“What about men with teh gay?”
Men with teh gay are obviously very successful since: 1) They make more money than women do, and 2) Unlike straight men, they don’t have to spend the money they make on mercenary gold-digging hos. They’re smart enough to date men instead, and as we all know, history shows that men are born with an innate capacity to pick up the check (this is known as “heavy lifting”). QED.
Elementary, what?
(I expect an evopsych study to come out one of these days defending in all seriousness the line of snarkthink indulged in above, honest I do. Every day in every way, they’re getting closer and closer.)
The idea of busting up the frat party known as investment banking gives my tummy the warm tinglies, so I’m all for more women in finance. But since when is trading a “me only” job? Most traders for investment managers have a team of analysts supporting the portfolio manager who tells the trader what to buy and sell that day, and often set limit orders or tell the trader to put in a market order (which may or may not have gains that day, or losses if you’re trying to cover a short sale). And even if you’re on the sell-side of the biz, you’re still looking at data and recommendations compiled by technical analysts and fundamental analysts and quantitative analyst math geeks who all get a say in making final recommendations on purchases/sales. Dudes just don’t walk onto the floor of the London Stock Exchange, see an order to buy a hundred thousand shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland and go, nah, fuck it. Let’s sell. And let’s not forget the lawyers. There are all sorts of compliance restrictions on what can be bought and sold, not to mention foreign ownership restrictions, so those traders are ultimately not only responsible to shareholders and the primary decision makers of their firm, but the ethics hounds and lawyers who WILL jump down their throat if they’re making irresponsible trades.
A better study would compare the intraday decisions of male and female traders (of the same types of securities) from firms of comparable size to determine where, if at all, their risk-taking differs.
Then again, I’m probably giving the cited study way too much credit to have commented this much.
Well, rather than consider that capitalism is inherently unstable and that massive fluctuation is a feature, not a bug, just about any straw more legitimate to grasp than facing these simple facts.
At any rate that is the case during a downswing. During a boom, of course the momentary appearence of prosperity is due to the sober wisdom of the capitalists. Duh!
Would the same interpretation lead to the conclusion that before we went nuts with Reaganite / New Right / “Third Way” deregulation of investment & banking regulations that somehow these raging hormones were lower?
This sounds like a scene from the cutting room floor of _Office Space_.
Where’s my red Swingline, please?
An obvious flaw in the research is that snakes aren’t scary, they’re awesome.
Not even a live snake but a picture of snake? Who the hell would be scared by that?
How many nekkid pics and fucks does $25,000 buy? because that’s how much I’ve lost this last quarter. LOL!
I’m thinking there are too many dicks on Wall Street being played with. I’m losing money.
Listened to the author of the study on BBC.
Really considered sort of discussion.
And the conclusion…sort of speculative.. was that
we would be better served market-wise
and for both economies,
–’Money Changer’ and ‘real‘ (us)–
by having women and older men on the floor of the exchange.
Which seemed to make perfect sense.
So men reacted differently to looking at a naked woman than they did to looking at a stapler… Now that’s science huh?