Musings on Homosexuality

[Rosemary Roberts]

More money attracts more people, so you get more applicants and hence you pick the best of them. I know it's appealing to think that well-paid people are a bunch of useless toffs but fairly basic economics tells you that they can't all be.

That might work if that were the way it was done, but so far as I can see it isn't. Top jobs are handed out by hiring headhunters who decide on the man they want and sound him out to compile a pay package rather larger than whatever he is getting at the moment. Not much sign of open competition there. It is possible that the headhunters possess the necessary skills, but I don't see much competitive tendering there, either.

[Ian Volante]

That is often said, but I think there is a good chance the state enterprises might be left with people who are more interested in the success of the enterprise than their own pocket.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here. It's not like the inefficiencies of the BBC are caused by people stealing the petty cash. If you're offered otherwise identical positions at the BBC or ITV but only ITV pay bonuses, what rational person would take the BBC job? Are you claiming that a person's approach to a given job depends on the source of the money they're paid? It just makes no sense.

Charlie, as a civil servant, I'm definitely much happier working for what I perceive is the public good rather than to make money for people higher up the chain, or for shareholders or whatever. I'm not sure what level of increased salary it would take for me to jump into the private sector, assuming all other things were equal, but I'd speculate around 10%-15% would do it.

Just had a separate thought however. Is it an equivalent thing to think of how much of a pay cut I would take to move in the other direction? Probably not, the disadvantages of a pay cut are harsher than the benefits of an increase I reckon.

[Ralph Gillions]

I am sure that I am probably missing something, but I seem to have lost my way here.
If someone can explain (simply please) the connection between money and homosexuality, I would be very grateful.

[Lesley Hines]

I am sure that I am probably missing something, but I seem to have lost my way here.
If someone can explain (simply please) the connection between money and homosexuality, I would be very grateful.

HTH

[Ralph Gillions]

Ah-ah!
Thanks Lesley.

[Lesley Hines]

At the risk of making a post that's even vaguely related to the topic (or at least to how the topic digressed)...

Good stuff...

Fair play Paul these are some interesting points, and all perfectly valid. I'm looking forward to reading some of the advances in evolutionary biology that will help shed some light on it. For some it we'll never know (probably ) but I remember it being a fascinating shock to query why sexual reproduction happens in the first place. Great quote: "Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed so much confusion."- Graham Bell, 1982 I just think it's a brilliant dichotomy.

This is an interesting article about it, for your own pleasure I'd also recommend as a read 13 things that don't make sense. It also covers implications for stuff like life, death, free will, the placebo effect, missing matter in the cosmos etc. All thought-provoking stuff.

They're doing some interesting computer modelling to work out the effects of the cost to the individual versus the advantages to the community, and there are some really great field studies (one I read recently I liked) going on too. Fortunately nature gives us such a huge range of sexual possibilities to research there should be some very exciting advances.

[Paul Howe]

At the risk of making a post that's even vaguely related to the topic (or at least to how the topic digressed)...

Good stuff...

Fair play Paul these are some interesting points, and all perfectly valid. I'm looking forward to reading some of the advances in evolutionary biology that will help shed some light on it. For some it we'll never know (probably ) but I remember it being a fascinating shock to query why sexual reproduction happens in the first place. Great quote: "Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed so much confusion."- Graham Bell, 1982 I just think it's a brilliant dichotomy.

This is an interesting article about it, for your own pleasure I'd also recommend as a read 13 things that don't make sense. It also covers implications for stuff like life, death, free will, the placebo effect, missing matter in the cosmos etc. All thought-provoking stuff.

They're doing some interesting computer modelling to work out the effects of the cost to the individual versus the advantages to the community, and there are some really great field studies (one I read recently I liked) going on too. Fortunately nature gives us such a huge range of sexual possibilities to research there should be some very exciting advances.

Cool, I'll have a read of those later.

If you like maths, there is an interesting chapter "Why Have Sex?" in David Mackay's machine learning book (which I believe he has made available for free on his website), which looks at this question from an information theory point of view and tries to quantify the benefits of sex at the group level. Seems to ignore the question of group vs individual selection though.