Women are more gullible then men.
Discussion
Price can determine quality - for women at least. That’s the message of a new paper by researchers at the Stockholm School of Economics.
They got some Americans to taste two bottles of red wine, one costing $5 and one $40. Women who were told of the price of the expensive bottle before tasting it rated the wine much more favourably than did women who tasted it blind. For men, however, knowing the price made little difference to their rating.
And being told the price of the cheap bottle before tasting it made no difference to how the wine was rated.
This suggests that expensiveness can help to signal quality - at least to women - although cheapness is not necessarily a signal of inferiority.
This half-corroborates a finding of Dan Ariely, discussed in his great book Predictably Irrational - that expectations shape experiences. So if we expect something to taste nice, it will. This effect works even for products that have no material effect; Ariely has show that expensive placebos work better than cheap ones.
This laboratory evidence has real-world implications. It might explain why cosmetics companies can sell expensive products - mostly to women! - even though they are of dubious merit
But might it also have a political application? Could it be that support for public spending increases has been based, in part, on the belief that expensive means better?
Really don’t think we should let them vote, they’re not suited to it.
source
They got some Americans to taste two bottles of red wine, one costing $5 and one $40. Women who were told of the price of the expensive bottle before tasting it rated the wine much more favourably than did women who tasted it blind. For men, however, knowing the price made little difference to their rating.
And being told the price of the cheap bottle before tasting it made no difference to how the wine was rated.
This suggests that expensiveness can help to signal quality - at least to women - although cheapness is not necessarily a signal of inferiority.
This half-corroborates a finding of Dan Ariely, discussed in his great book Predictably Irrational - that expectations shape experiences. So if we expect something to taste nice, it will. This effect works even for products that have no material effect; Ariely has show that expensive placebos work better than cheap ones.
This laboratory evidence has real-world implications. It might explain why cosmetics companies can sell expensive products - mostly to women! - even though they are of dubious merit
But might it also have a political application? Could it be that support for public spending increases has been based, in part, on the belief that expensive means better?
Really don’t think we should let them vote, they’re not suited to it.
source
so many true aspects to that.
the classical one is "shoes/handbags/cosmetics/dresses in a sale":
Man: "are they new shoes?"
Woman: "yes, and they were a bargain!"
M: "really? how much were they?"
W: "only £200, but they are worth £500"
they arent worth £500, its just that there are people gullible enough to think that they are worth that!
the classical one is "shoes/handbags/cosmetics/dresses in a sale":
Man: "are they new shoes?"
Woman: "yes, and they were a bargain!"
M: "really? how much were they?"
W: "only £200, but they are worth £500"
they arent worth £500, its just that there are people gullible enough to think that they are worth that!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff