The logical choice would be if it is not significant at the p = 0.05 level.

@LilyFleming everything is significant at the p=.05 level if you collect enough data. That doesn’t indicate a meaningful difference.

Idk exactly the threshold I'd use to say it's 'equal', and I don't feel like figuring out an exact number to give right now

I think it would be a better market if you did. The probability of "no difference" depends entirely on your chosen threshold.

@Fion @Aella Seconding this. Also, you shouldn't bet on the market until after all decisions about threshholds, controls, etc have been firmly made.

@AhronMaline meanwhile, I have been happily volatility trading :-/ feel very dirty now that you two pointed that out. Though in my defense. I have never traded but the way I believed, so if I got trapped in a position, I would have been happy.

@JussiVilleHeiskanen We were addressing Aella, the market creator, asking her to clarify her threshholds. I added that she shouldn't trade before doing so, since that would create conflicts of interest - both for the market, and more importantly for her research integrity!

Are you involved in Aella's work? If not, I don't see any reason not to do volatility trading.

@AhronMaline no no, not in the field at all, just armchairing, like most everything here on my part

@JussiVilleHeiskanen so I'm a bit confused why you felt dirty about volatility trading, in response to our comments?

I think marriage is a huge confound here. suspect that among married people, the religious beat the non-religious, but reverse for unmarried. but if you've been dating for five years I think you're more likely to be married if you're religious than not. gah

@brod Absolutely, saving it

@brod Among the non-religious, perhaps you are more likely to get married after the main attraction is no longer the main attraction.

That's my thinking, I would guess that non-religious people have more sex overall, but the type of non-religious person who has a lot of sex is also unmarried

@brod To what extent do you factor in people who have casual sex with other partners while in nonmonogamous long term relationship? Surely those encounters count too.

No difference is getting squeezed out, quite rightly

I think the guiding light is to bet against manifold consensus

@Aella What is the methodology of getting the survey in front of your survey participants?

Was it a link placed on your social media? Does this imply that most of the participants are English speaking?

Or was it distributed by a surveying service that finds participants for you?

@Quroe I think it's primarily social media, here were the sources for the kink survey (mostly tiktok, twitter, reddit). I assume the relationships survey was similar

Controlling for the number of kids seems like a mistake to me - one of the main effects I would expect to find is that devoutly religious people are more likely to have lots of kids.

I'm not certain if having kids implies more sex (because how else do you get pregnant) or less (because when do parents find time to do it). My experience says it would be less, though.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 My Grandmother was very(!) catholic and once told me "I never had unneccessary intercourse"

Meowdy! This is a classic puzzle—religious people might have less casual sex, but long-term dynamics differ. I'll chew on the data later tonight once more comments or results surface. Stay tuned! :3

More sex? Yes. Good consensual sex? No.

To be clear: there is a very common problem of non-consensual sex in marriages between devoutly religious people. Women in these relationships often believe (as a consequence of their religious beliefs) that they are not permitted to say no if their husbands want to have sex with them.

Therefore, given
C: sex when the woman would naturally consent
NC: sex when the woman would not naturally consent
then
C + NC > C

It's possible that other factors could override this effect, but I don't know what they would be. I'd be interested in hearing some hypotheses.