Were they called 'Flashy' and 'Frugal' in the study? Because 'Flashy' has negative connotations, and Frutal has positive connotations which obviously wouldn't influence the results..
It seems very simplistic. Or did I misunderstand?
If you're male, and splash your cash on fast cars and shiny things, then those around you likely think you're more interested in a short-term fling than something more romantic, according to a new study. The study, published in Evolutionary Psychological Science, took a group of diverse US undergraduate students and presented …
Indeed, the study as reported here seems to have asked leading questions that completely prejudice the answers.
I heard about this on the radio last night, and formed a somewhat-different impression from that report. But it occurred to me that I've always steered well clear of flash or bling when looking for a mate, for what that's worth.
Writing that, it occurs to me you could take it two ways. I meant to say, I've always steered clear of ladies who are dolled up and looking artificial or expensive. But it could also describe how I present myself: even when I had a car, I wouldn't touch a wankmobile.
@Nick Kew: "I've always steered clear of ladies who are dolled up"
Same here, just don't find make up attractive, and don't do bling myself, I'm far more comfortable in a old pair of combat trousers and sensible boots, in a field, with my dogs, and so is my wife. To add an anecdote to the data, we both drive cars 10+ years old, shun bling, and have been together for 24 years.
"Were they called 'Flashy' and 'Frugal' in the study?"
Looking at the study, it doesn't really seem to be clear. The relevant part reads as follows:
"Participants were told: “Please imagine that the person described below is part of your social world,” and were presented with the following (unlabeled) descriptions:
Frugal: Dan has $20,000 to buy a car. His top concerns are efficiency and reliability..."
Does "unlabeled" [sic] mean that the "Frugal" label at the start was not actually presented to the participants, or is everything in the quoted section exactly as it was shown? Such an unclear description certainly shouldn't make it to publication, even without the spelling errors. On the plus side, they do note that car brands were not mentioned, and the budgets were kept equal specifically to correct for that as a possible confounding factor present in previous studies (they reference a study in which a $60 Porche was compared with a $15k Honda).
"Your spandex leotard and ridiculous aerodynamic helmet are guaranteed to repel the opposite sex."
As opposed to your DRS flap, which will do the same?
Not all cyclists are targeting the TdF - just as not all motorists are pretending to be in F1.
It just happens that lycra is one clothing option that makes any longer journey rather more comfortable.
It's a shame that no-one would look twice because of her helmet and lycra: She's enjoying herself, getting from A to B and keeping healthy. All rather positive qualities in my book.
"Your spandex leotard and ridiculous aerodynamic helmet are guaranteed to repel the opposite sex."
I'm guessing that your belly hangs over your belt and you are packing a vienna sausage, because 6' tall, 15% body fat packing something bigger than average, all wrapped in lycra, definitely does NOT repel the opposite sex.
I mean who spends $20K on a new car when you could get a much better second hand one for the same money? And who aside from 16 year old lottery winners would spend $20K on a cheap second hand car and new alloy wheels?
They've created two caricatures of male behaviour and got exactly the results they thought they'd get.
"who spends $20K on a new car"
Everytime you buy a second hand car the chances are that some second hand car dealer is going to make money from the deal so one strategy is to buy a new car look after it well and run it till the cost of replacing something major means that it's time to start again. Technically it "should" be cheaper to do this starting with a one or two year old motor, but the problem with that is that you never know how badly the previous owner abused the car so you are increasing the risk of early failure.
"Everytime you buy a second hand car the chances are that some second hand car dealer is going to make money from the deal "
That's why it pays to learn a little about cars and buy a second hand car privately, on the one hand a 'reputable' used car lot will provide a limited guarantee which will give you some protection but having some valid technical knowledge and possibly an independent opinion can get you a very nice car in good nick with the large chunk of depreciation that comes with a new car, already taken care of.
For reference:- "On average, a new car will lose as much as 19 percent of its value in its first year of ownership. That means that your $20,000 new car will be worth about $16,200 after just one year. With each successive year, the rate of depreciation decreases significantly.Trustedchoice .com
"That's why it pays to learn a little about cars and buy a second hand car privately"
Sound advice, but I must confess to having sold second hand cars privately and even once to a dealer when I knew rather more about the potential problems with the car than the buyer clearly did. It's gone the other way too: I've bought cars second hand where the seller must have sighed with relief at the sight of it being driven away.
How much does it pay?
I really do know a _little_ about cars. Sufficiently little that I am unlikely to be able to tell the difference between a second hand bargain and a second hand disaster. If you can tell the difference then you do not know far more than a little about cars. Perhaps for you, learning about cars is fun and you did not notice the time flying. For me it would be a boring slog so it would have to pay really well - better than a mechanic or second hand car dealer.
"On average, a new car will lose as much as 19 percent of its value in its first year of ownership. That means that your $20,000 new car will be worth about $16,200 after just one year. With each successive year, the rate of depreciation decreases "
But is that really how people buy new cars? I tend to look for something that will do the job for the next 5-7 years, on the assumption it will be worth bugger all by then, at which time I trade it in for a new one and disposal/resale becomes an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). I don't agonise over comparative resale value over time, I just drive the thing.
I mean, the purpose of a car is to get you places. If you're looking for an investment, try gold.
the problem with that is that you never know how badly the previous owner abused the car
Talk to mechanics nicely and you can learn a lot. I've taught mechanics at my local garage how to fix their tempremental printer and do minor bits of housekeeping that we take for granted that they didn't know, and got some useful info about spotting dodgy cars in return. A few points that come to mind, in no particular order are:-
1) Are the brake discs really heavily worn? kneel at a wheel, look through the spokes of the wheel. The metallic circle behind that is the brake disc. There will be a lip at the outer edge, as the brake pad doesn't cover the entire surface. If it's worn down a few mil then that's relatively normal. If it's visibly newish (not rusty) and severely worn down (~1cm) then it's been owned by somebody who has a very heavy foot on the brakes and will need the discs and probably pads replacing soon.
If the wheels (as opposed to tyres) are really dirty is also a good sign of heavy braking, as brakes abrade away to black dust which is visible on the wheels. If the car is clean and the wheels are supposed to be silver but look gray or black, then you've got a heavy braker. The edges of alloy wheels being chipped away shows that the car lived in a town and the driver used to drive it up curbs frequently, which to be harsh probably means that it was driven hard in towns by a bad driver who didn't know how to park properly.
2) Look at the tyres. If the side edge towards the top shows any wear then the car has been thrown around corners at silly speeds.
3) take a (powerful, LED) torch, and shine it down on the paint at a ~80 degree angle. Repainted bits will be visible by being too smooth compared to the rest of the paintwork. Repainted bits tend to be repaired accident damage, depending on where the paintwork is that might be a scratch picked up in a carpark or an accident.
4) take a sheet and lie down and look underneath the car. If it's rusted to buggery, or there is visible damage, run away.
5) take the boot carpet out, and see if the metal is twisted or if the wheel well is full of water. If so, it's had a rear end shunt and the frame of the vehicle is damaged and would be a write off if anybody knew. Open the bonnet and look around the edges, same story. Twisted metal is not a good sign.
6) take a checklist of every single component of the car. From aircon to lights to washers, to seatbelts and every door handle, (both internal and external) and check every item off individually. If a used car salesman sees that your doing this then they'll probably tell you what's wrong with it.
7) You can also check if it's been serviced in reality as opposed to the paperwork by looking at the airfilter etc. If the airfilter has vegatation growing in it, it's not been serviced regardless of what the paperwork says. If the oil is a dirty black colour when wiped on a white cloth instead of a yellowish colour the oil hasn't been changed for a long while, etc.
8) Has it been garaged? Lots of bits like brand badges and paint react to UV and so discolour if stored outside, and looking carefully can tell you if it's been stored inside vs outside for the majority of it's life.
So you can't know, but you can pick up a lot of information about a car even from a glance, if you know what your looking for.
My car was made in '99 and I didn't hesitate much when buying ~2 years ago because it was in excellent condition, though the sheer age would put most people off who don't know what to look at, despite it being in better condition than some cars that are a fraction of the age.
actually, I had this discussion with my garagist about getting a _new_ reliable car above my stick shift Civic's paygrade.
He was full of anecdotes of customers who bought flashy BMWs and Mercs secondhand. An $80k car for $40k, basically.
Except that those cars, like most, start to age around the 100k km mark. And, as he put it, he charges about $1500$ for what costs $600 to fix on my Civic, something those buyers were often not prepared for. And neither brand is reknowned for reliability (Mercs used to be). As he put it, if you have the $$$ to get a new one after 5 yrs, good. Less good if you're stretching your budget getting a used money pit.
Just because you get the car cheap doesn't mean the parts are. I agree with you though - a reliable used car can save you a lot if you know what you are buying.
So, "better car" is relative. To me, the better car is the one that gets me from A to B while keeping me from being on first name basis with my mechanic.
Does your Civic come with a rotor to mow the grass, I mean, it is a Honda, after all ? Honda spares in France have always been extortionate, no cheap Honda spares in France, it has gotten better with Nissan because Renault now owns that, but that is another story.
Except that those cars, like most, start to age around the 100k km mark ... Ahhh, Ok, I am an old fart, did not know that, always buy cars 2nd hand, usually 2 to 4 years old and keep them for another decade or so.
I even have a 20+ year old BMW Z3, all nice and shiny, yes I had to buy replacement parts, door-handle decoration, the rubber was dis-integrating, rear screen because some jealous bastard cut it to pieces, and "air-vents" because somebody nicked them ... apart from that, and the usual oil change and brake pads, nothing over the past 4 years I have owned it.
My 106 has been 10 years without any special treatment (I bought it 4 years old), timing belt once (it was new when I bought it), brake pads, tires, exhaust, and oil service ... only recently did I have to replace a universal joint and the clutch is starting to go south ... did over 160 000 km with virtually no problem.
In 1999, I bought a 2 year old Polo with 30 000 km, that thing lasted to 300 000 km without anything abnormal ... It also depends how you treat your car, regular oil service, greasing anything that must....
>no cheap Honda spares in France
Heureusement que je n'habite depuis longtemps plus en France donc ;-)
Seriously though, I don't doubt you can benefit greatly from year 1 and 2 depreciation on used cars. You just have to know what you're doing. I'll buy smartphones used myself, because I find those easy to assess.
neither brand is reknowned for reliability
BS - my BMWs never let me down except once, when the electric connection of the fuel pomp went down on my 12 year old E46 after running 365,000 km. roughly distance between Earth and Moon.
Most of mechanics are crooks anyway and shouldn't be believed most of the time
Every 10-12 years I'll indulge myself on a new car. Never flashy, but brand new is nice to have. For the first several years I lean on the dealer for warranty work and I indulge the dealer by paying for the overpriced periodic maintenance. Could I do better financially by driving used cars? Yeah, probably. I don't care. I've got more expensive vices.
The cost of the average US new car is, I believe, about $25000. The average for all four wheeled personal transport is around $35000 because so many of them need F150s to commute.
And these are American undergraduates.
I'm not sure what the study proves. That they don't know how much cars cost once you've added on sales tax and the essential extras?
Where are you getting a new F150 for $35000? A new F150 (or Expedition, which is an SUV on the F150 frame and drive train) with the new ecoboost engine and a package with decent bling costs nearly as much as my first house!
Used all the way for these family movers. Yes, I've had to do some repairs myself (some major), but who can afford those new?
I happily spent almost 3 times that last year on a new car, you know why? 'Cos I've driven around in knackered old second-hand cars for the last 20 years, the last one having been run to the knackers yard after 12 years of service. I wanted something nice and new with some fun gadgets and pukka leather seats. My wife and I don't buy clothes, jewellery, hardly any tech devices ( we run our gadgets into the ground before they get replaces, still using laptop that's 5 years old. ). We don't eat out, we don't buy movies or music. We don't do home furnishings or DIY, just the basics. However we do both love going to nice places to take walks in the countryside whenever we can. So while it will cost me 5 years to pay for my £55k wankmobile, I know it will last me 15+ years minimum before it gets replaced and it will earn it's keep. Ran my last car's clock up to 186,000.
A man after my own heart. I'm about to but my first new car in seventeen years. I have two; the seventeen year old and a twenty-one year old. Time to retire the eldest. If you buy a new car, maintain it, and keep it for decades, it beats any other strategy.
One more thing that used-car buyers aren't getting: the latest technology. That could be significant.
One more thing that used-car buyers aren't getting: the latest technology. That could be significant.
From 2000 to 2018 the major advance in vehicles has been that what in 2000 were (expensive) optional extras are now standard equipment. My 1999 car was loaded with practically every optional extra going, including duel zone climate control, cruise control, heated seats, sunblinds along with the usual bits such as ABS etc, etc, etc. The only thing it doesn't have compared to some new cars is automatic braking.
And it came with a cassette tape player/FM radio rather than a more uptodate electronics fit, but that was rectified with a new touchscreen radio/mp3/tv/satnav unit. It also is theftproof compared to new cars not only because no self respecting thief would touch a car as old as mine, but because unlike modern cars you can't unlock it remotely, get it, start it and drive it off with a 20 quid tool from ebay/amazon instead of the keys. That's a "feature" I'm happy to not have.
Article seems to implicitly assume that being *seen* as a candidate more suited to a "brief sexual encounter" is a bad thing. Whereas, it's quite possible this is what both the woman in question and "Flashy Dan" are after.
Particularly if a "Frugal Dave" can then be found who's more likely to help out- intentionally or otherwise- with the long-term care of any child resulting from the former encounter after "Flashy Dan" buggers off.
Of course, in reality, this is driven as much by evolution than by conscious and deliberate choice, but that's neither here nor there.
To be honest, the best way to approach this argument is anatomically. If you look at Great Apes as a group, then starting at one extreme are gorillas. They live in groups of mostly females and sub-adults, plus one adult male who has exclusive mating rights to all his females. Male gorillas thus have no sperm competition at all, and have evolved wedding tackle to suit this "no pressure" situation. A gorilla has an erect penis of about 3cm long, and proportionately tiny testes.
At the other end of the scale are chimpanzees, which have enormous testes and mate competitively. Most males in a group have a chance when a female is in oestrus; the higher up the dominance scale a male is, the more mating he gets to do. Chimps thus have huge levels of sperm competition, and have proportionately huge testes to support this competition.
Humans are different again. We have the largest genitalia of all Great Apes, though testicle size suggests not so much sperm competition. Something else may well be going on, especially as the fertile period in humans is fairly covert (which is the exception for apes; females normally only mate when fertile). The best recent guesstimates for non-paternity rates in humans (where the biological father and official father of a child differ) is reckoned to be around 1%, no more, so a lot of the phrases beloved of Social Darwinists such as "shopping around for genes" are wild exaggerations at best.
"The best recent guesstimates for non-paternity rates in humans (where the biological father and official father of a child differ) is reckoned to be around 1%, no more"
The data I've seen is slightly different, this is for DNA tests rather than other methods (blood type etc).
For situations where there is high paternity confidence (ie it's pretty clear who daddy is) the rate is 1-2% for USA/ and EU, and 2-3% for the rest of the world.
For situations with low confidence of paternity, it's about 30% worldwide.
So I would respectfully disagree with you, although the difference between 1% and 2% isn't a lot.
which is the exception for apes; females normally only mate when fertile
I remember a documentaty debunking this for chimps after DNA analysis showed that some females were obviously conceiving from non-dominant males and employing subterfuge to mate with the dominant when they were not fertile and having a quicky with the nerd when fertile.
Paretning seems more important for humans which seems to go someway to explain the more complicated behaviour and varying preferences.
Blowing the entire budget on a new car does not make fiscal sense, buy something a few years old that has taken the main depreciation hit, but should still be reliable. You can always get a make with a long warranty if you know nothing about cars and don't really care what you drive, then pocket the remaining cash to cover repairs or buy something else if not needed.
Depends if you want to be attractive to intelligent women of course.
Exactly. Why do you have to either spend your whole budget on the car, or on a cheaper car plus a bunch of silly upgrades? Where's the third option, for buying a cheaper car and banking the rest in case you need repairs or for vacations or whatever if you don't?
Anyway, I wouldn't buy a used car so old it doesn't have some warranty left, so you'd be able to figure out pretty quickly if you've landed a lemon without fixing it out of pocket. If you have a lemon, sell it, take the loss, and try again - that's why you spend less than the whole wad on the car!
Anybody have recent research on new car depreciation? I was shopping for a Camry (US) a few years ago; after straight-line depreciating for mileage the used cars were 10-20% more expensive than the new offers from Toyota, not even accounting for better interest rates. In fact for most of the slightly used vehicles I found (<3 years / 30kmi) they were -in asking price- more expensive than the Toyota new prices.
I've driven old and fixable cars forever (mostly old Mercedes and Volvos) but shopping for a newish reliable one made me second guess the common wisdom. Now that cars are basically odd-shaped computer cases I'm not sure if it was a weird market thing or a new trend, hence would appreciate any pointers to reliable recent surveys.
Depreciation is heavily dependent on brand, and historic reliability data which often can only be inferred in hindsight (i.e. a brand with a good rep for reliability will still have a few lemons)
In the US, gas prices have a major effect - if gas spikes to $4+ per gallon again, the value of used SUVs will plummet, if it dropped below $2 per gallon they would be worth much more and the value of extremely fuel efficient and electric cars would drop.
Just in, men wouldn't notice a £3,000 if it slapped them in the face , and it is no more important than the day of the week it's owner was born in determining whether or not to ask her out.
 They would notice that they had been slapped in the face by a handbag, but they wouldn't know the difference between a £3,000 designer bag and a £5 Primark bag.
BTW my bag cost about £60. That's the sort of money you need to spend to get something that doesn't fall to bits.
If I've been told that someone will spend up to £20,000 to get a car for me and make whatever changes to it that I want, and can only spend it on the car - nothing else (i.e. I get to keep the car, but not the money if there is any left over) then you betcha I'm spending that £20,000 on the car.
Depending on what it would get me, I may even put some of my own money towards it too if the reward is good enough.
I get what you mean with the quiz show though.
"I have bought two new cars in my life too.. The Dan phase(s)."
Same here. I'm not sure how the 2nd hand MGB which was one of the cars in between fitted into the Dave and Dan scenarios. It was more a case of "this is the time to have one while we can still fit the children into the back seats".
I really don't care. It still has to be the likes of a Chiron. Park that in any driveway and there'll be nothing other than questions as to would dare share and drive that obscene wealth symbol and how did they earn and deserve it.
Those sorts of revelations though may need to remain secret and be the Subject and Object of Non-Disclosure Agreement Arrangements .... but easily cloaked in the leaking of a Massive Undisclosed Jackpot Lottery Win to close down speculation and further intrusive prying.
The way some get money for this kind of "study" is a mystery to me.
This study lacks the proper question: in the end, whose guy gets the girl, the one with the shiny car or the one with the boring utility van? Looking at how the things works for other species, the shiniest may be the one with the better luck to mate.
1: find someone who loves to drive, is credible and doesn't mind working weird hours, who would like to run a car service.
2: invest 10.000 in a down payment on a gently used deluxe vehicle for said person to drive and for them to earn money with, on the condition they pay off the vehicle and drive you around whenever you need them to. Have 10.000 on hand for running costs and replacement parts etc.
3: Always have your own deluxe vehicle plus driver available on short order. Win at life.
This study really doesn't get it. Women are generally out to take as much as they can while giving the minimum back. They'll start with the flashy guy, he's already shown he's willing to spend money in an attempt to impress. This marks him as an easy target for short-term exploitation. Once they've taken him for all they can, they'll move on to another flashy guy. When they finally get bored of this game or start worrying about getting too old for it, they'll switch to the frugal guy. By this time, he should have a nice pot of savings to support them for the long term.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019