sorry, don't mean to go back and forth, but a result based on such a flawed model is not something i care to examine.
he essentially asks why people choose something that is more stressful and has less rewards ignoring things like job and financial security, which by definition affects "stress" and "rewards" however they are measured. So now the question "why is [such and such] true" becomes completely meaningless because [such and such] is not proven true.
he essentially asks why people choose something that is more stressful and has less rewards ignoring things like job and financial security, which by definition affects "stress" and "rewards" however they are measured. So now the question "why is [such and such] true" becomes completely meaningless because [such and such] is not proven true.