= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on An interesting speed dating study - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (11)
It doesn't result in a reversal of the normal results, exactly. Male sitters appear to be about as selective as female sitters, but male rotaters are much less selective than female rotaters.
Wow, this stuff is pretty awful. I just read the paper to verify your claim, and the paper turned out to be not any better than the NYT article: mostly composed of PC fluff about "social construction" and how "Western civilization" is this and that. The only informative part is the figure on the last page of the PDF (buried after the references, no less!) which confirms your conclusion completely, but the text doesn't even hint at it anywhere.
Lucky bad analysis doesn't destroy the data.
Yes. But woe to those people who only read the NYT article. Or who went so far as to download the PDF, but didn't page-down obsessively past the bibliography... like I probably would have, if not for ciphergoth. Unsettling thought.
This is important enough that CronoDAS should amend his post to point this out. Its still an interesting result though.
Done. (Did I do it right?)