You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Torello comments on rational dating - can we escape the rat race be setting smarter goals? - Less Wrong Discussion

-7 Post author: RobertChange 09 September 2013 10:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (37)

CC Licenced

Comments (37)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Torello 09 September 2013 10:56:41PM 0 points [-]

I tend to agree with this comment.

If you really don't have a strong preference for looks, you are at a great advantage for the reasons you've outlined (I guess this is the premise for the movie Shallow Hal, now that I think of it).

Another thought, I've read that people (I know, citation needed - source amnesia) generally do a good job making first impressions; you can tell a lot about the chemistry you'll have with another person by looking at them.

Comment author: RobertChange comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Dustin 10 September 2013 02:50:54AM 0 points [-]

I note that you say we can "easily find" such a study, and then go out of the way to provide us with a not-a-study.

Comment author: ChristianKl 10 September 2013 06:06:00PM 2 points [-]

When you want to make statements about how online dating websites work in the real world I think OkCupids numbers are very good.

They might tell you more about reality then some lab experiment.

Comment author: Dustin 11 September 2013 07:08:17PM 1 point [-]

That may or may not be true, but such an experiment done outside the framework of the modern scientific apparatus is hard to put as much confidence in as one that is done within the framework. You don't have others trying to replicate your results and basically zero accountability.

(Not that this sort of science has a great track record of replication and accountability.)

Anyway, my point was more that if there are multiple easily-findable studies, why would you point to this particular one?

(Now that I read his comment closer, I'm a little confused...the word "whereas" makes me think that the linked post is supposed to demonstrate something different from the "easily findable" studies. Thus, I think I'm confused about the point trying to be made.)

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 September 2013 10:24:30PM 1 point [-]

Not that this sort of science has a great track record of replication and accountability

Then why use that standard? If you know that academia doesn't deliever on it's promise of relication and accountability there no reason to use those reasons to trust academia.

Would it be preferable if online dating websites would open their databases for academic researches to study and publish papers? Yes. Of course. But we don't live in that world.

We have to use the evidence that is available to us. The OkCupid numbers are based on a high quantity dataset that has the quality of being real world data.

Comment author: Dustin 11 September 2013 10:54:16PM 1 point [-]

Then why use that standard? If you know that academia doesn't deliever on it's promise of relication and accountability there no reason to use those reasons to trust academia.

Binary thinking here. Being not-perfect at something doesn't mean you're worse than the alternatives.

For example, I think medical and health science is of quite poor quality compared to where it could be, but that doesn't mean I go to a naturopath instead of an MD.

The OkCupid numbers are based on a high quantity dataset that has the quality of being real world data.

So they say.

Read my comments in the light that I thought the original comment was doing something along these lines:

Claim there's all sorts of "easily findable" scientific studies as if he barely needs to provide any evidence.
Out of all these easily findable studies, the one he chooses to demonstrate his point is not a great example when compared to the (apparently fictional) world of lots of scientific research into the matter.

(As I previously stated, I'm no longer sure if that's what he's now claiming.)

I also don't claim that the OkCupid numbers are worthless. I claim that if you want to demonstrate that there's lots of scientific studies on a matter, you don't pick the example he picked.

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 September 2013 09:42:42AM 1 point [-]

Binary thinking here. Being not-perfect at something doesn't mean you're worse than the alternatives.

Any single source should be judged on it's own merits.

For example, I think medical and health science is of quite poor quality compared to where it could be, but that doesn't mean I go to a naturopath instead of an MD.

But we are not talking about a naturopath but about a data driven business.

Comment author: Dustin 12 September 2013 11:52:18PM 0 points [-]

I'm no longer sure what you're arguing for.

I claim that if your claim is that there are multiple cite-worthy studies that are easily findable, your first choice of an example shouldn't be a non-scientific source as evidence that there are multiple cite-worthy studies that are easily findable.

Furthermore, I take it as obvious that where there isn't a lot of high quality, cite-worthy studies out there, that the source he provided is a fine source to use. After all, we have to use the data that we have and assign appropriate confidence to it.

But we are not talking about a naturopath but about a data driven business.

I wasn't intending to imply that the quality distance between a data driven business and whatever the current state of scientific studies is the same as the quality distance between a naturopath and an MD.

I was stating that in the universe where there are multiple easily findable cite-worthy studies, a blog post using OkCupid data was below a cite-worthy study in the same manner a naturopath is below an MD.

Torello comments on rational dating - can we escape the rat race be setting smarter goals? - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (37)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (37)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login