= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on The Role of Attractiveness in Mate Selection: Individual Variation - LessWrong
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 (37)
I would like to know the third principal component. Even if you don't go further and calculate a lot based on it, it could be somewhat interesting.
Sure, it's a sincerity vs. ambition axis (very low on the other rating types) explaining an additional 10% of the variance. It correlates only very weakly with the other features available, aside from career and field of study. There is potentially statistically significant individual variation in responsiveness to it, but the variance is only about 25% as great as is the case of the "tradeoff" principal component.
Which end of that axis do most people prefer?
The sign of the coefficient isn't statistically significant if one looks at the entire population rather than individualizing it the model. I think it's probably not picking up on anything deep, and that the the variation in individual responsiveness may reflect spurious correlations that are specific to the context of the study.