What do you see as the key points of the article? / How is my new sumarry
Here’s what my “abstract” would be—apologies if the parts describing math are wrong.
“Speed Dating participants rated each other for attractiveness, fun, ambition, intelligence sincerity, and likability prior to choosing matches. While all participants were more likely to choose partners that others had rated highly, a principle component analysis revealed that a major source of variation was the degree to which participants differed in prioritizing ambition, intelligence, and sincerity vs attractiveness, fun, and likability. Further analysis suggests that this effect may be driven by… [demographic correlates from next posts, assortive mating, etc]
Our writing styles differ but your new summary seems to cover the same points, so we do agree on what they are! So much for irreducible complexity :P
I need to talk with psychology researchers to get a better sense for how what I’ve done fits in with the literature. In the past, I read some papers on the subject out of casual interest, but I haven’t done a deep dive.
I’m to be a psych or neuroscience graduate student fairly soon (depending on where I get accepted). Mate choice isn’t something I know a ton about and there are of course many, many better people to talk to than me, but I know enough that I could easily locate and understand the relevant literature. I’d be quite happy to collaborate if you are interested!
Anything that I might be able to help with? I have a background is in math education.
I’m not sure—there are a lot of unknown unknowns! Thank you for the links.
I’ve got a decent foundation in introductory calc and stats (by which I mean, I successfully memorized the relevant equations with a reasonable intuition about how they work) but the math bug didn’t really bite me until I took a proof based class on logic and set theory,finding it intuitive and fun. So, I thought I’d keep going in math, but I found myself seriously falling behind in subjects like linear algebra and never completed the major. (Got the certificate at least :D)
My impression is that I’ve got the fluid intuition for it but I start fall behind when cumulative crystallized knowledge requirements start increasing because I tend to forget things more quickly than others and rely on re-derivation a bit too much.
Statistics is probably going to be the most useful thing for me to learn, given my career choices—although I suspect I automatically gravitate towards less applied, proofy theory things more. (I’m probably too early in my math progression too early to know that for sure, but it certainly seemed like math which others found hard were easy for me, while some types of math which others found easy were really hard for me)
One sees that past a certain point, the low group is not responsive to increasing sincerity and intelligence, whereas the high group is.
^ from the article. Is this right? It seems like that aught to be reversed (low group is responsive, high group is not responsive)?
Here’s what my “abstract” would be—apologies if the parts describing math are wrong.
“Speed Dating participants rated each other for attractiveness, fun, ambition, intelligence sincerity, and likability prior to choosing matches. While all participants were more likely to choose partners that others had rated highly, a principle component analysis revealed that a major source of variation was the degree to which participants differed in prioritizing ambition, intelligence, and sincerity vs attractiveness, fun, and likability. Further analysis suggests that this effect may be driven by… [demographic correlates from next posts, assortive mating, etc]
Our writing styles differ but your new summary seems to cover the same points, so we do agree on what they are! So much for irreducible complexity :P
I’m to be a psych or neuroscience graduate student fairly soon (depending on where I get accepted). Mate choice isn’t something I know a ton about and there are of course many, many better people to talk to than me, but I know enough that I could easily locate and understand the relevant literature. I’d be quite happy to collaborate if you are interested!
I’m not sure—there are a lot of unknown unknowns! Thank you for the links.
I’ve got a decent foundation in introductory calc and stats (by which I mean, I successfully memorized the relevant equations with a reasonable intuition about how they work) but the math bug didn’t really bite me until I took a proof based class on logic and set theory,finding it intuitive and fun. So, I thought I’d keep going in math, but I found myself seriously falling behind in subjects like linear algebra and never completed the major. (Got the certificate at least :D)
My impression is that I’ve got the fluid intuition for it but I start fall behind when cumulative crystallized knowledge requirements start increasing because I tend to forget things more quickly than others and rely on re-derivation a bit too much.
Statistics is probably going to be the most useful thing for me to learn, given my career choices—although I suspect I automatically gravitate towards less applied, proofy theory things more. (I’m probably too early in my math progression too early to know that for sure, but it certainly seemed like math which others found hard were easy for me, while some types of math which others found easy were really hard for me)
^ from the article. Is this right? It seems like that aught to be reversed (low group is responsive, high group is not responsive)?
Yes, this was an oversight – thanks for correcting it.
As for everything else, how about we switch over to email? I’d be happy to hear from you – you can reach me at jsinick@gmail.com.