Hmm. I see this paper as being less “intervention X works to improve people’s flirtation detection rate” and more “here’s an outside view on people’s ability to detect flirtation, vs. an ML algorithm using clear standards to classify speech patterns.”
I think it’s actionable in two ways.
You can speculate about ways to imitate the ML algorithm and get better at detecting flirtation yourself, or creating a context for healthy flirtation.
You can give up on trying to detect flirtation since people tend to be so bad at it, and just ask out everybody you’re interested in if you think that would be socially appropriate.
For someone who feels anxious about flirtation and wants guidance, even having a rule or strategy for going about it that’s a non-toxic and plausible interpretation of these empirical findings might help. Certainly a controlled study might help, though it seems hard to blind it or to execute a flirtation strategy reliably.
Causation != correlationseems to me to be a huge hurdle in extracting any practical advice from the research.Hmm. I see this paper as being less “intervention X works to improve people’s flirtation detection rate” and more “here’s an outside view on people’s ability to detect flirtation, vs. an ML algorithm using clear standards to classify speech patterns.”
I think it’s actionable in two ways.
You can speculate about ways to imitate the ML algorithm and get better at detecting flirtation yourself, or creating a context for healthy flirtation.
You can give up on trying to detect flirtation since people tend to be so bad at it, and just ask out everybody you’re interested in if you think that would be socially appropriate.
For someone who feels anxious about flirtation and wants guidance, even having a rule or strategy for going about it that’s a non-toxic and plausible interpretation of these empirical findings might help. Certainly a controlled study might help, though it seems hard to blind it or to execute a flirtation strategy reliably.