“citation needed”—no problem, you’ll easily find this kind of study cited in Vanity Fair or Psychology Today. ;-)
Whereas if you look here: http://jonmillward.com/blog/attraction-dating/cupid-on-trial-a-4-month-online-dating-experiment/
you’ll see that more attractive pictures incite two orders of magnitude more messages on a popular online dating site. Do you really think that all these men have a better chemistry with the attractive woman (200+ messages) than with the least attractive one (only 1 message in the same time span).
That’s Availability and salience bias right there at work—the picture trumps it all and then we rationalize that looks are important in some way or other.
PS: the “experiment” cited is not scientific, but that stark a contrast in message counts can’t be explained by the error of not switching cities half-way through. Just can’t.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
“citation needed”—no problem, you’ll easily find this kind of study cited in Vanity Fair or Psychology Today. ;-)
Whereas if you look here: http://jonmillward.com/blog/attraction-dating/cupid-on-trial-a-4-month-online-dating-experiment/ you’ll see that more attractive pictures incite two orders of magnitude more messages on a popular online dating site. Do you really think that all these men have a better chemistry with the attractive woman (200+ messages) than with the least attractive one (only 1 message in the same time span).
That’s Availability and salience bias right there at work—the picture trumps it all and then we rationalize that looks are important in some way or other.
PS: the “experiment” cited is not scientific, but that stark a contrast in message counts can’t be explained by the error of not switching cities half-way through. Just can’t.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Any single source should be judged on it’s own merits.
But we are not talking about a naturopath but about a data driven business.
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.
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.