6 ms·

So... am I missing something, or is the only evidence they cite a thin correlation between increased online dating and increasing rates of interracial marriage?

macinjosh 9y ago
Nope, thats it. Nothing to see here.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Literally. It won't let me read with Firefox in incognito mode. Bloody idiots.
  - recursive 9y ago
    "We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.". Huh... how can they detect that?
    - hexane360 9y ago
      Maybe not being able to store cookies?
      - recursive 9y ago
        AFAIK, Incognito modes do generally store cookies up to the point where you close your browser window.
        thatcat 9y ago
        You're right, I checked the differences between ff and ff incognito on panopticlick.com and both have cookies enabled. I think it's the blocking of trackers/invisible trackers that the website is picking up on.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      Subtle differences in IndexedDB handling, for one: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31159316/detecting-preventing-firefox-indexeddb-invalidstateerror-caused-by-private-brows https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31159316/detecting-preve...
    - mikestew 9y ago
      Being kind of curious, I fired up Safari's "private window", and it worked fine. I don't have FF on this box, but I do repro with Chrome. The detection is in article.js, and a quick glance indicates they're checking if the cookies get disabled. It would seem that Safari does that differently than FF or Chrome, and pass the test.
  - slaymaker1907 9y ago
    It seems to work if you disable JavaScript.
  - trendia 9y ago
    On mobile, I was able to read it in incognito by using Reader mode (which disables all page CSS and Javascript.) This probably works on desktop too.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Thanks, that worked :) I usually try that with paywalls, but this was a different enough block that I didn't think of it.
chubot 9y ago
Yeah I was baffled by this article. It feels like it was more a simulation than science (observation, measurement, etc.)? But if the researchers add random links between people from different ethnic groups, the level of interracial marriage changes dramatically. “Our model predicts nearly complete racial integration upon the emergence of online dating, even if the number of partners that individuals meet from newly formed ties is small,” say Ortega and Hergovich. The original paper is probably better, but this explains almost nothing to me.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Simulations can certainly be a way of doing science. Of course you have to ask how realistic the simulation is, but that's true of any model -- you always have to be aware of your simplifying assumptions.
- DonaldFisk 9y ago
  The original paper was easy to find: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10478.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10478.pdf
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  This is why I read the comments first. skips article
  - in_cahoots 9y ago
    I found this article to be a good way to hone my bullshit detector. It’s a reputable source, I’m sure many people would read it and pass the conclusions on to friends without thinking too deeply. Part of the appeal of HN to me is that I can read something, form an opinion, and get immediate feedback as to what others think. I would miss that if I read the comments first.
ithilglin909 9y ago
Yep. Also, online dating lets users filter potential partners to a much greater extent than they realistically can irl. Seem like this might actually narrow the socioeconomic spectrum that they date within...
- wolco 9y ago
  Most dating is location based with more demand on the female side guys so guys are more likely to have less filters and accept everyone. But the true cause is changes to views around the issue and increased globalization.
smsm42 9y ago
It looks like the article commits classical "post hoc ergo propter hoc" error - if interracial marriage became more common at the same time as online dating became more common, it must be that the latter caused the former. Obviously, it could also be that people became more accepting of interracial marriages because of reasons having nothing to do with online dating - but the article does not admit such possibilities.

macinjosh 9y ago

Nope, thats it. Nothing to see here.

mirimir 9y ago
Literally. It won't let me read with Firefox in incognito mode. Bloody idiots.
- recursive 9y ago
  "We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.". Huh... how can they detect that?
  - hexane360 9y ago
    Maybe not being able to store cookies?
    - recursive 9y ago
      AFAIK, Incognito modes do generally store cookies up to the point where you close your browser window.
      - thatcat 9y ago
        You're right, I checked the differences between ff and ff incognito on panopticlick.com and both have cookies enabled. I think it's the blocking of trackers/invisible trackers that the website is picking up on.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    Subtle differences in IndexedDB handling, for one: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31159316/detecting-preventing-firefox-indexeddb-invalidstateerror-caused-by-private-brows https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31159316/detecting-preve...
  - mikestew 9y ago
    Being kind of curious, I fired up Safari's "private window", and it worked fine. I don't have FF on this box, but I do repro with Chrome. The detection is in article.js, and a quick glance indicates they're checking if the cookies get disabled. It would seem that Safari does that differently than FF or Chrome, and pass the test.
- slaymaker1907 9y ago
  It seems to work if you disable JavaScript.
- trendia 9y ago
  On mobile, I was able to read it in incognito by using Reader mode (which disables all page CSS and Javascript.) This probably works on desktop too.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Thanks, that worked :) I usually try that with paywalls, but this was a different enough block that I didn't think of it.

chubot 9y ago

Yeah I was baffled by this article. It feels like it was more a simulation than science (observation, measurement, etc.)? But if the researchers add random links between people from different ethnic groups, the level of interracial marriage changes dramatically. “Our model predicts nearly complete racial integration upon the emergence of online dating, even if the number of partners that individuals meet from newly formed ties is small,” say Ortega and Hergovich. The original paper is probably better, but this explains almost nothing to me.

ScottBurson 9y ago
Simulations can certainly be a way of doing science. Of course you have to ask how realistic the simulation is, but that's true of any model -- you always have to be aware of your simplifying assumptions.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
The original paper was easy to find: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10478.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10478.pdf
jiggunjer 9y ago
This is why I read the comments first. skips article
- in_cahoots 9y ago
  I found this article to be a good way to hone my bullshit detector. It’s a reputable source, I’m sure many people would read it and pass the conclusions on to friends without thinking too deeply. Part of the appeal of HN to me is that I can read something, form an opinion, and get immediate feedback as to what others think. I would miss that if I read the comments first.

ithilglin909 9y ago

Yep. Also, online dating lets users filter potential partners to a much greater extent than they realistically can irl. Seem like this might actually narrow the socioeconomic spectrum that they date within...

wolco 9y ago
Most dating is location based with more demand on the female side guys so guys are more likely to have less filters and accept everyone. But the true cause is changes to views around the issue and increased globalization.

smsm42 9y ago

It looks like the article commits classical "post hoc ergo propter hoc" error - if interracial marriage became more common at the same time as online dating became more common, it must be that the latter caused the former. Obviously, it could also be that people became more accepting of interracial marriages because of reasons having nothing to do with online dating - but the article does not admit such possibilities.