This is really interesting but I'm highly skeptical. I'm not sure we're given enough information to really get at why they're getting the results they are. The

This is really interesting but I'm highly skeptical. I'm not sure we're given enough information to really get at why they're getting the results they are. They report that if A-C have a non-trivial conversation and B-C have a non trivial conversation, then A-B have a "true-negative rate" of 78% of having a trivial conversation, by which I interpret a 78% over the base line of having A-B have a trivial conversation. The fact that it's so heavily biased against having a non-trivial conversation seems like it should be a huge red flag. How are they conducting the study? Are they informing participants A and B that they're being matched because they've had a non-trivial interaction with C? Is it random? If they are being informed and it turns out that there is a gender component to it, then that might be a big piece of the puzzle in that jealousy and competition start to come into play. Also, if gender is a big factor, then that might inform a "3-chain" collaborative filtering method in that if M0-F0 have a non-trivial interaction, M0-F1 have a non trivial interaction, M1-F0 have a non trivial interaction, then maybe M1-F1 have a higher chance of having a non trivial interaction. I think psychologists call these "confounding factors"? They get a massively strong signal of something but then disregard and and say "doesn't work for us". Something's going on, it's be nice to dig deeper into what it is instead of dismissing it offhand.