7 ms·

ITT: Folks quickly contributing their "definite reason" of why this is happening which is also covered in incredible detail and with tons of nuance in the artic

ITT: Folks quickly contributing their "definite reason" of why this is happening which is also covered in incredible detail and with tons of nuance in the article. Seriously, read the article, it's good.

mathteddybear 5y ago
Did you get to the part about choking? To me, the article seems just a long collections of folks contributing speculations. I might be biased because the wife of my cousing-in-law is researching these topics scientifically
- danShumway 5y ago
  Agreed. There's very little actual science in this article, it just jumps around a bunch. It's peppered with phrases like: - "Many -- or all -- of these things may be true." - "Let’s consider this lure for a moment." - "I can’t know that they were representative, though I did seek out people with a range of experiences." - "Some observers have suggested..." There's a huge amount of positing that something may possibly be a cause, often at best backed up with research that shows that it exists (as opposed to evidence that there's a strong correlation or any kind of scientific testing to indicate a causal relationship). There's also a ton of "person X says Y in their new book, could they be right?". I don't understand where the praise for this article is coming from, if this is actually where the research on dating behavior is right now, then it's pseudoscience. I honestly would have expected HN to be a lot more critical of this, I've seen articles with less conjecture than this one get torn to shreds on here.
error_code99 5y ago
Yeah it's not great. They made a lot of good "could be this" points, but nothing to really back it up. Kinda like Freud, enough kernels of truth to be kinda accurate in certain situations, but nothing that would stand up to any real scientific rigor.

7 ms·

ITT: Folks quickly contributing their "definite reason" of why this is happening which is also covered in incredible detail and with tons of nuance in the artic

by ChicagoBoy11 5y ago

mathteddybear 5y ago
Did you get to the part about choking? To me, the article seems just a long collections of folks contributing speculations. I might be biased because the wife of my cousing-in-law is researching these topics scientifically
- danShumway 5y ago
  Agreed. There's very little actual science in this article, it just jumps around a bunch. It's peppered with phrases like: - "Many -- or all -- of these things may be true." - "Let’s consider this lure for a moment." - "I can’t know that they were representative, though I did seek out people with a range of experiences." - "Some observers have suggested..." There's a huge amount of positing that something may possibly be a cause, often at best backed up with research that shows that it exists (as opposed to evidence that there's a strong correlation or any kind of scientific testing to indicate a causal relationship). There's also a ton of "person X says Y in their new book, could they be right?". I don't understand where the praise for this article is coming from, if this is actually where the research on dating behavior is right now, then it's pseudoscience. I honestly would have expected HN to be a lot more critical of this, I've seen articles with less conjecture than this one get torn to shreds on here.
error_code99 5y ago
Yeah it's not great. They made a lot of good "could be this" points, but nothing to really back it up. Kinda like Freud, enough kernels of truth to be kinda accurate in certain situations, but nothing that would stand up to any real scientific rigor.