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

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.