This was covered at LessWrong and the headline turned out to be false. http://lesswrong.com/lw/127/an_interesting_speed_dating_study/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1

This was covered at LessWrong and the headline turned out to be false. http://lesswrong.com/lw/127/an_interesting_speed_dating_study/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/127/an_interesting_speed_dating_stud... See this comment from ciphergoth: It doesn't result in a reversal of the normal results, exactly. Male sitters appear to be about as selective as female sitters, but male rotaters are much less selective than female rotaters. And this comment from me in response: Wow, this stuff is pretty awful. I just read the paper to verify your claim, and the paper turned out to be not any better than the NYT article: mostly composed of PC fluff about "social construction" and how "Western civilization" is this and that. The only informative part is the figure on the last page of the PDF (buried after the references, no less!) which confirms your conclusion completely, but the text doesn't even hint at it anywhere. PDF link to the study: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/RotationMS_FINAL.pdf http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Ro... .