Columbia university speed dating

Rated 3.99/5 based on 831 customer reviews

The second major notable finding, IMO, is that the bulk of the explanatory power of attractiveness on the female rater's decisions remains even when only using the average of ratings that OTHER women ("Consensus") gave the male target (column 4).

A similarly rather tendentious interpretation of the data by the authors may be found with regards to Table IV, which seeks to uncover "whether subjects are averse to choosing partners who are superior to them on gender stereotypical attributes, as suggested by social structure theory [Eagly and Wood 1999].": Their interpretation: The results are reported in Table IV, columns (1) and (2).

One could argue that the sample that I used is unrepresentative on account of the intervention.

But to my mind, the intervention falls within the range of heterogeneity that one might expect across real world events, and it’s unclear to me that the events without the intervention give a better sense for gender differences in mate selection across contexts than the events with the intervention do.

The data showed what may now be considered the mantra of this subreddit: Looks are the strongest predictor of initial romantic interest in both sexes.

First, a look at the original paper: Title: Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment Author(s): Fisman, Raymond J.

Finally, male selectivity is invariant to group size, while female selectivity is strongly increasing in group size.For instance, here's one of the key tables in their paper from which they derived one of the primary findings statements made in the abstract: interpretation: There is a clear difference in the attribute weights on attractiveness and intelligence: males put more weight on physical attractiveness than females do, while females put more weight on intelligence.This is consistent with the predictions of both the evolutionary and social structure theories of mate selection described in the introduction. Each additional attractiveness point (on a 10-point scale) increases male likelihood of saying Yes by 2.1 percentage points more than it increases the female likelihood of saying Yes.Yes, while technically true, I would argue the more notable finding is the fact that female coefficient is 0.119 (vs the male 0.14) in the first place.Clearly, of the measured covariates, physical attractiveness is the strongest predictor for both sexes.

Leave a Reply