Location via proxy:   [ UP ]   [Manage cookies]
MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL
Home

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Columbia Dating Scientists Up the Heeby-Jeeby Factor

Number one on Slate's "most read" list at the moment is "An Economist Goes to a Bar and Solves the Mysteries of Dating." The name pretty much says it all: A bunch of researchers from the economics department at Columbia ran a speed-dating service for students at a favorite campus watering hole. After each mini-date, participants were asked to rate their partners on variables such as attractiveness, intelligence, and ambition. Their findings were a cliché come true: Men "did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner's beauty, when choosing, than women did," and "intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women's choices as men's." As for ambition, men "avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition—a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date."

What does it all mean? Simply refer to this neat little paragraph that sums up the researchers' findings:

So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own. Women, on the other hand, care more about how men think and perform, and they don't mind being outdone on those scores.

Never mind the depressing fact that these unimpressive, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus-ish attitudes are present at Columbia, where your typical student is supposed to be busy learning how to "work across disciplines, embrace complexity, and become a fluid, fearless, forward-looking global citizen and scholar." Far more unsettling is the fact that a key point seems to have evaded both the researchers and Slate: Complex and fluid though it may be, Columbia University is most certainly not a microcosm of the larger world. Just because 400 Columbia students (who most likely have a slightly different relationship with the terms "ambition" and "intelligence" from the rest of the population) embraced these unfortunate stereotypes doesn't mean everyone else does.

The researchers' creepiest conclusion by far, though, was that "women got more dates when they won high marks for looks." From whom did the women win these high marks? Not their speed dating partners, but "research assistants, who were hired for the much sought-after position of hanging out in a bar to rate the dater's level of attractiveness on a scale of one to 10." File under: Ewwww!

This all brings us to the ultimate question: Don't Columbia economists have better things to do than scope out co-eds at a campus bar?

Leave a Comment »

Posted by Kiera Butler on 11/09/07 at 1:01 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg | de.licio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Yahoo! MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Netscape | Google |



Comments

Didn't John Nash solve all these problems in "A Beautiful Mind"?

Posted by: Jonathan stein on 11/09/07 at 1:30 PM  Respond

Once again, economists retread decades old social psychology research and claim it as their own.

Posted by: cj on 11/09/07 at 1:55 PM  Respond

Once again, the only people who will be UPSET by these (Obvious) conclusions, are the UGLY Lesbo's...If a woman is attractive, then she knows how to use her attributes... If she was not so blessed, she better get her MBA...

Bill

Posted by: Bill Nigh on 11/09/07 at 2:17 PM  Respond

You are right Bill. The PC crowd is throwing a hissy fit here.

Posted by: Clarence on 11/09/07 at 2:41 PM  Respond

FWIW, the "bunch of researchers from the economics department at Columbia" who ran this experiment were actually four business professors -- two from Columbia and one each from Stanford and Chicago. No one from the Columbia economics department was involved.

Posted by: CU Alum on 11/09/07 at 3:14 PM  Respond

Post a comment





 

RECENT COMMENTS

Can We Talk? The 'Cos and Black Conversation (18)
jerry de mail wrote: I emaild Sen Chuck Hagel asking him not to retire because ... [more]

Florida Appeals Court Rules Against Girl Based On Fantasized Future Events (37)
Michael wrote: One of the foundations of liberalism is to dispense with a... [more]

Rudy Giuliani Tells Those Darn Kids If You Don't Vote, "It's Your Fault" (10)
nmc wrote: as with a couple other posters, i don't see that this is s... [more]

Utah To Offer Cops "Sweat Your Meth" Treatments (2)
Iggy wrote: There is actually so much evidence that it works. Hundred... [more]

Bob Novak Sees Everything Through a Political Lens (3)
Winghunter wrote: Very well stated Jonathan! For Novak, it's not enough tha... [more]

Bush Still Peddling Progress in Iraq. Sigh. (9)
Ron Matuska wrote: President Bush has stated that Musharraf should not be pre... [more]

Arab Street Turns Against Uncle Sam (19)
deal wrote: Interesting info Thanks for article... [more]

With Robertson, Giuliani Wins the Nutcase Primary? (25)
Betty wrote: Rodney, I bet that you also think that The Holocaust is ma... [more]

Surge of Homeless Vets (10)
Mr. Forward wrote: "The number of chronically homeless people across the Unit... [more]

Huckabee Fever Hits Iowa, Sorta (4)
lanefiller wrote: Anyone ineterested inw hat Huckabee is like face-to-face s... [more]

RSS Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com












IN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS