Did anyone else think this one had a little more interpretative language, though? "sweethearts" "nails in coffins" or "schizophrenia of people’s racial attitudes" all seem to distract from letting the figures speak for themselves, and given the explosive potential in the figures I guess the less editorial comment the better.
Edit - I'd also like to see a brief post that just looks at the zodiac chart. Would be the best place to send every zodiac-preacher I know to 'disprove' so much of what they argue (excepting the Capricorns, because they don't listen to evidence anyway).
>Did anyone else think this one had a little more interpretative language, though? "sweethearts" "nails in coffins" or "schizophrenia of people’s racial attitudes" all seem to distract from letting the figures speak for themselves, and given the explosive potential in the figures I guess the less editorial comment the better.
Agreed. I have alternative interpretations. "sweetheart" -> "desperate," "shitty" (used to describe white guys who don't answer) -> "in a position to be choosy." Naturally, the more replies you get, the more picky you'll be.
Right. Black women were the "sweethearts", and consistently found to be unfortunate in all of the categories.
It also happens that black women are the only group I don't find attractive.
Does that make me a racist? Especially when black males' answer to "would you strongly prefer to date someone of your own skin color" was a resounding "Hell no"..
By the way, I've got one friend who doesn't like Asian women, and another who only likes Asian women. Go figure.
Would be the best place to send every zodiac-preacher I know to 'disprove' so much of what they argue
If only. Go back and read some the comments on the last post (on okcupid, not HN). Someone there argues that just using the zodiac chart as shown (which is the sun or moon sign, I forget which) is insufficient. Apparently we need to use more advanced Zodiac sign knowledge to determine compatibility.
In any event, no amount of statistical data will dissuade strong believers.
Frankly I kinda like the informal interpretative language. It's more entertaining and less clinical. I don't think these guys see themselves as there to just regurgitate statistics; they're writers, too.
Did anyone else think this one had a little more interpretative language, though? "sweethearts" "nails in coffins" or "schizophrenia of people’s racial attitudes" all seem to distract from letting the figures speak for themselves, and given the explosive potential in the figures I guess the less editorial comment the better.
Edit - I'd also like to see a brief post that just looks at the zodiac chart. Would be the best place to send every zodiac-preacher I know to 'disprove' so much of what they argue (excepting the Capricorns, because they don't listen to evidence anyway).