The simulation The underlying question that I attempted to address is “Suppose that a speed dating company wanted to organize events with more matches. ” As Ryan Carey pointed out, the model that I developed uses data about other speed dates that participants had been on to predict decisions on a given speed date.
It is possible to make nontrivial predictions exclusively using information that was available before the participants attended the events, but I haven’t systematically explored how well one could do.
I could hear every awkward conversation, and not just my own.
I did have some nice chats, but I had to wonder: was it worth it?
If you don’t fall into either category but are interest in the series, you can skip it without loss of continuity.
Here I’ll address three points: Most of the code that I used is here.
For the uninitiated, this is how Housing Works' speed-dating works: 35 or so women and 35 or so men sign up for the event, and we set them up based on age and literary interest.
We wish the best but are no longer associated with the Cupid brand.
They were followed-up by the researchers six weeks and 12 months after the speed-dating session.
Consistent with parental investment theory, women, on average, tended to state an interest in long-term mating more so than men did.
What fun is it to wait around for someone to talk to you in a bar or when you're out and about?
In my last post I described phenomena that I used to predict speed dating participants’ decisions by estimating the participants’ general selectivity and perceived desirability.