Andrew Huberman· PhD
And these four groups are groups that were defined through her studies of people that were, or are, I don't know if they were or if they are still on match.com, but a very extensive dataset.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And these four groups are groups that were defined through her studies of people that were, or are, I don't know if they were or if they are still on match.com, but a very extensive dataset.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So Dr. Fisher has taken some liberties, but I think they are what I would call logically, and scientifically, and neurobiologically grounded liberties in classifying individuals who are on these dating sites according to the types of things they report about themselves and the type of people they tend to match with on these dating sites, and created these four categories.