First, let me just address how the comment was written:
1 in 500? Check your figures again. :)
Firstly, it’s not my figure. In addition, the tone of that comment makes me believe that they’ve set up a Google search for anyone who links to the Scientific American article and then automatically post that comment. I’m simply speculating on how and why eHarmony would post a comment on my blog because my blog is simply not trafficked.
Fine, I’ll let the eHarmony blog take away the statistic, but before I do, let me just say a few more things. Another reason why I think they have a Google alert or a bot set up in searching for the comment is because it doesn’t even seem that they read my entire post because the statistic, while I thought important, was not really the point in my writing the post. My post was about how online dating is not the complete savior it’s cracked up to be. It still has its own drawbacks, which the eHarmony comment obviously did not address.
Also, while were on statistical analysis, don’t get me started on how different entities can use statistics differently to come up with findings for different points of view. Let us all just take a look at climate science. Robert Samuelsson touches on it here, Arnold Kling here, and Robert C. Balling Jr. here. So, let those links show that trying to argue on statistics won’t get us very far anyway in terms of climate, and I would venture the same goes for dating thanks to the Scientific American article.
Once again, it’s clear that the gist of my post was also simply inarguable because it was pretty much a wholly personal opinion on the Scientific American article, except for the statistic that eHarmony blog contests. They don’t contest any of the other research that I’ve posted on my blog here, here, and here.
Moreover, is there a retraction from Scientific American?
Why doesn’t the eHarmony blog address some of the drawbacks that Robert Epstein mentions? To generalize it: the lying, of which my favorite example that Epstein cites is where one woman uses pictures of women who are obviously not her.
You’ve got my attention eHarmony blog, and because you say the statistic is invalid, leave me another comment and show me the retraction from Scientific American.