Online dating for science nature

23-Jan-2020 07:16

Simple: they rank each by how evidence-based and compelling they subjectively judge its content to be.

Modesty (almost) prevents us from naming the publication graded highest on both (okay, it’s Nature), but some names are lower than they would like.

It is, of course, flattering to be judged as producing compelling content.

But one audience’s compelling is another’s snoozefest, so it seems strikingly unfair to directly compare publications that serve readers with such different interests as, say, The Economist and Chemistry World.

This is one reason why the rise of the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review, has been so valuable.

Many scientists know about the problems with some fields of research.

online dating for science nature-71online dating for science nature-40online dating for science nature-50online dating for science nature-21

Enter Sameer Chaudhry, an internist at the University of North Texas, who proposed a collaborative project with his friend Khalid Khan, a professor of women’s health and clinical epidemiology at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. Chaudhry’s dating life was stagnant, his online persona garnering no response from the women he reached out to. The two combed through all of the scientific literature on the topic that they could find.Honest, likable and succinct profiles written with a touch of humor — particularly those that did not self-aggrandize or use rhetorical flourishes — elicit the best results. He spent Valentine’s weekend in Rome with his sweetheart, whom he met online.Photographs showing the user smiling and standing in the center of the frame surrounded by others work best.“Through evolution, the brain has developed ways of subconsciously responding to particular situations, including courtship behavior,” Dr. “Online daters need to consider the impact of the information others immediately receive when clicking on their profile.”As for Dr. “If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is),” says the council, “science journalism is even worse.Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism”.

Enter Sameer Chaudhry, an internist at the University of North Texas, who proposed a collaborative project with his friend Khalid Khan, a professor of women’s health and clinical epidemiology at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. Chaudhry’s dating life was stagnant, his online persona garnering no response from the women he reached out to. The two combed through all of the scientific literature on the topic that they could find.

Honest, likable and succinct profiles written with a touch of humor — particularly those that did not self-aggrandize or use rhetorical flourishes — elicit the best results. He spent Valentine’s weekend in Rome with his sweetheart, whom he met online.

Photographs showing the user smiling and standing in the center of the frame surrounded by others work best.“Through evolution, the brain has developed ways of subconsciously responding to particular situations, including courtship behavior,” Dr. “Online daters need to consider the impact of the information others immediately receive when clicking on their profile.”As for Dr.

“If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is),” says the council, “science journalism is even worse.

Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism”.

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines.