I don't really follow the article's conclusion: "The first step in helping people find love and happiness is to figure out what they're really looking for in the first place." So the idea is that social scientists should tell women that they only like men of their own race, and so they shouldn't bother dating anyone else? And these same social scientists should tell men that they don't like women smarter than they are, so they shouldn't bother dating them? Aren't these attitudes actually forms of social and psychological PATHOLOGY that social scientists should help to correct rather than reenforcing them with their "findings?"

This is the problem with contemporary social science: It implicity justifies even the worst aspects of contemporary social reality, because once it's assembled a set of "facts" it just throws up its hands and says "Well, I guess that's the way things are." A worthwhile social science would also raise questions about how things OUGHT to be, and about how to make society better. The great German sociologist Max Horkheimer said this seventy years ago in his famous essay on "Critical and Traditional Theory," but I guess social scientists have learned nothing in the meantime . . .

I think it's more a matter that they've learned that it's not their place to decide how we "ought" to be.

Hebert Meyer wrote:
'I don't really follow the article's conclusion: "The first step in helping people find love and happiness is to figure out what they're really looking for in the first place." So the idea is that social scientists should tell women that they only like men of their own race, and so they shouldn't bother dating anyone else? And these same social scientists should tell men that they don't like women smarter than they are, so they shouldn't bother dating them? Aren't these attitudes actually forms of social and psychological PATHOLOGY that social scientists should help to correct rather than reenforcing them with their "findings?"'

Well in defense of the article writer, he would not quite argue that. He might argue though that, for example, in their other paper,http://faculty.chicagogs­b.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/­racialPreferences.pdf , based on the same data they argue that "We are able to document convincingly that same race pairings are the result of preferences
rather than exposure to dating opportunities".

But while this more limited conclusion is reached by the social scientist in the scholarly article, the Slate article is much more general. And there in lies the danger, for anyone, to take the data in these studies and apply without proper caution. But there is a value in the economic study of social behavior.

Still, your point, or rather your question, is valid. That is, what is the role of the "social scientist"?

Hebert Meyer wrote:
'This is the problem with contemporary social science: It implicity justifies even the worst aspects of contemporary social reality, because once it's assembled a set of "facts" it just throws up its hands and says "Well, I guess that's the way things are." A worthwhile social science would also raise questions about how things OUGHT to be, and about how to make society better. The great German sociologist Max Horkheimer said this seventy years ago in his famous essay on "Critical and Traditional Theory," but I guess social scientists have learned nothing in the meantime . . .'

Yes and Leo Struass made the same point 50 years ago and Allan Bloom made a similar point 20 years ago.

The problem is not social scientists per se. But how do you put the genie back in the bottle?

you're confusing "is" with "ought."

the fact that people act like this and there's a 50% divorce rate would indicate that we're not going about things as well as we could.

if a social scientist were to say that this is what we "ought" to do, then he would be a social philosopher. he can introduce new variables and test them, but as soon as he brings in the "ah yes, this is the best one!" he is no longer a dispassionate scientist.

"We are able to document convincingly that same race pairings are the result of preferences
rather than exposure to dating opportunities"

Has anyone done a study of common factors among couples that WERE interracial? What (aside from a certain degree of mental flexibility) do they have in their background that monoracial couples don't?

"if a social scientist were to say that this is what we "ought" to do, then he would be a social philosopher."

maybe yes and maybe no, it depends on the subject of study and in the case of "social" science i would tend to err on the side of yes they should provide sort or of analytical opinion of the data. While science (and scientists) at the primal level seek to divide fact from fiction, that is not to say they are mere data worker bees, solely created to mine and present data for the massed to digest and infer their own conclusions. In fact it is exactly their unique position of observing the data to formulate an opinion about the very subject of study. Yes observer bias can come into play, but that bias can actually serve as a barometer of how well not only can the scientist analyze the results, but can also provide clues to discern how judicious the scientist is in their conclusions and possibly even in the design of the study itself.

But as soon as a scientist starts talking about how things "ought" to be, he's no longer analyzing. At that point, he's giving an opinion, not engaging in science.