I kept looking at that too. It’s crazy to me that there are only 2 cycles in the graph and one is the big accidental one. It honestly makes me think that either something must be wrong with the data, or it’s reflective of some deep principle of math or sexuality (e.g. that people won’t fuck around within their close social grouping nearly as readily as they will with people on the outskirts of it).
The authors wrote that they were surprised too and went back to talk to the students and apparently there was an unwritten rule that you don’t date the ex of the new partner of your ex. So if Bob and Alice split up and Alice starts dating Ben, then Bob should not date Ben’s ex Alison.
I kept looking at that too. It’s crazy to me that there are only 2 cycles in the graph and one is the big accidental one. It honestly makes me think that either something must be wrong with the data, or it’s reflective of some deep principle of math or sexuality (e.g. that people won’t fuck around within their close social grouping nearly as readily as they will with people on the outskirts of it).
The authors wrote that they were surprised too and went back to talk to the students and apparently there was an unwritten rule that you don’t date the ex of the new partner of your ex. So if Bob and Alice split up and Alice starts dating Ben, then Bob should not date Ben’s ex Alison.
I’ve spotted five cycles.
It’s possible there’s more but I’m pretty sure that’s it.
Aaaahhh got it. So the whole issue was my lack of paying attention. Makes sense.
Also feels weird there’s only one same gender connection (female to female) as far as I could see in that whole thing…
There’s a male-male one on the rightward branch of the ring structure.
There’s also a male male in the left side of the ring