Churning the 'NYT' Vows Data and the Dangers of Self-Selection

Well, it is fun to run the numbers on exactly what "sort" of person runs a wedding announcement in Vows (technically now called "Weddings/Celebrations," which is so dull). The numbers are useful and also, sure, about what you'd expect. Harvard. Credit Suisse. Gay. That sort of thing. But two things: our trusty researcher friends here are comparing education and job credentials to the "average American," which, oh no. Vows is a section that is for New Yorkers, not average Americans. And New York is a funny place. (Full of gays who went to Harvard.) But then also they're dismissing self-selection in a totally untoward way, writing: "There's also no easy way to rule out a self-selection bias. (Theoretically, 9.4 percent of the people who want to be in the wedding section could have Harvard degrees…)" Um, I would say that that is way more than true? You have to submit to Vows a minimum of six weeks in advance, and the submission form is quite lengthy. In fact, it's so long that as you start to fill it out, you have time to realize that it's all basically for snobby gay a-holes who work at Credit Suisse and then you stop filling it out, if you have any real sense. Once it's like "AND WHAT DOES YOUR FATHER DO FOR A LIVING?" you're like, oh God, who cares, go pound sand. (Seriously, their sample form goes like this: "(first celebrator's) father, who is retired, was a (job title/I.D. here) in (location here) for (company/organization name here). (his/her) mother is a (job title/I.D. here) in (location here) for (company/organization name here)." Which is so LOL! It's like the worst and least-fitting game of Mad Libs ever.) Anyway then you're like "Why do I want stupid people to read about MY SPECIAL DAAAAAY?" and you realize that you'd like to retain some dignity, instead of splashing it in the faux society pages. Besides if you're gay, there's likely another wedding in another state or country coming your way soon, so you can always reapply later. Suckas.