As a Doper, I would guess that the overwhelming majority of people that say one of their hobbies is “arguing online” are deeply unpleasant people and that nazis are significantly overly represented in that group as well. That being on the list doesn’t surprise me at all, to the contrary I think it’s a prudent inclusion.
Well, you can stick that 
where the 
don’t 
, matey!
Juuust kidding, I only argue with the best.
Do you have some reason to believe I was referring to you?
Participating in a civil online forum is not really the same thing as trolling, which is strongly linked to severe personality disorders - such as being borderline, antisocial, narcissistic, paranoid or histrionic. The difference between trolling and “arguing online” varies by forum.
Couldn’t resist a bit of harmless levity in the face of temptation. 
My wife and I wrote a nonfiction book together, which wasn’t bad because it was composed of individual entries, which we split up. She’s the real writer, so I was glad that our editor liked my stuff. It was easier than hanging wallpaper together, the true test of a marriage.
But I have real respect for Kuttner and Moore after this experience.
The only time I ever lost my temper and threw a fit during a home improvement project was hanging wallpaper. I didn’t read the directions about sizing the paper.
I like to see a good arborist working at his hobby. 
I had to laugh at the opening line of the article.
I kinda doubt that skimming a New York Post clickbait article is what women have in mind when they think of ´reading’
Maybe New Jersey women are easily enticed? Kidding!
I find that people do tend to find active hobbies to be attractive; if you say you like to hike or play a sport like tennis, people will like that.
But fitness for fitness’ sake is usually off putting to most people. I think it’s considered vain and vapid. You’re supposed to get in great shape as a consequence of the things that you do, but you aren’t personally supposed to care about your shape.
I love to see any good craftsperson working in their field! I’ll never have the time in my life to learn all the possible skills and trades that exist, but I am fascinated by the detail and precision that a real expert brings to the work.
A few points nobody has commented on that I noticed.
-
The NY Post was republishing an article from the Daily Mail, a UK newspaper. The survey was conducted by a UK dating research outfit among UK women, not US women. So there’ll be some bias there versus most of our experiences.
-
Both the NY Post and the UK’s Daily Mail are clickbait junk rags, not real newspapers. The quality of the stuff they choose to publish is … variable.
-
The bigger bias is if they’re asking dating-age people, they’re not asking Doper fogeys. What 20-somethings want about anything is a bit of a mystery to most of us.
-
The punchline at the bottom of the article makes a lot of sense to me:
I think it would be interesting to see the companion survey going the other way: what hobbies / activities the ladies engage in that the men find attractive or unattractive.
Pretty sure I pointed out the study was British and in the Daily Mail. Of course people say stuff in a survey that sounds good and may not represent factual beliefs or practice.
You sure did.
I plead increasing senility: I read the OP four days ago when it was fresh and in the meantime managed to forget your analysis beyond the citation itself. D’oh! 