Slashdot Mirror


Psychologist Beating Math Nerds in Race to Netflix Prize

s1d writes "An almost-anonymous British psychologist named Gavin Potter has suddenly risen to the top of the Netflix prize charts. With his very first attempt, he got a score which took the BellKor team seven months to reach. Currently at a score of 8.07, he has only five teams ahead of him now in the race for the ultimate Netflix algorithm. 'Potter says his anonymity is mostly accidental. He started that way and didn't come out into the open until after Wired found him. "I guess I didn't think it was worth putting up a link until I had got somewhere," he says, adding that he'd been seriously posting under the name of his venture capital and consulting firm, Mathematical Capital, for two months before launching "Just a guy." When he started competing, he posted to his blog: "Decided to take the Netflix Prize seriously. Looks kind of fun. Not sure where I will get to as I am not an academic or a mathematician. However, being an unemployed psychologist I do have a bit of time."'"

205 comments

  1. Beating everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    5th place is not winning. Are you guys Ron Paul supporters too?

    1. Re:Beating everyone? by FF0000+Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Well, before everyone gets all in a tizzy, let me just say that I'm already on the case to return the favor. As a mathematician and computer scientist, I'm working on a computer program using some pretty heavy-lifting math to allow people to psychoanalyze themselves. I call it the ELIte analyZing mAchine, or ELIZA for short. How does that make you feel, Mr. Psychologist Person?

    2. Re:Beating everyone? by rcw-home · · Score: 4, Funny

      Welcome to your therapy session.

      Well, before everyone gets all in a tizzy,

      Surely not everyone?

      let me just say that I'm already on the case to return the favor.

      Can you elaborate on that?

      As a mathematician and computer scientist, I'm working on a computer program using some pretty heavy-lifting math to allow people to psychoanalyze themselves.

      Why do you mention computers?

      I call it the ELIte analyZing mAchine, or ELIZA for short.

      Why do you mention computers?

      How does that make you feel, Mr. Psychologist Person?

      Does that question interest you?

    3. Re:Beating everyone? by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, and I always thought it was called Elite MAChine for pSychology.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    4. Re:Beating everyone? by gr8scot · · Score: 0

      rate = distance / time

      If the amount of progress he has made is more than the teams of mathematicians did in the same amount of time or less than he has spent, with only his daughter's assistance on "bits of calculus," it's quite reasonable to describe him as "beating" them at the primary task of the competition. Whether the margin by which he is beating them is wide enough to overcome the head start he gave them by entering late will determine, at the end of the contest, whether he has won, but for now the present progressive tense and the verb "beat" are both correct. I would guess at least some of those mathematicians feel pretty beaten right now, as do some other Republican candidates who have gotten fewer votes with more GOP support than Ron Paul, since you just had to mention that, Troll.

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    5. Re:Beating everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      My copy of emacs doesn't give any of those responses.

    6. Re:Beating everyone? by CrispBH · · Score: 1

      he has only five teams ahead of him now

      5th place is not winning. Are you guys Ron Paul supporters too? I think you should go for the Netflix prize. You'd do really well!
    7. Re:Beating everyone? by Zarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doctor Sbaitso!? He's the one that's in love with the math co-processor, right?
      --
      [signature]
    8. Re:Beating everyone? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I would go for it myself, but last Father's day I apparently won the "World's Greatest Dad" competition (you would think that such a prestigious award would get you more than a coffee cup). And so I don't want to push my luck seeking another victory so soon.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Beating everyone? by Unoti · · Score: 1

      Well, God knows there's probably an Eliza emacs module.

    10. Re:Beating everyone? by glyph42 · · Score: 1

      Currently at 8th place. I've seen this story all over and I don't know why it does not link to the actual standings: http://www.netflixprize.com/leaderboard Oh wait, I know why. Because it makes the story look dated!

      --
      Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
    11. Re:Beating everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story is bullshit, or at least the narrative hook that everyone is biting on is bullshit. He has an undergrad degree in psych, but that does not make him a psychologist. He has a graduate degree in operations research and was considering doing a PhD in data mining. That is exactly what the NetFlix prize is about. He also doesn't have a day job. At any rate, he is much closer to being a mathematician than a psychologist. But he still isn't winning, no matter how you want to spin it, so this all doesn't matter much anyways.

  2. Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's called domain knowledge people. It helps being a psychologist when you're write a program reacting to people's behavior. If programmers knew how to do that, they would get laid more.

    1. Re:Domain Knowledge by wasted · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a strong social obligation to love sex, just like there's a strong social obligation to hate work. A lot of people love their work and couldn't be bothered wasting their time on mating rituals.. then all the brainless breeders call them "losers" because they've made two choices that fly in the face of social pressure.

      Like they really had a choice...
    2. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, they did. Every man has a choice between his work and his social life. Many men, great men, choose to dedicate themselves to their work. For the vast majority of these men we call them "geeks". For a smaller number, who end up making the mistake of getting married, we call them bastards. Einstein was one such bastard. He treated his wife and children terribly - and not just because he was basically a German man - but because his work came first.

      Besides which, sex as described by the kind of people who think geeks really should be trying harder to get it is basically sport. Geeks have enough common sense to recognize that sport is no fun.

    3. Re:Domain Knowledge by Yold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly what I thought, even if he is beating math-nerds, you cannot create a machine-learning algorithm without using fairly sophisticated mathematics. Since psychology is largerly based on statistics, I am sure the guy has a firm grounding in the subject. I am sure he isn't basing his algorithm on Aedipus Complexes (sic) and ink blots.

    4. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      we call them bastards. Einstein was one such bastard. He treated his wife and children terribly - and not just because he was basically a German man - but because his work came first.

      I love it when women aren't interesting enough, men are blamed. Seriously, if she's too shallow to take an interest in the things he likes, then she should have not married him. Some women are so busy trying to find a sugar daddy they forget they're going to have to live with the "bastard."

    5. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Aaah, but many psychologists would argue that dedication to work is simply a means to an end. Basically you become important, rise to the top if you will. And then pull a Bill Clinton. The question is not "why would a great man be adulterous and risk losing his position." in the eyes of many behavioral researchers but "Why not? That was the point of gaining the position in the first place." Note: I don't personally ascribe to this viewpoint but it's hard to argue with if you believe that there is no absolute moral code which then implies a creator/supreme engineer of some kind.

    6. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe to some dedication to work is an end in itself.

    7. Re:Domain Knowledge by g00nsquad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anything is arguable by psychologists. However, if you don't need to believe in an absolute moral code, you also don't need to believe in an archetypical behaviour pattern to which we all adhere (read: behaviour pattern that dictates everything we do is part of some elaborate mating ritual). As such, it may be the case that there are many different reasons why people dedicate themselves to work.

      In the case of great scientists, artists, politicians or inventors, it may simply be about pure fascination with their particular interest (eg. Darwin studying and classifying barnacles for 8 years - 1856 to 1864), an altruistic (read instinctive if you will) desire to make living conditions better for their counterparts (eg. Norman Borlaug, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, for his research in wheat agriculture leading to the Green Revolution), or some other reason.

      In short, perhaps not everything is about f-cking, however f-cking certainly is everything to some.

      --
      shaunjohnston.com
    8. Re:Domain Knowledge by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      So, why do you *eat*? It may strike you as a frivolous question, but what motivates you to eat, to have sex? Do you ever get angry, and if so *why*? Have you ever tried drugs, prescription or otherwise, that have substantially changed your personality? Why are you a geek? What do you imagine to be the rational and/or psychological underpinnings of the choices you've made?

    9. Re:Domain Knowledge by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know who you moderators are or when you got your nuts cut off but I've never felt more cognitive dissonance to a Slashdot post than this one. Every geek I've ever known is dying to get laid but just doesn't have the wherewithal to get it done. Or maybe you, parent poster, are a woman. Calling deadbeat husbands bastards and referring to casual sex as "sport"... hmmmm, I detect that someone may have gotten burned in her past.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    10. Re:Domain Knowledge by nametaken · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow dude, thanks for speaking for me. I was too busy not getting laid to be bothered to type it myself.

    11. Re:Domain Knowledge by Jurily · · Score: 1

      I hope you see the difference between "love sex" and "getting married".

      They're kind of the opposite ends of the spectrum for me.

    12. Re:Domain Knowledge by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      It is not necessarily bad sexual selection to choose to marry an Einstein and have his children, even if he is a pain to live with.

    13. Re:Domain Knowledge by Firefalcon · · Score: 1

      "Love Sex" and "Getting Married" are not mutually exclusive, if both partners love sex, then that may be one of the foundations of their relationship. However "Love Sex [with many different partners]" can cause issue with the "Getting Married" state (or at least remaining in it), unless both partners are fine with that.

    14. Re:Domain Knowledge by droptone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd be surprised how many people in psychology are math-phobic and really only know the basic stuff they need to do research (z tests, t tests, ANOVA, regression, power for grant requests, etc) without any deeper understanding of the underlying concepts. If the guy went through a decent quantitative program then he'd have a much better understanding of math since they usually prefer the applicants to have several levels of calculus plus a handful of actual statistics courses (and not stat for psyc), along with the stuff he learned there.

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    15. Re:Domain Knowledge by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 1

      That works both ways, bub. Men have to show interest in things she likes too. It's a careful balance of "check out this new code i wrote" and "wow, those are nice shoes" I never realized how difficult these things were to balance until I got married.

    16. Re:Domain Knowledge by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I love it when women aren't interesting enough, men are blamed.

      Sir! I challenge you sir, I challenge you to come up one with any woman, no; one single human being, who is as interesting, in depth, challenging and beautiful as the General Theory of Relativity.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    17. Re:Domain Knowledge by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 1

      I love it when women aren't interesting enough, men are blamed. Seriously, if she's too shallow to take an interest in the things he likes, then she should have not married him. Some women are so busy trying to find a sugar daddy they forget they're going to have to live with the "bastard." Einstein's wife was a scientist not a "gold digger"
      From PBS web site

      Who was Mileva Maric? Until recently, the life of Einstein's first wife was little more than a footnote in her famous husband's biography. The world only learned of her existence through the first release of Einstein's private letters in 1987, which offered tantalizing glimpses of a brilliant and ambitious woman who shared her husband's interest in science. This project invites you to explore the facts of Mileva Maric's life and her role as a pioneer in the history of women in science. Emphasis mine.
    18. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, I have already married her, some eleven years ago.

    19. Re:Domain Knowledge by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Thats the case to an absurd extent. For a psych undergrad degree here I needed to take a Statistics for Psychology but decided to take the stats class offered by the math department instead because I knew the Psych department one would be retarded. Unfortunately it turns out that take that particular course is required to graduate with the major so I'm taking it now. 2 months in the class is learning hypothesis testing and every chapter in the book has a section about keeping your hopes up, and even does things like assume you don't know what it means to square a number (multiply it by itself). The midterm was filled with questions like "if a datapoint has a z-score of 1.54 how many standard deviations away from the mean is it?" The standards are lower than I imagined possible for a college class.

    20. Re:Domain Knowledge by repapetilto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't marry someone who cares about new shoes (or at least doesn't care if you do or not) and you don't have to deal with that.

    21. Re:Domain Knowledge by egyptiankarim · · Score: 1
      I feel as though you might be dismissing Aedipus and ink too easily. Sure these things may seem silly and frivolous when conclusions are extrapolated after application to an individual, but imagine the power behind analyzing hundreds of thousands of responses to the same set of ink blots (essentially, what the KNN approach is) with a small weight distributed to account for those who think their moms are hot (post-calculation hueristics to catch outliers).

      Since psychology is largerly based on statistics


      Perhaps. I'd like to pose this question, though: Is psychology based on statistics, or is statistics just a particularly convenient way of expressing what we know about psychology?
      --
      Eek!
    22. Re:Domain Knowledge by PSXer · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what the "nerds" call us. We don't spend time to learn how a microwave works because we don't care.

      It works the same in every country.

    23. Re:Domain Knowledge by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      We have the proper neural-nets installed, but nobody gives us any input to train the things on! We're just supposed to throw our completely unconfigured AI software into the wild and have it succeed... how?

    24. Re:Domain Knowledge by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Sir! I challenge you sir, I challenge you to come up one with any woman, no; one single human being, who is as interesting, in depth, challenging and beautiful as the General Theory of Relativity. Oh my dear God, you have no idea how wonderful a woman your mother is, do you?
    25. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you marry someone like that, then you have to deal with their penis.

    26. Re:Domain Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People change ... my wife loved shoes when she married me.

      7 kids and thousands in debt later she couldn't care less. She's just happy we can eat ... food ...

  3. What's the point? by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is there some merit to this story other than "your sterotypes can be wrong", which is itself cliche enough to be considered a stereotype in its own right? I like Henry David Thoreau's explanation of such trivia:

    And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter -- we never need read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications? To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea. Yet not a few are greedy after this gossip. There was such a rush, as I hear, the other day at one of the offices to learn the foreign news by the last arrival, that several large squares of plate glass belonging to the establishment were broken by the pressure -- news which I seriously think a ready wit might write a twelve-month, or twelve years, beforehand with sufficient accuracy.


    And yes, I have karma to burn. Yes I do.
    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:What's the point? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter -- we never need read of another.

      Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned, your life savings tied up in the boat that sank, your cow that was run down, or your new neighbor's rabid dog that needs killing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:What's the point? by 0123456789 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned.


      If you don't find out about those until you read about them in the newspaper, your family qualifies as dysfunctional. Really dysfunctional.

    3. Re:What's the point? by besalope · · Score: 5, Funny

      Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned, your life savings tied up in the boat that sank, your cow that was run down, or your new neighbor's rabid dog that needs killing. Meh, that just sounds like the making of a country music hit.
    4. Re:What's the point? by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you've spent one night in the woods it's pretty much the same as spending 2 years in the woods.

      Or do you think HDT would disagree?

    5. Re:What's the point? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned, your life savings tied up in the boat that sank, your cow that was run down, or your new neighbor's rabid dog that needs killing.

      Who learns of their house being robbed, their mothers house being burned, etc from the news media?

      Thoreau's point is the people who don't already know these things don't need to know them. That's why he refers to it as "Gossip".

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:What's the point? by causality · · Score: 1

      Who learns of their house being robbed, their mothers house being burned, etc from the news media?

      Thoreau's point is the people who don't already know these things don't need to know them. That's why he refers to it as "Gossip".

      Thank you. Someone who gets it is a great thing to see.

      Furthermore, if it IS your brother robbed, or your mother's house burned, or your cow that was run down ... do you really want that to be a public spectacle, just entertainment for the masses? Do you not see how dehumanizing that is? In your moment of grief, do you want a reporter from the national news media sticking a camera and a microphone in your face to get a soundbite from you?

      Personally I think there's something rather sick about that and about how readily we "consume" such stories. I can't come up with one valid reason why a healthy (physically, mentally, emotionally/spiritually) individual who is content with his/her own life would want to wallow in the misery of others. What does that accomplish when you have no intention of taking action to ease the pain of the people who are suffering? "Gossip" is a rather mild term for it.

      Ah well, there are always people like ScentCone who are so eager to get offended about something that they will miss the entire point and respond emotionally to their own misinterpretation of what was said. I hope for him/her that the self-righteous feeling of "yeah I set that guy straight!" was its own reward, but I get the funny feeling that it wasn't.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  4. Average psychologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    that had an undergraduate degree in psychology, a masters degree in operations research that after being well employed for a number of years -- "In 2006, he left his job at IBM to explore the idea of starting a PhD in machine learning, a field in which he has no formal training. When he read about the Netflix Prize, he decided to give it a shot -- what better way to find out just how serious about the topic he really was?"

    1. Re:Average psychologist by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      And he lives in what looks like a smart house in Central London - as we say in this country "he ain't short of a bob or two". No wonder his primary motivation isn't the $1m.

    2. Re:Average psychologist by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised by the hostility to this man. (Was it the Slashdot headline that got you all riled up?) Either way, I must ask what it would take for you to consider him more than "average." Isn't every human, let alone scientist, average until a great deed is accomplished?

      If you don't see his lackadaisical attitude with this contest, as well as the marked degree of success he's achieved so far with it, as something out of the ordinary, then I think you're a little deluded as to what makes a great scientist.

    3. Re:Average psychologist by joaommp · · Score: 1

      If you notice, the one's that are ranting about him are people that happened to read the article and noticed that, in fact, that he is not just a simple psychologist as the article seems to want everyone to believe. He actually has experience and education on the subject, like operations research, and having worked for major IT companies, and not just a psychologist. It is cool that one single is climbing up, jumping in front of complete teams. But please, don't try to make him a god or more hero than he actually is. It just looks like a publicity stunt -> I'm not actually accusing it of be a publicity stunt, I'm just saying it looks like.

      Kudos to him for managing to get that far, but anti-kudos for those who exaggerated and painted a pink picture of the facts.

    4. Re:Average psychologist by bruce86 · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? we can call ourselves psychologist with only a bachelors? Forget gradschool

  5. He just so happens to be... by Aegis+Runestone · · Score: 1

    Just a guy who happens to own everyone else. ^_^

    --
    -Aegis Runestone-
    1. Re:He just so happens to be... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Aaaaaaah! He's in my head! Get him out, gethimout!

  6. psych majors by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    Very few psych majors do psych professional.

    I have a BA from U. of Houston, which I have used to do tech support and sales for a software company, and developed my own FPS as a solo project.

    1. Re:psych majors by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Undergrad is the new high school.

  7. Misleading summary by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary makes 2 references to Gavin Potter being a psychologist, but it ignores the part of the article that notes he has a master's degree in operations research. This is very much an OR problem. Still, it is impressive that he has been able to do as well as he has considering his competition. Good luck to him!

    1. Re:Misleading summary by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Operations Research is basically an area of applied mathematics, but unfortunately, not many people even know what it is, hence the confusion. It is no wonder that an individual with Psychology and Operations Research degrees is doing so well.

    2. Re:Misleading summary by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is very much an OR problem.
      I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me like the Netflix algorithm probably needs some ANDs and NOTs, and maybe even some IF...THENs.

      Not to mention that it likely can't be reduced to Boolean logic.

      /Sorry
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Misleading summary by Dulimano · · Score: 1

      Important caveat: After one year into the competition, sometime last autumn maybe, the leading team had to publish all their methods to claim the $50,000 yearly prize. If this guy did nothing else but correctly reimplement this published algorithm, he would be at this score.

  8. Interdiscplinary approach by oceaniv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The topic is incredibly fascinating. And just a thought, up to 5 centuries ago "scientists" were incredibly versatile people, with mastery over a few fields at a time... A lot of people argue that this was out of necessity, but could the versatility have been important development of multiple renaissances (In Greece, East/West Asia, and Europe)? And could the bottleneck specialization of fields that has occurred in the past three centuries simply be period of transition/stifling new ways of thinking? Could the emergence interdisciplinary experts lead to another 'renaissance' of sorts?

    1. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Interesting
    2. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Kenshin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See, I hate this current mode of profession.

      I work for a small company. My current job isn't stable, and doesn't pay well, so I'm taking an IT course so I can land a (hopefully) stable job/career.

      However... in my current job I wear all kinds of hats. Server's down? I'll fix it. Marketing materials need to be designed? I'll do it. Proposal needs to be edited? I'm there. Computer needs more RAM? I'll install it. Photo of product needs to be masked-out? Done. Need to do some research? I'll get on it.

      The kind of job I'm being trained for... I'll be stuck on the straight and narrow, handling one sort of task. When companies want an IT guy, they want an IT guy. I don't know how I'll be able to handle that. I LIKE having different responsibilities. I don't want to be one guy on an org chart with a specified duty.

      Blah. I really went on a tangent there...

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    3. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by mattOzan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like being jack-of-all-trades too. But I'm finding that one must tread very carefully on this path.

      If you aren't careful, you end up being the fall guy for a widening array of mishaps.

      For instance, you help set up the video projector a couple of times for presentations. Then during the next presentation the projector fails. In some eyes it will be your fault, because you're now the "PowerPoint Guy." Nevermind that the bulb was past its recommended use hours, or that the presenter forgot his VGA dongle, or whatever.

      It seems like if I want to come out as the go-to guy for some area of tech, I'd damn well better get up to pro-level speed really quick. Because soon I'm going to have to be mitigating crises and solving complex problems that before were just chalked up to "well, that thing's always been a problem." Yeah, now it is *your* problem!

    4. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Cylix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surprisingly enough, there are fields that pay much better which require a broad range of expertise.

      However, no one will dare mention all of the real requirements. You see, the valid candidates will run screaming away because it looks to be too much, but what you end up with is a person who scoffs at all the extra that wasn't mentioned when he was hired.

      Thus, eventually the cycle continues until you no longer need the jack of all trades and have many very specialized people who cannot get anything completed.

      Welcome to Corporate America.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you man. I would prefer to get 10 years of experience rather than 2 years of experience 5 times (aka working in a job with one hat where you do the same thing over and over again).

      Of course you're always going to specialize...and hoping learning new things in that field everyday. The second that I have been practicing at a high level for a couple of months in a field is the second that I start training my replacement while I look for something new to sink my teeth into. That way I mostly master a trade and move on. Now, a lot of my knowledge is rusty, but since I'm used to picking up new things, re-learning is not a huge deal whenever it comes back up.

      Yea, losing that is something that I would mourn also.

    6. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by elloGov · · Score: 1

      I too am a versatilist. Scientist up to 5 centuries ago didn't have little expenses that can lead one to tight corners. Things like phone bills, heating, this tax that fee, socializing money, fancy clothing, hell water even costs money these days. You get my point. Could your bottleneck hypothesis be true? Absolutely! However until versatility is one day the king, specialization will rule. We are paid to be good, very good, "expert" at one thing, kinda like machines :). For versatilists to be rewarded, we need tangible evidence. Unfortunately, in a world where capitalism (money) rules, profit is best measured by specialized tasks.

    7. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The natural place for a jack-of-all-trades to land is in his/her own business.

    8. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      There are a fair number of scientists who know multiple subjects, most of them simply don't become well known. They may make some great new application of physics to biology but they probably won't make breathtaking discoveries in either. Likewise since it's easier to just study one subject and people generally seem to only be interested in one area you also get fewer people who can and do work across multiple fields.

      Actually any good scientists nowadays probably knows more from across different fields than those "generalists" from centuries back. A molecular biologist may have to, for example, know advanced chemistry and advanced physics. So really it's hard to say someone is a specialist if we've simply redefine his "field" to cover what used to be 5 separate ones.

    9. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible to be paid for being versatile but that requires you to actually have some concrete advantage of being that way. Likewise you actually need to be good (not just decent or passable) in at least some areas and have those areas be related (ie: see first sentence). Even in that case you should go into management in most likelihood because then you can do more good by "simply" telling other specialists what to do than by actually half-assing things yourself.

      That said there are whole fields that are in essence the combination of existing ones such as molecular biology (biology, chemistry, physics, math), bio-mechanics (biology, medicine, mechanical engineering ,electrical engineering), computational biology (biology, cs, math), bio-statistics (biology, statistics, math) and so on (I can go on for pages and pages just from the degrees and specializations offered at my school).

    10. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or could the existence of things called "printed books" lead to the spread of knowledge among others who could use it, rather than having to build up their theoretical knowledge from personal experience and a few precious manuscripts? And make it more broadly available so that people with less than mutant brilliance can contribute andn publish their contributions for others?

      I don't think you need to read in any great cultural change to a cross-disciplinary approach here: the problem is one well-suited to this man's exact skills, an algorithmic computation of likely human behavior. Encouraging cross-disciplinary work because people focused too tightly on one field will miss available tools from other fields is helpful, and certainly helps keep me paid for work that ranges throughout computing and engineering fields.

    11. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by nametaken · · Score: 1

      You're not alone.

      I'm an IT guy now who also wears a dozen hats. I'm also a Business Management student, and a frequent topic of discussion is about generational differences in the American workforce. It's been noted that past generations would trade all kinds of job satisfaction in return for job security. More recent generations are not so willing. Businesses have also changed. Companies expect greater turnover, are more flexible than they used to be, and operate "leaner" than they used to.

      There's always room for the guy (or god forbid, girl) that wants to specialize in one particular function of one particular line of devices by one particular company (Cisco guys out there, you know what I'm talking about). But in a lot of ways the game has changed, and it does reflect your personal preferences, both in textbooks and in real life. Mine too, incidentally.

    12. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by baboonlogic · · Score: 1

      I was stuck with this too. For years I avoided getting into the industry for fear of having to do just one task. And then I discovered start-ups. If you are good at all this, chances are you will be able to research, learn and pick up the business side of things fast enough too. Once you do that, find a good start-up in it's early stage, join it. Learn from their success and failures and they move on and do your own. You can have your cake and eat it too! I am right now in a start up, working part time and waiting to finish my course. My boss can't wait for me to join full time.

      If jack of many trades is your thing and you can pull it off, you owe it to yourself to give entrepreneurship a shot. You can wear all your hats, add value to the world and become rich while doing it. What could be better? Of course, this will be as unstable as it gets, but are you sure stability is what you want?

    13. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      David Bishop (Head of Microstructure Physics Research Dept., AT&T Bell Labs) "In today's world, if you have a customer with a problem, he doesn't really care if it's a physics, engineering, or software problem. He just wants it to be fixed."

    14. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Hitto · · Score: 1

      Hah! I'm sure I'm not the only who was asked to fix the FAX, huh?
      Anything more complicated than a telephone = call the IT guy.
      And in smaller companies, it's even worse; I once got a call from a distressed co-worker reading aloud "the $BRAND antivirus cleaned the $VIRUS successfully, press OK to continue, what do I do, there's only one button to press I don't know what to do?!"

    15. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Hitto · · Score: 1

      I did that first to evacuate the stress. Boy, it works. No waking up at 6AM, commute stress, work stress, deadlines and so on. No more fucking leash.
      Second, to earn more money. It's harder, but it works. Oddjobs here and there are crucial for your first year, you need to start small.
      Third, well, because I like painting more than coding, after all.

    16. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Of course, this will be as unstable as it gets, but are you sure stability is what you want?

      What I want? After stumbling around with a small, unstable company for 7 years, with virtually nothing to show for it (heck, the owners, now in their 30s and 40s, still live at home with their mom), I think it's what I NEED.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    17. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want? After stumbling around with a small, unstable company for 7 years, with virtually nothing to show for it (heck, the owners, now in their 30s and 40s, still live at home with their mom), I think it's what I NEED.

      What the...? What kept you sticking around for seven long years before moving on? Shouldn't it have become obvious a few years ago that this would turn out to be this way? Hard luck, anyway! And good luck with your degree then!

      My apologies for the unsolicited advice I am about to give, but you gotta pay more attention to how businesses work, basic micro/macro economics, and keep good market info regarding your company. There are loads of good reasons for doing that, the relevant one being you can dump a company like the one you are in much much earlier.

      All I can say is that if you have as many hats as you claim to have and a good capacity for learning then in this day and age a start up is the place that can use you well. Everything else is way too professionalized. And of course there are tonnes of bad start ups, but if you know the basic business side things well you will be able to see which ones are doing it wrong long before the unsinkable hits the iceberg.

      PS: Going AC as this is heavily off-topic.

    18. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      What the...? What kept you sticking around for seven long years before moving on?

      Loyalty, pretty much.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    19. Re:Interdiscplinary approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loyalty, pretty much. Oh that... sucks! Loyalty is good but not at these costs. Here's hoping that you have better luck in the future. I personally don't buy into this over-professionalization-ftw stuff. These things always move in cycles... And I think and hope that it is time for the interdisciplinaries to sweep in again. But then again, all that might just be... well... baboon logic! :) I don't know... I will find out in three years.. Good luck with whatever you do...
  9. Umm.... by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative

    He might be a psychologist, but his venture firm is named Mathematical Captital, after all. His partners appear to have advanced degrees involving mathematics.

    1. Re:Umm.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      They are also entered in the competition separately from the guy in the garage and are in the top 15 - 20 places by the look of it.

    2. Re:Umm.... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      I read the Wired article originally in the magazine and according to it, his high school senior daughter is doing all his math work for him. I'd be really impressed if just the dad and the daughter wrote every algorithm themselves.

  10. Psychologist? by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why Wired insists on playing along with Potter's pretense of being an "unemployed psychologist". He's a PhD candidate in machine learning, has a masters in operations research, is ex-IBM and Pricewaterhouse, runs a VC firm -- he has plenty of quantitative and computational training and experience, probably more than most of the contestants.

    1. Re:Psychologist? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't just come barging in here with your fancy facts and logical arguments. You'll ruin the whole conversation that way! And we don't take kindly to strangers in these parts...

    2. Re:Psychologist? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Alternatively: It's a bit hard to argue with you when you keep making sense.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Psychologist? by Vexorian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it is just that dog bytes man"Psychologist beats math nerds" is a more interesting headline than actual facts.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    4. Re:Psychologist? by Vexorian · · Score: 1
      Man, I need to use the preview button more often, I tried to say this:

      Well, it is just that "Psychologist beats math nerds" is a more interesting headline than actual facts.
      I didn't know we weren't allowed to use the <s> tag.
      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    5. Re:Psychologist? by Ostsol · · Score: 1

      > I don't understand why Wired insists on playing along with Potter's pretense of being an "unemployed psychologist". Because people like 'underdog' stories.

    6. Re:Psychologist? by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      With all these qualifications it's interesting that his daughter helps him with the math for the project.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    7. Re:Psychologist? by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stranger to these parts? Dude, did you notice his user id? 3800. Yes, three-thousand-eight-hundred. He's been around these parts since before you were born. Which, I suppose, may actually be "strange"...as in, he's stranger than everyone who's ID is > 3800, but less strange than 3799 other people. Still!

      -G

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    8. Re:Psychologist? by poena.dare · · Score: 4, Funny

      I knew user 3799, and let me tell you, user 3800 is no user 3799.

    9. Re:Psychologist? by sjelkjd · · Score: 1

      What is the sound of a joke being missed?

    10. Re:Psychologist? by jspraul · · Score: 1

      whoosh

    11. Re:Psychologist? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, those were the days.

      You kids get offa my lawn!

    12. Re:Psychologist? by Igmuth · · Score: 1

      Go back in the house, Gramps!

    13. Re:Psychologist? by bliz1985 · · Score: 1

      They're trying to psycho us to read the article, duh!

    14. Re:Psychologist? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Gandpa, you're scaring the kids.
      Please put your pants back on.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  11. Thinking about how people shop by GregPK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My extensive retail experience says people like to shop by the following methods. Ratings, Genre, Alphabet.

    So, if I was to setup a movie viewing for them. I'd setup something along the lines of a Genre, rating(R,PG-13,G), Alphabet.

    It's kind of a takeoff on my video game organization method that increases sales of video games by 30 percent. I called it ABSRG short for Alphabetize By Section(4 foot section), Rating(M on top T in the middle and E towards the bottom.), Genre(Sports, driving, shoot em up). Please note, this cannot be patented, I already let it go out for more than a year(Started in 1998)and I have the pictures and time notes to prove it.

    1. Re:Thinking about how people shop by pwsegal · · Score: 1

      It would be an interesting exercise for somebody to try and patent your idea as a test to how (in)effective the patent office really is.

    2. Re:Thinking about how people shop by GregPK · · Score: 1

      They might be able to patent it, but they wouldn't be able to enforce it. I've got this on file with Walmart, Circuit City, Fry's, Target, Gamestop. Walmart actively uses it for their POG.

    3. Re:Thinking about how people shop by WK2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe they can't win a court case, but they could probably get at least 1 mega$ settlement by suing Walmart, Circuit City, Fry's, Target, and Gamestop.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    4. Re:Thinking about how people shop by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      Organising the physical games in that manner cannot be patented - but doing it over the Internet is a totally different thing. Or at least that's how it seems to be.

    5. Re:Thinking about how people shop by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Actually, organizing physical games in a specific methodology or way can be patented along with the name I created for it. Its a structure of things used to increase sales.

      Customers are people like you and me.

      Here is a scarry one, people drive thier carts like they want to drive thier cars. If it wasn't for rules, they'd totally drive that way.

  12. That's true by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very few psych majors do psych professional. I have a BA from U. of Houston, which I have used to do tech support and sales for a software company, and developed my own FPS as a solo project.

    I've also found this to be true. Lol, I actually knew people in college that did nothing but program computers in their spare time, and took psych because it was easy, wouldn't distract them and gave them more time to do the programming they wanted. They didn't ever expect to practice psych.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:That's true by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I'm a computer nerd, but switched to psych after the dot crash, and now have a useless psych BA.

    2. Re:That's true by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 1

      Psych was HARD to major in. The easy classes were the business classes I took to fill out the minor.

      I was the only student who asked questions.

      I have studied AI, and think we're a long way off.

      I got the MASTERS in technology.

    3. Re:That's true by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I'm embarrassed to say that's exactly what happened with me :-}

  13. Uh, no... by raehl · · Score: 0

    In the old days, scientists were more versatile because each area of science was only at the elementary level. If you were wealthy enough to not need to spend all day making sure you had enough food to eat, knew how to read, had access to books, and had the means to travel, congratulations, you had all the necessary qualifications for 'Renaissance Scientist'.

    I suppose you also had to be willing to focus on scientific pursuits instead of eating, drinking, music, building obscenely large residences, invasion of thine neighbor, and/or peasant subjugation.

    Hell, those scientists didn't even start figuring out basic laws of motion until the 1500's. Electricity? Not until Ben Franklin! And now any 3rd grader learns about electric circuits.

    I think every Slashdot reader understands pretty much all science through the 1700's at least. Anybody here understand string theory? I'm sure a few people do, but I ain't one of them. Old school scientists we more versatile because in the 1600's, science was easy!

    1. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think every Slashdot reader understands pretty much all science through the 1300's at least. Fixed it for ya.
    2. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben Franklin? Thales of Miletos worked with static electricity about 2000 years before Franklin.

    3. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a bunch of drivel. Just because their level of knowledge isn't what we have today, doesn't make it any "easier." Do you have any idea at all, or can you even comprehend, the kind of mathematics that were employed back in the day to solve anything? Take a look at the Principia for example. The geometry is insane. I'm a graduate student in Physics and I can't really follow his proofs.

      Furthermore, because early scientists did not have as much to build on, that makes it all the more difficult. Where was Faraday to get his inspiration on lines of force? What lead Maxwell in the right direction to unifying light with electromagnetism?

      It's great that 3rd graders know about electric circuits. That's the point of scientific progress. That doesn't make the original task trivial in any sense.

      In other words, I hate you.

    4. Re:Uh, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us scientist types, we call that "charge".

    5. Re:Uh, no... by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Perhaps these things seem simple now because they were solved so long ago. Genius is genius. I have no doubt if Newton was alive today he would have no trouble understanding and solving the major outstanding problems faced by today's scientists. Also that's not to say there haven't been modern era "Renaissance" scientists, John von Neumann immediately comes to mind. I think however the GP's point was that sometimes real progress is made through the application of one field on another seemingly unrelated field. That in today's community of scientists there might be a degree of overspecialization which is acting as a detriment.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    6. Re:Uh, no... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Genius is worthless alone if the field requires 100 textbooks worth of knowledge to even known the basics of. You have to understand those 100 textbooks or you can't make something that requires what those textbooks say as a basis. Otherwise you'll just spend all your time recreating what those textbooks say and never create anything new.

    7. Re:Uh, no... by mha · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are the moderators insane, stupid or both? WHy did the parent of the parent get "5-insightful" when his post is so disrespectful of enormous achievements that it can rightly be labeled "stupid", while the parent gets "-1"? Stupidity (of moderators) knows no limits these days.

      Related and strange and funny (or not!), why, when I have to meta-moderate, don't ever get any of these idiots? So much trivia gets a "+5 insightful", so much "modding by opinion", statistically it is impossible I didn't get a chance to meta-punch one of those guys...

    8. Re:Uh, no... by Escogido · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the wonderful world of the wisdom of the crowds. :)

    9. Re:Uh, no... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      There is one scientist who springs straight into my mind when you talk about being knowledgeable in many disiplines making for a better scientist is a narrower field as well: Albert Einstein.

      He worked as a patent clerk for many years. That required him to research a wide range of scientific subjects and understand whether each item was actually feasable.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner
      http://www.kpkb.com/news-article-patent-intellectual-property.html
      http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae10.htm

      I could try and explain this in more depth but simply following the links above will do a much better job than I ever could.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    10. Re:Uh, no... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Ok, I think everyone's replies to this have been wrong. What has happened isn't primarily the result of people being paid for specializing, or amount of free time, or the complexity of the field. The difference between the 1700's and today is that its necessary to use ever more complex (and expensive) machines to do it right. Any bio/chem lab worth its salt has millions of dollars in equipment, physics/astronomy/engineering is no better. To really make an impact across these fields would basically mean your a billionaire and even then it would be a giant undertaking just to set up and maintain the lab. This is why noone does it unless the government gives them money or they have a business plan allowing them to recoup costs.

    11. Re:Uh, no... by raehl · · Score: 1

      Maybe because some of the moderators understand the point?

      The point wasn't that the achievements of the time were not enormous.

      The point was that 'back in the day', since there was so little existing scientific knowledge, it was easy to be come an expert in a particular area. So after what is the modern-day equivalent of a 3rd-grader education, you were 'at the edge' of existing scientific knowledge and making new discoveries.

      That's not the case anymore. There is so much scientific knowledge that most people have to pick up PhD's before they're anywhere near the 'edge' of scientific knowledge. When you have to spend 20 years just catching up on everything that is already known, that makes it a bit harder to make new discoveries in multiple specialties than it was in the old days, when there just wasn't much existing scientific knowledge to learn.

    12. Re:Uh, no... by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      I don't think it has anything to do with textbooks. You remember people like Einstein, Newton, and von Neumann because of their ideas. You won't find new ideas in a textbook. Einstein himself said that reading too much ceases to be productive past a certain age (I forget the exact quote).

      The important thing is to gather enough background knowledge to be able to come up with new ideas. That can be a lot or that can be a little, and it likely varies by person. It doesn't require absolute mastery of every nook in a field or combination of fields.

  14. Free Idea by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I'm not trying for this prize, but there's one thing about Netflix "recommendations" that bugs me so I'm throwing out this complete freebie of an idea. If it helps someone get a 0.001% improvement to add this ONE little additional check, great.

    I am learning Japanese. I have been watching several hundred Japanese-language movies for the past couple years. I don't watch movies in Greek, Spanish, Turkish, Farsi, Italian, Russian, German, or Hebrew. I did watch Amelie four years ago but that doesn't mean I love French movies. Most of my recommendations are for foreign films, but only a small fraction of those recommendations are for Japanese movies.

    Apparently, Netflix doesn't have a column in their database saying WHAT language a movie uses principally, it just has a flag saying it is not English. It's the only explanation I can see for not checking for such a strong correlation. I admit, I might not be sharing the experience of the most common movie-renting drone in the bunch, but I doubt I'm the only person who has such a lopsided taste in movies. If the language (or alternate soundtrack languages) ARE known in the database, please see if the renter has a bias for movies in a particular language.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:Free Idea by dedazo · · Score: 1

      Yes, Blockbuster is the same. It's annoying.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    2. Re:Free Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not trying either. I find it difficult to get excited about something that will be copyrighted for twice my lifetime, closed source, proprietary, and probably patented. It would be like giving up a child for adoption... even if code went to a good home with advantages and utility I could never give the algorithm, I'd always hate myself for giving up all my rights to MY baby...

      As for the language recommendation... I've noticed this same issue myself. This million dollar prize really is peanuts to these guys. They spent $71 million on R&D last year, yet they have the crappy recommendation system they have now. As far as they're concerned, a million bucks is dirt cheap. Personally, if I were this guy and I somehow "won" I would try to refuse the prize in order to negotiate a better deal.... meh, It'd never work... they probably have a clause that voids your rights just for entering.

    3. Re:Free Idea by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Contest participants retain ownership of the code they write, but the winning team must license it (non-exclusively) to Netflix.

    4. Re:Free Idea by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      Apparently, Netflix doesn't have a column in their database saying WHAT language a movie uses principally, it just has a flag saying it is not English.

      It doesn't store any data about the language, actually. (It's at least not something that is available for the contestants.) All relations between movies (same language, similar length, same genre, same actors, similar number of characters and what not) are supposed to shine throught in users' ratings. That means that with enough ratings in the database, you are supposed to get recommendations that match any criterion you (and others) might have had when rating movies high before.

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    5. Re:Free Idea by tgv · · Score: 1

      Try movielens (http://www.movielens.org/): it does offer a search with specific languages.

      You might also try to copy my recommendations, since it recommends quite a few Japanese movies based on that...

    6. Re:Free Idea by shmert · · Score: 1

      This whole contest seems flawed. There's obviously some limit to how accurate an algorithm can be, you'll never completely predict how some person will rate a movie. You might as well try to predict what someone is going to type in a slashdot post. Sure, "First Post" is easy, and some people are more predictable than others. I'm sure there are patterns in the movie ratings of individuals, but they're not going by any strict rule of human nature.

      --
      You drank my drink, you drunk!
    7. Re:Free Idea by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1



      They make tentacle porn in Greek, Spanish, Turkish, Farsi, Italian, Russian, German, amd Hebrew?

      You learn something every day.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    8. Re:Free Idea by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      The database they give you for the contest has no information about the movies other than their titles and release years.

      The only other information is the rating people gave them and when they rated them. Even with this sparse information, even a simple clustering system seems to know a lot about the movies though it really doesn't. For instance, one of my early efforts to group "like" movies based on their ratings grouped together the "Buffy" series - but not the movie - with "Serenity". I happen to know that these have the common factor "Joss Whedon" but he's not in the database.

    9. Re:Free Idea by K-Man · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I had lunch with the Netflix search guy a while ago and told him the same thing. For me it's Korean. I get recommended all kinds of unrelated stuff.

      I think a lot of the metadata comes from Hollywood's view of the world, so "foreign" it is.

      Come to think of it, I even had to return one Korean film because it had no Korean soundtrack -- it was a Hong Kong release dubbed in Chinese, with English subtitles. I had some serious doubts about my Korean skills listening to that one.

      There's one Korean film I rented a while ago that has a lot of Japanese: "The President's Last Bang". Good film.

      --
      ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
    10. Re:Free Idea by daigu · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I do the same thing, but I'm learning Bengali. Bengali doesn't have several hundred movies to choose from - so it is less of a problem, but still, it would be good to know when Netflix gets new ones and what not. It's a good point.

    11. Re:Free Idea by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Apparently, Netflix doesn't have a column in their database saying WHAT language a movie uses principally, it just has a flag saying it is not English. It's the only explanation I can see for not checking for such a strong correlation. I admit, I might not be sharing the experience of the most common movie-renting drone in the bunch, but I doubt I'm the only person who has such a lopsided taste in movies. If the language (or alternate soundtrack languages) ARE known in the database, please see if the renter has a bias for movies in a particular language.

      ...Which leads me to believe that Netflix doesn't have enough information to get an accurate enough reccomendation. In my experience with Machine Learning; you can only make accurate predictions if your input data contains the information you need to make an accurate prediction. If your input data only has 87% correlation with the prediction you're trying to make, then there's no way to achieve 90% accuracy.

  15. how many GB is the dataset? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how big the dataset download is and what the format is? The website wants a registration before it lets you download the dataset.

    1. Re:how many GB is the dataset? by Paeva · · Score: 4, Informative

      The dataset is about 660MB to download. It unpacks to 2GB of about 18,000 text files.

    2. Re:how many GB is the dataset? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Thanks, I just want to have a rough idea of the mathematical complexity of the problem :)

      As I understand from the rules, each customer rates a bunch of movies. How many customers are there? How many movies? How many ratings does each customer do (on average, perhaps)?

    3. Re:how many GB is the dataset? by Paeva · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are 480,189 customers that rated 17,770 movies. The total number of ratings that you're given is 100,480,507. Each user/movie/rating is accompanied by the date of the rating, as well. You then have to submit predictions for the ratings of 2,817,131 additional user/movie combos (they tell you the user, the movie, and the date, and you need to predict the rating). You submit these predictions to Netflix, and they tell you the root-mean-square error between your predictions and the actual ratings that those users gave those movies.

    4. Re:how many GB is the dataset? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Many thanks. Just one more question: for the test set, are the users and/or movies all existing users and/or movies (from the training set), or can they be essentially unrelated (ie a movie which was not rated by anybody before, or a completely new user)?

    5. Re:how many GB is the dataset? by Paeva · · Score: 2, Informative

      Each of the movies and each of the users represented in the test set have some corresponding known ratings. I think the minimum is around 10 known ratings for users and maybe 3 or 4 for movies. And there are examples on the opposite end of the scale... one user has rated nearly every movie in the training set, and most of those ratings were 1 star. If you have any more questions, feel free to check out my blog - my Slashdot profile links to it, and you can find my email there. I'm Dan Tillberg, currently in seventh place in the contest ;). I'd love to help answer any questions you or anybody else might have (or at least help point you to good resources), and I certainly encourage anybody that's interested to try their hand in the contest :).

  16. Poor math nerds... by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Being beaten up is normal for any nerd, but by a Psychologist - that's gotta hurt...

    1. Re:Poor math nerds... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      How does that make you feel?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    2. Re:Poor math nerds... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      He beats you, makes you think it's your fault, and that you secretly want to sleep with your parents?

    3. Re:Poor math nerds... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Hurt.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. Slightly different take... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, the story is old now (by Internet standards) and no, he's not actually winning. What he did do was make a great leap in the success of his process by using a better group of knowledge for a base to work with. This is neither new or amazing in anyway. The only reason it makes news is that it's so much common sense that the story is told as if he has had some huge breakthrough.

    Even if he only gets to 9.25% I will bet he gets offers to work with AI researchers around the globe. That is, after all, what their stated goal is - more or less. Every programmer knows about the GUI wars, and has read stories about how programmers have trouble writing code or designing web sites that are intuitive for users. If you want to see you code break, put a user on the keyboard and wait a few minutes.

    Just about everything that I do with computers shows me something that could be more impressive or intuitive. Can you say 'click START to shutdown' ? Applying psychology and math to a computer problem is a problem that programmers are faced with all the time, and the industry as a whole fails on this repeatedly. A matter of personal interest, hobby robotics, holds a particular problem that seems simple but is not and demonstrates the scope of the problem with this story. Try to build a small robot that can wander around your house and never get stuck behind the couch, or anywhere else. Even cockroaches can accomplish this, but sophisticated robotics cannot.

    We've all seen people come from nowhere, solve a problem because they looked at it a different way than everyone else based on their experiences. I think that it is about time that we started doing more of this. The biggest problem that I can see thus far is that people don't act like computers, they seldom repeat anything with precision. Can you say manufacturing robot? Everyone of us has personal tastes, and it's usually only when Hollywood tells us what movies are good that we all fall in line. Sure, some 'blockbusters' fail, but they make money because of the hype. When you remove the hype, it falls apart. Picking out what other people like or might like based on a very small data set is a difficult task. Not everyone likes kids or movies for kids. Not everyone likes hollywood-ized cookie cutter movies. The task is daunting at best.

    Apply that thinking to other things, and you can see why some websites work and others do not. Why some software works and why others fail. Should F1 be the help key or F3? Why not CTRL-H? Maybe your preferences for such things differ from mine. What I'm getting at is that predicting what a human will do is not simple. Categorizing movies by story, style, genre etc. is like applying a tag cloud to it and matching the tag hits of one group to your personal tag choices. It kind of works, kind of does not. Either way, it needs to be applied more often. Just today I received a thank you note from the local Honda dealer where I got my seat belt replaced under warranty. I bought the car 15 years ago from the dealer my mother likes, and is two states away from me now. The dealer that send the card is local to me (2 states from my mom) but they sent the card to her, at MY address. Tell me how a human would have done that?

    The basic problem is that we humans accrue various bits of information and make decisions based on that. Our thinking process halts when something 'just doesn't make sense' to what we are doing. Computers don't do that... yet. Perhaps this guy is on to something, but then maybe not. A human would not only ask what other people liked this movie, but also "you really liked that piece of crap?"

    To put the I in AI is going to take a lot of rethinking. Simply acting like a perfect human won't do it. Oh, you liked that movie? yeah, me too, I love the city where it was filmed. -- get a program to do that? That oddball out-of-left-field thinking is what will make the software very good at predicting what you will or will not like, maybe.

    Have you ever tried to figure out what kind of music someone wou

    1. Re:Slightly different take... by sjelkjd · · Score: 1

      I know this wasn't your point, but here's an interesting take on why you use the start button to shut down windows: Why do you have to click the Start button to shut down?

  18. And? by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There a joke that I heard (that's actually pretty much true):

    A Physicist goes to a Mathematician for advise on solving a Differential Equation. The Physicist explains this and writes the equation on a Blackboard. The Mathematician stares at the equation for more than half an hour. Finally, he says, "Yes, it has a solution."

    Basically, the Maths (even applied) are about details and considering them *very* carefully. With this in mind, is it any surprise that they are somewhat "slow"? Especially when they are starting from scratch within the problem domain?

  19. All of 18th century science? Really? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, how do you solve a cubic? Or grind the lenses for a telescope? Or build a water pump? How do you dress a head wound? Or isolate pure gases? Or calibrate a thermometer?

    If you know how to do all those things, good for you. My point is that a secondary school education in "science" does not by itself provide one with the same understanding as the great scientists who first among all others figured out how to do each of these things.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Or calibrate a thermometer?

      Set the room temperature to 20 degrees, wait, mark off that level on the thermometer. Set the room temperature to 21 degrees....

    2. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 degrees? Let me guess. You're a butcher in a meat locker?

    3. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      Or more likely living somewhere in the world that uses a sane temperature scale, aka Celsius. Which is, you know, EVERYWHERE except the good ol' USA.

      For what it's worth 20 C = 68 F

    4. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      And, what do you propose using to set the room temperature to 20 degrees?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the more accurate question would be, how do you calibrate the first thermometer :)
      (water is your friend!)

    6. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Why is celsius more sane? The freezing and boiling points of water aren't fixed.

      The original fahrenheit scale was a base 12 scale, which divides evenly by many numbers. Same reason there are 24 hours in a day.

      If you want to talk about "sane", use Kelvin. A negative temperature isn't sane.

    7. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just set the thermostat on the central heating system to 20 degrees..

    8. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      But there is a hole in the bucket, dear Liza.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by abqaussie · · Score: 1

      Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fahrenheit may not be insane, but it's a pain in the arse to work with. Any decimal system is just easier for the average person to work with. That this is a result of a cultural bias towards base 10 for mathematics is pretty much irrelevant. If there were a cultural bias toward another base, then that would be the "easiest" base for the average person to understand, as it is now, base 10 wins. Within Western cultures at least, where base 10 is dominant for nontechnical applications like counting. Same goes for measurement in cm vs inches - ask the average person "Which is bigger, 11/16ths or 43/64ths?" and you'll be met with blank stares. Ask the same person whether .688 or .672 (the rounded equivalents of the previous fractions) is larger, and they will answer instantly. And sure you can render inches in decimals, but they don't break up nicely up the scale from inches to feet to miles the same way mm to cm to m to km do.

    10. Re:All of 18th century science? Really? by abqaussie · · Score: 1

      Or more likely just a joke in the bucket?

  20. WWLD? (What would leonardo do?) by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could the emergence interdisciplinary experts lead to another 'renaissance' of sorts?

    Oh, I don't know. If only we had a art history & statistics dual major to figure it out...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  21. Guess he wont be.... by moezaly · · Score: 1

    free after all since he is certain to find a job and thus wont have the time to do this anymore

  22. Eh... by modecx · · Score: 1

    You must be new here?

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  23. Not all of the Top 5 are just Math Nerds by Shazow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The team at the University of Toronto, who are using a neural networks approach, are led by Geoffrey Hinton who has a bachelors degree in experimental psychology.

  24. Not English! by Typoboy · · Score: 1

    Mr Podsnap's world was not a very large world, morally; no, nor even geographically: seeing that although his business was sustained upon commerce with other countries, he considered other countries, with that important reservation, a mistake, and of their manners and customs would conclusively observe, 'Not English!' when, PRESTO! with a flourish of the arm, and a flush of the face, they were swept away. (Dickens. Our Mutual Friend. Chapter 11. )
  25. On the back of giants by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Subjects get so complex and so specialized there HAS to be limits to how many giants a human can climb and still have time enough to become a giant themselves. Abstraction helps to greatly extend this range; the people behind abstractions/simplifications may not be considered giants because they do not produce progress themselves but just facilitate others so they can extend their reach into the unknown.

    There does not appear to be that many 'giant' scientific figures anymore despite the exponential scientific growth. Maybe it is just an appearance and there are more; but are there more proportionally to the number scientists?

    How many big leaps in knowledge have been made in the old fields like physics for example? If the decline does not exist now, won't it exist at some point??

  26. what a fraud by nguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Netflix is paying peanuts to get a lot of research done for them. The people actually paying for this are the tax payers, who mostly pay the salaries of the contributors. And Netflix's conditions under which the prize money will be paid are odious.

    Competitions can be a good thing when there is a reasonable business model attacked to it and if there is a chance of commercialization of a product to benefit everybody. But Netflix wants to own it all for next to no money.

    1. Re:what a fraud by Icarium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh? How does making use of bog standard free market principles constitute fraud?

      Netflix have set out exactly what product they want and the price they are willing to pay. If there are people out there willing and able to supply them with the product at that price, why shouldn't they?

      And government employees doing research in thier own time is not costing you a dime.

      Netflix benefits through a better product offering, thier customers benefit through a better product, and a fair number of contestants benefit (through exposure and experience if nothing else).

    2. Re:what a fraud by oliderid · · Score: 1

      Netflix is paying peanuts to get a lot of research done for them.

      Nobody forced them to participate.
      A team mentionned that they have learnt quite a lot during the contest.

      The psychologist may loose the contest...But the publicity around is priceless IMHO. You would ever heard about him without it.

  27. Re:Domain Knowledge... So, to which occasion does by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    He rise to be a harried Potter?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  28. Almost anonymous? by robhiller · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only one that finds the phrase 'An almost-anonymous British psychologist named Gavin Potter' faintly ridiculous?

    1. Re:Almost anonymous? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      It's an American take on his name - no middle initial, no "Sr." or "III" suffix, there's not much left - hence, almost anonymous...

    2. Re:Almost anonymous? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      American take? Figures.

      --
      - Dan
    3. Re:Almost anonymous? by SuperG · · Score: 1

      That's true. If he was "almost anonymous", I'd hope they'd just call him "Gavin".

  29. The guy has an OR masters by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    According to the Fine Article, This "just a guy" not only is a psychology major, he has an OR (operations research) masters, which is basically applied math : optimisation, statistics, etc. This is just the kind of winning combination for this type of problems.

  30. Well the explenation is a LOT simpler by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Netflix is an american company, that makes me presume you are an american. American's do NOT watch subs, you did. Netflix therefor assumes you like foreign movies. Its programmer did NOT include the option that you were simply a snob. It is an oversight, there are plenty of people who only watch movies from certain foreign countries, but Netflix apparently just considers you as a person willing to deal with foreign languages.

    Oh and you taste is indeed lobsided, I too watch japanese movies, but also those from hong-kong, korea, china etc etc. Granted it is easier if you limit yourselve in some way, but I would welcome a system that would truly be capable of recommending movies of my taste and language would NOT be a criteria I want to be considered. I happily watch a signed movie, with subtitles of course how is that for irony!, if it was the kind I liked. Sadly no such system yet exists (I am not from the US so can't even try netflix).

    You watch the movies to learn the language, fair enough but do you really expect a commercial company to accomodate your needs with a recommendation system? You don't need that you just need a searchable database that records the language.

    A recommendation system is to recommend movies that fit your taste, not an absolute requirement. This is what makes it so hard. Say I like Whispers of the heart, a japanese animated coming of age movie. Should it then recommend to me other anime movies? No. Should it then recommend to me other japanese movies? No. Should it then recommend to me other coming of age movies? Almost! Should it recommend movies that have a similar feel to the one I liked? YES!

    That is why it is so hard. Your requirements are simple and IMDB can do it for you, but recommending a movie based on a list of other movies you like without just listing the obvious is a LOT harder.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  31. Wooosh! by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    I think a few people missed your subtle humor ;)

    --
    I lost my sig.
  32. What would a psychologist know about anything? by ASM65816 · · Score: 2, Funny
    I lost a job because of a bad psychologist report, some lies from workmates who hate me, a 3 page multiple choice test, and 10 minutes talking about my father, and he thinks hes got the right to ruin my career.

    Psychologist: Oh, so the problem with your video delivery service is that it has bipolar disorder, gender-orientation issues, and a reverse oedipal complex with a double backflip and extra chocolate sprinkles. Throw it on the scrap-heap and write a new system from scratch.
    --
    Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers
  33. BellKor do psychology also by locster · · Score: 1

    !news

    I've read some of BellKor's papers and they do infact consider many subtle psychological effects in the data, many if not all of their later improvements have been based on such effects. E.g. Giving later ratings additional weight over older ones - because the ratings to be predicted are more recents ratings.

    This would be news if this guy overtakes BellKor. As it is (A) he actually hasn't come from nowhere, he's been working on the problem for some time, and (B) Just like everyone else he's been benefiting from the reported results of others.

  34. Easy answer that you hate but is still true by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

    "I don't understand why Wired insists on playing along with Potter's pretense of being an "unemployed psychologist". "

    Because that's what he chooses to call himself?

    I'm not really sure why it matters to you or why you think you get to have an opinion on the subject.

  35. Re:Knee-jerk reactions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You specifically asked for the reaction. IMO anyone who ends a post with "yes, I have karma to burn" in an effort to save themselves should be modded as a troll. In any event, what you posted was off-topic philosophical ramblings, and no one has a more inflated sense of their value to the rest of the world than Philosophers.

  36. Re:haha by GregPK · · Score: 1

    Some people have experience in other areas of retail. Companies have entire departments dedicated to Plan-o-Grams, RSP training, floor layouts, display setups. The pay is significantly higher and oddly, those departments don't deal with customers. They should, but they don't... Dealing with customers gives you an insight into how they think and shop. If you can see that, you can increase sales.

    Just so happens, I've worked in all these areas.

  37. This is my emacs ELIZA session by pikine · · Score: 1
    I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

    Well, before everyone gets all in a tizzy,
    Why do you say before everyone gets all in a tizzy?

    let me just say that I'm already on the case to return the favor.
    Is it because you are already on the case to return the favor that you came to me?

    As a mathematician and computer scientist, I'm working on a computer program using some pretty heavy-lifting math to allow people to psychoanalyze themselves.
    You have your mind on computers, it seems.

    I call it the ELIte analyZing mAchine, or ELIZA for short.
    Eliza? Hah! I would appreciate it if you would continue.

    How does that make you feel, Mr. Psychologist Person?
    What do you think?
    --
    I once had a signature.
  38. Re:Knee-jerk reactions by causality · · Score: 1

    You specifically asked for the reaction. IMO anyone who ends a post with "yes, I have karma to burn" in an effort to save themselves should be modded as a troll. In any event, what you posted was off-topic philosophical ramblings, and no one has a more inflated sense of their value to the rest of the world than Philosophers.

    Actually I said that because I knew that insecure people who end up with even the slightest bit of authority (be it mod points, a promotion at work, or even public office) have a deep-seated negative reaction to anyone who questions things at more than the most superficial of levels. This is an irrational reaction, and so it has absolutely nothing to do with the merit or validity of what was said. I'll spell that out for you -- I could be absolutely right or I could be dead wrong, and this one reaction (from those who react this way) would be the same in both cases. I really do have karma to burn, so I was reminding such people that their abuse of the moderation system isn't going to bully me into appeasing their petty insecurities -- insecurities which tend to manifest when they have both an unwillingness to accept what I said and the inability to rebut it. In other words, they're cowards, and I refuse to be influenced by them.

    Thus, it wasn't an effort to "save myself" at all -- you don't thumb your nose at petty insecure people and tell them that you refuse to conform to them without catching flak for it, not in this world. The fact that this abuse was corrected and my post went from -1 to +5 tells me that my real message did not go unheard.

    And I don't understand your characterization of philosophers either. Maybe you haven't noticed, but this world values cleverness only, not wisdom. Cleverness finds new and creative ways to continue down the path that we are on. Wisdom, among many other things, can often suggest that the path we are on (and have invested in) is dead wrong and demands the courage to face this possibility. Therefore, a true philosopher who really questions and challenges things that most people just go along with has to be one of the least appreciated individuals in the world. It should be obvious that it's not something that you do because you need the praise and petty admiration of other people but then, I have always believed that no truly healthy person needs such things.
    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  39. Interdisciplinary collaboration ist the key.... by Wireflyer · · Score: 1

    It's funny how many people actually think it doesn't help to understand human behaviour to predict human behaviour - and you don't need to be a psychologist for that.

    The goal for this competition ist to find a technical solution to a human problem. E.g. Based on algorithms, automatically predict (=technical solution) human preferences in a certain topic (=human problem). So in my opinion it would be best for them to join forces and combine technical prowess and realistic approaches to human behavior.

    Why do you think the two Psychologists Tversky and Kahneman got the Nobel-Prize in economics for their Prospect Theory to predict human decisions in situations that involve risk. There has to be some truth in their approach that the decisions of a human being cannot always be fully explained by rational standards. Why else should the economs have given two psychologists "their" prize?

    It's yet another example why we should lay down our blinders and start accepting that benefit lies in collaboration and mutual understanding of different disciplines. Psychology can profit (and did) from mathematical approaches and AI-resarch can benefit from psychological research.

    Wireflyer

  40. Re:Knee-jerk reactions by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Highly modded contrary views are quite common on Slashdot. Marking one of these posts with "I have karma to burn" is also quite common, and almost always results in a highly modded post. Quite lame. If you don't care about your karma, then don't mention it.