Slashdot Mirror
Python Scripting and Analyzing Your Way To Love
fiannaFailMan writes "Wired reports one mathematician's mission to find love online by data mining from OK Cupid and applying mathematical modeling to optimize his profile(s). His methods included using 'Python scripts to riffle through hundreds of OkCupid survey questions. He then sorted female daters into seven clusters, like "Diverse" and "Mindful," each with distinct characteristics.' But the real work began when he started going on dates."
Slashdotter has vivid coding dream in Mom's basement and find love.
"But the real work began when he started going on dates."
All 88+ of them.
I mean, I'm glad it can do almost anything, but I'm still waiting for import antigravity to work properly.
I am officially gone from
I watched a TED talk about someone who did something similar.
http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_w...
Well, there's the step I never get to.
Hope he finds love but worried what the kids will turn out like if this works!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
So the real thing here is that someone needs to be building a dating website for nerds (assuming it's not already happened).
Start with the proposition you've got a pool of educated individuals working in STEM-type jobs, and go from there. Then you at least know you're working with a pool of people who might have some chance of being interested in your collection of Star Wars figurines, or who want to debate the relative merits of Jar Jar as a character.
Because, really, if you tell the person you're on a date with that you used Python scripts to categorize people into several containers ... you're not gonna get a second date, and the one you're on might end abruptly as the awkward silence turns into thoughts that you might, in fact, be some kind of creepy stalker.
BEGIN NERD VOICE
I've done stochastic analyses of your responses to questionnaires and exhaustively compared your responses to other women on this site, and I calculate there is an 45.2% you might like me. You're the highest score yet!
END NERD VOICE
Really, don't be that guy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Even with the women in question also choosing him on the basis of his tailored responses, he's simply increasing the sample size (i.e. the number of first dates) he gets, without really addressing the quality of the data - how closely the women match him in reality and vice-versa.
One of his descriptions in the article "star signs and all that crap" (or words to that effect) indicates that he still hasn't really "got" the women in the database. By dismissing what they consider important in a profile (the "crap") he's not helping himself. Maybe he should have turned around his search. Instead of hacking his profile to get more matches, he should consider modifying his personality to be more attractive to what the larger numbers of women feel they want in a man.
But I guess to a techie, every problem has a technical solution. No doubt all the first-date restaurants will thank him for his patronage and his (later, but maybe not much later) divorce lawyer will also be suitably grateful.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
So far no results for me. They all seem to want "rich, handsome guy who loves to travel."
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
That's closer to reality than you think. In my own searches, every single woman wanted a guy who was between 5'8" and 6'2". Every...single...one.
Even though Howard wanted to say "mumbo jumbo"
At 5'4, I'm screwed. As an additional bummer, I prefer to date women shorter than me... Luckily, I'm perfectly happy with my 5'2 girlfriend.
Or... a non-prince charming is with a beautiful woman who should be waaay out of his league who simply loves him.
It's not a rational situation, but it can still definitely be true.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Saw this article just after reading this one:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/...
It's Irish for, and I quote, "a bunch of stuff".
I am officially gone from
Yeah, your 3.14 inches.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Same here. Congrats. And you suck. ;-)
Just the headline reminded me of a story I read a couple of years ago. That site needs registration but he also posted it on a site which does not. 99 First Dates. Hilarious.
Warning - Adult Content if you worry about that kind of thing.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Maybe if he showed more interest in potential partners and less interest in python scripting he'd actually get a date!
Finding true love is really nothing more than matching your personal with either the same or a complimentary crazy in someone else. Wearing your crazy on the first date is risky, but reduces wasted time on those who are incompatible with your personal brand of insanity.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1) Categorize women into 7 categories. That looks to me to be valuable, but the article did not discuss all 7 categories. It ignored the only interesting thing this guy did!
2) Set up multiple profiles and use machines to initiate action with thousands of potential women.
3) Went on hundreds of dates in a relatively short amount of time.
His 'success' was statistically insignificant AND totally unrelated to his math. Anyone that goes on hundreds of dates and find the right woman.
You want to impress me? Have the algorithm pick 5 women and have them all be very interested in you. Picking 100's of women with lots of failed dates is just a NORMAL DATING LIFE.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Whilst what he did was very clever, at the end of the day he manipulated the scoring so that his profile was placed in front of thousands of womens search results because it had a high match percentage (that normally would never have been seen).
The TL;DR version of this story is that if thousands of women see your profile and, at the same time, are told by a website that you're a high match to them, then you've got a very good chance they'll contact you. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
That, to me, is the digital equivalent of (the old advice) that you'll never meet someone unless you get yourself out there.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
BBT is reasonably funny for a sitcom, though it is getting stretched thin. If you don't find it funny, the stereotypes which form the basis of the jokes are probably hitting to close to home, or you aren't comfortable with your own interpersonal shortcomings. You should work on that - laughing at yourself is the first step to being a happy person. And, lets face it, we're all laughing at you anyway; you may as well join in.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
every single woman wanted a guy who was between 5'8" and 6'2".
And I want a woman who isn't fat, doesn't freak out every time they get their period and don't use the "reality" shows as a template for how to live one's life.
Looks like we're both out of luck.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I’m sorry to inform you that he has been taken in by unsupportable mathematics designed to prey on the gullible and the lonely. The only way this will work is if will be blackmailed with a hidden dirty sock.
They always start out with an super-long, totally unreasonable requirements list that includes stuff that's totally irrelevant to any imaginable scope. Through hard work and negotiation and development of what you initially bring to the table, you need to bring down the client's impossible functional specification to something workable she can reasonably be satisfied with (also beer helps). It's called "game" for a reason.
Same here. Congrats. And you suck. ;-)
Wait... there's a category for people who are looking for *that* on okCupid?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Testosterone is not a bacteria. There is no rational or bacterial reason for me to jerk off. Genetic preference for youth, beauty, symmetry, etc. are indicators of health and fertility for humans, not bacteria.
What is interesting is that men are less choosy than women. The breeding strategy of the ape female is to select the highest quality mate, due to gestation duration and childcare costs on her existence. Meanwhile the male reproductive strategy is to sire as many offspring as possible. So, just randomly assigning the guy a date most often will work fine so long as the gal is into him.
However, boredom is becoming a significant risk to long term relationships. Primitive mating drives have fuck-all to do with divorce rates.
You forgot "honest". A lot of pleas for an "honest" man. "Honest" about what?!
But the real work began when he started going on dates
You bet. He'll prolly even have needed a second or third job to finance the dates.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I was cheering for you with the "women are not objects" point of your post, and then you just had to go and assume that he's the one paying. Because it's the man's job to pay, right?
Nevermind that any man that pays for his date off OKcupid on the first meeting is an idiot. Go dutch until she proves she's not just there for a free meal with company...which sadly, many are (mostly the "I don't want to waste a lot of time exchanging messages" types who also put little or no effort into filling out their profiles.)
Please help metamoderate.
Being a well-rounded individual is of greatest importance in finding other people interesting. One may be deeply knowledgeable in some arcane technical art, but if one's interests extend no further, then it is unlikely that any others will share them. Having narrow interests is essentially the same as having no interests in terms of defining a shallow personality.
However, the idea of disdaining human contact and focusing instead on art or artifice is not necessarily a bad one, and may indeed be a path to greatness. Whereas love, with all its many splendors, has rarely led any man towards any particular glory. Acquiring deep technical knowledge is not necessarily inherently antisocial, but it is generally so, and few enough of the fairer sex seem willing to trade society for whatever intellectual pleasures may be had in apexes of expertise. For whatever reason, although native ability is blind to sex, these extremes seem to be the province of the onanistic male. Being deeply invested in technical pursuits myself, and thus perhaps more indebted to the solitary savant than most, I can find no grounds to criticize the results.
You are dismissive and lack compassion. Few if any would consider themselves to be tedious or boring, certainly not any man with any measure of intelligence. It is rarely appropriate to judge others for life choices such as this, if indeed it can be considered a choice, and in this case disdain betrays only a lack of understanding. For my part I hope that you both find happiness, wherever you seek it.
As you said yourself, if the only reason people liked beer was for the alcohol, they would be better off with distilled spirits. Beer comes in all sorts of varieties and it is quite fun to sample and find your favorite. The same can be said of wine, whiskey - or for that matter coffee or tea if that is your preference. If people disagree with your preference, that is normal and just means you are dealing with flavor.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
that should be "...via pheromone markers"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not all of us who likes technology/science are stereotypical nerds. And that show was pretty thin from the beginning, not that funny, not worth wasting the time watching.
The article mentioned more than once that he answered his profile questions honestly; he just used statistics to figure out the target pools he was interested in and which survey questions they answered.
He said he honestly answered his survey questions, it was just a question of which survey questions to answer for the basic grouping of women he was interested in.
Pheromones are not Testosterone. Testosterone is not a Bacteria. I'm sure if you spend more than 30 seconds, you might find more things that are not bacteria. Notice that I'm not making the point that Bacteria give you the URGE -- I'm making the point that between suitable women; bacteria are influencing your choice.
I think a lot of addictions that are currently being blamed on genetics, will be found to be caused by bacteria. They influence our level of Serotonin as 85% of this is stored in our stomach lining.
There's valid evolutionary reasons why bacteria might tweak the proclivities of their hosts. Fruit fly studies are showing that gut bacteria may actually be producing pheromones that influence which mates they choose -- and I'm supposing that higher life forms that think they are very rational, are only slightly more thoughtful about mating than fruit flies. It would explain the bar scene, at least.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Are we absolutely sure where pheromones are being produced, or has everyone just ASSUMED they are produced by human sweat glands -- or is it the bacteria in the glands? The basic chemicals are not going to distinguish one human from another -- so why have pheromones at all if they are NOT distinguishable?
The sebaceous secretions themselves consist mostly of lipids such as squalene and other esters. When degraded by enzymes of bacteria naturally present on human skin, free fatty acids result, including those that smell hircine and are generally regarded as unpleasant. The most prominent examples of these hircine fatty acids have the general formula (CH3(CH2)nCOOH) and are called butyric acid (n=2), caproic acid (n=4), and caprylic acid (n=6). http://www.anapsid.org/pheromo...
Ipso facto, they are distinguishable by some genetic marker, protein, or some unique substance carried by the aromatic base.
I contend, that it isn't necessarily the poor performing human olfactory system creating that "magic feeling" but is actually bacteria picking up on the sebaceous secretions and tweaking our dopamine and epinephrine levels to get us to "hook up" with a useful colony.
Now there is a lot of evidence that a "high testosterone filled kiss" by a male is what helps sweep women off their feet -- usually requiring saliva. But again, it's also another vector for the savvy Bacteria to subtly manipulate their human ecosystem.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I was surprised no one from OKC was interviewed to get their interpretation of what he did.
Based on what I read, he didn't game the system in a dishonest way. All he did was try to figure out what groups of women he was interested in and what survey questions those groups answered, and then tailor a profile for each group so that he answered the same questions they did to increase the match potential. It said more than once in the article that he answered the survey questions themselves honestly, it was just a matter of knowing what question to answer.
It's only gaming the system if he was dishonest with his answers or if there's some value placed on what questions you answer versus what questions you don't answer -- like some psych survey that gives you 50 questions and tells you to pick 10 to answer and your "score" is based on both your answers to the questions AND what categories or other qualities are assigned to the questions themselves.
Anyway, I would think that if OKC was honest about this they would think of his work positively -- if the goal is to actually put people together for dates, his system actually improves on what they do now.
Although part of me wants to think that OKC or any other dating site actually has a reverse incentive; if the site results in easy, long-term matchmaking it results in reduced user pools and lower ad revenue (or subscriptions for paid sites). Their actual incentive is to keep users on the site for as long as possible, with just enough success to hold their interest but not enough success for them to leave the site.
What I find somewhat ironic, though, was how actually unsuccessful his actual dating was, and the article seemed to gloss over these details. Partly his categorization seemed problematic (East LA artist types) resulting in geographic problems, and maybe part of it was he just had bad dating skills (drinking, etc).
Find a way to work all that into a trashy romance novel, and I'll read it!
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
88 dates means all his silly math failed. I'll guarantee you the average person doesn't go on 88 dates to find someone to date more than 3 times. It's wonderful he found someone, but the process sounds like it had a negative impact rather than a positive one.
I did the online dating thing. The one thing it made me realize is that most people don't know how to describe themselves in a profile. There's also something completely ineffable about dating. OkCupid probably sorts out some really bad matches between political opposites, but that's about it.
AccountKiller
Well, I'm not a phermone-focused biologist, but I'm fairly certain that we know that at least many of the primary pheromones are in fact produced by our own bodies. And no there's not a lot of individual variation in a lot of pheromones, but then most relevant phenomenal information doesn't vary much between individuals either: I am fertile. I am strong. I am healthy. etc.
Briefly skimming the paper you linked it sounds like he freely accepts that other animals use pheromones, and that humans seem to have a number of structures specialized for the production and efficient dispersal of the same. In fact his only argument against human pheromones as an important signalling method seems to be the fact that we can't smell them, which completely ignores the fact that there's extremely limited benefit to consciously recognizing such scents. Smell is tightly wired into the so-called "reptilian brain" (I forget the technical term), much more tightly linked than any other sense. But the "reptilian brain" is not associated with conscious thought - it does its job without us ever being aware of it at all. If a woman is in heat it doesn't benefit me to consciously smell that fact, simply having my perceptions biased to find her more attractive accomplishes the same end result. And once the sense-data has biased my behavior appropriately there is no benefit to passing it further up the chain of command to levels where the conscious mind has the option of noticing them.
Basically your whole argument seems to take the extremely bizarre perspective that humans don't actually use pheromones, but our personal microbial ecosystems do, and they attempt to manipulate us into acting for their benefit. Now I have no complaint with the second claim, it seems entirely reasonable, but has precisely zero bearing on whether or not humans use pheromones directly. Given the body of evidence in existence suggesting that we do, you'd need some extraordinary evidence to have that claim taken seriously.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I can have a partner and several other partners at the same time, I don't have to be a prick for it, just a nice guy with common interests in a women-dominated pool.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
A friend of mine once told me about optimal stopping theory.
He said if you could go on 100 dates,
and had choose to one to marry,
and you had to make the decision after a date,
and without being able to choose a previous date,
when should you stop.
The answer for some sample size 'n' is to automatically discard the first n/e dates.
Then choose the first date that is better than the best one already seen.
100/e is 37.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...