Is there no problem out there that can’t be solved by SCIENCE? Apparently not. Indeed, it has recently come to my attention that one heroic nerdy dude actually used MATH to get a girlfriend. No really, an actual girlfriend. As in, a living human female that he’s seen naked. (We can only presume.)
Wired magazine found the story so astonishing that they devoted an entire 3000 word feature to it.
The piece tells the tale of Chris McKinlay, then a grad student in mathematics at UCLA, who went searching for love on OKCupid, a dating site that uses daters’ answers to various questions, ranging from silly to profound, in order to calculate a “match score” that supposedly measures your compatibility with a potential date. But McKinlay wasn’t getting as many dates as he wanted.
So he decided to “reverse-engineer” OkCupid. As McKinlay — ever the romantic — explains on his own blog, he used his mathematical skillz to analyze the “high-dimensional user metadata in [the] putatively bipartite social graph structure [of] OkCupid,” and adjust his own profile accordingly.
Basically, he crunched a lot of numbers to figure out how the kinds of women he was most interested in — in particular one data “cluster dominated by women in their mid-twenties who looked like indie types, musicians and artists” — tended to answer questions. And then he fiddled with his own answers — and his choice of which questions to answer — so he would score higher match percentages with them. Ta da! Suddenly he had more matches.
He claims not to have answered any questions dishonestly, but as Wired notes “he let his computer figure out how much importance to assign each question, using a machine-learning algorithm called adaptive boosting to derive the best weightings.”
It doesn’t take a math degree to figure out that fudging your answers so they’re more like those of the women you’re targeting will make it look like you’re more like them. You can pull this same trick in real life by pretending to agree with everything a person says.
But you don’t have to be a psychologist to see that doing this kind of defeats the purpose of OKCupid’s match algorithms in the first place. You’re creating the illusion of chemistry where there may be none. Essentially, you’re cheating, but in a really self-defeating way.
And by focusing so intently on statistically crunchable data, he also ignored a lot of the more intangible “data” that the profiles provide if you actually sit down to read them. The numbers don’t reveal anything about a person’s verbal charm, or their sense of humor. They don’t tell you about the interesting little details of the person’s life.
As Katie Heaney notes in a Buzzfeed piece on McKinlay’s strange quest:
[M]uch of the language used in the story reflects a weird mathematician-pickup artist-hybrid view of women as mere data points … often quite literally: McKinlay refers to identity markers like ethnicity and religious beliefs as “all that crap”; his “survey data” is organized into a “single, solid gob”; unforeseen traits like tattoos and dog ownership are called “latent variables.” By viewing himself as a developer, and the women on OkCupid as subjects to be organized and “mined,” McKinlay places himself in a perceived greater place of power. Women are accessories he’s entitled to. Pickup artists do this too, calling women “targets” and places where they live and hang out “marketplaces.” It’s a spectrum, to be sure, but McKinlay’s worldview and the PUA worldview are two stops along it. Both seem to regard women as abstract prizes for clever wordplay or, as it may be, skilled coding. Neither seems particularly aware of, or concerned with, what happens after simply getting a woman to say yes.
And that’s where McKinlay’s system seems to have fallen down entirely. Though Wired is eager to present his “hacking” as a great success, it took McKinlay more than 90 dates — 87 of them first dates with no followup — before he found his current girlfriend.
In other words, his wondrous system produced a metric shit-ton of “false matches” and wasted a lot of people’s time, including his own.
And in the end it wasn’t his data crunching that brought his girlfriend to his door; as Wired notes, she found him on OKCupid after doing a “search for 6-foot guys with blue eyes near UCLA.” Happily for him, McKinlay already matched her preferences in these areas. In addition to appreciating his height and eye color and location in physical space, she apparently was also charmed by his cynical approach to OkCupid dating, so maybe they are a match made in heaven, if not in his data crunching techniques.
While McKinlay was going on first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date after first date, people I know have found wonderfully compatible matches — and long-term relationships — through OkCupid without having to date dozens of duds along the way.
How? Partly because OkCupid’s match algorithms led them to some interesting candidates. But mainly because they read profiles carefully and looked for compatibility in the words, not the numbers.
Actually it’s worse than that. It’s like accidentally choosing chunky instead of creamy peanut butter because someone deliberately switched the labels because they wanted to make you buy chunky.
And, to add another layer, they switched the labels with the intention of eventually consuming you (in a metaphorical sense).
Titianblue, I stand (well, sit) corrected. Thanks for the catch! I thought I had made that implication, but I’m glad for the clarification.
I hate when things are labeled incorrectly, because someone likes to mess thing up…
🙁
I see I replied too soon.
We have a metaphorical cannibal seasoning people by messing with their peanut butter labels…
… can I say “Eep!?”
Why no love for chunky peanut butter? I don’t like the smooth stuff, it’s too… boring.
I’ve never actually had peanut butter as a spread, at least not since childhood, only as something added into candies.
Yay me!
I don’t remember doing that.
I actually prefer chunky peanut butter – I find the smooth too cloying. But then I like crushed rather than creamed mashed potatoes. Make my food life lumpy & textured, I say!
Bummocks, the strikethrough element of the Firefox HTML toolbar failed me.
I actually prefer chunky peanut butter – I find the smooth too cloying. But then I like crushed rather than creamed mashed potatoes. Make my
foodlife lumpy & textured, I say!Oh, for a whole two comments I wondered what a food life was, and decided it was exotic with tropical fruits. And maybe pina coladas and now I have that damn song in my head. And… back to OKCupid thoughts.
What does one do with peanut butter in candies – peanut brittle?
Peanut butter cups mostly, in my case.
“They did have agency. However, they also had unequal information; namely, they had access to compatibility scores that were skewed towards more ‘compatible’ by his strategic choice”
IMO this is “unequal information” on the same level as finding out that a person actually looks worse IRL than on his/her carefully selected photos.
Y.
@agency: Whil trying to get the irony in http://manboobz.com/2014/02/07/dating-by-the-numbers-why-hacking-okcupid-is-a-waste-of-everyones-time/comment-page-5/#comment-417630 I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29#Human_agency – sorry for confusion.
At least the photos do actually show the person. Providing incorrect information to question importance weightings means *giving different information*.
You might have (!) had a point if:
1. people put in photos that were the exact opposite of them with respect to important attributes
*****************AND**********************
2. the compatibility algorithm took photos into account.
Because both of these are *not* true, your analogy fails.
It is *not* the same, QED.
Wow. I’m pretty shallow, and even I wouldn’t put “person looks a bit older/heavier/not as great in strong lighting than they did in their photos” in the same category as “totally incompatible due to trying to bypass screening questions”.
There’s also some important gender stuff that’s not being talked about here in that some of the OKC questions that women often mark as high importance are the ones designed to weed out would-be rapists and abusers. If there’s any possibility that he fudged those answers, that’s very serious indeed, and in a totally difference category of misrepresenting yourself than picking the most flattering photo you can find.
If you look significantly different from your profile photos, that’s dishonest as well. Not sure why you think anyone here is denying that.
Also, Yzek, your horrible grammar is apparently contagious, and for that reason alone I’d rather you find somewhere else to troll.
There is a difference between “a bit” and significant as well, which is why Cassandra’s comment doesn’t contradict mine. If he had changed his compatibility scores “a bit” rather than significantly, he wouldn’t be getting articles about him.
Yep
I am -.- at skeevy men coming here to mansplain how the dude wasn’t being skeevy. Because apparently being skeevy isn’t a thing, it’s just something that our ladybrains all coincidentally agree on for no reason at all. True facts.
It did that to me, too! Way to fix it, if I can remember Myoo’s advice: go to Tools – Add Ons – Extensions and in the Text Formatting one, go to Options and tick Use Systematic HTML (it’s down on the left of the box).
mildlymagnificent – yup, you get the credit! I think we having one of our “stop complaining our weather’s worse than yours” conversations. Must have been in summer. 😛
Kiwi girl – it’s like how creepshaming is TEH WORST and nothing can compare with it for awfulness and humiliation.
It’s just more of the same “women don’t get to have boundaries, and if you think you do let me splain why you’re wrong” crap.
It’s like peanut butter having the nerve to hide itself on the top shelf.
The funny thing about that is that I often just stand on a lower shelf when I want to get something from a high one I can’t reach in stores, and I’ve had dudes get annoyed and ask me why I didn’t just ask them, like I was insulting them by working around my lack of height rather than looking for a big strong man to help me.