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.
I’m happily partnered and don’t use dating sites (plus I don’t live in the US) so I don’t have a kitty in this race, and I read this as a fucking guy who feels entitled to do whatever he wants, with the end justifying the means.
It sure as hell sounds like pseudo-mathematical game. And I saw pseudo, because he fiddled with his clusters rather than doing any sort of machine learning improvement.
The Wired article is written by someone who doesn’t understand the first damn thing about maths, or stats, or even freaking programming. It’s like 50 Shades of Python.
*…say pseudo…*
You’d think Wired of all magazines would be able to find a writer who knows how to math.
It would be really interesting to get a female machine language programmer/journalist to do a write-up.
@Kiwi Girl, “incidental personal use” of computers/networks/peripherals is okay by UC policy. This is really a good thing (i.e. there are better grounds to criticize OP on).
Ewww, in public?
What kind of fucking idiot…how is it contentious that convicted sex offenders should have to disclose that if using dating sites?
Oh, and clustering – the results can strongly depend on the particular clustering method used (there are quite a few) as the first result tends to be the exemplar (i.e. the most different to the other clusters’ exemplars) and then each cluster builds based on inter-cluster and intra-cluster distances. Each clustering method has its strengths and weaknesses.
/sigh and rolls eyes It’s another “worship at the altar of naive machine algorithms” piece that focuses on *omigosh BIG DATA* and ignores anything associated at the science. It’s a breathless gush over him botting a website, faking his profile preferences (but mathematically based on clustering results, so that’s fine), and look pretty graphs.
http://simplystatistics.org/ has had some great posts on why BIG DATA still needs appropriate statistical treatment, an aspect completely ignored by the fawning Wired item.
Cloudiah — agreed but I would think incidental means email and online games, not something requiring that much processing power.
You know, I’d say that BIG DATA needs more analysis that little data, just because with small enough data sets you can sorta eyeball trends. Totally not a statistical method, but can help give you an idea where to start.
@cloudiah, botting and crunching “6 million questions and answers from 20,000 women” possibly is a bit outside of incidental personal use. And I have criticised the OP on other grounds too. As I have said before, I think this behaviour is unethical, and I find him creepy due to what he’s done.
Yelp, that’s an average of 300 questions per woman. Seriously? Or do people answer subsets of those 300 questions?
This thread is missing something… like a recipe! I’ve been craving these, so off to find some vegetarian short pastry so I can give them a try:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/collections/recipes/fly-cemeteries
And here I was thinking they were Cornish, all this time.
Last post from me, and … he’s written a book for sale on Amazon called “Optimal Cupid: Mastering the Hidden Logic of OkCupid” published 4 days ahead of the Wired item.
Marketing.
He’s creepy, but given the overall processing that is going on at the UCs this is kind of a drop in the bucket. I just think there are better grounds for criticizing him. (I am saying this as someone who’s had to spend time defending people using UC’s processing power for decent if not UC-endorsed ends. Given what I’ve seen, more transgressors “mis-use” that processing power for interesting/decent purposes than for creepy purposes.)
So just a PUA-via-maths type, really.
Blech.
@Kiwi Girl
There are thousands of questions, most of which are user submitted. But there are a bunch of questions (300 does sound right for those) which are from the creators of the site, and they are presented first, so most people answer those. It’s really easy to sit there and answer loads of questions without even noticing how many there are.
@Kim, thanks for the explanation. It sounds like a looooooooong Myers-Briggs test with the added bonus (!) that you get creepers hitting on you.
Hee.
I would just like to say, that at least two of you have dirty minds!
You just noticed? 😛
A guy found a way to improve his matching chances. He went on a lot of first dates. He He didn’t present himself to be something other than what he was.
So big frigging whoop.
Where do you guys get the right to call this guy entitled, creepy etc.
There has never been this sort of backlash against Amy Webb, who basically did the same thing. Or for that Canadian girl who went on loads of dates just to get free dinners. So what are we looking at here?
**A guy found a way to improve his matching chances. He went on a lot of first dates. He didn’t like some, some didn’t like him. He says he didn’t lie about his answers. He didn’t present himself to be something other than what he was.
I’m just glad I don’t have to date anymore. The technology seems to make it even more tedious and exhausting than it used to be.
Shadow Nirvana perspicaciously points out that we have violated the cardinal rule of discourse: Any disapproval of a man must be accompanied by an equal or greater disapproval of a woman.