Categories
okcupid PUA

Dating by the Numbers: Why “hacking” OkCupid is a waste of everyone’s time

This data point is an outlier.
This data point is an outlier.

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.

700 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Kiwi girl: thanks you for the detailed explanation of what he did. Really sheds light on how skeezy what he did was.

Do you teach? I ask because how you explained things made it clear to me, and I understand very little about this stuff.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

And of course, the prerequisite whinging that women have it so much easier in the dating field because the get so much attention:

Basically, it changed his OKCupid usage pattern as if he was an awerage woman (like being able to get up to two dates a day). Sooo creepy.

Note that the ” awerage” woman can get up to two dates a day!

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

@hellkell: I’m not employed as a teacher, but I have been training people on various aspects of statistics and statistical interpretations for a number of years. My brain understands things from a practical “why do I want to know this?” angle, so that is how I do my training. I’ve also done some small amounts of remedial teaching to failing first year statistics students. I really believe that most people aren’t stupid, it’s just that they haven’t had [insert statistics method here] explained in a way that makes sense to them, or in a way that’s relevant to them so they can go, aha!

I’m a very visual learner, so I try to grab very descriptive examples to illustrate points. But I went through a number of years thinking I was very slow at particular things – when it was simply the teaching method that was the problem – so I empathise with people who think they’ll never grip something up.

tl;dr thanks for the compliment.

Brooked
Brooked
10 years ago

@shayla

I figured his version of Webb and the “Canadian girl” stories were BS.

When death threats, virulent denouncements and extended hysteria are involved then expressing concern over a backlash is very justified. As far as I can tell the worst thing that happened to this guy is people have called his OK Cupid “hack” creepy and unethical in a perfectly reasonable manner. That’s why I’m bugged by Shadow’s moral outrage over his treatment.

When people discuss and express criticism over his methods and motives, it’s not a backlash and he’s not a victim.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

Here’s a nice graphic about whether a person should google *one* other person, let alone data scrape multiple people’s information, which goes some way to explaining creepiness:
http://www.thedatereport.com/dating/communication/heres-a-flowchart-to-figure-out-if-you-should-google-that-person/

Brooked
Brooked
10 years ago

@Kiwi Girl

Your analysis and explanations of his methods have been pretty fascinating actually, much better than the Wired puff piece. Thanks!

However, I stand by my original statements about the cat photo above and will go to the mattresses to defend it.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

@Brooked LOL, so long as the mattress is ON THE BEACH (as kitteh pointed out) and your apartment has lawyers and doctors living in it, the cat won’t care.

I’m so under the paw in my household that one of my cats (the youngest, who still plays up to being “the baby”) has developed a distinctly “no, mummy” meow when I do something he doesn’t approve of at the time. Mr Kiwi finds it hilarious.

vaiyt
10 years ago

99 out of 99 data points can’t be outliers, by definition.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

@vaity: point!

I just thought of an analogy for the method he used. Say I asked you to go to Toys R Us and group all the toys into at least three groups. But you cannot use “I would like this toy” and “I would not like this toy” in your decision making for your groups. You could use colour, intended age range for the toy, whether it makes a noise or not, whether it needs more than one person to be involved in order to be fun, whether it needs batteries, and so forth. You decide your attributes for the decisions, but can’t be on the basis of “I like”.

After you sort all the toys, you then go through each group and look at them to see which group contains the toys you would most like. You use the shared attributes in this group to define your toy preference.

Do you think all the toys you would like, would be in that group? Or would some toys you would like also be in other groups?
Do you think that the group that you choose would contain all the toys you would like?

If you know what you prefer in a toy, why would you group them using a method that actually ignored your preferences in toys?

Do you think I can get a funding grant so that we can try this out for reals?

LBT
LBT
10 years ago

I’m actually less creeped out by his changing around his answers (though that still seems a helluva lot of work for a trivial, creepy thing) than I am the botting.

Like, if I were on a dating website, the whole reason I’d talk to people is to get to know them. I’d find the whole fudging answers creepy, but I’d be WAY more upset over finding out dudes were sending me bots. DUDE. Do you give a shit or not? (Well, obviously this guy did, considering the man-hours he put in, but JESUS.) If I wanted to talk to robots, I’d go through another round with the disability folks.

I would not want to date someone who was just bot-spamming everyone. Spamming and botting is gross and obnoxious. What the hell.

Also… sleeping on his desk? Putting aside his dissertation? Seriously, all that alone is making me give dude the side-eye.

Robert
Robert
10 years ago

I am imagining the fallout if a woman had done the same thing (botting OKCupid), had gone on ninety first dates, et cetera, then had it written up in Wired.

my guess is she’d have to go into the Witness Protection Program due to the death threats.

kittehserf
10 years ago

It seems that he was just trying to get more matches and his algorithm was set up to agree with things he may have had a more neutral feeling about so it didn’t matter to him much. That’s not really the same as lying

It is as far as I’m concerned. If he didn’t care about a subject I cared about a lot, but said he did because he fancied a date, he’s lying. He’s also a fucking idiot, because odds are the subject will come up in conversation, and his little pretence will fall down.

This Chris fellow sounds like a Nice Guy who gets put in the Friend Zone a lot. Poor Chris! Fortunately, he managed to hack the esoteric mechanisms by which a Nice Guy can get a date with Women, those strange things from planet Venus. Now far less women will want him in their Friend Zone!

::snicker:: He’ll end up in the Permanently Invisible Zone the way he’s going!

You mean cats aren’t supposed to have standards as long as you act nice at them? What do you think they are, pet animals?

Shhhh, letting people think they’re just pets is part of their world domination strategy.

Generally, my reaction to Mr Maths Genius? Contempt. Any chance of OKCupid sueing his ass off?

Dan W
Dan W
10 years ago

I think this guy deserves some slack. For me, the only way to find out if you have a connection with someone is to head out and actually talk…in person. He wasn’t getting enough actual dates out of his profile, so he mixed it up and got a lot of dates. He still had to go out and make a real impression, and he presumably accepted (or delivered) the verdict regarding the “one-date only” women with a modicum of grace, so in the end, what’s creepy about this?

I haven’t read all the comments, so if this has already been shared my apologies, but there’s an old Ted Talk about this:

Love the site, hope everyone is enjoying the Olympics!

Argenti Aertheri
10 years ago

Kitteh — it doesn’t quite work like that, you can’t say how much your answer matters to you (which is really annoying). There’re three parts to each question: your answer, what answers you’d accept, and how important it is that they put one of those answers. So if he doesn’t actually care if, say, she’d date a smoker, but his desired cluster (ugh) is full of people who would, instead of saying that how she answers is irrelevant he’d say that it’s mandatory that she put yes, she’d date a smoker. That make sense?

To whomever it was who thought the match %s were different for them and you — if you read their explanation of how that’s calculated, they take those two numbers and multiply them to arrive at the %s you see. I’m not 100% sure that method means that you and them see the same number though.

Argenti Aertheri
10 years ago

Seeing how I can test that, I just sent a message doing so. I’m been talking to someone on OKC who reads manboobz sometimes so I asked if the numbers are different, we shall see!

kittehserf
10 years ago

Ah, okay, I was thinking of different types of subjects, too, like politics or whatever, apart from not knowing how the questions are framed.

Kim
Kim
10 years ago

With the percentages being different thing, I thought I had done that with a friend and we had different %, which is why I said it. But my memory is not to be relied upon, so it’s good that you’re testing it properly 🙂

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

@ Kiwi Girl

Not only was your flow chart link useful, it also led me to the show below, which will keep me entertained for a while and will be shared with many friends. So thanks!

(So NSFW – it’s a show in which random gay dudes try to make straight porn actors come by blowing them. While the actors are standing in a box.)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12x3hw_poko-x-tate-orgasm-wars-av-actor-sawai-vs-takuya_fun?start=23

Bina
10 years ago

Anyone else in love with the cat profile David found, with that amazing street shot of the cat. So debonair and self-assured. *Swoons*

I’d pet that.

Falconer
10 years ago

rotating your pictures?

No, no, no, it’s not your pictures you’re supposed to rotate.

http://youtu.be/9hBpF_Zj4OA

Argenti Aertheri
10 years ago

My reminder to rotate my African violet actually says “rotate your owl” XD

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

Should I feel sorry for the owl?

kittehserf
10 years ago

cassandra, just watched that clip (with the sound off, don’t want Mum wandering over to see what it is) – hilarious!

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

I was starting to worry that I was the only one here who found that kind of thing funny.

katz
10 years ago

I think this guy deserves some slack. For me, the only way to find out if you have a connection with someone is to head out and actually talk…in person. He wasn’t getting enough actual dates out of his profile, so he mixed it up and got a lot of dates.

You can decide that you’d prefer to go on lots of dates with people you might be less compatible with, and you’re welcome to message women with low match ratings and see what happens.

But by gaming the system and making it appear that he’s a better match than he really is, this guy is denying the women the chance to make that same decision. From the women’s perspective, it looks like he’s a legitimate good match (and they probably don’t know about his flak-cannon approach, either). So he’s getting a bunch of dates with women, many of whom probably only wanted to invest the time and money of a real date with someone that they thought they were really compatible with.

1 5 6 7 8 9 28