Live data from Hacker News

Personality Vectors (2019)

yangvincent.com

1–10 of 29 posts

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#2
For both personality and preference vectors, it would be great to see data from the data from OKCupid, from its good old days (https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/aapn1l/okcupid_blog_...).

Even more, since for questions there are:

- questions one decided to answer (which says something on its own)

- answers

- declared answers they accept in their partners

- actual partners they pursue (judged by matches, or dates)

While I expect that mostly similarities attract (so-called associative mating), there are compatible traits (e.g one person loves to listen, one person loves to talk), and there is the level of lack of self-knowledge, or hypocrisy (what we SAY we like, vs what we actually do).

And then e.g. probability that person A likes person B can be expressed as:

sigmoid(actualPrefVecA * personalityVecB)

...and with gradient descent magic, we can turn people into vectors!

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#4
It's fun to see folks rederive these things. Multiple arms of psychology have dove deep into this for many years now, including social psychology (individual biases and relationship behaviors), cognitive (modeling decision making processes), quantitative psychometrics (formal mathematical models of how people represent abstract concepts or traits), personality psychology (emphasis on individual differences and patterns), and of course, clinical psych.

Lots of overlap among these, but rather than start from scratch, a bit of reading in almost any of them, perhaps starting with behavioral economics or social psych, might enhance the "vectors".

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#5
I was recently thinking about this, but on a slightly bigger scale.

There’s a term “off-kilter”, which is easy to explain using vectors like this.

If we take the general vector of society, just sum up all personal vectors and normalise, we form a big vector for society. This is what’s “normal”.

Kilter refers to the concept of how aligned we are with society’s vector. So the concept of being off-kilter is how skewed you are wrt this normal vector essentially.

Of course valid for any of the eigenvectors corresponding to subfields again, and this also goes some way to help form the overton window, which has recently been up here in some posts...

It’s a fun sociomathematical formulation.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#6
I have thought of Personality Vectors similar to this concept but for a completely different purpose.

If we had a Chatbot that would interact with someone hypothetically we could have this kind of distinction between Personality Vectors to mutate its own behavior and to interact with others.

Its sort of the idea I had when I watched the movie Interstellar and TARS is told to decrease his own humor. So if the system would just know who its talking to it would create a preference vector for each person it interacts with.

But you would need some kind of baseline so basically the Personality Vectors would be set to neutral. And each interaction with a Personality vector would be a system that stores a preference vector for each person.

As the system time evolves (which is also in the article) you would basically end up with a set of graphs. There is a notion out there which is called a Dynamic Network analysis [1]. If you also stored the history of that you could then not just be able to rewind the system backwards to a previous checkpoint.

The way you could start learning how to learn a personality vector is a reinforcement learning situation. If you say "bad AI I didn't like that" the system would then look at what it said and mutate the preference vector for that person. Or you could just change the vector manually by a technique that was illustrated above by just saying "reduce humor by 70%".

Then you could have model which would do conditional generation [1] of text based upon interactions with others. It would be basically a reinforcement learning system paired with a generative text model. The reinforcement system would store the Personality and Preference vectors for each person. For each behavior and preference you would need a corpus to bootstrap the system. The reinforcement system would be a retrieval network and it would retrieve a pertained system based on user(s) input and get a generational text network to provide a response. This would be similar to Alpha Go's design. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_network_analysis [2] https://github.com/salesforce/ctrl [3] https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/10932/differ...

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#7

I was recently thinking about this, but on a slightly bigger scale. There’s a term “off-kilter”, which is easy to explain using vectors like this. If we take the general vector of society, just sum up all personal vectors and normalise, we form a big vector for society. This is what’s “normal”. Kilter refers to the concept of how aligned we are with society’s vector. So the concept of being off-kilter is how skewed y…

Society's normal vector could be whats off kilter :)

Society feels like multiple interacting vector fields ala magnetic and electric fields. But instead of 2 fields there are probably many...personality, knowledge, energy, needs etc. And you exist as some charged particle (negative or positive?) thrown into the middle of all that dynamic chaos being pushed and pulled in various directions.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#8
post #2

For both personality and preference vectors, it would be great to see data from the data from OKCupid, from its good old days ( https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/aapn1l/okcupid_blog_... ). Even more, since for questions there are: - questions one decided to answer (which says something on its own) - answers - declared answers they accept in their partners - actual partners they pursue (judged by matches, or dat…

Which is all very silly since OKcupid will incorporate dealbreaker questions like “how important is your partner’s religion to you” with ones like “do you like horror movies”, and thus you may end up matching at 90%+ with someone whom you would never consider dating.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#9
post #4

It's fun to see folks rederive these things. Multiple arms of psychology have dove deep into this for many years now, including social psychology (individual biases and relationship behaviors), cognitive (modeling decision making processes), quantitative psychometrics (formal mathematical models of how people represent abstract concepts or traits), personality psychology (emphasis on individual differences and patter…

Rederived from... what? A comfy armchair? The blog post chose to use vector math as its starting point but I’m not seeing any data that validates the approach in anyway, or anything that justifies it besides the assumption that “ You can take preferences and combine them into a single value/point on a vector” - which you can, but how meaningful is it really to say that my “dog preference” is 0.9? Why not model people with irrational numbers, regular n-gons in 24 dimensions, or a directed acyclic graph instead?

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#10
post #8
post #2

For both personality and preference vectors, it would be great to see data from the data from OKCupid, from its good old days ( https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/aapn1l/okcupid_blog_... ). Even more, since for questions there are: - questions one decided to answer (which says something on its own) - answers - declared answers they accept in their partners - actual partners they pursue (judged by matches, or dat…

Which is all very silly since OKcupid will incorporate dealbreaker questions like “how important is your partner’s religion to you” with ones like “do you like horror movies”, and thus you may end up matching at 90%+ with someone whom you would never consider dating.

there was (is?) a simple popular "hack" on their system, which is to only answer questions you actually care about in a partner
Post reply on HN