Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Personality Vectors (2019)

yangvincent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#21

Post by stared »

GuiA wrote: post #18
stared wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now the match % is close to useless, see: https://twitter.com/pmigdal/status/1268959822378082304 It used to be much more informative, especially as the answers are weighted. Of course, a much more informative approach would be to use update weights from data. Also, when it comes to your example: - I know people with a deep believer and a lukewarm one (I don't take for granted that it is a more important questio…

Online dating stands on its own in that it is a very front loaded experience in terms of getting to know another human - the judgement begins much before any interaction occurs. That is not the case in any sort of similar degree when you meet someone say at work, or in a sports club, or even in an online game or internet forum. And as you point out, that makes the notion of a dealbreaker a fairly nuanced one - e.g. I…

I think you summarized nicely on-line vs off-line dating. And yes, look at online dating only one can tell the (online) preference vector.

Also, it is not only about personality. People make much stronger judgments on someone's else appearance: https://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-...

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#22

Post by timwaagh »

thesehands wrote: post #15
Der_Einzige wrote: post #11

It'd be nice if vector based approaches (think MBTI tests being originally created using PCA) would use state of the art dimensionality reduction techniques instead of stuff from the 70s so that way each vector actually matters and explains far more variance in the data. If you need interpretability just use an autoencoder or simese network instead of PCA. This way the new "personality" vectors are highly meaningful…

This is what the mypersonality dataset collected on Facebook was. The 5 axes of OCEAN - Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism for all those who took the test.

thats called the 'big five' test and is the most standard way to test personality for psychologists. its been in use in job assesments since forever.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#23

Post by TimJRobinson »

Interesting article, and good timing - A few days ago I wrote about how we can build decentralized social networks where you can filter your world to see content from those with similar personality vectors to yourself - https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#24

Post by aeonneo »

undoware wrote: post #17
platz wrote: post #12

> You can take these preferences and combine them into a single value/point on a vector. No, you can't. Also, people don't have "preferences" in the way the article posits

This. Honestly, this article is fascinating to me for reasons that might discomfit its author. Not that ignorance of the last 300 years of philosophy on this topic is something necessarily to be ashamed of, but this essay, and the reaction to it here, is of interest to me because (a) this is not an empirically-validated, or even merely well-argued, approach to reasoning about people, but (b) seems to be thought well…

Hey! So full disclosure, but I'm the author of this. I thought you might enjoy a discussion I had on this on reddit as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/h05n0j/personal...

I fully admit I know nothing of the actual research in psychology/related fields, and this is just my current understanding built up from when I was a kid (completely anecdotal). I'm primarily interested in people's thoughts in general (both good and bad) as well as where I might be able to improve my understanding with the research that's actually been done.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#25

Post by aeonneo »

platz wrote: post #12

> You can take these preferences and combine them into a single value/point on a vector. No, you can't. Also, people don't have "preferences" in the way the article posits

Hm. What if we said that "these preferences exist and theoretically could be mapped to a vector", but also acknowledge that we're impulsive and won't ever actually be able to rigidly identify our own?

"Preferences" here might be more accurately stated as tendencies with some motive.

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#26

Post by aeonneo »

stared wrote: 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…

Whoa, these are some great ideas

You might enjoy https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-01296-001 (taken from the comments from the same post but on reddit). tl;dr: proposition that social relations follow a logarithmic trend

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#27

Post by aeonneo »

mwexler wrote: 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…

Hey! Full disclosure, but I wrote this -- do you have any specific papers or notable people in these fields you'd recommend as starting points?

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#28

Post by currymj »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #11

It'd be nice if vector based approaches (think MBTI tests being originally created using PCA) would use state of the art dimensionality reduction techniques instead of stuff from the 70s so that way each vector actually matters and explains far more variance in the data. If you need interpretability just use an autoencoder or simese network instead of PCA. This way the new "personality" vectors are highly meaningful…

You know throwing a neural network at things doesn't just magically make them better... lot of advantages to linear techniques... not even clear that there's enough structure in a big 5 questionnaire to benefit from a fancy NN... also dubious that autoencoder features are particularly interpretable...

Re: Personality Vectors (2019)

#29

Post by photonemitter »

op03 wrote: post #7
photonemitter wrote: post #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 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.

normalized, not normal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_vector)

theoretically if you add the value-vector of all people together you end up with a long vector that represents the direction of society (even the opposing ones), and you can then normalize this to have the unit vector of society. i.e. what is the "direction of society".

Your skew wr.t. this one (inner product with, or projection on to this) will be some number between -1 and 1 (if we account for opposition I guess)

Basically if both vectors are of unit length, you get the cos(angle between). Completely off kilter would be a score of 0. While "opposed" would be -1

Post reply on HN