11–20 of 102 posts
Non-hacking, race & religion in one article, that's got to be a record for flamebait.
It's quite interesting.
I just copy and pasted the image onto the axis. It shows that white and native American males are more likely to get responses than the other races.
http://www.codexon.com/temp/mrr.png
And I wrote a small analysis here if you can be bothered to take a look.
http://www.codexon.com/posts/okcupid-dating-statistics-shows...
Non-hacking, race & religion in one article, that's got to be a record for flamebait.
It's not flamebait at all. The data is all about people's responses to generic questions about what they're looking for in a date. They don't say "I don't want to date Muslims" and have that reflected in match scores. The match score is based on things like "I hate people who squeeze the toothpaste from the middle." It's quite interesting.
There is a massive pre-selection problem here (people that frequent dating sites, rather than people in general) and the link to 'hacking' is a very tenuous one.
I've seen Michael Jackson referred to as a hacker here, so I probably shouldn't be too surprised.
This is not a hack, this is some statistical analysis with input data of dubious value, pretty pictures and all, drawing conclusions that are completely off the wall.
"Jews and Agnostics get along better with people"
"Muslims of both sexes and Hindu men get along worse"
"Catholics are more universally liked than Protestants"
Please, if that isn't flamebait I really don't know what is.
Where are the control groups, where are the standard deviations and so on.
Effectively this is a dating advert for programmers.
This is infotainment at it's best, statistical noise at its worst.
Really-really interesting. I'm curious why asian females scored worst of all when asian males scored descent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not flamebait at all. The data is all about people's responses to generic questions about what they're looking for in a date. They don't say "I don't want to date Muslims" and have that reflected in match scores. The match score is based on things like "I hate people who squeeze the toothpaste from the middle." It's quite interesting.
To put data based on 'race & religion' out in the open to me is already a thing that is not excusable (besides the lousy definition of such things as race and religion, both of which are floating, not discrete). There is a massive pre-selection problem here (people that frequent dating sites, rather than people in general) and the link to 'hacking' is a very tenuous one. I've seen Michael Jackson referred to as a hac…
That said, "is it hacking or not" isn't really a terribly interesting meta-discussion to have, imho, so I'll try and go in a different direction.
Please, if that isn't flamebait I really don't know what is.
The data appears to support the assertions you are calling flamebait. Provided their algorithm for calculating likeability actually works, then the data does support the assertions[1]. (This is all, of course, within the context of the pre-selection you noted in your post).
[1] Note that the assertions are of the form "Members of Set X are more likeable to members of Set Y than members of Set Z". If the assertions were "Being a member of Set X makes you more likeable to members of Set Y", they wouldn't necessarily be supported by the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. The matches are based on answers users give to questions (both site designed and user designed). When the blogger says they don't match, it means: - Person A: I like X - Person B: I don't like people who like X Where X could mean ice cream, god or tooth-brushing. It has nothing to do with people selecting the race or religion of the people they think they want to date.
Yeah, but if Hindu men like ice cream, and I don't want Hindu men, I might not like men who like ice cream either because a) it's what Hindu men do, or b) I don't like people who like ice cream to begin with, and I don't like Hindu men for that reason. So it's not totally unrelated.
I liked this on a few different levels: -Hacking data to reveal the answers to important difficult questions. -Exploring contentious issues in a neutral & intelligent way. -Great example of how to attract potential customers by providing valuable information that also gently demonstrates competence related to your service & differentiates your offering from competitors. I enjoyed reading this, I learnt something, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put data based on 'race & religion' out in the open to me is already a thing that is not excusable (besides the lousy definition of such things as race and religion, both of which are floating, not discrete). There is a massive pre-selection problem here (people that frequent dating sites, rather than people in general) and the link to 'hacking' is a very tenuous one. I've seen Michael Jackson referred to as a hac…
I'll agree that it's not a hack - that doesn't, in my mind, preclude it from being hacking. They're two different things. For me, anyway, playing with giant data sets does not fall into the first group, but does fall into the second. That said, "is it hacking or not" isn't really a terribly interesting meta-discussion to have, imho, so I'll try and go in a different direction. Please, if that isn't flamebait I really…
The way it is presented right now is as if simply the size of OkCupid and their data gathering methods give them the license to make this kind of claim.
It's 'interesting' but not 'rigorous'.
The three I listed above are particularly galling, I really don't think any computing algorithm can give someone license to make the statements listed above (and as an atheist I have no dog in that fight), but without proper methods it's even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but if Hindu men like ice cream, and I don't want Hindu men, I might not like men who like ice cream either because a) it's what Hindu men do, or b) I don't like people who like ice cream to begin with, and I don't like Hindu men for that reason. So it's not totally unrelated.
But is there anything you can replace "ice cream" with to make it a workable example? What _real_ questions are you likely to see this kind of Hindu-Hindu antimatching behaviour on?
Really-really interesting. I'm curious why asian females scored worst of all when asian males scored descent.
The differences on the race graph are so small as to be insignificant.
If you want a more interesting result, take a look at my other comment for a diagram that shows response rates between different races. It illustrates a greater schism that one would come to expect.
