The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions • Hacker News Board

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#111

Post by najirama » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 3:20 PM UTC

najirama wrote: post #95

natrius wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have said several times that I'm not talking about discrete classes, yet you insist on arguing that point. I do not think that race can predict whether someone is lower, middle or upper class. I do think that race can predict income. I don't understand why you continue to tell me what I meant by class when I have told you what I actually meant three times . I understand the data completely. The family of four examp…

[Edit: 'its' changed to 'opposite' for clarity, 'there' to 'their'] 1. "I have said several times that I'm not talking about discrete classes, yet you insist on arguing that point." Regardless of whether or not you meant to be "talking about discrete classes," you were. Socio-economic classes ARE discrete classes. So if you are talking about some other type of class, it is a mistake of comprehension on your behalf. 2…

Though it is tangential at best to this discussion, let me say that I find it absolutely hilarious that in this thread and the one above it, I have written provably true statements and have been down-modded, whereas the people who I have been responding to have written provably false statements (outright contradictions!) and have been up-modded.

If the point-system rewards shallow group-think, and punishes truth - 'What is the point of it?', I must ask.

Heck, this has now become my new standard for judging content quality - let me see how many provably true, on-topic things one says in a thread, so that their score drops below unity.

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#112

Post by Mz » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 3:25 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #109

Mz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(It would be a pretty strange mutation if you didn't have that bias.) Humorously enough: I have one of the most common white genetic disorders on the planet. It is homozygous recessive, so daddy has to contribute a gene for it to be passed on. The odds of someone who is neither white nor ethnically Jewish carrying the gene are substantially lower than the odds of a white man carrying it. I have tended towards getting…

...It might be awkward to ask someone to have a DNA screening at the point when dating got serious, but it might also be worth your time.

A) I'm not asking for advice, just sharing something I found humorous in the context of the remark made.

B) If you will notice, I said nothing about dating. I don't date. I don't plan on having that change.

C) Given that initial testing failed to turn up my mutations, that my diagnosis (of a mild variant of the condition) is new-ish and was quite cutting edge when I got it, that they keep finding more mutations for this condition, and that I have spoken to a number of people who had to be retested after more mutations were identified to finally get theirs properly cataloged, I am of the opinion that DNA testing can confirm someone is a risk but cannot prove with 100% certainty that someone is "safe". Therefore, a bias towards men who are not of predominantly white European genealogy may be the only real insurance that can be had.

D) The answer "I've had a vasectomy" works just fine for me. I am 44 years old and have serious health issues. So I have no specific plans to have more children. But my first child was not planned either and I am not past menopause. Sh*t happens. That's the piece that concerns me.

But thanks for talking to me. That's almost always a Good Thing. :-D

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#113

Post by TheSOB88 » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 3:31 PM UTC

One of my friends, who is black, says he avoids black women due to the way they act. Perhaps this has something to do with it?

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#114

Post by _pius » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 3:47 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #102

_pius wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment essentially said: "black women are fatter than white women, which is why they don't do as well on OKCupid." That doesn't strike me as particularly serious or valuable, especially when a quick look at the OKCupid methodology would have ruled it out immediately.

The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. In this case the rationale was voiced, considered and then rejected - all correctly. If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless? This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)

Heh, surprised that pointing out a dumb comment is gathering such a firestorm. Nothing against yummyfajitas but yes, this was a dumb comment: linking to some data doesn't change that one way or another.

The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it.

True. The problem is that if you're going to make an inflammatory argument, people are going to expect it to be well thought out. This particular one wasn't. Backing up one of your premises with data doesn't make the conclusions any more valid.

To me, the comment was so obviously flawed and inflammatory at the same time that it looked like nothing more than a troll, implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat. Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.

If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless?

Clearly not equally valueless, but still pretty dumb, given the reason above, and equally inflammatory.

This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)

I agree.

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#115

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 4:18 PM UTC

_pius wrote: post #114

ErrantX wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. In this case the rationale was voiced, considered and then rejected - all correctly. If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless? This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)

Heh, surprised that pointing out a dumb comment is gathering such a firestorm. Nothing against yummyfajitas but yes, this was a dumb comment: linking to some data doesn't change that one way or another. The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. True. The problem is that if you're going to make…

I freely admit, I should have gone back and reread OKCupid's original post. I didn't, and that's my mistake.

But I'm really curious about something. You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#116

Post by _pius » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 4:28 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #115

_pius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, surprised that pointing out a dumb comment is gathering such a firestorm. Nothing against yummyfajitas but yes, this was a dumb comment: linking to some data doesn't change that one way or another. The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. True. The problem is that if you're going to make…

I freely admit, I should have gone back and reread OKCupid's original post. I didn't, and that's my mistake. But I'm really curious about something. You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?

You say that if OKCupid had not filtered their data for attractiveness, my comment would still be "pretty dumb". Could you explain why?

Sure, here's the one reason I referred to:

Think about the argument for a second: it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.

For instance, your explanation that black women are more obese than white women doesn't explain why black women do worse than latinas.

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#117

Post by ErrantX » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 4:41 PM UTC

_pius wrote: post #114

ErrantX wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. In this case the rationale was voiced, considered and then rejected - all correctly. If OKCupid had NOT filtered for that data would you consider the comment equally valueless? This is a triumph of the scientific process IMO :)

Heh, surprised that pointing out a dumb comment is gathering such a firestorm. Nothing against yummyfajitas but yes, this was a dumb comment: linking to some data doesn't change that one way or another. The great thing about hacker news is that people aren't worried about voicing ideas backed up with data - even if in wider society you'd probably get denounced for it. True. The problem is that if you're going to make…

> The problem is that if you're going to make an inflammatory argument

It's not really inflammatory. The statistics say black women are generally more obese. It's just another suggestion for the difference in responses (which has been established as being wrong for the statistics OKCupid are using - it could still be generally accurate..)

> implying that OKCupid is censoring the real reason for the apparent bias against black women on the site: they're just fat.

Nah.. I can't see any suggestion that OKCupid was censoring information? I think he means the blog post this links too.

Also: there is not implication that "they're just fat". Apparently statistically Black women are more obese than White women (I assume those are US stats); it's a reasonable suggestion that the OKCupid community mirrors wider society.

> it claimed that a pairwise comparison between black women and white women could explain black women's poor response rate as compared to all races. That doesn't make any sense.

Well we are mostly comparing this to the response rates of white women (at least that's how I am reading all of this) so I see no problem in the conclusion. White women have the highest response rate so it makes logical sense to use them as the comparison point. If we want to consider other races, such as Hispanic, then, yes, we would need the data for them too (who knows; it could match or it could mismatch - therein is the beauty of statistics).

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#118

Post by natrius » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 5:58 PM UTC

najirama wrote: post #111

najirama wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Edit: 'its' changed to 'opposite' for clarity, 'there' to 'their'] 1. "I have said several times that I'm not talking about discrete classes, yet you insist on arguing that point." Regardless of whether or not you meant to be "talking about discrete classes," you were. Socio-economic classes ARE discrete classes. So if you are talking about some other type of class, it is a mistake of comprehension on your behalf. 2…

Though it is tangential at best to this discussion, let me say that I find it absolutely hilarious that in this thread and the one above it, I have written provably true statements and have been down-modded, whereas the people who I have been responding to have written provably false statements (outright contradictions!) and have been up-modded. If the point-system rewards shallow group-think, and punishes truth - 'W…

I think you were downmodded because you were consistently arguing against points I explicitly told you I wasn't making. You are not some sort of martyr for truth.

You also tried to use the model of class to prove that people with vastly different incomes behave the same. You cannot prove with a model without proving that the model is accurate. The model you're using is wrong.

As I said before, I was never trying to appeal to the model of class anywhere in this discussion. I asked you to pretend I said socioeconomic status instead so we could stop arguing points I never made, but you wouldn't do me that favor.

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#119

Post by gruseom » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 6:09 PM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #96

gruseom wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lost me when I noticed they were mucking around with chart axes to make effects look more significant than they are ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1065203 ), surely the oldest trick in the book. Besides that, the posts can only count as pseudo-scientific in the absence of the data being available for review. But such criticisms do kind of miss the point, which is that this has been very effective marketin…

What's wrong with 'mucking around' with chart axes? Scientists do that all the time, because effects are often hardly visible with 'normal' axes and you have something you wish to make clearly stand out. Skipping part of an axis and changing the scales is a normal, even required, thing to do.

Really? Because it's also a notorious way to distort data. It sounds like you have more experience with this than I do, but I'm puzzled by the contradiction here. When is it a normal, even required scientific technique and when is it the oldest "how to lie with statistics" trick in the book?

Re: The Black Damsel In Dating Distress: A Response to OkCupid's Conclusions

#120

Post by Confusion » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 7:51 PM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #119

Confusion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with 'mucking around' with chart axes? Scientists do that all the time, because effects are often hardly visible with 'normal' axes and you have something you wish to make clearly stand out. Skipping part of an axis and changing the scales is a normal, even required, thing to do.

Really? Because it's also a notorious way to distort data. It sounds like you have more experience with this than I do, but I'm puzzled by the contradiction here. When is it a normal, even required scientific technique and when is it the oldest "how to lie with statistics" trick in the book?

OK, that's an interesting question. I guess it depends on the audience. When your audience is scientifically minded, they will know how to interpret your axes and understand why you made a certain choice. They might criticize you for it, but you know such a choice will be scrutinized, so you won't try to deceive them. When your audience consists of less numerically literate folks, you have to be careful with your axes, as you make something appear more interesting that it actually is. If I take a graph from a scientific presentation and use it in an article for lay people, I'm not trying to trick them, but it may appear as such. I guess it's a fine line between making the interesting bits stand out and making bits stand out to make them seem interesting.