3 ms·

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 d

by gloob 17y ago

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 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.

jacquesm 17y ago
If you're going to make this kind of generalizing statement about large groups of people I simply think that you have the responsibility to do it properly, so with control groups and so on, or not at all, otherwise the results are totally meaningless. 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.
- pyre 17y ago
  > It's 'interesting' but not 'rigorous'. Of course it's not rigorous. To some degree people interacting with OKCupid's site are a self-selecting bunch. You really need to take this at face value. This is just a blog post showing some number crunching on their site. There are no sensationalist headings like "Muslim Males the Most Hated Group of People." Keep in mind that this is also not a scientific journal, not peer-reviewed research... nor is it claiming to be.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It's way past my bedtime here, and judging by the moderation I'm not able to make my point, which is simply this: If you are going to be making sweeping statements about people, even including race and religion then you really should do your homework, or if you're doing it out of curiosity, keep the results to yourself. By presenting the data in a format that looks as though very hard work went in to its creation and by hammering home the reliability of that data you are creating the illusion of something that is scientifically solid when in fact it isn't.
    - ilyak 17y ago
      I disagree, the data was very interesting and it would be pity if they didn't release it.
      - kelnos 17y ago
        I agree, I'm glad to get the chance to read about this stuff, but I think the PP's point was that if you're going to present a bunch of data in that manner, it's best to say, up front, something like, "our sample, while extensive within our service, is not necessarily representative of particular ethnic groups," and point out something akin to what slashdot says about their polls: you're insane if you intend to do anything serious with this data.
- kscaldef 17y ago
  I think that you're assigning more meaning to the words "like" and "get along with" than the authors intend. Pretty much everywhere they use one of those phrases it should be qualified like "X _say they_ like Y". But that gets tedious, and I think the authors are also making the assumption that you were paying attention when they explained where these numbers come from. Note that the end of the article is leading directly into the objections that people keep making along the lines of "this doesn't mean that these people really get along in real life", and the conflict between what people say they are looking for and the choices they actually make about who to contact and respond to.

by gloob 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

If you're going to make this kind of generalizing statement about large groups of people I simply think that you have the responsibility to do it properly, so with control groups and so on, or not at all, otherwise the results are totally meaningless. 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.

pyre 17y ago
> It's 'interesting' but not 'rigorous'. Of course it's not rigorous. To some degree people interacting with OKCupid's site are a self-selecting bunch. You really need to take this at face value. This is just a blog post showing some number crunching on their site. There are no sensationalist headings like "Muslim Males the Most Hated Group of People." Keep in mind that this is also not a scientific journal, not peer-reviewed research... nor is it claiming to be.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It's way past my bedtime here, and judging by the moderation I'm not able to make my point, which is simply this: If you are going to be making sweeping statements about people, even including race and religion then you really should do your homework, or if you're doing it out of curiosity, keep the results to yourself. By presenting the data in a format that looks as though very hard work went in to its creation and by hammering home the reliability of that data you are creating the illusion of something that is scientifically solid when in fact it isn't.
  - ilyak 17y ago
    I disagree, the data was very interesting and it would be pity if they didn't release it.
    - kelnos 17y ago
      I agree, I'm glad to get the chance to read about this stuff, but I think the PP's point was that if you're going to present a bunch of data in that manner, it's best to say, up front, something like, "our sample, while extensive within our service, is not necessarily representative of particular ethnic groups," and point out something akin to what slashdot says about their polls: you're insane if you intend to do anything serious with this data.
kscaldef 17y ago
I think that you're assigning more meaning to the words "like" and "get along with" than the authors intend. Pretty much everywhere they use one of those phrases it should be qualified like "X _say they_ like Y". But that gets tedious, and I think the authors are also making the assumption that you were paying attention when they explained where these numbers come from. Note that the end of the article is leading directly into the objections that people keep making along the lines of "this doesn't mean that these people really get along in real life", and the conflict between what people say they are looking for and the choices they actually make about who to contact and respond to.