= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on What are you learning? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (126)
Did you optimize your match score? 81% doesn't sound a lot. You can increase your visibility without reducing your honesty by applying the techniques of this guy:
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/
Note that you don't need to scratch OKC. Just apply adaptive boosts (weigh safe bets higher) and don't answer ambiguous questions or questions where you expect mismatches (except if they are important for you).
This brought me out of the ~70% range into the >95% range without any lying.
Apparently, it boils down to visibility. Answering the least amount of questions that are compatible with the class of women that you are interested in while still maintaining high match percentage. (Apparently each answer is a potential mismatch) This supposedly leads to a high match which means you will turn up in their searches more often. Then visiting thousands of profiles. (The example used a script to do it automatically.)They will see that you visited. Some will be intrigued enough to visit you back, of those, some might send a message. It is probably worth it to send a message to visitors anyway.
Yes. One could summarize it that way.
Clicking thru profiles didn't net me any messages though. Probably not enough as there are only a limited number (~10 >95%) in my vicinity. But I did get nice messages from three 99%-matches across the globe.
I have answered 500+ personality questions, avoiding those with badly designed answers and those that are too saucy. The website says my highest possible match is around 99.7%.
And your highest match in your area is?
There are a couple of 96%.
I think that article describes an approach that's not-exactly-honest. Also, note that while he had lots of dates, most weren't very good. He was genuinely reducing the quality of his matches.
A milder, one-account approach is probably reasonable.
Well. Yes. But then I'd guess that most dating by many people is not-exactly-honest.
I don't think so. I put significant thought into estimating how many dates (by my current measure conversions with >1000 words count as dates) are needed to find someone who clicks (meaning emotional response/infatuation). The OKC questions only ensure lifestyle-compatibility but not physical attributes and 'chemistry' which are mostly orthogonal. Thus one doesn't get around the 25-100 needed dates (except if you accept non-clicking).
I agree.
Just take a woman who's vegan and has a principle not to be in a relationship with any person who eats meat. Take a new atheists and a believing Christian.
I personally don't really believe that "clicking" is mostly a matter of matching but a process of a mating procedure.
If a human goes through a certain process he feels an emotional response. That process is not easy to engineer. However in the somato-psycho education there are a bunch of practitioners who feel more physical intimacy (=chemistry) with their clients than the feel with their romantic partners.
Practically for myself opening up myself and not screwing up somewhere along the process is a lot harder than creating initial "chemistry".