[stared]

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 dates)

While I expect that mostly similarities attract (so-called associative mating), there are compatible traits (e.g one person loves to listen, one person loves to talk), and there is the level of lack of self-knowledge, or hypocrisy (what we SAY we like, vs what we actually do).

And then e.g. probability that person A likes person B can be expressed as:

sigmoid(actualPrefVecA * personalityVecB)

...and with gradient descent magic, we can turn people into vectors!

[GuiA]

Which is all very silly since OKcupid will incorporate dealbreaker questions like “how important is your partner’s religion to you” with ones like “do you like horror movies”, and thus you may end up matching at 90%+ with someone whom you would never consider dating.

[stared]

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 question than if someone enjoys horror movies),

- for important matters (e.g. whole conservative-religious-right-traditional) it is not a single answer but many, many.

Also, usually, there are much fewer deal-breakers than one initially states (vide https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_datin...). Again, looking at data (vs assuming what is important) would be a big deal.

[GuiA]

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 might tell myself that I would never date someone who doesn't want kids because I do want kids, so why would I waste my time? On a website that shows these preferences, I will likely not engage with profiles who mention that they don't want kids, and ignore their messages.

But of course when the new guy shows up at work and he turns out to be really cute and interesting, I may be interested in him/we may start a romantic relationship before these preferences become apparent.

Which can then go in any number of directions - the relationship might fizzle out really fast. Or it may engender personal change for the partners. Or it might lead to many decades of bitter resentment. Who knows! This could make the rational argument that one should accept to chat with anyone on a dating profile regardless of their displayed preferences, but of course that's not how humans tend to reason.

[stared]

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-...

[sixhobbits]

The horror movies one was found to be the best predictor of a successful relationship one actually :)

> Rudder even pinpoints the two OkCupid profile questions that best predict a couple's longevity if they both answer the same way: Do you like horror movies? And, have you ever traveled to another country alone? [0]

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/heartache-by-the-numbers-and-o...

[Palomides]

there was (is?) a simple popular "hack" on their system, which is to only answer questions you actually care about in a partner

[aeonneo]

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