Just when you thought it was safe - OK CUPID PART 3: The Return of the WOO!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (8415 of them)

Bah. So did I.

― marvin wang (marvin wang), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

The relevant page, post email provision (http://www.okcupid.com/signup) is down. Maybe if they fix it I can refresh the page later.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Still don't know what I got the first time, but I did it again and only got 38% correct, which is appalling. So I did it again, trying to go more for the obvious choice this time, and got 71%.

It says: "In general, males are about as good as females at spotting virgins. But females almost always guess correctly with female pairs."

Unless my logic is skewy, surely this also implies that men alomst always guess correctly with male pairs, unless they instead make up all the ground by getting much better scores in the mixed pair ones, which would be very odd.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I think I fucked up the first time by assuming that dumpy, unattractive teenage girls were actually quite promiscuous, as a means of making themselves feel better about themselves, or as a product of sexual abuse. I now feel ashamed of this strategy.)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

Alba, your logic is wrong - all that tells us is that women must be rather less good at anything but female pairs, and it certainly doesn't imply what you infer.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 24 July 2004 19:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

But how do the two sexes end up being about as good as each other overall? There are only three sections to the test - m/m, f/f and f/m. They must be losing ground to the men on one of the sections other than f/f. If it's f/m, then as I said, that's weird. If it's m/m then then male contestants must be, as I said, as good at that as the female ones are at f/f.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:09 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I'm struggling to articulate why I can't countenance the possibilty that they would be better at f/m and the same as men at m/m. I guess that's where I'm stepping out of strict reason)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

Hang on, now I'm confused.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

you're not alone.

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh. I confused myself by making a typo - in the post three above I mean "I can't countenance the possibility that they would be worse at f/m and the same as men at m/m."

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

I've played around with some examples of possible averages and see my logic was indeed skewy. For a 70% overall score, it could be:

Women

f/f = 90
m/f = 75
m/m= 45

Men =

f/f = 68%
m/f = 75%
m/m = 67%

Which would be mean men are better at spotting m/f than either m/m or f/f. Hmm.. that would also be weird. Other combinations I've tried result in both sexes being bettter at spotting female virgins than male ones, which seem noteworthy enough for them to put up on the website.

Can you come up with a set of average scores that fits what we know without any interesting implications at all?

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

I always spoil everything.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 21:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

ihttp://www.okcupid.com/profile?pic=0&tuid=8878330946154156249

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 22:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ew. I can.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 24 July 2004 23:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

is that the Joker?

― dog latin (dog latin), Sunday, 25 July 2004 00:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12703610378878205705

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=1366843686365106737

haha

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 08:49 (8 years ago) Permalink

My username is lixenixen, and right now I'm scared of logging in to OkCupid, because I haven't checked it for a few days, and now I fear there's yet another bunch of messages waiting for me, and I have to reply them all, because I feel like a bad person if I don't reply. I'm such a wuss!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:55 (8 years ago) Permalink

On the positive side, lately I've been chatting with this Irish girl who plays in a punk band and seems very nice.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

radcliffy = oxbridge

I still don't get this... Could someone please explain it to this poor foreigner?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

okay... I'm FrancesBean with an incredibly obnoxious photo.

― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oxbridge = Oxford and Cambridge. The elite of British universities. Traditionally deemed snobby as well as brainy.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I knew what Oxbridge meant, but I didn't know it could be used as an adjective. So "radcliffy" = "snobby and brainy"?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

Well it isn't really a fully functioning adjective, I suppose. You'd have to say something was 'a bit Oxbridge' or 'Oxbridgey' rather than 'it's Oxbridge'. I never knew the word 'radcliffy' before, btw, so I don't know how close the comparison is. Is radcliffy a bit 'preppy', 'WASPy' or 'Ivy League' too?

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's in the okcupid glossary, anyway:

radcliffy

adj. Consisting of the broad range of personality traits normally associated with Harvard girls.

Bob's organized, ambitious, and smart. I wish I were more Radcliffy like he, because I can't get a job at Morgan Stanley. He needs to fuckin' loosen up, though

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 16:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Aaron, you're supposed to woo a person.

I don't like this new layout. The most off-putting part is probably the "Real Friends: None (0)" part. Sheesh.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

OH MY GOD. MY SECOND LOCAL MATCH IS THIS GUY:
http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12237521857448720993

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

holy crap.

― teeny (teeny), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

that dude is how I imagine nickalicious.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

I was gonna just copy and paste part of his rhyme, but then I clicked on his whole profile and the landscape of awful just expanded and came into total view and I just put the link there.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry dude.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Everything about that profile is really fucking funny, except the bits where he raps.

x-post.

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

He's more Republican
He's more capitalistic
He's more socially conservative
He's less thrifty
He's more loving
He's less energetic
He's less ambitious

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

He's more Republican
He's more capitalistic
He's more socially conservative
He's more loving

OMG teh oxymoron!11

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

I like how he couldn't be bothered to rhyme the films.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Roxy, he sounds like a treasure. Why resist?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

But his final words are these:

You should message me if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can appreciate this bizarre social experiment.

Plus he works on the computer field, and has kids. So it's prolly just a joke.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ooh. That ruins it.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

I thought he was really a terrible conservative white rapper!!

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 22:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

Just to link this thread to the other ones:

OKCupid.com, Pt.2- Afterparty! Hotel lobby! REMIX!

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 22:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

A woman I was chatting to (and according to her getting on well) deleted her profile rather than continue.

The punchline, of course, was that her profile said she was looking for someone "who could be honest with (her)".

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Monday, 26 July 2004 08:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm embarassed! I actually mailed one of my matches because he banged on about Richard Feynman and drinking gin... AND HE HASN'T REPLIED, OH MY LIFE, I am that Interweb Nutter, dear lord, help!!

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

Welcome to my world, starry.

― Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

I mean!! I was bored! I wasn't like, hitting on him or anything!

Loads of you haven't even filled in any information, come on, that's the most interesting bit, not your moody rubbish photos, ch.

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

there needs to be more cutting involved in the profiles.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

No no, I never hit on anyone, I just like to talk. I've made a couple of nice friends on there but mostly I find people don't bother to reply even to the most politely worded messages. Very strange.

― Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

did you put "a polite notice" as the subject line?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:10 (8 years ago) Permalink

I tried something like that once. Now I usually just go for "a story about my brother peeing on me".

― Bryan (Bryan), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

there needs to be more cutting involved in the profiles.

true - only about 70% of the profiles I look at involve self harm in the "most embarassing thing you'll admit" section.

― dog latin (dog latin), Monday, 26 July 2004 09:13 (8 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 8315 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

They'd probably just tell me I should be nicer or have long hair or something. I can get that from other people I don't like irl.

― Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:17 (2 days ago) Permalink

Right. That, and you'd have to go on more than a handful of dates w/ more than a handful of people to get meaningful data. xp

― Je55e, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:18 (2 days ago) Permalink

that's why it just seems like mean torture to me

― free your spirit pig (La Lechera), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:18 (2 days ago) Permalink

the premise of that site reminds me of the ibanker dude who went out on one date with a girl and then kept on emailing her for 2 years afterwards saying stuff like "you kept on touching your hair so that meant you were really into me, why won't you respond to my emails?" etc.

― 乒乓, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:19 (2 days ago) Permalink

who goes out on a date to be a test subject to improve somebody's further dating? yeah sure if you like each other, get together again, but that really looks like an afterthought here.

― goole, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:20 (2 days ago) Permalink

i wonder if they have testers who go out and are really good at collecting details (and possibly recording them on trips to the bathroom) and then they give that raw data to a machine/robotic human who analyzes the data and writes the report zagat-style

― free your spirit pig (La Lechera), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:22 (2 days ago) Permalink

'i don't really wanna get into a lot of long email exchanges, let's just meet'

feeling this

but then again I don't-remember-what-comedian said a date proposal is translated as "What do you want to do, first?"

― ballin' from Maine to Mexico (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:22 (2 days ago) Permalink

You "seemed uncomfortable" and "touched [your] hair very little" and therefore did not signal interest sufficiently.

― free your spirit pig (La Lechera), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:23 (2 days ago) Permalink

Honestly the concept kind of appeals to me - maybe since I tend to think I do everything wrong haha - but the comments on that article point out exactly how awful this would be. Focus-grouping for people, sample size of 3. We have enough bland people on dating sites already.

― Vinnie, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:33 (2 days ago) Permalink

terrifying

― j., Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:43 (2 days ago) Permalink

http://deadspin.com/5910779/24+year+old-finance-guy-asks-all-his-dates-to-complete-a-creepy-survey-afterward

― stefon taylor swiftboat (s.clover), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:35 (2 days ago) Permalink

― mookieproof, Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:21 (1 hour ago) Permalink

Hahahahaha.

― Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit), Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:30 (55 minutes ago) Permalink

remdinding you of your negative traits in order to turn you into a nervous wreck while dating is what family and friends are for

― should we bin tapping? (darraghmac), Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:33 (52 minutes ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.