Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3064
|
flyboy10 wrote: Alienturnedhuman, you WERE on a TV show about speed dating weren't you!? Well it wasn't really about speed dating, it was about the science of dating websites and dating algorithms.
It's a couple of years now, but the story is quite entertaining with how it worked out:
I follow the mathematician who presented the show on Twitter, who I had seen a few lectures (on YouTube) where she spoke about the mathematics and game theory - and I had a few questions about flaws in her analogies, but was pointless raising them in the YouTube comments section... because it's the YouTube comments section.
Anyway, she posted on Twitter that she was doing a show about the science of dating and they needed volunteers to be matched so they could be used to demonstrate the different theories. I saw an opportunity to meet her and talk to her, so signed up, but because it was happening in London assumed I probably wouldn't be picked.
Anyway, 2 weeks before filming I get an email explaining that I have been selected, and their algorithm has found everyone a good match. So I turned up at the address - some nightclub in the middle of London - and there is a queue of people waiting, at the back of which is a group of young 18-21 year old girls all seemingly chatting. I quickly enquire if it's the correct line, and then patiently wait. Some people people turn up, ask me if it's the correct line,
I confirm, they look closer to my age so I ask them how they found out about the show. They say it was advertised on the BBC London website. I say "Oh,
I found it because I follow Hannah Fry on Twitter"
They say "Who's Hannah Fry" but the girl ahead of me in the queue (who it turned out was nothing to do with the 3 or 4 young girls all chatting) says "Oh I follow Hannah Fry, that's why I'm here"
Turns out she's a doctor of Mathematics from UK university (I'll call her M from now on), and she had seen the same tweet and thought it would be an interesting opportunity to meet her, as well as being a bit of fun. We end up chatting the different mathematical theories from her lectures on the game theory behind dating and wondering what they will test us on in the show.
They start letting people in to the night club, and we see they have to sign the standard NDA form, as well as getting a different coloured bracelet - we both conclude it's because they are dividing people into groups depending on how they matched. When we go up to be let in, we both get told "oh, you're on the list of people who were randomly selected to wear microphones" and we both get yellow bracelets.
We get wired up for mics, and then meets few other yellow wristbanded people. Everyone seems to be from a science/maths/tech background so we conclude maybe that's what we have in common, or analytical thinking. Sure enough, when the thing starts they tell us to go to a different part of the nightclub based on our wristband for speed dating. Before we start, Hannah Fry comes up and tells us "Hi guys, just to let you know, you guys are particularly well matched, so you should get on really well"
And sure enough, I get on really well with everyone I talk to.
After it finishes, we are asked to drop our bracelet into one of three baskets  or  or  depending on how well we felt it went. I drop mine in
I then go to the bar, to get a drink, and some other women ask me how I got on in my group (they are from a different colour) - I say it went really well,
but they say theirs was really bad, but before they started, Hannah Fry had told them that their group was badly matched.
I then realise what's going on, find M and discuss - they've split us into four groups: Good match / Told was good , Good match / Told was bad , Bad match / Told was good , Bad match / Told was bad.
The reason was to determine what had the bigger influence: being told you were a good match, or actually being a good match on the algorithm.
I then spend the rest of the evening chatting with M, and then comes be the big reveal.
First - they confirm my theory about the four groups, and it turns out that the Good/Good were the happiest (all but 1 voted for ), Good/Bad and Bad/Good were roughly equal, and Bad/Bad the least satisfied.
They then reveal, that they paired everyone with a perfect match (it may not be their ultimate match, as some people were more than one other person's best match, but I'm assuming they probably used the stable marriage algorithm to get the best compatibility.
It turns out that my best match was M - the girl I met in the queue before the meeting even started and had spent 90% of my time chatting to since then. They also reveal we were by far and away the best matched couple at the event.
But it was not a surprise to either of it, because while neither of us had travelled down for the dating, that percularity alone meant it was likely we would be well matched (and we enjoyed talking to each other)
We had both travelled down primarily to meet Hannah Fry and secondly to watch the experiment from the inside.
It also explained why we had been "randomly" selected to wear mics, and why film crews had been glued to us the majority of the evening.
Anyway, I did get to chat to Hannah Fry, and when I said to her that you can't using optimal stopping theory on choosing marriage partners, she said "oh yeah, it's nonsense, I know, it's only put in as a bit of fun"
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
for Alienturnedhuman.
