February 2014 – Page 2 – Cubicgarden.com…

Marcus asks how ambitious are you?

Interesting email sent out to members of plenty of fish recently…

I am Markus the creator of plentyoffish. We recently added a new field to profiles that asks you how ambitious you are. Go to edit profile and update your profile now. This new field will start showing on the web immediately and in the mobile apps in a week or two when we release a new version.

Ok nothing that special… Although its a interesting field to add to a dating profile. I think its a bit pointless as the options are not ambitious, somewhat ambitious, ambitious and very ambitious. I don’t know who would put not ambitious? Honestly?

Anyway that wasn’t all which was said. Marcus took the time to educate us all about the truth surrounding hookup culture, which made a interesting kicker…

These days the mass media loves to talk about the hookup culture and focus shows around sex. In reality hookups are rare. The median number of female sexual partners in lifetime, for men 25-44 years of age is 6.1 for women its 3.9. Only three percent of men aged 18 to 30 have 3 or more sexual partners per year for 3 years. If you want to hear what else is normal check out this great Google Talk by Wendy Walsh.

Marcus launches into a attack on the mass media. Maybe this is part of his rallying call to drag/lead Plenty of Fun, I mean Fish out of the gutter?

Maybe he’s right but to be honest the only thing which has come from Plenty of Fish is hookups or rather booty calls.

The sick and twisted people looking for a date, avoid & report them!

This is the kind of person people imagine talking to when first joining a online dating site.

I’m generally not shocked at the kind of things men (generally its men but I have been on the receiving side from some crazy women) say to the women to get a date or more. However I’ve never ever seen anything so graphic and aggressively racist as this before.

Massive warning if you are easily offended don’t look, as it will wind you up no end. The language and subject matter is combined is so wrong on quite a few levels…! Its sick, twisted and this guy is trying to convince this women to consider him (ffs!)

Thanks to Tom for highlighting the reddit thread, which is full of crazy private dating conversations. I really hope the women in question reported the man in question, although most people don’t!

I have some conversations saved from the past with some insane women I have spoken to on instant messenger but I have saved them for my ebook. But to give you a taster of whats to come…

Her: I12 lic yr ear :-)
Me: Oh hello?
Me: My ear?
Her: I12 lic u
Her: I wanna lic yr ear
Me: Thats pretty forward
Her: &?

And thats only the very start of a weird instant messaging conversation…

Built in Filter and Algorthm failure

I enjoyed Jon Udell’s thoughts on Filter Failure.

The problem isn’t information overload, Clay Shirky famously said, it’s filter failure. Lately, though, I’m more worried about filter success. Increasingly my filters are being defined for me by systems that watch my behavior and suggest More Like This. More things to read, people to follow, songs to hear. These filters do a great job of hiding things that are dissimilar and surprising. But that’s the very definition of information! Formally it’s the one thing that’s not like the others, the one that surprises you.

One of the questions people have when they think about Perceptive Media is the Filter bubble.

A filter bubble is a result state in which a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user (such as location, past click behaviour and search history) and, as a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles. Prime examples are Google‘s personalised search results and Facebook‘s personalised news stream. The term was coined by internet activist Eli Pariser in his book by the same name; according to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble.

The filter bubble is still being heavily debated to if its real or not but the idea of filters which get things wrong to add a level of serendipity sounds good. But I do wonder if people will be happy with a level of fuzziness in the algorithms they become dependable on?

I’m always on the lookout for ways to defeat the filters and see things through lenses other than my own. On Facebook, for example, I stay connected to people with whom I profoundly disagree. As a tourist of other people’s echo chambers I gain perspective on my native echo chamber. Facebook doesn’t discourage this tourism, but it doesn’t actively encourage it either.

The way Jon Udell is defeating the filters, he retains some kind of control. Its a nice way to get a balance, but as someone who only follows 200ish people on Twitter and don’t look at Facebook much, I actively like to remove the noise from my bubble.

As I think back on the evolution of social media I recall a few moments when my filters did “fail” in ways that delivered the kinds of surprises I value. Napster was the first. When you found a tune on Napster you could also explore the library of the person who shared that tune. That person had no idea who I was or what I’d like. By way of a tune we randomly shared in common I found many delightful surprises. I don’t have that experience on Pandora today.

Likewise the early blogosophere. I built my echo chamber there by following people whose lenses on the world complemented mine. For us the common thread was Net tech. But anything could and did appear in the feeds we shared directly with one another. Again there were many delightful surprises.

Oh yes I remember spending hours in Easy Everything internet cafes after work or going out checking out users library’s, not really recognizing the name and listening to see if I liked it. Jon may not admit it but I found the dark net provides some very interesting parallels with this. Looking through what else someone shared can be a real delight when you strike upon something unheard of.

And likewise the blogosphere can lead you down some interesting paths. Take my blog for example, some people read it because of my interest in Technology, but the next post may be something to do with dating or life experience.

I do want some filter failure but I want to be in control of when really… And I think thats the point Jon is getting at…

I want my filters to fail, and I want dials that control the degrees and kinds of failures.

Where that statement leaves the concept of pure Perceptive Media, who knows…? But its certainly something I’ve been considering for a long while.

Reminds me of that old saying… Its not a bug, its a feature…

Animatrix the dark world?

If you have not seen Thor2, avoid reading as there is small spoilers in this post….

I don’t know if its by pure chance or the Animatrix’s Beyond was inspiration for a section of Thor2 the dark world? When I watched it at the cinema, I couldn’t help but feel something was very familiar about the first section.

From Wikipedia, Thor 2

In London, astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster and her intern Darcy Lewis travel to an abandoned factory where such portals have appeared, disrupting the laws of physics around them. Separating from the group, Jane is teleported to another world, where she is infected by the Aether. Heimdallalerts Thor that Jane has moved beyond his near omnipotent sight, leading Thor to Earth. When Thor finds Jane, she inadvertently releases an unearthly force, and Thor returns with her to Asgard. Odin, recognizing the Aether, warns that the Aether will not only kill Jane, but that its return heralds a catastrophic prophecy.

And from Wikipedia Animatrix’s Beyond

The children have stumbled across an amalgamation of anomalies within an old, dilapidated building. They have learned to exploit this glitch in the Matrix for their own enjoyment, through several areas which seem to defy real-world physics: glass bottles reassemble after being shattered, rain falls from a sunny sky, broken lightbulbs flicker briefly (during which they seem intact), a door which opens into an endless dark void, shadows which do not align with their physical origins, and a dove’s feather that rotates rapidly in place in mid-air. There is a large open space in the middle of the run-down building where they take turns jumping off a high point and falling towards the ground, yet somehow stopping inches before impact. This proves amusing and they do not seem to be bothered by the inherent strangeness of the place.

If you seen both parts you will know what bits I’m talking about.

The kids playing in a dilapidated building, messing with what they think is anti-gravity but its actually parallel universes and time. Some objects disappear, most end up disappearing and then appearing again. I believe even the make up of the kids playing is similar (2 boys and one girl?) and hovering truck anyone?

That instant spark of chemisty, lets hack it?

Lets be honest for a moment. There are certain things which humans like and don’t like, react to and don’t react to. Understanding these lifehacks, mindhacks, theories or even techniques can help greatly. It all depends on how you apply it… Understanding not ignorance is my new justification for this type of stuff.

Single black male have recently posted a number of intriguing posts including How A Man Can Avoid The Friend-Zone, and Don’t be Thirsty, be Hard to Impress.

They center around that feeling when you see someone for the very first time. So called the spark of attraction or as I prefer the spark of chemistry.

In technical terms, this spark is simply a spike in adrenaline that most people get when they connect eyes with someone that they’re physically attracted to. In our initial interactions with a new potential love interest, some women attempt to control that spark by being flirtatiously elusive and playing hard to get. Men can perform an equally effective technique: playing hard to impress.

This can come across as being a bit of a bastard, and theres many posts suggesting most women subconsciously prefer this.

The secret behind the “hard to impress” approach is that after getting that initial, reflexive adrenaline spike out of her, you find a way to keep the intensity and duration of that spike heightened. By doing this, you’re pretty much guaranteeing yourself a spot far away from the friend zone.

I imagine this is where the keep them keen comes from. Stretching out this period of attraction can greatly improve your chances of the other person being interested. Or in this case, keep you out of the friend zone.

This isn’t anything mind blowing, people have been doing it naturally for millenniums but its interesting to understand the science behind it. Those butterflies in your stomach are addictive like going over the top of a rollercoaster hill (in my case) who wouldn’t want more of that?

We’re all junkies to the buzz… and combining this with the Social objects idea, who knows what you can achieve? Maybe one day I’ll combine all these things together and actually do something meaningful with them.

Question is, what are you going to do to get more of what you love/need/want? I’m hoping it doesn’t involve being a total cock like the guys from the previous post…

Scratching at the online dating bubble

Freakonomics recently put up a podcast about online dating. I love the it the show and you know your in for a good show when someone says…

…if only everybody approached it like an economist would…

Online dating through the eyes of an economist is a very intriguing world indeed. But unfortunately not everyone does. In actual fact theres a well known phenomenon which happens when faced with love.

…being attracted to a person is a lot like being on drugs. The release of chemicals into our brain and body creates an altered mental state in which we both perceive and behave differently than we normally would..

But back to the Freakonomics podcast. The bulk of the show was dedicated to AaronCarterFan, who I have written about before.

Theres some nice juicy parts in the show including,

OYER: Okay, so as I look at what you’ve got here, well, before we even look at it we have to stop and think about the first thing an economist is going to do is think about supply and demand. So I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re in a great position. New York City is demographically more female than male. I’m not entirely sure why that’s true. Out here in San Francisco it’s the opposite. We have an oversupply of men relative to women, at least compared to other cities. New York City and Washington D.C. tend to swing much more towards more available women. So you’re in a good position from a competitive point of view. You’re providing a good, single, straight male, which is in relatively high demand. Now the other thing to keep in mind here is time is very much on your side. So you’re in a good position for two other reasons, and that is the male/female differential I just mentioned is going to swing much more in your favor over the next 10 years. So you’re under no pressure to hook up for a long-term relationship right now. So that’s one thing that’s good. The other thing is just more generally, aside from your gender, the fact that you’re 28 years old from an economist point of view means that you should be very picky. So you should be picky, you should be looking for a really good match. And the reason for that is suppose you do find just the right person, and get married and live happily ever after, well you’re in no rush to do that because you have, let’s just say 50 more years in which to enjoy the relationship you find if it’s a successful one. So when I was on the online dating market recently, you know, I’m much older than you are, and from a rational economic perspective, I should be less picky than you. I should be searching a little less carefully. I should be settling, settling is an important idea, it’s a very important idea to economists because of what we call search theory suggests that at some point you should realize that having what you have is better than expending more resources to try to do better. And that’s more true when you’re my age, I’m 50 now, than when you’re your age, which is 28.

And the guys are right… no rush, be a picky, nothing worst that rushing into something which isn’t going anywhere.

Justin WOLFERS: The Internet has turned matching upside down. It used to be that you would find compatibility first and then learn more about someone else’s attributes. And now you see all the attributes and then you learn about compatibility later.

This is something which certainly makes things very different. I always say to people who say, its easy. Go find someone and your done. Well here’s the big difference… Attributes before Chemistry. We’re still grappling with this major shift, and to be honest I hadn’t really thought about it in these terms before. This is the internet’s effect on the way we meet. We truly do live in the age of algorithms, like it or not!

Even the likes of Speed dating, Singles party’s, etc are holding to a somewhat dying tradition?

What you want to remember in your profile is that you want to be very upfront and forthcoming in anything that is what an economist would call a coordination game. It’s where our interests are aligned and as long as we have the right information we’re going to make the right decision. So in my case I was very upfront and forthcoming in my profile about the fact that I had a large and badly behaved golden retriever, and the fact that I have two teenaged children. Because if somebody was against those things, then those were deal breakers. And in your case, you want to be honest about the fact that you’re a public radio producer because on the one hand that’s very attractive to some people, but it also indicates that you’re not going to be rich, at least in the short term. You don’t want anybody who wants you just for your money, either because you don’t like those types of people or because even if you do you’re not going to get them once they have the information anyway.

This for me is an argument why you need to be honest on your profile. Its not about attracting everyone but the right people for you. Define your dealbreakers too. Although I joke I wouldn’t date someone who shopped in Aldi, its not really a deal breaker. I would have to wonder about their taste buds when it comes to fruit and veg, but its no deal breaker. A deal breaker is someone who drinks to get drunk all the time, dabbles with hard drugs, strong right wing views, can’t think deeper than what the soaps are showing.

Of course deal breakers can change, for example a while ago a deal breaker was having a child. Not because I have anything against kids, but I just wasn’t ready for that. And I’d rather be upfront about that. Hence on my profile it says…

I have little time for the mainstream garbage of pop music/fashion/celeb driven nonsense.

I removed the sorry if that winds you up part. As I’m not sorry, it was never going to be…

The podcast or the transcript is worth a listen/read, theres some great down to earth advice for online daters and all from people who look at the hidden side of everything. Of course I’m very tempted to write them a email asking them to look at other parts of the online dating world including the crack of the dating, the 3day trial.

Soylent… solving the worlds hungry?

I heard of Soylent in the general tech news but it wasn’t till I spent a dinner and cocktails with Ryan that I really thought about it in any detail.

We were talking about it and was it going to make a difference to world hunger, make everyone healthy. But I do wondering what it tastes like. But it was hard for me to take it seriously not because its grown in a lab. No, its because it made with pea protein. Pea protein, has to be something I’m surely allergic to?

Well good news, it seems to be made of something different and the nutrition list recently went public. Unfortunately its contains fish oil, but as Ryan said it can be substituted for vegans. The nutritional values look pretty good…

#mixeverything, democratising mixing for everyone?

“DEMOCRATIZING DJING WAS SOMETHING WE’VE ALWAYS BEEN STRIVING FOR.“

Two things happened to today…

Those crazy pacemaker guys Jonas, Olof and Willem released a ipad app (one of the worst kept secrets to be honest) but they did some great things to make the whole thing much more simple and usable for the people who just want to play. Those guys have always been excellent at interface design, conveying complexity in quite a unique way. One of the reasons why I love the pacemaker device.

Si Lumb was the first to break it to me on Twitter via The Verge. The interface is different from the Pacemaker app which came on the Blackberry. But the massive difference is the Spotify access. Direct access to mix and screw around with any track on Spotify in real time? Thats almost worth buying a ipad for… Don’t worry I’ll be asking the guys when the Android version is coming. But to be fair I have (well my sister has it but its mine) a blackberry playbook for the sole reason of mixing, so why not a ipad too…?

What got me slightly choked up is the commitment to #mixeverything and ultimately the democratisation of mixing and djing. Yes its not virtualdj or Tracktor but its something you can easily pull out at a party and get people dancing.

It all reminds me of my slide (number 17) from the Dj Hackday presentation… New rules, new blood, new ideas… I want my first born (male or female) to want to be a DJ not some pop idiot.

I remember the arguments about dedicated cameras vs camera phones. The best camera you have is the one in your pocket or even your hand at the time. Is this true of djing too? Yes if I had my records and decks, but you don’t… And with the app you can pull up virtually most songs, even those stupid request songs.

I’d still like to know how they are doing the twin output, I assume its using the audio out and the HDMI/Lightning port? If not I’m expecting it will change soon.

Secondly those crazy guys released a new firmware update for the Pacemaker device. Seems not many of the usual suspects know much about this, so I’ll be one of the first to give it a run. Which is great because I’ve been playing with the pacemaker device again. My next mix is going to be something special… But now I want to run home and get the firmware updated.

Chromecasts are all go…

Thanks to Jas who tweeted me about the Google Chromecast SDK becoming available via GigaOm.

Google released its Chromecast streaming stick nine months ago, but initially limited support to just a handful of apps, including Netflix, YouTube and the company’s own Chrome web browser.

In the following months, a small number of hand-selected apps was allowed on the platform, including Pandora, HBO Go and Hulu Plus.

Developers of other services were able to access a preview SDK and experiment with Chromecast support, but Google didn’t make it possible for them to actually publish their apps to end users. Google executives said at the time that the SDK necessary to add cast support to third-party apps simply wasn’t ready yet, and Chandra told me this week that Google used the time to improve the reliability of the SDK, as well as respond to developers who were looking for easier ways to send media to Chromecast.

This is great news for developers and users like myself who bought a Chromecast. Be interesting to see what new hacks also come around for it.

Is it really TV time again?

Shane says this has my name all over it…

Fancy sharing your dating dramas with the world? Well now’s your chance – with BBC3 looking for online daters to tell their side of the digital story.

As data has grown and given people more means of communication, so technology has advanced to bring people even closer than ever – or has it?
With social networking sites connecting friends via a number of platforms, the cyber highway has taken networking to the next level – literally.

Online dating has become a global phenomenon, with people seeking love all over the world in the hope of finding ‘The One’ – and now leading UK television production company Roughcut TV is on the lookout for any volunteers willing to divulge their experiences, particularly those using dating apps such as Tinder.

Assistant producer, Alana McVerry, says: “The documentary we’re making for BBC3 is broadly looking at dating and relationships in the age of technology. We’re looking at how dating and relationships have changed given that we’ve now got access to more people than ever before and dating has become a truly global market.

“Does having access to more people than ever before make us pickier? Or does it make us more likely to find a good match? Now that we’re looking online are we looking at different things like grammar and spelling and picking apart profiles and characteristics, which we wouldn’t do if that person was standing right in front of us?”

When I first heard about it I said sure sounds good, then Marie wrote on twitter saying, would I like to be on TV again. My instant thought is oh my goodness… TV not a again and BBC Three again! And what is the link with welovedates.com? (never heard of this site before). I originally thought it was Radio, so I suggested Marie should check out the radio shows pieces I’ve done for BBC Merseyside’s Upfront.

Lets remember what happened the last few times I was on TV (plus I’m not a fan of the TV people)

The Year of Making love… and How to have more sex…

I would have to be some sort of sadistic guy to put myself through it all again. And frankly this has such a small amount of information about its actual purpose. I’m already imagining a show full of people moaning about the bad side of online dating, rather than mentioning the good stuff which can happen too. If it was a good BBC programme, it would mention both sides really?

Anyway unless I hear differently from Marie Northon and the rest of the production team, its going to be no.

You will have to read about my dating dramas in my book which I’m still writing slowly… Funny enough I was writing chapter 13 in my local when Shane tweeted originally.

Finding your partner by smells

In the modern world of dating theres a lot of gimmicks setup to catch the eye of the potential singles market. Everyone knows about the free weekenders online daters get sucked into. But sometimes something seems so far fetched it might actually work…

One such idea a friend had was the idea of picking someone by smell. Now this concept isnt’ actually new. Pheromone parties were all the rang e a while back .

The get-togethers — which have been held in New York and Los Angeles and are planned for other cities — ask guests to submit a slept-in T-shirt that will be smelled by other participants.

Then, voila! You can pick your partner based on scent, or so the theory goes.

The parties started as an experiment in matchmaking by a California woman weary of online dating, but it turns out they also have a root in science. Researchers have shown that humans can use scent to sort out genetic combinations that could lead to weaker offspring.

The issue my friend thinks is the one dimension of the test. What you need is a range of things to smell and that rating is mapped against others who gave a similar rating.

So say I rated coffee beans (1), vanilla (2) and citrus (3). Then someone else who also rated them in a similar way would get matched with me. Of course the number of items to smell would be something like 10 , 15 or 20.

I know its not a perfect science, but its not much worst than 3mins of speed dating conversation or the hot or not style of dating currently being pushed by the likes of Tinder.

Prays said she’s learned from the experience that while scent is powerful, it isn’t enough to detect a good match.

“Animals have babies and they move on, and that’s what the pheromone party is,” said Prays, who may start including a few pertinent details on the index cards, like a person’s relationship expectations. “The most successful thing about it is, it opens up conversation.”

I did float the idea with the guy behind the speed dating events, and to be honest he did laugh a lot. But even he could be pursued to give it a try in the right conditions. So who knows where this might go?