
8^8 – Find another you - justhw
http://8x8x8x8x8x8x8x8.com/
======
gattis
"Take the 8^8 test and the likelihood of someone else answering in the exact
same pattern as yourself is 1 in 16,777,216"

That requires A) the distribution of answers is even across all 8 options, and
B) there are zero correlations between any two answers in the quiz.

Not to mention that the 8 questions have to pretty accurately split the space
of human personalities down into eigen-answers that explain the most variance
in personality.

And there's just no way to do pick these questions without having the data to
analyze in the first place.

~~~
DanielStraight
Thank you for putting into clear words my gut impression that this wouldn't
produce the intended result.

I wonder if you couldn't do better with binary questions. I'm reminded of the
site [http://www.correlated.org/](http://www.correlated.org/).

Suppose you were to ask a bunch of binary questions, and then use some
statistics to find questions that have fairly evenly distributed and non-
correlated results, then take 24 of the best questions by those criteria
(arbitrary, but 2^24 = 8^8) and find matches.

So basically, ask a whole bunch of binary questions, find ones with roughly
50-50 answers that don't correlate with each other, make the match-ups based
on those and ignore the others.

~~~
eevilspock
okcupid does exactly this. Most of their questions are submitted by the users
themselves, and they have hundreds if not thousands of them, but they present
the questions to you in the order of most differentiating first. You can
answer as many or as few as you want, but matches get better as you answer
more, with monotonically diminishing returns. You also get to say which
answers you would accept from your match (doesn't have to include your answer)
and how much it matters if at all.

My gut tells me it's akin to doing principle component analysis. To find the
most differentiating question, do 1 dimensional PCA, and the question most
aligned with the resulting dimension is question #1. Then do 2 dimensional PCA
fixing the first dimension as the first question. The result is question #2.
And so on.

OF FAR GREATER CONCERN: They are collecting email addresses associated with
personality questions. There is no privacy policy, other than the statement
"If there's a match, we'll email you. (You will not be emailed under any other
circumstances: no promos, no newsletters, nothing except news of a match.)"
You don't know to whom you are giving this information, as there is no named
legal entity, just a gmail address and a domain name whose registered owner is
hidden in whois databases.

~~~
raverbashing
> My gut tells me it's akin to doing principle component analysis

Or a decision tree, maybe

~~~
raverbashing
Since I can't edit, here are some more details on what OkCupid does
[http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/page/3/](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/page/3/)

------
jader201
It's fascinating (not being snarky) that this post has received about 50+
votes since I first saw it, and I've not once been able to pull the site up
completely (never made it past the bot detection, and most of the time, won't
even come up).

So I'm trying to understand the phenomenon:

\- HN folks are bookmarking it for later based on comments (even though it
may/may not be worthy of a +1)

\- HN folks are +1'ing it based on the idea derived from the comments

\- Those +1'ing it are actually able to make it through (though it doesn't
seem so based on most of the comments)

The fascinating part to me is that, assuming it's one of the first two, how
much +1's an (arguably) broken link can get based on comments.

The idea sounds interesting, and the site may very well be +1 worthy.

~~~
zxcvcxz
Apparently no one on HN has used a dating web site before either. They have
you do the same types of quizzes.

------
braaap
Ummm, I like other people precisely because they aren't me. My soulmate is not
a duplicate of me. They are a compliment.

At best, 8^8 might expose someone who ends up making a lot of the same
decisions as me. Boring!

~~~
amelius
You could of course also search for someone who is, in all aspects, the
complete opposite of you :)

~~~
_archon_
Or have your partner take the test, and line up a spare.

------
tjradcliffe
The basic claim is false on many levels:

    
    
        Very few of us are lucky enough to come across our
        soulmate within our lifetimes. We tend to choose our 
        friends and spouses from the limited pool of people 
        available in our immediate vicinity: students at our
        schools, people who live in our neighborhoods, 
        colleagues at our workplaces. Statistically, it is 
        extremely unlikely that we will come across our
        soulmate.
    

First off, the notion of "soulmate" is bogus romantic nonsense, and the notion
that the person most compatible with us is _just like us_ is demonstrably
false. My father and I were very similar to each other and fought and argued
all the time, because we were both cantankerous, ornery and contrary.

My life-partner and I--who are as close to "soulmates" as anyone can be to
that basically ridiculous idea--are very similar in some respects, very
different in others. The areas where we complement each other are as important
as the ones where we reinforce each other.

More importantly, the claim that there is some great unexplored mass of
humanity where our "soulmate" lurks is bogus. There are only 5000 people in
the world. Maybe fewer. If there were more we wouldn't keep running into each
other all the time.

That is, the number of people in our tribe is surprisingly small, and anyone
who is sufficiently similar to us to answer the questions the same way is
already almost certainly a member of it, so dipping into the pool of random
strangers across the world is unlikely to improve the odds much in most cases,
and citing an anecdote or three--which some people will be tempted to do--does
not change this fact. The human social graph is full of islands.

Finally, to work as advertised the test requires that answers to the questions
are uncorrelated, which is almost certainly not the case. So most people will
find themselves with hundreds of "soulmates", a very few will have none.
Unique matches will be extremely rare.

It's a superficially fun idea that turns out to be more of a monument to the
failure to understand probability than anything else.

~~~
edem
> There are only 5000 people in the world? Did I miss something?

~~~
mdpopescu
It was a joke, but I found it funny - he explains it with "if there were more,
I wouldn't bump into the same people all the time". In other words, _his_
world (the set of people he normally encounters) is made of at most 5000
people.

------
btilly
Interesting idea. Bad execution.

There is _NO_ way that performance should be so bad given current load.

Some of the questions are frustrating. For instance question #4 is "YOU SAVE
AN OLD LADY'S LIFE. IN GRATITUDE SHE GIVES YOU $100,000. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH
MOST OF IT?" The obvious answer for me is, "Save it." But all possible answers
are ways to spend it or give it away. I chose "Move to a nicer neighborhood",
but that really is NOT who I am...

~~~
personjerry
I suspect at each POST request the website is attempting to match (and filter)
against all existing results.

~~~
praptak
They state otherwise - "verification takes place a few days from now". And
filtering against 20k results should be instant anyway.

------
TheMakeA
There seems to be an awful lot of gratuitous negativity going on here.

The site was on Reddit yesterday, now it's on the front page of HN. Maybe the
author can't throw a lot of resources at it, or they used the project as an
excuse to learn a new stack. Who knows.

Maybe it was slow for you. Maybe it's not a mathematically sound idea. Maybe
the questions aren't ideal. The CAPTCHA isn't ideal.

Who cares? There's no need to be mean about it.

~~~
tajen
> There seems to be an awful lot of gratuitous negativity going on here.

There isn't much negativity above your comment, no-one above you has
criticized the speed or the CAPTCHA. Were you referring to a specific comment
without using the reply-to feature? Are you saying the HN community is "mean"
about it?

Most people on HN are very positive even if the project is slow, because
everyone knows what it means to be on the top page of HN.

~~~
DanBC
Did you see this post and thread, asking HN to avoid gratuitous negativity?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9317916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9317916)

~~~
tajen
I'm not sure why my comment seems negative to you, while the comment above
doesn't. The person above was generalizing negatively about "the people here",
and it seemed gratuitous because no-one had criticized the speed or the
CAPTCHA before.

In other words, please hellban me now, because I didn't get what was negative
in my first comment.

~~~
DanBC
I'm not sure why you think I am critcising you. Parent post is talking about
gratuitous negativity, and I wanted to make sure you understood what they
meant by gratuitous negativity which, in the context of HN, has a specific
meaning.

I don't have any power to hellban you!

------
insickness
This whole thing has been done before and in a way that allowed the questions
to be crowdsourced, not just one person coming up with what he/she thinks are
meaningful.

On OKCupid, There are thousands of questions, many of them penned by users.
You choose which questions to answer, then mark how important this question is
to you. You also choose the answer you want your partner to have. For example:

Are you looking for a partner to have children with? [] yes [] no

Answer(s) you’ll accept [] yes [] no

Importance [] a little [] somewhat [] very

If this question were not at all important to you, you would just not answer
it.

~~~
yellowapple
IIRC, OkCupid also has a "not at all important" option; that way, you could
answer "yes" to the hypothetical question without caring about someone else's
answer (while at the same time providing an answer for somebody else who
_does_ care about the answer).

------
LordHumungous
It's cool, but it kind of reminds me of Ok Cupid back in the day when they
would ask you 200 questions about your personality, and then it would match
you with people who gave similar answers. I went on dates with a couple people
who were 99% matches, expecting love at first sight, only to find that in real
life we didn't click at all. It seems that there are many dimensions to human
interaction that are not easily captured by these kinds of quizzes.

------
Nadya
Took quite a while due to the site crashing several times, but I finished it.

I think of it as an interesting experiment - even if nothing ends up coming
from it.

My largest concern is there are about 3 questions where I was torn between two
answers. I'm thinking I should create email addresses to "cover every base" by
alternating my answers on those 3 questions in every permutation. On the other
hand, I would feel a bit bad for using up some of the "freebies" that
legitimate people might miss out on and have to pay the small fee.

@ColinWright

>8^8 should be thought of less as a scientific black box, but as a friend who
claims to know someone you'll hit it off with, and wants the two of you to get
together. It might be wrong, but it could very well be right.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _On the other hand, I would feel a bit bad for using up some of the
> "freebies" that legitimate people might miss out on_

I wonder what the legality of publishing their questions and answers are. If
we can duplicate their questions and answers, people could find each other on
twitter with a hashtag: #my8x8is{answer 1}{answer 2}...{answer 2}

~~~
Nadya
What would this accomplish, other than perhaps not giving their email to 8x8?

If they have taken the 8x8 test to know their answers, they may as well enter
an email address to be alerted when they have a match. Rather than checking
Twitter, seeing as 8x8 already plans to email you if you have a match.

In theory if two Twitter users took the test and were a match - there would be
no need to use a hashtag to tweet.

This could be useful if enough people participated and were interested in
finding an "8x7" or even "8x6" match by changing their answer of two
questions. But even then, you would need enough participants who use Twitter
and are willing to tweet their answers.

~~~
Tenobrus
It would bypass the fee they apparently charge to actually connect matches
(mentioned at the bottom of their homepage).

~~~
Nadya
Right, I had forgotten about that after the first million.

------
hvm
Yeah, the site is painfully slow. A site with a multiple choice test should
handle thousands of users at a time with a tiny server. How is this thing
made?

~~~
oaktowner
I know this sounds mean-spirited, but it's not. I'd be interested to know how
this was developed as an example of what not to do. I wonder what the
architecture is (and how it could/should be improved).

~~~
hvm
Well to be honest after many attempts to try it out I started to get a bit
frustrated and annoyed.

From the errors returned I'm pretty sure it's a PHP backend. Considering the
expertise of the average PHP developer I don't think I need to say more (this
might sound mean but it's not).

------
karmakaze
On too many of the questions there were multiple choices which seemed equally
true thus my results would be largely arbitrary.

~~~
jordigh
I had the same feeling. I went through the 8 questions. If someone else
answered as I did, I feel like it would be completely random chance. There
wasn't anything personally identifying about the questions at all. This
reminded me of

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect)

If you're vague enough, everyone is self-centred enough to believe that you're
talking about them.

I would expect the distribution of the answers to be close to uniform too.

------
ColinWright

        To prevent abuse, we need to ensure that
        everyone taking the 8^8 test is a human
        and not a bot. Click on all of the icons
        below that represent animals.
    

And then the site is so slow it only shows me 5 of 7 images, the other two
failing to load.

Good one.

Don't get me wrong, it's a cute idea, although I have to say that I'm not sure
I'd get along with someone who thinks exactly as I do.

 _Edit: I 've passed the spam test and started the "test" \- most of the
answers are "none of the above" or "any one of these 4". The usual frustrating
experience. I mean:_

    
    
        THE KEY TO BEING SUCCESSFUL IN LIFE IS ...
    

_How should I know?_

~~~
matheist
And if there are always 3 animals (like on mine), then one out of every 35 (=
7 choose 3) bots will get through it anyway. Even if each picture is uniformly
and independently an animal or non-animal, one out of every 128 bots will get
through. If bots are a problem, maybe use a stronger captcha.

It sounds like a neat idea but it's taking too long to load for me to check it
out. I'll try again later.

~~~
david-given
I got two animals and a bird.

Whether I click on just the animals or all three of them is part of the test,
right?

~~~
wutbrodo
Birds are very much animals, both colloquially and scientifically:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal)

------
lips
At a party you... ...listen in fear at the sounds of people who enjoy other
people, observe small material details as though you were an anthropologist
encountering alien beings, depend on searching for beer to consume time, and
occasionally find someone who is amused by your off-kilter humor, but who
ultimately is not really anyone you're likely to form a meaningful sober bond
with?

Oh, apparently I have to actually be remotely ok in social settings.
Seriously, what the fuck.

~~~
abruzzi
yeah. About six of the eight questions offered no selection that was in any
way a meaningful answer for me. So apparently this matching algorithm it going
to find that one in sixteen million person that randomly selected six out of
eight answers the same, and completely agrees with me on two points.

The point is that, like many polls, the questions are very leading, and take a
distinctly biased approach. For example, the question about what to take away
that would change who you are. The options are all very idealized, and sound
like they come off a dating website (ok..., maybe that what this intends to
be.) Almost none of the possible answers seem likely to be an answer in
keeping with the "being honest" directive. If the question was more of "what
is your idealized opinion of yourself" it might have a real answer.

------
logfromblammo
I can't speak on behalf of anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want
someone just like me as a best friend.

To assemble an effective RPG party, you need multiple roles, like warrior,
wizard, cleric, and rogue. Effective RL social circles work the same way. I'm
more of an interjecting quipsniper or a technical sidebarbarian, and I really
rely on other people to carry the majority of a conversation. If I were to
hang out with a copy of myself, there would be no conversation to add zingers,
counterpoints, and trivia to.

There's only so much of that crap that other people can take before it gets
annoying, so there's not much use in adding two to the same party, unless
they're scripted, like Crow and Tom Servo.

Also, I have a theory of conversation that keys on conversational
coefficients. If a group of people are having a conversation, you add together
their coefficients. If the sum is one, you have a very natural, comfortable
conversation. If it is less than one, you experience some uncomfortable lulls.
If it is greater than one, some people get interrupted, can't finish sharing
their thoughts, or are excluded. If the coefficient approaches two, separate
simultaneous threads of conversation will form, and participants will
spontaneously rearrange or split themselves between conversations so as to
make each one have a coefficient sum as close to one as is possible.

People don't have a fixed coefficient. They can adjust it within a certain
range, that is somewhat dependent on atmosphere and subject matter. For
instance, a lecturer who can teach an entire class without losing the
attention of the audience can stretch up to 1.0 for conversations, but
probably only for that one topic. Someone who has trouble yielding
conversational priority may have a lower limit somewhere above 0.5. I suspect
that most people can easily handle a range from 0.2 to 0.5. But I max out at
probably a 0.4, on very few topics, so my "soul mate" would need to be _much_
more talkative than I am, not at the same level, because it would take at
least three of me to have a good conversation.

------
flurpitude
9,945 people have taken the test according to the stats at the bottom, and the
site's painfully slow. Definitely needs some performance tweaking.

~~~
ricardonunez
It didn't work for me. It can't handle the spike in traffic right now that it
reached the front page, that's probably what's going on.

~~~
thrillgore
Or its just badly developed. I hit question 4 and it failed.

------
ams6110
Nice way to build a profile of a bunch of email addresses which will then be
quite valuable for targeted marketing campaigns.

~~~
masterminding
Damn... lol

------
JasonFruit
Sadly, my counterpart can't take the test either, because neither of us is
running javascript.

------
chrisra
I don't like the idea of finding a soulmate, like there's only one person who
you can be truly happy with.

You find someone, and then work your guts out to be lovable and to love, and
you become soulmates.

------
dash2
There is a widespread idea that the way to find true love is to spend all your
effort searching for one optimal partner.

Here is an alternative algorithm: spend some effort finding a good enough
partner, and at least as much effort building a good relationship with him or
her.

I like this site: it shows the widespread idea in its purest form. Kind of a
reductio ad absurdum.

~~~
Houshalter
How much effort does it take to answer 8 questions?

~~~
dash2
Not much, I did it myself! But the idea behind the site is "find that single
unique person who is right for you" (one in 8^8 people). So it exemplifies the
idea I was talking about.

------
6502nerdface
The site operator may like to know that the site is probably blocked by many
corporate proxies; certainly by mine, which categorizes it as

    
    
        URL Category: "Malicious Outbound Data/Botnets"
    

I assume because the domain name looks suspicious to a classifier that's been
trained on evil domain names.

~~~
organsnyder
The domain name has also only been registered for 11 days (Creation Date:
2015-05-04T16:22:00.00Z). That could have something to do with it as well.

------
beloch
"If you take the 8^8 test right now all our services will be 100% free for
you. This offer is good only for those taking the 8^8 test before we reach the
milestone of 1,000,000 tests taken. Thereafter, to cover server costs, there
will be a modest fee for connecting with matches. "

\--------

I'm usually pretty pessimistic about the motives of websites like these. For
example, this site seems like a great way to get a huge database of marketing
info associated with email addresses. Nowhere on the main page or in their faq
does it say they won't be selling this data, so they probably will. Use your
spam-address if you're going to do this!

That being said, someone just like me also wouldn't pay for a service that's
likely going to sign them up for spam. Given that payment will be required
_long_ before the odds favour a match for me showing up, I think I'll just
skip it.

------
dheera
"Click on all of the icons below that represent animals." Anyone else notice
that only the animals are simply-connected 2-manifolds? A bot could easily
solve this.

~~~
praptak
You win the nitpick of the year award :-)

Actually there is a plane and a snowflake which share this property with the
animals. But the set of images seems to be small - I got quite a few
repetitions with just a few retries, so you could probably just hardcode it.

Which doesn't matter much - my feeling is that this test is rather intended to
put humans into the right mood than to really deter bots.

------
colinbartlett
I hope they fix their email regex. This kind of thing infuriates me because
this really is the email I use daily:
[http://imgur.com/F9a2XeG](http://imgur.com/F9a2XeG)

------
cmstoken
Completely underwhelming. It's just a bunch of random personality questions
that give no real insight about the person.

------
XYEaQMZJvS
I really like the concept, but I find the implementation disappointing.

I know it sounds dumb, but I think of myself as being a rather odd person, and
not just like, collecting human skulls odd. It's hard to explain, but I don't
feel that most people would get me, or like me once they got to know me. I'd
love to find someone who's just like me (sometimes), so when I first clicked,
I was a little excited, perhaps naively so. I was disappointed to find that it
was just eight multiple-choice questions, many of which I had a hard time
answering. There was no nuance.

~~~
robocat
Fortunately there are many people who have a generic like towards oddity.

There are also plenty of people that only care about a few things important to
them, and don't care much about extra oddities.

If you care about the feelings of someone, and you like them, that goes a long
way towards them liking you. If you are non-judgemental about the oddities of
others, that helps a lot too.

~~~
abruzzi
I've never tried the questionnaires on dating sites, but it seems you'd get
better results with paired questions. Ask person A what they're looking for in
attribute X. Ask person B to describe themselves in attribute X. So someone
that is emotionally submissive that likes a partner that is emotionally
dominant gets matched with someone that is emotionally dominant that prefers a
partner that is emotionally submissive.

Of course that assumes that the person even consciously knows what they want.
I don't know how true that is.

------
abustamam
I wish there were a way to see what your results were. I took the test this
evening; it'd be neat to retake it in a week and see if my answers match the
ones I provided tonight.

------
iyn
I love the idea! The "non-optimal" (location & time based) way of finding the
people you spend your time with can be quite frustrating, if you think about
it. I'm happy to have a great people around me, but why not meet more
interesting people?

But, as others already pointed out, there are some problems with the current
version:

* one could prefer multiple answers on some questions. I think that the test should allow for multiple answers and use ML/statistics to find close/closest matches. Using True/False (exact match) may not be the best. The "workaroud" would be to take several tests with all the permutations, but IMO that is a design flaw.

* the questions may not be the best. This is an interesting problem - how can we pick questions/attributes that would be a good "model" of human personality/mind/psychology?

* such test need to reach a lot of people and it may take a long time. Therefore, it needs to be done _right_ from the beginning, so that all the people take the same test.

Again - I love the concept and I'm glad that somebody it taking the time and
effort to build this. IMO this has the potential to influence who you spend
your time/life with - so it's very important to do this well.

------
robert-wallis
I was thinking about how fast it would be to find matches, so I wrote a little
C program that runs in about 1/7th a second: [https://gist.github.com/robert-
wallis/b7faf94976b153923fde](https://gist.github.com/robert-
wallis/b7faf94976b153923fde)

It generates a random number, then tries 8^8 times to generate a new random
number and find a match.

------
SCHiM
I love the idea! Since I personally believe that every person has a 'perfect
match'. To those who don't, consider the following:

1) You either do or don't get along with certain people.

2) This is determined by how they act, look and your dispositions to those
actions and looks.

3) Given these terms for quantifying the amount of 'like' you feel towards a
person, it follows that there are combinations of act/look that you absolutely
loathe or love.

4) There exists a combination of act/look that is your perfect match, the
combination that you love the most, ie. Your soulmate.

What does not follow is that you would like someone who, as the site puts it,
is very much like you. I'm quite sure I couldn't stand myself in certain
situations. Maybe your soulmate is actually someone who is entirely unlike you
in certain aspects?

EDIT:

Also it's likely, at least in my case, that some of the questions don't have
the options you'd pick. I guess it kinda proves that 8 options over 8
questions can't be used to arbitrarily identity a person.

~~~
autarch
Except that I'm fairly sure a lot of studies have shown that the more time you
spend with someone, the more you like them (at least if you liked them to
start with).

I suspect you're much more likely to find a good romantic partner by spending
more quality time with people you initially like and find attractive, rather
than spending all your effort trying to meet as many different people as
possible.

~~~
SCHiM
Uhh, I agree with you. But what I don't get is where you see the contradiction
in what we both said.

Where do we disagree?

------
stuaxo
Don't you have to kill your clone ?

I liked this until they said "soulmate" it works much better as a weird sort
of atsy project.

~~~
omgitstom
That is the premise of that shitty jet li movie, the one

------
brohee
The FAQ has some funny nuggets...

"Psychology is a science" \- Anyone following Retractation Watch may beg to
differ...

"8^8 is blocked outside of countries where English is both the official
language and the most common vernacular." \- Could take it from France, no VPN
involved...

------
Codhisattva
These questions are so heavily stilted towards white male start up culture
it's laughable.

~~~
kefka
I noticed that. The question "if you got 100K for saving lil old woman", my
choice wasn't there.

Pay my debts.

~~~
tsmith
Also missing: put it in the bank (i.e. do nothing).

The answers to the "greatest satisfaction" question are also telling. They are
all job/business related. There's not even a single "spend time with my
friends and family" catch-all.

~~~
Codhisattva
Yeah. Where's the "travel the world and live in a tent" option. My soul mate
is definitely out there in a tent with mad cash in the bank watching a sunset
from a mountain top.

Sigh

We'll never find each other unless s/he wanders into an internet cafe tomorrow
before this rolls off of front page of HN...

Hurry soul mate! HURRY down the mountain!

~~~
kefka
You cam make up whatever hair-brained scenarios you want, but 1 in 3 people in
the US have debts in collections. Or 77 million people.

Source: [http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/29/pf/debt-
collections/](http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/29/pf/debt-collections/)

So yes, "Pay off debts" is plenty sane, and yet not on there. And given the
existing potential answers, gives credence that this is for rich white boys
financed by rich mommy and daddy.

------
ExpiredLink
Slightly off topic, why so many links to 'juvenile' questions on HN?

------
Diti
"8^8 is not yet available in your country at this time. Hopefully a translated
version will be available soon." Wait, what? I don't need a translation, I
just want to give that website a go.

------
tempestn
FYI, email address validation doesn't support new gTLDs.

------
hobarrera
I find that the options to the answers are ridiculous limited:

Question 1: "AT A PARTY YOU..." Missing answer: "I don't go to parties".

The same applies to most of them. It seems like the author got some friends to
write down possible answer, but didn't assume that there are people way more
different than themselves. I can't answer honestly to most of them, so I can
see how it'll fail horrible to find someone else like myself.

------
Glyptodon
Some of the questions need more choices. Didn't feel happy with any of the
answers for some of the questions.

------
radikalus
After 5 attempts, I made it. Out of 17.5k test takers, no matches yet?
Birthday paradox be damned.

~~~
pixl97
I don't believe their no matches counter. We're on the Internet. The first
thing some Redditor or 4chan'er did was take the test from two different
places and answer the questions the same way.

------
robocat
Sampling bias: I actually don't want to find me (I already know where to find
men similar enough to me).

Complements: for many traits, I prefer someone who has a strength where I have
a weakness. I like opposing opinions as they help me work out my wrongnesses.

~~~
laumars
I was thinking this after the 1st question, which asked what sort of person
are you at a party. One of the answers was "being the centre of the attention"
and often you find people who are that way inclined will fight others who are
similar.

------
Dansvidania
I wander if this could be from the guy asking how to spend 100k on AWS.

------
edem
At the time of writing there are 15099 filled tests so producing a match
(assuming that all 8 answers must be the same) is highly unlikely (0,08%) if I
assume even distribution.

~~~
abustamam
Assuming even distribution, there would need to be 8^8 quizzes taken before
there's a match.

Will we get that many people to take the quiz? I guess time will tell.

~~~
thesteamboat
You may want to read about the "Birthday paradox"[1]. Short version the
expected time for there to be a match with _you_ is much much larger than the
expected time to find a match _at all_.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox)

------
frevd
Lol, fail - I don't understand the question:

#2 "REMOVING WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD MAKE YOU A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
PERSON?"

I'm not a native speaker -- what am I supposed to do here?

~~~
vibhavsinha
It might be rephrased into something like: "Which of these best define your
personality?"

------
sergiotapia
How can a website this simple be so slow? I don't get it.

------
vannevar
What if my soulmate is a roomful of monkeys on typewriters? It seems a fallacy
to attribute coincident answers with any sort of real compatibility.

------
facetube
If someone cloned me, I'm pretty sure one of us would murder the other one.
Similar != compatible when it comes to humans.

------
rpwverheij
nice idea. I stopped at the first question though. The answer that would
correctly describe my average situation at a party involves a combination of 3
of the mentioned answers and probably 3 others that were not mentioned, so I
doubt a test with 8 questions with each 8 answers can match me properly to
someone that is very much like me.

------
cbaker
Why would you want to meet someone exactly like yourself? You already know
you. I'd rather meet people different from me.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Truth be told, opposites don't usually attract. People prefer others who are
similar to themselves.

~~~
Arnor
There's a wide spectrum between "exactly like you" and "opposite"

------
yramagicman
Obligatory XKCD, though it's not a comic.

[https://what-if.xkcd.com/9/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/9/)

------
timkofu
We can read and write English just fine in Kenya. No translation needed.

------
EGreg
OkCupid does this

------
nutate
wait... soulmates?

------
Dewie3
If there was a _twin_ of me out there... we wouldn't get along anyway.

