I can see the article’s point, but 1) the point is, they obtained the data and they certainly tried to swing the election – whether they did or not can be analysed and debated – 2) while psychology quizzes may not cut the mustard, other big data analyses like the ones Amazon and Netflix conduct may well yield better results.
Or not. Netflix has been doing a terrible job of recommending shows to me.
Yeah, that is an algorithm that could use a little work.
I would like to meet the person(s) at Netflix who seem to think Cosmos and documentaries about the Voyager probes should be put in the same categories as shows about ghosts, Bigfoot, and alien autopsies.
To be fair, historical ghost stories can be cool, and actual cryptozoologists weighing the actual likelihood of Bigfoot (however close to nil it may be) can be cool, and shows looking at the rise of urban legends about alien autopsies can be cool, but not the True Believer BS Netflix uses to pad out their offerings.
Probably the same people who seem to think that reality shows belong on Music Television, the History Channel should be about shopping at pawn shops, and The Learning Channel should be remakes of Jerry Springer episodes.
As far as recommendations go, the one that I find eerily accurate is Youtube. It not only knows what music I’ll like (understandable because I’ve liked a lot of videos) but it knows when I’m in the mood for heavy industrial vs when I’m feeling like country, when I’m feeling nostalgic for classic rock or when I’m in the mood for some energetic EBM or dancey music.
Regarding the psychographic article, of course it may seem rationally unlikely that Facebook ads could swing an election due to that. But marketing rarely aims at the rational mind or the intelligent person trying to make an informed decision. It targets the irrational part in all our minds, and especially targets the naive and easily-swayed. But then again, that’s what political campaigns do anyway.
As far as recommendations go, the one that I find eerily accurate is Youtube. It not only knows what music I’ll like (understandable because I’ve liked a lot of videos) but it knows when I’m in the mood for heavy industrial vs when I’m feeling like country, when I’m feeling nostalgic for classic rock or when I’m in the mood for some energetic EBM or dancey music.
I was going to say – Youtube has probably been the best source for discovering new videos for me. I watch a lot of history documentaries on Youtube, not least because channels like the History Channel sometimes release old shows there for free viewing. Youtube seems to have a pretty good sense of what I’ll watch and what I won’t.
Fair enough.
You were saying?
That’s what I’m finding: it keeps recommending grimdark, very violent (by my admittedly wimpy standards), and, sorry Americans, but it keeps pushing American shows at me when I mostly watch Canadian and British shows.
(When I like an American show, I love it lots. But the best examples of that are probably MASH, Arrested Development, and Archer. You see the issue. I grew up on 1970s Canadian public television, and it shows.)
“Because you watched Poirot and Inspector Morse, here’s a boatload of US shows filmed almost exclusively at night, where the special effects crew’s body horror gags get the most screen time! Repeatedly! In plot-defying flashbacks!”
I have had it get one right. One. And probably by accident: it recommended it because the lead actor was in one I had watched, and I just happen to be someone who likes time-travel and mystery dramas.
For 9999/10000 people, the shows are so radically different in tone, style, pacing, pretty much everything, that the rec would be an utter fail.