27 London, United Kingdom
Join today
Find great matches with our advanced matching system!
Join today
Find great matches with our advanced matching system!
My self-summary
Research scientist with a habit of studying things some people (mostly left-leaning people) find offensive. Primarily, this involves things like cognitive ability/intelligence, personality, sociological inequality, race and gender/sex. In general, how and why people and groups of people differ from each other. Academic key words: differential psychology, sociology, behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, statistics.

Personality wise, I'm not easily offended and like politically incorrect humor. I'm extroverted but spend most of my time alone (working). My work is very important to me. I am drug-friendly with a fondness for psychedelics, MDMA. I also like getting drunk and listening to great music (how dreadfully ordinary!). I'm extremely curious about learning stuff (see epistemic curiosity). I read >30 nonfiction books a year (in fact I only read nonfiction).

Politically, I value personal freedom (such as legalized drugs and sex work) and favor a relatively but not entirely free market (for instance I think a central agency for checking the effectiveness and safely of drugs is a great idea). The only political label I identify with is transhumanism.

Things I dislike: egalitarianism/social justice warring/third wave feminism, strong libertarianism, religion/superstition/irrationality.

I tend to write long profiles. You were warned. :)

I'm not actually in London. I'm in Denmark (normally Århus). But since there are about no interesting people on Cupid there, I put myself in another city. London is within reach of a cheap plane ticket. :)
What I’m doing with my life
Mostly things having to do with science. My primary long-term goal is to be an independent scientist. So this means securing sufficient means for survival and some excess money to use for funding research. I mostly have the funding part solved, so just looking for odds jobs that require little time and pay well.

Networking and building open science infrastructure. We started an open science publisher which now has three journals. We are trying to get the old academics to see the error of their ways. There is some success, but perhaps it's another one of those situations where Planck's remark about the acceptance of quantum mechanics is true.

If possible, I'd like to contribute to important human welfare projects. I don't mean typical do-gooder stuff, I mean developing things like genome editing, embryo selection and better predictive models for genetic diseases/traits. The history of e.g. educational interventions (e.g. Headstart) tells us that these don't work very well. Vaccines and stuff works well, but we already picked most of the low-hanging fruits using that technology. So what remains? Behavioral genetics tells us that most stuff is heritable. So, basically we just need to work out how to predict the diseases/traits from the genome and then start fixing the genome, either by direct editing (á la CRISPR) or indirect (embryo selection).

Of course, the primary interest is making people smarter because this is the human trait above all others (we even named the species after it). Smarter people do pretty much everything better, so we simply need more of them. And finding some solution to the only thing they don't do better: have sufficient number of children to reproduce their numbers. Perhaps we really will have to end up using artificial wombs (which I'd say has a 95% chance of being developed within the next 50 years).
I’m really good at
How good is really good at? Like 95th centile? 99th centile? I'm pretty good with R (programming) on account of having spent several thousand hours at this... I'd like to think I'm good with science.

Life is a poorly standardized intelligence test, so whatever smart people tend to be good at, I'm probably also good at.

I hope I'm good with writing because I wrote an awful lot of blogposts, a book or two, and a bunch of academic papers, so if no one can understand what I'm writing, that would be very sad indeed!

I used to play the drums. I'm probably still fairly good at that compared to most people.

I'm pretty good with keeping my head cool in stressful situations.
The first things people usually notice about me
Controversial opinions, assertiveness, encyclopedic knowledge, rapid talking, honesty, that I wear a suit. This profile?
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
Matching in musical tastes is not important nor is it a good conversation topic. Matching in non-fiction books, however, is (I think!). Anyway, you can find favorites etc. here:

Books: Goodreads. I read almost exclusively non-fiction (about 95%). In the last few years, I've mostly been reading textbooks on statistics, programming as well as science books of various kinds. I prefer to read a wide variety of things. Of blogs I read things like Slate Star Codex (Scott Alexander), Putanumberonit, JayMan, Psychological Comments (Thompson), Information Processing (Hsu), Statistical Modeling (Gelman) and similar.

Movies: IMDb rating history. I want to cluster analyze IMDB user ratings, so if you want to help me to do by scraping the profiles, get in contact. :)

Music: Lastfm profile. I mostly listen to instrumental, fairly monotonic, electronic music. Music with intelligible lyrics interferes with my thinking. The beats per minute keeps the tempo up. So it should improve work performance but apparently no one has actually studied this question properly, so we don't know!

Fuck food. Hunger is a kind of recurrent disease that should be dealt with in effective ways: cheaply and quickly. That aside, sometimes I appreciate a good meal. Mostly I just eat whatever with appropriate limits on the kilojoule count. If you must know, then I am particularly fond of: feta (any variant but those made from goat/sheep cheese are better), lasagne, koldskål.
The six things I could never do without
[Generic joke/complaint about this section.]
I spend a lot of time thinking about
I always have lots of on-going projects. Currently, some projects:

I recently started studying stereotypes, primarily with the intent of seeing how (in)accurate they are and what explains why one person's stereotypes are accurate, while another person's are not. In general, we found that they tend to be fairly accurate, especially when aggregated. However, individual variation in accuracy is not very predictable. Not even using political opinions data. People's own estimates of their accuracy had no relationship at all to accuracy. Cognitive ability (IQ) was the strongest and most reliable predictor of those we have examined so far. If you have ideas for what predicts stereotype (in)accuracy let me know. :)

How to most effectively visualize statistical concepts to increase understanding (mine and others'). My series is here. Looking to make more of these if I can get some inspiration! :)

How to automatically gather information about large numbers of internet people, i.e. web scraping for great justice science. And then releasing the data to the public (good science is open science).

Which fraction of cognitive ability and socioeconomic outcomes between racial/ethnic groups (e.g. Europeans vs. Amerindians) is due to genetic factors, climatological or other factors. This is actually a fairly difficult question, but mostly so because the relevant data are very hard to come by and the opposition to studying such things (harassment, censorship, lack of funding).

How to predict and model outcomes for immigrants in host countries. The general finding is that if one uses simple models based persons' country of origin, then it explains most of the variation between immigrant groups in a country like Denmark. We did a bunch of studies like this and they all found more or less the same results, no matter the outcome variable (income, crime, educational attainment, unemployment etc.)

Once in a blue moon, I study linguistics (which is what my degree is in), but only if it has to do with quantitative stuff (e.g. statistical typology) or spelling systems. My bachelor thesis was about the Danish spelling system and my proposed reform to this. So if you're looking for an expert on the Danish spelling system, I'm your go-to guy... ;)

If you have a cool idea for a science project, get in touch! I'm looking to team up with more cool people.
On a typical Friday night I am
Occasionally often drinking or following the letter of the law doing drugs. Maybe just working.
The most private thing I’m willing to admit
I'm very forthright. If you ask questions, it is very likely that you will get an honest answer. Beware that you may not like the answer. For this reason, I sometimes ask people if they REALLY want my answer or not.

I have psoriasis. What is that? It's a genetic (but somewhat random in its expression), non-contagious skin disease that basically causes the skin to be red and look like you have a sun burn (e.g. my red nose in the pictures). What a stupid disease. How does it work? Basically, it's a false-positive type auto-immune disease where the immune system attacks your own skin cells (hence the inflammation). Because the skin cells then die and have to be replaced, dead skin quickly forms on top (which looks like a sunburn).

I'm infamous enough that someone has made a fake-OKCupid user in my name. I have a hate page on Rational Wiki -- a leftist anti-pseudoscience wiki that fails to fairly deal with the pseudo that fits with own ideology.

I prefer sexually submissive partners and I like thongs.
You should message me if
Because women receive so many (mostly useless) messages on dating sites, it really does work better if women write first. :) Really I do know because I had access to the profile of a very attractive girl (with her permission) and saw the kind of crap that men send women. I'm very disappointed in my fellow men! So really, if you want to talk with me, you will probably have to write me first. After that I can take the initiative. This probably won't happen, so I'll probably write you if you seem interesting with a high match (>90%) and click "like" on my profile.

Compatibility really is mostly a question of similarity on important issues. Which means that if you are a creationist, astrology believer, anti-rationalist or indifferent to knowledge, gender/third wave/neo-feminist, or just someone that likes fluffy thinking in general (continental philosophy, social constructivism, psychoanalysis, ...), then it will almost certainly not work. Basically, you should like science and dislike pseudo-science, religious crap and political ideology. :) The things that are not about similarity are sexual and social roles (I'm dominant so partner must be submissive) and the immune system.

Or if you just want to talk about science or do science or other projects with me, that's cool too! Always looking for more interesting people! Male or female, it doesn't matter. Real science has no gender.

I filter messages at ≥ 85% match. Probably, a 85% match isn't going to work, something like ≥95% is more realistic. If you somehow think the match% is misleading in your particular case, you can always send me an email which only has a spam filter. If you're a smart person, you will find a way.

I prefer girls/women that look feminine and with a classical look, so if you have green or purple, short hair, you are not my type.

PS. No, I'm not related to Søren Kierkegaard. Furthermore, I don't like his philosophy ('neurotic Christian existentialism').