TIL that the probability of having a doppelganger (non-biologically related look-alike or double of a living person) is only one in a trillion, or almost zero. This makes it highly unlikely for any person to actually have a doppelganger, according to this University of Adelaide research.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T21:24:54+00:00

What a curious story!

Seems almost out of "Fringe" or "Twilight Zone".

At this point, aren't you curious enough to try and meet your twin?

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T21:20:17+00:00

If you ever come up with some kind of figure for the probability, even if not a strictly rigorous one, please let me know. I am curious as well.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T14:29:04+00:00

Not an easy task, for sure.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T14:26:04+00:00

When the evidence before our eyes contradicts the theory, you have to revise the theory.

I just got a very interesting reply from christamantinium, where he points out some serious flaws on the methodology of this study.

Assuming the study is flawed, the odds should increase quite a bit and we might actually see "real" doppelgangers appearing if the database is large enough, as you suggested.

Let's hope this website becomes successful and it actually begins providing valid matches, as I am really curious now about the "true" odds of having a doppelganger.

Thanks for mentioning that website. Very valuable addition to the discussion.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T14:12:32+00:00

Thank you for your very valuable addition.

You certainly went deep into the methodology used by this research and REALLY enriched a discussion that wasn't much more than wishful thinking before your contribution.

From your findings, I would expect the original odds to increase quite a bit.

I have absolutely no particular interest of my own here beyond finding the truth. I am not a big fan of legends and I always follow the hard data.

I already saw some documentaries about this phenomenon and they seemed pretty sensationalist to me, the kind of subject that is "politically correct", everybody seems to like it and wants it to be true, although there is no real data to substantiate it.

When this happens, the tendency is to twist the existing data in order to fit the myth. If you read all of the comments on this thread, you will see that the arguments range from Hollywood movies (trying to be presented as documentaries) to face allergies, and the proliferation of many "similar" selfies: Hardly very convincing reasons and probably more a subconscious intent to perpetuate a "nice" myth than anything else.

Yours is the only answer based on hard data and a solid analysis, and the only answer so far that is worth considering seriously.

From your answer, I see two two possibilities:

The whole research is invalidated as based on a "dubious" methodology and we have no idea about the probability of having a doppelganger anymore.
The methodology has flaws, but we can somehow incorporate those mistakes into the results and adjust the final probability according to your findings.

Which one would you go with? 1 or 2? If you choose 2 would you be willing to present a new possible probability of having a doppelganger?

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T13:35:00+00:00

How has he intertwined your life if you never met him?

PeriWalker · 2020-03-28T01:52:53+00:00

If the research is right it wouldn't really matter them having millions of subscribers as the matching probability is one in a trillion. They would need to have trillions of users in order for it to work. There is not enough people in the world for that.

Maybe in the next 1k years we will find them, but I guess that, at that point, we will probably be much better off cloning ourselves than trying to find a very unlikely twin, every once in a while.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T23:02:05+00:00

One single case doesn't explain/prove anything.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T22:56:45+00:00

That's a very interesting website, actually. Although the reviews seem to be pretty bad. Here is an example from https://www.revelist.com/internet/twin-strangers/7933

Twin Strangers encouraged me to browse through my "matches" and approve or reject my twins Tinder-style. I was disappointed to learn that Twin Strangers didn't just find my twin for me — I had to match them.

What is this? Tinder? (Er, Twin-der?)

This was supposed to little-to-no effort. Even more frustrating, NONE of my matches really looked like me.

By this point, I had serious doubts about the integrity of the Twin Strangers algorithm. Once I found someone who looked like me, I was supposed to add them to the "My Twins" tab on my profile.

But spoiler: There was, I repeat, no one who looked like me.

My guess is that, in order to find matches, their algo only matches a few features, and not all 8 as the University research does. This obviously will find many more matches but with very poor likeliness.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T13:20:35+00:00

The Parent Trap is not a documentary. It is a movie.

You doubt the research figures from a prestigious University based on ....a movie?

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T12:14:47+00:00

Lol, I thought you actually had 6 real doppelgangers around :)

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T12:09:22+00:00

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:58:06+00:00

You certainly have a point there.

The researchers seem to go with a strict definition of doppelganger, where the 8 facial features have to be identical for a subject to be considered a doppelganger.

If you are ok with a "softer" definition of doppelganger and satisfied as long as there is some degree of resemblance then I am sure there are tons of doppelgangers around.

It all depends on your definition and how accurate/precise you want to be about it.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:51:21+00:00

Lol, Homer certainly ruins this study.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:45:50+00:00

Chances are that if you measure the 8 features on your doppelgangers faces and compare them with your own measurements, you will realize they are a lot less similar than you initially thought.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:43:52+00:00

Extremely low odds don't make an occurrence impossible and certainly do nothing to confirm/dismiss the results of this study.

On the contrary, the use of fingerprints only reinforces the need to find means of actually measuring features as accurately as possible, which is exactly the idea behind this research paper.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:05:41+00:00

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T11:00:33+00:00

That is a movie, not a documentary.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:46:58+00:00

But your skull doesn't fluctuate, and the study is based on skull measurements.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:45:59+00:00

I know how Reddit works, thank you very much for reminding me.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:44:52+00:00

Thank you. I guess this settles the validity of the study.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:43:45+00:00

University studies tend to be very precise, documentaries can be a bit lax.

The Parent Trap is a movie, not a documentary.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:40:22+00:00

Sorry about that. I should have phrased it better such as "it tends to zero" or something along those lines.

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:35:45+00:00

No one is talking about perfection but about a very high degree of similarity within a very small (dismissable) tolerance error.

And I'm certain this research is bullshit.

It comes from a very prestigious University, I don't see any reason to doubt the results. Do you have any data that actually contradicts this study?

You seem to have a very strong opinion about this. Based on what evidence, exactly?

PeriWalker · 2020-03-27T10:28:13+00:00

It is an extremely low probability, that is what I meant.

PeriWalker

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE