Slashdot Mirror
A Quantitative Analysis of Online Dating
imjustatomato writes "Never before has something so human and primitive as dating been reducible to such discrete values. A study analyzes the data of an online dating service. When do you like someone like yourself? Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match. Other interesting findings are: men initiate 73.3% of messages, but their initiations are 17.9% less likely to be reciprocated; 78.2% of messages are never responded to."
I can't believe how many blank pages there were in this dude's thesis! Interesting work, but come on, at least do what we normally do when we can't make our 90 page requirement... use larger fonts, make the margins 1.5", double-lines, etc.
A thesis doesn't have to be long in order to contain good research. My doctoral thesis is only 81 pages, and 20 pages of that is overhead (front matter, table of contents, list of symbols, preface, advice to the reader concerning the order in which chapters should be read, epilogue, and references).
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
- Communication. Email (and other text-based mediums) miss out on several communication cues. Tone of voice, body language, etc. are important to figure out exactly what is meant. I can write something and mean it in one way, but that doesn't mean the person at the other end will read it that way - they could just as easily (especially if they're having a bad day) cast it in a negative tone in their mind.
- Expectations. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that men (and women!) online are looking for the "perfect partner". Newsflash, people: there's no such thing. Everybody has their flaws. Doesn't matter who they are.
- Appearances (which comes in with expectations, I suppose.) If you're not 'beautiful', you're evidently not worth knowing. Dig a little deeper, people. There's more to beauty than stick figures like you see in those fashion magazines
...
My experiences with online dating? I've met five, maybe six, people that way. One's a decent friend still. One, it's too early to tell (but my feeling is "nothing more than friendship".) The rest, I haven't seen much of beyond the early meetings.All in all, my Quest for Non Single Status shall henceforth be conducted off the computer. Between the cost, the frustration of usually never getting a message back (I'd rather hear "thanks, but I don't think it'd work out" than never hear back at all - at least then it's a clean break), and generally getting out and about in the real world a bit more than when I was a teenager, I think I'll be much happier for it. Do I need somebody? Hell no. Do I want somebody? Yes. But I'd rather be single than with the wrong person.
I recently spent two months on Match.com and by and am pleased with the end results... I am dating someone I met on there. .ru email addresses. The old I need a visa and it costs 600 American dollars thing.
You really have a hard time weeding through the mass amounts of spam email (I realize you are looking for someone in Virginia, but Montana is only 6 hours away), the obvious scammers mostly with
Also there are a fair amount of women that fall into the FREAK category.
I would disagree with this point made in the paper "Among online dating members, "marital status" and "wants children" are the two most influential characteristics to match."
From my limited experience on Match, I think the most important thing women were looking for was income range. I initially had that on my profile and got swamped with replies, after hiding that bit they slowed way down.
Nah, give that one very young and hasn't figured out there's more to life than return on investment.
I'm very nearly 30. And I have to agree with the grandparent on his points to the most part. If you'rea nerd you tend to look at things (everything) logically, if you take that approach to having children, there really is no logical reason to do so in this day and age. Logically, a person is better focusing energy on wealth creation, when you're old and decrepid, you can pay somebody to look after you.
It's only when you bring emotion into the equation that some find that having children serves a purpose. But without emotion, you are hard pressed to find a really good reason.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
If you'rea nerd you tend to look at things (everything) logically, if you take that approach to having children, there really is no logical reason to do so in this day and age.
If you can say that, then you can say there's no logical reason to have sex or play baseball or create wealth. Some people want kids, others don't. There's no logic there. There's logic in not having them if you can't afford them, but that's pretty much it, I think.
Sure smokers prefer smokers.
Non-smokers tend to bitch too much about it.
If you take emotion out of the equation, then there's no point in doing anything at all, given how happiness and unhappiness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, are all emotions. Being inert as a rock is logical when there's no boredom or other emotion to make you desire activity -- letting civilization collapse is as "logical" as the opposite, when there's no emotion that makes one desire its continuation. Logic is only a method used to achieve end goals you've already set; logic is absolutely meaningless without *emotion* first setting what those goals should be.
May the Maths Be with you!
What's 'primitive' about dating? You think they have or had 'dating' in primitive societies? Modern Western culture, and those parts of the rest of the world that have been globalized into it, are the only places we find this custom. They didn't 'date' in Europe/America in the 1900s, and they don't 'date' in most of the world now, except for that internationalized overclass that you get in big cities.
They have lots of sex, but that's a whole nuther thing.
Enjoy the sophisticated, rarefied culture that allows you to have such esoteric customs as dating! But don't think it's a basic primitive instinctive thing, because it's about as natural to human culture as the iPod.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Women love long-distance relationships. All talking and no sex.
It's only when you bring emotion or the propagation of your genes into the equation that some find that having children serves a purpose.
You know, propagating one's genes is a major concern for most lifeforms. Even those that don't have what we call emotions.
Kids are frequently portayed as a cost factor with no ROI whatsoever. I can tell you otherwise. I have seen many old people in retirement homes and see a huge difference between those who have a family and those who don't.
...
Those with no kids often have nobody, who
- looks after their well being (nurses and doctors are often overworked and do not notice health problems until it is too late)
- visits them regularly. You can immediately spot people who haven't seen friends or relatives in a long time, they are often highly depressed and apathetic.
- can take care of them so they stay out of retirement homes as long as possible. You will find that most people in retirement homes are folks with no family. Most of them could survive easily in their own house if someone cared for them properly.
- really takes the time to understand their needs. Nobody knows your parents like you do. Nurses don't have the time to find out what you want if you can't talk after a heart attack
- gives you love and comfort if you are sick and/or dying. You can't pay for that.
Remember, that you spend many years being old and fragile, dependent on help. And at that age you don't look like an actor anymore, so most other people won't care about you. You can't take for granted that you kids will care about you, but from what I've seen, if you were a good parent, they will.
Women have what you say is "the advantage" in ANY singles settng. But very few girls manage to exploit it. And the reason is: the girls who are good with men have all got one before they every make it to a singles setting. Guys arn't usually happy with just one, if they can help it, so the guys who women usually choose in signles setting are just after a 2nd or 3rd partner. So the cycle continues.
But the other important factor is compromise. All women want a "self-confidence" guy above all else (your genes say "get me a guy who can teach my sons to get multiple girls" but "try to get him to put all his effort into my children"). So any woman who can compromise on the guy's "self-confidence" gets her good looking, rich, & faithful, but shy, but. Guys likewise care about looks above all else, making fat girls pretty damn easy.
Anyone, women especially, who bitches about dating just han't been trying to learn from mistakes or compromise.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The cognitive dissonance that occurs when you get laughed at by somebody who believes in magic just isn't worth it.
Let me open by saying that this line was hysterical. However, as a devout agnostic I would like to point out a fallacy that atheists often fall victim to: how do you know that "god/es/s" are simply "magic"?
Sticking to the facts: at some point, all living things die. Perhaps we then find ourselves surrounded by virgins, standing before pearly gates, or we simply cease to exist. However, how can *any* of these *theories* be scientifically tested? How could any of these opinions be proven one way or another (short of actual death)?
As a youth, I was often offended by Chrisitans who were convinced that my father was fated for hell because he was a Jew. I didn't mind that they held a seperate belief, I was offended that they used their belief to mock my own.
Couldn't the same be said of hardcore atheists?
Not trying to troll, or offend, just offering a point to ponder.
barack to the future?