Of Science and Choice In Online Dating
Must be summertime, as online publications turn to the contemplation of Internet dating. The NY Times's piece (registration may be required) takes a not particularly deep look at the reality behind the "science" claims of chemistry.com, eHarmony.com, and others. "The question is how much it really matters to users if the methods have any scientific basis. A friend of mine... said she looked at several dating sites and chose the ones that looked like they had 'the least riffraff.'" Technology Review focuses on studies showing that the overwhelming number of choices presented by many dating sites can be counterproductive: "...more search options lead to less selective processing by reducing users' cognitive resources, distracting them with irrelevant information, and reducing their ability to screen out inferior options." The article concludes with a look at the startup Omnidate, which offers technology for 3D virtual dating. The site has had twice as many women (by percentage) sign up as the other dating sites typically see.
...are the women.
Anyone who can solve that problem deserves a Nobel.
Are you suggesting people should get a SECOND Life?
A new meaning was given to the term "slashdot effect" today, as hordes of /. readers register on the site, changing its demographics to be similar to other dating sites.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Luckily, two dear lady friends helped me to understand what I needed to know and I'm now very happily married.
Shit, where is that legal? I'm packing now...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you have anything resembling standards, dating is really, really fucking hard.
Especially if she has standards too.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.