Slashdot Mirror
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.
Only works until the first second of meeting that person in real life and all illusions are instantly shattered. Or maybe you can have virtual relationship, virtual marriage, virtual children...
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
In the salary cheque that is.
No?
The camera doesn't lie:
http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/b422245a96af7340b70921c641e0b6db.jpg
Simple. Set up a dating site which costs a thousand+ a month for guys but is free for women.
Deleted
Run by a couple of maths grads. Last time I looked they were using a regression analysis to match people.
The site's also free.
Deleted
ArrangedMarriage.com. They skip the whole dating thing and set you up to marry the woman/man of your possible dreams. The only bad thing is that the woman's family sometimes has to provide a hefty dowry.
While the one free site Plenty Of Fish is mentioned, the other one - which in my subjective experience is popular with the more internet experienced, geeky crowd - OkCupid is not. Strange, I thought they were among the first to start the free and high quality dating site.
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!
Sure they did. You go on believing that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do people even know what they want from a partner?
People talk and talk about wanting this trait and that trait but they often seem to date people that are nothing like they claim they want. I'm honestly convinced people in general have no idea what they want, so by extension I struggle to see how you could create a site that offers people those things...
Random selection based on
- Age
- Geographic location
- Large important decisions (e.g. Family, yes/no?)
- A few shard interests
Would likely have a very high success rate.
I was on eharmony a while. I had over 400 matches in the same time that my matches got only 40. Ten times beats twice any day. I did get quite a few dates just by being the normal guy in a sea of weirdos.
I've considered using it because time-wise, it would be ideal. The problem is everyone more or less says the same cliche crap and, more so with the advent of MySpace, people clearly spend ages taking pictures that make them looking better than they really do which wouldn't matter if the profiles were honest but they're not.
Meeting drunk women is the best way. Their guard is down so they're honest and as a bonus you may just get laid after the first meeting. The only catch is remembering if she's a keeper or not the next day.
Meeting drunk women is the best way. Their guard is down so they're honest and as a bonus you may just get laid after the first meeting. The only catch is remembering if she's a keeper or not the next day.
The trick there is to not be to drunk enough to forget come morning, but you give the illusion that you are.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
My vote is still for OkCupid. I met a couple really great people on there that I am still friends with today, and I met my current partner of over two years through a volunteer organization one of the aforementioned people I met on OkCupid introduced me to. I would guess that, like me, most slashdot users would be more interested in the scientific approach that a site like OkCupid takes rather than profile/picture system most sites use.
It's not "dating" so much as it is being efficient by running the population through a filter. If I filter out all women under the age of 22, all political conservatives, and all evangelical Christians, I'm probably not missing out on the love of my life an it let's me focus on people I might actually be compatible with.
The reality is that the vast majority of people in the US seem to have gotten married because they figured "it was about time for that" or something similar. If you have anything resembling standards, dating is really, really fucking hard.
Hope that marrying someone wonderful and having a family isn't part of what you need to be really happy, because it sure as hell isn't guaranteed.
+++ATH0
I was divorced in 1998 after 18 years of marriage.
After a series of "fixups" and other misguided attempts by friends and family, I tried Match.com. I did the questions accurately and honestly. My profile text made it clear I was (a) highly intelligent, (b) looking for a permanent relationship, and (c) pretty particular about who I dated.
Within 72 hours of posting, I had over 400 "matches" in a 50 mile radius of me. WHAT? I don't live in NY or LA, so the statistics were mind-boggling. I imagined there must be a secret kingdom of single, middle-aged women in that 50 miles, just waiting for yours truly to show up on Match.com. The sad reality was that well over 99% of the so-called "matches" were train wrecks, literally and figuratively. I dated 10-12 women from Match and NONE were anything close to a "keeper".
So, one night, I waded through the eHarmony process, set the radius for 150 miles, and waited. ...and waited. ....and waited. Finally, after 6-7 weeks, I got TWO matches. One was a "crossover" from Match that I actually kind of liked, but she declared we had no chemistry on the 2nd and final date. The other match and I spent some time in communicating via eHarmony and finally agreed to a real date in September of 2003.
We got engaged on the following Valentine's Day...lured her into a jewelry store that I'd enlisted to help, and surprised her with a diamond ring. Everyone applauded...it was a nice moment.
The wedding was a few months later in July, so we've just celebrated our 5th anniversary.
A couple of years ago, eHarmony tried to get us to appear in one of their commercials, but we declined.
I don't know about the "science", but we do get along really well, so I have no complaint.
I am my own gestalt.
Not after Slashdot gets done with it.
Name...That...Autocomplete!
It's a shame that neither of these sites reviewed OK Cupid.
I've been on that site for some time now, and have met some truly amazing people from it. They have, by far, the most impressive search filters that I've ever seen. Their match percentage is scary accurate (and gets even more accurate as you answer more questions about yourself).
And best of all, it's 100% supported by advertising which isn't obnoxious.
-David
This is a very facile thing for someone in your position to say. For many of the rest of us "experiencing life" all by itself simply means interminable years of crushing loneliness.
I have started to come to the following realization:
Happiness is guaranteed to no one. The best one can expect out of life is that you can always find some way to respect yourself and say "I did something with my life that I can look myself in the mirror and approve of." That status of self-respect is prerequisite for happiness, but it is by no means a guarantor. There is every chance that you'll just get out there and do your thing and live your life and be alone and lonely right up until the day you die.
+++ATH0
...at least when it comes to attraction.
Getting into a relationship you better use your head or your life will turn to crap. You've do NOT want to hook up with someone who's self centered and irrational.
But determining if there'll be sparks....forget the science and go with your gut. Most of the people you "should" get along with based on statistical methods and science you will find boring. Many of the people you shouldn't be attracted to will turn you into a horny toad. The trick is to find someone who's good for you, and be good to them back. Oh and by the way those hormones that make the sex great will make any kind of reasoned rational logic go out the window at least for some of your relationship.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Strange, I thought they were among the first to start the free and high quality dating site.
I didn't find the date of when OkCupid started but more than 10 years ago there was a free site called American Singles I think. Another dating site bought or took over it though.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's that way in a lot of area and countries and forgetting the fact it's biased and the rules shouldn't be that way (assuming the male was drunk as well) but drunk people have sex all the time. The idea is not to pick the one so drunk that she'll be freaked out the next day.
Like anything else, it requires using a bit of common sense.
I met my current wife through pof.com, a free dating site. It took a couple of years of using pay and free online dating services. I also used a local dating service for $1200. I went out on an average of 1-2 new dates per week. 1 was the norm and 2 was maybe once a month. I ended up not liking most of the women and they didn't like me. After shelling out all that cash and spending all that time and effort, I ended up marrying a woman that made contact with me first through a free website! If I could go back and do it over again I would just focus on what I liked to do to make myself a better person and let it happen on its own.
- Age
- Geographic location
- Large important decisions (e.g. Family, yes/no?)
- A few shard interests
Would likely have a very high success rate.
Many dating website offer those choices. Searchers can chose what is important and what isn't. Age, is someone between 30 and 40 important? Do matches have to be within 20 miles, or is it alright if matches are 200 miles away? Do you want children or prefer none. Do you do or are you interested in outdoor activities?
I last checked out dating sites years ago, but those I did check out allowed as many or as few selection criteria as users want.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
seems like a lot of it is a fairly straightforward decision tree.
There are things someone requires (gender, age bracket, willingness to relocate either for the relationship or for work etc), and an individual may have their own quirks/fetishes. Then you have things which are preferred but not necessarily required, height, haircolour, food preferences and so on. And then you're matching based on answers to other questions with a personality profile (which is largely psychologist nonsense but not entirely. if you ask 200 questions, even stupid questions each with a scale out of 5, you have 1000 possible points, you can do a fairly straightforward matching (0.5% each, want to assume some distribution etc.) then by virtue of the large sample size a close % match probably means something. Not necessarily a lot, but it does tell you something about how they answer questions at least.
I suppose the big advantage to online dating is if you know there is something you specifically do, or do not want that is not always immediately obvious when meeting somene (smoke, drink, shave, like harry potter, likes to travel whatever) you can immediately cull that lot from your target selection pool. People who would fall into an exclusionary category that isn't obvious can consume time otherwise spent looking for people who wouldn't be excluded. Esspeecially if they are mutually exclusive, I like to travel, she doesn't well neither party will be happy in the long run, it might be more efficient (albeit less fun) to simply skip each other and move on. You have to know what you want (which is a decidedly iterative process), and then be honest about it, one can see the advantages.
Let's get one thing straight: If you're using online dating, you've got no choice.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm in my late 20s, have done the online dating thing off and on since college, as well as asking out people in real life. If I go back and think about which were the best relationships/sex in terms of online vs offline meeting, offline meeting tended to be the best. There's just far too much useful information you get from seeing someone up close, listening them talk, watching their body language. We have lots of mental machinery dedicated to parsing that stuff, and almost none of it is activated during online dating (even pictures are no good, because they're so often old photos or outright deceptive).
...with the exception of Slashdot, of course. ;-)
So, at this point in my life, I'm trying to reduce the amount of time I spend on IM, forums, computer games, etc. and spend more time around real people in the real world. I think it happens to a lot of nerds as we get older. We look back and realize we don't have much to show for all the thousands of hours spent on inane IRC conversations, first person shooters, and forum flame wars. All that stuff is so much emptiness when you get right down to it...
I found it was the opposite with Match.com. I signed up with them years ago and for both my matches they generated as well as searches I did it was not unusual to see last sign-in dates from a week or a month ago. I figured that if users are waiting a couple of weeks to a month before logging in then they mustn't be that interested, or too busy. Then most of the those I contacted never returned my messages.
The commercials you see are obviously designed to exploit lonely people in an emotionally vulnerable situation. When you sign up you have such optimism that you are going to find someone and then you get slammed hard with disappointment after a few weeks of it.
While the commercials promise too much, people have too high of expectations. Seriously it's unrealistic to expect to strike paydirt by creating an online profile on a dating site and not doing much otherwise. Singles should be doing more than just that. For instance find a club or group that shares an interest you have. You like bike riding, find a bike riding club. Interested in writing, find a writing group. But don't join these groups just to find a date, do it because you like it and want to meet others who like it too. One thing may lead to another.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Uh, you must be thinking of the 80's and 90's or something because nowadays most dating sites already have way more women than men. For example, men get a substantial discount on eHarmony and such.
Not generally, they don't. Maybe in parts of New England, where single women outnumber single men by a significant margin. Everywhere else, dating sites are male dominate with male/female ratios ranging from 1.2:1 to 7:1 Sites I have verified personally include: Match Yahoo Personals PlentyOfFish OKCupid I am no longer on Yahoo (2 years) or Match (1 year) but the POF and OKCupid data is current. The long term trend is toward more women, but it hasn't even reached parity yet, much less swung toward toward more women than men.
Their guard is down so they're honest and as a bonus you may just get laid after the first meeting. The only catch is remembering if she's a keeper or not the next day.
It's not a problem if you have to chew your arm off in the morning.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I have no mod points and just want to say how interesting your post was. Thank you for sharing.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
It appeals to the moronic masses who believe in stuff like Astrology, or new age religions. You might be shocked to hear that usually these are women.
These systems are designed to precondition potential matches into thinking that some mystical, all-knowing, compassionate sentient computer brain has made the perfect match made in heaven.
"Well, shit, I spent three effin hours filling out eHarmony's wanna-be MMPI-2 by 'Dr' Warren ... and the system didn't even reject me! I'm suitable, and there must be some validity to this."
(next time, I probably shouldn't lie to eHarmony about my possibly kinky autoerotic asphyxiation fantasy, or that thing about small rodent insertions.)
The point is, after a match is made on eHarmony (or Chemistry,) people go into the first date believing that there is a higher probability of the relationship being successful. The time is no longer completely fearful, but actually there is some mystery and *gasp* optimism about it.
And that, my pale, geeky friends, is the magic behind these heinous systems. Follow the yellow brick road.
I have much, much more to say on this topic, but I'll save the rest for some other time. peace out.
Take a look at all the other decisions you have ever made (pink mohawk, tattoo on your left cheek, buying a Ford Pinto). Now pretend like you pick out your "perfect date". Now guess how likely it is you will actually pick someone who is compatible with you, especially since you a) don't know what their traits would be and b) are basing your decision on if they have red hair or not.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
and went straight to Omnidate's website to sign up?
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Introverts do not need lower levels of stimulation they need lower levels of stimulation from other people. If intellect determines the amount of and variety of stimulation that is needed than you are going to find a lot more Renaissance types amongst extroverts and more savant folks among introverts. Introverts in other words, can entertain/satisfy/challenge themselves be it working alone on a project at work/home/school, reading a book/article/website or just sitting somewhere silently thinking about something. Extroverts need to constantly be with other people to build up and maintain their sense of identity and worth because they can't sustain themselves mentally for days, weeks or months alone like an introvert can. Introverts may be unable to sustain a level of constant socialization that some cliques require but extroverts often break just as easily when they are taken away from their ability to socialize.
When some of my friends divorced recently they split up their friends with the man getting less friends than when he started the relationship 10 years ago. Not a single woman he knew and only 4 of the men ( including me ) would hang out with him after the divorce. He was called a loser and delusional and people would turn up their noses at me if I mentioned him in conversation. Yeah, he is a douchebag wannabe writer/singer-songwriter but he is a working musician and that is a lot more than I can say for his ex who is an un-employed real estate developer. 10 months ago he could not take all of his former friends making fun of him on Facebook, live shows and the like and drank himself to a stroke at the age of 34 alone in his parent's house. To entertain himself as a recluse he required netflix, World of Warcraft, HDTV Cable and stacks of comic books. He weighed over 300 lbs at the time and I was one of the only people besides his family to talk to him for months. He never left the house except to buy cigarettes, fast food or beer. The stroke effected mostly his ability to manipulate numbers which has made him amelodic so he is getting into the local experimental music scene. He is now at a svelte 180 or so and is a self-entertaining introvert. His new apartment has 2 bookshelves, a couch, a bed, 5 writing/computer desks and no TV. People knock of his door and he pretends he is not home. Whereas before he would blah blah blah about what he was going to do, or did or wanted to do ad inifinitum, when he goes out now he now he just stares blankly off into space most of the time or gets up and leaves in the middle of a conversation if he wants to work on something or is just bored with people.
It is amazing to me how cruel extroverts can be to their own kind. Us introverts need to stick together.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Totally agreed. I love that site.
You've just made me realize that my perfect date is a redhead with a tattoo of a pink Ford Pinto on her left cheek!
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Using an algorithm doesn't make it scientific. Using an algorithm whose use is supported by the data to be better than other methods is. So far all I've seen are testimonials - a hallmark of unscientific thinking.
When I used OKCupid regularly, I encountered a large number of women I would classify as crazy.
Because they use regression analysis to match people, that means you must correlate with the crazies.
Deleted
Look at the lengths women go to not to have sex! It's UNBELIEVABLE! News flash ladies, head is better. Give it instead, throw yourself into relationships and eventually you'll hook someone you like!
So fucking stupid, my GOD!
Dating sites can be scams, watch out.
Who would join a dating site with no members? No one! So how does a dating site get started? They fill up their bucket with fake profiles. (Hundreds of thousands of them).
Even better, watch out for the "free to sign up" sites. Yes, they are free to sign up! Within hours or days you will get a message from a lady, telling you how cute you are and that "she likes whatever you like too".
This girl is called a dating angel. She works for the dating site (outsourced to the Philippines). Her job (the job of the team of angels) is to reply to ALL new "free" members. The trick? The new member needs to pay his membership to write back to his new angel. He will pay up, write back and never hear from her again!
Watch out for the Filipino "Chat scammers they will befriend you inside a dating site, and then try to get you to either pay to see them on cam on a pay cam site or ask for money because their carabao died.
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
Match.com was caught a few years ago scamming [paying] members: just as one's membership was about to expire, if it wasn't renewed or set to auto-renew, an employee would contact you and pretend to be interested until you paid again.
Sure, the companies to varying extent are exploiting the lonely. For all their faults (like continually matching me with necrophages) they seemed to put a lot of effort into encouraging people to avoid delusion and to consider criteria that make for lasting relationships. The places like Great Expectations, though, are predators for sure. They tried to convince me that I'd signed up with them online (I'd never even been to their site), wanted me to pay to tape a video profile, etc.
As for inactivity -- there was a lot of that out there, correlating to how inexpensive a site was. Lots of people on both sides of the chromosomal fence simply ignore the site when they're talking to / dating someone and lack the courtesy to suspend matches.
Others can be seen to log in, change their profiles, etc., but lack the courtesy to respond at all -- most likely because the other person's photo didn't resemble a romance novel or one of the criteria was a non-starter (notice how height is always right at the top with age?).
Sounds like a Leonard Cohen song called the Sisters of Mercy.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I seriously would not go out with anyone in any of my current social circles and pollute the already incestuous nature of them. Too much fucking drama dating people who have to be around, bars are full of fail/losers and libraries are manned by militant vegans with teethed vaginas around here. So dating sites are seriously the best choice out there atm.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This is terrible advice. I would know I spent 10 years hanging out in bars, sleeping my way to the bottom and I attempted relationships with 2 out of the dozens of drunk and smelly bar flies. Both after about 6 months went full tilt batshit insane on me.
Best places I have found to meet chicks is in class at a university, or try meetup.com for something you enjoy doing or just get the fuck out of your house and go to places where people are not drinking themselves to death. If you are resorting to sleeping with people out of a bar in your 30's you are a loser. Spend money on a good prostitute, it will feel 10x better.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Match.com was caught a few years ago scamming [paying] members: just as one's membership was about to expire, if it wasn't renewed or set to auto-renew, an employee would contact you and pretend to be interested until you paid again.
I'm not surprised.
If I were younger I'd prefer dating cougars.
Others can be seen to log in, change their profiles, etc., but lack the courtesy to respond at all
When I was signed up on dating sites years ago I tried to check f not every day then two or three days a week. I answered most intros sent to me, even if not interested, but I didn't answer all. On the other hand I contacted a lot that didn't reply, not even a "not interested". And almost every one I didn't reply to didn't come close to matching according to their profiles.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Also the public health insurance option we're about to get.
+++ATH0
I'm in a relationship with someone right now. The problem is that I know it can't last. She's 9 years older than me (still a fantastic lay) and has two kids, one of whom is 19. But she's way, way too clingy and manipulative. It's going to be over soon.
My point was that you can go out and be an extrovert and have a fantastic social life and STILL be alone your entire life. Being in a successful romantic relationship is far, far more about luck than self-help books care to admit.
+++ATH0
My life is dizzyingly active. I'm involved in all sorts of things, have a ton of friends and a girlfriend who is fantastic in the sack (but we're over in two weeks because she's moving).
My point was that enjoying all life has to offer and putting yourself out there and "living" is still no guarantor of anything. It all comes down to luck, and some of us simply don't have it.
"Facile" seemed to work better in that sentence than "easy" to me. Note that I used "easy" in the subject line. If you don't like it, you are free to edit it out with your internal mental sed. :p
+++ATH0
I don't crouch in my house. I am involved in a LOT of stuff and am actually pretty extroverted. I have a ton of friends, am out every weekend, and am currently in a relationship with a woman that is giving me fantastic sex but that I know isn't going anywhere (she's 9 years older than me, I'm 30, and she has two kids, one of whom is 19). Right now I am applying to go into the military as an officer, participating in local civic theater, and assisting with the creation of a hackerspace. I'm out there. My point was that all of that still isn't enough. You still have to just get lucky, and you may never, ever get lucky.
And in my case, that means that some portion of my life may always feel empty and incomplete, because I've known I wanted to be a father since I was 16 years old.
+++ATH0