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.
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
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!
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 know you're joking/trolling, but there is something to arranged marriages when done properly. One of the biggest problems in marriages is the tendency for people to form them while stupid. There's a lack of objectivity that people have when making those decisions, which are often times more apparent from a parent or friend. The ability to consider things other than just hormones.
Of course it can work the other way as well, but the key is to actually care and to take the time to consider all the angles.
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.
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
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 had a chat with someone I used to work with about arranged marriages. He was from India and was in one himself. According to him, making an arranged marriage work is, pretty much, the foundation of what makes any marriage work. Both partners have to give and take, and accept each other's faults as they are. The big difference is that while Western marriages have the option to divorce when that's no longer possible, arranged marriages are much more difficult to opt-out of. (Though one can still just knock up other women, though that makes the guy look pretty bad socially, so far as I know.)
I think Westernized marriages could learn a thing or two from arranged couples (that do it right, of course). Of course, they could benefit from lots of other things (like doing away with the notion that marriages NEED to happen), but that's a start.
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