💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3813.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
rlp
Feb 11th 2012 | from the print edition
FOR as long as humans have romanced each other, others have wanted to meddle.
Whether those others were parents, priests, friends or bureaucrats, their
motive was largely the same: they thought they knew what it took to pair people
off better than those people knew themselves.
Today, though, there is a new matchmaker in the village: the internet. It
differs from the old ones in two ways. First, its motive is purely profit.
Second, single wannabe lovers are queuing up to use it, rather than resenting
its nagging. For internet dating sites promise two things that neither
traditional matchmakers nor chance encounters at bars, bus-stops and bar
mitzvahs offer. One is a vastly greater choice of potential partners. The other
is a scientifically proven way of matching suitable people together, enhancing
the chance of happily ever after .
The greater choice is unarguable. But does it lead to better outcomes? And do
the scientifically tested algorithms actually work, and deliver the goods in
ways that traditional courtship (or, at least, flirtation) cannot manage? These
are the questions asked by a team of psychologists led by Eli Finkel of
Northwestern University, in Illinois, in a paper released probably not
coincidentally a few days before St Valentine s day. This paper, published in
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, reviews studies carried out by
many groups of psychologists since the earliest internet dating site,
Match.com, opened for business in 1995. In it, Dr Finkel and his colleagues
cast a sceptical eye over the whole multi-billion-dollar online dating
industry, and they are deeply unconvinced.
Blueprint for a perfect partner?
The researchers first observation is not so much what the studies they
examined have shown, but what they have been unable to show, namely how any of
the much-vaunted partner-matching algorithms actually work.
Commercially, that is fair enough. Many firms preserve their intellectual
property as trade secrets, rather than making it public by patenting it, and
there is no reason why internet dating sites should not be among them. But this
makes claims of efficacy impossible to test objectively. There is thus no
independent scientific evidence that any internet dating site s algorithm for
matching people together actually does enhance the chance of their hitting it
off when they meet. What papers have been published on the matter have been
written by company insiders who do not reveal how the crucial computer programs
do their stuff.
It is, though, possible to test the value of a claim often made for these
algorithms: that they match people with compatible personality traits. No doubt
they do, given the number of questions on such matters on the average
application form. What is assumed, but not tested, however, is that this is a
good thing that those with compatible personalities make more successful
couples than those without. To examine this proposition, Dr Finkel draws on a
study published in 2010 by Portia Dyrenforth of Hobart and William Smith
Colleges, in Geneva, New York.
Dr Dyrenforth asked more than 20,000 people about their relationships, and also
assessed their personalities. Members of couples with similar personalities
were indeed happier than those whose partners were dissimilar. But the
difference was not exactly huge. It was 0.5%. As Dr Finkel puts it, I wouldn t
have a problem with companies claiming that their matching algorithm could
increase the chances of developing a lasting relationship by a tiny amount; I
get concerned, though, when companies claim they can find your soul mate for
you.
Surely, however, the chances of finding that magic other are increased by the
second thing internet dating brings: oodles of choice? But here, too, things
are not as simple as they might seem.
Some dating-site algorithms do not take the high-handed we know best approach
but, rather, let the punter decide what he or she is looking for and then offer
as many matches to those criteria as are on the website s books.
The crucial assumption here, of course, is that what people think they want is
what they actually need. That, it is true, is an assumption behind all consumer
decisions. But changing your mind about a book or a washing machine chosen over
the internet is not as emotionally fraught as changing your mind about a
potential sexual partner. And here, too, the data suggest people are not good
at knowing what they want. One of Dr Finkel s own studies, for example, showed
that when they are engaged in internet dating s cousin, speed dating, people s
stated preferences at the beginning of the process do not well match the
characters of the individuals they actually like.
Indeed, even the very volume of alternatives may be a problem. Studies on
consumer choice, from boxes of chocolates to restaurant wine lists, have shown
that less is more. Half a dozen bonbons, or a dozen bottles, are easier to pick
between than 30 or 40. And an internet dating site may come up with not just a
few dozen, but thousands of allegedly suitable matches.
The supermarket of love
Not surprisingly, the difficulty of choosing from abundance seems to apply to
choice of people, too. Dr Finkel could find no study which addressed the
question directly, in the context of internet dating. But speed-dating once
again provided an answer. Here, he found studies which showed that when faced
with abundant choice, people pay less attention to characteristics that require
thinking and conversation to evaluate (occupational status and level of
education, for example) and more to matters physical. Choice, in other words,
dulls the critical faculties.
The upshot of Dr Finkel s review is thus that love is as hard to find on the
internet as elsewhere. That is not a reason not to use it. But you may be just
as likely to luck out in the local caf , or by acting on the impulse to stop
and talk to that stranger on the street whose glance you caught, as you are by
clicking away with a mouse and hoping that, one day, Cupid s arrow will strike.
from the print edition | Science and technology
Matchmaking on the internet has been extraordinarily successful in India, where
arranged marriages are the rule.
The matchmakers and friends were sufficient in earlier times when people lived
in villages.
Now they are scattered over India and abroad. But People still want matches
from their community which was scattered over a few villages in the past.
Internet sites like Indiamatrimony and shaadi have provided a platform for
exchange of information between parents leading to a great number of alliances.
Example of adoption of new technology to preserve the old practices.
There are different types of "dating". The site you visit to look for a life
partner (eHarmony) is not necessarily the same as the site you visit to hook up
(match) or to find a prostitute.
But everyone should be aware of OkCupid's blogs, which have posted a lot of
really interesting editorial, plus some solid statistical analysis, around
these subjects. See:
http://interestingreads.posterous.com/
why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating-ok
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/
This is a fine article . . . as far as it goes.
Perhaps the biggest scam in the online dating business, at least in the United
States, is a Web site called eHarmony. They claim to match people using
pseudo-psychological personality tests, which are not more useful than other
dating Web sites such as Match.com. Indeed, eHarmony is an old obsolete site,
whose success rate is reported to be less than 10 percent. The majority over 90
percent of its members are not going to achieve a long-term relationship with
commitment (or marriage) using the site.
It is only supported by a big marketing budget for example, they pitch
potential customers with advertising that suggests that they are somehow more
sophisticated and reliable, when they are not and not by serious scientific
evidence. They cannot prove that their algorithm can match prospective partners
who will have more stable and satisfying relationships (and very low divorce
rates) than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal
preferences, or searching on one's own.
It is really nothing more than an elaborate ruse to hook people into paying
hefty monthly fees and believing in fantasies. They prevent users from seeing
photos of candidates until such users have subscribed, when in fact a photo
tells a thousand words, and would allow the users to determine quickly whether
there is any physical chemistry at all or not. Also, they offer free days for
non-payers to entice them to join, but do not show any photos, which is
tantamount to buying a pig in a poke. Class action lawsuits have been brought
against the company and its management already; and more should be brought on
behalf of all people who have been defrauded by them.
Match.com, at least in America, is still the "gold standard" for pay-as-you-go
dating Web sites. For a male standpoint, it attracts lovely women; and it
provides enough information to make intelligent choices. However, new sites
have come along such as OKCupid and Plenty of Fish, which are free and gaining
traction rapidly.
In the final analysis, the issue will be how long relationships established
online actually last; and whether online relationships are really the future.
Because all of the testing on earth will not produce the vital ingredient,
"chemistry," it is left to photos and profiles to do that. In essence, all of
the sites are nothing more than "beauty contests," and the people who use them
are apt to have fantasies and illusions that carry over into the relationships
that are formed. Users put their best feet forward; and when the facade drops,
and reality hits, it may do so with a thud.
The concluding paragraph of this article is accurate:
[L]ove is as hard to find on the [I]nternet as elsewhere. . . . [Y]ou may be
just as likely to luck out in the local caf , or by acting on the impulse to
stop and talk to that stranger on the street whose glance you caught, as you
are by clicking away with a mouse and hoping that, one day, Cupid s arrow will
strike.
there isn't any science to the matchmaking dating sites. It is just a way to
meet people that are interesting in dating. It doesn't do more than setting up
the first meeting at some safe location. From there on, in all depends on you
and the other person whom you are meeting with.