Of Science and Choice In Online Dating 311
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.
The biggest problem with dating... (Score:5, Funny)
...are the women.
Anyone who can solve that problem deserves a Nobel.
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe you should give men a try.
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe you should give men a try.
Wait, that's an option? You mean to tell me that I can date someone who likes sports, video games, fast cars, and drinking beer? That sounds so awesome. It almost sounds too good to be true. What are the downsides?
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:5, Funny)
No one to be in the kitchen :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The downside will be the inside of your backside, if you're ever expected to be the bottom side.
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:5, Funny)
It can be a pain in the ass from time to time.
Re:The biggest problem with dating... (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the downsides?
No boobs to play with. Sore ass. Did I mention no boobs?
Virtual dating (Score:2)
Re:Virtual dating (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod +5 irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meeting online and figuring out your common ground works much better for me. Then meeting in person goes so much smoother and the first meeting tends to end with more dates from my experience. The thing is you gotta get the real meeting in there before you become too attached to talking online.
Why online "dating" is useful (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why online "dating" is useful (Score:5, Funny)
If you have anything resembling standards, dating is really, really fucking hard.
Especially if she has standards too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you have anything resembling standards, dating is really, really fucking hard."
Truth is having standards is a luxury, for most of history people didn't have the *luxury* of "standards", really, there are some minimum standards before dating a person (not crazy, etc, etc). But beyond a certain point you're attempting to live in an unreal fantasy land, people always have flaws, if the person in a relationship would suddenly bail on you in times of war or a down economy, they are certainly not worth your
Re:Virtual dating, Seriously? (Score:2)
Let's get one thing straight: If you're using online dating, you've got no choice.
It's the number of zeros that matter (Score:4, Insightful)
In the salary cheque that is.
No?
The camera doesn't lie:
http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/b422245a96af7340b70921c641e0b6db.jpg [amazonaws.com]
Simple. Set up a dating site which costs a thousand+ a month for guys but is free for women.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, guys with thousands to spend on online dating but no success picking up women otherwise will flock to the site.
By guys, I of course mean those 5 guys like that, nationwide.
Re:It's the number of zeros that matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they told me it costs $3,500. I almost laughed at them and suggested that that was a little high just to meet someone. They then went through the schpeal about how they do all these checks and everything. I still said it was too much. They came down in price. Still too much.
Finally, they asked me how much I thought it was worth. I told them that I'd pay $500. At which time they concluded my interview.
I left that day with the thought that if there truly were more women than men in this service, it's only because men won't spend $3,500 to meet women because they don't need to.
Three years later I rediscovered an old high school friend and sent her a 'Hello!! How ya doing??' email with no intention of dating. We sent a few emails, started calling, flew 2,000 miles to visit several times, and got married 10 months later. And joked that we never had a real date because we already knew each other and had never dated in high school.
2 1/2 years later later we are still very happy together, have sex regularly, and enjoy being with each other. Worked better than my first marriage by a long shot.
Maybe people should just stop dating and learn how to experience life and just get out and do things. My friends that try the hardest to meet someone are the ones that are the least successful at it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, they asked me how much I thought it was worth. I told them that I'd pay $500.
Yikes! You are either desperate, a liar, or maybe just really rich ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand your argument. You are asserting that:
A) He's desperate to pay $500 to sign up with an agency that wanted $3500 originally? I'd say paying $3500 may be desperate. $500 is just good negotiating. Besides - he never went into detail regarding what the sevice provided. It could easily be worth $500 if they sponsor dinners / mee
Easy for you to say (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Every relationship I've been in where I wasn't happy with myself has been a miserable failure. If I don't like me, how can anyone else like me? Meanwhile, if you're happy with yourself, it doesn't matter if you're in a committed relationship. But the simple truth is that being in a committed relationship with a good partner is not enough to bring happiness. I know, because I've been responsible (in retrospect, of course) for ruining good relationships. I've also been in relationships whose ends were not "my
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:5, Insightful)
What I have seen from those around me is that when someone spends their life having friends and going out in the REAL world and doing things, then they won't be lonely and will meet someone that, oddly enough, enjoys doing the same things they do. When I turned 40, I discovered what a great thing it was to have women friends
So
BTW
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, facile is french for easy, and isn't snooty at all :P
Other than that you're spot on.
Reference to the G[GG?]GP: I met my wife in the same way, we'd been out of touch, then an IM leads to phone calls and voila :).
Re: (Score:2)
I've only heard it used when I lived in Maine, which has a large Franco-Canadian population. And was almost always used by that population.
Using words that hardly anyone else uses is snooty in my book.
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like a true extrovert.
Some people reject the "real" world because it is too overwhelming to them. Concerts, comedy clubs, bars, etc., wear them out. They still do these things, but only once in a while. They just don't have the will do do them on a regular basis.
When they meet someone at these places, they can't keep up. They get exhausted by the other person's constant demand for going out and being social. Once in a while is too little for one, and too much for the other.
It is all well and good to say "well get over it, crybaby, and learn how to have fun" when you are in the 70% + of people who are born extroverts, and who have nervous systems that naturally incline them to that level of social activity.
Introverts are not antisocial, they just need lower levels of stimulation. They want to stay in with a small group of familiar friends and role play or watch movies or play video games or whatever. This lifestyle, however, does not provide many opportunities to meet significant others who are also introverts and would make a perfect match...the groups of friends that introverts form don't often have occasion to mix with one another. And activities that make them mix are always an uphill battle for an introvert.
Keep sitting in judgment if you want...but you are not an introvert and you just don't know what it is like to be one.
Be that as it may....
Internet dating sucks just as badly for introverts as any other form of dating. The websites are awash with extroverts seeking other extroverts...half the introverts won't even post pictures...the introvert women are driven away from the sites because they dislike being bombarded by "sleep with me right now" offers. It sucks worse for men because there are always a lot more men on the sites than women too, leaving the introverted men feeling like they are up against competition that is just too fierce.
Whether on the internet, in the "real world" or wherever, human nature is always drawn to physical attraction first, and personality compatibility second. Hot people date only other hot people. Average people chase after hot people for a while, and then eventually settle for other average people. Some of them find happiness that way, others just find a new form of loneliness (she's right here, but we can't connect, etc.). Ugly people also sometimes settle for other ugly people, but many of them just face the reality of loneliness for their entire lives.
Only silly sentimentality promises us that there is some perfect person out there for us. Some of us just have to accept the fact that we don't measure up, that the only mates we could have are ones that will not make us happy, and that we will be alone all our lives. It is not a popular idea so it will be rejected out-of-hand by anyone who has not lived this reality. But for those of us who find ourselves in this circumstance, it is as real as the real world could ever be.
The acceptance of this state (when true) can motivate you to stop trying to make someone else responsible for your happiness, and to take responsibility for your happiness yourself. Study, meditation, and other forms of personal self-actualization can take one to interesting places when perused vigorously. It may just be a consolation prize, but it is better than wallowing is depression and self pity all your life.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Us introverts need to stick together.
The irony of this statement made me at once laugh and cry a little.
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:5, Insightful)
How Not To Fail At Life:
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6827/howtonotfailatlifepn3he9.png [imageshack.us]
(The best advice you will ever get from 4Chan)
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I'm also always rather put off by the whole "psychological problems don't exist" meme. What's up with that? Sorry, but no, they DO; not everyone who thinks they've got Asperger's or whatever actually does, but that doesn't mean NOONE does. And if you do, well, of course you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that your problems aren't real and that they'll go away if you just wish them away, but to believe that that'll work out is painfully naive.
Psychological problems definitely exist, but they're often used as an excuse not to do something (or anything). They're used as a reason to hide from the real world, to not get a job, etc.
I once knew a guy who was severely spastic. He sat in a heavy motorised wheelchair, could hardly talk, he was as disabled as you can be without being paralised. Whatever your problems are, I bet you they are way, way smaller than this guy's problems. Yet he went out a lot. He went to concerts, including ones that involved camping for a couple of days. He went on his own by train to concerts in other cities, and for some reason, this guy often ended up with a girl on his lap. It was a complete mystery to me how a spastic guy with unkempt hair hanging sideways in a wheelchair, can get a girl while I, tall, not too bad looking, couldn't.
I think the answer is confidence. What does he have to be confident about? No idea, but despite his complete disability, he did have a job. He may not be able to move, but he can think. He's good with computers, and computers are an easy way for him to communicate with people. So instead of simply sitting on the disability pay that he's more entitled to than anyone else I've ever met, he got a job as a programmer (with an employer who was willing to deal with the problems of having a severely disabled employee). He may not type very fast, but solving complex problems requires more thinking than typing, and he's good at that.
If that guy can hold a job, then Asperger's is not an excuse for being unemployed. Lots of nerds with Asperger's have very productive, well paying jobs. Sure, it may be harder to find one that suits you, but if you search hard enough, you'll find something. But an "I can't work" mentality isn't going to help you. Employers, like women, are looking for someone who's confident. In this case, someone who's confident that he can work.
(Eventually the department he worked at was dismantled, and you don't want to know how hard it is to get social security money when you lose a job while being severely disabled. You can't get unemployment money because you're disabled. The service in charge of new disabilities won't pay you because it's a pre-existing condition, and the service for young disableds won't pay you because you've had a job, which means it can't have been a pre-existing condition.)
Re:Easy for you to say (Score:4, Insightful)
I work nights and don't drink alcohol, which excludes me from nearly everything. My main hobby is working on a website about a subject so niche that it takes people from half a dozen states to form a small group interested in it, and my other hobbies are solitary activities. When it comes to other people, the "real" world seems to revolve around mind games, vapid conversation, and lying to and about yourself, all of which I abhor, and would do so even if I were able to form coherent sentences around someone I find attractive. The only woman I ever loved rejected me completely, destroying the remnants of my self-esteem, my desire to succeed, and my faith. As a matter of fact, she is getting married today.
Well I'm 34. I noticed some of my experiences mid 20's. Here are few advices for you:
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ugh. I believe this is absolutely correct, and also t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
At first, I kind of understood what you were saying. There are some paths in life that, unfortunately, require a LOT of time and commitment, and leave little space for friends and/or relationships. I was in the road bike racing scene for a while, and while I never got anything near being professional at it, I saw that those who were either elite at it or seriously trying were dedicating buckets of hours on the road or in races. Most of those whom were married were either struggling in their relationships (u
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was approached by one of those dating services 6 years ago ... and went in. .... They told me how nice it was to have a 'nice guy' come in
I expect they say that to all the guys.
if there truly were more women than men in this service, it's only because ...
If they told you women out-numbered men you should have asked for an age breakdown. Any surplus of women in that type of bureaux are in the 50+ age group. Been there.
Maybe people should just stop dating and learn how to experience life and just get out and do things. My friends that try the hardest to meet someone are the ones that are the least successful at it.
Bu
Re:It's the number of zeros that matter (Score:4, Insightful)
What would you call such a service? Golddiggers.com? For women who only want to date rich men?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would you call such a service? Golddiggers.com?
It's already taken: http://www.golddiggers.com/ [golddiggers.com]
I defy you to find a site name in this space that is so crass, so crude, so offensive to the belief that love and respect have something to do with happy relations between men and women that someone has not already registered it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the salary cheque that is.
Many sites with a profile page include a salary range field. I tried one with and without seting my salary... Unsurprisingly, I got far more interest with that little piece of info there. Alternatively, include your house/benz/yacht/etc in the background of some of your photos. Hell, wear some decent clothes instead of jeans and t-shirt. Get some shoes and a nice watch. Get a haircut. Go to the gym. Most IT folks get paid a decent salary, so if you want that kind of girl, there's no excuse for not getting o
Re: (Score:2)
Now I remember why I am taking Philosophy, to get chicks.
Re: (Score:2)
I say this as a guy with a stay-at-home wife a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think it's amazing how small the economic benefit has been from the move to two family incomes and fewer kids. I don't know if it's because America's position in the world has slipped, or overpopulation making land expensive, or the concentration of wealth at the top
Re: (Score:2)
So act shallow to attract shallow people
A lot of attraction is based on first impressions - A good haircut, nice shoes and a pressed shirt 'get you in the door.' You won't get much further if you don't have something to sell (i.e. intelligence, sense of humour, etc.) but to make your pitch you've got to make a good first impression. Face, it girls notice shoes. Loose the Tevas with socks.
Re: (Score:2)
Face, it girls notice shoes. Loose the Tevas with socks.
I wear my work boots all the time, but they have PVC glue on them and a good year worth of wear. Maybe I should wear socks and sandals so the correct message gets across.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a correlation, but it's not that money leads to success with women; instead charisma and (perceived) social status leads to both money and success with women. Pick-up artists don't bother trying to appear rich; they've just figured out how to signal high status.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they are able to do this does not imply they have conciously figured out how to do so. It's also hardly unknown for both men and women to attract the "wrong kind". If they had "figured out how to signal..." this wouldn't happen.
Re:It's the number of zeros that matter (Score:4, Interesting)
In the salary cheque that is.
If you ever want to get really depressed about the state of humanity, spend a little time coming up with the most egregiously sexist URL's you can imagine, and then type them into your browser.
http://www.sugardaddies.com/ [sugardaddies.com]
I tried this one day when a friend was bitching about men treating women like whores (there was some Craigslist ad he was pissed off about, offering free rent to a woman in exchange for sex) and I wanted to prove to him that women could be just as crass. It didn't convince him (he has a naively romantic view of women) but it sure as hell depressed me, even though I know full well that not all women--or even the majority--are quite as wretched as the ones who inhabit these sites (and in fairness, the site I've linked above has at least one link to a site for gay golddiggers... it's clear that a certain fraction of humans in every imaginable category are basically sleazy.)
Still more men than women (Score:2)
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 tow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Verified personally how? You have inside information?
Oh yeah. I have "insider" information by virtue of being a member of these sites and, as such, I have the ability to search for women and men and *shock* compare the results!
This is far above the ability of normal males who can only guess and complain.
I have no idea what happens with aggressively expensive "matchmaker" services because I don't use them.
There's also okcupid (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's also okcupid (Score:4, Interesting)
There's women who aren't crazy?
Seriously, they have a decent attempt at it. I find the matching on sites like match.com don't work very well- it finds women I might find cute, but very few of them interest me beyond that. I can find that at any bar. The question and answer thing does a better job of getting people who match my personality. Nowhere near perfect, but it's a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
This might be especially an issue for any sites which have sexist charging policies...
No, that just means you're a crazy too. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's also okcupid (Score:4, Interesting)
I found the perfect site (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:I found the perfect site (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
By "stupid", I'd suggest that would include those viewing marriage as a romantic union, rather than a social union rooted in an an exchange of property rights (i.e., a business agreement).
Cynical? Perhaps. But consider what happens during the dissolution of a union. The people involved typically want or need to hire law
Re:I found the perfect site (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
These things are in direct contradiction though. If the foundation of a marriage is acceptance of faults and give and take, then the option of divorce clearly undermines that, since its sole p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't be objective about chemistry, or at least, I haven't yet seen a good solution to determining it without a face to face meeting.
"twice as many women....." until now! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
twice as many women signed up? (Score:4, Funny)
Sure they did. You go on believing that.
Science, lol? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Random selection based on
- Sex
- Age
- Geographic location
- Large important decisions (e.g. Family, yes/no?)
- A few shard interests
You missed one.
Re:Science, lol? (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion at my current age of 50 is that if a man is younger than 30 and has never lived with anyone for any length of time, he has no idea what he wants in a partner.
Except for big boobs.
Re:Science, lol? (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Random selection based on (Score:2)
- 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
Re:Science, lol? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do people even know what they want from a partner?
Yeah, they do. 99.9% of women want "a good man who loves to laugh and is fun and just an ordinary guy."
I'm a divorced man in a small (~100,000) town and have used online dating sites off-and-on for about five years--mostly Plenty Of Fish, but also LavaLife and OkCupid. I've met two absolutely wonderful women this way--both of whom were so wonderful that after a year or three with me their careers took them off to bigger, far-distant centres, although in both cases we're still friends.
I've also met the biggest collection of flakes, losers, liars, bores and nutjobs you could possibly imagine, and I am currently ready to slap anyone whose entire self-description is, "I love to laugh, like long walks on the beach and am just looking for an ordinary guy."
Seriously, have you ever met anyone anywhere who doesn't like to laugh? It's what we laugh at that's interesting, and hardly anyone ever says what that is.
The trick for all these sites is to weed out the common things that everyone has, and to reduce people who have zero self-awareness to abject silence until they come up with sufficient self-knowledge to say something about themselves that isn't woefully banal. OkCupid's system of questions does that, although I can think of some simple improvements that would make it better.
The key thing is to focus on the concrete. There should be very nearly zero abstraction in any of the information gathered from users, and the site should then generate the abstract categories the user is assigned to based on that information.
For example, don't ask people what their "body type" is (abstract category) but what their height and weight are, how fast they can run or walk a mile, how many miles they run or walk each week, when was the last time they walked more than a mile, or biked more than a five miles, or swam more than 500 m, and so on. Then generate the abstract category for them: "couch potato", "morbidly obese", etc, rather than letting users define "athletic" or "slim" or "average" any way they want to (I've seen morbidly obese people, who have posted pictures of themselves, categorize themselves as "average".)
Mostly, these sites are selling fantasies to liars (women) and idiots (men), so doing anything that would provide more accurate information about what differentiates one person from another is counter-productive relative to their business model. The few honest, intelligent people out there have to wade through a huge amount of dross to find each other. Fortunately, that is still possible, and despite their flaws these sites remain a sensible component of anyone's search for companionship. Just be prepared to do a lot of filtering by hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'm a fat man- obese. I want to be honest, because I don't want to meet a woman and then have her find out she's disgusted by me. THat's a waste of both our time, and emotionally draining. Unfortunately obese and fat are not choices. Big and beautiful exists only for women. So am I "stocky" or "heavyset"? I have no idea which is bigger. So I picked one at random. It should be approximate height and weight (hell, they already have height). Although some of your questions wouldn't work eith
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they put themselves as "average" then they'll probably also put themselves as an inaccurate weight.
People find it very hard to lie about specifics and stay consistent.
It's easy to lie when you say you "love sports and working out" but harder to answer "what sports to you play regularly (at least once a month)?" and "When did you last play sport X?" and "What was the score the last time you played sport X?" and (for team sports) "what position did you play in your most recent game?"
No system is going to
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why most online dating profiles are so incredibly generic.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since they have typically been bombarded with propaganda as to what they should want since they were old enough to understand language in many societies...
Most likely even when people did know what they wanted they would be reluctant to say so if it went against some expected "norm".
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
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer: no.
Long answer: no, they don't even know themselves, and so sharing themselves, or knowing what they need shared in return, is pretty much impossible.
My advice to all slashdotters: never marry a chick who can't self-analyse and who doesn't constantly try to improve herself.
Re:Science, lol? (Score:4, Interesting)
I heard that E-harmony includes people that are no longer active on the site in your "matches". Back when I tried eharmony, I had written to a lot of people who never wrote back. I had a decent profile and am not a freak or too bad looking, (basically your average guy) so it's more likely I was just talking to a wall. The profiles I looked at indicated recent activity, but things like login times are easy to fake, especially if you have no choice but to trust what the service tells you. From what I observed, eharmony artificially inflates the count of your matches, plus they ration out only a few matches at a time to string you along for a few extra months on the service. (I had a lot up front but then only a few a week by the time I cancelled) Plus, you have no way of knowing if the matches that do respond to you are actually real people or just dummy accounts staffed by employees meant to keep you interested in the site. (the real test is if they bail out when you want to meet) 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. The whole thing just seems really dishonest to me. Maybe I've grown cynical or just merely wiser about how these things work.
My advice is to date in the real world and get some friends to hang out with. Friends have other friends outside of your immediate circle (and out from there) and chances are the right one is in there somewhere.
The profiles I looked at indicated recent activity (Score:2)
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 vulnerabl
Twice as many? (Score:2)
Online dating sounds like a good idea but it's not (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Meeting drunk women is the best way. (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Like anything else, it requires using a bit of common sense.
As far as the free ones go... (Score:2, Interesting)
eHarmony "success" story (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you a Christian? eHarmony, when I last looked at it, seemed to have a nastily religious bent.
and the land rush begins. (Score:3, Funny)
Not after Slashdot gets done with it.
OK Cupid (Score:2)
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.
Abandon all logic ye who enter here (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Plenty of Fish (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You didn't get married, but you sure got raped!
Decision tree (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
We need fewer virtual relationships (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
am I the only one who skipped the story (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course not. That entire "article" was written by a PR firm. How can you tell? A bunch of facts and experts and the mention of "Omnidate" at the end.
See: The Submarine [paulgraham.com].
OkCupid (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)