Apparently the best way to date involves math. Go figure!
That's according to this Psychology Today article, "Why Dating is Difficult in New York (or London)," by Satoshi Kanazawa: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200910/why-dating-is-difficult-in-new-york-or-london
Turns out we should reject the first 37% of the potential mates we meet (no matter how good or bad they are), then pick the first candidate who is better than any of the other earlier candidates. Dating in New York City, or in any highly populated city, is harder and more time-consuming than dating in a small town because there are more potential mates to choose from. According to the paper by Gilbert and Mosteller that Kanazawa quotes in his article, if you live in Ames, Iowa, and only have 10 potential mates to choose from, you should reject the first four, then start dating the next potential mate who is better than any of the pevious four. But if you live in New York City and have 1,000 potential mates to choose from, you should reject the first 369 potential mates you meet, then start dating the next one who is better than the earlier 369. If you follow this strategy, there is a 37% chance you will choose the right mate -- which may not sound all that high, but as Kanazawa writes, "there are no other strategies that you can consistently follow which will produce a higher average probability of choosing the best of all candidates."
Geez. No wonder dating in New York was always so exhausting!
This study is from 1966, though. Makes you wonder how Gilbert & Mosteller would even define the number of potential mates we can come across today on the Internet. What's 37% of infinity??
Showing posts with label find a date New York City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label find a date New York City. Show all posts
April 19, 2011
September 19, 2008
New on-line dating web sites
While perusing the October issue of SELF Magazine (http://www.Self.com), I came across a little blurb written by Melissa Daly about three new dating web sites: OmniDate, Engage, and CrazyBlindDate. With OmniDate (http://www.OmniDate.com), you create an avatar and instant-message with an avatar of the opposite gender, with the hope that you’ll like each other enough to meet in person eventually. On a scale of one to four hearts, Daly gave this site just one heart, noting that “everyone has the same handful of avatars to choose from, and you can’t do much more with them than you can with basic emoticons…I never did actually meet the real-life guy; after the first joke, he didn’t seem to have much to say.”
Daly gave two hearts to Engage (http://www.Engage.com), where your friends and family help you search for a date. It’s like your own private “Bachelorette” TV show, with the people you love doing the choosing! But they have to create profiles, too, and as Daly wrote, “because so few of my friends joined up, I received only one suggestion. He was sweet but too young.”
She gave the most hearts – three – to CrazyBlindDate (http://www.CrazyBlindDate.com), which I already like based on the name alone. Say you unexpectedly have nothing to do one evening. You log onto CrazyBlindDate’s easy to use web site and get set up on a date within an hour. But the catch, as Daly wrote, is that “the setup takes place without any photos, so it’s truly blind. Although my date was a dud, it got me out of the house on a dull Friday night.”
In other news, here’s an eHarmony funny for you – check out this part of one guy’s profile:
The one thing he wishes MORE people would notice about him is:
Inner strength but then they would have to be a cannibal, and I’m not sure I would want to meet them.
Hey, guy, I know you were trying to be funny and all, but it’s probably best not to mention cannibals in your on-line dating profile. Or anytime, really.
Daly gave two hearts to Engage (http://www.Engage.com), where your friends and family help you search for a date. It’s like your own private “Bachelorette” TV show, with the people you love doing the choosing! But they have to create profiles, too, and as Daly wrote, “because so few of my friends joined up, I received only one suggestion. He was sweet but too young.”
She gave the most hearts – three – to CrazyBlindDate (http://www.CrazyBlindDate.com), which I already like based on the name alone. Say you unexpectedly have nothing to do one evening. You log onto CrazyBlindDate’s easy to use web site and get set up on a date within an hour. But the catch, as Daly wrote, is that “the setup takes place without any photos, so it’s truly blind. Although my date was a dud, it got me out of the house on a dull Friday night.”
In other news, here’s an eHarmony funny for you – check out this part of one guy’s profile:
The one thing he wishes MORE people would notice about him is:
Inner strength but then they would have to be a cannibal, and I’m not sure I would want to meet them.
Hey, guy, I know you were trying to be funny and all, but it’s probably best not to mention cannibals in your on-line dating profile. Or anytime, really.
June 24, 2008
Couples who meet on-line: more likely to stay together, or to divorce?
Internet-dating is considered to have entered the mainstream only six or seven years ago – which means that some of the very first couples to meet on-line and marry are reaching that “seven-year itch” period and getting divorced. I just read an interesting Wall Street Journal article by Ellen Gamerman called “Mismatched.com” (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114384627003413965-2XVceV35D4JuD4oJ0dlBSeFBDM0_20070401.html) about these first cyper-couple divorces. The divorce lawyers and former couples quoted in the article say that some people who meet on-line tend to rush into the relationship, because they think they already know each other through their profiles. Or they feel fooled by someone saying one thing in a profile and proving to be different in person. But if someone lied in such a major way in their profile that it would lead to divorce – claiming they value a healthy lifestyle when they’re really a drug addict, for example -- wouldn’t you notice before you married them??
A couple of the major dating sites have started services to help keep people who meet on-line together once they form a relationship and marry. As the article says, “EHarmony.com is opening a new ‘relationship lab’ this summer where some couples who met through the site will be monitored for at least five years to see how the marriages fare. In an initiative dubbed ‘Project Moses’ internally, JDate.com, a Jewish singles site, is contracting a dating coach to train customer-service representatives in relationship counseling for couples who call in…At EHarmony.com, newlyweds can now pay $240 for a 12-session marriage program created by a team of in-house psychologists.”
One surprising statistic mentioned in the article is that “an estimated two million married Internet users in America met their spouses online -- that is about half the total number of people who married last year.” That’s a ton more than I would’ve guessed.
I predict studies will show that it doesn’t matter how you met. People who meet in a bar, at the gym, or even through friends can misrepresent themselves, rush into a relationship, and end up divorced. Actually, when I’ve met a guy through a friend, or at church, or at a club, I was more likely to say, “But I met him through my friend/at my church/at my favorite club! It’s meant to be!” and then keep trying to date someone who was not a good match for me. But with on-line dating, I’m much more likely to cut my losses and not “waste” my time on a doomed relationship (to put it pessimistically).
According to attorney Kevin Hickey (http://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/blog/?p=71), the top reasons for getting divorced don’t have much, if anything, to do with how you met. They are:
“Poor communication; financial problems; a lack of commitment to the marriage; a dramatic change in priorities; and infidelity.
There are other causes we see a lot, but not quite as often as those listed above. They are: failed expectations or unmet needs; addictions and substance abuse; physical, sexual or emotional abuse; or lack of conflict resolution skills.”
And here’s one last excerpt from Gamerman’s “Mismatched.com” article:
“Marriage counselors and divorce attorneys say they are often struck by how much of what brings people together online ultimately contributes to the undoing of the relationship. One of the hallmarks of online dating, for example, is the quick intimacy driven by heartfelt profiles that can go on for pages and reveal everything from a person's favorite food to a weakness for tattoos. Focusing on these attributes, some psychologists say, makes potential suitors more likely to overlook someone's downsides. A 2004 Match study said 11% of its married couples were ‘in love prior to ever meeting face-to-face.’”
Now that’s just ridiculous. How can you be in love with someone if you’ve never met them face to face!? I’ve had high hopes about meeting someone in person that I seemed to click with on-line, but I would never describe myself as “in love” with anyone I’ve never met.
Except Michael J. Fox, of course.
A couple of the major dating sites have started services to help keep people who meet on-line together once they form a relationship and marry. As the article says, “EHarmony.com is opening a new ‘relationship lab’ this summer where some couples who met through the site will be monitored for at least five years to see how the marriages fare. In an initiative dubbed ‘Project Moses’ internally, JDate.com, a Jewish singles site, is contracting a dating coach to train customer-service representatives in relationship counseling for couples who call in…At EHarmony.com, newlyweds can now pay $240 for a 12-session marriage program created by a team of in-house psychologists.”
One surprising statistic mentioned in the article is that “an estimated two million married Internet users in America met their spouses online -- that is about half the total number of people who married last year.” That’s a ton more than I would’ve guessed.
I predict studies will show that it doesn’t matter how you met. People who meet in a bar, at the gym, or even through friends can misrepresent themselves, rush into a relationship, and end up divorced. Actually, when I’ve met a guy through a friend, or at church, or at a club, I was more likely to say, “But I met him through my friend/at my church/at my favorite club! It’s meant to be!” and then keep trying to date someone who was not a good match for me. But with on-line dating, I’m much more likely to cut my losses and not “waste” my time on a doomed relationship (to put it pessimistically).
According to attorney Kevin Hickey (http://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/blog/?p=71), the top reasons for getting divorced don’t have much, if anything, to do with how you met. They are:
“Poor communication; financial problems; a lack of commitment to the marriage; a dramatic change in priorities; and infidelity.
There are other causes we see a lot, but not quite as often as those listed above. They are: failed expectations or unmet needs; addictions and substance abuse; physical, sexual or emotional abuse; or lack of conflict resolution skills.”
And here’s one last excerpt from Gamerman’s “Mismatched.com” article:
“Marriage counselors and divorce attorneys say they are often struck by how much of what brings people together online ultimately contributes to the undoing of the relationship. One of the hallmarks of online dating, for example, is the quick intimacy driven by heartfelt profiles that can go on for pages and reveal everything from a person's favorite food to a weakness for tattoos. Focusing on these attributes, some psychologists say, makes potential suitors more likely to overlook someone's downsides. A 2004 Match study said 11% of its married couples were ‘in love prior to ever meeting face-to-face.’”
Now that’s just ridiculous. How can you be in love with someone if you’ve never met them face to face!? I’ve had high hopes about meeting someone in person that I seemed to click with on-line, but I would never describe myself as “in love” with anyone I’ve never met.
Except Michael J. Fox, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
