Great topic! I did it too, and quit for reasons similar to Nancy's. I believe there is some literature out there documenting that men and women lie, or, "exaggerate" the same things we exaggerate in old-fashoned dating. I view the on-line dating scene as a new outlet for million year old dating strategies. New technology but same old, same old. But I agree with Nancy that it's easier to exaggerate on-line.
I did not use one of the more sophisticated "scientific" sites however, as I decided "chemistry" is not predictable from their analyses of personality. I may be wrong, but I noticed that, whether in bars or on-line, the best predictor of chemistry was in the first hour of talking/emailing. If you have to work hard to keep the conversation going, bad. If you talk, good. Maybe that's the IQ factor coming out, as there is a correlation between couples (I'd like to see data on the NEO "openness" trait, too, though that overlaps with IQ). And I also noticed (consistent with the literature) that laughter during conversations is very predictive. And yes, I have had many a laugh with women trading horror stories about the faded 10 year old pictures of men on Harleys, and 10 year old glamour pics of women. Living in the "boonies" presents a problem for these sites imo because local searches brings up a small number of hits and people you already know ... SO much more mysterious to fantasize about strangers. But they are usually 100 miles away. Remember the song "Pina Colada" in which a couple both took out personal ads and ended up face-to-face in a bar? And there is a great old Jimmy Stewart/Frank Morgan movie "Shop Around the Corner"? set in Budapest or Prague in which a man and women hate each other at work but are unknowingly exchanging romantic letters. -------------------------- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 -------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2010 9:59:32 AM Subject: Re: [tips] Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me A Match! As a battle scarred veteran of these sites (too many to count) I am sure they probably are better than singles bars but not much. For women, the main problem (besides the escalation of mispresentation - certainly possible in "real world" dating; much more prevalent in online dating) is that it appears that a fairly large number of males on these sites are either married or living with someone. It appears that online dating gives the male style of cheating a real helping hand - men sign up as "single" and the pickings are fairly easy (women tend to cheat with familiar men, so it doesn't work so well for them, although I have no doubt that there are a few married or attached women on these sites also. For men, a lot of the women seem to be looking for "free meals". They date serially with no intention of being serious and reap those benefits. For both sexes, the number of people posting pictures from 10 years or 50 pounds ago is disheartening. And it's really disappointing to see what a sell out Fisher has become. I have very little respect for her, although she has a right to get rich any legitimate way she can. I've not given up but am rapidly concluding that if I find a suitable partner, it will most likely not be from an online dating or matchmaking site. Just my hard-won .02 Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College Long Beach CA -----Original Message----- From: Mike Palij <[email protected]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Palij <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 7, 2010 5:36 am Subject: [tips] Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me A Match! There is an interesting little article in the NY Times about the "relationship" websites that have come into existence that try to match people on some criteria in the hopes that they form a long-lasting relationship. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/07stream.html?th&emc=th These websites are not geared toward personal ads for people seeking a date, rather, as might be expected, some of these websites use psychological testing or even biological testing for match-making. Consider: (1) ScientificMatch.com matches people up on the basis of genetic analysis, such as markers for the immune system as well as some defintively non-biological markers (e.g., criminal and bankruptcy check, verificiation of age and marital status, etc.) (2) Chemistry.com (a subsidiary of Match.com) has biological anthropologist Helen Fisher create a questionnaire about a person's traits and temperament. A quote from Fisher provides some insight into her views: |“If Helen Fisher can give you right off the bat individuals that your |brain is more likely to be attracted to,” she says, “so much the better.” Apparently, in matters of romance, one should focus on the brain and not the mind. Also, beware of people who refer to themselves in the third person. (3) eHarmony.com was developed by a psychologist (his name is not given in the article but he has appeared and been identified on eHarmony's TV commercials -- I don't remember it though) whose experience is in marriage counseling and tries to match people on the basis of self-reproted values, family background, and social styles. How successful are these services? That depends upon how one defines success. It is unclear how many "successful" long-term relationships have been created by these services but they do constitute about a $976 million annual industry, which many might consider to be quite successful. The article asks the question "are these two techniques at matching people better than the old ones or are they essentially similar in function?" Consider the following quote: |At the end of the day, however, it may be that the success of such |sites is attributable not so much to their proprietary methods as to |their choosy, self-selected members who don’t want to wink at and |woo the first person whose profile they read online. The sites attract |cohorts of people interested in slowing down the online dating and |mating process, in finding out more information about potential |partners — or in ruling out unlikely suitors — before they graduate |to the meet-and-greet stage. | |THE more advanced the partner prediction sites, the more they may |actually serve a more old-fashioned role. The sites provide background |details on a person’s family, education, aspirations, character, genetic |traits and general health of the type that was once public information |in farming or immigrant communities or even in hunter-gatherer societies, |Dr. Fisher says. | |Indeed, at least from the point of view of evolutionary science, you’d be |better off spending $50 — and more likely to find a mate — by using a |premium dating site than by dropping $50 on drinks in the uncertain |waters of singles bars. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] . To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=382 or send a blank email to leave-382-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] . To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=383 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-383-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=392 or send a blank email to leave-392-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
