matchmaking

OK Cupid Experimented on Users

OkCupid Logo

OK Cupid lied to paying users about matches. This is worse than Facebook’s undisclosed emotional experiments with unpaid users’ feeds.

GigaOm has the story.

Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner

Brad Pitt in “Moneyball”

One of my many hats is investor/economist, so this story from NPR by Sean Braswell about applying economic thinking to mate-seeking got my attention:

… [T]here’s another type of virtual eyewear that many of us spend even more time donning — one that has the opposite effect of beer goggles. Call them “expectancy spectacles” if you’d like, because wearing them causes us to raise our standards and expectations, often unrealistically, of everything from potential mates to job prospects.

The primary culprit behind this altered vision is not booze, but a potent concoction of Hollywood movies, social conditioning and wishful thinking. And fortunately, there are a few scientists on the case.

One is Ty Tashiro, a psychologist specializing in romantic relationships who writes for Discovery Fit and Health. His recent book, The Science of Happily Ever After, explores what “advances in relationship science” can teach us about the partners we choose. Almost 9 in 10 Americans believe they have a soul mate, says Tashiro, but only 3 in 10 find enduring partnerships that do not end in divorce, separation or chronic unhappiness. Clearly something is going wrong — and it starts with our expectations.

That’s because in real life the pool of potential partners looks rather different from the cast of The Bachelorette — something Tashiro hopes to address by putting some cold figures to the mating game, employing an approach similar to the one used by scientists who calculate the chances of life on other planets.

For example, say a bachelorette enters a room of 100 male bachelors who represent the broader U.S population. If she prefers a partner who’s tall (at least 6 feet), then her pool of possible prospects immediately shrinks to 20. If she would like him to be fairly attractive and earn a comfortable income (over $87,000 annually), then she’s down to a single prospect out of 100.

If you choose to specify further traits, such as kindness, intelligence or a particular religious or political affiliation, well, let’s just say we’re going to need a much bigger room. And then, of course, there’s the small matter of whether he actually likes you back.

Such long odds are the product of misplaced priorities, says Tashiro, but it’s not strictly our fault. Our mate preferences have been shaped by natural selection’s obsession with physical attractiveness and resources as well as the messages our friends, families and favorite shows transmit about sweethearts and soul mates. And it is at the start of relationships, when we need to make smart, long-term decisions, that we are least likely to do so because we’re in the throes of lust, passion and romance.

Or, as Tashiro puts it, returning to our alcohol analogy: “It would seem wise to hand off the keys to someone with more lucidity until your better sensibilities return.”

Which is why Tashiro advocates a new approach to dating, one that is not so much about lowering standards as giving yourself better ones. Call it “Moneyballing” relationships (Tashiro does); it’s all about finding undervalued traits and assets in the dating market. And, just like with baseball, it starts with trying to ignore the superficial indices of value — attractiveness, wealth — in favor of hidden attributes with a stronger correlation to long-term relationship success.

Citing research that finds no reliable link between income level or physical attractiveness and relationship satisfaction, Tashiro steers his readers toward traits such as agreeableness. With married couples, he points out, “liking declines at a rate of 3 percent a year, whereas lust declines at a rate of 8 percent per year,” so the smarter, long-term investment is finding someone you genuinely like. Plus, he adds, studies also suggest that agreeable partners are in fact “better in bed” and less likely to cheat over the long haul.

Being confused about what you are looking for in a mate is epidemic — part of the cost of freedom to choose yourself (instead of having parents arranging your marriage for you) is valuing the wrong things and being unrealistic about what your partner should be like. Programmed by the Fairy Tale model (“(s)he should be just perfect and make me happy!”) most young people don’t have the sense to look beyond the superficial unless they are lucky enough to accidentally come into close contact with a person who they can love unconditionally. Much more likely is to dismiss many good long-term partner candidates for failing to be exactly as expected — not tall enough, not rich enough, not goodlooking enough… “I deserve better!”

The “Moneyball” reference is to the problem of assembling the best baseball team for the least money. The obvious stars are pursued by many teams and their salaries bid up; because of the overvaluation of the very best players, one manager discovered he could assemble a great team at a lower cost by focusing on the less obvious players, who might be very good at one or two things which went unrecognized.

In the mate-seeking problem, the analogous strategy is to not be distracted by good looks or superficial factors like current wealth, height, or sexiness. The people who have all those things are in great demand, know it, and are less likely to pick you for partnership. Meanwhile, the shy, short guy with the entrepreneurial spirit and drive will someday be wealthy, the plain and unfashionably dressed girl with smarts may blossom into a glamourous woman as she makes it out in the world and has the time and money to work on appearance.

When you are thinking long-term, think like an investor — go after the future great partner, not the ones who satisfy all your shallow “must haves.” Love and commitment make high achievers out of good partners, and young people who are loyal and reliable can build each other up and create that successful life the Fairy Tale talks about; but it doesn’t just happen, you have to work for it and believe in your partner. Look for someone you can trust and believe in.

Dating Pool Danger: Harder to Find Good Partners After 30

Attachment Type Dating Pool

From Chapter 25 of Bad Boyfriends: Using Attachment Theory to Avoid Mr. (or Ms.) Wrong and Make You a Better Partner, “Types in the Dating Pool.”

If you’re not familiar with attachment types, take the test and read about them here.

Estimates vary, but a good guess is that 50% of the population starts adulthood secure, while 20% are anxious-preoccupied, 25% are dismissive-avoidant, and 5% are fearful-avoidant. But as time goes by and the secure are more likely to get into and stay in long-term relationships, the proportions of the types seen in the dating pool change—the secure become scarce, and the dismissive-avoidant, who begin and end relationships quickly, become the most likely type you will encounter.

The graph is based on a simplified* simulation of the dating pool by age, showing the percentage of each type in the shrinking dating pool. Secures appear dominant early in the dating pool at about 50%, but over time their prevalence declines to around 20%. Notice how the Dismissive-Avoidant start off as the second most prevalent attachment type at 25%, but over time become the predominant type at 50% of the far smaller dating population—this is not because they don’t start relationships, but that they tend to exit them quickly. The proportion of Preoccupied and Fearful-Avoidant increases somewhat as well. The age scale assumes everyone starts looking for a partner at 20, so subpopulations which start later (academics, for example) would be shifted by a few years. Since both starting parameters and the simulation are simplified, these numbers are only suggestive.

The shrinkage of the dating pool with time and its later domination by less secure types means the older you are, the more cautious you should be, because it is much more likely that those in the dating pool in later years have a problematic attachment type, or even worse problems keeping them from sustaining good relationships. Of course there are always new entries to the dating pool who have been released from good relationships by their partner’s death or unfortunate circumstances; but those past 40 who have never been able to get and keep a good relationship going, likely never will—unless of course they have realized they need to change and work hard on themselves.

* — Based on data from a simplified simulation model run by the author based on reported duration of relationships by attachment type combinations and initial populations. Suggestive, but the initial parameters are based on limited studies and the simulation ignores such factors as longer relationships tending to break down less frequently. More longitudinal studies are needed.

For more reading, start with my book, much of which is online here.

More on Divorce, Marriage, and Mateseeking

Free Dating Sites: Which Have Attachment Type Screening?

OkCupid Logo

If you’ve read my book and want to know which of the free dating sites supports matching by attachment type, here’s the list of major sites and their testing and matching capabilities. Some of these are only “free” for crippled use, but I’ve included most sites that are at least free to check out. User numbers are provided by the companies and include registered but inactive users.

Adult Friend Finder: 30 million users. Free version allows you to respond but not to initiate contact. Does not discourage swingers or hookups. Has webcams and a high ratio of prostitutes looking for clients. No attachment-related matching. More than a little sleazy.

Ashley Madison:17 million users. Affair-oriented, target audience well-off older men looking for a courtesan — a young woman to provide sexual and other services in return for support. Free version allows you to respond but not to initiate contact. No attachment-related matching. Controversial, sleazy.

AreYou Interested?: 13 million users. Facebook integration. No attachment-related matching. Phone versions. Social platform with chat and discussion features.

Badoo: 197 million users. Largely free with some premium services. No tests or attachment-related matching, mostly photos. Worldwide, somewhat sleazy.

Chemistry.com: 11 million users. Founded by Match.com people. Personality tests primary. Can set up a profile and take a test free, but mostly not-free (Match.com provides the free intro for this service.) Tests are streamlined, short, and have some attachment-related content.

eHarmony: 33 million users. The second-biggest (after Match.com) test-based matchmaking service. Proprietary tests and matchmaking model, no independent research on effectiveness. Attempts to “match people’s core traits and values to replicate the traits of happy couples.” Long and detailed tests with some attachment-related content. Controversially refused gay customers, saying that their algorithms were tuned for heterosexuals only. Started a gay-only site to answer critics. Further comments here.

Match.com: 96 million users, largest matchmaking site. Owns OkCupid and Chemistry.com. Free to look at users, but contacting requires paid membership. Dumbed-down, largely photo-based matching. Started Chemistry.com to keep those customers interested in detailed matching as the original Match.com was dumbed down to pursue the impatient.

OkCupid: 6 million users. Test-oriented matching that tries to match user partner preferences, not general compatibility. Mostly free with some premium features. Now owned by Match.com. Popular blogging feature killed. Lengthy and detailed questionnaires. One excellent attachment type test, but few users complete it and matching is based on user claims and preferences in many areas of compatibility.

Plenty of Fish (POF): 40 million users. Free but offers some premium services. Has a slightly sleazy reputation, but very popular for hookups and dating; company has tried to reduce the sleaze factor by eliminating an option for “intimate encounters.” No specific attachment-related matching. Company has blocked users from contacting other users if the age difference between them is “too large” (14 years) and removed the option for males to attach images to messages, so there must have been a serious issue with unwanted dick pics, which doesn’t say much for the quality of the clientele.

Zoosk: 50 million users. Facebook integration. International clientele. Free to view and search profiles but only paying members can communicate. Mass-oriented and uses simple behavioral matching — no lengthy tests or personality matches, no attachment-related matching.

More on Divorce, Marriage, and Mateseeking

Jeb Kinnison

Writing About Life and Love

matchmaking

OK Cupid Experimented on Users

Like this:

Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner

Like this:

Dating Pool Danger: Harder to Find Good Partners After 30

Like this:

Free Dating Sites: Which Have Attachment Type Screening?

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: