Online Dating

Looking For Love In All the Wrong Places

Dating on the Interwebs

By now, you surely know someone that met their significant other online. It’s tempting to look at these couples as evidence promoting the efficacy of online dating services. The problem with this is that there remains very little visible evidence for the multitude of online connections that don’t work out. The reason is because there is a reporting bias in failures versus successful coupling. Successes are trumpeted from the rooftops. Except for cautionary tales and amusing anecdotes shared with close confidants of first dates gone horribly wrong, the failures associated with online dating are typically swept under the rug.

Let’s step back and address the initial question: Is online dating a good idea to begin with? The Ambidextrous Economist’s analysis suggests that it is NOT a good idea to seek relationships through any of the dedicated online dating services. The economic principle that lends the primary thrust to this argument is that of adverse selection.

Adverse selection in this case speaks volumes about the type of person that is most likely to sign up for online dating. Evidence suggests that folks that seek relationships in the virtual world do so because they determine their relationships in the physical world, or the lack of a relationship, is less than satisfying. This suggests that as a whole, the larger portion of the population of those who resort to meeting their significant other online are somewhat lacking social skills to attract a partner through so-called traditional means.

This says nothing about the superiority of traditional means. There are plenty of reasons why setting out to meet your next relationship partner in a bar is a bad idea, no matter how tried the method. In fact, the singles bar setting is an analogous argument for adverse selection, only using different criteria. If you fancy an alcoholic who’s not big on commitment, then by all means stick with the bar scene.

Evolutionary biology suggests that meeting someone who you might consider spending the rest of your life with is supposed to be a difficult process, not one prone to shortcuts or half-measures. There are all sorts of opportunities from the point where you first meet someone and when you decide you want to spend the rest of your life with them to find out if you’re compatible. If you’re predisposed to getting in a relationship from the outset, that means you’re not willing or able to go through those trials organically. Instead, the online dating setup is conducive to the notion that the missteps that shape a learning curve and difficulties that build character should somehow be circumvented. Sometimes painful outcomes on the front end, like rejection, end up to be beneficial in the long run because some folks just weren’t meant to be together. Darwin’s concept of natural selection and the notion of an efficient market are not altogether that different from one another.

The urge to get into a relationship in a timely manner is ultimately one of desperation. The combination of two folks hellbent on finding someone now is reason to give pause. This doesn’t mean that online relationships based on and underlying urgency or need for companionship are doomed to fail. On the contrary, the mutual dependence that such a relationship might bear could draw two people close and form a lasting bond. The Ambidextrous Economist is merely trying to point out that a pairing of two like-minded individuals is more likely to lead into a codependent situation. Given the predisposition of available singles on any particular online dating website, if you start online, you’re starting behind the virtual eight ball.

Let’s step back even further. I was in CVS the other day when a forty-something man started hitting on a forty-something Russian model-type. I was literally standing between the two of them, but having an audience didn’t dissuade the man. “I’m sorry if I keep staring at you,” he said. “But you look amazing.” As sure as I was that she was going to embarrass him by shooting him down publicly, she actually seemed interested and ended up giving him her number. I told a good friend of mine about the encounter, and he said. “It’s just a matter of playing the odds.”

My friend was making an important point. It was a ballsy move for the guy in line put himself out there like that. That took some serious cojones. My friend was citing the law of large numbers. In short, the more times he employed this real world tactic, the more likely his eventual success rate. In a less dorky manner, the man in line was calculating the social benefits of getting the phone number of a beautiful woman with the social costs of potential embarrassment. The unspoken, somewhat rhetorical question was “What do I have to lose?” The man in line’s calculation, conscious or not, was that the cost of not asking the woman in line for that number and having to live with the regret outweighed the risk of what some random stranger thought about his cheesy pick up line or the potential of rejection.

None of these dynamics are present in an online setup. They’re simply no way to replicate a real-time interaction like this online without:

• Some type of artificial staging mechanism, (i.e. the website), and

• A cushioning intermediary (i.e. messaging through the website).

The intermediary and the staging components reduce the risk of a real-time social situation, and the reduction in risk means, categorically, an online communication is not as valuable as the real-time interaction. In economics, risk and relative return are proportional. You can not reduce risk without causing a corresponding reduction in value. In other words, the adage “you can’t get something for nothing” can be especially instructive when it comes to sticking your neck out and asking someone out. An instant message, e-mail, or text message aren’t as risky as a telephone call, and a telephone call isn’t as risky as asking for a date in person. The further removed one is from risk, the more diminished the outcome, both in terms of sense of accomplishment as well as success rate. In no small way, the rate and effect of successfully landing a quality date corresponds to the medium used.

Let’s Say None of That Penetrated Your Thick Skull

Despite the good advice you’ve received up to this point, you’re still thinking getting an online profile is the next course of action. Maybe you’re not interested in a relationship, but you just want to get down. Which site?

Nearly each dating website touts either the number of successful matchings or the quality of their matching algorithm as the relative advantage of their particular site. The underlying assumption is that there is an answer to the age-old debate: Do opposites attract? or Is it important to have something in common? Regardless of what your beliefs are, the dating site you choose presupposes one or the other, but you’ll never know, because their matching algorithm is a black box that you’ll never get a chance to look into.

What should your profile say? The most important thing you can do is be honest. While you may not harvest the most number of responses, it stands to reason that the responses you do get will at least not be targeted to a potential mate who doesn’t have the good sense to know better (or, worse, doesn’t care) that they’ve been lied to.

That said, a profile should try to differentiate yourself from the clutter. You may genuinely enjoy long walks on the beach. But you should recognize that it’s a cliché. You may be tempted to say you like “all kinds of music”. But if you say that, and the reality is that you’d rather listen to nails on a chalkboard rather than sitting through country music on the truck radio the whole date, then you’re only short-changing yourself.

Time is the most precious resource any of us have. Don’t spend it dating someone you can’t stand because you’re so eager to be agreeable that you feel like you need to leave yourself open to all possibilities. Be particular. You deserve someone great, just for you.

Even more important: Spend enough time with yourself discovering the kind of things you like. If the universe has any sense of justice, the practice of knowing yourself will lead you toward activities you genuinely enjoy and where you will no doubt meet some interesting people. When you and that special someone click, you won’t have to explain over and over again to everyone that the two of you met online.

AE - 05.27.2011

The Ambidextrous Economist is single. Send your questions and hate mail to AmbidextrousEconomist@gmail.com.