When we think of “arranged marriage” in our society (and by society, I mean the people that I’ve spoken with in my network) we typically have negative connotations.“Whoa, that’s like so old school.”…”Aw, so you’re saying they don’t get to pick AT ALL?”…”I would HATE that.”…”That’s SO weird.”
And until I met my close friend (who’s three-day absolutely-breathtakingly-beautiful Indian wedding I was in this week), Divya, freshman year of college, I thought very much the same. She took it on as a personal goal to educate me.
Div: It’s not like I don’t get a say. My family knows me better than anyone, and sometimes it’s hard to get a full perspective on what will be a long term fit for you without having someone see it from the outside. Having similar backgrounds and family will provide a better understanding of your partner throughout your life. But it’s not like I’m going to marry a man I’m not attracted to.
Me: But what if you fell in love with someone that weren’t on your parent’s “potential” match list?
Div: They’d be happy for me. I’m the one controlling the situation, Jess, they’re just making suggestions.
Over the course of her three day wedding, I started thinking about the practicality of an arranged marriage. Similar background. Family appreciation. Similar goals. It makes perfect sense, and helps build some practical barriers to finding a match (which I’ve never ever had).
Beautiful bride and groom.
And as I stood next to her during her wedding it hit me — online dating is our society’s arranged marriage.
Dating sites use algorithms based on our responses to questions to pair us with someone similar, makes recommendations and then leaves it to us to see if there is any “chemistry.” It’s absolutely freaking genius, and it works. Just like traditional arranged marriages.
So my prediction: online dating is going to continue to skyrocket and grow. I think we’ll start to see it other places. Facebook will not only make friend recommendations, but they’ll start to make romantic recommendations as well. Google will recommend Gmail contacts based on our search habits (okay, that would be freaking SCARY, but kinda cool).
Where ever it goes, I think this is only the beginning, and I look forward to the evolution. And I look forward to seeing who the online universe aligns me with — I’m sending out good vibes for tall, dark, and handsome. You hear that eharmony?
i love reading what’s inside that head of yours. it makes me smile.
of course facebook will do that.
lots of bucks to be made
ads/coupons for places to take dates on
dating part is free
extra curricular costs
geolocation
boom.
there will be facebook dates
like 1 on 1 events
(via IM)
Didn’t Myspace try that at some point?
Would you settle for tallish, white, and alright
Aww, Darci! Makes me so happy you read it.
I miss and love you. Send my love to AP and Jimmy, please ma’am, and I’ll see you soon.
Drew, thank you.
And Bunker…if the man you’re describing is you, I’m in!
I used to to a lot of thinking on online dating; I got to the point where I was thinking about algorithms, volition, filtering, etc very much along the lines of what you’re talking about above.
I think of it like this: when meeting people, we have a large number of contextual filters that act on various levels, most of which we’re not really aware of. These are things that we tend to sum as ‘intuition’ but if you really wanted to get down to it you could maybe quantify it a bit. Some of the more simple levels are things like way someone walks, the friends they have, the clothes they wear, etc etc. Some of the more complex are conversations about how they got to where they are in life, the decisions that led up to it, etc.
It a ridiculous number of filters, and at this point in our evolution we’re really really good at using them. (generally speaking, of course)
One of the reasons people are sometimes uncomfortable with online dating is because it is in fact about giving up a level of control to algorithms, with the expectation that they will perform on the same level as all those things that typically go into even just 5 minutes of talking with somebody. In principle I think algorithms can get to that level on some point, it’s just 25(?) years down the line.
So this gets me into the thinking on control/volition/culture. There’s been really interesting studies where 5-6 year olds are presented with a number of toys to play with (like 3), having been split into different control groups: one group is told they can play with any toy they want, one group is told by the teacher which toy they are allowed to play with, and one group is told by the teacher that their mother asked them to play with a particular toy. The groups are also split culturally, it might have been specific countries like US/Japan but it might have been just western/eastern (can’t remember).
The kids are given the chance to play, and then at some point afterwards some measure of happiness is captured (can’t remember the details here; “happiness” is a nebulous topic). General result is that the western kids were happiest when given the choice of which toy to play with, eastern kids happiest when following their mother’s wishes (no one liked playing with the toys the teacher told them to play with). The implications generally drawn from this point to cultural differences in the perception of what it means to optimize one’s decisions – does the individual have the answer to this question, or is it the (relatively) unbiased and knowledgeable elders with intimate knowledge of the individual that have the answer to this question?